Skip to content

The California Budget & Policy Center continued our Policy Perspectives Speakers Series with The State Budget Process and Key Issues to Watch for in 2019. This half-day event in Sacramento at the California Endowment’s Adelante Room included a refresher on the state budget process and a discussion on what to expect in 2019.

 

View full webinar recording:

 

Click here to get the slide deck presented at the event.

Our publications distributed at the event:

Dollars and Democracy: A Guide to the State Budget Process

Infographic: Navigating the State Budget Process

Dollars and Democracy: Understanding How the State Budget Process Relates to the Policy Bill Process

 

This event included two sessions:

Part I: Dollars and Democracy: An Introduction to the State Budget Process

  • Scott Graves, Director of Research, California Budget & Policy Center

This first session was geared to those interested in learning about — or refreshing their knowledge of — the basics of California’s state budget process, including what happens when, and the roles of the Governor, the Legislature, and the public.

Part II: State Budget and Policy Preview: What to Expect in 2019

With a new Governor preparing to take office, this session looked ahead to the upcoming state budget and legislative deliberations. Panelists explored the key debates that will shape budget and policy choices at the state and national levels and what’s at stake for low- and middle-income Californians.

  • Alissa Anderson, Senior Policy Analyst, California Budget & Policy Center (moderator)
  • Carolyn Chu, Deputy Legislative Analyst, State and Local Finance, Legislative Analyst’s Office
  • Melanie Mason, State Government and Politics Reporter, Los Angeles Times
  • Frank Mecca, Executive Director, County Welfare Directors Association of California
  • Chris Woods, Budget Director, Office of Senate President pro Tem Toni Atkins

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Executive Summary

Earlier today, Governor Jerry Brown signed more than 20 bills in the 2018-19 state budget package, his final budget as Governor. The new budget package forecasts revenues that are $8.0 billion higher — over a three-year window — than projected in January, due to strong economic growth.

The budget agreement prioritizes building up state reserves. As required by Proposition 2 (2014), $3.5 billion is set aside, with half going to the state’s rainy day fund and half to pay down debts. An optional $2.6 billion is deposited into a new, temporary reserve; $2 billion is placed in a discretionary reserve; and a new $200 million “safety net reserve” is created to help support CalWORKs and Medi-Cal services in an economic downturn. State reserves are expected to total almost $16.0 billion by the end of 2018-19.

The 2018-19 budget makes some notable investments in the economic security of Californians. It strengthens the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) by extending eligibility to young adults and seniors who are currently excluded and raising the income eligibility limit to account for the rising state minimum wage. The budget also includes key investments in the safety net: providing funding for CalWORKs grant increases to help address deep poverty; establishing a CalWORKs home visiting pilot; and ending the “SSI cash-out,” a state policy that prohibits many low-income seniors and people with disabilities from receiving federal food assistance through the CalFresh program.

Significant investments are also made in education. Growth in state revenues means increased funding for K-14 education under the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee, including funding to support full implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula for K-12 schools. The budget also provides additional support for California’s Community Colleges (CCCs), creates a new formula allocating CCC funds, and establishes an online community college. The California State University and University of California receive increases in one-time and ongoing funding. In addition, the new budget package provides modest increases for early childhood education and to address homelessness, though far less than what the Legislature had sought.

In several areas, the budget provides a roadmap for investments in coming years, calling for future savings in excess of the state’s rainy day fund cap to be split among construction and maintenance of state buildings, housing, and rail projects; cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) to be reinstated for CalWORKs and SSI/SSP by 2022-23; and a plan for achieving unified financing of health care delivery in California.

The following sections summarize key provisions of the 2018-19 budget.

Download full report (PDF) or use the links below to browse individual sections of this report

Budget Package Brings Constitutional Rainy Day Fund Balance to Its Maximum Level

California voters approved Proposition 2 in November 2014, amending the California Constitution’s rules for the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), commonly referred to as the rainy day fund. Prop. 2 requires an annual set-aside equal to 1.5% of estimated General Fund revenues. An additional set-aside is required when capital gains revenues in a given year exceed 8% of General Fund tax revenues. For 15 years — from 2015-16 to 2029-30 — half of these funds will be deposited into the rainy day fund and the other half will be used to reduce certain state liabilities (also known as “budgetary debt”).

The 2018-19 budget package assumes that Prop. 2 will constitutionally require the state to deposit $1.75 billion into the BSA and to use an additional $1.75 billion to repay budgetary debt. Moreover, the budget deal includes the Governor’s proposal to make an optional deposit of $2.6 billion into the BSA in 2018-19 in order to bring the rainy day fund to its constitutional maximum — 10% of General Fund tax revenue. (As explained in the section titled “Budget Agreement Creates Two New Reserves,” this additional $2.6 billion will temporarily be held in a new reserve called the Budget Deficit Savings Account.) Overall, the 2018-19 budget agreement assumes a $4.4 billion transfer from the General Fund to the BSA: $1.75 billion as required by the state Constitution, plus the $2.6 billion optional deposit. With these funds, the BSA balance is projected to grow to $13.8 billion by the end of the 2018-19 fiscal year, which ends on June 30, 2019. If future mandatory deposits exceed the BSA’s maximum capacity, Prop. 2 would require these “overflow” funds to be spent on infrastructure. The 2018-19 budget package includes a plan for allocating any such excess funds, beginning in 2019-20, for “state buildings and their deferred maintenance, housing, and rail projects,” according to the Assembly Floor Report.

Along with the constitutional rainy day fund, the state has a separate discretionary reserve called the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU), which was established in the early 1980s. The budget package assumes that the state will end the 2018-19 fiscal year with an SFEU balance of $2.0 billion.

Back to Top

Budget Agreement Creates Two New Reserves

The 2018-19 budget deal creates two new reserves: the Safety Net Reserve Fund, which includes both a CalWORKs subaccount and a Medi-Cal subaccount, and the Budget Deficit Savings Account (BDSA). The purpose of the Safety Net Reserve Fund is to set aside funds that can be used to maintain benefits and services for CalWORKs and Medi-Cal participants during economic downturns when state revenues decline and need rises. The budget agreement deposits $200 million General Fund into the CalWORKs subaccount and requires the Department of Finance (DOF), in consultation with certain other departments, to establish a process for making future deposits into the reserve and for withdrawing and distributing funds from the reserve.

The BDSA will temporarily hold a $2.6 billion discretionary deposit (above what is constitutionally required to be deposited) into the state’s existing rainy day fund, the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA). This reflects the amount of additional funds the Administration currently projects are needed to bring the BSA up to its constitutional maximum in 2018-19. The Administration will revise this amount based on updated budget projections in May 2019 and that amount will be transferred from the BDSA to the BSA no earlier than May 31, 2019. Half of any funds remaining in the BDSA will be transferred to the Safety Net Reserve Fund, while the remainder will stay in the BDSA.

Back to Top

Budget Agreement Strengthens the CalEITC

The 2018-19 budget deal strengthens the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) — a refundable state tax credit that boosts the incomes of low-earning workers and their families, helping them afford necessities. Specifically, the agreement:

  • Extends the CalEITC to low-earning young adults and seniors who are ineligible for the credit. Currently, workers without dependents have to be between the ages of 25 and 64 to qualify for the CalEITC. The budget deal would change this requirement beginning in tax year 2018 so that workers without dependents could qualify for the credit as long they are at least age 18.
  • Modestly increases the income limit to qualify for the credit to account for the rising state minimum wage. Currently, workers with dependents have to earn less than about $22,000 annually to qualify for the credit — roughly equal to full-time, year-round earnings for a worker earning $10.50 per hour (the state’s minimum wage for large businesses in 2017). The budget deal would raise this income limit beginning in tax year 2018 to just under $25,000 — equivalent to full-time, year-round earnings for workers earning $12 per hour (the state’s minimum wage for large businesses in 2019.) The CalEITC income limit would also increase for workers who do not have dependents, going from about $15,000 currently to almost $17,000.

These two provisions are expected to reduce General Fund revenues by $60 million in 2018-19.

The budget agreement also provides $10 million General Fund to support community-based efforts to promote the CalEITC and evaluate those efforts as well as to support organizations that provide free tax preparation services.

The budget deal does not include an Assembly proposal to extend the CalEITC to low-earning immigrants who are currently ineligible for the credit because they file their taxes using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs).

Back to Top

Budget Package Creates New Process for Certifying Proposition 98 Minimum Funding Guarantee

Approved by voters in 1988, Proposition 98 constitutionally guarantees a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools, community colleges, and the state preschool program. The 2018-19 budget agreement assumes the same Prop. 98 funding levels as were reflected in the May Revision: $78.4 billion in 2018-19, $75.6 billion in 2017-18, and $71.6 billion in 2016-17.

The budget agreement establishes a new process for how the state certifies the final annual funding level guaranteed under Prop. 98. Specifically, the budget package requires the Department of Finance (DOF) to calculate and publish the Prop. 98 guarantee no later than May 14 for the prior fiscal year and, after a period of public comment, to issue a final certification of the minimum funding obligation and publish this amount by August 15. (For example, the final certification for fiscal year 2017-18 must be published by August 15, 2019.) Any legal challenge to a final certification must be filed within 90 days of DOF’s publication of the Prop. 98 guarantee. The budget agreement also establishes a new process for finalizing prior-year Prop. 98 spending, adjusts the Prop. 98 guarantee to include the cost of wraparound preschool provided by K-12 school districts and county offices of education (COEs), and requires DOF to certify the Prop. 98 guarantee for 2009-10 through 2016-17.

