Poverty & Inequality Archives

New Census Data Show California Poverty Soared to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

September 10, 2024

SACRAMENTO, CA — California continues to face significant levels of poverty, with the state once again having the highest poverty rate in the nation, according to a new Budget Center analysis of newly released data by the United States Census Bureau. Despite some recovery from the economic impacts of the pandemic, California’s poverty rate in … Continued

key takeaway

California’s poverty rate has increased significantly, with disproportionate impacts on Black and Latinx residents. This alarming trend highlights the urgent need for federal and state policymakers to implement robust anti-poverty measures, such as strengthening the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and SNAP program.

California’s poverty rate increased to 18.9% in 2023, up from 16.4% in 2022 and 11.0% in 2021, according to new Census data. The state’s poverty rate was particularly high among Black and Latinx Californians and California continued to have the highest poverty rate of the 50 states.

California’s high poverty rate means that 7.3 million state residents lacked the resources to meet basic needs last year — more than the populations of California’s four largest cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. In sharp contrast, the incomes of the richest 1% of state residents continued to substantially exceed the incomes of most Californians. The average income of the top 1% of California households was $1.2 million in 2023 — 67 times the average income of households in the bottom 20% and 14 times the median household income.

These figures point to the need for federal and state leaders to take urgent action to ensure that all Californians have the resources to thrive, and recent experience proves that policymakers can achieve this vision. Bold investments in the federal Child Tax Credit (CTC) and other economic security-promoting policies during the pandemic brought about a historic drop in poverty in 2021. When Congress allowed these effective policies to expire, that progress was reversed the following year, causing the largest increase in the national poverty rate in 50 years.

With Congress poised to pass a substantial tax package in 2025, federal policymakers should prioritize strengthening and expanding two of the most effective anti-poverty policies: the federal CTC and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Additionally, federal leaders should strengthen SNAP nutrition assistance (CalFresh in California), which plays a critical role in reducing poverty and poverty-related hunger. California policymakers can also cut poverty by strengthening state tax credits and the safety net, and ensuring that all Californians — regardless of immigration status — have access to affordable housing, nutrition assistance, health coverage, and good jobs.

Poverty Rates in California Are at the Highest in Years

California’s poverty rate, as measured by the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure — a more comprehensive reflection of economic well-being than the Census’ Official Poverty Measure — increased two and one-half percentage points to 18.9% between 2022 and 2023.¹ The 2023 poverty rate is also higher than the pre-pandemic rate of 16.6% in 2019.

This is the second year the poverty rate has significantly increased, after the expiration of many pandemic-era policies put in place to reduce economic hardships many Americans experienced as a result of COVID-19. These include federal supports such as the expanded Child Tax Credit, the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit for childless workers, and enhanced unemployment benefits — all of which ended in 2021. Additionally, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (CalFresh in California) emergency allotments, which temporarily increased nutrition benefits, ended in early 2023.

California’s labor market also fared worse in 2023 than nationally, with the state’s unemployment rate increasing and inflation-adjusted hourly wages for low-wage workers decreasing in California.

Poverty Rose Across Children, Adults, and Older Adults

While poverty rose across all age groups, rates vary among children, adults, and older adults, notably:

Poverty remains high for older adults in California.

Child poverty remains high at 19.2%, reflecting the sunset of the expanded federal child tax credit.

Child poverty has risen since 2022 and is even higher than the 2019 rate.² In general, the poverty rate is higher for children than for adults given the costs associated with raising children (such as child care) and the low wages for parents and caregivers, particularly women and women of color. Additionally, at the national level, the expanded federal CTC kept 2.9 million children out of poverty in 2021. With its expiration in 2022, we know that more children in California have fallen into poverty.

Poverty rates for adults are significantly higher in 2023, as compared with 2022.

Poverty Increased for All, Californians of Color Face Greater Hardship

Poverty increased for all racial and ethnic groups in California in 2023. However, poverty rates are more pronounced among Californians of color, highlighting deep-rooted inequities that are a direct consequence of historic and ongoing racism.

Most notably, the rise in poverty was sharpest for American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and multiracial Californians (noted as “Other Californians of Color” in the chart above). Specifically, the poverty rate for this group collectively surged from 8.4% in 2022 to 13.6% in 2023. This significant and alarming increase underscores the unique challenges that these communities face, such as historic marginalization, systematic displacement, and limited access to targeted resources.

Poverty also remains disproportionately high for Latinx and Black Californians at 25% and 22.3%, respectively. Both groups saw an increase of about 4 percentage points from 2022 to 2023. These higher poverty rates reflect how centuries of discriminatory policies and systemic racism — such as redlining, wage discrimination, and chronic underinvestment in communities of color — continue to prevent Black and brown Californians from accessing the same economic opportunities as white people.

The persistence of higher poverty rates for Californians of color is not accidental. Structural racism is the result of policymakers and other individuals with power successfully implementing policies and actions that block people of color from opportunity, many of which are rooted in racism.

Income Inequality Remains Stark in California

In addition to information on poverty, the Census data also sheds light on the incredible magnitude of income inequality in California. In 2023, the richest 5% of California households had an average income of $662,792 and the richest 1% had $1,208,478 on average.³ The average income of the top 1% of Californians is 14 times the $89,300 median California household income and 67 times the average income for the bottom 20% of Californians, which stood at a woefully inadequate level of $18,170. For reference, a single adult needs an annual income of more than $56,000 to afford typical expenses in California, and a single parent with one child needs an income of nearly $100,000.

