Skip to content

Barriers to Higher Education Attainment: Students’ Unmet Basic Needs

May 2018 | By Amy Rose

Download Full Report

Download the PDF version of this Issue Brief.

College attainment is associated with higher incomes for individuals, greater revenue for the state and local governments, and improved outcomes for communities such as lower crime rates and better health.[1] The 21st-century economy requires more individuals with at least a college degree. Research suggests that California will experience a deficit of 1 million college-educated workers by the year 2030.[2] Students in California — and economically disadvantaged students in particular — face many obstacles to obtaining a college degree. This Brief is the first in a series highlighting some of these barriers and addressing policy solutions that help make college affordable and accessible for more low- and middle-income Californians.

Abstract

Many college students across the state experience food and housing insecurity. State and federal public supports have not kept pace with rising costs of living, leaving many students unable to meet their basic needs such as food and housing. Students facing housing and food insecurity are more likely to experience poor academic, health, and mental health outcomes. Policymakers can better support students by increasing Cal Grant student aid, improving on-campus awareness of and access to available food assistance, providing campuses with funding to help students who are experiencing homelessness and/or food insecurity, and boosting access to affordable housing.

Several Programs Aim to Support Low-Income Students’ Basic Needs

Students pursuing a college degree face two main costs: tuition and fees charged by the institution and student-related living expenses such as housing, food, transportation, and books and supplies (referred to as “nontuition and fees”). Of these living expenses, housing and food are two of the most “basic needs” that some students struggle to afford. Many low-income students qualify for grant aid that covers the cost of their tuition and fees. There are also a number of federal, state, and campus-based programs that are intended to help students pay for basic living expenses, such as housing and food. In California, these include:

  • The Cal Grant B access award. This grant provides low-income students with a “living allowance” to help pay for basic expenses. In 2018-19, the maximum annual award amount is $1,672.[3]
  • CalFresh food assistance. CalFresh — California’s version of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — is one of the most important tools to reduce poverty and hunger. The maximum monthly amount of CalFresh assistance is $192 for a single person, although students receive less if they have earnings from work.[4] In 2017, AB 214 (Weber) was signed, requiring the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC) to provide written notice to certain Cal Grant recipients that they may be eligible for CalFresh benefits.
  • Campus food pantries. Each of the 23 California State University (CSU) campuses operates a food pantry or food distribution program, stemming from the 2016 Basic Needs Initiative. This initiative aims to identify and implement solutions to support students’ basic needs, with a focus on food and housing insecurity.[5] The University of California’s (UC) Global Food Initiative also commits funding to establish food pantries at each of the UC’s nine undergraduate campuses.[6]
  • Hunger Free Campus Initiative. This program was created as part of the 2017-18 state budget agreement and supports the CSUs and UCs in addressing student hunger. The initiative provides funding to designated “hunger free campuses” that establish “meal sharing” programs, on-campus food pantries or regular food distributions, and a designated campus employee to help ensure students have the information they need to enroll in CalFresh.[7]
  • Homeless student liaisons on all campuses. Assembly Bill 801 (Bloom), signed in 2016, requires the CSU (and encourages the UC) to establish a liaison to help homeless students apply for financial aid and navigate other system resources available to them. These resources could include priority registration, selecting courses, finding housing, and information about work opportunities.

Existing Support for Low-Income Students Falls Short

The existing web of federal, state, and campus-based support programs for students has not kept pace with rising living expenses, leaving many low-income students struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table. For example, since 2006, the median rent in California has increased by 44%, whereas the maximum Cal Grant B award has gone up by only 8% (Figure 1). This means that rent accounts for a greater share of students’ budgets, reducing their ability to cover other basic necessities. In fact, more than 1 in 10 CSU students (11%) and 1 in 20 UC students (5%) reported experiencing homelessness over the past year.[8] While the state has made efforts to assist homeless students through AB 801, there has been no funding attached to this legislation, making implementation difficult for some schools.

Available food assistance also fails to meet students’ needs. While more than 4 in 10 students at both institutions reported experiencing food insecurity (42% at CSU; 44% at UC), few receive CalFresh benefits.[9] Recent studies at the CSU and UC indicate that African American and first-generation students experience the highest rates of food insecurity and homelessness.[10] Many low-income students are denied CalFresh assistance because the federal SNAP law requires students to work at least 20 hours a week or qualify for an exemption.[11] The federal eligibility guidelines and exemptions for SNAP are complicated and difficult for administrators and students to understand, resulting in the underutilization of CalFresh.[12] In addition, many students are unaware of CalFresh and other on-campus services such as food pantries.[13]

While housing costs vary, state aid to support students’ basic needs remains constant (and low) across the state.[14] The maximum Cal Grant B access award of $139 per month, combined with the maximum monthly CalFresh assistance of $192, covers less than one-quarter of basic housing and food costs in two of California’s highest-cost regions; Los Angeles/South Coast and the San Francisco Bay Area (Figure 2).[15] For instance, a low-income student at UCLA is eligible for a maximum $331 in aid, but could face monthly food and housing costs of $1,414.