Back to Top

Budget Supports Full Implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for K-12 Education

The largest share of Proposition 98 funding goes to California’s school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education (COEs), which provide instruction to approximately 6.2 million students in grades kindergarten through 12. The 2018-19 budget agreement increases funding for the state’s K-12 education funding formula — the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) — and, consistent with the Governor’s January proposal and his May Revision, provides sufficient dollars to reach the LCFF’s target funding level in 2018-19. Specifically, the budget agreement:

  • Provides $3.7 billion to support full implementation of the LCFF, an increase of $407 million above the May Revision. The LCFF provides school districts, charter schools, and COEs a base grant per student, adjusted to reflect the number of students at various grade levels, as well as additional grants for the costs of educating English learners, students from low-income families, and foster youth. The budget agreement provides a 3.7% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2018-19 for the purpose of calculating LCFF grant targets for K-12 districts and charter schools and provides the remaining funds needed to reach those grant targets and fully implement the LCFF in 2018-19. (All COEs reached their LCFF funding targets in 2014-15.) The budget agreement also includes a provision that would appropriate LCFF dollars to K-12 school districts in future years even if the Legislature does not act and, further, automatically adjusts this appropriation for increases in the cost of living and for changes in enrollment.
  • Provides $1.1 billion in one-time funding to reduce mandate debt the state owes to schools, down from $2.0 billion proposed in the May Revision. Mandate debt reflects the cost of state-mandated services that school districts, charter schools, and COEs provided in prior years, but for which they have not yet been reimbursed.
  • Rejects an Assembly proposal to create an ongoing LCFF grant for low-performing students. However, the budget agreement provides $300 million in one-time funding to establish the Low-Performing Students Block Grant to support students who do not meet academic standards on English and mathematics assessments and who are not eligible to receive supplemental grant funding under the LCFF nor identified to receive special education services.
  • Provides $164 million to support the Strong Workforce Program, down from $212 million proposed in the Governor’s January budget proposal. The budget agreement provides $150 million for a K-12-specific component of the Strong Workforce Program, which was established as part of the 2016-17 budget for the purpose of expanding community college career technical education (CTE) and workforce development programs. The budget package also allocates $14 million for K–12 Workforce Pathway Coordinators and K–14 Technical Assistance Providers to provide technical support to K-12 districts that operate CTE programs.
  • Allocates $125 million in one-time funding to address the state’s teacher shortage in special education and other areas. The budget package establishes two new competitive grant programs to address areas in which California currently has teacher shortages. The budget allocates $75 million for a new Teacher Residency Grant Program, including $50 million to recruit and prepare special education teachers and $25 million to recruit and prepare science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or bilingual education teachers. The budget also includes $50 million for a new Local Solutions Grant Program to provide “locally identified solutions” that address the need for special education teachers.
  • Maintains the COLA for non-LCFF programs proposed in the May Revision. The budget agreement provides $114 million to fund a 2.71% COLA proposed in the May Revision for several categorical programs that remain outside of the LCFF, up from the January proposal of a 2.51% COLA. These programs include special education, child nutrition, and American Indian Education Centers.
  • Provides $27.1 million for the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC). The budget agreement approves the Governor’s May Revision proposal to convert the ELPAC to a computer-based assessment from one that is paper-based as well as to develop a computer-based alternative for children with exceptional needs. The budget agreement makes these one-time dollars available for fiscal years 2018-19 through 2021-22.
  • Provides $15 million in one-time funding to expand the state’s Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS). The budget agreement approves the May Revision proposal to provide funding to the Orange County Department of Education to contract, jointly with the Butte County Office of Education, a to-be-identified California higher education institution to expand the state’s MTSS with the goal of fostering positive school climate in both academic and behavioral areas.
  • Provides $13.3 million in one-time funding to create the Community Engagement Initiative. The budget agreement approves the May Revision proposal to create this initiative to build the capacity of communities and school districts to deepen community engagement with the goal of improving student outcomes. The budget agreement allocates these one-time dollars to the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, includes several performance benchmarks for their use, and makes funding available through the 2023-24 fiscal year.

Back to Top

Budget Agreement Moves Forward With New Community College Funding Formula and Online College

A portion of Proposition 98 funding provides support for California’s community colleges (CCCs), which help prepare over 2 million students to transfer to four-year institutions as well as obtain training and employment skills. The 2018-19 budget agreement approves two new community college proposals: a new funding formula for CCC general-purpose apportionments and the establishment of a fully online community college. Specifically, the new spending plan:

  • Provides a $522.8 million increase for the new CCC funding formula and adjusts apportionments. The spending plan adopts a new funding formula that apportions funding to districts based on three grant components: a base grant, a supplemental grant, and a student success incentive grant. Funding is allocated as follows:
      • A 70% base grant for each district, based on enrollment of per-Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES).
      • A 20% supplemental grant based on the number of low-income College Promise Grant fee waiver recipients; specified undocumented students qualifying for resident tuition; and all Pell grant recipients.
      • A 10% student success incentive grant based on performance outcomes of economically disadvantaged students, student transfer rates to four-year institutions, wages of students who have completed a degree or certification program, and other factors.

The final budget includes a “hold harmless” provision that maintains funding for all CCC districts for three years at no less than the amount of funding received in 2017-18 and provides an increase for each district to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment.

  • Approves new fully online community college. The final budget agreement allocates $120 million ($100 million in one-time funding and $20 million in ongoing funding) for the creation of a new online college. The agreement specifies that this online college will develop unique courses and programs that lead to short-term credentials that are not available at local campuses and that lead into pathways offered at existing colleges. The plan permits the online college to establish its own fee structure, but prohibits it from charging fees higher than a traditional college. The final agreement requires the online college to provide evidence to the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Legislature that it has achieved accreditation candidacy by April 1, 2022 and full accreditation by April 1, 2025.
  • Consolidates the Student Success and Support Program, the Student Success for Basic Skills Program, and the Student Equity Program into a single block grant. These three categorical programs, which target similar communities of students, will be integrated with the intent of increasing program flexibility.
  • Provides $23 million for deferred maintenance and other CCC expenses.

Back to Top

Budget Package Increases Funding for CSU and UC, While Making Several Adjustments Regarding Financial Aid Programs

The budget package significantly boosts the funding levels in the May Revision for the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC). Specifically, the revised spending plan:

  • Increases CSU ongoing funding by nearly $200 million and also provides significant one-time funding. The budget agreement allocates $197.1 million in ongoing funding and $161.6 million in one-time funding to support legal services for undocumented students, faculty, and staff and to address student hunger and basic needs, deferred maintenance, and enrollment growth, among others.
  • Increases UC ongoing funding by nearly $100 million and also provides significant one-time funding. The budget agreement allocates $98.1 million in ongoing support (includes enrollment growth) and $248.8 million in one-time funding to support legal services for undocumented students, faculty, and staff, and to address student hunger and basic needs and deferred maintenance, among others.

The spending plan also makes the following adjustments regarding the state’s financial aid programs:

  • Creates a new stipulation for addressing the potential impact of tuition increases. The plan allows the Department of Finance (DOF) to reduce primary appropriations for the CSU and UC by the amount of estimated Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship program cost increases if tuition is increased in 2018-19.
  • Increases admission goals for private nonprofit institutions to maintain the maximum Cal Grant tuition awards. The final budget agreement maintains the maximum award for new students attending private nonprofits at $9,084, but adjusts the annual admissions goal for students who have earned an Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) required to maintain the maximum award level. The budget requires the private nonprofit sector to admit at least 2,000 ADT students in award year 2019-20; 3,000 students in award year 2020-21; and 3,500 in award year 2021-22.
  • Expands grant eligibility for current and former foster youth. The Cal Grant B Entitlement award provides low-income students with a “living allowance” to help pay for basic expenses. Currently, this award is restricted to students who attend college within one year of graduating high school. The budget agreement extends the Cal Grant B Entitlement award eligibility for current and former foster youth up to age 26. The age limit for current or former foster youth receiving the Chafee Grant has also been extended from 22 to 26.

Back to Top

Budget Package Uses Federal Funds to Provide Additional Subsidized Child Care Slots

California’s child care and development system allows parents with low and moderate incomes to find jobs and remain employed while caring for and preparing their children for school. The state’s subsidized child care and development system is funded with state and federal dollars, but after adjusting for inflation, overall funding for this system is lower than it was 10 years ago due to both state budget cuts made during and after the Great Recession and relatively flat federal funding.