Notably, the Census income data does not include capital gains — income from the sale of assets like stock shares and real estate — which make up a significant portion of income for wealthy households. Therefore, the Census figures for the top 5% and top 1% of Californians understate their total income. Tax data, which do take into account capital gains income, demonstrate the high level of income concentration in the state, with the top 1% of Californians generally receiving around one-fifth to one-quarter of total income over the past several decades.

Policymakers Can Cut Poverty and Create a California for All

High poverty following the end of major pandemic-era investments proved that policymakers play a significant role in determining the economic well-being of all people. This means they can reverse the spike in poverty by investing in policies that help families and individuals meet basic needs and thrive in their communities.

At the federal level, these include:

Significantly expanding the federal Child Tax Credit (CTC).

Federal tax policies enacted in 2017 are slated to expire in 2026, including the doubling of the federal CTC from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. This presents an opportunity for federal policymakers to strengthen the federal CTC to maximize its poverty-fighting power. The expanded federal CTC that was in place for one year during the pandemic cut child poverty by more than 40% in California, proving the effectiveness of this policy.

Improve the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

This is particularly for low-paid adults who are not supporting children in their homes and who consequently get limited assistance from other public supports. The significant increase and expansion of the federal EITC to young childless workers for one year during the pandemic reduced material hardship among young adults and cut poverty, particularly among young Latinx workers ages 18 to 24. The credit was also expanded to childless adults age 65 or older for one year in recognition that a larger share are working today than did when the credit was established.

Strengthening SNAP nutrition assistance (CalFresh in California).

Approve federal emergency child care funding.

This is a request submitted to Congress by the Biden Administration. At the end of September 2023, federal pandemic-related funding for child care expired. This has led to a “child care cliff” across several states that has exacerbated challenges for families with finding affordable child care and for providers with making a living wage. If approved, this $16 billion request would equate to $1.5 billion additional dollars in California to support families and providers with making ends meet.

California policymakers can also do more to cut poverty across the state, including by:

Increasing California’s Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) and expanding the state’s Young Child Tax Credit (YCTC).

Raising the CalEITC to provide a more meaningful credit would help millions of low-paid workers in California, the majority of whom are excluded from the federal EITC and need a strong state credit to help make ends meet. Additionally, extending the YCTC to low-paid families supporting older children — not just those ages 0 to 5 — would help boost the incomes of families with very low incomes who are currently excluded from the full federal CTC.

Strengthening vital supports that improve families’ economic well-being.

Ensuring that all Californians, regardless of immigration status, can benefit from supports.

Investing in affordable housing and homelessness response services.

Ensuring good jobs for all.

Recent efforts to boost the pay of fast food workers and health care workers will go a long way toward helping Californians meet basic needs, but more is needed. State leaders can build on this progress by continuing to raise wages across industries to reflect living costs, bolstering workers’ collective bargaining power to determine their own pay and working conditions, and supporting policies that address persistent inequities in pay and benefits by race, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, and LGBTQ+ status.

Improving access to Medi-Cal.

Despite being eligible, many Californians lose vital Medi-Cal coverage due to complex paperwork and difficulty reaching county offices. Streamlining the renewal process and improving accessibility are crucial to prevent poverty and promote economic stability. Without health coverage, individuals may face high health care costs or medical debt, increasing their risk of falling into poverty. Ongoing health coverage helps lower out-of-pocket expenses and ensures access to preventive care, while supporting workforce participation and continued education, both of which are vital for long-term financial security.

Poverty & Inequality

1
SPM thresholds rose 8.6 percent in 2023 for renters, which is notably higher than the 4.1 percent inflation rate from 2023. This difference reflects that prices rose faster for some household items (mainly rent) than average inflation for the full range of household items. Some researchers prefer to use “anchored SPM thresholds” given that SPM thresholds are higher than inflation. Given California’s high cost of housing (among other costly household needs), the Budget Center maintains the SPM thresholds provided by the Census Bureau.
2
The increase is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
3
The variable used to estimate household income is the sum of individual top-coded income variables, therefore the total may be underestimated for households at the top of the income distribution. Income reported to the Census Bureau may differ from income reported to the Franchise Tax Board due to underreporting, differences in the composition of households versus tax units, and the exclusion of capital gains income from the Census data.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The 2024 Women’s Well-Being Index was updated in collaboration with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, which provided funding, communications, outreach, and engagement support.

Notes on Methodology
Acknowledgements

Notes on Methodology

The California Women’s Well-Being Index (WWBI) is a county-level, composite index that shows how women are faring throughout California. The WWBI consists of 30 indicators of women’s well-being that are grouped into five dimensions: Health, Personal Safety, Employment and Earnings, Economic Security, and Political Empowerment. The methodology used to create the index is outlined in detail below.

Creating the Women’s Well-Being Index
In deciding which measures, or “indicators,” to include in the WWBI, the Budget Center first engaged in a thorough review of research on women and families as well as an evaluation of comparable projects at the national and state level.1 This review resulted in a wide-ranging list of potential indicators. Because this county-level index measures women’s well-being, potential indicators were limited to “outputs” – that is, those that measure attributes of the female population or reflect community characteristics. This standard eliminated “input” indicators, such as those that measure public spending or community resources, for example.

The Budget Center subsequently screened data sources to ensure that data for potential indicators were current, available from a reputable source, and based on sound research methods. Data also were screened to verify that they are updated on a regular basis in order to allow for updates to the WWBI in future years. This initial search resulted in a list of 50 potential indicators.

