Skip to content

All Californians deserve to be able to care for themselves or their loved ones when they are ill. While California is set to become the world’s fourth-largest economy, the state lags behind when comparing paid sick leave laws across the US (see Table). As a result, many California workers face the impossible decision of going to work while sick or losing their paycheck.

In California, state law mandates that eligible workers can earn up to 24 hours of paid sick leave, depending on how many hours they work. Employers may provide workers with more paid sick time. However, workers with low wages — who are disproportionately women and people of color — are far less likely to have additional employer-provided time off. This means many workers have just three days of paid sick leave for an entire year.

How are workers left behind in California?

Left behind: A father works as a janitor and has a daughter who gets the flu. He needs to stay home and care for her. He has earned the maximum amount of paid sick leave mandated by his state, but his employer doesn’t provide any further leave.

  • In California, he uses up his 24 hours to care for his daughter because she needs to stay home from school for three days. He is now left with zero paid sick leave for the remainder of the year.
  • In Colorado, he has 48 hours of paid sick leave. He uses 24 of those hours to care for his daughter, and has 24 hours left for other illnesses that arise.

Left behind: A grocery store cashier tests positive for COVID-19. She needs to stay home for at least five days. While she worked enough hours to accumulate the maximum amount of leave provided by her state, her employer does not provide additional leave.

  • In California, she uses up her 24 hours in the first three days — leaving her with no sick leave for the rest of the year — and must stay home for two more days, unpaid. She wants to stay home for more than five days to fully recover, but that would mean going even longer without pay or working while sick.
  • In New Mexico, she has 64 hours of paid sick leave. She uses 40 hours for her isolation period, and still has 24 hours remaining to further recover.

COVID-19 demonstrated the critical importance of paid sick leave. Unfortunately, the supplemental paid sick leave put in place during the early days of the pandemic has expired. Workers need more paid time off when they or their family members are sick. It’s time for California to catch up to the states that are leading on this issue.

Paid Sick Leave Policies in Effect in the US, 2023

StateHow Many Hours Employees Must Be Allowed to Earn*Applies to Which Employers?
WashingtonNo cap: 1 hour earned for every 40 hours workedAll employers
New Mexico 64 hoursAll employers
Colorado48 hoursAll employers
Minnesota**48 hoursAll employers
Vermont40 hoursAll employers
New Jersey40 hoursAll employers
New York40 or 56 hoursEmployers with < 100 workers (40 hours)***

Employers with 100+ workers (56 hours)
Oregon40 hoursEmployers with 10+ workers
Massachusetts40 hoursEmployers with 11+ workers
Arizona24 or 40 hoursEmployers with < 15 workers (24 hours)

Employers with 15+ workers (40 hours)
Maryland40 hoursEmployers with 15+ workers
Rhode Island40 hoursEmployers with 18+ workers
Connecticut40 hoursEmployers with 50+ workers
Michigan40 hoursEmployers with 50+ workers
Washington DC3, 5, or 7 daysEmployers with < 25 workers (3 days)

Employers with 25-99 workers (5 days)

Employers with 100+ workers (7 days)
California24 hoursAll employers

* Employers may choose to provide more paid sick leave than required by state law, but these laws establish a minimum requirement that workers can earn.

** This will go into effect on January 1, 2024.

*** For employers with 4 or fewer workers, the requirement to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave applies only if the employer’s annual net income exceeded $1 million in the previous tax year.

Source: Data from A Better Balance and Budget Center analysis of state paid sick leave laws

Don't miss an update.

Join our email list!

All Californians should be able to afford food, yet many struggle to meet this basic need. CalFresh, or SNAP as it’s known federally, provides around 5 million Californians with low incomes monthly benefits to purchase food. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, CalFresh benefits were increased with emergency allotments (EA) of federal funds. In January alone, over $521 million additional dollars went out across California to CalFresh recipients. For reference, the total CalFresh issuance was about $1.36 billion in the same month. Emergency allotments accounted for nearly 40% of that amount.

