General Assistance Programs: the State-Based Part of the Safety Net

THE URBAN INSTITUTE General Assistance Programs: The State-Based Part of the Safety Net

Cori E. Uccello and L. Jerome Gallagher TES TES A A

he federal welfare reform legislation since the last comprehensive survey conducted that became law in the summer of 1996 in 1992.1 will return portions of the federal safety The message is clear. In only 12 states do net to the states, highlighting the importance of current GA programs provide assistance to all sources of assistance for low-income individu- low-income persons and families that fall Tals and families that are administered and fund- through the gaps in the federal safety net. ed at the state or local level. Among the most While this could change as states respond to the important of these is the group of programs federal reforms, GA coverage is now more known collectively as General Assistance restricted and its benefit levels are almost uni- (GA). GA encompasses a widely varying set of versally lower in real terms than in 1992. assistance programs that share two defining characteristics. They are funded and Federal Safety Net administered entirely by the One state, county, and/or locality Since the role of GA in in which the particular of the major argu- the overall social safety net program operates. And ments driving devolution is begins where federal they provide benefits to that it gives states flexibility to assistance ends, it is low-income persons design their own social support useful to start the dis- who are not eligible cussion by reviewing for federal assis- programs to be more responsive in the major compo- tance. As such they serving the particular circumstances nents of the federal are the last resort for of their populations. As states develop safety net. All except government assis- their responses to this new flexibili- the Food Stamp tance for many in ty, it is important that the funding Program restrict eligi-

NEW FEDERALISM need. bility to particular NEW FEDERALISM This brief provides and coverage of General groups. an overview of the Assistance programs be nation’s GA programs as taken into account. Aid to Families with they existed in the summer of Dependent Children (AFDC). ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR ST ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR ST 1996 with three purposes in mind: to AFDC provides cash grants to needy gauge the extent to which persons no longer children (and their parents and caretakers) who eligible for federally funded programs under have been deprived of parental support or care, A product of the new legislation might be assisted through either because one parent is absent from the Assessing the existing state and local programs; to provide a home, incapacitated, or deceased, or because New Federalism, baseline against which to measure changes the parent who is the principal earner in the an Urban Institute states may make to their GA programs in light family is unemployed. Needy children and Program to Assess of the new policy environment; and to trace families with children who are not eligible for Changing Social how the GA landscape has already changed AFDC include primarily two-parent intact fam- Policies Series A, No. A-4, January 1997 ilies that are poor enough to be finan- have their food stamp benefits limited programs in at least some localities cially eligible but have a principal to three months over a three-year (see map). In 33 of these states the wage earner who fails to meet the period. program operates throughout the state; state’s work history or hours worked the remaining 9 states have programs requirement. Availability of General that operate only in some counties. Of the 33 states with statewide Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Assistance programs, 25 have uniform eligibility SSI provides cash payments to needy There is no uniform definition of rules throughout the state and state aged, blind, and disabled persons GA, a rubric that covers a wide range administrative control and funding (including children). The disability of program names, eligibility criteria, (see table 2, page 4). These 25 also benefit is restricted to those with dis- and benefits that vary within, as well have statewide benefit formulae, with abilities severe enough to prevent some but not all adjusting for “substantial gainful employ- regional cost-of-living differ- Table 1 ment” and “permanent,” defined ences within the state. The General Assistance Programs at a Glance as expected to last at least 12 remaining 8 statewide pro- months or end in death. The programs have eligibility rules gram’s lengthy certification Availability of GA Programsa and benefit schedules that process can also delay benefit States with GA programs 42 vary by county or locality. receipt for up to 12 months. Program throughout entire state 33 Although state laws in these Program in only portion of the state 9 states require each county or In-Kind Assistance, principally States with no GA program 9 locality to provide for its Medicaid and Food Stamps. needy residents through a GA Populations Served by GA Programsa Medicaid provides medical program, the same laws give Disabled, elderly, and/or unemployable individuals 42 assistance to low-income per- Children and/or families with children 31 the relevant jurisdiction wide sons, but eligibility is generally Employable individuals without children 16 latitude to decide on at least tied to eligibility for SSI or one of the following: eligibili- AFDC. The Food Stamp Form of GA Benefitsa ty rules, benefit levels, admin- Program provides food assis- Cash 28 istrative control, and funding. tance to low-income persons Vendor payments/vouchers 11 Of the 18 states that do not regardless of their age, health, Mix of cash and vendor payments/vouchers 3 mandate a GA program at or household characteristics. It either the state or local level, 9 is, thus, the only major compo- Duration of GA Benefitsa include towns or counties that nent of the federal safety net for No time limits 18 have chosen to operate their which low-income able-bodied Time limits for a portion of beneficiaries 15 own GA program. These local- persons without children are Time limits for all beneficiaries 9 ities tend to be located in the eligible. larger, more urban areas of the Maximum Cash Benefits as a Percentage of Poverty state, with programs varying (individual recipients) Impact of the New Legislation. Average 39% widely from one county to the 2 The Personal Responsibility and Low (Missouri) 12% next. The remaining 9 states Work Opportunity Recon- High (Nebraska) 100% have no state or local GA pro- ciliation Act, which President gram. These are almost all

NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATESClinton signed into No. A-4 law in Source: Urban Institute 1996. southern states, most of them August 1996, will increase the a. Number of programs. in the southeast. current gaps in the federal safety net in three major ways. First, Eligible Groups AFDC will be replaced by Temporary as across, states. We focus here on Assistance to Needy Families programs that provide more than Of the 42 states with GA pro- (TANF), a state-run assistance pro- sporadic assistance. Thus, we include grams, only 12 provide assistance to gram for low-income children that interim assistance programs available all financially needy persons who do will be funded by a federal block for persons awaiting eligibility deter- not qualify for federally funded cash grant. Under TANF, federal welfare mination for SSI but exclude emer- assistance programs. The other 30 assistance will be limited to a lifetime gency assistance programs that restrict assistance to certain cate- total of five years, with most able- typically consist of one-time grants. gories of persons. All of these provide bodied adults required to work after The major dimensions of GA varia- assistance to at least one subcategory two years of assistance. Second, most tion are shown in table 1. of persons who are disabled, elderly, legal immigrants will lose their eligi- or otherwise unemployable; 19 pro- bility for both SSI and food stamps. Where Are General Assistance vide assistance to low-income chil- Illegal immigrants are already barred Programs Available? dren or families with children, includ- from these programs. Third, unem- Of the 51 states (including the ing women pregnant with their first ployed persons without children will District of Columbia), 42 have GA child; only 4 provide assistance to 2 No. A-4 NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES

Source: Urban Institute 1996.