Next, the Budget Center, in cooperation with the Women’s Foundation of California, surveyed individuals who focus on issues of concern to women across the state. (See the Acknowledgments for a list of survey respondents.) The survey allowed respondents to rank the importance of potential indicators in measuring women’s well-being as well as to suggest alternative indicators. The initial survey was sent via email to approximately 200 individuals. Three follow-up emails were sent to the same individuals, yielding a response rate of approximately 30%. Based primarily on survey results, the initial list of 50 indicators was narrowed down to 30 indicators falling within five dimensions of women’s well-being.

Data Sources and Data Quality
The 30 indicators included in the WWBI are based on data from a variety of state and federal agencies as well as from universities. Data for 17 indicators come from surveys, including the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) conducted by University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining data come from administrative sources, with this information collected by various agencies and organizations, such as the California Department of Justice or the California Department of Public Health. Data for most indicators reflect multi-year estimates. (Combining data from multiple years increases the reliability of the data.) These multi-year estimates reflect the average condition in each county during a specific time period.

For survey data, margins of error at the 95% confidence level are included in the WWBI whenever possible and applicable.2 In addition, margins of error at the 95% confidence level are included for some administrative data. While these data are not subject to sampling error – because they reflect a full “universe” of individuals rather than a sample – it is common to provide the margin of error for certain vital statistics because they are subject to random variation during any given period.

In some cases, due to data limitations, data for certain counties for specific indicators were deemed unreliable. The Budget Center used several common benchmarks to determine if a data point was unreliable. This includes an event count of less than 20 in a county for any given time period and/or a coefficient of variation greater than or equal to 30%. For the ACS data, a higher standard was applied: a coefficient of variation greater than or equal to 10%.

When data for one or more counties were determined to be unreliable, county groups were created by aggregating estimates. This was done in order to create a more stable estimate applicable to each county in the group. When creating county groups, several considerations were made. First, contiguous counties with unreliable estimates were often grouped together. However, if possible, county groups were created with the smallest number of counties to avoid unnecessary loss of detail. For example, if the data for four contiguous counties were deemed unreliable, ideally two county groups would be created instead of one large county group. In some cases, data for one or more counties were grouped with a county that had a reliable estimate in order to create a stable estimate.

In addition, indicator values were considered when aggregating counties. For example, if a county with an unreliable estimate needed to be grouped with another county, the indicator values were taken into account in order to avoid aggregating counties with disparate estimates. In some cases, groups do not consist of contiguous counties because the estimates for the contiguous counties were too different to be combined.

For some counties and racial/ethnic groups, the Budget Center chose to display the unreliable estimate. In these cases, the estimate is noted in the tool with an asterisk.

Calculating the Women’s Well-Being Index
The WWBI consists of a wide range of data reported in a variety of ways such as rates, ratios, or percentages. These data have varying ranges and scales. In order to construct a composite index, indicators within each dimension were standardized and aggregated to create a county-level value for each dimension and for the overall index. This section outlines the methodology used in standardizing and aggregating the data in the WWBI.

Data were standardized for each indicator by calculating the z-score. The z-score converts a value into units of measurement based on the standard deviation. The z-score is calculated using the 58-county averages and standard deviations for each indicator. This allows for comparing values across indicators with different formats and with varying ranges of data. The z-score is calculated for each county and indicator using the following formula:

In some instances, a higher z-score indicates greater well-being, such as the percentage of women with a bachelor’s degree. In other cases, a higher z-score indicates lesser well-being, such as the female unemployment rate. In order to ensure that higher scores consistently reflect greater well-being, a number of indicators were reverse-coded. This was done by multiplying the z-score by negative 1.

One disadvantage of using z-scores is that the value of the z-score is hard to interpret. In order to create a value that is easy to understand, the z-score for each indicator was converted into a 100-point scale using the following formula:

The highest scaled z-score for any given indicator has a value of 100, and the lowest scaled z-score has a value of 0, with higher scores indicating greater well-being. However, while a score of 100 reflects the best value across all counties, it is not indicative of maximum well-being. For example, a score of 100 for the voter registration indicator does not mean that all eligible women in that county are registered to vote. Likewise, a score of 0 does not indicate that no women in that county are registered to vote.

To calculate scores for each of the five dimensions, we averaged the scaled z-scores for each county within each dimension. We then calculated overall index scores by averaging each county’s five dimension scores. The indicators and dimensions were not weighted prior to aggregation (i.e., they have equal weights). This reflects the belief that each indicator within a dimension has equal bearing on the well-being of women. Likewise, equally weighting the five dimensions indicates that health, personal safety, employment and earnings, economic security, and political empowerment are all equally important in assessing how women are faring in California.3

Counties are ranked by indicator score, by dimension score, and by their overall index score. In general, the WWBI employs a “modified competition ranking system” to rank the counties. In a modified competition ranking system, ties are ranked with the lowest rank. For example, if three of California’s 58 counties are tied for last, they would have a rank of 58. Using the traditional ranking system, their rank would be 56. The exception to this rule is when two or more counties are tied for first. When this occurs, these counties are ranked first.

Updates Made to the Women’s Well-Being Index

The California Budget & Policy Center updated the Index in October 2020 and again in September 2024. The following changes were made across the versions.

2020
In 2020, eight indicators were altered based on feedback received by stakeholders. The following provides a list of the changes made to these indicators.

Economic Security Dimension

Cost of Housing: The Cost of Housing indicator provides data on housing affordability. The first version of the Women’s Well-Being Index measured housing affordability by using data from the US Housing and Urban Development’s calculation of Fair Market Rents and the US Census Bureau’s calculation of single mothers’ median income. The 2020 Index generalizes this measure of housing affordability by using median gross rent and women’s median annual income data from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2014-2018).

