Sacramento Office
1107 9th Street, Suite 801
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: 916/442-0753; FAX 916/442-7966
www.wclp.org

WELFARE WATCHERS
July 21, 2006

Welfare Watchers is an occasional publication by the Western Center on Law and Poverty on state budget and legislative activity relating to welfare, poverty and services for the poor. The purpose of this publication is to educate the legal service community, advocates for the poor and the general public about the impact of budget and legislative proposals on programs that serve extremely low-income households. All materials may be reproduced so long as WCLP is listed as a source for the materials.

State Budget CalWORKs Changes and the New DRA TANF Regulations

In less than 24 hours time, the state Legislature and the federal department of Health and Human Services separately, but significantly, altered the state's welfare program, CalWORKs. In the case of the state changes, they were expected and appear to improve the existing CalWORKs program. The federal changes were somewhat unexpected and limit the flexibility of state's to operate TANF programs. Taken together, the state faces great challenges in meeting the TANF work participation requirement in the coming year and beyond.

The changes are a result of the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. The most significant of the changes to TANF was reducing the usefulness of the caseload reduction credit by only allowing credit for caseload reduced after 2005. Additionally, the DRA directs the Secretary of HHS to define work activities and to determine whether to include separate state programs in the federal work participation formula through regulations by June 30, 2006.

Under the short time frame created by the DRA, California has only until October 1, 2006 to implement the changes and is subject to a fine of up to $185 million the first year for failure to meet the 50 percent federal work participation rate. Given that California's actual participation rate is around 23 percent, it is clear that California faces a Herculean task in doubling the number of families meeting federal requirements.

DSS Work Groups
In April, the California Department of Social Services organized a stakeholders work group that divided into sub-committees looking at funding options, work activities, sanctions, data and employment/training options. WCLP, working with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, arranged for Donna Pavetti of Mathematica Policy Research (one of the nation's foremost welfare researchers) to help design a process for evaluating the program and policy options. The Pavetti "matrix" guided the work groups and helped provide a more systematic approach to considering policy options by connecting them to actual program data and research on welfare. In doing so, problem areas began to emerge such as:

• 75,000 participants in any month were either sanctioned or not in compliance with work requirements.
• 40,000 families had work participation rates below ten percent due to their circumstances (exempt families and those receiving domestic violence (DV), mental health (MH) or substance abuse (SA) treatment).
• 31,000 participants were working some hours but not enough. • 42,000 participants were in between activities and not meeting federal rates

Separate State Program
Under the old TANF rules states could use Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds in separate state programs and not have those cases count towards the federal work participation rate. The DRA, however, required HHS to consider which state programs paid for by MOE funds to include in the work participation rate. Despite this limitation in the DRA, states are still free to determine which cases to add to the caseload who might improve the state's work participation rate and states are free to fund their own separately funded welfare programs so long as neither TANF nor MOE is used. The funding group created by DSS examined the state's options under these new rules.

Buy-in Strategies
One way to improve work participation is by adding categories of cases of families who are meeting participation requirements. The Legislative Analyst Office had recommended adding in cases that had left assistance but were receiving Stage 2 or Stage 3 child care. Since, in theory, these families worked by adding them back into the federal calculation we could improve the state's work participation rate. Other groups of working families not on the caseload were also considered such as families receiving transitional Food Stamps or those who have timed off aid but working.

The key question for the funding group was what inducement would be needed to get enough families to report their hours. Unlike buyout strategies, buy-in strategies require increased spending. The LAO had suggested that $25 a month to families getting child care might be sufficient but others doubted this would provide much inducement to participate. To include cases, families would have to report their hours monthly and meet the weekly hour requirement. But increasing the amount of assistance also meant reducing the availability of funds for other program improvements such as training and educational opportunities.

Buy-out Strategies
Another option is to remove cases from the federal program which are not meeting the participation requirements. Buyout strategies require the state to pay for the program with state General Funds. These funds had to be expenditures that were not being currently counted as MOE by the state but which could be counted as MOE. The state would then pay for the solely state funded welfare program from the General Funds and pay for the state program costs with the TANF MOE funds. A key concern for advocates was that creating a separate state program would place families at risk in the future if the state decided it could not longer afford the program.

