Existing federal law establishes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education, the State Department of Health Care Services, and the State Department of Social Services to work together with specified stakeholders to develop a proposed statewide process for using data collected for purposes of the CalFresh program, Medi-Cal, free and reduced-price school meals programs, and the electronic benefits transfer system in order to increase enrollment in the CalFresh program, as specified. Existing law also authorizes the State Department of Social Services, under CalFresh provisions, to administer outreach programs and adopt rules and regulations requiring counties to conduct outreach programs to the extent permitted by federal law and eligible for federal financial participation.

This bill would require the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with various stakeholders, on or before July 1, 2025, to develop a methodology for estimating the CalFresh participation rate and identifying characteristics of Californians who are eligible for, but not receiving, CalFresh benefits. The bill would require the department to utilize the data and metrics to develop informed and targeted outreach strategies and to maximize federal funding for CalFresh outreach to reach Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits.

The bill would also authorize the department to identify data-sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities, and any other unit of state government, for the purposes of improving the administration of CalFresh, increasing CalFresh participation, measuring the impact of CalFresh, and increasing access to critical public health and poverty-alleviating services and other services and benefits available to low-income individuals.

Existing federal law establishes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education, the State Department of Health Care Services, and the State Department of Social Services to work together with specified stakeholders to develop a proposed statewide process for using data collected for purposes of the CalFresh program, Medi-Cal, free and reduced-price school meals programs, and the electronic benefits transfer system in order to increase enrollment in the CalFresh program, as specified. Existing law also authorizes the State Department of Social Services, under CalFresh provisions, to administer outreach programs and adopt rules and regulations requiring counties to conduct outreach programs to the extent permitted by federal law and eligible for federal financial participation.

This bill would require the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with various stakeholders, on or before July 1, 2025, to develop a methodology for estimating the CalFresh participation rate and identifying characteristics of Californians who are eligible for, but not receiving, CalFresh benefits. The bill would require the department to utilize the data and metrics to develop informed and targeted outreach strategies and to maximize federal funding for CalFresh outreach to reach Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits.

The bill would also authorize the department to identify data-sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities, and any other unit of state government, for the purposes of improving the administration of CalFresh, increasing CalFresh participation, measuring the impact of CalFresh, and increasing access to critical public health and poverty-alleviating services and other services and benefits available to low-income individuals.

Existing unemployment compensation disability law requires workers to pay contribution rates based on, among other things, wages received in employment and benefit disbursement, for payment into the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, a special fund in the State Treasury. That fund is continuously appropriated for the purpose of providing disability benefits and making payment of expenses in administering those provisions.

Existing law establishes, within the above state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, for the provision of wage replacement benefits for up to 8 weeks to workers who take time off work for prescribed purposes, including to care for a seriously ill family member. Existing law defines terms for its purposes, including family care leave and family member.

This bill would expand eligibility for benefits under the paid family leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person. The bill would define designated person to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The bill would authorize the employee to identify the designated person when they file a claim for benefits. The bill would make conforming changes to the definitions of the terms family care leave and family member. The bill would make these changes operative on and after July November 1, 2024.

By authorizing expenditures from the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund for a new purpose, this bill would make an appropriation.

Existing unemployment compensation disability law requires workers to pay contribution rates based on, among other things, wages received in employment and benefit disbursement, for payment into the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, a special fund in the State Treasury. That fund is continuously appropriated for the purpose of providing disability benefits and making payment of expenses in administering those provisions.

Existing law establishes, within the above state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, for the provision of wage replacement benefits for up to 8 weeks to workers who take time off work for prescribed purposes, including to care for a seriously ill family member. Existing law defines terms for its purposes, including family care leave and family member.

This bill would expand eligibility for benefits under the paid family leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person. The bill would define designated person to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The bill would authorize the employee to identify the designated person when they file a claim for benefits. The bill would make conforming changes to the definitions of the terms family care leave and family member. The bill would make these changes operative on and after July 1, 2024.

By authorizing expenditures from the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund for a new purpose, this bill would make an appropriation.

Existing unemployment compensation disability law requires workers to pay contribution rates based on, among other things, wages received in employment and benefit disbursement, for payment into the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, a special fund in the State Treasury. That fund is continuously appropriated for the purpose of providing disability benefits and making payment of expenses in administering those provisions.

Existing law establishes, within the above state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, for the provision of wage replacement benefits for up to 8 weeks to workers who take time off work for prescribed purposes, including to care for a seriously ill family member. Existing law defines terms for its purposes, including family care leave and family member.

This bill would expand eligibility for benefits under the paid family leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person. The bill would define designated person to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The bill would authorize the employee to identify the designated person when they file a claim for benefits. The bill would make conforming changes to the definitions of the terms family care leave and family member.

By authorizing expenditures from the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund for a new purpose, this bill would make an appropriation.

Existing unemployment compensation disability law requires workers to pay contribution rates based on, among other things, wages received in employment and benefit disbursement, for payment into the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, a special fund in the State Treasury. That fund is continuously appropriated for the purpose of providing disability benefits and making payment of expenses in administering those provisions.

Existing law establishes, within the above state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, for the provision of wage replacement benefits for up to 8 weeks to workers who take time off work for prescribed purposes, including to care for a seriously ill family member. Existing law defines terms for its purposes, including family care leave and family member.

This bill would expand eligibility for benefits under the paid family leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The bill would make conforming changes to the definitions of the terms family care leave and family member.

By authorizing expenditures from the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund for a new purpose, this bill would make an appropriation.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 518

Author:(Wicks and Jackson)

As Amended Ver:August 26, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with stakeholders, to develop a methodology to estimate the CalFresh participation rate in California and identify characteristics of Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits, but not receiving benefits; and requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities.

Senate Amendments

Delete the Assembly version of the bill, and instead:

1. By July 1, 2025, require CDSS in consultation with specified stakeholders to develop a methodology for estimating the CalFresh participation rate and identifying characteristics of Californians including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and location who are eligible for, but not receiving, CalFresh benefits.
2. Require CDSS to identify any existing public assistance or public benefit data that may be used to identify Californians who are eligible for, but not receiving, CalFresh benefits.
3. Require CDSS to annually publish the CalFresh participation rate.
4. Require CDSS to utilize the data and metrics to develop informed and targeted outreach strategies and to maximize federal funding for CalFresh outreach to reach Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits.
5. Permit CDSS to identify data-sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities, and any other unit of state government, for the purposes of improving the administration of CalFresh, increasing CalFresh participation, measuring the impact of CalFresh, and increasing access to critical public health and poverty-alleviating services and other services and benefits available to low-income individuals.
6. Notwithstanding any other state law, permit the following public entities to share data with CDSS to the extent permitted by federal law:
   1. Public entities related to health and human services.
   2. Public entities related to education and early childhood program.
   3. Public entities related to employment and financial well-being.
   4. Public entities related to shelter, utilities, housing, and homelessness.
   5. Public entities related to justice-involved individuals
   6. Public entities related to services for veterans
7. Require CDSS to designate an executive-level employee to report to the CDSS Director on the implementation of this bill.

COMMENTS

Food Insecurity in California. While California declared food as a human right in 2023 and produces nearly half of the nation's fruits and vegetables, about eight million Californians currently struggle with food insecurity, representing 20.3% of the state's population. Factors contributing to food insecurity include economic disparities, high living costs, limited access to affordable nutrition options, and systemic barriers such as racism and discrimination.

Moreover, systemic issues such as racism and discrimination disproportionately impact marginalized communities, including Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations, immigrants, and individuals with disabilities, exacerbating their vulnerability to food insecurity. Data from the United States Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey shows that by March 2022, food insecurity for households with children in California was at 25.8%, with deep disparities for Black and Latinx households at 28.7% and 31.2%, respectively.

Beyond mere hunger, a lack of adequate food can have long-term physical and mental health consequences, particularly for children. Chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular conditions are more prevalent among food-insecure individuals due to poor nutrition and limited access to healthcare. Children growing up in food-insecure households are at risk of developmental delays, academic struggles, and long-term health consequences, perpetuating intergenerational cycles of poverty and food insecurity.

CalFresh. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal nutrition assistance program designed to provide nutrition assistance to low-income families and individuals in the United States (U.S.). Administered by CDSS, CalFresh is California's version of SNAP, which provides monthly benefits to help eligible households purchase nutritious food items.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets specific eligibility requirements for SNAP programs across the country, including gross and net income, household size, assets, and certain expenses. Eligible households must have gross incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, although specific income limits may vary depending on household composition. Effective October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024, the maximum annual gross income for a household size of three is $49,728. Starting in 2019‑20, individuals 65 years and older became newly eligible to receive CalFresh benefits as a way to increase enrollment among SSI/SSP recipients. There are an estimated 500,000 SSI/SSP recipients eligible for CalFresh every year. CalFresh benefits are calculated based on household size, income, and deductible living expenses, with maximum benefit levels adjusted annually based on changes in the cost of living.

California Food Assistance Program (CFAP). The federal government imposed restrictions on federal food assistance by prohibiting eligibility for legal permanent residents (LPRs) until they had resided in the U.S. for five years. States were granted the option by the federal government to offer state-funded food assistance to this population, including LPRs who had arrived less than five years prior. In response, California established CFAP to provide state-funded food assistance to eligible noncitizens using the same EBT and CalSAWS systems as CalFresh to distribute benefits. Through the EBT system, the federal government directly deposits funds into the accounts of participating households, with the state later reimbursing the federal government for these expenditures. CFAP benefits are equivalent to those provided by CalFresh and vary based on factors such as household size, income, and deductible expenses.

Barriers to Accessing CalFresh & CFAP. While CalFresh & CFAP have made significant strides in addressing food insecurity and promoting healthy food access, persistent challenges remain when it comes to maximizing participation. For example, CalFresh participation rates have historically been lower than eligibility rates, with many eligible individuals and households failing to enroll in the program. USDA 2018 data shows that compared to the national SNAP participation rate of 82% and states like Florida (84%), Georgia (84%), and Illinois (100%), California ranks nearly last with a 70% participation rate. On a county level, there are also stark differences from county to county on CalFresh enrollment rates for eligible individuals or families, with a 97% participation rate in Fresno compared to 52% in Contra Costa in 2017. Suboptimal participation rates compared to other states lead to an underutilization of vital resources and missed opportunities to address food insecurity and hunger.

For many eligible individuals, barriers to CalFresh & CFAP participation include a lack of awareness about program eligibility and benefits, stigma associated with receiving public assistance, complex application procedures, language barriers, lack of internet access, and fear of losing benefits from other social services programs. For county workers who process applications, enrollment processes require substantial administrative resources, including staffing, paperwork processing, and verification procedures, which can strain agency capacities and prolong wait times for applicants, especially for large counties like Los Angeles County that processed at least 1.4 million applications in 2020.

This setback not only hinders efforts to eradicate hunger, but also deals a considerable blow to California's food economy. The USDA has shown that each dollar in federally funded CalFresh benefits generates $1.79 in economic activity. Additionally, every $1 billion in benefits leads to the creation of over 10,000 jobs across various sectors, including farm labor, transportation, and retail. By maximizing CalFresh participation alone, the state could potentially receive $1.8 billion annually in federally funded food benefits, resulting in over $3.3 billion in total annual economic activity. On the flip side, hunger costs the U.S. economy at least $77.5 billion in healthcare costs every year through higher rates of chronic disease, higher utilization of health and mental healthcare services, more frequent and high-cost hospitalizations and more frequent use of nursing homes. Research has demonstrated a reduction in healthcare costs of $1,400 per person per year among low-income adults who also receive SNAP benefits, a finding that indicates state Medicaid programs could see significant savings from increased SNAP participation.

According to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection:

Privacy Concerns. Although certainly not the intent of the author or sponsors, the data sharing language contained in the bill inadvertently sweeps far more broadly than needed to accomplish the bill’s laudable goals. Specifically, subdivision (b) in section three of the bill states, “Notwithstanding any other state law, and to the extent permitted by federal law, public entities may share data with the department for the purposes of subdivision (a).”

California has some of the most robust privacy laws in the country. These include the right of individuals to have their personal information protected by state agencies. The Information Practices Act of 1977, among other protections, requires that each state agency maintain in its records only personal information that is relevant and necessary to accomplish the purpose of the agency (Civ. Code § 1798.14) and that each agency collect personal information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the individual who is the subject of the information rather than from another source (Civ. Code § 1798.15).

The “Notwithstanding any other law” clause would prevent protection of personal information shared between public entities under the Information Practices Act. To meet the bill’s goals of “improving the administration of CalFresh, increasing CalFresh participation, measuring the impact of CalFresh,” and ensuring that information shared remains protected and limited to that which is necessary and used only for the purposes intended, the author will submit a letter to the journal stating:

1. The intent of this bill is to facilitate federally allowable use of CalFresh data to improve program administration. This bill is not intended to exempt this sharing of data from all state privacy laws without addressing confidentiality, privacy, and security of consumer data. The Administration and the Legislature have made a commitment to work closely during the Fall to clarify limited and necessary exemptions from data sharing restrictions, to allow the disclosure of data for the narrow purposes of improving CalFresh program administration.

According to the Author

"[This bill] requires CDSS to develop a methodology for determining the state's CalFresh participation rate and to identify characteristics of residents who are eligible but not receiving benefits. It requires that data gathered under this methodology be used to shape outreach efforts which maximize participation in the program and identify opportunities to remove barriers preventing enrollment. The bill also encourages the sharing of this data with community partners, so agencies can partner in the shared goal of increasing participation rates statewide.

