Skip to content

CalFresh Helps Californians Buy Food in Every Congressional District

More Support Needed in COVID-19 Federal Response

April 2020 | By Kristin Schumacher and Monica Davalos

Download Full Fact Sheet

The federal Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) — known as CalFresh in California — is one of the nation’s most powerful antipoverty programs, helping millions of people buy the food they need to support their families and households. Even with a strong economy in 2019, CalFresh provided food assistance to nearly 1 in 10 Californians. Program participation varied across the state’s 53 Congressional districts, but was especially high in the 8th District (R-Cook), 16th District (D-Costa), and 21st District (D-Cox) (see Map 1). CalFresh enrollment will increase dramatically in the coming weeks and months as many across the state lose jobs and income due to the COVID-19 public health and economic crisis.

SNAP is also one of the federal government’s most effective tools in boosting the economy when participants purchase food in their communities. While recent federal legislation responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by enacting temporary provisions in the SNAP program to streamline administration, maintain participation, and provide emergency benefits, more needs to be done. Federal policymakers should take additional actions to help households put food on the table and to boost the economy. Until the public health emergency is over and the economy improves, policymakers should increase SNAP’s maximum benefit and minimum monthly benefit and halt any administrative actions that would limit SNAP food assistance.


Covid-19

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The COVID-19 public health crisis has upended the lives of Californians. Millions of people have experienced serious disruptions to their jobs following social distancing public health recommendations and state and local shelter-in-place orders aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. While necessary to prevent overwhelming the state’s health care system, the business reductions and closures forced by these orders will have a severe economic impact on Californians as well as on regional economies.

This Fact Sheet shows that the major industries most immediately impacted by the COVID-19-related economic shutdown – leisure and hospitality, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and other services – employ large numbers of Californians in the state’s largest metropolitan areas.1 Without a sufficient federal response to help workers and their families, the shutdown will have a ripple effect throughout local economies as people who lose work will lose income and be forced to cut back on their spending, thus reducing demand for business more broadly.

Covid-19

1 Although many people employed in leisure and hospitality, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and other services have lost work in recent weeks, there are notable exceptions. For example, within retail trade, grocery stores and pharmacies remain open; within leisure and hospitality, some restaurants have remained in business by providing takeout service instead of in-house service; and within transportation and warehousing, there has been increased demand for jobs supported by online shopping. Due to data limitations for metropolitan areas, it is not possible to present job figures for the industries within these sectors that have been most immediately impacted by the economic shutdown. For these figures at the state level, see The California Industries Hit Hardest by COVID-19 Economic Shutdown: These Industries Employ Millions of Californians.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The COVID-19 public health crisis has upended the lives of Californians. Millions of people have experienced serious disruptions to their jobs following social distancing public health recommendations and state and local shelter-in-place orders aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. While necessary to prevent overwhelming the state’s health care system, the business reductions and closures forced by these orders will have a severe economic impact on Californians and will hit those with low incomes especially hard.

This Fact Sheet shows that the types of occupations most immediately impacted by the COVID-19-related economic shutdown typically pay low wages, providing annual incomes near or below the poverty line based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure for Los Angeles, even for full-time work.1 This means that the Californians who will bear the brunt of the economic slowdown live paycheck to paycheck even when work is plentiful and are unlikely to have savings to fall back on when their jobs disappear.

Covid-19

1 Although many people employed in these occupations have likely lost work in recent weeks, there are notable exceptions. For example, within transportation and warehousing, there has been increased demand for jobs supported by online shopping.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The COVID-19 public health crisis has upended the lives of Californians. Millions of people have experienced serious disruptions to their jobs following social distancing public health recommendations and state and local shelter-in-place orders aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. While necessary to prevent overwhelming the state’s health care system, the business reductions and closures forced by these orders will have a severe economic impact on Californians and the state’s economy.