Employment & Earnings Dimension

Labor Force Participation: The Labor Force Participation indicator shows what share of the population is actively working or looking for work. The first version of the Index used the population ages 16 to 64. The 2020 Index uses the prime-age working population – ages 25 to 64 – in calculating the labor force participation rate. This age group would typically be expected to be working or looking for work.

Low-Wage Workers: The first version of the Index provided data on the percentage of women working in low-wage occupations. The 2020 Index refines this indicator, providing data on the percentage of women paid low wages.

Health Dimension

Health Care Coverage: The Health Care Coverage indicator provides data on the share of women without health insurance. The first version of the Index provided data for women ages 18 to 64. The 2020 Index provides data for women ages 19 to 64. This change is due to a modification made by the Census Bureau in the presentation of these data in their American Community Survey table (B27001).

Life Expectancy: The Life Expectancy indicator provides data on the estimated average lifespan of an individual at birth. This indicator replaces the Obesity indicator from the 2016 Index. Life expectancy is a more common measure of health and wellness.

Safety Dimension

Sexual Assault: Prior to 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation collected data on three types of sexual offenses: rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. In 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation required reporting agencies in the US to aggregate data for these assaults into one offense: forcible rape. This is a broader definition of sexual assault that encompasses a wider range of offenses. The California Department of Justice implemented this change in the reporting of crime data in 2014, which resulted in an increase in the number of reported rapes.

Domestic Violence: The first version of the Index used the total population when calculating domestic violence rates for the population in each county. The 2020 Index uses the female population for all rates in the Personal Safety Dimension to be more consistent across indicators.

Assault: The first version of the Index the female population age 18 and over when calculating rates of assault for the population in each county. The 2020 Index uses the female population for all rates in the Personal Safety Dimension to be more consistent across indicators.

2024
In 2024, two indicators were altered based on recent economic security research and feedback received by stakeholders. The following provides a list of the changes made to these indicators.

Economic Security Dimension

Commuting Time/Digital Equity: The digital equity indicator replaced the commuting time variable as digital equity was determined to be a more relevant variable. Specifically, a series of literature points to challenges with economic security when adults do not have access to broadband or a computer. The racial digital divide is particularly stark. This indicator shows the number and percentage of adults (18 and over) with cable, modem, fiber optic or DSL service and a desktop, laptop, netbook, or netbook computer in the household. This indicator utilizes the US Census Bureau’s 2018-2022 five-year American Community Survey variables reflecting access to in-home internet and access to in-home computer/laptop.

High School Diploma/Bachelor’s Degree: The bachelor’s degree indicator replaced the high school diploma indicator. This change was made to reflect recent research showing that women without a bachelor’s degree were more likely to lose their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The indicator shows the number and percentage of adults (25 and over) that have a bachelor’s degree. This indicator utilizes the US Census Bureau’s 2018-2022 five-year American Community Survey variables reflecting educational attainment.

Food Insecurity/Food Hardship: While the data source and analysis for this indicator remain the same across versions, the label for the food insecurity indicator changed to food hardship. This change was made given that the United States Department of Agriculture’s definition of food insecurity did not completely align with the measure used for this indicator.

Health Dimension

Life Expectancy: Prior to the 2019 dataset, the life expectancy data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation did not disaggregate life expectancy at birth by race/ethnicity. The 2019 dataset allowed for this disaggregation and is now included in the indicator.

Safety Dimension

Fatal Accidents: The fatal accidents racial/ethnic disaggregation now disaggregates between Asian and Pacific Islander identities. In previous versions, Asian and Pacific Islander were combined into one category.

Hospital Visits Due to Assault: The hospital visits due to assault now includes a racial/ethnic disaggregation for Multi-Race. Previous versions did not include this disaggregation.

Hospital Visits Due to Assault: The hospital visits due to assault indicator now includes a racial/ethnic disaggregation for Multi-Race. Previous versions did not include this disaggregation.

Suicide: The suicide indicator now includes a racial/ethnic disaggregation for Multi-Race. Previous versions did not include this disaggregation.

Endnotes

1 See for example, Helen Boutrous, et al., The Report on the Status of Women and Girls in California: 2015 (Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles: 2015); Anna Chu and Charles Posner, The State of Women in America: A 50-State Analysis of How Women Are Faring Across the Nation (Center for American Progress: September 2013); Cynthia Hess, et al., The Status of Women in the States 2015 (Institute for Women’s Policy Research: May 2015); Kristen Lewis and Sarah Burd-Sharps, Women’s Well-Being: Ranking America’s Top 25 Metro Areas (Measure of America: April 2012); University of Minnesota, Center on Women and Public Policy, and Women’s Foundation of Minnesota, Status of Women & Girls in Minnesota: Research Overview (June 2014); Wider Opportunities for Women, The Economic Security Scorecard: Policy and Security in the States (2013).
2 A 95% confidence level means that a researcher is 95% confident that the interval defined by the margins of error contains the true value for the population as a whole.
3 For more details on weighting within composite indexes and other methodological issues, see Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide (2008).

Acknowledgements

The California Women’s Well-Being Index is a project of the California Budget & Policy Center.

Laura Pryor (Research Director) and Hannah Orbach-Mandel (Policy Analyst) prepared the 2024 Women’s Well-Being Index (WWBI) with assistance from Nishita Nair (Research Associate) and other Budget Center staff. GreenInfo Network developed the data visualization, downloadable county fact sheets, and indicator fact sheets.