Identifying New MOE
Using a matrix that walked through the federal requirements for counting MOE, the funding group was able to identify more than $800 million in uncounted MOE. This was largely due to a change made in the DRA that allows states to count MOE for state expenditures that are "reasonably calculated" to accomplish TANF purposes three and four, reducing out of wedlock births and encouraging the formation of two-parent families. Primarily using TANF purpose three, the work group identified over $800 million in new MOE, mostly from state expenditures for post-secondary education.

The funding group then looked at which part of the CalWORKs caseload should be placed in a separate state program. Again the work group used a matrix to evaluate different options including families with children under age one, new applicants, families exempt from work requirements, and families getting services for DV, MH or SA. The main question was which group negatively impacted the state's work participation rate the most. The largest group with a low work participation rate was exempt cases. Those with DV, MH or SA needs had a similar work participation rate but are smaller as a group than exempts.

Program Design and the Caseload Reduction Credit
With funding identified and the potential caseload groups analyzed, the final piece was how to design the program. In theory, if the state reduced its caseload by placing cases in a separate state program it would not only improve the state's work participation rate but it would have the secondary effect of providing a caseload reduction credit to replace the credit lost in the DRA.

A caseload reduction credit is only permitted when there are no eligibility changes to the TANF program. In other words the state can't eliminate eligibility to get a caseload reduction to get a credit. The solution was to make the new state only program "voluntary." Families eligible for a separate state program could choose which welfare program to go into at the point they applied for aid. By giving the family the option, it retained eligibility for the family in the federal program and thus preserved the possibility for a caseload reduction credit. It also meant that if the state ever terminated the state only program that the families would simply go back into the federal TANF program and their benefits would continue. This resolved one of the advocate's chief concerns with a state only program.

Sanctioned and Non-Compliant Cases
In California if a parent is sanctioned the children are placed in the state's child only program until the parent comes into compliance with work requirements. This has the effect of removing the sanctioned parents from the work participation rate calculation. The DRA regulations, however, were expected to include sanctioned families in the work participation rate. Given that 25 percent of the caseload is either sanctioned or non-compliant, it became clear that improvement to the state's work participation rate would have to include improvement with these cases.

Welfare research shows that sanctioned families have significantly more barriers than do the families meeting work participation. Data shows that where applicants and recipients had long time lags between activities and little contact with the caseworkers that the greater the likelihood of non-compliance or a sanction.

Home Visits
Some states have had success in reducing the number of sanctions by having more personal contacts with recipients between activities. Los Angeles County has begun a pilot program of "home visits" to families before they become sanctioned. While advocates have been concerned with the potential for abuse from home visits, the experience in Los Angeles suggests that most recipients benefit from more personal contact. In fact, 80 percent of participants respond to the county letter setting the date and time for the visit and avoid the visit. Of those that respond without a home visit 44 percent are working, should have been exempt or start meeting work participation requirements. Among those who get a home visit, 32 percent come into compliance.

Durational Sanctions
State law also plays a role in the high level of sanctioned cases. Due to the caseload reduction credit, there was little pressure to meet work participation rates and since the state placed the children of sanctioned adults in a state only program until the parent complied, the counties had little incentive to assist non-compliant families. But now with sanctioned cases being added to the countable caseload and the counties facing penalties for failure to meet work participation goals the counties recognized that they must do more to reduce sanctions and get people into countable work activities.

But state law stood in the way. When a participant gets a second or third sanction they are barred from curing for first three, and then six months, respectively, even if they want to comply with the welfare to work plan. Federal TANF law allows states to exempt sanctioned cases from the work participation rate for three months consecutively but after that they count against the work participation rate. California's law had the unintended consequence of now penalizing the state because it was impossible to cure a durational sanction.

Legislative Plan
DSS had hoped that decisions on changes to CalWORKs would be delayed until the work groups had a chance to complete their tasks and until the federal regulations came out. The Administration's May Revise proposal did not contain a comprehensive CalWORKs proposal though it did propose $20 million for counties to improve up-front engagement and $40 million for the Pay for Performance program.