This Fact Sheet shows that the industries most immediately impacted by the COVID-19-related economic shutdown employ several million people in California.1 Without a sufficient federal response to help workers and their families, the shutdown will have a ripple effect throughout the economy as people who lose work will lose income and be forced to cut back on their spending, thus reducing demand for business more broadly.

Covid-19

1Although many people employed in these industries have likely lost work in recent weeks, there are notable exceptions. For example, within transportation and warehousing, there has been increased demand for jobs supported by online shopping.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

In the 1950s and 1960s, policymakers in California and elsewhere began reducing the use of state hospitals to treat people with mental illness – a policy known as “deinstitutionalization.” However, the lack of robust treatment alternatives led to a growing number of people with mental health conditions becoming homeless and, in many cases, incarcerated.1 As a result, prisons and jails have been turned into “America’s…new mental hospitals,” even though it is clear that correctional facilities are highly inappropriate places to house and treat people with mental illness.2

State prisons. Nearly 37,000 people incarcerated at the state level – almost 29% of the total – received mental health treatment in December 2018.3 This was up from about 32,500 – less than 25% of the total – in April 2013. California is projected to spend about $800 million on mental health care in state prisons under Governor Newsom’s proposed 2020-21 state budget. This is more than one-fifth (22%) of total projected health-related spending for state prisoners ($3.6 billion).

County jails. In September 2019, California’s county jails housed 72,806 people on any given day (average daily population).4 Many of these individuals need mental health care. Point-in-time statewide data for September 30, 2019 show that 20,023 people in jail had an open mental health case and 18,020 were receiving psychotropic medication.5 In Los Angeles County, which has the largest jail population in the state, an average of 30% of people in jail on any given day in 2018 — about 5,100 out of roughly 17,000 — “were in mental health housing units and/or prescribed psychotropic medications.”6

While California must continue to improve health care for people who are incarcerated, reforms are also needed to address the connections between mental health and the criminal justice system so that Californians who need mental health treatment receive the appropriate care in a timely manner rather than being confined in state prisons or county jails.

 

For more information on the state’s system, check out “Mental Health in California: Understanding Prevalence, System Connections, Service Delivery, and Funding”.

Support for the Budget Center’s work on behavioral health is provided by the California Health Care Foundation.

Covid-19

1 E. Fuller Torrey, et al., The Treatment of Persons With Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey (Treatment Advocacy Center and National Sheriffs’ Association: April 8, 2014), pp. 11-13; Jen Rushforth, “Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Unforeseen Consequences of California’s Deinstitutionalization Policy,” Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science 3 (Spring 2015), pp. 30-35;  Matt Vogel, Katherine D. Stephens, and Darby Siebels, “Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System,” Sociology Compass 8 (June 2014), pp. 629-630.

2 The quotation is from E. Fuller Torrey, et al., More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States (Treatment Advocacy Center and National Sheriffs’ Association: May 2010), p. 1. See also Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project, When Did Prisons Become Acceptable Mental Healthcare Facilities? (February 2015).

3 Prison population and expenditure data cited in this paragraph are from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of Finance, respectively.

4 Statewide jail population data cited in this paragraph are from the Board of State and Community Corrections.

5 State data do not indicate how many people fall into both categories; the overlap may be substantial. Average daily population data are not directly comparable to point-in-time data. Point-in-time data for several counties were unavailable, so the reported numbers of open mental health cases and people receiving psychotropic medications are likely somewhat low.

6 Stephanie Brooks Holliday, et al., Estimating the Size of the Los Angeles County Jail Mental Health Population Appropriate for Release Into Community Services (RAND Corporation: January 2020).

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

As California works to improve access to behavioral health services (mental health and substance use), policymakers should keep in mind the various socioeconomic factors that can contribute to the development of mental health conditions for children, youth, and adults. Research suggests that low levels of household income and mental health conditions are related.1 In addition, experiencing racism and discrimination negatively impacts mental health for multiple racial/ethnic groups, especially for children and adolescents.2 Left unaddressed, chronic stress due to experiencing poverty and/or racism can affect a child’s development and can lead to behavioral problems.3

In California, nearly 1 in 6 adults experience mental illness and 1 in 25 experience a serious mental illness.4

Serious mental illness is more common among Californians with low incomes. In 2015 – the most recent year for which these data are available – about 1 in 11 adults with incomes below the federal poverty line (FPL) had a serious mental illness. The 2015 FPL was $12,331 for a single person and $24,036 for a family of four.