The 2018-19 state budget package utilizes newly available federal funds and continues to reinvest state resources in California’s subsidized child care and development system, but does not adopt the expansive proposals put forth by both the Assembly and the Senate. Specifically, the budget package:

  • Utilizes newly available federal funding to create time-limited subsidized child care and development slots and to conduct annual inspections. Federal policymakers appropriated additional federal dollars for subsidized child care as part of the omnibus spending legislation for the 2018 federal fiscal year. California will receive $232 million in newly available federal funds as a result. The final state budget package creates 11,307 Alternative Payment Program (AP) slots with $204.6 million of the newly available dollars to be used over two state fiscal years: 2018-19 and 2019-20, which means that the slots are only available to eligible families until June 30, 2020. If federal policymakers appropriate the same amount of money for the 2019 federal fiscal year, then these 11,307 slots will be available through June 30, 2022. The budget package also includes $26.4 million in federal funds for annual inspections of licensed child care providers, as required by federal law.
  • Modestly increases the number of subsidized child care and state preschool slots with state funds. The budget package includes $15.8 million to add 2,100 AP slots on September 1, 2018. In addition, the budget package provides $8.5 million in Proposition 98 funding to add 2,959 full-day state preschool slots beginning on April 1, 2019, as agreed upon in the 2016-17 budget agreement.
  • Increases payment rates for providers that contract with the state. The final budget agreement includes a 2.8% rate increase and a 2.7% cost-of-living adjustment for the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR), which is the base rate paid to child care providers that contract directly with the state. The budget package also includes $40.2 million to increase the adjustment factors for the SRR for infants, toddlers, and children with special needs, effective January 1, 2019, which will boost payment rates for providers caring for these children.
  • Increases funding for quality improvement programs. The budget package provides one-time funding for a number of quality and support programs, including $5.0 million for professional development for child care teachers, $5.0 million for the California Child Care Initiative, and $6.0 million in federal funding for other one-time quality activities, such as consumer education.
  • Provides $109.2 million General Fund for CalWORKs Stage 2 and Stage 3 caseload adjustments. The 2017-18 budget agreement included $25 million to increase the decade-old income eligibility limits and implement a 12-month eligibility period. Based on communication with the Administration, the budget agreement adjusts funding for CalWORKs Stage 2 and Stage 3 child care mainly to reflect a larger-than-expected increase in caseload due to these provisions.
  • Includes provisions to increase access to early care and education for children with special needs. The 2018-19 budget package creates two new grant programs and establishes a stakeholder workgroup to focus on expanding access to early care and education for children with special needs.
    • The budget package provides $167.2 million in one-time Prop. 98 funding to create the Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program with the goal of increasing access to inclusive subsidized early care and education programs. This new program will provide grantees with resources for “infrastructure costs” such as facilities renovation or professional development. Because the new program is funded with Prop. 98 dollars, only Local Education Agencies (LEA) are eligible to apply for the grant program, but the Administration is encouraging partnerships with non-LEAs. Grant funds will be available through June 30, 2023. Grant funds will not be available to provide additional subsidized slots, though that is a requirement of the grant program.
    • The final budget agreement includes $10.0 million in Prop. 98 funding to create the Inclusive Early Care Pilot program for county offices of education. This new grant program will also focus on increasing access to subsidized child care and development programs for children with special needs, including children with severe disabilities. Ongoing funding for this grant program will be contingent upon an appropriation in the annual budget act.
    • Trailer bill language also creates a stakeholder group — including grantees from the aforementioned programs — to focus on continuously improving access to early care and education for children with special needs. The stakeholder group will work on this issue through June 30, 2023.

The final budget agreement does not include a variety of proposals put forth by both the Senate and Assembly to increase access to subsidized child care for families with low and moderate incomes. For example, the Assembly and the Senate both proposed additional funding for AP slots and General Child Care slots as well as a rate increase for license-exempt providers — often family, friends or neighbors — who care for children on a part-time basis. These providers often are reimbursed at a rate that is well below the minimum wage, which could limit families access to license-exempt care if providers are unwilling to accept the sub-minimum wage rate.

Back to Top

Enacted Budget Takes Preliminary Steps to Raise CalWORKs Grants and Indicates Intent to Reinstate the State COLA

The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program provides modest cash assistance for over 830,000 low-income children while helping parents overcome barriers to employment and find jobs. The annualized maximum CalWORKs grant for a family of three has been well below the deep-poverty threshold (50% of the federal poverty line) for the past 11 years. In this year’s budget deliberations, the Senate proposed to end deep child poverty in CalWORKs by 2021-22 with phased-in increases to the maximum grant, starting with $400 million in 2018-19 and growing to $1.5 billion by 2021-22. However, the 2018-19 budget package reflects a more modest increase, providing $90 million for a 10% grant increase beginning April 1, 2019. This increase would amount to $360 million in ongoing full-year costs starting 2019-20, if no further increases followed. However, this act is intended as the first of three tentative steps to raise grants above deep poverty potentially over three years. After this initial step, the Legislature plans to halve the gap between the new maximum grant and 50% FPL and then finally close the gap. However, these last two increases are not yet funded and so would depend upon future budget appropriations.

The statutory annual state cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) allows grants to maintain their purchasing power despite inflation, though state policymakers eliminated the COLA for CalWORKs in 2009. In its set of proposals aimed at ending deep poverty in CalWORKs, the Senate called for reinstating the COLA to allow grants to keep pace with the cost of living. Though the enacted budget does not actually reinstate the COLA, it expresses the intent to do so starting July 1, 2022, setting it at 0% with the potential for funding in future budgets.

Back to Top

Enacted Budget Revises Governor’s Proposal for CalWORKs Home Visiting Initiative

In January, the Governor proposed allocating $158.5 million in one-time Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds for a new CalWORKs home visiting pilot initiative, with $26.7 million in TANF dollars allocated in the 2018-19 state budget year and the remaining $131.8 million to be available through calendar year 2021. Under the Administration’s proposal, the initiative would provide up to 24 months of home visiting for first-time CalWORKs parents under age 25, who would have to be either pregnant or parenting a child under age 2. (Participation in this new program would be voluntary.) These eligibility requirements would have excluded many families, as the average CalWORKs household has two children and is headed by a 34-year-old caregiver. The 2018-19 budget package addressed this by extending home visiting services to participants of any age and lifting the restriction on the number of children participants may have, though continuing to prioritize first-time parents. The enacted budget funds the initiative for the first three years, subject to appropriation in the annual Budget Act.

Back to Top

Budget Agreement Ends the “SSI Cash-Out,” Allowing People Enrolled in SSI/SSP to Receive Federal Food Benefits for the First Time Since the 1970s

Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) grants help well over 1 million low-income seniors and people with disabilities in California pay for housing, food, and other basic necessities. Grants are funded with both federal (SSI) and state (SSP) dollars. Since the mid-1970s, the state has prohibited people enrolled in SSI/SSP from receiving federal food benefits provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is called CalFresh in California. This state policy is known as the “SSI cash-out.”

The 2018-19 budget package ends the state’s SSI cash-out policy. SSI/SSP recipients will become eligible for CalFresh food assistance as soon as June 1, 2019, or no later than August 1, 2019, depending on how rapidly the state can implement this change. Ending the SSI cash-out will primarily benefit households that consist solely of one or more SSI/SSP recipients; the state projects that 369,000 such households will sign up for CalFresh after gaining eligibility, which assumes a 75% participation rate among these households. In addition, the budget agreement creates a state-funded food benefit for certain households whose current CalFresh benefits will be reduced or eliminated when the SSI cash-out ends. These households contain a mix of SSI/SSP recipients and other people with low incomes who 1) are not enrolled in SSI/SSP and 2) receive CalFresh benefits. Because of how CalFresh benefits are calculated, once SSI/SSP recipients become eligible for CalFresh about 80,000 of these mixed households will see their CalFresh assistance reduced or lose eligibility for CalFresh, according to state projections.

The state budget provides $230 million to end the SSI-cash out. Of this amount, $199.3 million will pay for the new state-funded food benefit and the remainder will support automation changes (such as reprogramming computer systems) and counties’ additional costs for administering the CalFresh program. The budget package authorizes the Department of Finance (DOF) to transfer additional funds, as needed, to pay for other costs associated with ending the SSI cash-out.

Back to Top

Budget Package Does Not Provide a State Cost-of-Living Adjustment for SSI/SSP Grants, but Sets the Stage for Annual Increases Beginning in 2022-23

For many years, California law required the state to provide an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for SSI/SSP grants. The Legislature often suspended these automatic annual increases in order to limit the state’s General Fund obligations for SSI/SSP. Nonetheless, this requirement for an annual state COLA remained in place until the 2011 calendar year, when a new policy — approved by the Legislature in 2009 — took effect: The state COLA for SSI/SSP grants became optional rather than mandatory. In the wake of this change, state policymakers have provided only a single discretionary COLA for SSI/SSP grants: a 2.76% increase to the SSP portion that took effect on January 1, 2017.

The new budget package does not provide a state increase for SSI/SSP grants in 2018-19. However, the budget agreement does revise state law to once again require annual state COLAs for SSI/SSP grants beginning on July 1, 2022. However, this new requirement is substantially watered down compared to the “statutory COLA” that existed prior to 2011. This is because the annual state COLA will be set at 0% each year starting in 2022-23 and can only exceed that level if the Legislature specifies a higher percentage in the budget bill. This means that — as under current law — decisions about whether to provide a COLA will be subject to annual negotiations between state lawmakers and the Governor. Nonetheless, by essentially signaling the Legislature’s intent to begin providing COLAs for SSI/SSP grants within a few years, the 2018-19 budget package sets the stage for annual state increases to this critical source of basic income for low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

Back to Top

Budget Package Aims to Address Health Care Affordability and Financing, but Includes None of the Policy Expansions Advanced by the Legislature

The 2018-19 budget agreement includes provisions that aim to boost the affordability of health insurance, reform health care financing, and develop a statewide database to collect information on health care prices and utilization. Specifically, the budget package:

  • Requires Covered California — the state’s health insurance exchange — to develop options for providing financial assistance to help Californians purchase health care coverage. These options must include a focus on Californians with incomes up to 600% of the federal poverty line, which equals $72,840 for an individual or $150,600 for a family of four in 2018. Covered California is required to report these options to state policymakers by February 1, 2019.
  • Creates a state council to examine pathways toward achieving “unified financing” of health care delivery in California. This new five-member council is required to consider a number of factors in developing a plan, including key design elements (such as eligibility and benefits), financing options, and whether any proposed changes would require approval by the federal government and/or by California voters. This plan must be submitted to state policymakers by October 1, 2021.
  • Provides $60 million to help create a statewide database to collect information on health care prices and utilization in California. This database is intended to be “substantially completed” by July 1, 2023, with the goal of providing “greater transparency regarding health care costs” as well as informing health care policy decisions, according to Assembly Bill 1810, the health care “trailer bill.” The development of this database will be led by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) with input from an advisory committee made up of health care policy experts. OSHPD is required to submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2020, that addresses a number of considerations, including recommending “a plan for long-term, non-General Fund financing to support the ongoing costs of maintaining the database.”