"Food insecurity often correlates with long-term physical and mental health challenges. Research shows that hungry children can experience developmental delays and have trouble learning language. They are more likely to fall sick, recover more slowly, and be hospitalized more often if their access to food is inconsistent, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food-insecure adults face also higher rates of obesity, chronic illness, anxiety and depression.

"More can be done to reach Californians that need CalFresh the most. [This bill] takes an important step designed to increase the participation of Californians in vital food-support services. A comprehensive understanding of what prevents the state's vulnerable populations from enrolling in this program can lead to targeted interventions that will increase the wellbeing of more of the Golden State's residents."

Arguments in Support

According to GRACE/End Child Poverty California, "We remain in support of the policy to strengthen CalFresh, and write to make clear that our support is premised on successful agreement on clean up language needed to ensure privacy protections. The intent of the bill is clear – to streamline access through data sharing agreements where appropriate, as we regularly hear from families asking why they have to apply separately for all of the various safety net programs. We recognize, however, that the language in SEC 3 is overly broad and could lead to unintended consequences. We continue to support the CalFresh policy in this bill, with clear agreement to preserving privacy protections, which we know the authors firmly support and are seeking to resolve with stakeholders. We hope this agreement comes shortly and will enthusiastically support follow up efforts to put the privacy protection into code, and see through into implementation.”

Arguments in Opposition

Writing in opposition to the bill, Oakland Privacy details significant concerns related to the data sharing language:

The bill also broadly and completely preempts all state privacy laws with no exceptions. This includes not only the Information Practices Act of 1977 (IPA) which provides general privacy rights similar to CPRA rights for the private sector, but other important state laws including CMIA (Confidentiality of Medical Information Act), SOPIPA (Student Online Personal Information Protection Act) and data breach regulations. Laws like CMIA and SOPIPA are contracts with Californians. Simply mooting them on three days’ notice with the details to be filled in later is not something we would tolerate from the private sector.

The language you are being asked to approve, unlike every other data-sharing proposal the Legislature has reviewed, has no guardrails in place. CDSS has no specific instructions for data security measures, retention limits, the use of marketing and outreach consultants, transfer protocols, and limitations on who handles and has access to all these different kinds of personal information. Previous legislative proposals to share data between agencies to facilitate outreach by community college districts and Covered California contained specific protections that were carefully negotiated with this committee and Senate Judiciary. There is no reason that Cal-Fresh should not be subject to a negotiated framework developed over a legislative session in the appropriate policy committees - like everyone else.

Preventing hunger is a worthy cause, but not at the expense of the permanent loss of rights provided in Article 1 of the California Constitution to the people of this state and that have been in state statute for forty-seven years.

The reality is that many Californians will not want the Department of Social Services scanning their tax returns, utility bills, employment records, health records, and their children’s student records and financial aid documents to check their eligibility for a program they never applied for and may not want - without their consent or knowledge – and under a broad exemption from any relevant state privacy laws.

Inadvertently broad language such as the notwithstanding clause in this bill underscores the need for legislation to be fully vetted by policy committees—a benefit this bill lacks due to the fact that it was gut and amended earlier this week.

According to the ACLU, California Action, and Electronic Frontier Foundation, “[This bill] would authorize numerous state agencies to share, without restriction or consent, personal information with the Department of Social Services, exempting this sharing from all state privacy laws. People whose information is shared would have no way of knowing or opting out of the share of this information. [This bill] is incredibly broad, allowing the sharing of health information, immigration status, education records, employment records, tax records, utility information, children’s information, and even sealed juvenile records.”

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 28, 2024, unknown, potentially significant ongoing costs for the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to publish participation rate data, and unknown cost pressures related to potential outreach activities (General Fund and federal funds).

VOTES:

ASM INSURANCE: 10-0-4

YES: Calderon, Berman, Cervantes, Gipson, Grayson, Jones-Sawyer, Ortega, Rodriguez, Valencia, Wood

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Chen, Vince Fong, Soria

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-3

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Megan Dahle, Robert Rivas, Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0-16

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Irwin, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: August 26, 2024

CONSULTANT: Alexandria Smith / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0005074

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 518

Author:(Wicks and Jackson)

As Amended Ver:August 26, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: Insurance

Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with stakeholders, to develop a methodology to estimate the CalFresh participation rate in California and identify characteristics of Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits, but not receiving benefits; and requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: CONCUR

Delete the Assembly version of the bill, and instead:

1. By July 1, 2025, require CDSS in consultation with specified stakeholders to develop a methodology for estimating the CalFresh participation rate and identifying characteristics of Californians including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and location who are eligible for, but not receiving, CalFresh benefits.
2. Require CDSS to identify any existing public assistance or public benefit data that may be used to identify Californians who are eligible for, but not receiving, CalFresh benefits.
3. Require CDSS to annually publish the CalFresh participation rate.
4. Require CDSS to utilize the data and metrics to develop informed and targeted outreach strategies and to maximize federal funding for CalFresh outreach to reach Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits.
5. Permit CDSS to identify data-sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities, and any other unit of state government, for the purposes of improving the administration of CalFresh, increasing CalFresh participation, measuring the impact of CalFresh, and increasing access to critical public health and poverty-alleviating services and other services and benefits available to low-income individuals.
6. Permit the following public entities to share data with CDSS to the extent permitted by federal law:
   1. Public entities related to health and human services.
   2. Public entities related to education and early childhood program.
   3. Public entities related to employment and financial well-being.
   4. Public entities related to shelter, utilities, housing, and homelessness.
   5. Public entities related to justice-involved individuals
   6. Public entities related to services for veterans
7. Require CDSS to designate an executive-level employee to report to the CDSS Director on the implementation of this bill

COMMENTS

Food Insecurity in California. While California declared food as a human right in 2023 and produces nearly half of the nation's fruits and vegetables, about eight million Californians currently struggle with food insecurity, representing 20.3% of the state's population. Factors contributing to food insecurity include economic disparities, high living costs, limited access to affordable nutrition options, and systemic barriers such as racism and discrimination.

Economic factors play a significant role in driving food insecurity, particularly among low-income households. Many Californians struggle to afford basic necessities like housing, healthcare, and transportation, leaving little room in their budgets for nutritious food.

Moreover, systemic issues such as racism and discrimination disproportionately impact marginalized communities, including Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations, immigrants, and individuals with disabilities, exacerbating their vulnerability to food insecurity. Data from the United States Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey shows that by March 2022, food insecurity for households with children in California was at 25.8%, with deep disparities for Black and Latinx households at 28.7% and 31.2%, respectively.

Beyond mere hunger, a lack of adequate food can have long-term physical and mental health consequences, particularly for children. Chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular conditions are more prevalent among food-insecure individuals due to poor nutrition and limited access to healthcare. Children growing up in food-insecure households are at risk of developmental delays, academic struggles, and long-term health consequences, perpetuating intergenerational cycles of poverty and food insecurity.

CalFresh. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal nutrition assistance program designed to provide nutrition assistance to low-income families and individuals in the United States (U.S.). Administered by CDSS, CalFresh is California's version of SNAP, which provides monthly benefits to help eligible households purchase nutritious food items. A CalFresh household is a group of people who live together, buy food and prepare meals together, meet CalFresh eligibility requirements, and are approved for CalFresh benefits. Participants receive benefits on Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, which can be used to purchase eligible food items such as fruits and vegetables, meat, dairy products, and seeds and plants that produce food at authorized retailers, including grocery stores, supermarkets, and farmers' markets.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets specific eligibility requirements for SNAP programs across the country, including gross and net income, household size, assets, and certain expenses. Eligible households must have gross incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, although specific income limits may vary depending on household composition. Effective October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024, the maximum annual gross income for a household size of three is $49,728. Starting in 2019‑20, individuals 65 years and older became newly eligible to receive CalFresh benefits as a way to increase enrollment among SSI/SSP recipients. There are an estimated 500,000 SSI/SSP recipients eligible for CalFresh every year. CalFresh benefits are calculated based on household size, income, and deductible living expenses, with maximum benefit levels adjusted annually based on changes in the cost of living.

California Food Assistance Program (CFAP). The federal government imposed restrictions on federal food assistance by prohibiting eligibility for legal permanent residents (LPRs) until they had resided in the U.S. for five years. States were granted the option by the federal government to offer state-funded food assistance to this population, including LPRs who had arrived less than five years prior. In response, California established CFAP to provide state-funded food assistance to eligible noncitizens using the same EBT and CalSAWS systems as CalFresh to distribute benefits. Through the EBT system, the federal government directly deposits funds into the accounts of participating households, with the state later reimbursing the federal government for these expenditures.

CFAP benefits are equivalent to those provided by CalFresh and vary based on factors such as household size, income, and deductible expenses. In the 2022-23 fiscal year, CFAP benefits amounted to $78 million from the General Fund, with an average monthly benefit of $159 per person. In April 2023, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reported that CFAP served about 42,000 noncitizens. Certain noncitizens, such as those who are undocumented, are currently ineligible for CFAP based on their immigration status.

The April 2023 PPIC report further revealed that California is home to 10.5 million immigrants, representing almost 25% of the entire U.S. immigrant population. As of 2019, data from the Center for Migration Studies indicated that 22% of these immigrants were undocumented, while the remaining 78% possessed legal status, such as being naturalized citizens, visa holders, or LPRs. The LAO reports that CalFresh and CFAP served about 3.2 million households total in June 2023.

Barriers to Accessing CalFresh & CFAP. While CalFresh & CFAP have made significant strides in addressing food insecurity and promoting healthy food access, persistent challenges remain when it comes to maximizing participation. For example, CalFresh participation rates have historically been lower than eligibility rates, with many eligible individuals and households failing to enroll in the program. USDA 2018 data shows that compared to the national SNAP participation rate of 82% and states like Florida (84%), Georgia (84%), and Illinois (100%), California ranks nearly last with a 70% participation rate. On a county level, there are also stark differences from county to county on CalFresh enrollment rates for eligible individuals or families, with a 97% participation rate in Fresno compared to 52% in Contra Costa in 2017. Suboptimal participation rates compared to other states lead to an underutilization of vital resources and missed opportunities to address food insecurity and hunger. With suboptimal participation rates compared to other states and even within counties, the results are the same — underutilization of vital resources and missed opportunities to address food insecurity and malnutrition.

For many eligible individuals, barriers to CalFresh & CFAP participation include a lack of awareness about program eligibility and benefits, stigma associated with receiving public assistance, complex application procedures, language barriers, lack of internet access, and fear of losing benefits from other social services programs. For county workers who process applications, enrollment processes require substantial administrative resources, including staffing, paperwork processing, and verification procedures, which can strain agency capacities and prolong wait times for applicants, especially for large counties like Los Angeles County that processed at least 1.4 million applications in 2020.

This setback not only hinders efforts to eradicate hunger, but also deals a considerable blow to California's food economy. The USDA has shown that each dollar in federally funded CalFresh benefits generates $1.79 in economic activity. Additionally, every $1 billion in benefits leads to the creation of over 10,000 jobs across various sectors, including farm labor, transportation, and retail. By maximizing CalFresh participation alone, the state could potentially receive $1.8 billion annually in federally funded food benefits, resulting in over $3.3 billion in total annual economic activity. On the flip side, hunger costs the U.S. economy at least $77.5 billion in healthcare costs every year through higher rates of chronic disease, higher utilization of health and mental healthcare services, more frequent and high-cost hospitalizations and more frequent use of nursing homes. Research has demonstrated a reduction in healthcare costs of $1,400 per person per year among low-income adults who also receive SNAP benefits, a finding that indicates state Medicaid programs could see significant savings from increased SNAP participation.

According to the Author

"[This bill] requires CDSS to develop a methodology for determining the state's CalFresh participation rate and to identify characteristics of residents who are eligible but not receiving benefits. It requires that data gathered under this methodology be used to shape outreach efforts which maximize participation in the program and identify opportunities to remove barriers preventing enrollment. The bill also encourages the sharing of this data with community partners, so agencies can partner in the shared goal of increasing participation rates statewide.

"Food insecurity often correlates with long-term physical and mental health challenges. Research shows that hungry children can experience developmental delays and have trouble learning language. They are more likely to fall sick, recover more slowly, and be hospitalized more often if their access to food is inconsistent, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food-insecure adults face also higher rates of obesity, chronic illness, anxiety and depression.

"More can be done to reach Californians that need CalFresh the most. [This bill] takes an important step designed to increase the participation of Californians in vital food-support services. A comprehensive understanding of what prevents the state's vulnerable populations from enrolling in this program can lead to targeted interventions that will increase the wellbeing of more of the Golden State's residents."

Arguments in Support

According to GRACE/End Child Poverty California, "[This bill] will take important steps to advance this work, including: Working with community and other stakeholders to strengthen the participation rate and especially to develop disaggregated, sub-population specific information on an annual basis identifying whom the program is not reaching in order to drive evidence-based outreach and enrollment strategies. Examining and encouraging data sharing agreements to support CalFresh participation that should also strengthen efforts to streamline enrollment through the use of existing state data, preventing the need for households to provide unnecessary verification."

Arguments in Opposition

ACLU, California Action, and Electronic Frontier Foundation, "AB 518 would authorize numerous state agencies to share, without restriction or consent, personal information with the Department of Social Services, exempting this sharing from all state privacy laws. People whose information is shared would have no way of knowing or opting out of the share of this information. AB 518 is incredibly broad, allowing the sharing of health information, immigration status, education records, employment records, tax records, utility information, children's information, and even sealed juvenile records.".