Kristin Schumacher, a former California Budget & Policy Center analyst, created the WWBI to help advocates and policymakers understand how women are faring in California. Since the WWBI was first published in 2016, the Index has been replicated in several states nationwide. Schumacher is a consultant to the 2024 update of the WWBI and continues to advance this work through her consulting firm, Aster Policy Analytics.

The 2024 Women’s Well-Being Index was updated in collaboration with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, which provided funding, communications, outreach, and engagement support.

We are thankful to a number of individuals who have contributed to earlier work on the Women’s Well-Being Index.

For the 2024 Women’s Well-Being Index, the Budget Center consulted a number of individuals to help inform the tool’s updates. Additionally, in late 2017 and early 2018 a number of individuals shared their thoughts on policies to boost women’s economic security, employment, and earnings. These individuals helped to shape policy recommendations for women related to work supports, boosting income, building wealth, and improving programs and services that benefit women with low-incomes in California. (Organizational affiliation and title reflects position at time of interview.)

Dr. Fatima Alleyne, Black Women Organized for Political Action
Jasmine Amons, Program Associate, National Center for Youth Law, Women’s Policy Institute Fellow
Graciela Aponte-Diaz, Director of California Policy, Center for Responsible Lending
Sarah Arce, Senior Policy Director, The Campaign for College Opportunity
Elizabeth Ayala, Senior Program Associate, The Women’s Foundation of California
Barbara Baran, Co-Director, California EDGE Campaign
Alexandra Bastien, Senior Associate, Policy Link
Sarah Bohn, Research Fellow, Public Policy Institute of California
Christa Brown, Manager, Financial Justice Project, City and County of San Francisco
Lewis Brown, Jr., Senior Associate, Policy Link
Tyrone Buckley, Policy Director, Housing California
Maggie Cervantes, Executive Director, New Economics for Women
Elena Chávez Quezada, Senior Program Officer, Walter & Elise Hass Fund
Judy Darnell, Vice President of Public Policy United Ways of California
Melany de la Cruz-Viesca, Assistance Director, UCLA Asian American Studies Center
Rachel Deutsch, Supervising for Worker Justice, Center for Popular Democracy
Jodi Doane, Grants & Community Relations Manager, JVS SoCal, Women’s Policy Institute Fellow
Rosalyn Epstein, Financial Empowerment Program Manager, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development
Tania Flores, Senior Program Associate, The Women’s Foundation of California
Michelle Freridge, Executive Director, Asian Youth Center
Emily Gordon, Director of Strategic Research, Center for Popular Democracy
Sabrina Hamm, Statewide Managing Director, California Asset Building Coalition
Katie Hern, Co-Founder, California Acceleration Project
Dr. Hilary Hoynes, Haas Distinguished Chair in Economic Disparities, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley
Mary Ignatius, Statewide Organizer, Parent Voices
Jennifer Ito, Research Director, USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE)
LaNiece Jones, Executive Director, Black Women Organized for Political Action
Rebecca Kauma, Director of Digital Equity, County of Los Angeles
Tatiana Larkin, Black Women Organized for Political Action
Anya Lawler, Policy Advocate, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Vihncent Le, Senior Legal Counsel of Tech Equity, The Greenlining Institute
Pete Manzo, President & CEO, United Ways of California
Amy Matsui, Senior Counsel and Director of Income Security, National Women’s Law Center
Heather McCulloch, Founder and Director, Closing the Women’s Wealth Gap
Krista Niemczyk, Public Policy Manager, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Marj Plumb, Chief Strategist, Policy Advocacy and Training, The Women’s Foundation of California
Anne Price, President, Insight Center
Patti Prunhuber, Senior Policy Attorney, Child Care Law Center
Aaron Schill, Director of Research and Programs, National Digital Inclusion Alliance
Katie Selenski, Executive Director, CalSavers (Formerly Secure Choice)
Donna Sneeringer, Director of Government Relations, Child Care Resource Center
Jessica Stender, Senior Counsel, Workplace Justice & Public Policy, Equal Rights Advocates
Adie Tomer, Senior Fellow, Brookings Metro
Marisabel Torres, Senior Policy Analyst, UnidosUS
Julie Vogtman, Director of Job Quality and Senior Counsel, National Women’s Law Center
Lisa Williams, Black Women Organized for Political Action
In addition, individuals who responded to our survey in summer 2015 on selecting indicators were instrumental in guiding the development of the initial version of the California Women’s Well-Being Index. (Organizational affiliation reflects position at time of survey.)
Dion Aroner, Partner, Aroner, Jewel and Ellis Partners
Marisol Aviña, Program Manager, The California Endowment
Barbara Baran, Co-Director, California EDGE Coalition
Jessica Bartholow, Legislative Advocate, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Rebecca Hamburg Cappy, Director, Northern California Office, Alliance for Justice
Krystle Contreras, Director of Outreach and Prevention, Central California Family Crisis Center
Betsy Cotton, Director, Close the Gap CA
Sarah Crow, Vice President, The Opportunity Institute
Cynthia Douglas, California Department of Social Services
Myra Duran, Policy Manager, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
Stephanie Fajuri, Supervising Attorney, Disability Rights Legal Center – Cancer Legal Resource Center
Sequoia Hall, Leadership Council Member, East Oakland Building Health Communities
Marlene Christine Hurd, Human Resources Manager, Administrator, Healthy Communities Inc. dba Healthy Oakland
Jennifer Ito, Project Manager, University of Southern California, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity
Kate Karpilow, Executive Director, California Center for Research on Women & Families
Kimberly Kenny, Associate Vice President, Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles
Mari Lopez, Policy Director, Vision y Compromiso
Linda Meric, Executive Director, 9to5, National Association of Working Women
Ami Nagle, President, Nagle & Associates
Nikki Newsome, Program Manager, Reading and Beyond
Vanessa Perez, Civic Engagement Specialist, Time for Change Foundation
Mary L. Perry, Education Consultant
Vonya Quarles, Executive Director, Starting Over, Inc.
Maria Reyes, Bilingual Legal Services Specialist, YWCA Silicon Valley
Gabriela Sandoval, Director of Research and Chief Economic Security Officer, Insight Center for Community Economic Development
Diana Scott, Chief Human Resources Officer, Prologis
Laura Segura, Executive Director, Monarch Services, Santa Cruz County
Hillary Selvin, Executive Director, National Council of Jewish Women/Los Angeles
Cathy Senderling-McDonald, Deputy Executive Director, California Welfare Directors Association
Ann Stevens, Director, Center for Poverty Research, University of California, Davis
Nancy Strohl, Consultant, Office of Senator Holly J. Mitchell
Anne Stuhldreher, Senior Program Manager, The California Endowment
Jesse Torrey, Associate Director, RISE San Luis Obispo County
Francesca Vietor, Program Director, Environment, Public Policy, Civic Engagement, The San Francisco Foundation
Nancy Volpert, Director of Public Policy, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles
Heather Warnken, Legal Policy Associate, Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
Deborah Peterson Small, Executive Director, Break the Chains: Communities of Color and the War on Drugs
Nicole D. Vick, Senior Health Educator, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Pete Woiwode, Director, California Partnership