How Are Students Impacted by Food and Housing Insecurity?

Unmet basic needs threaten student’s health, well-being, and academic achievements. Food and housing insecurity among college students are associated with poor health and mental health symptoms such as depression and anxiety. Food insecurity also coincides with lower academic achievement and higher rates of “inactive days,” where usual activities are stymied by poor physical or mental health.[16] Students who are concerned about their unmet basic needs often take on additional paid work to cover expenses. These students may enroll part-time, drop courses, or skip semesters — resulting in longer time to graduate and higher costs.[17]

Policy Solutions

Efforts to reduce the gap between students’ basic needs and available support have progressed, as noted earlier, through state support and programs offered by the CSU and UC systems, but there is still considerable room for improvement. California policymakers should:

  • Increase the Cal Grant B access award. Living expenses for many students exceed tuition and are the least supported by aid. Increasing the Cal Grant B access award and considering the geographic cost of living when setting award levels might allow students to limit their work hours, which in turn could help to increase the number of students graduating on time and reduce costs.
  • Improve on-campus awareness of and access to food assistance. Improving awareness about CalFresh benefits and establishing application assistance on every public college campus would help facilitate enrollment of eligible students into CalFresh. Expanding awareness about on-campus food pantries and meal sharing programs could also increase the utilization of available supports.
  • Provide campuses with funding to help students who are experiencing homelessness and/or food insecurity. AB 801 requires certain campuses to establish liaisons for homeless students and former foster youth. However, there is no funding attached to this requirement, making it difficult for many campuses to comply. Providing funding for AB 801 would help campuses carry through the Legislature’s intent and better serve the needs of students. In addition, the Legislature could require all CSU’s to participate in the Hunger Free Campus Initiative, which provides funding to campuses that are helping students with food insecurity.
  • Increase access to affordable housing. Statewide, policies that promote more housing production for all income levels and increase the production of affordable housing for low-income communities could help lessen the burden of high housing costs. At the campus level, requiring CSUs and UCs to prioritize low-income and homeless students for on-campus housing would ensure that resources are allocated to students with the greatest needs.

Conclusion

The costs associated with a college degree have risen significantly in recent years. Available state and federal aid have not kept pace with these increases, leaving many students unable to afford basic living expenses. Students who have unmet basic needs have lower health and academic outcomes and take longer to complete college and enter the workforce. In order to meet the need for more college-educated workers, state leaders should invest in programs that ensure all students have their basic needs met while striving for a college degree.

Endnotes

[1] Noah Berger and Peter Fisher, A Well-Educated Workforce Is Key to State Prosperity (Economic Analysis and Research Network: August 22, 2013).

[2] Hans Johnson, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, and Sarah Bohn, Will California Run Out of College Graduates? (Public Policy Institute of California: October 2015).

[3] California Student Aid Commission (CSAC) 2018-19 Cal Grant Programs accessed from https://www.csac.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/g-30_2018_cal_grant_comparison.pdf on May 9, 2018.

[4] Maximum monthly CalFresh benefits are annually established by the federal government. Current benefit levels are for federal fiscal year 2018, which ends on September 30, 2018. Earnings from work and other types of income reduce the amount of CalFresh benefits that an individual may receive.

[5] The Basic Needs Initiative was created by the CSU in 2016.

[6] The UC Global Food Initiative was created in 2014 to address the issue of food insecurity on UC campuses and throughout the world. For a discussion of strategies to address students’ basic needs, see University of California, Global Food Initiative: Food and Housing Security at the University of California (December 2017).

[7] “Meal sharing” programs encourage college students to donate unused meal credits to students who need them and any remaining credits to the on-campus food pantry.

[8] University of California, Global Food Initiative: Food and Housing Security at the University of California (December 2017), and Rashida Crutchfield and Jennifer Maguire, Study of Student Basic Needs (California State University: January 2018).

[9] University of California, Global Food Initiative: Food and Housing Security at the University of California (December 2017), and Rashida Crutchfield and Jennifer Maguire, Study of Student Basic Needs (California State University: January 2018).

[10] University of California, Global Food Initiative: Food and Housing Security at the University of California (December 2017), and Rashida Crutchfield and Jennifer Maguire, Study of Student Basic Needs (California State University: January 2018).

[11] For a more detailed discussion, see Responding to the College Hunger Crisis (Western Center on Law and Poverty: February 2018).

[12] AB 214 (Weber), signed in 2017, clarified student eligibility for CalFresh; however, conversations with key stakeholders reveal that limited campus staff and education for students result in continued confusion. California’s Department of Social Services does not collect statewide data on student enrollment in CalFresh. One report estimates that 78% of college students in California are eligible for CalFresh and do not receive assistance. See Young Invincibles, Rethinking SNAP Benefits for College Students (February 2018).

[13] More than half (52%) of CSU students surveyed were unaware of a food pantry located on their campus and 40% had never heard of CalFresh. Rashida Crutchfield and Jennifer Maguire, Study of Student Basic Needs (California State University: January 2018).