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 28, 2024, unknown, potentially significant ongoing costs for the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to publish participation rate data, and unknown cost pressures related to potential outreach activities (General Fund and federal funds).

VOTES

ASM INSURANCE: 10-0-4

YES: Calderon, Berman, Cervantes, Gipson, Grayson, Jones-Sawyer, Ortega, Rodriguez, Valencia, Wood

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Chen, Vince Fong, Soria

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-3

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Megan Dahle, Robert Rivas, Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0-16

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Irwin, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: August 26, 2024

CONSULTANT: Alexandria Smith / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0005046

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 518

Author: Wicks (D) and Jackson (D)

Amended: 8/26/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/27/24 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ochoa Bogh, Hurtado, Menjivar, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/28/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SUBJECT: CalFresh: data

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with specified stakeholders, to develop a methodology to estimate the CalFresh participation rate in California and identify characteristics of Californians who are eligible for but not receiving CalFresh benefits. It also requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Acknowledges access to sufficient affordable and healthy food as human right and requires state agencies and departments to consider this state policy. (WIC 18700)
2. Establishes CalFresh as California’s implementation of the federal SNAP program. (WIC 18900)
3. Establishes California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to provide assistance for persons who are not eligible for federal SNAP benefits due solely to their immigration status, as specified. (WIC 18930 et seq.)
4. Establishes the State Emergency Food Assistance Program, administered by CDSS to provide food and funding for the provision of emergency food to food banks established pursuant to the federal Emergency Food Assistance Program whose ongoing primary function is to facilitate the distribution of food to low-income households. (WIC 18995)
5. Requires public school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools serving students in grades transitional kindergarten through grade 12 to provide two meals free of charge during each school day to students requesting a meal, regardless of their free or reduced-price meal eligibility. (Education Code 49501.5)

This bill:

1. Makes legislative findings and declarations.
2. Requires the Department of Social Services (CDSS) to work with specified stakeholders to create a methodology that will estimate participation in CalFresh and identify characteristics of eligible people who are not participating.
3. Names potential identifiable characteristics of Californians that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate.
4. Requires CDSS to identify any currently available public data that can be used to identify Californians that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate.
5. Requires CDSS to annually publish CalFresh participation rates.
6. Requires CDSS to use the data collected according to this section to target marketing towards CalFresh eligible Californians.
7. Allows CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities to improve CalFresh administration and participation, allows data sharing by public entities notwithstanding any other state or federal law and defines those public entities.
8. Requires CDSS to executive-level employee to report to the Director of CDSS about the implementation of the provisions of this bill.

Comments

According to the author, “AB 518 requires the Department of Social Services to develop a methodology for determining the state’s CalFresh participation rate and to identify characteristics of residents who are eligible but not receiving benefits. It requires that data gathered under this methodology be used to shape outreach efforts which maximize participation in the program and identify opportunities to remove barriers preventing enrollment. The bill also encourages the sharing of this data with community partners, so agencies can partner in the shared goal of increasing participation rates statewide.

“Food insecurity often correlates with long-term physical and mental health challenges. Research shows that hungry children can experience developmental delays and have trouble learning language. They are more likely to fall sick, recover more slowly, and be hospitalized more often if their access to food is inconsistent, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food-insecure adults face also higher rates of obesity, chronic illness, anxiety and depression.

“More can be done to reach Californians that need CalFresh the most. AB 518 takes an important step designed to increase the participation of Californians in vital food-support services. A comprehensive understanding of what prevents the state’s vulnerable populations from enrolling in this program can lead to targeted interventions that will increase the wellbeing of more of the Golden State’s residents.”

Food Insecurity in California. Hunger is a statewide problem, one that can affect people from all backgrounds. While California is the greatest food-producing state in the country, about 10 million of California’s children and adults face food insecurity, according to the California Association of Food Banks. They also report that, on average, one out of every four Californians does not know where their next meal will come from and Black and Latinx families with children experience greater levels of hunger.

Because of limited financial resources, those who are food insecure sometime use cost cutting measures to stretch budgets that are harmful to their health, such as: engaging in cost-related medication underuse or non-adherence; postponing or declining medical care; forgoing the foods needed for special medical diets; purchasing a low-cost diet that relies on energy-dense, but nutrient-poor, foods; diluting or rationing infant formula; and making trade-offs between food and other basic necessities, like housing, utilities, transportation. Moreover, the impacts of childhood hunger are well known. Children who live in households experiencing food insecurity are at higher risk of health, academic, behavioral, and emotional problems than those who are not.

This bill makes various findings and declarations about the impacts of food insecurity in California and CDSS to work with stakeholders to create a methodology that will estimate participation in CalFresh and identify characteristics of people that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate. The bill says potential characteristics could include race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and location.

Food Assistance Programs. There are a number of food assistance programs operated throughout the state and administered by the California Departments of Aging, California Department of Education, CDSS, and California Department of Public Health. CalFresh, California’s version of federal SNAP, provides monthly food benefits to qualified low-income individuals and families to assist with the purchase of the food they need to maintain adequate nutrition levels. With 3 million households (and over 5.26 million people) receiving benefits, CalFresh is the largest nutrition assistance program in California. CalFresh benefits are 100 percent federally funded and CDSS oversees the administration of CalFresh. Income eligibility standards and benefit levels for the program are established by the federal government, with one standard used nationally. CDSS also administers other nutrition programs like the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) a federally funded program that provides free meals in facilities such as childcare centers, homeless shelters, adult daycare centers and afterschool care centers. SUN Bucks is another CDSS nutrition program that provides $40 per month to low income students during the summer.

California Department of Education administers two federally funded meal programs that target school age children, the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. Both programs provide free or reduced priced healthy meals to income eligible students. Beginning in the 2022-23 school year, California became the first state to implement and fully fund a Universal Meals Program for school children grades PK-12. The program allows for all students who request a meal to be able to receive meals regardless of their eligibility for free or reduced priced school meals. Students may receive up to two free meals during the school day.

California Department of Public Health administers a federally-funded program called the California Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC provides, at no cost to participants, supplemental foods, nutrition education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age five who are determined to be at nutritional risk. To be eligible for WIC, applicants must be determined by a health professional to be at nutritional risk (i.e., have certain medical-based or diet-based risk conditions).

Department of Health Care Services also administers nutrition related programs including the Medically Tailored Meals Pilot Program that is being integrated into California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) reform. The bill seeks to promote this program and requires the Food Insecurity Officer to pursue other Medi-Cal federally funded nutrition services.

The Department of Aging oversees nutrition programs that provide meals for older adults. These services are typically offered at congregate nutrition sites or through home delivered meals. Both congregate nutrition and home delivered meals serve broad populations, with preference given to those in the greatest economic or social need. Many older adults receive nutrition assistance in congregate settings, such as in senior centers, and through Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), Community-Based Adult Services, Adult Day Services, and Multi-Purposes Senior Services Programs. Federally funded Home-Delivered Nutrition Programs, commonly referred to as Meals on Wheels, is a longstanding program that delivers healthy meals to older adults who cannot go out and purchase food and/or prepare meals in their homes. Meals on Wheels is primarily funded by the Older Americans Act and often administered by local AAAs and overseen by the California Department of Aging.

This bill requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local agencies that that will lead to improved participation in and strengthen administration of CalFresh. Entities that this bill identifies for data sharing include those described above as well as public entities related to employment and well- being like the Employment Development Department; public entities related to shelter, utilities, housing, and homelessness like the Public Utilities Commission; public entities related to justice- involved individuals like the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and public entities related to services for veterans.

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 1961 (Wicks, 2024) would require the Department of Food and Agriculture in consultation with specified state agencies to convene End Hunger in California Master Plan Task Force which will develop the End Hunger in California Master Plan. Requires the End Hunger in California Master Plan to make recommendations for future comprehensive strategies aimed at addressing access to healthy and culturally relevant food for all Californians, as specified. The Plan must be distributed to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2027. AB 1961 is on Senate Third Reading.

AB 1967 (Jackson, 2024) would create the Food Insecurity Officer within CDSS, appointed by the Governor. AB 1967 was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1952 (Mayes, 2018) would have required the State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Public Health, the State Department of Education, and the Department of Food and Agriculture, to develop a plan to end hunger. The bill would have required the State Department of Social Services to serve as the lead agency for the development of the plan. AB 1952 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2360 (Rodriguez, 2018) would have required the California Department of Food and Agriculture, in collaboration with the California Department of Education, Strategic Growth Council, and other relevant entities and experts, to establish guidelines and best practices by January 1, 2020, for food banks and school districts to create partnerships that increase access to fresh produce for pupils in grades K-12. This bill is scheduled to be heard in Senate Education Committee on June 13, 2018. AB 2360 was vetoed by the Governor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

Unknown, potentially significant ongoing costs for the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to publish participation rate data, and unknown cost pressures related to potential outreach activities (General Fund and federal funds).

SUPPORT: (Verified  8/29/24)

Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in Ca

OPPOSITION: (Verified  8/29/24)

Oakland Privacy

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in California, “California has a strong foundation to assess CalFresh participation, but there is room to improve these efforts: CDSS developed the state-specific Program Reach Index to refine the national Program Access Index the USDA uses for all states and territories, but this is only available in the aggregate; the Department undertook an analysis of participation by language access – revealing stark inequities for non-English speaking communities – however this was a point in time. AB 518 (Wicks) will take important steps to advance this work, including: working with community and other stakeholders to strengthen the participation rate and  especially to develop disaggregated, sub-population specific information on an annual basis; identifying whom the program is not reaching in order to drive evidence-based outreach and enrollment strategies; examining and encouraging data sharing agreements to support CalFresh participation that should also strengthen efforts to streamline enrollment through the use of existing state data,  preventing the need for households to provide unnecessary verification.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to Oakland Privacy, “The bill addresses Cal-Fresh benefits and authorizes a vast list of state agencies to share, without any consent or any knowledge of Californians, sensitive personal information from agencies that include the EDD  (unemployment benefits), the CPUC (utility bills), the State Department of Education (pupil records),  the Health and Human Services Agency, California institutions of higher education (community  colleges, CSU and UC), the Student Aid Commission, and the Franchise Tax Board (income taxes) –  for the purpose of identifying Californians who may wish to access Cal-Fresh benefits. The bill’s language is preposterously broad. It notwithstands all other state laws, including any and all laws that protect the privacy of Californian’s personal information in the hands of state agencies. There is no consent, no notification, no ability to opt out of potentially unwanted Cal-Fresh outreach, and no limit on the kinds of personal information that the Department of Social Services may access to implement this bill.

Prepared by: Naima Ford Antal / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524

8/29/24 11:13:45

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 518 (Wicks) - CalFresh: data

Bill Summary:

AB 518 would require the CDSS to utilize data to develop informed and targeted outreach strategies to reach Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant ongoing costs for the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to publish participation rate data, and unknown cost pressures related to potential outreach activities (General Fund and federal funds).

Background:

CalFresh provides monthly food benefits to qualified low-income individuals and families to assist with the purchase of the food they need to maintain adequate nutrition levels. The program is administered by the CDSS at the state level and California’s 58 counties are responsible for administering CalFresh at the local level. CalFresh benefits are federally funded and national income eligibility standards and benefit levels are established by the federal government under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Although benefits are federally funded, costs to administer the program are shared by state, county, and federal governments.

The amount of CalFresh benefits a household receives is dependent on household size, countable income, and monthly expenses (such as housing and utilities). The program issues monthly benefits on an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. Food may be purchased at any grocery store or farmers market that accepts EBT cards.

Proposed Law:

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• Require the CDSS, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to develop a methodology for estimating the CalFresh participation rate and identifying characteristics of Californians who are eligible for, but not receiving, CalFresh benefits; and require the CDSS to annually publish the CalFresh participation rate.
• Require the CDSS to utilize the data to develop informed and targeted outreach strategies and to maximize federal funding for CalFresh outreach to reach Californians who are eligible for CalFresh benefits.
• Authorize CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities, and any other unit of state government, for the purposes of improving the administration of CalFresh, increasing CalFresh participation, measuring the impact of CalFresh, and increasing access to critical public health and poverty-alleviating services and other services and benefits available to low-income individuals; and authorize public entities to share data with the CDSS for these purposes, as specified.

Related Legislation:

AB 1961 (Wicks) would require the Department of Food and Agriculture to convene the End Hunger in California Master Plan Task Force. The bill is currently on the Senate floor.

AB 1967 (Jackson) would establish, within the CDSS, a Food Insecurity Officer. The bill was held on the suspense file in this committee.