While the budget agreement promotes long-term efforts to improve California’s health care system, it does not incorporate any health care coverage expansions or affordability policies that the Legislature had advanced. For example, the budget package:

  • Does not expand eligibility for Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrant adults. The Assembly’s spending plan proposed to expand Medi-Cal eligibility to undocumented adults up to age 26; the Senate’s plan would have expanded eligibility to undocumented adults age 65 or older.
  • Does not provide state-funded assistance to moderate-income Californians who buy health insurance on the individual market, including through Covered California. The Assembly’s spending plan included new premium assistance or tax credits to help Californians with incomes up to 600% of the federal poverty line pay for health insurance.
  • Does not end Medi-Cal’s “senior penalty.” Currently, Californians age 65 and older can qualify for no-cost Medi-Cal only if their income is at or below about 123% of the poverty line. In contrast, for younger adults the income limit for no-cost Medi-Cal is 138% of the poverty line. Seniors who fall into this coverage gap must pay a deductible (known as a “share of cost”) that can amount to hundreds of dollars per month in order to access Medi-Cal services. Both the Assembly and the Senate proposed to eliminate this senior penalty by increasing the income limit for adults age 65 and older to 138% of the poverty line.

Back to Top

Budget Package Allocates More Than $1 Billion in Proposition 56 Tobacco Tax Revenues for Medi-Cal Provider Payment Increases and a New Loan Assistance Program

Approved by California voters in 2016, Proposition 56 raised the state’s excise tax on cigarettes by $2 per pack and triggered an equivalent increase in the state excise tax on other tobacco products. These increases took effect on April 1, 2017. Prop. 56 requires most of the revenues raised by the measure to go to Medi-Cal, which provides health care services to more than 13 million Californians with low or moderate incomes. The 2018-19 budget package allocates more than $1 billion of Medi-Cal’s share of Prop. 56 dollars for 1) payment increases for doctors, dentists, and other Medi-Cal providers ($821.3 million) and 2) a new loan assistance program for recent medical and dental school graduates who serve Medi-Cal beneficiaries ($220 million). The state Department of Health Care Services will develop the eligibility rules and other criteria for the loan assistance program, which is called the “Proposition 56 Medi-Cal Physicians and Dentists Loan Repayment Act Program.”

Back to Top

Budget Includes Some New Funding for Legal Services for Immigrants, but Leaves Other Immigrant-Focused Proposals Unfunded

California has the largest share of immigrant residents of any state, and immigrants make up a third of the state’s workforce. Given the prominence of immigrants in California’s population and the state’s economy, recent and ongoing federal actions to limit immigration and aggressively enforce immigration laws particularly impact California. Despite the significance of immigrants to California, and the heightened attention to immigration issues nationally, the budget agreement includes only relatively modest new investments to address the specific needs of immigrants.

The 2018-19 budget agreement provides a total of $31 million in one-time funding for legal services for immigrants, adding to the increased funding for immigrant legal services already included in the current year’s budget. This one-time funding includes a $10 million augmentation to the Department of Social Services for legal services for immigrants, including undocumented unaccompanied minors and individuals with current or past Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The budget also includes one-time allocations for legal services for undocumented and other immigrant students, faculty, and staff at California’s public colleges and universities, including $4 million General Fund for those at the University of California and $7 million for those at the California State University, as well as $10 million Proposition 98 General Fund for those at California community colleges. In addition, the budget includes a new allocation of $670,000 ongoing in Mental Health Services Act (Prop. 63) funding to address mental health needs of immigrants and refugees.

The 2018-19 budget agreement does not include funding for other proposals to address the needs of immigrants that had been introduced in the Legislature. These included proposals to extend Medi-Cal eligibility to undocumented immigrant young adults (which would have cost an estimated $125 million in 2018-19 and $250 million ongoing) and to undocumented seniors (which would have cost an estimated $75 million in 2018-19 and $150 million ongoing), as mentioned above (in the section titled “Budget Package Aims to Address Health Care Affordability and Financing, but Includes None of the Policy Expansions Advanced by the Legislature”), and to extend eligibility for the CalEITC to immigrant workers who file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), as mentioned above (in the section titled “Budget Agreement Strengthens the CalEITC”).

Back to Top

Budget Package Dramatically Increases State Funding for the 2020 Census

The 2018-19 budget includes $90.3 million in state funding for the 2020 federal census, more than double the $40.3 million proposed by the Governor in January. Funding will support the California Complete Count Committee, which oversees census outreach, awareness, and coordination efforts — particularly for hard-to-count residents. The committee was created after the undercount of the state’s population in the 1990 decennial federal census. This undercount likely resulted in California losing a seat in the US House of Representatives as well as about $2 billion in federal funding over a 10-year period. This funding in the 2018-19 budget package aims to ensure an accurate count of California’s population through statewide coordination of a multiyear, multilingual campaign.

There are a number of issues that raise concerns about the 2020 Census. First, federal funding for the 2020 Census has not been adequate to fully prepare for the count. Second, the US Census Bureau has significantly changed the way in which it plans to administer the 2020 survey, and the agency will be hiring far fewer field workers to follow up with households who are late to respond. Third, the Trump Administration has announced that it will be adding a citizenship question to the census, which could depress response rates given the administration’s virulent attitude toward immigrants.

The decennial census is an important tool that provides indispensable social and economic data about the state and the country. The census count also determines how federal dollars are distributed to states and how many seats each state has in the House of Representatives. It is in California’s best interest to ensure that the 2020 census is as accurate as possible, a goal reflected in this state funding for census outreach, awareness, and coordination.

Back to Top

Budget Includes New Funding to Address Homelessness and Proposes Future Investment in Affordable Housing

California has nearly 25% of the nation’s population of homeless individuals, with an estimated 134,000 homeless residents as of January 2017. More than two-thirds of California’s homeless residents are unsheltered, sleeping in locations such as in a vehicle, in a park, or on the street. The 2018-19 budget agreement dedicates a share of the higher-than-projected revenues received this year to address homelessness, incorporating proposals introduced by both the Governor and the Legislature. These include significant one-time investments as well as some smaller new ongoing expenditures. Specifically, the budget:

  • Allocates $500 million to one-time Homeless Emergency Aid block grants. These grants will be available to localities that declare a local shelter crisis (or receive a waiver of that requirement). Grants can be used for one-time activities to address homelessness that may include, but are not limited to, “prevention, criminal justice diversion programs to homeless individuals with mental health needs, and emergency aid,” with at least 5% of funds dedicated to addressing the needs of homeless youth. Of the total amount available for these block grants, $350 million will be administered through existing Continuum of Cares (local homelessness planning bodies), of which $250 million will be distributed according to a formula based on the size of the local homeless population, and an additional $100 million will be distributed based on each locality’s share of the total statewide homeless population. The remaining $150 million in block grants will be awarded to cities that have a population of 330,000 or more, with these grants proportionate to the size of the local homeless population.
  • Increases funding for two CalWORKs programs that assist homeless families. The budget agreement adopts the proposal in the Governor’s May Revision to increase funding for these two ongoing programs. The CalWORKs Housing Support Program, which helps families secure permanent housing, receives an additional $24.2 million in 2018-19, increasing to an additional $48.4 million in 2019 and beyond (for total ongoing funding of $95 million annually). The CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program, which provides up to 16 days per year of temporary housing for homeless CalWORKs participants via vouchers for temporary shelter or hotels/motels, receives an additional $8.1 million in 2018-19 in order to raise the daily voucher rate, so that a family of four would be allowed $85 per night rather than the current $65 per night, beginning January 1, 2019.
  • Dedicates $15 million in one-time funding over three years for a pilot program to prevent and address homelessness among seniors. The budget adopts the Governor’s May Revision proposal to create the Home Safe Pilot Program, housed within Adult Protective Services, which will provide funds to address homelessness among seniors. Funds are available to counties that provide a local match.
  • Increases General Fund dollars on a one-time basis to address homelessness among domestic violence survivors and youth. The budget adopts the proposal in the Governor’s May Revision to allocate an additional $10 million to support domestic violence shelter services and an additional $1 million to support homeless youth shelters through the Office of Emergency Services.
  • Makes a one-time $50 million allocation to the Department of Health Care Services to provide services for homeless individuals with mental illness. The budget adopts the Governor’s May Revision proposal to allocate one-time funds for county mental health services for homeless individuals. Counties will submit requests for funds, and allocations will consider the local number of homeless individuals with serious mental illness, county population, and the population of homeless individuals with recent criminal justice system involvement.

The budget agreement also adopts the proposal in the Governor’s May revision to dedicate $500,000 to expand staffing and provide ongoing support for the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, which was created in 2016 to identify and oversee implementation of homeless programs at the state level. The Council will be elevated from its current location within the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to its own department-level status within the Business, Consumer Affairs, and Housing Agency.