[14] This analysis focuses on state support only. Many low-income students are eligible for federal Pell Grants, which can be used to pay for living expenses. The average Pell Grant award was $3,740 in 2016-17.

[15] Figure 2 reflects the regional “Fair Market Rent” (FMR) for a studio apartment, which includes utilities, combined with the US Department of Agriculture’s Low-Cost Food Plan for a single adult – This food plan currently costs $268 per month. Regional FMRs are weighted by county population. Current FMRs will remain in effect through September 30, 2018.

[16] Rashida Crutchfield and Jennifer Maguire, Study of Student Basic Needs (California State University: January 2018).

[17] California Community Colleges Student Mental Health Program, Meeting Basic Needs to Support Students’ Mental Health and Success (September 2017) accessed from http://www.cccstudentmentalhealth.org/docs/CCCSMHP-Students-Basic-Needs-Fact-Sheet.pdf on May 9, 2018.

Education
Poverty & Inequality
Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Introduction

The early childhood years are the foundation for lifelong well-being and healthy development. For children living in poverty, disproportionate exposure to negative experiences compromises this development. Early interventions like home visiting can mitigate the effects of adverse life events, improving outcomes for children and their families. In light of Governor Brown’s proposal to establish a home visiting initiative in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program — our state’s welfare-to-work program — this Brief explores the rationale behind home visiting, the underlying research, and the state of home visiting in California.

Adverse Experiences Harm Children in the Long Term

Research shows that exposure to stressful situations is damaging to children, particularly in the early years.[1] Chronic stress undermines children’s immune systems and impairs their neurological development, presenting long-term health, behavioral, and academic challenges. Living in poverty can create and exacerbate these stressful conditions, imposing substantial costs on children, their families, and society.[2] With California’s high rate of child poverty (23%), the state’s children face considerable obstacles.[3] These obstacles are particularly salient for children of color, who face higher poverty rates than white children.[4] Children living in poverty are more likely to experience barriers to success, including higher risk of being born prematurely or at a low birthweight, being abused, and achieving lower educational outcomes.[5]  These experiences can limit children’s long-term chances for success and fuel intergenerational poverty. However, research also indicates that stable and supportive relationships with adults can mitigate and even reverse the effects of adverse life events.

Home Visiting Programs Can Improve Children’s Outcomes

Extensive research shows that early childhood interventions can reduce or prevent adverse life experiences and improve outcomes for at-risk families.[6] While later interventions can be successful, they are also likely to require more effort and public expenditures to address the harm.[7] Home visiting is one example of an early intervention. Home visiting programs offer parenting training and other assistance — such as help with navigating social services — to expecting parents and parents of young children, particularly those who are at risk of problems such as substance abuse, unemployment, or family violence.[8] These programs encourage positive parenting and can enhance child and maternal health, help prevent child abuse, and improve child development.[9]

Home visiting models vary widely in their target population, their home visitor qualifications, and their focus. For example, in the Healthy Families America (HFA) program, home visitors are social workers who serve low-income, at-risk families with children from birth to age 5. The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) supports low-income, first-time mothers through registered nurses who focus on child and maternal health. The variation in model design and the number of models could make it difficult to assess which models to trust and what outcomes they could yield. Fortunately, home visiting has generated an extensive body of research that identifies the impacts of each of the most commonly used models across eight broad areas:

  • Child health
  • Child development and school readiness
  • Family economic self-sufficiency
  • Linkages and referrals
  • Maternal health
  • Positive parenting practices
  • Reductions in child maltreatment
  • Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime.[10]

These areas align with the outcome categories specified in the legislation authorizing the federal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, which provides funds to states, territories, and tribes to support voluntary, evidence-based home visiting programs. Currently, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) considers 20 models to be evidence-based, including the five largest national models (by enrollment): Early Head Start-Home Visiting, HFA, NFP, Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY), and Parents as Teachers (PAT).[11] HFA and NFP have the strongest evidence base, with favorable outcomes in eight and seven areas, respectively.[12]

According to the research, home visiting produces demonstrable gains for parents and children. For example, home visiting can reduce low birth weight and premature births, help lower infant mortality, increase breastfeeding, and reduce parental stress.[13] These benefits may be particularly helpful in reducing racial health disparities, as children of color face lower rates of breastfeeding and higher infant mortality than white children.[14] Home visiting also can improve academic success and parent engagement, with participating parents more likely to read to their children and less likely to engage in harsh discipline.[15] Additionally, home visiting can improve family economic self-sufficiency through increased parental employment and improved family relationships. However, while studies point to differences in outcomes between families that received home visiting services and those that did not, these differences can be small.[16] Therefore, home visiting should be viewed not as a silver bullet, but rather as one tool among many possible early childhood interventions.