-- END --

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 518

Author: Wicks (D) and Jackson (D)

Amended: 8/26/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

PURSUANT TO SR 29.10-

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/27/24

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ochoa Bogh, Hurtado, Menjivar, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/28/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SUBJECT: CalFresh: data

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with specified stakeholders, to develop a methodology to estimate the CalFresh participation rate in California and identify characteristics of Californians who are eligible for but not receiving CalFresh benefits. It also requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Acknowledges access to sufficient affordable and healthy food as human right and requires state agencies and departments to consider this state policy. (WIC 18700)
2. Establishes CalFresh as California’s implementation of the federal SNAP program. (WIC 18900)
3. Establishes California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to provide assistance for persons who are not eligible for federal SNAP benefits due solely to their immigration status, as specified. (WIC 18930 et seq.)
4. Establishes the State Emergency Food Assistance Program, administered by CDSS to provide food and funding for the provision of emergency food to food banks established pursuant to the federal Emergency Food Assistance Program whose ongoing primary function is to facilitate the distribution of food to low-income households. (WIC 18995)
5. Requires public school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools serving students in grades transitional kindergarten through grade 12 to provide two meals free of charge during each school day to students requesting a meal, regardless of their free or reduced-price meal eligibility. (Education Code 49501.5)

This bill:

1. Makes legislative findings and declarations.
2. Requires the Department of Social Services (CDSS) to work with specified stakeholders to create a methodology that will estimate participation in CalFresh and identify characteristics of eligible people who are not participating.
3. Names potential identifiable characteristics of Californians that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate.
4. Requires CDSS to identify any currently available public data that can be used to identify Californians that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate.
5. Requires CDSS to annually publish CalFresh participation rates.
6. Requires CDSS to use the data collected according to this section to target marketing towards CalFresh eligible Californians.
7. Allows CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities to improve CalFresh administration and participation, allows data sharing by public entities notwithstanding any other state or federal law and defines those public entities.
8. Requires CDSS to executive-level employee to report to the Director of CDSS about the implementation of the provisions of this bill.

Comments

According to the author, “AB 518 requires the Department of Social Services to develop a methodology for determining the state’s CalFresh participation rate and to identify characteristics of residents who are eligible but not receiving benefits. It requires that data gathered under this methodology be used to shape outreach efforts which maximize participation in the program and identify opportunities to remove barriers preventing enrollment. The bill also encourages the sharing of this data with community partners, so agencies can partner in the shared goal of increasing participation rates statewide.

“Food insecurity often correlates with long-term physical and mental health challenges. Research shows that hungry children can experience developmental delays and have trouble learning language. They are more likely to fall sick, recover more slowly, and be hospitalized more often if their access to food is inconsistent, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food-insecure adults face also higher rates of obesity, chronic illness, anxiety and depression.

“More can be done to reach Californians that need CalFresh the most. AB 518 takes an important step designed to increase the participation of Californians in vital food-support services. A comprehensive understanding of what prevents the state’s vulnerable populations from enrolling in this program can lead to targeted interventions that will increase the wellbeing of more of the Golden State’s residents.”

Food Insecurity in California. Hunger is a statewide problem, one that can affect people from all backgrounds. While California is the greatest food-producing state in the country, about 10 million of California’s children and adults face food insecurity, according to the California Association of Food Banks. They also report that, on average, one out of every four Californians does not know where their next meal will come from and Black and Latinx families with children experience greater levels of hunger.

Because of limited financial resources, those who are food insecure sometime use cost cutting measures to stretch budgets that are harmful to their health, such as: engaging in cost-related medication underuse or non-adherence; postponing or declining medical care; forgoing the foods needed for special medical diets; purchasing a low-cost diet that relies on energy-dense, but nutrient-poor, foods; diluting or rationing infant formula; and making trade-offs between food and other basic necessities, like housing, utilities, transportation. Moreover, the impacts of childhood hunger are well known. Children who live in households experiencing food insecurity are at higher risk of health, academic, behavioral, and emotional problems than those who are not.

This bill makes various findings and declarations about the impacts of food insecurity in California and CDSS to work with stakeholders to create a methodology that will estimate participation in CalFresh and identify characteristics of people that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate. The bill says potential characteristics could include race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and location.

Food Assistance Programs. There are a number of food assistance programs operated throughout the state and administered by the California Departments of Aging, California Department of Education, CDSS, and California Department of Public Health. CalFresh, California’s version of federal SNAP, provides monthly food benefits to qualified low-income individuals and families to assist with the purchase of the food they need to maintain adequate nutrition levels. With 3 million households (and over 5.26 million people) receiving benefits, CalFresh is the largest nutrition assistance program in California. CalFresh benefits are 100 percent federally funded and CDSS oversees the administration of CalFresh. Income eligibility standards and benefit levels for the program are established by the federal government, with one standard used nationally. CDSS also administers other nutrition programs like the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) a federally funded program that provides free meals in facilities such as childcare centers, homeless shelters, adult daycare centers and afterschool care centers. SUN Bucks is another CDSS nutrition program that provides $40 per month to low income students during the summer.

California Department of Education administers two federally funded meal programs that target school age children, the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. Both programs provide free or reduced priced healthy meals to income eligible students. Beginning in the 2022-23 school year, California became the first state to implement and fully fund a Universal Meals Program for school children grades PK-12. The program allows for all students who request a meal to be able to receive meals regardless of their eligibility for free or reduced priced school meals. Students may receive up to two free meals during the school day.

California Department of Public Health administers a federally-funded program called the California Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC provides, at no cost to participants, supplemental foods, nutrition education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age five who are determined to be at nutritional risk. To be eligible for WIC, applicants must be determined by a health professional to be at nutritional risk (i.e., have certain medical-based or diet-based risk conditions).

Department of Health Care Services also administers nutrition related programs including the Medically Tailored Meals Pilot Program that is being integrated into California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) reform. The bill seeks to promote this program and requires the Food Insecurity Officer to pursue other Medi-Cal federally funded nutrition services.

The Department of Aging oversees nutrition programs that provide meals for older adults. These services are typically offered at congregate nutrition sites or through home delivered meals. Both congregate nutrition and home delivered meals serve broad populations, with preference given to those in the greatest economic or social need. Many older adults receive nutrition assistance in congregate settings, such as in senior centers, and through Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), Community-Based Adult Services, Adult Day Services, and Multi-Purposes Senior Services Programs. Federally funded Home-Delivered Nutrition Programs, commonly referred to as Meals on Wheels, is a longstanding program that delivers healthy meals to older adults who cannot go out and purchase food and/or prepare meals in their homes. Meals on Wheels is primarily funded by the Older Americans Act and often administered by local AAAs and overseen by the California Department of Aging.

This bill requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local agencies that that will lead to improved participation in and strengthen administration of CalFresh. Entities that this bill identifies for data sharing include those described above as well as public entities related to employment and well- being like the Employment Development Department; public entities related to shelter, utilities, housing, and homelessness like the Public Utilities Commission; public entities related to justice- involved individuals like the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and public entities related to services for veterans.

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 1961 (Wicks, 2024) would require the Department of Food and Agriculture in consultation with specified state agencies to convene End Hunger in California Master Plan Task Force which will develop the End Hunger in California Master Plan. Requires the End Hunger in California Master Plan to make recommendations for future comprehensive strategies aimed at addressing access to healthy and culturally relevant food for all Californians, as specified. The Plan must be distributed to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2027. AB 1961 is on Senate Third Reading.

AB 1967 (Jackson, 2024) would create the Food Insecurity Officer within CDSS, appointed by the Governor. AB 1967 was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1952 (Mayes, 2018) would have required the State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Public Health, the State Department of Education, and the Department of Food and Agriculture, to develop a plan to end hunger. The bill would have required the State Department of Social Services to serve as the lead agency for the development of the plan. AB 1952 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2360 (Rodriguez, 2018) would have required the California Department of Food and Agriculture, in collaboration with the California Department of Education, Strategic Growth Council, and other relevant entities and experts, to establish guidelines and best practices by January 1, 2020, for food banks and school districts to create partnerships that increase access to fresh produce for pupils in grades K-12. This bill is scheduled to be heard in Senate Education Committee on June 13, 2018. AB 2360 was vetoed by the Governor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

Unknown, potentially significant ongoing costs for the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to publish participation rate data, and unknown cost pressures related to potential outreach activities (General Fund and federal funds).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/26/24)

Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in Ca

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/26/24)

None received

Prepared by: Naima Ford Antal / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524

8/28/24 22:09:15

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Limón, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Subject: CalFresh; data

SUMMARY

This bill requires the Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with specified stakeholders, to develop a methodology to estimate the CalFresh participation rate in California and identify characteristics of Californians who are eligible for but not receiving CalFresh benefits. It also requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local public entities.

ABSTRACT

Existing Law:

1. Acknowledges access to sufficient affordable and healthy food as human right and requires state agencies and departments to consider this state policy. (WIC 18700)
2. Establishes CalFresh as California’s implementation of the federal SNAP program. (WIC 18900)
3. Establishes California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to provide assistance for persons who are not eligible for federal SNAP benefits due solely to their immigration status, as specified. (WIC 18930 et seq.)
4. Establishes the State Emergency Food Assistance Program, administered by CDSS to provide food and funding for the provision of emergency food to food banks established pursuant to the federal Emergency Food Assistance Program whose ongoing primary function is to facilitate the distribution of food to low-income households. (WIC 18995)
5. Requires public school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools serving students in grades transitional kindergarten through grade 12 to provide two meals free of charge during each school day to students requesting a meal, regardless of their free or reduced-price meal eligibility. (Education Code 49501.5)

This Bill:

1. Makes legislative findings and declarations.
2. Requires CDSS to work with specified stakeholders to create a methodology that will estimate participation in CalFresh, on or before July 1, 2025.
3. Requires CDSS to identify common characteristics of eligible people who are not participating in CalFresh and names potential identifiable characteristics.
4. Requires CDSS to identify any currently available public data that can be used to identify Californians that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate.
5. Requires CDSS to annually publish CalFresh participation rates.
6. Requires CDSS to use the data collected according to this section to target marketing towards CalFresh eligible Californians.
7. Allows CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities to improve CalFresh administration and participation, allows data sharing by public entities notwithstanding any other state or federal law and defines those public entities.
8. Requires CDSS to executive-level employee to report to the Director of CDSS about the implementation of the provisions of this bill.

FISCAL IMPACT

The language in this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Bill:

According to the author, “AB 518 requires CDSS to develop a methodology for determining the state’s CalFresh participation rate and to identify characteristics of residents who are eligible but not receiving benefits. It requires that data gathered under this methodology be used to shape outreach efforts which maximize participation in the program and identify opportunities to remove barriers preventing enrollment. The bill also encourages the sharing of this data with community partners, so agencies can partner in the shared goal of increasing participation rates statewide.

“Food insecurity often correlates with long-term physical and mental health challenges. Research shows that hungry children can experience developmental delays and have trouble learning language. They are more likely to fall sick, recover more slowly, and be hospitalized more often if their access to food is inconsistent, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food-insecure adults face also higher rates of obesity, chronic illness, anxiety and depression.

“More can be done to reach Californians that need CalFresh the most. AB 518 takes an important step designed to increase the participation of Californians in vital food-support services. A comprehensive understanding of what prevents the state’s vulnerable populations from enrolling in this program can lead to targeted interventions that will increase the wellbeing of more of the Golden State’s residents.”

Food Insecurity in California

Hunger is a statewide problem, one that can affect people from all backgrounds. While California is the greatest food-producing state in the country, about 10 million of California’s children and adults face food insecurity, according to the California Association of Food Banks. They also report that, on average, one out of every four Californians does not know where their next meal will come from and Black and Latinx families with children experience greater levels of hunger.

Because of limited financial resources, those who are food insecure sometime use cost cutting measures to stretch budgets that are harmful to their health, such as: engaging in cost-related medication underuse or non-adherence; postponing or declining medical care; forgoing the foods needed for special medical diets; purchasing a low-cost diet that relies on energy-dense, but nutrient-poor, foods; diluting or rationing infant formula; and making trade-offs between food and other basic necessities, like housing, utilities, transportation. Moreover, the impacts of childhood hunger are well known. Children who live in households experiencing food insecurity are at higher risk of health, academic, behavioral, and emotional problems than those who are not.

This bill makes various findings and declarations about the impacts of food insecurity in California. It requires CDSS to work with stakeholders to create a methodology that will estimate participation in CalFresh. CDSS must also identify characteristics of people that are eligible for CalFresh but do not participate. The bill identifies potential characteristics, specifically race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and location.

Food Assistance Programs

There are a number of food assistance programs operated throughout the state and administered by the California Departments of Aging, California Department of Education, CDSS, and California Department of Public Health. CalFresh, California’s version of federal SNAP, provides monthly food benefits to qualified low-income individuals and families to assist with the purchase of the food they need to maintain adequate nutrition levels. With 3 million households (and over 5.26 million people) receiving benefits, CalFresh is the largest nutrition assistance program in California. CalFresh benefits are 100 percent federally funded and CDSS oversees the administration of CalFresh. Income eligibility standards and benefit levels for the program are established by the federal government, with one standard used nationally. CDSS also administers other nutrition programs like the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) a federally funded program that provides free meals in facilities such as childcare centers, homeless shelters, adult daycare centers and afterschool care centers. SUN Bucks is another CDSS nutrition program that provides $40 per month to low income students during the summer.

California Department of Education administers two federally funded meal programs that target school age children, the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. Both programs provide free or reduced priced healthy meals to income eligible students. Beginning in the 2022-23 school year, California became the first state to implement and fully fund a Universal Meals Program for school children grades PK-12. The program allows for all students who request a meal to be able to receive meals regardless of their eligibility for free or reduced priced school meals. Students may receive up to two free meals during the school day.

California Department of Public Health administers a federally-funded program called the California Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC provides, at no cost to participants, supplemental foods, nutrition education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age five who are determined to be at nutritional risk. To be eligible for WIC, applicants must be determined by a health professional to be at nutritional risk (i.e., have certain medical-based or diet-based risk conditions).

Department of Health Care Services also administers nutrition related programs including the Medically Tailored Meals Pilot Program that is being integrated into California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) reform. The bill seeks to promote this program and requires the Food Insecurity Officer to pursue other Medi-Cal federally funded nutrition services.