The Legislature, however, had other ideas. Their view was that the budget presented the appropriate opportunity for making policy and fiscal changes in an expedited manner. If the Legislature had waited until the summer to pass changes to CalWORKs, there may have been no funding left to accomplish policy changes under consideration. In addition, DSS and counties would have had even less time to implement the changes prior to October 1.

The Senate introduced a CalWORKs reform proposal into the Senate budget plan that built on the Administration's May Revise proposals but largely reflected much of the work group discussions. The Senate released a short document that begins:

The changes to the federal TANF program present an opportunity to significantly increase the number of CalWORKs families that are engaged and working their way toward self-sufficiency. By engaging families at the inception of their participation in CalWORKs, we can help more families leave assistance and become independent, and prevent the state from incurring significant federal penalties. No single strategy will be enough - we must provide a continuum of strategies and services to help families succeed at every stage of the program.

The Senate proposed the following:

• $30 million for up-front engagement ($10 million more than the Administration)
• $40 million for Pay for Performance
• $40 million for sanction reductions
• $25 million to expand local employment and training collaboratives
• $9 million for work study at community colleges
• $140 million for county single allocation funding restoring funds from 05/06
• $33 million for Employment Training Panels
• Remove Exempt Cases to Separate State Program funded with new MOE
• Eliminate durational sanctions and permit earn backs of sanctions.

The components of the Senate plan were crafted to respond to the issues and ideas considered by the DSS work groups. Up-front engagement was to eliminate "gaps" in activities that lead to sanctions. Sanction reductions was designed to promote more personal contact with recipients before and after a sanction is imposed, eliminate barriers to curing and to give financial incentives to participants to cure a sanction by allowing them to earn back a portion of the lost grant. To avoid sanctions participants needed activities to participate in so funds were provided for local employment and training collaboratives, community college work study and funding for apprenticeship programs. Lastly, the Senate moved families unable to participate and exempt from work requirements into a separate state program not subject to federal TANF rules.

The Assembly quickly adopted the Senate's proposal and it was placed in the budget. After negotiations with the Administration the bulk of the Senate's proposal stayed intact but was organized in a slightly different manner. New spending was reduced from $150 million to $100 million over the 05-06 amount. The key highlights include:

• $90 million for upfront engagement, sanctions reduction and more work activities
• $40 million for Pay for Performance
• $140 million for county's single allocation formula
• $9 million for Comm. College work study
• $13 million for ETP
• Remove Exempt Cases to Separate State Program funded with new MOE
• Eliminate durational sanctions

The changes were included in the social services trailer bill, AB 1808. The bill passed in a bi-partisan manner with three votes more than the minimum 54 votes in the Assembly and the minimum 27 votes in the Senate. As part of the final budget negotiations the Legislature demanded that the Governor agree to sign the social service trailer and not blue pencil any of the funds appropriated. A more detailed summary of the changes in AB 1808 is available at WCLP's website, www.wclp.org.

HHS' Interim Final Rule on TANF
The day after the Legislature passed the budget, the department of Health and Human Services released the Interim Final Rule on TANF as directed by the DRA. The rule takes effect immediately though comments to HHS are welcome until August 28th. Under the DRA states must comply with most aspects of the regulations by October 1, 2006 but they have until October 2007 to implement the reporting and verification requirements.

HHS was directed by Congress to promulgate regulations in the following areas:

• Defining work activities to reduce variances among states
• Determine which state only programs to include for federal work participation purposes
• Develop methods for states to verify and document participation

State Only Programs
Many states, including California, created welfare programs not subject to federal work participation and time limit requirements by using only state MOE funds. In the DRA Congress instructed HHS to determine which of these state programs should be included in the federal work participation rate. In response, HHS developed a new concept of "work-eligible individual" to clarify which cases are subject to federal work participation. In essence, all adults in households with children are in the federal calculation except for:

• Immigrant parents who are not eligible to work
• Minor parents who are not head of households
• SSI recipients (at state option)

The HHS "work eligible" definition seriously impacts California's child only programs. While sanctioned adults were expected by all observers, few anticipated that adults who have exhausted their 60 month federal assistance clock or persons barred due to a drug felony would be included. In total this definition will add more than 90,000 cases to the state's work participation rate and require California to get even more families to work than had been anticipated. California does not provide employment services to parents in state only programs and has only budgeted for sanctioned families who were expected to be added.