A final homelessness item included in the budget agreement does not allocate new funding, but rather provides that the No Place Like Home program will be placed on the November 2018 statewide ballot for voter validation. This program was developed as a legislative proposal and dedicates $2.0 billion in bond proceeds, to be repaid with funds from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), for permanent supportive housing for individuals with mental illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Though the Governor signed the legislation in July 2016, it has not been implemented due to a legal challenge asserting that MHSA funds cannot be used for this purpose. Voter validation of this use of MHSA funds would allow the program to proceed. The budget agreement includes a provision that $1.2 million General Fund will be loaned to HCD, which the Governor had proposed in his May Revision to allow the Department to issue an initial Notice of Funding Availability prior to November. This way, if voters approve the No Place Like Home measure, the first funding awards can be announced by December. The November ballot will also include the $4 billion bond for affordable housing that was part of the legislative housing package signed in September 2017. With the No Place Like Home proposal on the ballot as well, voters will be asked to approve two major housing-related bond measures in November.

In addition to the above provisions related to homelessness, the 2018-19 budget agreement includes details of the first-year allocations from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, which is funded by the new real estate recording fee created last year by Senate Bill 2 (Atkins) as part of the 2017 legislative housing package. Half of the recording fee funds available for local assistance in this first year ($122.6 million) are dedicated to supporting housing planning by local jurisdictions. The remaining $122.6 million available for local assistance in 2018-19 are dedicated to addressing homelessness, and the budget agreement allocates $56.3 million of these funds to Continuum of Cares to support specific eligible activities to prevent and address homelessness. Another $56.3 million of these funds are allocated to the Housing for a Healthy California program, which supports interim and long-term housing for homeless individuals who receive Medi-Cal, are eligible for Supplemental Security Income, are eligible to receive services that promote housing stability, and are likely to improve their health with supportive housing. The budget agreement also allocates $10 million of the recording fee funds to specific homelessness projects in Orange County and Merced County.

A final housing-related provision in the 2018-19 budget agreement is a proposal to allocate future state dollars to support affordable housing development. As described above (in the section titled “Budget Package Brings Constitutional Rainy Day Fund Balance to Its Maximum Level”), the budget includes an optional deposit into the state’s constitutionally-required “rainy day fund” in order to bring the rainy day fund balance up to its constitutional maximum of 10% of General Fund tax revenue in 2018-19. In future years, if the rainy day fund balance remains at this maximum level, the “overflow” revenue that would have been required to be set aside in the rainy day fund must be spent on infrastructure instead, and housing qualifies as infrastructure under the applicable definition. The 2018-19 budget agreement specifies that if “overflow” infrastructure funds are available in fiscal years 2019-20 through 2021-22, the first $415 million of these funds shall be used for state buildings and their deferred maintenance. Any “overflow” infrastructure funds beyond this first $415 million shall be split evenly between spending on rail infrastructure and spending on affordable housing development through the Multifamily Housing Program. Though this future spending plan for “overflow” funds is outlined in this year’s budget, policymakers in future years can choose to follow this plan or allocate these funds differently, as long as any “overflow” funds are spent on items that qualify as infrastructure.

Back to Top

Budget Agreement Includes a $1.4 Billion Plan for Allocating Cap-and-Trade Revenues

Established by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), California’s “cap and trade” program sets a statewide limit on the emission of greenhouse gases and authorizes the Air Resources Board to auction off emission allowances. Proceeds from these auctions are deposited in the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), with these funds generally invested in activities that seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The budget package allocates $1.4 billion in GGRF revenues in 2018-19, with 80% of these funds ($1.1 billion) going to three state entities: the Air Resources Board ($845 million), the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ($195 million), and the Energy Commission ($80.5 million). The remaining funds are allocated primarily to the Department of Food and Agriculture ($104 million) and the Strategic Growth Council ($60 million).

Back to Top

Budget Agreement Creates a Roadmap for Reducing the Capacity of the State Correctional System if the Number of Incarcerated Adults Continues to Decline

In recent years, California has made substantial progress in reducing the number of adults incarcerated at the state level. This reduction has resulted largely from a series of criminal justice reforms adopted by state policymakers and the voters — reforms that came on the heels of a 2009 federal court order that required California to reduce overcrowding in state prisons and established a prison population cap. (This court order is still in effect.) The Governor’s Administration anticipates that state-level incarceration will continue falling in the near term, which will allow California to end the use of out-of-state prisons by early 2019. Currently, well over 2,000 Californians are housed in facilities in Arizona and Mississippi because there is no room for them in state prisons in light of the court-imposed prison population cap.

The 2018-19 budget package establishes a roadmap for reducing the capacity of the state correctional system if the number of prisoners continues to decline. The top priority is to close “private in-state male contract correctional facilities that are primarily staffed” by workers who are not employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). If there are further declines in state-level incarceration, the CDCR would be required to reduce “the capacity of state-owned and operated prisons or in-state leased or contract correctional facilities, in a manner that maximizes long-term state facility savings, leverages long-term investments, and maintains sufficient flexibility to comply with the federal court order to maintain the prison population at or below 137.5% of design capacity.”

In addition, the 2018-19 budget agreement:

  • Provides $50 million to help formerly incarcerated adults transition back to their communities. The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) will distribute these funds through a competitive grant process to community-based organizations (CBOs) to support people who have been released from prison. Of the total funding, $25 million is available for rental assistance, $15 million will be used to upgrade existing buildings that will be used to house formerly incarcerated adults, and $9.4 million is set aside “to support the warm hand-off and reentry” of people transitioning out of prison. Nearly all of the remaining funds will be used to support program administration.
  • Provides $37.3 million to establish a new Youth Reinvestment Grant Program to support local “trauma-informed” diversion programs for minors. The BSCC will distribute the vast majority of funds (94%) through a competitive grant process to cities and counties, which must provide a match of between 10% and 25%. Local jurisdictions then must pass through most of these funds to CBOs to “deliver services in underserved communities with high rates of juvenile arrests.” Services must include education, mentoring, and mental and behavioral health services, along with “diversion programs and alternatives to arrest, incarceration, and formal involvement with the juvenile justice system.” The remaining Youth Reinvestment Grant Program funding will go to Indian tribes (3%) or be used to support program administration (3%).

Back to Top

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

This Budget Center event included a briefing on Governor Jerry Brown’s May Revision to his proposed 2018-19 budget followed by a panel discussion on how public policies can help promote economic security in our state.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

For the California Child Development Administrators Association’s “Analysis of the Governor’s 2017-18 Budget Proposal May Revise,” Senior Policy Analyst Kristin Schumacher discussed what the May Revision means for California’s child care and development system.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Executive Summary

On May 11, Governor Jerry Brown released the May Revision to his proposed 2018-19 state budget. The Governor forecasts revenues $8.0 billion higher — over a three-year window — than projected in January, mostly reflecting higher tax collections due to strong economic growth and stock market gains.

Most of the additional revenues are set aside to build up reserves, pay down budgetary debts, and make one-time investments in infrastructure. The May Revision provides $6.1 billion for reserves and paying down debt — $3.5 billion as constitutionally required by Proposition 2 (2014), with half deposited in the rainy day fund and half used to pay down debts — and an additional, discretionary $2.6 billion deposit to the rainy day fund. The Administration also sets aside $3.2 billion for other uncertainties in a separate reserve fund. State reserves would total $17.0 billion by the end of 2018-19. The May Revision also provides $2 billion in one-time investments in deferred maintenance of infrastructure.

The May Revision makes several improvements over the January proposal. It expands eligibility for the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) to young adults and seniors who are currently excluded, broadening the reach and impact of this important credit. Other notable improvements include allocating some of the higher-than-expected revenues to one-time spending for addressing homelessness and providing mental health services. Like the January proposal, the May Revision calls for funding to fully implement the Local Control Funding Formula for K-12 education.

However, and especially in light of the significant discretionary funds available due to strong revenues, the May Revision leaves much room for additional investments in individuals, families, and communities across California. The revised budget does not include new proposals to address housing affordability or the large unmet demand for subsidized early care and education — two areas that make up the largest share of many household budgets. It also continues to underinvest in the welfare-to-work system (CalWORKs) and basic income support for low-income seniors and people with disabilities (SSI/SSP). And, while the revised budget maintains marginal increases for the state’s higher education systems, it does so against a backdrop of increasing needs and decades of state disinvestment.

As the Governor and the Legislature work toward a budget agreement in the coming weeks, there is ample room to strike a better balance between saving for a rainy day and investing in Californians.

The following sections summarize key provisions of the Governor’s revised 2018-19 budget.

Download full report (PDF) or use the links below to browse individual sections of this report

May Revision Reflects an Improved Fiscal Outlook

The Governor’s revised budget reflects an improved fiscal outlook, with General Fund revenues over the three-year “budget window,” from 2016-17 to 2018-19, expected to be about $8.0 billion higher than projected in January. After accounting for transfers, which include loan repayments as well as required and discretionary transfers to the state’s rainy day fund (the Budget Stabilization Account), General Fund revenues are expected to be $7.6 billion higher than projected in January.

The May Revision projects that all three major sources of General Fund revenues will be higher than in January, with personal income tax (PIT) revenues up by about $4.4 billion, sales and use tax (SUT) revenues up by $744 million, and corporation tax (CT) revenues up by over $2.5 billion. Higher PIT revenues reflect the combination of higher projected capital gains and wages, particularly among highly paid workers. Increased SUT revenues reflect, in part, greater business investment due to recent federal tax law changes, while higher CT revenues are due to several factors, including higher projected corporate profits and the repatriation of foreign earnings as a result of recent federal tax changes.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office’s (LAO) updated fiscal outlook projects significantly higher revenues than the Administration. Specifically, the LAO projects that General Fund revenues over the three-year budget window will exceed the Governor’s January forecast by $10.8 billion — $2.7 billion higher than the Administration’s May Revision projection. After accounting for transfers, the LAO projects that General Fund revenues will exceed the Governor’s January forecast by $10.2 billion — $2.6 billion higher than the Administration’s May Revision projection. These differences largely reflect the fact that the LAO expects PIT revenues to be $3.7 billion higher than does the Administration, largely due to higher capital gains and wages. The LAO’s higher PIT revenue projection is offset by lower projected SUT and CT revenues (by $757 million and $88 million, respectively).