The Department of Aging oversees nutrition programs that provide meals for older adults. These services are typically offered at congregate nutrition sites or through home delivered meals. Both congregate nutrition and home delivered meals serve broad populations, with preference given to those in the greatest economic or social need. Many older adults receive nutrition assistance in congregate settings, such as in senior centers, and through Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), Community-Based Adult Services, Adult Day Services, and Multi-Purposes Senior Services Programs. Federally funded Home-Delivered Nutrition Programs, commonly referred to as Meals on Wheels, is a longstanding program that delivers healthy meals to older adults who cannot go out and purchase food and/or prepare meals in their homes. Meals on Wheels is primarily funded by the Older Americans Act and often administered by local AAAs and overseen by the California Department of Aging.

This bill requires CDSS to identify data sharing opportunities with other state and local agencies that that will lead to improved participation in and strengthen administration of CalFresh. Entities that this bill identifies for data sharing include those described above as well as public entities related to employment and well- being like the Employment Development Department; public entities related to shelter, utilities, housing, and homelessness like the Public Utilities Commission; public entities related to justice- involved individuals like the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and public entities related to services for veterans.

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 1961 (Wicks, 2024) requires the Department of Food and Agriculture in consultation with specified state agencies to convene End Hunger in California Master Plan Task Force which will develop the End Hunger in California Master Plan. Requires the End Hunger in California Master Plan to make recommendations for future comprehensive strategies aimed at addressing access to healthy and culturally relevant food for all Californians, as specified. The Plan must be distributed to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2027. AB 1961 is on Senate Third Reading.

AB 1967 (Jackson, 2024) creates the Food Insecurity Officer within CDSS, appointed by the Governor. AB 1967 was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1952 (Mayes, 2018) would have required the State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Public Health, the State Department of Education, and the Department of Food and Agriculture, to develop a plan to end hunger. The bill would have required the State Department of Social Services to serve as the lead agency for the development of the plan. AB 1952 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2360 (Rodriguez, 2018) would require the California Department of Food and Agriculture, in collaboration with the California Department of Education, Strategic Growth Council, and other relevant entities and experts, to establish guidelines and best practices by January 1, 2020, for food banks and school districts to create partnerships that increase access to fresh produce for pupils in grades K-12. This bill is scheduled to be heard in Senate Education Committee on June 13, 2018. AB 2360 was vetoed by the Governor.

COMMENTS

The bill authorizes CDSS to create a comprehensive data collection process by identifying relevant data sources throughout state and local governments about CalFresh eligible Californians. It also requires CDSS to create a methodology to estimate current participation, publish that data, and identify common characteristics of those that fall in the gap between eligibility and participation in CalFresh. This will create accountability for not only improved administration of the program for current participants but also enhance outreach efforts. Increasing CalFresh participation will give more Californians access to food and ensure the state is taking full advantage of the federal funds available to help the most vulnerable Californians.

POSITIONS

Support:

None

Opposition:

None

PRIOR VOTES

-- END --

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 518

Author: Wicks (D), et al.

Amended: 9/8/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/28/23

AYES: Cortese, Wilk, Durazo, Laird, Smallwood-Cuevas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 5/31/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Paid family leave: eligibility: care for designated persons

SOURCE: California Employment Lawyers Association

California Work & Family Coalition

Equal Rights Advocates

Legal Aid at Work

DIGEST:

This bill expands, beginning on and after July 1, 2024, eligibility for benefits under the Paid Family Leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person. This bill defines “designated person” to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/23 address chaptering out concerns by double-jointing this bill with AB 575 (Papan, 2023).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Employment Development Department (EDD) to, among other duties, administer the Unemployment Insurance and Disability Insurance programs. (Unemployment Insurance Code §301)
2. Establishes the State Disability Insurance (SDI) program as a partial wage-replacement plan funded through employee payroll deductions that is available (through the Disability Insurance and Paid Family Leave programs) to eligible individuals who are unable to work due to sickness or injury of the employee (including pregnancy), the sickness or injury of a family member, or the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a new child. (Unemployment Insurance Code §2601-3308)
3. States that Paid Family Leave (PFL) provides eligible employees up to eight weeks of wage replacement benefits within a 12-month period to workers who need to take time off work for the following reasons:
   1. To care for a seriously ill family member, as defined;
   2. To bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child in connection with foster care or adoption;
   3. To participate in a qualifying event because of a family member’s military deployment.

(Unemployment Insurance Code §3301)

1. Defines, under PFL, “family member” to mean a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner. (Unemployment Insurance Code §3302)

This bill:

1. Expands, beginning on July 1, 2024, the definition of “family member” for purposes of the PFL Program to allow workers to take time off to care for a seriously ill designated person.
2. Defines “designated person” to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.
3. Authorizes the designated person to be identified by the employee at the time the claim for benefits is filed.
4. Makes other technical gender non-conforming changes to existing provisions and includes provisions implementing a July 1, 2024 operative date.
5. Includes provisions to address chaptering out concerns by double-jointing this bill with AB 575 (Papan, 2023). Specifically, the bill incorporates additional changes to Sections 3301, 3302 and 3303 of the Unemployment Insurance Code proposed by AB 575 to be operative only if this bill and AB 575 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Background

Paid Family Leave Program: The State Disability Insurance program, administered by the EDD, was created in 1946 to provide monetary benefits to workers unable to work due to non-work-related illness, injury, or pregnancy. Benefits are payable for a maximum of 52 weeks and provide a wage replacement of about 60-70 percent. The SDI program is financed solely by worker contributions and covers approximately 18 million individuals. In 2022, SB 951 (Durazo, Chapter 878, Statutes of 2022) was adopted to, among other things, for claims commencing on or after January 1, 2025, revised the formula for determining benefits under both the SDI and PFL programs to provide an increased wage replacement rate ranging from 70-90% based on the individual’s wages.

The importance of the “designated person”: The U.S. Census Bureau data shows that California has a higher percentage of multigenerational households than average. Therefore, it is not uncommon for individuals in California to be living with other relatives. According to the Pew Research Center financial issues are the top reason people live in multigenerational households with another major reason being able to give and receive care for an adult or child family member.^[1] According to Pew, “Americans who are Asian, Black or Hispanic are more likely than those who are White to live in a multigenerational family household.”^[2] Immigrant populations are also more likely to live in multigenerational households.

Additionally, California’s LGBTQ+ community is more likely to be impacted by current PFL definitions. Many LGBTQ+ adults, especially older adults, do not have any relationship with biological relatives. According to data from a study by the Center for American Progress, fewer than one in three respondents over age 55 reported that they would be likely to turn to biological or legally recognized family members for support when sick and would instead call upon a partner they were not married to, chosen family, or friends.^[3] The study noted that 72% of respondents over age 55 reported that they had already been called upon to support friends or chosen family due to a health-related need.^[4] Additionally, according to a survey by AARP, two-thirds of LGBTQ+ adults age 45 and over believe they will need someone to provide caregiving for them in the future and eight in ten say they are not sure they will have adequate family or social supports in their later years.^[5]

In recognition of the uniqueness of California households, the Legislature has taken action in recent years to expand access to other protected leaves to “designated persons” identified by employees. Most recently, AB 1041 (Wicks, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022) added a “designated person” to the list of individuals for whom an employee may take leave to care for under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Paid Sick Days).

Comments

Need for this bill? According to the author, “California made important progress by enacting AB 1041 (2022), which allows workers to use their job-protected caregiving leave under the California Family Rights Act and paid sick leave to care for a “designated person,” who can be a member of their chosen or extended family. AB 518 ensures workers can also access the Paid Family Leave benefits they pay for so they can hopefully afford to take leave to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.”

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more background information.]

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 575 (Papan, 2023) makes changes to the PFL program to include workers who take time off work to bond with a minor child within one year of assuming responsibilities of a child in loco parentis and delete restrictions relating to how individuals use their PFL benefits. AB 575 is pending on the Senate Floor.

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more information on prior legislation.]

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• EDD indicates that it would incur one-time costs of $3.7 million, and annual ongoing costs of $900,000, for document updates and programming/maintenance of information technology systems used to administrate PFL benefits (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund).
• Assuming a 10 percent increase in PFL care-related claims, EDD estimates that this bill would result in a benefit increase of $30 million in 2024, $38 million in 2025, $41 million in 2026, and $43 million in 2027, when compared to the current benefit projections (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/23)

California Employment Lawyers Association (co-source)

California Work & Family Coalition (co-source)

Equal Rights Advocates (co-source)

Legal Aid at Work (co-source)

AARP California

Access Reproductive Justice

ACLU California Action

Alzheimer's Greater Los Angeles

Alzheimer's Orange County

Alzheimer's San Diego

American Association of University Women - California

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California

Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus

Asian Americans for Community Involvement

BreastfeedLA

California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity

California Black Chamber of Commerce

California Breastfeeding Coalition

California Catholic Conference

California Child Care Resource and Referral Network

California Coalition on Family Caregiving

California Commission on Aging

California Domestic Workers Coalition

California Faculty Association

California Federation Business and Professional Women

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, INC.

California School Employees Association

California Teachers Association

California WIC Association

California Women Lawyers

California Women's Law Center

Caring Across Generations

Center for Law and Social Policy

Centro Legal De LA Raza

Child Care Law Center

Citizens for Choice

COLAGE

Consumer Attorneys of California

Disability Rights California

Equality California

Family Caregiver Alliance

Family Values @ Work

Family Violence Appellate Project

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Futures Without Violence

GRACE - End Child Poverty in California

Human Impact Partners

Instituto De Educacion Popular Del Sur De California

Jewish Center for Justice

JTMW LLC

Junior League of San Diego

Justice in Aging

LA Best Babies Network

Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy

Microenterprise Collaborative of Inland Southern California

Mujeres Unidas Y Activas

NARAL Pro-Choice California

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

National Council of Jewish Women California

National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles

National Domestic Workers Alliance

National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS-CAN

Orange County Equality Coalition

Our Family Coalition

Pacific Community Ventures

Parent Voices California

Prevention Institute

Public Counsel

Rising Communities

San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition

San Francisco Women's Political Committee

Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Small Business Majority

State Council of Service Employees International Union

Thai Community Development Center

The Restaurant Opportunity Center of the Bay

UFCW - Western States Council

Warehouse Worker Resource Center

Watsonville Law Center

Women Lawyers of Sacramento

Women Organized to Make Abuse Non-Existent

Working Partnerships USA

Worksafe

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/23)

California Landscape Contractors Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsors of this bill, “Outdated family definitions disproportionately affect California’s LGBTQ+ community, which is the largest of any state in the United States. Many LGBTQ+ adults, especially older adults, do not have accessible relationships with biological relatives and rely on chosen family for kinship and care.” The sponsors additionally state that, “California also has a higher percentage of extended families living in multigenerational households. One study found that the largest concentrations of extended families can be found in New York and Los Angeles, two of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. Thus, it is not uncommon for individuals in California to be living with cousins, aunts, uncles, and other relatives. Moreover, people of color are more likely to live in a multigenerational family household.” Furthermore, they note, “Aging adults also rely on a wide network of relationships for caregiving. Many caregivers are partners, neighbors or friends. Among Americans who provide care to an adult age 65 or older, more than 23% provide care for a friend, neighbor, or other unrelated person.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Landscape Contractors Association is opposed to the measure arguing that this bill, “further expands paid family leave benefits by stating that employees would qualify for paid leave to care for “any other individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship, who has a serious health condition.” They state that this bill essentially makes anyone an employee knows a potential “family member” for purposes of claiming the leave benefit and argue that this is unreasonable. They conclude by noting that, “small businesses often do not have or can’t afford full-time human resource professionals to manage and track all the various requirements coming from new Sacramento employment regulations.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 5/31/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Irwin, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez

Prepared by: Alma Perez-Schwab / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

9/11/23 18:24:16

**** END ****

1. Financial Issues Top the List of Reasons U.S. Adults Live in Multigenerational Homes, Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/financial-issues-top-the-list-of-reasons-u-s-adults-live-in-multigenerational-homes/ ↑

2. Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) ↑

3. “Making the Case for Chosen Family in Paid Family Leave and Medical Policies,” Lindsey Mahowald and Diana Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/making-case-chosen-family-paid-family-medical-leave-policies/ ↑

4. Mahowald & Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) ↑

5. “LGBTQ Adults 45+ Are Worried About Discrimination and Support as They Age,” Cassandra Cantave, AARP (June 2022) https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/life/info-2022/lgbtq-community-dignity-2022.html ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 518

Author: Wicks (D), et al.

Amended: 7/3/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/28/23

AYES: Cortese, Wilk, Durazo, Laird, Smallwood-Cuevas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 5/31/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Paid family leave: eligibility: care for designated persons

SOURCE: California Employment Lawyers Association

California Work & Family Coalition

Equal Rights Advocates

Legal Aid at Work

DIGEST:

This bill expands, beginning on and after July 1, 2024, eligibility for benefits under the Paid Family Leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person. This bill defines “designated person” to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Employment Development Department (EDD) to, among other duties, administer the Unemployment Insurance and Disability Insurance programs. (Unemployment Insurance Code §301)
2. Establishes the State Disability Insurance (SDI) program as a partial wage-replacement plan funded through employee payroll deductions that is available (through the Disability Insurance and Paid Family Leave programs) to eligible individuals who are unable to work due to sickness or injury of the employee (including pregnancy), the sickness or injury of a family member, or the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a new child. (Unemployment Insurance Code §2601-3308)
3. States that Paid Family Leave (PFL) provides eligible employees up to eight weeks of wage replacement benefits within a 12-month period to workers who need to take time off work for the following reasons:
   1. To care for a seriously ill family member, as defined;
   2. To bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child in connection with foster care or adoption;
   3. To participate in a qualifying event because of a family member’s military deployment.