Yet research questions remain. There is little research on how effective home visiting is for some populations, such as military families and immigrant families with different cultural needs or for whom English is not their first language.[17] It is also unclear if home visiting can reduce or eliminate poverty for the child participants. The longest-term follow up study of NFP, which examined child outcomes at age 19, observed no significant effect on high school completion or economic productivity, though the authors did find reductions in teenage pregnancy and contact with the criminal justice system.[18] However, other research suggests that children’s earnings could increase due to reduced maltreatment, and some analysts have projected that NFP could raise lifetime earnings by more than $35,000 and help lift families out of poverty.[19]

In the Long Term, Benefits of Home Visiting Can Outweigh the Costs

Another way to evaluate home visiting’s value is to ask whether the benefits to families and society actually outweigh the fiscal costs of these programs. According to an evaluation of the MIECHV program, home visiting’s benefits are generally greater than its costs in the long term.[20] By preventing contact with the child welfare, criminal justice, and mental health systems, as well as increasing parental employment and earnings, home visiting can be a smart investment for the whole community. Targeting services to the most at-risk families also can pay off. In one 15-year study, benefits exceeded costs far more when services were targeted to the lowest-income families.[21]

Home Visiting in California: Fragmented and Insufficient Funding

In California, funding for home visiting comes from a patchwork of local and federal sources, with no state General Fund dollars.[22] Annual support totals at least $120 million, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).[23] The most significant investment in home visiting is through local First 5 commissions, which fund and coordinate services for children from birth to age 5.[24]  First 5 revenue is generated by a state excise tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products imposed by Proposition 10 (1998).[25] First 5 supports both national evidence-based home visiting models and local models, with total investments at $86 million in 43 counties as recently as state fiscal year 2015-16.[26] In addition, federal grants support providers of local Early Head Start-Home Visiting programs and the state-administered MIECHV program, which allocated $16.3 million for the Nurse-Family Partnership and Healthy Families America programs in 2017-18, which began on July 1, 2017.[27]

Yet this funding environment is increasingly tenuous as falling tobacco consumption has reduced revenue for local First 5 commissions.[28] Declining revenue may mean that fewer families would benefit from a home visiting program even as current capacity already falls well short of need. Only 10% to 20% of at-risk families who would likely benefit from home visiting receive those services, according to the LAO.[29]

Governor Brown’s Proposal: Home Visiting in CalWORKs

Signaling new interest in home visiting, Governor Brown’s proposed 2018-19 state budget includes a three-year home visiting pilot initiative within CalWORKs. CalWORKs is supported with both state General Fund dollars along with federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) dollars. Beginning in January 2019, this program would provide up to 24 months of home visiting for first-time parents under age 25, who would have to be either pregnant or parenting a child under age 2. (CalWORKs parents’ participation in this new program would be voluntary.) The goal would be to “help young families reach self-sufficiency by improving family engagement practices; supporting healthy development of young children living in poverty; and preparing parents for employment.”[30] The Administration assumes that the program, which counties could implement at their option, would serve about 6,500 families on average each month. The Governor proposes a total of $158.5 million in federal TANF funds for this initiative, with no state General Fund support.[31] Specifically, $26.7 million in TANF dollars would be allocated during 2018-19, and the remaining $131.8 million would be available through calendar year 2021.[32] The Department of Social Services would be required to evaluate this initiative to determine if it should continue after 2021.

Though the Administration’s CalWORKs home visiting initiative would provide more families with access to these services, it excludes parents with more than one child and those age 25 or older. However, research suggests that home visiting is beneficial even for parents with multiple children.[33] Additionally, as the average CalWORKs household has two children and is headed by a 34-year-old caregiver, there are many families whom this initiative would overlook.[34] Including these families in the home visiting pilot would extend the reach of this initiative, but would also increase the cost. As a result, the state would likely need to invest General Fund dollars in this pilot program in addition to TANF funds. Moreover, extending this initiative beyond 2021 would likely require the state to provide ongoing — rather than temporary — General Fund support for home visiting within CalWORKs in order to supplement the available TANF dollars.

Home Visiting Programs Are Good State Investments

Given the substantial research on the benefits of home visiting, the Governor’s proposed CalWORKs home visiting initiative would be a promising, though limited, investment in California’s families. State policymakers should consider widening eligibility for the pilot program to parents age 25 or older and/or with more than one child. State leaders should also consider expanding state support for evidence-based home visiting beyond CalWORKs in order to reach substantially more families. Boosting access to home visiting would require a significant and ongoing state General Fund investment, particularly as California’s primary funders of home visiting — local First 5 commissions — face declining tobacco tax revenue. However, by committing ongoing state funding for home visiting, California would affirm its support for children in the crucial early years, helping protect them from the damaging effects of toxic stress, and strengthening families into the future.

Endnotes

[1] Ross Thompson, “Stress and Child Development,” The Future of Children 24:1 (2014), pp. 41-59.

[2] Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood  (July 2010) and US Department of Health and Human Services, Strengthening TANF Outcomes by Developing Two-Generation Approaches to Build Economic Security  (April 12, 2016).

[3] This poverty rate is based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure. See Alissa Anderson, California’s Persistently High Child Poverty Rate Is Even Higher for Children of Color (California Budget & Policy Center: April 5, 2018).