Poverty & Inequality

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

California’s paid family leave program excludes many workers, especially LGBTQ+ and immigrants, from taking leave to care for loved ones because the program’s definition of family is too narrow. Expanding the definition to include designated family members would allow more workers to access the program without straining the system’s finances.

All California workers should be able to care for their loved ones when they are ill without worrying about their next paycheck. However, many Californians have close relationships with extended or chosen family members who are not currently covered by the state’s paid family leave program. Although the program is funded entirely by worker contributions, some workers – especially those who are LGTBTQ+ and immigrants – are excluded from taking leave for their loved ones.

Policymakers can make the state’s paid family leave program more inclusive and accessible to all workers by expanding the definition of family to include a designated, or chosen, family member.

what is chosen family?

Chosen family refers to individuals who love and support each other like a family might, but do so by choice rather than based on biological or legal bonds.

1. California’s Current Definition of Family Excludes Millions

Approximately 10% of Californians live with someone who isn’t currently included in California’s definition of family. Workers in California can currently take paid family leave to care for a sick family member if that family member is a: grandparent, grandchild, sibling, parent-in-law, parent, child, spouse, or registered domestic partner. However, around 3.5 million Californians, or 10% of the population, live in households with someone not included in this definition, such as an unmarried partner or other relative, meaning they are unable to take paid leave to care for these individuals because of the state’s definition of family. This is especially the case for immigrants, who make up 28% of the state population and are more likely to live in multigenerational households.

Additionally, there are about 2.7 million (or 1 in 10) LGBTQ+ individuals in California, which is the most in the US. Members of the LGBTQ+ community tend to rely on chosen family, or people outside of the traditional family definition, who are not currently covered by California’s paid family leave program to care for them when they are sick. That means these individuals’ chosen family, who pay a certain percentage of their paycheck every month into the state’s paid family leave fund, are not able to care for them in their time of need.

2. There is National Precedent for Expanding the Definition of Family

Seven states have more inclusive family definitions than California. While California was the first state in the country to enact a paid family leave program in 2004, other states have since established their own programs that are more inclusive. Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, Connecticut, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine all include people who are related to the worker by blood or affinity (chosen family) in their definition of a family member.

3. Making Paid Family Leave More Inclusive Maintains Program Stability

There is minimal impact on states’ paid family leave disbursement funds. Washington expanded their definition of a family member in 2021 to include chosen family members. In that time, only 0.22% of claims filed for paid family leave have been used for a chosen family member. Although an expanded family definition has an immense impact on the lives of those individuals who do not fit under the traditional family definition, the actual impact on a state’s paid family leave disbursement fund is very small, yet the positive effect for families is meaningful.

4. Including a Designated Family Member Does Not Strain State Funds

When Washington expanded their definition of a family member to include a chosen family member, language was included in the policy that if over 500 individuals filed claims for expanded family members, a reimbursement from the state’s General Fund would be triggered. This was to ensure that the paid family leave fund would remain solvent even with the anticipated increase in the number of claims filed. However, that number was not met in 2021 or 2022 (a total of 686 claims were filed from July 25, 2021 to March 30, 2023), so $0 have been needed to reimburse the fund from the General Fund, further suggesting that adding a chosen family member will not strain a state’s disability insurance fund.

5. Current Contribution Rates Support Expanded Definition of Family Leave

Currently, workers in California pay 1.1% of their wages to the State Disability Insurance fund to pay for the state’s paid family leave and disability insurance programs. With a very liberal estimate on the number of claims that will go up if designated family members are added, the Employment Development Department (EDD) estimates family leave expansion will have zero impact on worker payroll contribution rates for 2025 and 2026 and a 0.1 percentage point increase in 2027. Additionally, data from Washington point to expanded family member claims having no impact on payroll contribution rates in the years after expansion. While the EDD suggests that expansion may increase rates by 0.1 percentage points, the Washington example suggests that even this modest increase may be overestimated.