(Unemployment Insurance Code §3301)

1. Defines, under PFL, “family member” to mean a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner. (Unemployment Insurance Code §3302)

This bill:

1. Expands, beginning on July 1, 2024, the definition of “family member” for purposes of the PFL Program to allow workers to take time off to care for a seriously ill designated person.
2. Defines “designated person” to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.
3. Authorizes the designated person to be identified by the employee at the time the claim for benefits is filed.
4. Makes other technical gender non-conforming changes to existing provisions and includes provisions implementing a July 1, 2024 operative date.

Background

Paid Family Leave Program: The State Disability Insurance program, administered by the EDD, was created in 1946 to provide monetary benefits to workers unable to work due to non-work-related illness, injury, or pregnancy. Benefits are payable for a maximum of 52 weeks and provide a wage replacement of about 60-70 percent. The SDI program is financed solely by worker contributions and covers approximately 18 million individuals. In 2022, SB 951 (Durazo, Chapter 878, Statutes of 2022) was adopted to, among other things, for claims commencing on or after January 1, 2025, revised the formula for determining benefits under both the SDI and PFL programs to provide an increased wage replacement rate ranging from 70-90% based on the individual’s wages.

The importance of the “designated person”: As noted in the Assembly Insurance Committee analysis of this bill, “The current definition of “family member” for purposes of PFL does not reflect the changing structure of households in California and who may be available to care for a seriously ill individual. U.S. Census Bureau data shows that the number of households in the United States that follow the traditional nuclear family structure with two married parents are declining, while the number of other types of households are increasing.^[1]

The U.S. Census Bureau data shows that California has a higher percentage of multigenerational households than average. Therefore, it is not uncommon for individuals in California to be living with other relatives. According to the Pew Research Center financial issues are the top reason people live in multigenerational households with another major reason being able to give and receive care for an adult or child family member.^[2] According to Pew, “Americans who are Asian, Black or Hispanic are more likely than those who are White to live in a multigenerational family household.”^[3] Immigrant populations are also more likely to live in multigenerational households.

Additionally, California’s LGBTQ+ community is more likely to be impacted by current PFL definitions. Many LGBTQ+ adults, especially older adults, do not have any relationship with biological relatives. According to data from a study by the Center for American Progress, fewer than one in three respondents over age 55 reported that they would be likely to turn to biological or legally recognized family members for support when sick and would instead call upon a partner they were not married to, chosen family, or friends.^[4] The study noted that 72% of respondents over age 55 reported that they had already been called upon to support friends or chosen family due to a health-related need.^[5] Additionally, according to a survey by AARP, two-thirds of LGBTQ+ adults age 45 and over believe they will need someone to provide caregiving for them in the future and eight in ten say they are not sure they will have adequate family or social supports in their later years.^[6]

In recognition of the uniqueness of California households, the Legislature has taken action in recent years to expand access to other protected leaves to “designated persons” identified by employees. Most recently, AB 1041 (Wicks, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022) added a “designated person” to the list of individuals for whom an employee may take leave to care for under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Paid Sick Days). Similar to this bill [AB 518], AB 1041 authorized the employee to identify the “designated person” at the time of the request for leave. AB 1041 also authorizes employers to limit the employee to one designated person per 12-month period.

Need for this bill? According to the author, “California made important progress by enacting AB 1041 (2022), which allows workers to use their job-protected caregiving leave under the California Family Rights Act and paid sick leave to care for a “designated person,” who can be a member of their chosen or extended family. AB 518 ensures workers can also access the Paid Family Leave benefits they pay for so they can hopefully afford to take leave to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.”

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more background information.]

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 575 (Papan, 2023) makes changes to the PFL program to include workers who take time off work to bond with a minor child within one year of assuming responsibilities of a child in loco parentis and delete restrictions relating to how individuals use their PFL benefits. AB 575 is pending on the Senate Floor.

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more information on prior legislation.]

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• EDD indicates that it would incur one-time costs of $3.7 million, and annual ongoing costs of $900,000, for document updates and programming/maintenance of information technology systems used to administrate PFL benefits (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund).
• Assuming a 10 percent increase in PFL care-related claims, EDD estimates that this bill would result in a benefit increase of $30 million in 2024, $38 million in 2025, $41 million in 2026, and $43 million in 2027, when compared to the current benefit projections (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/23)

California Employment Lawyers Association (co-source)

California Work & Family Coalition (co-source)

Equal Rights Advocates (co-source)

Legal Aid at Work (co-source)

AARP California

Access Reproductive Justice

ACLU California Action

Alzheimer's Greater Los Angeles

Alzheimer's Orange County

Alzheimer's San Diego

American Association of University Women - California

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California

Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus

BreastfeedLA

California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity

California Black Chamber of Commerce

California Breastfeeding Coalition

California Catholic Conference

California Child Care Resource and Referral Network

California Coalition on Family Caregiving

California Commission on Aging

California Domestic Workers Coalition

California Faculty Association

California Federation Business and Professional Women

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, INC.

California School Employees Association

California Teachers Association

California WIC Association

California Women Lawyers

California Women's Law Center

Caring Across Generations

Center for Law and Social Policy

Centro Legal De LA Raza

Child Care Law Center

Citizens for Choice

COLAGE

Consumer Attorneys of California

Disability Rights California

Equality California

Family Caregiver Alliance

Family Values @ Work

Family Violence Appellate Project

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Futures Without Violence

GRACE - End Child Poverty in California

Human Impact Partners

Instituto De Educacion Popular Del Sur De California

Jewish Center for Justice

JTMW LLC

Junior League of San Diego

Justice in Aging

LA Best Babies Network

Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy

Microenterprise Collaborative of Inland Southern California

Mujeres Unidas Y Activas

NARAL Pro-Choice California

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

National Council of Jewish Women California

National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles

National Domestic Workers Alliance

National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS-CAN

Orange County Equality Coalition

Our Family Coalition

Pacific Community Ventures

Parent Voices California

Prevention Institute

Public Counsel

Rising Communities

San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition

San Francisco Women's Political Committee

Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Small Business Majority

State Council of Service Employees International Union

Thai Community Development Center

The Restaurant Opportunity Center of the Bay

UFCW - Western States Council

Warehouse Worker Resource Center

Watsonville Law Center

Women Lawyers of Sacramento

Women Organized to Make Abuse Non-Existent

Working Partnerships USA

Worksafe

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/23)

Associated General Contractors California Chapters

Associated General Contractors San Diego Chapters

California Landscape Contractors Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsors of this bill, “Outdated family definitions disproportionately affect California’s LGBTQ+ community, which is the largest of any state in the United States. Many LGBTQ+ adults, especially older adults, do not have accessible relationships with biological relatives and rely on chosen family for kinship and care.” The sponsors additionally state that, “California also has a higher percentage of extended families living in multigenerational households. One study found that the largest concentrations of extended families can be found in New York and Los Angeles, two of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. Thus, it is not uncommon for individuals in California to be living with cousins, aunts, uncles, and other relatives. Moreover, people of color are more likely to live in a multigenerational family household.” Furthermore, they note, “Aging adults also rely on a wide network of relationships for caregiving. Many caregivers are partners, neighbors or friends. Among Americans who provide care to an adult age 65 or older, more than 23% provide care for a friend, neighbor, or other unrelated person.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Landscape Contractors Association is opposed to the measure arguing that, “AB 518 follows a number of employee leave enhancements including CFRA expansion, bereavement leave expansion and others.” They argue that this bill “further expands paid family leave benefits by stating that employees would qualify for paid leave to care for “any other individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship, who has a serious health condition.” They state that this bill essentially makes anyone an employee knows a potential “family member” for purposes of claiming the leave benefit and argue that this is unreasonable. They conclude by noting that, “small businesses often do not have or can’t afford full-time human resource professionals to manage and track all the various requirements coming from new Sacramento employment regulations.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 5/31/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chen, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Irwin, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez

Prepared by: Alma Perez-Schwab / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

9/2/23 15:01:45

**** END ****

1. https://www.census.gov/topics/families.html ↑

2. Financial Issues Top the List of Reasons U.S. Adults Live in Multigenerational Homes, Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/financial-issues-top-the-list-of-reasons-u-s-adults-live-in-multigenerational-homes/ ↑

3. Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) ↑

4. “Making the Case for Chosen Family in Paid Family Leave and Medical Policies,” Lindsey Mahowald and Diana Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/making-case-chosen-family-paid-family-medical-leave-policies/ ↑

5. Mahowald & Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) ↑

6. “LGBTQ Adults 45+ Are Worried About Discrimination and Support as They Age,” Cassandra Cantave, AARP (June 2022) https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/life/info-2022/lgbtq-community-dignity-2022.html ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 518 (Wicks) - Paid family leave: eligibility: care for designated persons

Bill Summary:

AB 518 would expand eligibility for benefits under the Paid Family Leave (PFL) program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Employment Development Department (EDD) indicates that it would incur one-time costs of $3.7 million, and annual ongoing costs of $900,000, for document updates and programming/maintenance of information technology systems used to administrate PFL benefits (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund).
• Assuming a 10 percent increase in PFL care-related claims, EDD estimates that this bill would result in a benefit increase of $30 million in 2024, $38 million in 2025, $41 million in 2026, and $43 million in 2027, when compared to the current benefit projections (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund).

Background:

The State Disability Insurance (SDI) program, administered by EDD, was created in 1946 to provide monetary benefits to workers unable to work due to non-work-related illness, injury, or pregnancy. Benefits are payable for a maximum of 52 weeks and provide a wage replacement of about 60-70 percent. The SDI program is financed solely by worker contributions and covers approximately 18 million individuals.

In 2004, California was the first state in the nation to implement a PFL program (administered as part of SDI) that provides benefits to workers who need to take time off to care for a seriously ill family member, or to bond with a new child either from birth, adoption, or foster care placement. Effective January 1, 2021, the PFL scope was expanded to include employees taking time off work to assist a military family member under covered active duty or call to covered active duty. PFL provides up to eight weeks of the 60-70 percent wage replacement. According to EDD’s SDI Statistical Information, for 2021-22, there were a total of 289,149 claims paid with a total of $1.6 bilion in benefits paid. The average weekly benefit amount was $806 for approximately 7.07 weeks.

In 2022, SB 951 (Durazo, Chapter 878, Statutes of 2022) was adopted to, among other things, for claims commencing on or after January 1, 2025, revise the formula for determining benefits under both the SDI and PFL programs to provide an increased wage replacement rate ranging from 70-90 percent based on the individual’s wages.

Proposed Law:

This bill effective July 1, 2024 would, among other things, do the following:

• Expand the definition of “family member” for purposes of the Paid Family Leave Program (PFL) to allow workers to take time off to care for a seriously ill designated person.
• Define “designated person” to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.
• Authorize the designated person to be identified by the employee at the time the claim for benefits is filed.

Related Legislation:

• AB 575 (Papan) would make changes to the PFL program to include workers who take time off work to bond with a minor child within one year of assuming responsibilities of a child in loco parentis and delete restrictions relating to how individuals use their PFL benefits. The bill is currently pending in this Committee.
• AB 1041 (Wicks, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022), expanded the list of individuals for which an employee can take leave under the California Family Rights Act and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to include a designated person.
• 951 (Durazo, Chapter 878, Statutes of 2022), revised the formula for the computation of SDI and PFL benefits to increase the wage replacement available to claimants.
• SB 1058 (Durazo, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2022), required EDD to collect demographic data, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, for individuals who claim disability benefits under the SDI and PFL programs.
• SB 83 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2019), beginning July 1, 2020, extended from six to eight weeks the maximum duration of PFL benefits individuals may receive.
• SB 1123 (Jackson, Chapter 849, Statutes of 2018) expanded the PFL program to include time off to participate in a qualifying exigency related to covered active duty, as defined, or call to covered active duty of the individual’s spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the armed forces.
• SB 770 (Jackson, Chapter 350, Statutes of 2013) expanded the definition of family to include in-laws, siblings and grandparents.

Staff Comments: EDD indicates that its estimates account for implementation of the benefits increases associated with SB 951, which take effect in 2025. However, even with the increase in benefits paid, EDD estimates that the disability insurance (DI) contribution rate would remain the same in 2024, 2025, and 2026 compared to current law. The DI contribution rate would increase by 0.1 percent (to 1.2 percent) compared to current law in 2027, resulting in an additional $1.4 billion contributed to the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 518 Hearing Date: June 28, 2023

SUBJECT: Paid family leave: eligibility: care for designated persons

KEY ISSUES

Should the Legislature expand eligibility for benefits under the Paid Family Leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person?

Should employees be authorized to identify the designated person at the time the claim for benefits is filed?

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Employment Development Department (EDD) to, among other duties, administer the Unemployment Insurance and Disability Insurance programs. (Unemployment Insurance Code §301)
2. Establishes the State Disability Insurance (SDI) program as a partial wage-replacement plan funded through employee payroll deductions that is available (through the Disability Insurance and Paid Family Leave programs) to eligible individuals who are unable to work due to sickness or injury of the employee (including pregnancy), the sickness or injury of a family member, or the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a new child. (Unemployment Insurance Code §2601-3308)
3. Paid Family Leave (PFL) provides eligible employees up to eight weeks of wage replacement benefits within a 12-month period to worker who need to take time off work for the following reasons:
   1. To care for a seriously ill family member, as defined;
   2. To bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child in connection with foster care or adoption;
   3. To participate in a qualifying event because of a family member’s military deployment.