The Governor’s revised budget continues to caution that the state’s improved fiscal outlook is subject to a number of risks that the Administration believes pose greater threats now than in January. These include the risk of a national recession coming at a time when many people have yet to fully recover from the prior downturn; the risk of an increase in import tariffs, which could hit California particularly hard since many of the state’s businesses depend on international trade; and the risk of a stock market correction, which could disproportionately affect California since stock market gains over the past decade have been driven by technology companies in the state. In addition, the Administration notes that while its forecast assumes that recent federal tax changes will temporarily boost the national economy, these gains will likely come at a cost over the long-term by dampening future economic growth and exacerbating income inequality.

Back to Top

The Governor’s Revised Proposal Continues to Maximize the State’s Rainy Day Fund and Build Up State Reserves

California voters approved Proposition 2 in November 2014, amending the California Constitution to revise the rules for the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), commonly referred to as the rainy day fund. Prop. 2 requires an annual set-aside equal to 1.5% of estimated General Fund revenues. An additional set-aside is required when capital gains revenues in a given year exceed 8% of General Fund tax revenues. For 15 years — from 2015-16 to 2029-30 — half of these funds will be deposited into the rainy day fund, and the other half will be used to reduce certain state liabilities (also known as “budgetary debt”).

Based on the Governor’s revenue projections for 2018-19, Prop. 2 would constitutionally require the state to deposit $1.75 billion into the BSA (and to use an additional $1.75 billion to repay budgetary debt). In addition, the Governor proposes to make an optional, one-time supplemental transfer of $2.6 billion from the General Fund to the BSA. (The total transfer to the BSA would be $4.4 billion: $1.75 billion as required by the state Constitution, plus the $2.6 billion supplemental transfer.) As a result, the BSA would grow to a total of $13.8 billion by the end of the 2018-19 fiscal year.

Under the scenario outlined by the Governor, the BSA could reach its constitutional maximum of 10% of General Fund tax revenues in 2018-19. When this limit is reached, Prop. 2 requires that any additional dollars that would otherwise go into the BSA be spent on infrastructure, including spending on deferred maintenance. In other words, Prop. 2 prohibits these additional dollars from being allocated to ongoing programs and services.

The BSA is not California’s only reserve fund. Each year, the state deposits additional funds into a “Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties” (SFEU). For 2018-19, the Governor proposes to leave $3.2 billion in this fund. Including this fund, the Governor’s proposal would build state reserves to a total of $17.0 billion in 2018-19.

One additional implication of the Governor’s proposal is that the $2.6 billion supplemental transfer to the BSA may not be readily available to help the state meet needs created by future developments, such as federal budget cuts. In order to access the BSA funds, the Governor would need to declare a “budget emergency,” defined by Prop. 2 as a disaster or extreme peril, or insufficient resources to maintain General Fund expenditures at the highest level of spending in the three most recent fiscal years, adjusted for state population growth and the change in the cost of living. After a budget emergency has been declared, a transfer to the BSA could be suspended or reduced only through a bill passed by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature.

Back to Top

May Revision Prioritizes One-Time Infrastructure Investments

The Governor’s revised budget calls for $2 billion in one-time infrastructure investments to address deferred maintenance of state facilities. The Administration estimates that the state has $20 billion in liabilities for deferred maintenance, not including roads and highways. The proposed funding includes $630 million for improvements to state office buildings in Sacramento; allocations for state higher education systems — the California Community Colleges system ($143.5 million), the California State University ($100 million), and the University of California ($100 million); $174 million for state corrections facilities; $100 million for flood control and levee improvements; $100 million for courts; $100 million for state hospitals; and $100 million for state park facilities, in addition to other allocations across a range of state agencies and facilities.

Back to Top

May Revision Strengthens the CalEITC

The Governor’s May Revision proposes to strengthen the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) — a refundable state tax credit that boosts the incomes of low-earning workers and their families, helping them afford necessities. Specifically, the revised budget:

  • Extends the CalEITC to low-earning young adults and seniors who are currently ineligible for the credit. Since the CalEITC was created in 2015, it has conformed to the age requirements of the federal  EITC. This means that workers with incomes low enough to qualify for the state credit and who are not living with qualifying children cannot benefit from the CalEITC if they are younger than age 25 or older than age 64. The May Revision eliminates this age requirement, allowing childless adults and non-custodial parents who are just starting out in the workforce, as well as those who are working beyond the traditional retirement age, to qualify for this state tax credit beginning in tax year 2018. Last year, Minnesota lowered the age requirement for that state’s EITC to 21, and last month Maryland’s Legislature approved, and the Governor is expected to sign, legislation to lower the age limit for that state’s EITC to 18. In addition, several federal proposals in recent years have called for changing the federal EITC age requirements for childless workers and noncustodial parents.
  • Raises the income limit to qualify for the CalEITC. The 2017-18 budget increased the income limit to qualify for the CalEITC for workers with qualifying children to about $22,300 — equivalent to just over a full-time, year-round salary at a $10.50-per-hour minimum wage. This minimum wage applied to workers at large businesses in 2017 and has applied to workers at small businesses since January 2018. The May Revision further raises the CalEITC income limit for workers with qualifying dependents to $24,960 — the equivalent of a full-time, year-round salary at a $12-per-hour minimum wage, which will apply to workers at large businesses in 2019 and at small businesses in 2020. Last year’s budget also increased the CalEITC income limit for workers without qualifying children to about $15,000, and the May Revision further boosts this limit to $16,800. Both of these changes also would go into effect beginning in tax year 2018.

Together, these two changes to the CalEITC are expected to benefit over 700,000 households and reduce General Fund revenues by about $60 million in 2018-19, according to the Administration.

As in January, the Governor’s proposal does not provide any additional funds to maintain or expand community-based efforts to promote the CalEITC in order to boost credit claims. The May Revision also does not appear to provide any state funds to expand free tax preparation services for low-income tax filers.

Back to Top

May Revision Proposes New Funding to Address Homelessness

California has nearly 25% of the nation’s population of homeless individuals, with an estimated 135,000 homeless residents as of January 2017. More than two-thirds of California’s homeless residents are unsheltered, sleeping in locations such as in a vehicle, in a park, or on the street.

The Governor proposes using some of the higher revenues reflected in the May Revision to address homelessness, including significant new one-time investments as well as some smaller new ongoing expenditures. Specifically, the May Revision:

  • Allocates $250 million General Fund to one-time Emergency Homeless Aid Block Grants. These grants would be administered through existing Continuum of Cares (local homelessness planning bodies) and would be available to localities that declare a local shelter crisis. Grants could be used for activities such as emergency housing vouchers, rapid re-housing, construction of emergency shelters, or use of armories to house homeless individuals.
  • Increases funding for two CalWORKs programs that assist homeless families. CalWORKs is California’s welfare-to-work program. The CalWORKs Housing Support Program, which helps families secure permanent housing, would receive an additional $24.2 million General Fund in 2018-19 (for total funding of $71.2 million), increasing to an additional $48 million in 2019-20 and beyond (for total ongoing funding of $95 million annually). The CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program, which provides up to 16 days per year of temporary housing for homeless CalWORKs participants via vouchers for temporary shelter or hotels/motels, would also receive an additional $8.1 million General Fund in 2018-19, increasing in 2019-20 to an additional $15.3 million in ongoing funding. This increased funding would be used to raise the daily voucher rate, so that a family of four would be allowed $85 per night rather than the current $65 per night, beginning January 1, 2019.
  • Dedicates $15 million General Fund in one-time funding over three years for a pilot program to prevent and address homelessness among seniors. The Home Safe Pilot Program would be housed within Adult Protective Services and would be available to counties that provide local matching funds.
  • Increases General Fund dollars on a one-time basis to address homelessness among domestic violence survivors and youth. The Office of Emergency Services would receive an additional $10 million to support domestic violence shelter services and an additional $1 million to support homeless youth shelters.
  • Makes a one-time $50 million General Fund allocation to the Department of Health Care Services for services for homeless individuals with mental illness. Counties would be able to use the funds for multidisciplinary teams providing intensive outreach, mental health treatment, and related services, modeled on the types of programs that the state funded in earlier years through Assembly Bill 2034 of 2000 and its precursor Assembly Bill 34 of 1999. (Note: This allocation also is discussed in the later section on funding for mental health.)

The Governor’s revised budget also proposes $500,000 General Fund to expand staffing and provide ongoing support for the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, which was created in 2016 to identify and oversee implementation of homeless programs at the state level. The Council would be elevated from its current location within the Department of Housing and Community Development to its own department-level status within the Business, Consumer Affairs, and Housing Agency.

A final homelessness proposal in the May Revision does not allocate new funding, but rather proposes that the No Place Like Home program be placed on the November 2018 ballot for voter validation. This program was developed as a legislative proposal and dedicates $2.0 billion in bond proceeds, to be repaid with funds from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), for permanent supportive housing for individuals with mental illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Though the Governor signed the legislation in July 2016, it has not been implemented due to a legal challenge asserting that MHSA funds cannot be used for this purpose. Voter validation of this use of MHSA funds would allow the program to proceed. The Governor further proposes a $1.2 million General Fund loan to the Department of Housing and Community Development in order to issue an initial Notice of Funding Availability prior to November so that if voters approved the No Place Like Home measure, the first funding awards could be announced by December. The November ballot will also include the $4 billion bond for affordable housing that was part of the legislative housing package signed in September 2017. With the No Place Like Home proposal on the ballot as well, voters will be asked to approve two major housing-related bond measures in November.