California workers provide 100% of the funding for the state’s disability insurance fund, which provides payments for paid family leave benefits. However, many workers are blocked from accessing paid family leave for their family because they do not fit the strict definition of family used in the state — this is especially true for LGBTQ+ Californians and immigrant communities. California can ensure equitable access to paid family leave and catch up to other states’ more inclusive policies by expanding their family definition to include a designated chosen family member.

Poverty & Inequality

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

California was the first state to offer paid family leave, but workers cannot apply for benefits until after they have already started their leave, causing financial hardship.

California was the first state in the country to offer paid family leave for its workers, acknowledging the importance of giving workers paid time off to care for their loved ones or bond with a new child. Since then, 12 other states and Washington, D.C. have followed California’s lead. Despite California being the first to pass paid family leave, workers in the state cannot apply for benefits until after they have already started their leave. This may put workers in a distressing financial situation while navigating care for their loved ones. By allowing workers to apply for paid family leave before their leave has begun, policymakers can better serve Californians.

How does paid family leave in California work?

Under California’s paid family leave and state disability insurance programs, workers receive partial wage replacement when they are unable to work for various reasons. Paid family leave is available to workers who are caring for a seriously ill or injured family member, bonding with a new child, or addressing a military exigency. State disability insurance is available to individuals who are unable to work due to an injury or illness. Both benefits are fully worker-funded through a payroll tax. However, a worker cannot apply for their benefits until they have first started unpaid leave and their qualifying life event has already occurred. In other words, a worker has to stop working without confirmation of if they will receive pay and benefits, and without confirmation of how much money they will get.

For example, a worker who qualifies for paid family leave because they have welcomed a new child or who qualifies for state disability insurance to recover from their own serious health condition, including pregnancy, must first take unpaid leave from their job before they can apply for paid family leave or state disability insurance. They will not know if they will get approved, they will not receive pay, and they will need to apply for benefits while at the same time welcoming their new child. This leaves workers in a precarious situation where they must go days and sometimes weeks without pay at a time when they need it most.

This is especially harmful for workers with low incomes, who are disproportionately women and people of color, who face the impossible decision of going days or weeks without pay or taking time off to care for an ill loved one or a new child. For many workers, taking time off of their job without confirmation of benefits is not an option, as workers face expenses that they cannot cover without regular income. This makes workers less likely to take leave, which can have serious consequences to their health.

What are other states doing?

Some states are leading the way in this area and have addressed this gap in policy to ensure that all workers have equal access to paid family and medical leave and no one has to face these impossible choices. Out of the 14 states and D.C. that offer paid family and medical leave, eight allow workers to apply for benefits before their qualifying event happens, meaning they are not forced to take unpaid leave without confirmation of knowing if they will receive any benefits at all. This allows workers to mitigate their risk and reduce their stress during already demanding situations.

What can state leaders do to better support workers in California?

While California was a trailblazer in 2002 when it enacted the first paid family leave law in the country, it has now fallen behind. Workers should not have to take unpaid time off when they pay into and are eligible for benefits. It is time for California to catch up and give workers the security they deserve by letting them apply early for their benefits.

Poverty & Inequality

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

California was home to over 11 million immigrants in 2023, making up 28% of the state population — the largest percentage of immigrant residents of any state.

Immigrants are essential to California’s labor force, with a total of 6.1 million immigrants employed in California from 2021 to 2023, representing 1 in 3 workers in the state. Immigrants and children of immigrants made up over half of all California workers during this same period. In addition, nearly half (45%) of working households in California included immigrants in 2023.

Immigrants are vital in creating the vibrant, prosperous communities and strong workforce that propelled California into becoming the fifth largest economy in the world. Recognizing the invaluable cultural and economic wealth immigrants bring to the state, policymakers should continue ending immigration status exclusions from our safety net programs to ensure all Californians have access to the supports they need to thrive.

Poverty & Inequality

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Poverty & Inequality

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

While domestic and sexual violence disproportionately affects women, transgender, non-binary, and women of color, prevention programs that address root causes like gender and racial inequities can significantly improve safety for all Californians.

All Californians should be able to live in safe environments, free from violence and fear. However, millions of Californians experience domestic and sexual violence every year and women, transgender, non-binary, and women of color are most likely to experience these types of violence.

Domestic and sexual violence prevention programs are proven ways to stop violence from occurring in the first place. Prevention programs take a proactive approach and seek to shift culture on racial and gender inequities. Examples of prevention work include educating people on healthy relationships, increasing economic security for families, and reducing systems and beliefs that can lead to violence. These programs have been shown to:

Improve the safety of school and community spaces,
Lead to significant community and structural changes,
Lead to sexual violence prevention being added to school district budgets,
Make physical spaces safer in order to reduce vulnerability to sexual violence,
Increase student conversations about sexual violence as a problem,
Reduce dating abuse, and
Result in substantial cost savings due to reductions in sexual violence-related costs.

How does California support domestic and sexual violence prevention?

Since 2018, California has provided small, one-time grants for prevention programs. The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) administers multiple grants with this one-time funding to support prevention efforts. There are also some federal funds available for prevention, but the large majority of federal funding for addressing domestic and sexual violence is for intervention only, and in fact, is prohibited from being used for prevention efforts. Despite domestic and sexual violence prevention’s proven effectiveness, state funding is relatively new and has been sporadic.

What organizations have received state prevention funding?