[4] If the poverty rate for children of color were as low as that for white children, nearly 1 million fewer California children would be impoverished and the number of kids in poverty in our state would be cut by nearly half. See Alissa Anderson, California’s Persistently High Child Poverty Rate Is Even Higher for Children of Color (California Budget & Policy Center: April 5, 2018).

[5] Heather Sandstrom and Roxane White, Scale Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs to Reduce Poverty and Improve Health (US Partnership on Mobility From Poverty: March 2018), pp. iv and 1.

[6] Lynn A. Karoly, Rebecca Kilburn, and Jill S. Cannon, Proven Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions (RAND Corporation: 2005).

[7] Ross Thompson, “Stress and Child Development,” The Future of Children 24:1 (2014), pp. 41-59.

[8] Charles Michalopoulos, et al., The Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation: Early Findings on the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program — A Report to Congress (US Department of Health and Human Services: January 2015).

[9] US Department of Health and Human Services, The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program: Partnering With Parents to Help Children Succeed (no date), accessed from https://mchb.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/mchb/MaternalChildHealthInitiatives/HomeVisiting/pdf/programbrief.pdf on April 2, 2018.

[10] Through Mathematica Policy Research, HHS evaluates the research literature in the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness (HomVEE) study. A model is “evidence-based” if at least one rigorous evaluation points to favorable and statistically significant impacts in two or more of the eight areas or if at least two rigorous evaluations with non-overlapping samples find one or more positive and significant impacts in the same area. See Emily Sama-Miller, et al., Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness Review: Executive Summary (US Department of Health and Human Services: August 2017), p. 6.

[11] Through Early Head Start-Home Visiting, low-income pregnant women and families with children up to age three receive home visits and group socialization opportunities. The Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters program helps parents prepare their preschool-aged children for school. Parents as Teachers pairs parents with trained parent educators who focus on school readiness, child development, and abuse. Heather Sandstrom and Roxane White, Scale Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs to Reduce Poverty and Improve Health (US Partnership on Mobility From Poverty: March 2018), p. 8.

[12] For a detailed breakdown of impacts by model type, see Emily Sama-Miller, et al., Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness Review: Executive Summary (US Department of Health and Human Services: August 2017), pp. 14-15.

[13] Heather Sandstrom and Roxane White, Scale Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs to Reduce Poverty and Improve Health (US Partnership on Mobility From Poverty: March 2018), p. 2.

[14] Studies suggest that African-Americans have lower rates of breastfeeding than whites and higher rates of infant mortality. See Heather Sandstrom and Roxane White, Scale Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs to Reduce Poverty and Improve Health (US Partnership on Mobility From Poverty: March 2018), p.9. For California-specific data, see The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Low Birth-Weight Babies by Race (updated May 2017), accessed from https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/16-low-birth-weight-babies-by-race?loc=6&loct=2&loc=6&loct=2#detailed/2/6/false/573,869,36,868,867/10,11,9,12,1,13/276,275 on April 2, 2018 and The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Infant Mortality by Race (updated May 2017), accessed from https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/21-infant-mortality-by-race?loc=6&loct=2&loc=6&loct=2#detailed/2/6/false/573,869,36,868,867/10,11,9,12,1,13/285,284 on April 2, 2018.

[15] Rachel Herzfeldt-Kamprath, Maura Calsyn, and Thomas Huelskoetter, Medicaid and Home Visiting: Best Practices From States (Center for American Progress: January 25, 2017).

[16] Congressional Research Service, Maternal and Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program: Background and Funding (February 15, 2017), p. 2, downloaded from http://homevisitingcoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/CRS-Report.pdf, on April 20, 2018.

[17] Emily Sama-Miller, et al., Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness Review: Executive Summary (US Department of Health and Human Services: August 2017), p. 19.

[18] John Eckenrode, et al., “Long-term Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation on the Life Course of Youths: 19-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial,” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 164:1 (2010), pp. 9-15.

[19] Charles Michalopoulos, et al., The Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation: Early Findings on the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program — A Report to Congress (US Department of Health and Human Services: January 2015), p. 10 and Heather Sandstrom and Roxane White, Scale Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs to Reduce Poverty and Improve Health (US Partnership on Mobility From Poverty: March 2018), p. 10.

[20] MDRC assesses the effectiveness of different MIECHV-supported models, variation in program implementation, and cost-effectiveness through a random-assignment study called the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE). See Charles Michalopoulos, et al., Evidence on the Long-Term Effects of Home Visiting Programs: Laying the Groundwork for Long-Term Follow-Up in the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE) (US Department of Health and Human Services: September 2017), pp. 5-9.

[21] See Charles Michalopoulos, et al., Evidence on the Long-Term Effects of Home Visiting Programs: Laying the Groundwork for Long-Term Follow-Up in the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE) (US Department of Health and Human Services: September 2017), p. 8.

[22] Children Now, Voluntary Evidence-Based Home Visiting in California (February 15, 2018).

[23] Legislative Analyst’s Office, The 2018-19 Budget: Analysis of the Health and Human Services Budget (February 16, 2018).

[24] Children Now, Early Childhood Home Visiting in California: The Right Place at the Right Time (September 2014).