While the state will have an unexpected burden by having to add these cases, the regulations make clear that state's can count state expenditures for TANF purposes three and four, reducing out of wedlock births and formation of two parent families. The regulation appears to support California's innovative approach of moving cases from the TANF caseload to a solely state funded program. Given that cases needing DV, MH or SA services were not included, California may want to expand on this approach in the near future.

Defining Work Activities
The federal work definitions strongly emphasize unsubsidized employment and will limit the ability of California to provide education and training. But the changes do not likely require significant changes to the state's current approach to welfare to work since in the main the state has not utilized broad definitions of work activities.

Perhaps the most notable impact is that vocational education may no longer be counted as part of a four year or baccalaureate degree. Currently some participants are able to meet their welfare to work obligations for one year using the vocational education category while attending classes. Now those hours will no longer count towards the 20 hour core requirement. While education can still count towards ten hours a week of the federal 30 hour a week requirement, participants wishing to go to school must find 20 hours of work (such as work study) on top of their school hours. This change should not impact participants in self-initiated programs.

Verification and Documentation Requirements
A significant change is the requirement that many activities have "daily supervision." This requirement applies to most activities except unsubsidized work, subsidized employment and on-the-job training. Participants in other activities must have their supervisors document their actual hours and counties must have documentation in the case file of all hours worked.

Meanwhile persons with earnings can, at state option, "project" their hours for up to six consecutive months. This option will be very attractive to administrators, employers and participants if work and other activities can be combined for six month reporting purposes.

A more detailed summary of the HHS regulations and the California impacts is available at WCLP's website, www.wclp.org.

What's Next?
The state, counties advocates and participants are facing an October 1, 2006 deadline for putting into place the recent changes. Most significant is that state's will be held to the new work participation requirements starting on that date and the state must also submit the Work Verification Plan to HHS for approval.

In addition counties must develop their own DRA implementation plans by this fall that must be approved by DSS. These plans will focus on how the counties intend to use the additional $90 million to improve up-front engagement, reduce sanctions and increase work and training opportunities.

DSS is preparing an All County Letter that will direct counties that they must implement the new sanction policy effective July 12th, 2006. Any person currently subject to a durational sanction or eligible for a sanction should get notice from the county that they can end the sanction at any time by complying.

Summation
On the surface it looks like the federal and state governments are going in different directions on welfare policy. The state is increasing its investment to reduce the number of persons who are not in compliance with the federal requirements. The federal government is reducing the allowable activities available to comply. The state reduced regulatory barriers by eliminating durational sanctions but the federal government increased regulatory burdens on government, employers and participants by increasing reporting and verification requirements. The state placed those unlikely to work in a state program not subject to TANF while the federal government added cases where the state has little or no authority to compel the adult to work.

Despite the limitations of the federal DRA regulations, California will continue to be able to operate the CalWORKs program with minimal change. While the AB 1808 changes made in response to the DRA will likely not be enough to increase the work participation rate to 50% by October, 2007, they should lead to a steadily improving work participation rate overtime while not diminishing opportunities for families.

State Budget Restores
Federal SSI COLA

The 2006-7 state budget restored the federal Cost of Living Adjustment COLA) for the blind, aged and disabled recipients of SSI. The federal SSI COLA had been diverted to the state budget for the first three months of 2006 and 2007 in the 2005-6 budget. This will increase the maximum grant amount for an individual from $836 a month to an estimated $850 a month beginning in January 2007 based on the projected 2007 federal Consumer Price Index (CPI). In recent years these projections have often been lower than the actual CPI.

Restoration of the COLA was a top priority of advocates for the poor and disabled this year. At both the Senate and Assembly Budget Hearings, Western Center, Protection and Advocacy and others supported restoration. They urged the Legislature to reconsider in light of the increased state budget and the impact that MediCare Part D prescription drug co-payments were having on the same population.