Many organizations across the state have received state funding in the form of Cal OES prevention grants. These grants are focused on supporting community-based organizations in the implementation of domestic and sexual violence prevention and education initiatives, especially those that focus on serving communities that are disproportionately impacted. Examples of organizations that have been able to increase their prevention efforts because of the state funding are described below.

Korean American Family Services

Korean American Family Services (KFAM) provides assistance to Korean Americans in the Greater Los Angeles area, especially women, children, and immigrants. This assistance includes mental health support, AAPI foster family and adoption services, social services, family intervention, and a gender-based violence program. They used the prevention funding to develop a culturally responsive, bilingual positive parenting program that provides education to parents on how to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

Project Sister Family Services

Rainbow Services

Rainbow Services provides comprehensive survivor services in the Los Angeles area, including emergency shelter, transitional services, housing assistance, children’s education, and legal assistance. Rainbow’s prevention services focus on targeting youth, faith-based leaders, and businesses, and the prevention funding grants allow them to target those three communities and develop educational programming specific to those groups.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Special thank you to Korean American Family Services, Project Sister Family Services, and Rainbow Services for providing the information included in these examples.

How has state prevention funding impacted what services organizations can provide?

Dedicated prevention funding has a meaningful impact on communities. Perspectives from these organizations demonstrate how funding has supported the services that can be provided.

Funding allowed grantees to expand existing prevention programs.
Funding allowed grantees to connect with community members in ways they had not been able to previously.

Funding allowed grantees to expand existing prevention programs.

For example, while KFAM had existing outreach programs that had mixed levels of success, they were able to create a new parenting training program that was also culturally responsive to the needs of their community members.
Additionally, Project Sister described how prevention funding allowed them to build on their training and presentations with students. More specifically, the funding allowed them to develop more long-term relationships with the schools, which is crucial for breaking generational cycles of violence.
Rainbow Services shared how the funding allowed them to transform their existing outreach program into a fully-fledged prevention program. They were able to make a strategic prevention plan for the first time ever, which allowed them to grow their prevention team and increase their reach within the community.

Funding allowed grantees to connect with community members in ways they had not been able to previously.

Rainbow Services explained that with their strategic plan they were able to go beyond individualized intervention approaches and work on shifting culture.
KFAM discussed how they had previously worked for years on outreach to community leaders to tackle domestic violence, but faced challenges with the stigma associated with domestic violence. However, their new parenting training did not have as much stigma as prior outreach efforts, which allowed them to reach out and connect directly with families, offer support, and create long-term relationships to ensure that families stay free from violence.
Project Sister described how although students received the prevention training in schools, the impacts were felt beyond the students. They have seen firsthand how students take home what they learn and apply their learning to their own families to improve relationships at home.

What would happen without ongoing domestic violence prevention funding?

Each organization recognized that their important work, which supports survivors and helps prevent domestic violence, is at the peril of sporadic state funding. Organizations describe how without these grants, they would not have any prevention funding to continue sustaining these programs.

Both Project Sister and Rainbow Services explained how they are not able to do more ongoing prevention education due to a lack of ongoing funding, and that the sustainability of current programs relies on the state’s grants.
KFAM shared that the only prevention funding they have is from the Cal OES grants. Although there is much more funding provided for intervention efforts, prevention grants allowed them to be more creative with programs to prevent violence in the first place, rather than only supporting survivors afterward.

Domestic and sexual violence prevention efforts take time. These programs work on shifting culture, which takes long-term planning and commitment. However, as the organizations in the examples all noted, organizations doing this critical work cannot commit to long term programming without permanent, ongoing funding. The governor’s proposed 2024-25 budget does not include any additional funding for domestic violence prevention, which puts these programs providing critical domestic violence prevention services at risk for termination.

No Californian should live in fear over their safety. In order to adequately protect Californians from domestic and sexual violence, the state should provide ongoing, sustained funding for prevention programs that can help stop the violence before it starts.

Poverty & Inequality

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

key takeaway

Poverty Rates in California Are at the Highest in Years

Poverty Rose Across Children, Adults, and Older Adults

Poverty Increased for All, Californians of Color Face Greater Hardship

Income Inequality Remains Stark in California

Policymakers Can Cut Poverty and Create a California for All

At the federal level, these include:

California policymakers can also do more to cut poverty across the state, including by:

You may also be interested in the following resources:

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

The California Women’s Well-Being Index

Stay in the know.

The 2024 Women’s Well-Being Index was updated in collaboration with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, which provided funding, communications, outreach, and engagement support.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

The California Women’s Well-Being Index

Stay in the know.

key takeaway

what is chosen family?

1. California’s Current Definition of Family Excludes Millions

2. There is National Precedent for Expanding the Definition of Family

3. Making Paid Family Leave More Inclusive Maintains Program Stability

4. Including a Designated Family Member Does Not Strain State Funds

5. Current Contribution Rates Support Expanded Definition of Family Leave

You may also be interested in the following resources:

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

The California Women’s Well-Being Index

Stay in the know.

key takeaway

How does paid family leave in California work?

What are other states doing?

What can state leaders do to better support workers in California?

You may also be interested in the following resources:

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

The California Women’s Well-Being Index

Stay in the know.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

The California Women’s Well-Being Index

Stay in the know.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

The California Women’s Well-Being Index

Stay in the know.

key takeaway

How does California support domestic and sexual violence prevention?

What organizations have received state prevention funding?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

How has state prevention funding impacted what services organizations can provide?

What would happen without ongoing domestic violence prevention funding?

You may also be interested in the following resources:

California’s Poverty Rate Soars to Alarmingly High Levels in 2023

The California Women’s Well-Being Index

Stay in the know.