Increased safety net supports, in particular EA, played an important role in reducing child poverty across California in recent years. However, this additional funding came to an end in March, which reduced families’ monthly CalFresh assistance by at least $95, and up to $258 in some cases, amid rising food prices. Already, 1 in 4 families nationwide are reporting increased levels of food insufficiency, according to recent Census data. This figure is on par with states that ended their participation in the EA program before the benefits expired federally. The loss of these additional food benefits is expected to undermine the recent decline in child poverty. With the federal Farm Bill up for reauthorization this year, federal policymakers should  improve benefit adequacy in order to keep up the progress made in recent years. In addition, state leaders should take steps to raise the CalFresh monthly benefits and broaden eligibility to currently excluded Californians to avoid pushing millions of families over the hunger cliff.

Millions of Californians Receiving CalFresh Benefited from Emergency Allotments, January 2023

Congressional DistrictRepresentativePartyEstimated Average Number of Participants, 2022*CalFresh Participants as a Share of the District  PopulationEstimated EA CalFresh Benefits in January 2023**Rank (Highest to Lowest EA Benefit)
CaliforniaN/AN/A4,896,00012.5%$521,115,000N/A
1Doug LaMalfaRepublican119,00015.5%$13,865,0005
2Jared HuffmanDemocratic76,0009.9%$8,949,00034
3Kevin KileyRepublican49,0006.3%$6,716,00048
4Mike ThompsonDemocratic66,0008.7%$8,074,00037
5Tom McClintockRepublican82,00010.6%$11,274,00025
6Ami BeraDemocratic116,00015.4%$11,492,00022
7Doris MatsuiDemocratic117,00015.4%$11,276,00024
8John GaramendiDemocratic89,00011.9%$7,090,00045
9Josh HarderDemocratic107,00013.9%$11,352,00023
10Mark DeSaulnierDemocratic37,0004.9%$6,234,00049
11Nancy PelosiDemocratic80,00011.3%$10,288,00027
12Barbara LeeDemocratic92,00012.5%$7,499,00041
13John DuarteRepublican146,00018.7%$14,458,0004
14Eric SwalwellDemocratic50,0006.7%$7,507,00040
15Kevin MullinDemocratic42,0005.7%$4,404,00052
16Anna EshooDemocratic33,0004.5%$4,755,00051
17Ro KhannaDemocratic35,0004.7%$5,374,00050
18Zoe LofgrenDemocratic89,00012.2%$6,794,00047
19Jimmy PanettaDemocratic50,0006.5%$7,012,00046
20Kevin McCarthyRepublican116,00015.1%$16,011,0003
21Jim CostaDemocratic199,00026.3%$16,958,0001
22David G. ValadaoRepublican188,00023.6%$16,318,0002
23Jay ObernolteRepublican150,00019.7%$11,905,0007
24Salud CarbajalDemocratic69,0009.1%$8,378,00036
25Raul RuizDemocratic149,00019.4%$12,351,0006
26Julia BrownleyDemocratic61,0008.1%$7,273,00042
27Mike GarciaRepublican117,00015.6%$11,639,0009
28Judy ChuDemocratic66,0008.9%$11,613,00011
29Tony CárdenasDemocratic121,00016.4%$11,593,00017
30Adam SchiffDemocratic101,00013.9%$11,608,00012
31Grace NapolitanoDemocratic100,00013.6%$11,593,00017
32Brad ShermanDemocratic69,0009.1%$11,595,00016
33Pete AguilarDemocratic126,00016.5%$11,724,0008
34Jimmy GomezDemocratic137,00018.2%$11,608,00012
35Norma TorresDemocratic95,00012.3%$11,635,00010
36Ted LieuDemocratic44,0006.0%$11,608,00012
37Sydney KamlagerDemocratic165,00021.9%$11,562,00020
38Linda SánchezDemocratic81,00010.9%$11,239,00026
39Mark TakanoDemocratic99,00013.0%$9,561,00029
40Young KimRepublican37,0004.9%$7,562,00039
41Ken CalvertRepublican71,0009.0%$9,629,00028
42Robert GarciaDemocratic121,00016.3%$11,593,00017
43Maxine WatersDemocratic166,00022.5%$11,562,00020
44Nanette BarragánDemocratic116,00015.4%$11,608,00012
45Michelle SteelRepublican84,00011.2%$7,665,00038
46Lou CorreaDemocratic103,00013.6%$7,171,00044
47Katie PorterDemocratic40,0005.3%$7,186,00043
48Darrell IssaRepublican68,0009.1%$9,244,00030
49Mike LevinDemocratic40,0005.3%$8,469,00035
50Scott PetersDemocratic51,0006.8%$9,077,00032
51Sara JacobsDemocratic87,00011.4%$9,065,00033
52Juan VargasDemocratic125,00016.5%$9,101,00031