Homelessness is a key area the Governor identifies for investment of additional revenues in the May Revision, with a total of $358.8 million General Fund in increased spending proposed for 2018-19 as well as a $64.1 million proposed increase in ongoing spending for 2019-20 and beyond, in addition to the No Place Like Home proposal. While representing a significant boost over current state spending on homelessness, the Governor’s proposal falls short of the investment proposed by the Legislature, where proposals to dedicate up to $1.5 billion (in the Assembly) and $2.0 billion (in the Senate) to address homelessness and develop affordable housing are pending. Notably, the Governor does not propose increased state investment in affordable housing more generally, despite noting that California’s median home price is now more than twice the national price.

Back to Top

Governor’s Revised Budget Proposes No New Funding to Address Needs of Immigrants

California has the largest share of immigrant residents of any state, and immigrants make up a third of the state’s workforce. Given the prominence of immigrants in California’s population and the state’s economy, recent and ongoing federal actions to limit immigration and aggressively enforce immigration laws particularly impact California. The Governor’s January budget included a continuation of increased funding for legal services for immigrants, to assist undocumented unaccompanied minors, and for the Attorney General’s office to address federal actions. The May Revision retains these expenditures but proposes no additional new spending to address the needs of immigrants. This contrasts with the priorities of the Legislature, which has proposed several important expansions of services and supports for undocumented immigrants, including extending Medi-Cal eligibility to undocumented young adults and extending eligibility for the CalEITC to immigrant workers who file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).

Back to Top

Increased Revenues Boost the Minimum Funding Level for Schools and Community Colleges

Approved by voters in 1988, Proposition 98 constitutionally guarantees a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools, community colleges, and the state preschool program. Changes in state General Fund revenues tend to affect the Prop. 98 guarantee, and the May Revision’s estimates of 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 revenues are up compared to those made in January’s budget proposal. As a result, the May Revision assumes a 2018-19 Prop. 98 funding level of $78.4 billion, $68 million above the level assumed in the Governor’s proposed budget. The May Revision also assumes Prop. 98 funding levels of $75.6 billion in 2017-18 and $71.6 billion in 2016-17, up $407 million and $252 million, respectively, from the levels assumed in January.

The May Revision proposes to change how the final funding level guaranteed under Prop. 98 is certified. Despite the requirement under current law to certify a final calculation of the annual Prop. 98 guarantee within nine months of the end of a fiscal year, the final Prop. 98 funding level has not been certified since 2008-09. The May Revision proposes establishing “a revised certification structure” that would include certifying the Prop. 98 guarantee for 2009-10 through 2015-16 as well as creating a new mechanism intended to certify the final Prop. 98 funding level more quickly to “increase certainty around the payment of future certification settlements, and provide the state with additional budgeting flexibility.”

The largest share of Prop. 98 funding goes to California’s school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education (COEs), which provide instruction to approximately 6.2 million students in grades kindergarten through 12. The May Revision proposes to increase funding for the state’s K-12 education funding formula — the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) — and, like the January proposal, would provide sufficient dollars to reach the LCFF’s target funding level in 2018-19. The revised budget also increases funding to pay off outstanding state obligations to school districts. The May Revision:

  • Provides an additional $320 million, for a total of $3.2 billion, to fully implement the LCFF. The LCFF provides school districts, charter schools, and COEs a base grant per student, adjusted to reflect the number of students at various grade levels, as well as additional grants for the costs of educating English learners, students from low-income families, and foster youth. The May Revision’s proposal to increase LCFF funding is sufficient for all K-12 school districts to reach a target base grant in 2018-19 (all COEs reached their LCFF funding targets in 2014-15).
  • Boosts one-time funding by $286 million, for a total of $2.0 billion, to reduce mandate debt the state owes to schools. Mandate debt reflects the cost of state-mandated services that school districts, charter schools, and COEs provided in prior years, but for which they have not yet been reimbursed.
  • Increases funding by $27.3 million for the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC). The May Revision proposes to use these one-time dollars to convert the ELPAC to a computer-based assessment from one that is paper-based as well as to develop a computer-based alternative for children with exceptional needs.
  • Provides $15 million in one-time funding to expand the state’s Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). The revised budget provides funding to the Orange County Department of Education jointly with the Butte County Office of Education to contract with a to-be-identified California higher education institution to expand the state’s MTSS with the goal of fostering positive school climate in both academic and behavioral areas.
  • Provides $13.3 million in one-time funding to create the Community Engagement Initiative. The May Revision proposes to create this new initiative to build the capacity of communities and school districts to deepen community engagement with the goal of improving student outcomes.
  • Increases the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for non-LCFF programs. The revised budget provides an additional $10.6 million to fund a 2.71% COLA for several categorical programs that remain outside of the LCFF. This is an increase from the 2.51% COLA proposed in the January budget.

Back to Top

Administration Proposes Adjustments to New Funding Formula for California Community Colleges and Offers Details on Online Community College

A portion of Proposition 98 funding provides support for California’s community colleges (CCCs), which help prepare over 2 million students to transfer to four-year institutions as well as obtain training and employment skills. The Governor’s January budget proposal called for a new funding formula for CCC general-purpose apportionments and the establishment of a fully online community college. The May Revision proposes several adjustments to the new CCC funding formula and provides more details on the online community college proposal. The updated spending plan:

  • Provides an additional $104 million for the new CCC funding formula and adjusts apportionments. The May Revision includes a revised “hold harmless” provision that maintains funding for all CCC districts during 2018-19 and 2019-20 at no less than the amount of funding received in 2017-18, and provides $104 million in one-time discretionary funds for districts whose year-over-year increase in general-purpose apportionment funding would be less than 2.71%. The proposal also adjusts the apportionments to the three grant components: the base grant, the supplemental grant, and the student success incentive grant. The revision allocates funding as follows:
      • A 60% base grant for each district would be calculated using a three-year rolling average of the per-Full-Time Equivalent Student (FTES) funding rate. The January proposal had called for allocating 50% of the funding to the base grant.
      • A 20% supplemental grant would include considerations for: the number of low-income College Promise Grant fee waiver recipients over the age of 25; specified undocumented students qualifying for resident tuition; and all Pell grant recipients. The January proposal had called for allocating 25% of the funding to the supplemental grant.
      • A 20% student success incentive grant would consider the outcomes of economically disadvantaged students, student transfer rates to four-year institutions, wages of students who have completed a degree or certification program, and other factors. The January proposal had called for allocating 25% of the funding to this grant.
  • Outlines several provisions for the fully online community college. The May Revision offers more detail regarding the online college’s governance, collective bargaining, student success measures, and curriculum. The May Revision notes that the CCC Board of Governors would serve as the governing board of the online community college and that faculty and classified employees of the college would be represented by an existing CCC district for the purposes of collective bargaining. The plan also indicates that in the third year of operation, the online college would provide policymakers with a status report on student outcomes and outreach efforts for working adults. The revised spending plan also clarifies that the intent of the online college is to offer unique content that is not available at local campuses.
  • Decreases one-time funding for deferred maintenance and other CCC expenses by $131.7 million.
  • Increases apportionments for CCCs by $73.7 million. This increased Prop. 98 funding includes $46.9 million for FTES funding earned back by districts that had declining enrollment in the previous three-year cycle, $14.9 million to reflect unused enrollment growth funding in 2016-17, and $11.9 million to reflect a 2.71% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for apportionments.
  • Consolidates the Student Success and Support Program, the Student Success for Basic Skills Program, and the Student Equity Program into a single block grant. These three categorical programs, which target similar communities of students, would be integrated with the intent of increasing program flexibility.

Back to Top

Governor Maintains Modest Funding Increases for CSU and UC

The Governor’s revised budget maintains the funding levels proposed in January for the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC). The revision also proposes a new stipulation for addressing potential tuition increases at both institutions. Specifically, the revised spending plan:

  • Maintains the Governor’s January proposal to increase CSU funding by $92.1 million. The Administration expects the CSU to use these funds to make progress toward the CSU Graduation Initiative, which aims to increase graduation rates and eliminate opportunity and achievement gaps. The CSU is requesting a $283 million increase — $191 million higher than what the Governor proposes.
  • Maintains the Governor’s January proposal to increase UC funding by $92.1 million. UC is requesting $140 million above the Governor’s proposal for 2018-19. In addition, the 2017-18 budget package conditioned the release of $50 million in funding on the University providing evidence of meeting several budget and enrollment expectations by May 1, 2018. The Governor’s May Revision assumes the release of those funds, pending the UC Board of Regents approval of several remaining report items demonstrating that the expectations have been met.
  • Proposes a new stipulation for addressing the potential impact of tuition increases on Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship programs. The Governor’s January proposal did not reflect funding to cover increased Cal Grant costs that would result from potential tuition hikes at the CSU and the UC. The May Revise suggests reducing the primary appropriations for each system by the amount of estimated Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship program cost increases if tuition is increased in 2018-19.
  • Increases admission goals for private nonprofit institutions to maintain the maximum Cal Grant tuition awards. The Governor’s proposal maintains the maximum award for new students attending private nonprofits at $9,084, but adjusts the annual admissions goal for students who have earned an Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) required to maintain the maximum award level. The revised spending plan requires the private nonprofit sector to admit at least 2,000 ADT students in 2018-19. The May Revision proposes increasing the admission goals in 2019-20 and 2020-21 to 3,000 students and 3,500 students, respectively — 500 more than the January proposal.