Native American adults experienced the highest rates of serious mental illness in 2015, followed by Black, multiracial, and Latinx adults. White, Pacific Islander, and Asian adults experienced lower rates of serious mental illness.

* KEY TERMS: Mental illness is defined as a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder that can vary in impact, ranging from no impairment to mild, moderate, and even severe impairment. Serious mental illness is defined as a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder resulting in serious functional impairment, which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.5

Nearly 1 in 13 California children and youth experience a serious emotional disturbance.

Serious emotional disturbance is most common among children and youth in families with the lowest incomes. In 2015, an estimated 1 in 10 children and youth in families living in poverty experienced a serious emotional disturbance.

Black, Latinx, Native American, and Pacific Islander children experienced the highest rates of serious emotional disturbance (at or near 8%), while rates for multiracial, Asian, and white children were just under 7%.

* KEY TERMS: Serious emotional disturbance applies to children and youth age 17 and under who have, or during the past year have had, a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder resulting in functional impairment that substantially interferes with or limits functioning in family, school, or community activities.6

A greater understanding of the socioeconomic factors can help advance policies that address the racial discrimination and economic disparities many California families face and lead to improved behavioral health outcomes.

For more information on the state’s system, check out “Mental Health in California: Understanding Prevalence, System Connections, Service Delivery, and Funding”.

Support for the Budget Center’s work on behavioral health is provided by the California Health Care Foundation.

Covid-19

1 Jitender Sareen, et al., “Relationship Between Household Income and Mental Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry 68 (April 2011), pp. 419–427.

2 Anissa I. Vines, Julia B. Ward, and Kristin Z. Black, “Perceived Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Mental Health: a Review and Future Directions for Social Epidemiology,” Current Epidemiology Reports 4 (June 2017), pp. 156–165. See also, Aprile D. Benner et al., “Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Well-Being During Adolescence: A Meta-Analytic Review,” American Psychologist 73 (2018), pp. 855-883.

3 Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, ACEs and Toxic Stress (n.d.). See also American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics Recommends Pediatricians Screen for Poverty at Check-ups and Help Eliminate its Toxic Health Effects (March 9, 2016).

4 The prevalence estimates for mental illness and serious emotional disturbance were developed by Dr. Charles Holzer and Dr. Hoang Nguyen using a sociodemographic risk model. For a description of the methodology used to develop these estimates, see page 53 in Mental Health in California: For Too Many, Care Not There.

5 National Institute of Mental Health, Mental Illness (February 2019).

6 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DSM-5 Changes: Implications for Child Serious Emotional Disturbance (June 2016).

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Too many families and individuals in all regions of California struggle to afford the costs of housing, child care, health care, food, and other basic necessities – with serious consequences for health and well-being that can also affect the broader community and economy. Many families that include immigrants face particular challenges to maintaining economic security, even in a strong economy, due to jobs with low wages, unstable work, and the “chilling effect” of recent anti-immigrant federal actions. An economic downturn would likely hit these families and their communities especially hard.

At the same time, refundable income tax credits are proven and powerful tools to boost economic security for families and individuals, and California policymakers have made significant state investments in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit – the CalEITC – and new Young Child Tax Credit.

However, hundreds of thousands of immigrant families are currently excluded from the

CalEITC and Young Child Tax Credit. State lawmakers can choose to include these Californians with a simple change to filing requirements for these tax credits. Doing so would boost economic security for families and individuals in every legislative district, while pumping millions of dollars into local economies throughout California.

Find our estimated economic benefit by each Senate and Assembly District in California below and the boost local economies would see if policymakers expanded the CalEITC and Young Child Tax Credit to all California who work and pay taxes.