* Figures are rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates do not sum to total due to rounding and excluded zip code data.

** Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. Estimates do not sum to total due to rounding and excluded zip code data.

Note: Values for California reflect the actual number of CalFresh participants from January to December 2022 and the total value of SNAP Emergency Allotment spent in January 2023. District-level estimates are based on zip code-level data for CalFresh recipients in December 2022. About 1% of zip code-level data are excluded due to hidden totals for de-identification purposes and special classifications of zip codes. Therefore, participation for some congressional districts may be underestimated. Data are for individuals receiving federal SNAP benefits and do not reflect individuals receiving state-funded assistance through the California Food Assistance Program.

Source: California Budget & Policy Center analysis of data from the Department of Social Services and US Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Don't miss an update.

Join our email list!

Health care should be accessible and affordable to all Californians. No one should ever have to skip or delay health care due to the cost. Forgoing preventive care or treatment for health conditions is harmful to health and well-being.

Unfortunately, many Californians lack access to affordable health care. For some, monthly health insurance premiums are too high, and so they go without coverage. But even when people have health insurance, steep out-of-pocket costs — such as copays and deductibles — often deter individuals from obtaining the care they need. The impact of unaffordable care falls disproportionately on Californians of color due to a legacy of racist policies and practices:

  • Latinx Californians are most likely to experience problems paying medical bills, followed by Black, white, and Asian Californians.
  • Latinx and Black Californians are more likely to report having medical debt.
  • Black and Latinx Californians are most likely to skip health care services due to the cost.

Ensuring that all Californians have access to affordable health coverage and that they can access care when they need it will require additional state investments. In fact, funds are already available to make coverage more affordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians. Yet, Governor Newsom has blocked efforts to use these funds to boost affordability assistance.

California’s Individual Mandate Penalty: A Funding Source to Help Make Health Coverage More Affordable

In 2019, state policymakers created a penalty that applies, with certain exceptions, to people who lack minimum essential health coverage. This penalty is formally called the “Individual Shared Responsibility Penalty,” but is more commonly known as the “individual mandate penalty.”

The individual mandate penalty has two primary purposes:

  • Encourage young and healthy people — who might be inclined to go without health insurance — to enroll in coverage in order to ensure a more balanced “risk pool” and prevent premiums from spiraling upward.
  • Provide a funding source to reduce the cost of health insurance for people who buy coverage through Covered California, our state’s health insurance marketplace.

The individual mandate penalty can be costly. An adult who lacks coverage for an entire year and doesn’t qualify for an exemption must pay at least $850 plus $425 per dependent child under 18 in the household. This means that a family with two adults and two children could face a penalty of at least $2,550.

Many Californians with low-to-moderate incomes are penalized for lacking health coverage. Specifically, nearly 2 in 5 households who reported that they owed the penalty for tax year 2020 had incomes at or below 266% of the federal poverty level (FPL). In 2020, 266% FPL reflected an annual income of around $34,000; for a family of four, it was about $69,700.

A bar chart showing the individual shared responsibility penalty by federal poverty level during the tax year 2020, where about 2 in 5 households penalized for not having minimum essential health care coverage had low-to-moderate incomes.