Back to Top

Revised Budget Boosts State Investments in Mental Health Services

Federal, state, and county support for mental health services in California totals about $8 billion per year. Even with this substantial funding, “many challenges remain in the mental health system,” the May Revision notes. To help address these challenges, the revised budget includes new state funding aimed at strengthening efforts to improve outcomes for people living with a mental illness. Specifically, the May Revision:

  • Proposes to repay $253.9 million, plus interest, that is owed to counties — an amount that the Governor “expects” counties to use to support mental health services for youth, “with an emphasis on teens.” This payment would settle a state debt related to certain mental health services for children that counties provided — as required by the state — from 2004 to 2011. The state failed to reimburse the counties for these services at the time.
  • Provides one-time funding of $55 million to support psychiatric graduate medical education programs. This funding would support programs serving Health Professional Shortage Areas or Medically Underserved Areas in rural areas of the state.
  • Provides one-time funding of $50 million to support county outreach and treatment for homeless persons with mental illness. These efforts would be “expected to result in earlier identification of mental health needs, prevention of criminal justice involvement, and improved coordination of care for this population at the local level,” according to the May Revision. Counties would be encouraged to match these state dollars with local as well as federal dollars, where appropriate.

Back to Top

Revised Budget Includes No Major Changes to State Health Policy

Recently, state lawmakers have expressed interest in expanding health care coverage options for undocumented immigrants as well as in boosting the affordability of coverage for middle-income families who purchase health plans on the individual market and face high premiums and cost-sharing. The Governor’s revised budget does not address either of these issues and focuses instead on maintaining the state’s existing health care commitments. Nonetheless, the May Revision does highlight two notable changes from the Governor’s initial budget proposal in January. The revised budget:

  • Reflects reduced General Fund costs for CHIP. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a joint federal-state program that supports health insurance for almost 9 million children throughout the US during the course of a year, including over 2 million in California. Since late 2015, the federal government has paid 88% of CHIP costs in California; previously, the federal share was set at 65%. In January, the Governor assumed that Congress would immediately revert to the 65/35 sharing ratio when it reauthorized CHIP. However, Congress ultimately struck a 10-year deal that maintains the 88/12 sharing ratio through federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019 (which ends September 30, 2019). The federal share of CHIP costs will step down to 76.5% in FFY 2020 and then to 65% from FFY 2021 through FFY 2027. Compared to the Governor’s January proposal, the May Revision estimates combined General Fund savings of nearly $900 million in 2017-18 and 2018-19 due to Congress’ decision to temporarily extend the more generous federal sharing ratio.
  • Provides an increase of $70.4 million ($21.8 million General Fund) in 2018-19 to authorize treatment for all Medi-Cal patients ages 13 and older with Hepatitis C. The May Revision indicates that treatment would be provided “regardless of liver fibrosis stage or co-morbidity,” except for people who are expected to live less than one year.

Back to Top

Governor Maintains Proposal for CalWORKs Home Visiting Pilot Initiative, but Does Not Expand Eligibility

The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program provides modest cash assistance for 830,000 low-income children while helping parents overcome barriers to employment and find jobs. CalWORKs is the state’s version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

In January, the Governor proposed allocating $158.5 million in one-time TANF funds for a new CalWORKs home visiting pilot initiative, with $26.7 million in TANF dollars allocated in the 2018-19 state budget year and the remaining $131.8 million to be available through calendar year 2021. The proposed initiative would provide up to 24 months of home visiting for first-time CalWORKs parents under age 25, who would have to be either pregnant or parenting a child under age 2. (Participation in this new program would be voluntary.)  These eligibility requirements would exclude many families, as the average CalWORKs household has two children and is headed by a 34-year-old caregiver. In the May Revision, the Governor does not propose expanding eligibility, as has been proposed by advocates.

Back to Top

May Revision Does Not Provide Funding for Additional Subsidized Child Care Slots With State or Federal Funds

State policymakers have taken steps in recent years to restore funding to California’s child care and development system, which was cut dramatically during and after the Great Recession. Despite these incremental increases, in the current fiscal year (2017-18) overall funding for these programs remains more than $500 million below pre-recession levels, after adjusting for inflation. As a result, the state is currently providing about 67,000 fewer subsidized slots for working families struggling to make ends meet.

The May Revision does not increase funding to provide additional families with subsidized child care, despite the state’s higher-than-expected revenues. The proposal maintains provisions included in the Governor’s January proposal, such as boosting reimbursement rates for providers that contract directly with the state; creating a “hold harmless” provision for voucher-based providers to ensure that they would not see a decrease in payment rates; and adding 2,959 full-day state preschool slots for Local Education Agencies (LEA), as stipulated in a multiyear plan included in the 2016-17 budget agreement. In addition, the May Revision:

  • Provides $104 million General Fund for CalWORKs Stage 2 and Stage 3 caseload adjustments. The 2017-18 budget agreement included $25 million to increase the decade-old income eligibility limits and implement a 12-month eligibility period. Based on communication with the Administration, the May Revision adjusts funding for CalWORKs Stage 2 and Stage 3 child care to reflect a larger-than-expected increase in caseload due to these provisions.
  • Adjusts funding for the proposed Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program by $42.2 million Proposition 98. The Governor’s initial budget proposal included one-time funding for a new grant program to increase access to inclusive subsidized early care and education programs by funding “infrastructure costs” such as facilities renovation or professional development. The January proposal included $42.2 million in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds, which the state may not have been able to use for this type of program. The May Revision maintains the proposed funding of $167.2 million by backfilling TANF funds with Proposition 98 funds. This means that only LEAs are eligible to apply for the grant program, but the Administration is encouraging partnerships with non-LEAs. Grant funds would not be available to provide additional subsidized slots.

Finally, the May Revision does not reflect increased federal funding for subsidized child care that was part of the omnibus spending legislation for the 2018 federal fiscal year, signed by President Trump this past March. California is expected to receive about $232 million in additional federal funds. The Administration does not plan to include these funds in the 2018-19 budget agreement, but will instead conduct a stakeholder process in order to determine how to best use the funding in the future.

Back to Top

Revised Budget Makes No Investments in CalWORKs or in SSI/SSP Cash Assistance for Low-Income Californians

The Governor’s revised budget includes no new investments in two key programs that provide basic income support to help low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities pay for basic living expenses, such as housing. Specifically, the May Revision:

  • Does not increase CalWORKs grants. The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program provides modest cash assistance for 830,000 low-income children while helping parents overcome barriers to employment and find jobs. The May Revision does not propose to reinstate the annual state cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) or otherwise increase CalWORKs grants — though such changes would be needed in order to reverse the state cuts that were made during and following the Great Recession. The maximum CalWORKs grant for a family of three is equal to just 41% of the federal poverty line (FPL), leaving it well below the deep-poverty threshold (50% of the FPL).
  • Does not increase the state (SSP) portion of SSI/SSP grants. Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) grants help well over 1 million seniors and people with disabilities to pay for housing, food, and other basic necessities. Grants are funded with both federal (SSI) and state (SSP) dollars. State policymakers deeply cut the SSP portion during and following the Great Recession and have provided only one COLA in recent years — a modest 2.76% boost that took effect in January 2017. The state has not provided an increase since then, and the Governor’s revised budget would freeze SSP grants at their current level for another year.

Back to Top

May Revision Highlights Modest Decline in Incarceration, Includes New Funding to Expand Hepatitis C Treatment

Currently, more than 129,200 people who have been convicted of a felony offense are serving their sentences at the state level — down from a peak of around 173,600 in 2007. Most of the individuals who are currently incarcerated — over 114,600 — are housed in state prisons designed to hold slightly more than 85,000 people. This level of overcrowding is equal to 134.7% of the prison system’s “design capacity,” which is below the prison population cap — 137.5% of design capacity — established by a 2009 federal court order. (In other words, the state is in compliance with the court order.) In addition, California houses over 14,600 individuals in facilities that are not subject to the court-ordered cap, including fire camps, in-state “contract beds,” out-of-state prisons, and community-based facilities that provide rehabilitative services.

The sizeable drop in incarceration has resulted largely from a series of policy changes adopted by state policymakers and the voters in the wake of the federal court order. The most recent reform was Proposition 57, a 2016 ballot measure that provided state officials with new tools to address ongoing overcrowding in state prisons. Prop. 57:

  • Gave the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) broad authority to award sentencing credits to reduce the amount of time that people spend in prison.
  • Requires parole consideration hearings for state prisoners who have been convicted of a nonviolent felony and have completed the full term for their primary offense.
  • Requires juvenile court judges to decide whether a youth accused of a crime should be tried in adult court.

With the implementation of Prop. 57, the average daily number of incarcerated adults is projected to drop from 130,197 in 2017-18 to 126,890 in 2018-19 (a 2.5% decline), according to May Revision estimates. Moreover, the Administration anticipates that by reducing the number of incarcerated adults, Prop. 57 — along with other recent criminal justice reforms — will allow the state to end the use of out-of-state prison facilities by the end of January 2019. Currently, more than 3,200 Californians are housed in facilities in Arizona and Mississippi because there is no room for them in state prisons given the court-imposed prison population cap.

The May Revision contains a significant proposal to spend $317.4 million General Fund over the next three years, starting in 2018-19, to expand Hepatitis C treatment to all state prisoners who are infected with the virus. Currently, about 22,000 incarcerated adults carry the virus, with approximately 2,300 receiving treatment in the current year. The May Revision proposal would allow the remaining 19,700 prisoners to receive treatment over the next three years, at a state cost of $105.8 million per year.

Back to Top

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.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!