California State Senate

Click below to get the Fact Sheet for your state senate district. (Find your representative)

District   1 –  Sen.  Brian Dahle (R) District   21 –  Sen.  Scott Wilk (R)
District   2 –  Sen.  Mike McGuire (D) District   22 –  Sen.  Susan Rubio (D)
District   3 –  Sen.  Bill Dodd (D) District   23 –  Sen.  Mike Morrell (R)
District   4 –  Sen.  Jim Nielsen (R) District   24 –  Sen.  Maria Elena Durazo (D)
District   5 –  Sen.  Cathleen Galgiani (D) District   25 –  Sen.  Anthony Portantino (D) 
District   6 –  Sen.  Richard Pan (D) District   26 –  Sen.  Ben Allen (D)
District   7 –  Sen.  Steve Glazer (D) District   27 –  Sen.  Henry Stern (D)
District   8 –  Sen.  Andreas Borgeas (R) District   28 –  VACANT
District   9 –  Sen.  Nancy Skinner (D) District   29 –  Sen.  Ling Ling Chang (R) 
District   10 –  Sen.  Bob Wieckowski (D) District   30 –  Sen.  Holly Mitchell (D)
District   11 –  Sen.  Scott Wiener (D) District   31 –  Sen.  Richard Roth (D)
District   12 –  Sen.  Anna Caballero (D) District   32 –  Sen.  Bob Archuleta (D)
District   13 –  Sen.  Jerry Hill (D) District   33 –  Sen.  Lena Gonzalez (D)
District   14 –  Sen.  Melissa Hurtado (D) District   34 –  Sen.  Tom Umberg (D)
District   15 –  Sen.  Jim Beall (D) District   35 –  Sen.  Steven Bradford (D)
District   16 –  Sen.  Shannon Grove (R) District   36 –  Sen.  Patricia Bates (R)
District   17 –  Sen.  Bill Monning (D) District   37 –  Sen.  John Moorlach (R)
District   18 –  Sen.  Bob Hertzberg (D) District   38 –  Sen.  Brian Jones (R)
District   19 –  Sen.  Hannah-Beth Jackson (D) District   39 –  Sen.  Toni Atkins (D)
District   20 –  Sen.  Connie Leyva (D) District   40 –  Sen.  Ben Hueso (D)

California State Assembly

Click below to get the Fact Sheet for your state assembly district. (Find your representative)