(Unemployment Insurance Code §3301)

1. PFL defines “family member” to mean a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner. (Unemployment Insurance Code §3302)

This bill:

1. Expands the definition of “family member” for purposes of the Paid Family Leave Program (PFL) to allow workers to take time off to care for a seriously ill designated person.
2. Defines “designated person” to mean any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.
3. Authorizes the designated person to be identified by the employee at the time the claim for benefits is filed.
4. Makes other technical gender non-conforming changes to existing provisions and deletes a now obsolete operative date.

COMMENTS

1. Background: Paid Family Leave Program

The State Disability Insurance program, administered by the EDD, was created in 1946 to provide monetary benefits to workers unable to work due to non-work-related illness, injury, or pregnancy. Benefits are payable for a maximum of 52 weeks and provide a wage replacement of about 60-70 percent. The SDI program is financed solely by worker contributions and covers approximately 18 million individuals.

In 2004, California was the first state in the nation to implement a Paid Family Leave program (administered as part of SDI) that provides benefits to workers who need to take time off to care for a seriously ill family member, or to bond with a new child either from birth, adoption, or foster care placement. Effective January 1, 2021, the PFL scope was expanded to include employees taking time off work to assist a military family member under covered active duty or call to covered active duty. PFL provides up to eight weeks of the 60-70 percent wage replacement. According to EDD’s SDI Statistical Information, for fiscal year 2021-22, there were a total of 289,149 claims paid with a total of $1,627,943,310 in benefits paid. The average weekly benefit amount was $806 for approximately 7.07 weeks.

In 2022, SB 951 (Durazo, Chapter 878, Statutes of 2022) was adopted to, among other things, for claims commencing on or after January 1, 2025, revise the formula for determining benefits under both the SDI and PFL programs to provide an increased wage replacement rate ranging from 70-90% based on the individual’s wages.

2. The importance of the “designated person”

As noted in the Assembly Insurance Committee analysis of this bill, “The current definition of “family member” for purposes of PFL does not reflect the changing structure of households in California and who may be available to care for a seriously ill individual. U.S. Census Bureau data shows that the number of households in the United States that follow the traditional nuclear family structure with two married parents are declining, while the number of other types of households are increasing.^[1]

The U.S. Census Bureau data shows that California has a higher percentage of multigenerational households than average. Therefore, it is not uncommon for individuals in California to be living with other relatives. According to the Pew Research Center financial issues are the top reason people live in multigenerational households with another major reason being able to give and receive care for an adult or child family member.^[2] According to Pew, “Americans who are Asian, Black or Hispanic are more likely than those who are White to live in a multigenerational family household.”^[3] Immigrant populations are also more likely to live in multigenerational households.

Additionally, California’s LGBTQ+ community is more likely to be impacted by current PFL definitions. Many LGBTQ+ adults, especially older adults, do not have any relationship with biological relatives. According to data from a study by the Center for American Progress, fewer than 1 in 3 respondents over age 55 reported that they would be likely to turn to biological or legally recognized family members for support when sick and would instead call upon a partner they were not married to, chosen family, or friends.^[4] The study noted that 72% of respondents over age 55 reported that they had already been called upon to support friends or chosen family due to a health-related need.^[5] Additionally, according to a survey by AARP, two-thirds of LGBTQ+ adults age 45 and over believe they will need someone to provide caregiving for them in the future and eight in ten say they are not sure they will have adequate family or social supports in their later years.^[6]

In recognition of the uniqueness of California households, the Legislature has taken action in recent years to expand access to other protected leaves to “designated persons” identified by employees. Most recently, AB 1041 (Wicks, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022) added a “designated person” to the list of individuals for whom an employee may take leave to care for under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Paid Sick Days). Similar to this bill [AB 518], AB 1041 authorizes the employee to identify the “designated person” at the time of the request for leave. AB 1041 also authorizes employers to limit the employee to one designated person per 12-month period.

3. Need for this bill?

According to the author, “AB 518 updates the definition of “family member” for purposes of California’s Paid Family Leave Program (PFL) so that qualifying California workers will be able to receive PFL wage replacement benefits to care for a member of their chosen or extended family. California’s current Paid Family Leave program reflects an outdated nuclear family model and only allows workers to receive partial income replacement to care for certain narrowly defined family members. This definition leaves out both chosen family and extended family members such as aunts, uncles and cousins.

Outdated family definitions disproportionately affect California’s LGBTQ+ community. California also has a higher percentage of extended families living in multigenerational households. Aging adults also rely on a wide network of relationships for caregiving.

California made important progress by enacting AB 1041 (2022), which allows workers to use their job-protected caregiving leave under the California Family Rights Act and paid sick leave to care for a “designated person,” who can be a member of their chosen or extended family. AB 518 ensures workers can also access the Paid Family Leave benefits they pay for so they can hopefully afford to take leave to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.”

4. Proponent Arguments:

According to the sponsors of the measure, “Paid Family Leave is especially important for California’s low-paid workers, who are often unable to afford to take unpaid leave. Outdated family definitions disproportionately affect California’s LGBTQ+ community, which is the largest of any state in the United States. Many LGBTQ+ adults, especially older adults, do not have accessible relationships with biological relatives and rely on chosen family for kinship and care.” The sponsors additionally state that, “California also has a higher percentage of extended families living in multigenerational households. One study found that the largest concentrations of extended families can be found in New York and Los Angeles, two of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. Thus, it is not uncommon for individuals in California to be living with cousins, aunts, uncles, and other relatives. Moreover, people of color are more likely to live in a multigenerational family household.”

Furthermore, they note, “Aging adults also rely on a wide network of relationships for caregiving. Many caregivers are partners, neighbors or friends. Among Americans who provide care to an adult age 65 or older, more than 23% provide care for a friend, neighbor, or other unrelated person.”

Proponents conclude by stating that, “California made important progress by enacting AB 1041, which allows workers to use their job protected caregiving leave under the California Family Rights Act and paid sick leave to care for a “designated person,” who can be a member of their chosen or extended family. Family and medical leave laws in Oregon, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Colorado cover chosen family, and eight localities (including Los Angeles) have passed paid sick time laws that cover chosen family. AB 518 will continue important work in this area by ensuring that workers can access the Paid Family Leave system they already pay into in order to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.”

5. Opponent Arguments:

The California Landscape Contractors Association is opposed to the measure arguing that, “AB 518 follows a number of employee leave enhancements including CFRA expansion, bereavement leave expansion and others.” They argue that this bill “further expands paid family leave benefits by stating that employees would qualify for paid leave to care for “any other individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship, who has a serious health condition.” They state that this bill essentially makes anyone an employee knows a potential “family member” for purposes of claiming the leave benefit and argue that this is unreasonable. They conclude by noting that, “small businesses often do not have or can’t afford full-time human resource professionals to manage and track all the various requirements coming from new Sacramento employment regulations.”

6. Prior Legislation:

AB 575 (Papan, 2023), pending before this Committee, would make changes to the PFL program to include workers who take time off work to bond with a minor child within one year of assuming responsibilities of a child in loco parentis and delete restrictions relating to how individuals use their PFL benefits.

AB 1041 (Wicks, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022), expanded the list of individuals for which an employee can take leave under the California Family Rights Act and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to include a designated person.

SB 951 (Durazo, Chapter 878, Statutes of 2022), revised the formula for the computation of SDI and PFL benefits to increase the wage replacement available to claimants.

SB 1058 (Durazo, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2022), required EDD to collect demographic data, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, for individuals who claim disability benefits under the SDI and PFL programs.

SB 83 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2019), beginning July 1, 2020, extended from six to eight weeks the maximum duration of PFL benefits individuals may receive.

SB 1123 (Jackson, Chapter 849, Statutes of 2018) expanded the PFL program to include time off to participate in a qualifying exigency related to covered active duty, as defined, or call to covered active duty of the individual’s spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the armed forces.

SB 770 (Jackson, Chapter 350, Statutes of 2013) expanded the definition of family to include in-laws, siblings and grandparents.

SUPPORT

California Employment Lawyers Association (Co-Sponsor)

California Work & Family Coalition (Co-Sponsor)

Equal Rights Advocates (Co-Sponsor)

Legal Aid at Work (Co-Sponsors)
AARP California
Access Reproductive Justice
ACLU California Action
Alzheimer's Greater Los Angeles
Alzheimer's Orange County
Alzheimer's San Diego
American Association of University Women - California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California (AFSCME)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
BreastfeedLA
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Breastfeeding Coalition
California Catholic Conference
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
California Coalition on Family Caregiving
California Commission on Aging
California Domestic Workers Coalition
California Faculty Association
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, INC.
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
California WIC Association
California Women Lawyers
California Women's Law Center
CAMEO (California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity)
Caring Across Generations
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Centro Legal De LA Raza
Child Care Law Center
Citizens for Choice
COLAGE
Consumer Attorneys of California
Disability Rights California
Equality California
Family Caregiver Alliance (FCA)
Family Values @ Work
Family Violence Appellate Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Futures Without Violence
GRACE - End Child Poverty in California
Human Impact Partners
Instituto De Educacion Popular Del Sur De California (IDEPSCA)
Jewish Center for Justice
JTMW LLC
Justice in Aging
LA Best Babies Network
Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy
Microenterprise Collaborative of Inland Southern California
Mujeres Unidas Y Activas
NARAL Pro-choice California
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles
National Council of Jewish Women-California
National Domestic Workers Alliance
National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS-CAN
Orange County Equality Coalition
Our Family Coalition
Pacific Community Ventures
Parent Voices California
Prevention Institute
Public Counsel
Rising Communities (formerly Community Health Councils)
San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition
Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition

State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)
Small Business Majority

Thai Community Development Center
The Restaurant Opportunity Center of The Bay
UFCW - Western States Council
Warehouse Worker Resource Center
Watsonville Law Center
Women Lawyers of Sacramento
Women Organized to Make Abuse Non-existent (WOMAN Inc)
Working Partnerships USA
Worksafe

OPPOSITION

Associated General Contractors

California Landscape Contractors Association

-- END --

1. https://www.census.gov/topics/families.html ↑

2. Financial Issues Top the List of Reasons U.S. Adults Live in Multigenerational Homes, Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/financial-issues-top-the-list-of-reasons-u-s-adults-live-in-multigenerational-homes/ ↑

3. Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) ↑

4. “Making the Case for Chosen Family in Paid Family Leave and Medical Policies,” Lindsey Mahowald and Diana Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/making-case-chosen-family-paid-family-medical-leave-policies/ ↑

5. Mahowald & Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) ↑

6. “LGBTQ Adults 45+ Are Worried About Discrimination and Support as They Age,” Cassandra Cantave, AARP (June 2022) https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/life/info-2022/lgbtq-community-dignity-2022.html ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 518

Author:(Wicks)

As Amended Ver:April 4, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands the definition of "family member" for purposes of the Paid Family Leave (PFL) program to allow workers to take time off to care for a seriously ill designated person.

Major Provisions

1. Defines designated person to mean any individual related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.
2. Requires the designated person to be identified by the employee at the time the claim for benefits is filed.

COMMENTS

PFL was enacted in 2002 as an expansion to the State Disability Insurance (SDI) program to extend disability compensation to individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a new minor child. PFL benefits are funded by employees through SDI contributions from their paychecks. PFL provides up to eight weeks of the 60% to 70% wage replacement. Starting January 1, 2025 workers will be eligible for 70% to 90% wage replacement. According to EDD's SDI Statistical Information, for the first six months of 2022 the average weekly benefit amount was $821.

The current definition of "family member" for purposes of PFL does not reflect the changing structure of households in California and who may be available to care for a seriously ill individual. United States Census Bureau data shows that the number of households in the United States that follow the traditional nuclear family structure with two married parents are declining, while the number of other types of households are increasing.

According to the Author

AB 518 updates the definition of "family member" for purposes of California's Paid Family Leave Program (PFL) so that qualifying California workers will be able to receive PFL wage replacement benefits to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.

California's current Paid Family Leave program reflects an outdated nuclear family model and only allows workers to receive partial income replacement to care for certain narrowly defined family members. This definition leaves out both chosen family and extended family members such as aunts, uncles and cousins.

Outdated family definitions disproportionately affect California's LGBTQ+ community. California also has a higher percentage of extended families living in multigenerational households. Aging adults also rely on a wide network of relationships for caregiving.

California made important progress by enacting AB 1041 (Wicks), Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022, which allows workers to use their job-protected caregiving leave under the California Family Rights Act and paid sick leave to care for a "designated person," who can be a member of their chosen or extended family. AB 518 ensures workers can also access the Paid Family Leave benefits they pay for so they can hopefully afford to take leave to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.

Arguments in Support

According to the California Employment Lawyers Association, Equal Rights Advocates, Legal Aid at Work, and the California Work & Family Coalition, the sponsors of this bill, "California's Paid Family Leave program reflects an outdated family model and only allows workers to receive partial income replacement to care for certain narrowly defined family members. This definition leaves out both chosen family and extended family members such as aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins…AB 518 will continue important work in this area by ensuring that workers can access their Paid Family Leave benefits to care for a member of their chosen or extended family."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Landscape Contractors Association oppose this bill, arguing that small businesses often do not have the full-time human resource professionals needed to track and comply with the requirements of this bill.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "One-time costs of approximately $3.7 million and ongoing annual costs of approximately $900,000 to the Employment Development Department (EDD), primarily to update documents and automated information technology systems used in administration of PFL benefits (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund (UCDF)). However, EDD notes it needs at least 10 months to implement this bill's provisions, making the January 1, 2024, effective date unfeasible.