[25] Excise tax revenue raised by Prop. 10 is used to support services that improve early childhood development. These funds are divided between the state First 5 Commission (which receives 20%) and local First 5 commissions (which receive the remaining 80%). See California Budget & Policy Center, How Much Does California Spend on Programs and Services for Children and Youth? (March 2006), p. 3.

[26] Email communication with First 5 Association of California (April 26, 2018).

[27] California administers federal MIECHV funds through the California Home Visiting Program, which supports NFP and HFA programs in 23 counties. See California Department of Public Health, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division “Allocations,” https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DMCAH/Pages/Allocations.aspx accessed on April 18, 2018.

[28] Cigarette consumption has continued to decline in recent decades in California, particularly after public health campaigns and higher state excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products. California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2016: Over 25 Years of Tobacco Control in California (October 2016).

[29] Legislative Analyst’s Office, The 2018-19 Budget: Analysis of the Health and Human Services Budget (February 16, 2018).

[30] Department of Finance, Governor’s Budget Summary 2018-19 (January 2018), p. 63.

[31] These federal TANF dollars would be “freed up” due to an anticipated decline in CalWORKs enrollment in the coming years. As California’s economy expands, more families are able to increase their employment and see their incomes rise. In turn, fewer families need or qualify for CalWORKs cash assistance, thus reducing the number of families enrolled in the program. Declining CalWORKs enrollment “frees up” funds — including TANF dollars — that can be used for certain other state purposes. The number of CalWORKs families has fallen by nearly 30% since 2010-11; the 2017-18 enrollment of 425,000 represents an historic 20-year low. See Legislative Analyst’s Office, The 2018-19 Budget: Analysis of the Health and Human Services Budget (February 16, 2018).

[32] The estimated 2018-19 expenditure level — $26.7 million — reflects a half-year cost (January through June 2019). The cost for a full fiscal year is estimated to be $52.5 million. Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health and Human Services agenda for April 4, 2018 hearing, p. 26.

[33] Joseph Galano and Lee Huntington, Comparison of Primiparous and Multiparous Mothers: Healthy Families Program Participation, Outcomes, Challenges, and Adaptations FY 1999-FY 2010 (June 2012).

[34] California Department of Social Services, CalWORKs Annual Summary: California Families on the Road to Self-Sufficiency (January 2017), p. 5.

California Budget
Health
Poverty & Inequality

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Senior Policy Analyst Alissa Anderson provided invited testimony for Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration as part of a panel that discussed the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC). This handout includes the charts she presented as well as our updated research summary on how the CalEITC builds on the success of the federal EITC.

California Budget
Poverty & Inequality

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Executive Summary

Established as part of the 2015-16 state budget package, the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) is a refundable state credit that helps people who earn little from their jobs to pay for basic necessities. An updated research summary from the Budget Center discusses how, by “piggybacking” on the federal EITC, state EITCs like that in California not only help families to better make ends, but also may enhance the various positive impacts of the federal EITC, such as reducing poverty, encouraging work, and potentially creating other long-term benefits for workers and their families.

Read the report. 

California Budget
Poverty & Inequality
Taxes & Revenue

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program provides modest cash assistance to about 860,000 low-income children while helping parents overcome barriers to work and find jobs. Despite modest increases in recent years, CalWORKs grants still fall far short of allowing families to maintain a decent standard of living.[1] Although Governor Brown projects substantial positive state General Fund balances for the next few years, his proposed 2018-19 budget does not make any new investments in CalWORKs grants, leaving the maximum monthly grant for a family of three living in a high-cost county $9 lower than it was in 2006, without even adjusting for inflation.[2]

This lack of investment in CalWORKs is especially striking given that median monthly rents have steadily increased in recent years, widening the gap between housing costs and cash assistance. In other words, the Governor has chosen not to prioritize new investments in one of the state’s most vital supports for low-income families with children, even though these families are finding it harder each year to keep a roof over their heads.

Median Rents Far Exceed CalWORKs Grants

Regardless of where families live in California, the typical monthly rent far exceeds monthly CalWORKs grants. For example, the maximum monthly grant for a family of three in a high-cost county in 2018 ($714) covers just 43% of the median monthly rent for a two-bedroom unit ($1,658). This is down from covering 61% of the cost of rent in 2006, when the maximum monthly grant was $723 and the median rent was $1,180.[3] Viewed another way, the maximum monthly CalWORKs grant for a parent with two children now falls $944 short of covering the monthly cost of a two-bedroom rental, more than double the gap of $457 in 2006. Even in low-cost counties, median rents have exceeded maximum grant levels in recent years, although the gap between rents and grants is somewhat narrower than in high-cost counties. In these counties, the maximum grant for a family of three in 2018 ($680) falls $344 short of covering the cost of a two-bedroom rental ($1,024).