District  1 –  Asm.  Megan Dahle (R) District  41 –  Asm.  Chris Holden (D)
District  2 –  Asm.  Jim Wood (D) District  42 –  Asm.  Chad Mayes (I)
District  3 –  Asm.  James Gallagher (R) District  43 –  Asm.  Laura Friedman (D)
District  4 –  Asm.  Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D) District  44 –  Asm.  Jacqui Irwin (D)
District  5 –  Asm.  Frank Bigelow (R) District  45 –  Asm.  Jesse Gabriel (D)
District  6 –  Asm.  Kevin Kiley (R) District  46 –  Asm.  Adrin Nazarian (D)
District  7 –  Asm.  Kevin McCarty (D) District  47 –  Asm.  Eloise Gomez Reyes (D)
District  8 –  Asm.  Ken Cooley (D) District  48 –  Asm.  Blanca Rubio (D)
District  9 –  Asm.  Jim Cooper (D) District  49 –  Asm.  Ed Chau (D)
District  10 –  Asm.  Marc Levine (D) District  50 –  Asm.  Richard Bloom (D)
District  11 –  Asm.  Jim Frazier (D) District  51 –  Asm.  Wendy Carrillo (D)
District  12 –  Asm.  Heath Flora (R) District  52 –  Asm.  Freddie Rodriguez (D)
District  13 –  Asm.  Susan Eggman (D) District  53 –  Asm.  Miguel Santiago (D)
District  14 –  Asm.  Tim Grayson (D) District  54 –  Asm.  Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D)
District  15 –  Asm.  Buffy Wicks (D) District  55 –  Asm.  Phillip Chen (R)
District  16 –  Asm.  Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D) District  56 –  Asm.  Eduardo Garcia (D)
District  17 –  Asm.  David Chiu (D) District  57 –  Asm.  Ian Calderon (D)
District  18 –  Asm.  Rob Bonta (D) District  58 –  Asm.  Cristina Garcia (D)
District  19 –  Asm.  Phil Ting (D) District  59 –  Asm.  Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D)
District  20 –  Asm.  Bill Quirk (D) District  60 –  Asm.  Sabrina Cervantes (D)
District  21 –  Asm.  Adam Gray (D) District  61 –  Asm.  Jose Medina (D)
District  22 –  Asm.  Kevin Mullin (D) District  62 –  Asm.  Autumn Burke (D)
District  23 –  Asm.  Jim Patterson (R) District  63 –  Asm.  Anthony Rendon (D)
District  24 –  Asm.  Marc Berman (D) District  64 –  Asm.  Mike Gipson (D)
District  25 –  Asm.  Kansen Chu (D) District  65 –  Asm.  Sharon Quirk-Silva (D)
District  26 –  Asm.  Devon Mathis (R) District  66 –  Asm.  Al Muratsuchi (D)
District  27 –  Asm.  Ash Kalra (D) District  67 –  Asm.  Melissa Melendez (R)
District  28 –  Asm.  Evan Low (D) District  68 –  Asm.  Steven Choi (R)
District  29 –  Asm.  Mark Stone (D) District  69 –  Asm.  Tom Daly (D)
District  30 –  Asm.  Robert Rivas (D) District  70 –  Asm.  Patrick O’Donnell (D)
District  31 –  Asm.  Joaquin Arambula (D) District  71 –  Asm.  Randy Voepel (R)
District  32 –  Asm.  Rudy Salas (D) District  72 –  Asm.  Tyler Diep (R)
District  33 –  Asm.  Jay Obernolte (R) District  73 –  Asm.  Bill Brough (R)
District  34 –  Asm.  Vince Fong (R) District  74 –  Asm.  Cottie Petrie-Norris (D)
District  35 –  Asm.  Jordan Cunningham (R) District  75 –  Asm.  Marie Waldron (R)
District  36 –  Asm.  Tom Lackey (R) District  76 –  Asm.  Tasha Boerner Horvath (D)
District  37 –  Asm.  Monique Limon (D) District  77 –  Asm.  Brian Maienschein (D)
District  38 –  Asm.  Christy Smith (D) District  78 –  Asm.  Todd Gloria (D)
District  39 –  Asm.  Luz Rivas (D) District  79 –  Asm.  Shirley Weber (D)
District  40 –  Asm.  James Ramos (D) District  80 –  Asm.  Lorena Gonzalez (D)
Covid-19

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) grants are a critical source of income for well over 1 million California seniors and people with disabilities who have low incomes and need help paying for basic necessities, such as housing. Grants are funded with both federal (SSI) and state (SSP) dollars. The maximum monthly grant for an individual is about $944, which consists of an SSI grant of $783 and an SSP grant of $160.72.

To help close budget shortfalls during the Great Recession, the state made deep cuts to the SSP portion, reducing it from $233 per month in early 2009 to $156.40 per month by mid-2011. State policymakers increased the SSP grant by $4.32 per month starting in January 2017. However, no additional state grant increases have been provided since then, and the Governor’s proposed 2020-21 state budget assumes the SSP portion will remain frozen for another year.

Because state cuts largely remain in place, SSI/SSP recipients have less money to meet their basic needs, including housing. This is particularly concerning in light of California’s high housing costs. In all 58 California counties, the “Fair Market Rent” (FMR) for a studio apartment exceeds 50% of the maximum SSI/SSP grant for an individual. Moreover, the studio FMR exceeds the entire grant in 22 counties. People are at greater risk of becoming homeless when housing costs account for more than half of household income.

Covid-19

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!