Assuming a 10% increase in PFL care-related claims, EDD estimates this bill will result in additional benefits paid of approximately $26 million in 2024, $32 million in 2025, and $34 million in 2026, when compared to current benefit projections. Since the worker-funded UCDF continuously appropriates such payments, this bill makes an appropriation."

VOTES

ASM INSURANCE: 10-0-4

YES: Calderon, Berman, Cervantes, Gipson, Grayson, Jones-Sawyer, Ortega, Rodriguez, Valencia, Wood

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Chen, Vince Fong, Soria

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-1-3

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Megan Dahle, Robert Rivas, Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: April 4, 2023

CONSULTANT: Claire Wendt / INS. / (916) 319-2086 FN: 0000553

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 518

Author:(Wicks) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill expands Paid Family Leave (PFL) benefits to a person who takes time off work to care for a seriously ill “designated person,” defined as any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.

FISCAL EFFECT:

One-time costs of approximately $3.7 million and ongoing annual costs of approximately $900,000 to the Employment Development Department (EDD), primarily to update documents and automated information technology systems used in administration of PFL benefits (Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund (UCDF)). However, EDD notes it needs at least 10 months to implement this bill’s provisions, making the January 1, 2024, effective date unfeasible.

Assuming a 10% increase in PFL care-related claims, EDD estimates this bill will result in additional benefits paid of approximately $26 million in 2024, $32 million in 2025, and $34 million in 2026, when compared to current benefit projections. Since the worker-funded UCDF continuously appropriates such payments, this bill makes an appropriation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

California’s current [PFL] program reflects an outdated nuclear family model and only allows workers to receive partial income replacement to care for certain narrowly defined family members. This definition leaves out both chose family and extended family members such as aunts, uncles and cousins…

California made important progress by enacting AB 1041 (2022), which allows workers to use their job-protected caregiving leave under the California Family Rights Act [CFRA] and paid sick leave to care for a “designated person,” who can be a member of their chosen or extended family. AB 518 ensures workers can also access the [PFL] benefits they pay for so they can hopefully afford to take leave to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is co-sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers Association, Equal Rights Advocates, Legal Aid at Work, and the California Work and Family Coalition, which note “Outdated family definitions disproportionately affect California’s LGBTQ+ community, which is the largest of any state in the United States” and “California also has a higher percentage of extended families living in multigenerational households.” This bill is also supported by a large coalition of family and workers’ rights groups.

This bill is opposed by the California Landscape Contractors Association, which argues “Small businesses often do not have or can’t afford full-time human resource professionals to manage and track all the various requirements coming from new Sacramento employment regulations.”

1. PFL Program. PFL was enacted in 2002 as an expansion of the State Disability Insurance (SDI) program, extending disability compensation to individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or domestic partner, or to bond with a new minor child. PFL also covers individuals taking time off work to assist a military family member called to active duty.

PFL provides up to eight weeks of 60% to 70% of wage replacement. Beginning January 1, 2025, the range increases to 70% to 90% of wage replacement. According to EDD, during the first six months of 2022, the average weekly PFL benefit amount was $821.

The SDI program (which includes the PFL program) is financed solely by worker contributions through an employee payroll deduction. The amount withheld from a worker’s paycheck, up to 1.5%, is determined annually by EDD using the SDI taxable wage ceiling and contribution rate.

1. Designated Person. AB 1041, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022, expanded CFRA job protections and paid sick leave to an employee caring for a “designated person,” defined as any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The employee may identify the designated person at the time leave is requested and the employer may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period for family care and medical leave or paid sick days. PFL, which provides wage replacement only during leave, is a benefit separate from federal Family and Medical Leave Act and CFRA job protections and paid sick leave. This bill expands PFL benefits to a “designated person.”
2. Related Legislation. AB 524 (Wicks) expands the list of protected characteristics under the Fair Employment and Housing Act to prohibit employment discrimination due to family caregiver status, and defines “family member” to include a designated person. AB 524 is pending hearing in this committee.

AB 575 (Papan) expands PFL benefits to a worker assuming responsibilities of a child in loco parentis and repeals limitations on when a worker is eligible for PFL benefits. AB 575 is pending hearing in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 12, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE

Lisa Calderon, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 518 (

Author:Wicks) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2023

SUBJECT: Paid family leave: eligibility: care for designated persons

SUMMARY: Expands the definition of “family member” for purposes of the Paid Family Leave (PFL) program to allow workers to take time off to care for a seriously ill designated person. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines designated person to mean any individual related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.
2. Requires the designated person to be identified by the employee at the time the claim for benefits is filed.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Employment Development Department (EDD) to, among other duties, administer the Unemployment Insurance and State Disability Insurance (SDI) programs. (Unemployment Insurance Code (UIC) Section 301)
2. Establishes the SDI program as a partial wage-replacement plan funded through employee payroll deductions that is available (through the Disability Insurance and PFL programs) to eligible individuals who are unable to work due to sickness or injury of the employee (including pregnancy), the sickness or injury of a family member, or the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a new child. (UIC Sections 2601-3308)
3. Establishes the PFL program within the SDI program for the provision of wage replacement benefits for up to eight weeks within a 12-month period to workers for the following reasons: (UIC Sections 3301-3303)
   1. To care for a seriously ill family member.
   2. To bond with a new child entering the family by birth, adoption, or foster care placement.
   3. To participate in a qualifying event because of a spouse, registered domestic partner, parent, or child’s military deployment to a foreign country.
4. PFL defines “family member” to mean child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner. (UIC Section 3302)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 518 updates the definition of “family member” for purposes of California’s Paid Family Leave Program (PFL) so that qualifying California workers will be able to receive PFL wage replacement benefits to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.

California’s current Paid Family Leave program reflects an outdated nuclear family model and only allows workers to receive partial income replacement to care for certain narrowly defined family members. This definition leaves out both chosen family and extended family members such as aunts, uncles and cousins.

Outdated family definitions disproportionately affect California’s LGBTQ+ community. California also has a higher percentage of extended families living in multigenerational households. Aging adults also rely on a wide network of relationships for caregiving.

California made important progress by enacting AB 1041 (2022), which allows workers to use their job-protected caregiving leave under the California Family Rights Act and paid sick leave to care for a “designated person,” who can be a member of their chosen or extended family. AB 518 ensures workers can also access the Paid Family Leave benefits they pay for so they can hopefully afford to take leave to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.

1. Background. PFL was enacted in 2002 as an expansion to the SDI program to extend disability compensation to individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a new minor child. California was the first state in the nation to implement a PFL benefit, with benefit payments beginning on July 1, 2004. Effective January 1, 2021, the PFL scope was expanded to include employees taking time off work to assist a military family member under covered active duty or call to covered active duty.

PFL provides up to eight weeks of 60-70% wage replacement. Starting January 1, 2025 workers will be eligible for 70-90% wage replacement. According to EDD’s SDI Statistical Information, for the first six months of 2022 the average weekly benefit amount was $821.

Many confuse the PFL program (which provides only wage replacement during leave) with the job protection guarantees in the federal Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). However, the changes to PFL benefits in this bill do not affect these job protection laws. Prior legislation, AB 1041 (Wicks) Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022, already made changes to the list of individuals for which an employee can take leave under CFRA and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014.

1. Discussion. The current definition of “family member” for purposes of PFL does not reflect the changing structure of households in California and who may be available to care for a seriously ill individual. U.S. Census Bureau data shows that the number of households in the United States that follow the traditional nuclear family structure with two married parents are declining, while the number of other types of households are increasing.^[1]

The U.S. Census Bureau data shows that California has a higher percentage of multigenerational households than average. Therefore, it is not uncommon for individuals in California to be living with other relatives. According to the Pew Research Center financial issues are the top reason people live in multigenerational households with another major reason being able to give and receive care for an adult or child family member.^[2] According to Pew, “Americans who are Asian, Black or Hispanic are more likely than those who are White to live in a multigenerational family household.”^[3] Immigrant populations are also more likely to live in multigenerational households.

Additionally, California’s LGBTQ+ community is more likely to be impacted by current PFL definitions. Many LGBTQ+ adults, especially older adults, do not have any relationship with biological relatives. According to data from a study by the Center for American Progress, fewer than 1 in 3 respondents over age 55 reported that they would be likely to turn to biological or legally recognized family members for support when sick and would instead call upon a partner they were not married to, chosen family, or friends.^[4] The study noted that 72% of respondents over age 55 reported that they had already been called upon to support friends or chosen family due to a health-related need.^[5] Additionally, according to a survey by AARP, two-thirds of LGBTQ+ adults age 45 and over believe they will need someone to provide caregiving for them in the future and eight in ten say they are not sure they will have adequate family or social supports in their later years.^[6]

1. Arguments in support. According to the California Employment Lawyers Association, Equal Rights Advocates, Legal Aid at Work, and the California Work & Family Coalition, the sponsors of this bill, “California’s Paid Family Leave program reflects an outdated family model and only allows workers to receive partial income replacement to care for certain narrowly defined family members. This definition leaves out both chosen family and extended family members such as aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins…AB 518 will continue important work in this area by ensuring that workers can access their Paid Family Leave benefits to care for a member of their chosen or extended family.”
2. Arguments in opposition. The California Landscape Contractors Association oppose this bill, arguing that small businesses often do not have the full-time human resource professionals needed to track and comply with the requirements of this bill.
3. Related Legislation.
4. AB 575 (Papan), pending before this Committee, would make changes to the PFL program related to who can take leave to bond with a minor child and delete restrictions relating to how individuals use their PFL benefits.
5. AB 1041 (Wicks) Chapter 748, Statutes of 2022, expanded the list of individuals for which an employee can take leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to include a designated person.
6. SB 951 (Durazo) Chapter 878, Statutes of 2022, revised the formula for the computation of SDI and PFL benefits.
7. SB 1058 (Durazo), Chapter 317, Statutes of 2022, required EDD to collect demographic data, including race and ethnicity data and sexual orientation and gender identity data, for individuals who claim disability benefits under the SDI and PFL programs.
8. SB 83 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter 24, Statutes of 2019, beginning July 1, 2020, extended from six to eight weeks the maximum duration of PFL benefits individuals may receive.
9. SB 1123 (Jackson) Chapter 849, Statutes of 2018 expanded the PFL program to include time off to participate in a qualifying exigency related to covered active duty, as defined, or call to covered active duty of the individual’s spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the armed forces.
10. SB 63 (Jackson) Chapter 686, Statues of 2017 prohibits an employer from refusing to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles, to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child.
11. SB 770 (Jackson), Chapter 350, Statutes of 2013 expanded the definition of family to include in-laws, siblings and grandparents.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AARP California
ACLU California Action
AFSCME
American Association of University Women - California
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
Breastfeed LA
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Breastfeeding Coalition
California Catholic Conference
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
California Coalition on Family Caregiving
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Pan-ethnic Health Network
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, INC.
California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)
California Teachers Association
California WIC Association
California Women's Law Center
California Work & Family Coalition
Cameo - California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity
Caring Across Generations
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Centro Legal De LA Raza
Citizens for Choice
Colage
Consumer Attorneys of California
Disability Rights California
Equal Rights Advocates
Equality California
Family Caregiver Alliance (FCA)
Family Values @ Work
Family Violence Appellate Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Futures Without Violence
Grace - End Child Poverty in California
Human Impact Partners
Instituto De Educacion Popular Del Sur De California (IDEPSCA)
Jewish Center for Justice
Jtmw LLC
Justice in Aging
LA Best Babies Network
Legal Aid At Work
Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy
Microenterprise Collaborative of Inland Southern California
Mujeres Unidas Y Activas
NARAL Pro-choice California
National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles
National Council of Jewish Women-California
National Domestic Workers Alliance
National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS-can
Orange County Equality Coalition
Our Family Coalition
Pacific Community Ventures
Parent Voices California
Prevention Institute
Public Counsel
Rising Communities (formerly Community Health Councils)
San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition
Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition
Small Business Majority
Thai Community Development Center
The Restaurant Opportunity Center of The Bay
UFCW - Western States Council
Warehouse Worker Resource Center
Watsonville Law Center
Women Organized to Make Abuse Non-existent (woman Inc.)
Working Partnerships USA
Worksafe

Opposition

California Landscape Contractor's Association

Analysis Prepared by: Claire Wendt / INS. / (916) 319-2086

1. https://www.census.gov/topics/families.html ↑

2. Financial Issues Top the List of Reasons U.S. Adults Live in Multigenerational Homes, Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/financial-issues-top-the-list-of-reasons-u-s-adults-live-in-multigenerational-homes/ ↑

3. Pew Research Center (March 24, 2022) ↑

4. “Making the Case for Chosen Family in Paid Family Leave and Medical Policies,” Lindsey Mahowald and Diana Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/making-case-chosen-family-paid-family-medical-leave-policies/ ↑

5. Mahowald & Boesch, Center for American Progress (February 16, 2021) ↑

6. “LGBTQ Adults 45+ Are Worried About Discrimination and Support as They Age,” Cassandra Cantave, AARP (June 2022) https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/life/info-2022/lgbtq-community-dignity-2022.html ↑