 

Unstable Housing Is Harmful to Children

Children in CalWORKs families pay the price when grants fall short of rent costs. Housing instability and overcrowding increase children’s stress and contribute to poor health, behavior problems, and difficulty learning.[4] When parents face high rent burdens, they have fewer resources to meet other basic expenses and to invest in their children’s development. Furthermore, high housing costs put children at risk of homelessness. According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), on a single night in 2017, a total of 21,522 people in families with children were homeless in California.[5] In Los Angeles County, the number of CalWORKS families who reported lacking a stable place to live almost tripled between 2006 and 2017, even as the number of all families served by the program declined by nearly 10% during that period.[6] Insufficient grants could therefore undermine the first goal of CalWORKs: reducing child poverty in California.

How Can Policymakers Help CalWORKs Families Better Afford Housing?

Helping families afford stable housing in California will require significant, sustained efforts by federal, state, and local leaders, and a long-term solution to the state’s housing crisis will likely take time to develop and implement. In the meantime, however, policymakers can provide families in the greatest need, such as CalWORKs families, with some relief by increasing their incomes through grants and reducing their costs of housing.

State Policymakers Should Raise CalWORKs Grants, Restore the Annual State Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA), and Improve Housing and Homelessness Assistance

Due to the elimination of the annual state COLA along with grant reductions during and after the Great Recession, the maximum CalWORKs grant for a family of three has lost more than one-quarter of its purchasing power since 2007-08. Moreover, since 1998-99, the first full fiscal year after the program was created, the maximum grant has lost 37% of its purchasing power.[7] While state leaders have provided some grant increases in recent years, they have not fully restored cuts made in prior years. The current grant is equal to just 41% of the federal poverty line (FPL), leaving it well below the deep-poverty line (50% of the FPL).[8] The Governor’s proposed budget for 2018-19 does not call for increasing CalWORKs grants or reinstating the annual COLA, despite the fact that state revenues are projected to exceed expenditures by billions of dollars.

In the short term, state policymakers should raise maximum grants to at least 50% of the FPL to ensure that no CalWORKs family lives in deep poverty, which is particularly detrimental to children.[9] Over the longer term, policymakers should boost grants further so that families can better meet our state’s high housing costs. Moreover, grants should more accurately reflect regional differences in the cost of living. In high-cost counties, the maximum monthly CalWORKs grant for a family of three is just $34 more than in low-cost counties, even though the actual median rent differential for two-bedroom units is $634. Lastly, state leaders should allow CalWORKs families to access housing and homelessness assistance when they need it throughout the year and should also expand the types of housing providers and arrangements for which families may receive assistance.[10]

Federal Policymakers Should Expand Rental Assistance

Federal rental assistance — particularly through the Housing Choice Voucher program — helps hundreds of thousands of Californians afford rent.[11] Research shows that by subsidizing rental costs, housing vouchers decrease overcrowding, housing instability, and homelessness.[12] Vouchers also free up resources that families can put toward other basic needs. However, voucher receipt has fallen due to federal budget cuts and rental assistance does not reach many struggling families. CalWORKs families face dire circumstances, as nearly 9 in 10 families (88%) did not receive federal housing assistance in 2016, based on Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates.[13] California’s needs gap is exacerbated by regional differences: a smaller share of families living in poverty with young children receive housing subsidies in high-cost counties than in low-cost counties.[14]

Despite this tremendous unmet need, President Trump’s proposed budget for the 2019 federal fiscal year (which begins on October 1, 2018) actually calls for raising rents on a substantial number of people receiving rental assistance, potentially affecting over 138,000 Californian households.[15] Additionally, the President’s call for cuts to housing vouchers could cause about 27,000 households in California to lose their housing vouchers.[16] Rather than taking steps backward, federal policymakers should instead strengthen investments in rental assistance so that families can better afford a roof over their heads.

Endnotes

[1] Kristin Schumacher, CalWORKs Grants Are Overdue for a Significant Investment (California Budget & Policy Center: February 2018).

[2] Accounting for inflation, the proposed 2018-19 maximum grant for a family of three in a high-cost county is $269 lower than in 2007-08. See Kristin Schumacher, CalWORKs Grants Are Overdue for a Significant Investment (California Budget & Policy Center: February 2018).

[3] Median rents reflect gross monthly rents, which include the cost of utilities and fuels. The median rent for high-cost counties reflects the median rent for all high-cost counties combined, while that for low-cost counties reflects the median rent for all low-cost counties combined. High-cost and low-cost counties were determined based on the definitions in California’s Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), Section 11452.018, with one exception: San Benito County. Specifically, the US Census Bureau data used in this analysis do not allow San Benito County (a low-cost county) to be distinguished from Monterey County (a high-cost county). As such, San Benito County is grouped with high-cost counties. Since San Benito is not a very populous county, combining it with high-cost counties is unlikely to substantially affect the analysis. Rents for years 2006 to 2016 are from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. For 2017 and 2018, median rents are estimated based on the compound annual growth rate in median rents between 2011 and 2016.

[4] Claudia D. Solari and Robert D. Mare, “Housing Crowding Effects on Children’s Wellbeing,” Social Science Research 41.2 (2012), pp. 464-476.