Despite this support for restoration, neither house voted to restore the funds prior to the May Revise budget. This inaction caused Los Angeles Times political writer George Skelton to criticize both the Governor and the Legislature. Skelton wrote on May 15th that :

"… this governor's "values" apparently don't embrace California's 1.2 million aged, blind and disabled who are living on the edge, clinging to government benefits for survival."

"…what also is inexcusable that nobody's mentioning: The governor and the Legislature, in their budget negotiations last year, agreed to steal the federal SSI COLAs for the first three months of both 2006 and 2007. It's money the state no longer really needs, if it ever did. But the larceny lingers.

Neither Schwarzenegger in his May revise nor the Legislature has moved to right that wrong.

Shortly thereafter Speaker Nunez told the press that he would not support the budget unless it included restoration of the SSI COLA. At an Assembly Budget Sub-Committee hearing, the SSI COLA was restored. But the Senate never acted on the COLA request and thus the issue became a conference committee item. It wasn't until June 10th that the conference committee voted to approve the Assembly version and restore the funds. The language to restore the COLA was included in the social services trailer bill, AB 1808.

One issue remains from the delay in passing through the COLAs. About 31,000 SSI recipients who get a deduction from their check because they get in kind assistance had their SSI checks reduced by $8 a month because the state and the Social Services Administration were unable to reprogram their computers to avoid the reduction. These recipients were supposed to get the three months of lost aid, $24, restored by the spring but this has still not occurred. The restoration of the 2007 COLA eliminates this problem next year.

Budget Improves CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program

The state budget included a long overdue reform of the CalWORKs homeless assistance program. The program is intended to assist CalWORKs families if they become homeless through no fault of their own.

Beginning in the 1990's the Wilson Administration placed severe limits on the program, most notably restricting its' use to once per lifetime for most families. The program also had very limited fiscal tools that made the program less useful in addressing present day housing costs. Speaker Nunez had introduced a bill jointly sponsored by Western Center and the county welfare director's, AB 2961, that proposed to improve the fiscal tools and allow counties to offer a work support to a formerly homeless family who were meeting federal work participation requirements.

The main provisions of AB 2961 were included, along with $5 million in increased funding, in AB 1808, the social service budget trailer bill. While the AB 1808 version does not include the work support provision, it does:

• Expand the definition of homeless to include a family who has been given notice to quit and whose financial hardship is beyond their control.
• Increase the payments for temporary shelter from $40 a day for a family of four to $65 a day with increases in $15 increments for each additional family member up to a maximum of $125 a day.
• Increase permanent shelter payments from 80 percent of the family grant to 80 percent of the family income.
• Extend permanent shelter assistance to include up to two months of back rent.

The changes became effective July 12, 2006 DSS will be issuing an ACL to inform counties of how to implement the changes.

2005-06 Human
Service Legislation

Below are bills introduced in the 2005-6 legislative session related to human services. There is also a list of bills in the access to justice area at the bottom of the human service bills list. Please go to www.leginfo.ca.gov for specific bill language, status and history.

AB 1835 (Lieber) - Would increase the minimum wage to $7.75 an hour by July, 2008 and provide an annual cost of living increase for the minimum wage thereafter. Passed the Assembly Appropriations and the Senate Labor Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

AB 1982 (Bass) - Would expand eligibility for Kin-Gap to children who are wards of the juvenile courts. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2184 (Bogh) - Amended twice to clarify that unlicensed group homes, not subject to the residential care facility licensing requirement, may use health and safety codes to regulate group homes. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. May be heard in Senate Judiciary in August. WCLP opposes.

AB 2192 (Bass) - Opts California out of the federal bar on providing CalWORKs benefits to families in recovery from substance abuse and who have felony drug convictions. Amended in the Senate to require drug treatment and ongoing voucher payments. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. WCLP is the sponsor but opposes mandatory drug testing.

AB 2205 (Evans) - Would require counties to automatically enroll families eligible for MediCal into the federal Food Stamp program if they are eligible for CalWORKs. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

AB 2466 (Daucher) - Would permit a CalWORKs recipient to have savings in a 401(k) or a 529 college savings plan without having those amounts count towards their resource limit for CalWORKs eligibility purposes. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

AB 2473 (Wyland) - A spot bill that would require applicants for public assistance and unemployment insurance to produce identification. The bill has not been sent to a committee for hearing and is dead for the year.