Individual Mandate Penalty Revenue Has Not Been Used for Its Intended Purpose

California is expected to raise a total of $1.4 billion in individual mandate penalty revenue across four state fiscal years: 2020-21 through 2023-24, which begins on July 1, 2023. (The penalty revenue is deposited into the state’s General Fund.) However, none of these dollars have been specifically budgeted to reduce the cost of insurance purchased through Covered California. Instead, some penalty revenue appears to have been absorbed by the state’s General Fund and used to support other public systems and services.

Notably, state leaders did agree in 2021 to deposit $334 million in penalty revenue into a new Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund. These dollars were explicitly set aside to fund affordability assistance for Covered California enrollees.

However, last year the governor halted implementation of an affordability assistance program that would have been supported with the penalty reserve funds. This program would have eliminated deductibles and reduced copays for hundreds of thousands of Californians who purchase health insurance through Covered California — including people with low-to-moderate incomes.

Moreover, the governor now proposes to transfer all $334 million in penalty revenue from the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund to the state’s General Fund in order to help address the projected budget shortfall. With this proposal, the governor makes clear that he does not prioritize using the penalty revenue for its intended purpose: further reducing the cost of health coverage for Californians who are struggling to afford the cost of care.

The governor also has failed to outline a plan for how to use the hundreds of millions of dollars in penalty revenue that the state will continue to receive each year from Californians who lack minimum essential health coverage. Without a plan, penalty dollars will end up supporting general state budget costs rather than being targeted to assist Californians struggling with the high cost of health care.

Penalizing Californians with Low-to-Moderate Incomes Without Addressing Health Care Affordability Is an Injustice

Penalizing Californians with low-to-moderate incomes for not obtaining health coverage and then failing to use the penalty revenue to address the high cost of coverage and care is an injustice. Additional financial assistance is critical for Californians who are uninsured and struggling to purchase coverage as well as for those who are insured but can’t afford to access the care they need. Governor Newsom should ensure that dollars raised from the state’s individual mandate penalty help people afford health insurance through Covered California, as was intended when the penalty was established.

Don't miss an update.

Join our email list!

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — known as CalFresh in California — is the largest federal food assistance program for families with low incomes. On average, nearly 5 million Californians received CalFresh benefits each month in 2022. While CalFresh participation varied across the state, around one-quarter of the population in three congressional districts depended on this program to put food on their tables.

CalFresh has been instrumental in recent years in combating poverty and feeding families as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to be felt throughout the state. This year, the program is due for reauthorization at the federal level, with the Farm Bill set to expire in September. With much of the COVID-19 pandemic relief ending or being rolled back, including SNAP emergency allotments and Pandemic EBT, many CalFresh recipients will see their benefits decrease.1See report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for additional information on temporary pandemic-related SNAP benefits. Food insecurity across California may be exacerbated without this additional support that many families have come to rely on. Federal and state leaders should protect and strengthen CalFresh.