[5] The 21,522 figure from HUD is a point-in-time estimate and refers to “a person who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” on one day of the year. The number of homeless families with children is likely far greater, as this estimate does not include people who are living with friends or family or in motels because they do not have places of their own. For more on the gaps in HUD point-in-time numbers, see Alissa Anderson, Many People in Our Communities Lack a Home for the Holidays (California Budget and Policy Center: November 23, 2015). For HUD’s estimates, see US Department of Housing and Urban Development, The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1—Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness (December 2017). For HUD’s methodology, see US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Point-in-Time Count Methodology Guide (September 2014).

[6] Personal communication with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services on February 12, 2018. These figures reflect CalWORKs families in Los Angeles County in July 2006 and July 2017.

[7] Budget Center analysis of data from the Department of Social Services. If CalWORKs grants had been adjusted annually using the California Necessities Index, in the 2018-19 fiscal year the grant would have been $1,136. This would have been greater than the deep-poverty line (50% of the FPL), but still well below the poverty line.

[8] Kristin Schumacher, CalWORKs Grants Are Overdue for a Significant Investment (California Budget & Policy Center: February 2018).

[9] Emily Cuddy, Joanna Venator, and Richard V. Reeves, In a Land of Dollars: Deep Poverty and Its Consequences (The Brookings Institution: May 7, 2015).

[10] Current law provides homeless CalWORKs families temporary housing assistance, but mandates that families use the assistance for up to 16 consecutive days within 12 months or else lose their eligibility. In other words, even if a family accepts assistance for fewer than 16 days in a row, they become ineligible for additional assistance for the rest of the year even if they experience another spell of homelessness later. Additionally, the law allows families to receive funds once every 12 months to secure longer-term housing or to avoid eviction. However, this assistance only pay­­­s for housing arrangements through hotels and motels, shelters, or those with a history of renting properties. According to the County Welfare Directors Association of California, in some counties, families trying to secure housing through a shared housing arrangement such as a sublease have been unable to receive aid because of this restriction. For more, see Assembly Committee on Human Services, Analysis of AB 1921  (March 2, 2018).

[11] Douglas Rice, Ehren Dohler, and Alicia Mazzara, How Housing Vouchers Can Help Address California’s Rental Crisis (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: February 12, 2016).

[12] Will Fischer, Research Shows Housing Vouchers Reduce Hardship and Provide Platform for Long-Term Gains Among Children (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: October 7, 2015).

[13] Personal communication with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) on March 29, 2018. CBPP divided the number of households receiving federal housing assistance who report participating in CalWORKs by the annual monthly average CalWORKs caseload. CalWORKs caseload data come from California’s Department of Social Services and exclude Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement cases. Federal housing assistance data come from US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrative data and reflect the following HUD-administered rental assistance programs: Public Housing; Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers; Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including Moderate Rehabilitation); Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202); Supportive Housing for People With Disabilities (Section 811); Rent Supplement; and the Rental Assistance program. This analysis does not include a relatively small number of households receiving assistance through homelessness programs, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or the US Department of Agriculture’s Rural Rental Assistance program (Section 521).

[14] Sarah Bohn and Caroline Danielson, Reducing Child Poverty in California: A Look at Housing Costs, Wages, and the Safety Net (Public Policy Institute of California: November 2017).

[15] The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates rent increases for nearly 1.8 million low-income households nationally. See Will Fischer, Trump Rent Plan Would Squeeze Low-Wage Workers, Others Struggling to Afford Housing (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: February 9, 2018). President Trump’s proposed budget would “mitigate” the rent increase for “the elderly and persons with disabilities.” CBPP’s estimates assume an exemption for these households. For the budget proposal, see Office of Management and Budget, Efficient, Effective, Accountable: An American Budget—Major Savings and Reforms (Federal Fiscal Year 2019), p.52.

[16] Douglas Rice, Trump 2019 Budget Slashes Aid for Families Struggling to Pay Rent (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: February 12, 2018).

California Budget
Poverty & Inequality
Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — known as CalFresh in California — will provide food assistance to an estimated 4 million Californians on average each month during the 2017-18 state fiscal year. The percentage of Californians receiving CalFresh varies across the state’s 53 House districts but is especially high in the San Joaquin Valley. For example, an estimated 1 in 4 people will receive CalFresh benefits in both the 21st District (R-Valadao) and the 16th District (D-Costa) (see Map 1 below). In contrast, the share of residents receiving CalFresh benefits is smaller in higher-income, coastal districts such as the 33rd District (D-Lieu), where just 2 out of every 100 individuals are enrolled in CalFresh (see Map 2 below).

The Farm Bill authorizes funding for SNAP and other food and agriculture programs and will expire later this year. Federal reauthorization of the Farm Bill presents an opportunity to expand SNAP’s powerful and cost-effective antipoverty effects. However, Republican leaders in Congress have set a goal of substantially scaling back federal support for SNAP. Moreover, President Trump’s proposed budget for federal fiscal year 2019 — which begins on October 1 — would cut SNAP funding by nearly 30% over the next 10 years by restructuring the program and limiting benefits and eligibility. Cuts of this magnitude would increase hunger among children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities.

Map 1

Map 2

Poverty & Inequality
Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!