AB 2556 (Jones) - Would establish the goal of cutting poverty in half by 2016 and eliminating it by 2026. It would also require the Legislative Analyst to review the Governor's budget to determine how it impacts poverty. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

AB 2608 (Assembly Human Service Committee) - Would provide that when a foster care child is transferred to a new family that the child care eligibility certificate goes with the child so they do not have to wait until a child care slot becomes available. Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2745 (Jones) - Amended to require hospitals to organize a process of key stakeholders to develop methods of transitioning homeless persons after discharge. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Health Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

AB 2961 (Nunez) - Would amend the CalWORKs homeless assistance program by increasing the amount of funds available to homeless CalWORKs families from both the temporary shelter assistance and permanent housing assistance sections of the program. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Service Committee but some of its provisions were included in the state budget in AB 1808, along with $5 million in new funding. WCLP supports.

AB 3005 (Emerson) - Would permit local governments to submit to DSS information on issues other than impacts from overconcentration about applicants for licensed residential care facilities. Passed the Assembly Human Services Committee but held in Assembly Appropriations. WCLP opposes.

AB 3029 (Laird) - Would replace the current quarterly reporting system for CalWORKs with a semi-annual reporting requirement. It would also direct DSS to seek a waiver from the federal government from the requirement to conduct face to face interviews. Passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

SB 1351 (Battin) - Is a spot bill for CalWORKs that was introduced at the request of the Republican caucus. No hearing date set and bill is dead for the year.

SB 1421 (Margett) - This bill would require DSS to create a pilot program in Los Angeles County to determine the incidence of child care fraud in stage two and three and to report the findings and recommendations to the Legislature. Passed the Senate Education Committee but held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP opposes.

SB 1534 (Alarcon) - Would require the state Health and Human Service Agency, the Public Utilities Commission, the Department of Insurance and Department of Education to collaborate to ensure that persons who are concurrently eligible for programs in any of these public agencies to be enrolled in the programs that they are eligible for and to create a single application for all the programs. Passed the Senate and the Assembly Human Services Committee. . Is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

SB 1569 (Kuehl) -Would provide transitional state public benefits to trafficking victims until they are approved for federal benefits. Passed the Senate and the Assembly Human Services Committee. Is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

SB 1656 (Alquist) - Would require DSS to form a work group to develop findings and recommendations about the emergency response needs of aged, disabled and poor persons in case of a public emergency. Not set for hearing and is dead for the year.

SB 1825 (Migden) - Would permit a CalWORKs applicant to participate in welfare to work activities through a self-initiated education program if they have applied for admission in a program but not yet been accepted. Passed the Senate and the Assembly Human Services Committee. Is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

Access to Justice Bills Introduced in the 2005-6 Session
SB 229 (Figueroa) - This bill would extend the sunset for the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) until 2011.The TRF is used by legal service and pro bono attorneys to pay for transcripts for indigent appellants. Attempts by advocates to make eligibility for the TRF the same as IOLTA were shelved until 2006. WCLP supported. Signed by Governor

AB 1293 (Oropeza) - Would permit pro bono attorneys serving IOLTA clients to get their transcripts reimbursed by the Transcript Reimbursement Fund. Passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on consent. Pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports.

AB 2301 (Jones) - Would require local bar associations to provide a method for bar members to contribute to local legal service programs by adding to their bar dues. Passed the Assembly with bi-partisan support and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. WCLP supports

AB 2302 (Jones) - Would require courts to provide interpreters in civil court actions. Passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee but held in the Assembly Appropriation Committee. The 2006-7 state budget appropriated $10 million for this purpose but it was vetoed by the Governor. WCLP supports.

AB 2679 Harman) - Would prohibit legal services the spending of state IOLTA funds on undocumented immigrants. The bill was pulled from the Assembly Judiciary Committee calendar and by rule is dead for the year. WCLP opposes

By: Michael Herald, Legislative Advocate, mherald@wclp.org