Almost 5 Million Californians Benefited from CalFresh Every Month in 2022

Congressional DistrictRepresentativePartyEstimated Average Number of Participants, 2022*CalFresh Participants as a Share of the District  PopulationRank (Highest to Lowest Percentage)Estimated Annual CalFresh Benefits**
California4,896,00012.5%N/A$14,167,234,000
1Doug LaMalfaRepublican119,00015.5%14$343,478,000
2Jared HuffmanDemocratic76,0009.9%33$219,919,000
3Kevin KileyRepublican49,0006.3%44$140,823,000
4Mike ThompsonDemocratic66,0008.7%39$190,732,000
5Tom McClintockRepublican82,00010.6%32$236,896,000
6Ami BeraDemocratic116,00015.4%17$336,949,000
7Doris MatsuiDemocratic117,00015.4%16$338,716,000
8John GaramendiDemocratic89,00011.9%27$257,694,000
9Josh HarderDemocratic107,00013.9%19$310,064,000
10Mark DeSaulnierDemocratic37,0004.9%50$107,334,000
11Nancy PelosiDemocratic80,00011.3%29$230,125,000
12Barbara LeeDemocratic92,00012.5%24$266,687,000
13John DuarteRepublican146,00018.7%7$423,842,000
14Eric SwalwellDemocratic50,0006.7%42$145,099,000
15Kevin MullinDemocratic42,0005.7%46$122,618,000
16Anna EshooDemocratic33,0004.5%52$96,740,000
17Ro KhannaDemocratic35,0004.7%51$100,676,000
18Zoe LofgrenDemocratic89,00012.2%26$258,159,000
19Jimmy PanettaDemocratic50,0006.5%43$144,907,000
20Kevin McCarthyRepublican116,00015.1%18$334,899,000
21Jim CostaDemocratic199,00026.3%1$575,427,000
22David G. ValadaoRepublican188,00023.6%2$543,496,000
23Jay ObernolteRepublican150,00019.7%5$434,598,000
24Salud CarbajalDemocratic69,0009.1%34$201,017,000
25Raul RuizDemocratic149,00019.4%6$430,416,000
26Julia BrownleyDemocratic61,0008.1%40$176,388,000
27Mike GarciaRepublican117,00015.6%13$338,138,000
28Judy ChuDemocratic66,0008.9%38$190,214,000
29Tony CárdenasDemocratic121,00016.4%11$351,133,000
30Adam SchiffDemocratic101,00013.9%20$293,270,000
31Grace NapolitanoDemocratic100,00013.6%22$290,362,000
32Brad ShermanDemocratic69,0009.1%36$200,042,000
33Pete AguilarDemocratic126,00016.5%9$363,765,000
34Jimmy GomezDemocratic137,00018.2%8$395,248,000
35Norma TorresDemocratic95,00012.3%25$276,276,000
36Ted LieuDemocratic44,0006.0%45$126,011,000
37Sydney KamlagerDemocratic165,00021.9%4$476,158,000
38Linda SánchezDemocratic81,00010.9%31$234,789,000
39Mark TakanoDemocratic99,00013.0%23$287,857,000
40Young KimRepublican37,0004.9%49$106,302,000
41Ken CalvertRepublican71,0009.0%37$204,736,000
42Robert GarciaDemocratic121,00016.3%12$349,609,000
43Maxine WatersDemocratic166,00022.5%3$479,267,000
44Nanette BarragánDemocratic116,00015.4%15$336,596,000
45Michelle SteelRepublican84,00011.2%30$242,049,000
46Lou CorreaDemocratic103,00013.6%21$299,049,000
47Katie PorterDemocratic40,0005.3%48$115,231,000
48Darrell IssaRepublican68,0009.1%35$197,230,000
49Mike LevinDemocratic40,0005.3%47$116,891,000
50Scott PetersDemocratic51,0006.8%41$147,559,000
51Sara JacobsDemocratic87,00011.4%28$252,617,000
52Juan VargasDemocratic125,00016.5%10$361,732,000

* Figures are rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates do not sum to total due to rounding and excluded zip code data.
** Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000. Estimates do not sum to total due to rounding and excluded zip code data.

Note: Values for California reflect the actual number of CalFresh participants and the total value of CalFresh benefits for January through December. District-level estimates are based on zip code-level data for CalFresh recipients in December 2022. About 1% of zip code-level data are excluded due to hidden totals for de-identification purposes and special classifications of zip codes. Therefore, participation for some congressional districts may be underestimated. Data are for individuals receiving federal SNAP benefits and do not reflect individuals receiving state-funded assistance through the California Food Assistance Program.

Source: California Budget & Policy Center analysis of data from the Department of Social Services and US Census Bureau, American Community Survey

A map showing the estimated CalFresh participation in California in 2022 where the CalFresh program helps feed families in every congressional district.
A map showing the estimated CalFresh participation in the Los Angeles region in 2022 where the CalFresh program helps feed families in every congressional district.

Don't miss an update.

Join our email list!