able-bodied employable adults or Types and Levels of and 100 percent of poverty, respec- able-bodied adults with barriers to tively, all states have benefit maxi- employment. Assistance mums for individuals at 55 percent of All GA programs restrict eligibil- Twenty-eight states provide cash poverty or below. Missouri has the ity to the financially needy, usually benefits to all recipients. Eleven lowest cash benefit maximum for exempting certain types of income states provide in-kind benefits for all individual recipients, at 12 percent of and assets from the eligibility deter- recipients, either through vendor pay- poverty. mination. GA income limits range ments or vouchers.3 In the remaining The duration of benefits also from zero in Florida, Kentucky, and three states with programs, disabled varies. Of the 42 states with GA pro- New Hampshire to $2,109 per month recipients receive cash payments and grams, 18 impose no time limit, 15 for a family of three in Hawaii. Asset all other recipients receive vendor impose time limits on particular sub- limits vary, with the majority of state payments or vouchers. groups of recipients, and 9 impose limits being between $1,000 and Benefit maximums differ among time limits across the board. $2,000. Most (36 states) limit eligibil- recipients according to their family In addition to financial assis- ity to citizens and legal aliens. Seven size, eligibility category, and/or living tance, many GA recipients receive have a durational residency require- arrangement. Among the states that state-funded medical assistance ment ranging from 15 days to 9 provide cash benefits, benefit maxi- through a variety of avenues. In 4 months. Seven require drug and alco- mums as a percentage of the federal states (Delaware, the District of hol abuse treatment if warranted. And poverty threshold average about 40 Columbia, Hawaii, and Oregon), all 21 require employable adults to enter percent for individuals. Except for GA recipients are eligible for medical work or training programs to maintain Hawaii and Nebraska, whose maxi- assistance under that state’s Medicaid benefit eligibility. mum benefits for individuals are 71 or Medicaid waiver program, which 3 4 NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES No. A-4 na =notapplicablebecause mostbenefitsareintheformofvendor paymentsorvouchers. NebraskahasastatewideGAprogramfor disabled persons;GAprogramsforother personsmayvarybycounty. Information intablereflectsNebraskastatemodel guide- f. MedicalAssistanceisprovided throughthestate’s Medicaidorwaiverprogram. e. ColoradohasastatewideGAprogramfordisabledpersons; allotherGAprogramdecisionsarelefttolocaldiscretion,includingwhether tohaveaprogram. d. Figuresweredetermined byusingthefederalpovertythresholdfor1995publishedBureauofCensus ($7,763foroneperson). c. Statesindicatedascoveringpersonsinaspecificcategory maycoveroneormoreofitssubcategories.Categorychildren/familieswith childrenincludeswomenpregnant b. Forthe8stateswhere eligibilityrulesandbenefitlevelsvarybycountythe9statesinwhichGAprograms operateonlyinsomecounties,theinformationtable a. Source: UrbanInstitute1996. State (County/Locality) lines. with theirfirstchild.Categoryofemployable adultswithoutchildrenincludesable-bodiedwithsomebarrierstoemployment. reflects theGAprograminspecificcounty indicated. Indiana (CenterTownship ymn NoProgram NoProgram UniformStatewide UniformStatewide UniformStatewide SomeCounties NoProgram SomeCounties NoProgram SomeCounties Wyoming UniformStatewide UniformStatewide Wisconsin (DaneCounty) UniformStatewide NoProgram West Virginia UniformStatewide Washington Virginia (FairfaxCounty) Vermont Utah Texas (HarrisCounty) UniformStatewide Tennessee Statewide/CountyVariability South Dakota(MinnehahaCounty) UniformStatewide UniformStatewide South Carolina SomeCounties Rhode Island Pennsylvania Oregon SomeCounties Oklahoma UniformStatewide Ohio NoProgram North Dakota(CassCounty) UniformStatewide North Carolina(DurhamCounty) UniformStatewide New York Statewide/CountyVariability New Mexico UniformStatewide UniformStatewide New Jersey UniformStatewide NoProgram SomeCounties New Hampshire UniformStatewide Nevada (ClarkCounty) Nebraska Montana (Yellowstone County) Missouri Mississippi Minnesota SomeCounties UniformStatewide Michigan Statewide/CountyVariabilityMassachusetts Maryland Maine Louisiana UniformStatewide Kentucky (Jefferson Statewide/CountyVariability County) Statewide/CountyVariability Kansas SomeCounties UniformStatewide SomeCounties Iowa (PolkCounty) UniformStatewide NoProgram Illinois (CityofChicago) UniformStatewide UniformStatewide Idaho (AdaCounty) NoProgram Hawaii Georgia (FultonCounty) Florida (DadeCounty) District ofColumbia Delaware Connecticut Statewide/CountyVariability Colorado (CityandCounty California (LosAngelesCounty) Arkansas Arizona Alaska Alabama Ct fMnhse)Statewide/CountyVariability (City ofManchester) Statewide/CountyVariability of MarionCounty) of Denver) f d a Uniform Statewide Uniform Statewide General AssistancePrograms, byState rgasOeaeado Ohr aiisAut ihu saPretMedical asaPercent Adultswithout Families and/or“Other” Programs Operate ihnSaeUepoal ihCide hlrnofPoverty Children withChildren Unemployable within State hr A“lel, hlrn mlybeCashBenefit Employable Children/ “Elderly,” Where GA Table 2 Dsbe, Individual “Disabled,” 3 33 33 3 33 3 3 3 33 33 3 3 33 3 3 3 33 33 3 33 3 33 3 33 3 33 33 33 33 33 3 33 33 33 3 33 3 33 33 3 33 33 3 3 33 33 3 33 3 33 3 3 33 33 33 3 33 Categorical Eligibility 7— 17 ——38 — — na — — — ——33——44— ——na ——na — — 35 34 — — — 27 — — — — b —54—34 —51—18—36— —12—31—38—53—19—na——30—33—71—41—19 3 100 45 55 33 43 54 34 43 6— 36 na na na — na na na na c (Brief no.A-4) Benefits 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 e e e e No. A-4 is funded in part with federal dollars. Los Angeles County, responded by provide GA, some have narrowed the Of the remaining 38 states with GA lowering benefits for individuals by populations eligible for assistance, programs, 29 provide medical bene- 25 percent in 1996. The remaining and some have restricted GA assis- fits outside Medicaid to some or all states—two-thirds of all those with tance to medical expenses. Montana GA recipients, either through a for- GA programs—have held benefit lev- has eliminated the state-run GA pro- mal state or county GA medical pro- els set during or prior to 1992 con- gram that was administered in 12 of its gram or by including certain medical stant in nominal terms, leading to 56 counties, although some counties expenses under the regular GA pro- reductions in real benefit levels. continue to administer their own program. These benefits vary widely but grams with their own funds. are typically more limited than those Eligibility Criteria. Several states have provided by Medicaid. In addition, recently eliminated assistance for cer- * * * * some states without GA cash assis- tain categories of individuals they had tance programs provide alternative previously included in their GA pro- The shrinking of the federal safe- medical care programs for some ty net heightens the importance or all of their needy residents of state and local programs to NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES who do not qualify for In only 12 states do current GA pro- help those in need. One of the Medicaid. major arguments driving such grams provide assistance to all low- devolution is that it gives states Proportions of the income persons and families that fall flexibility to design their own through the gaps in the federal safety social support programs to be Population Helped more responsive in serving the Most state GA programs net. While this could change as states particular circumstances of their are relatively small in relation to respond to the federal reforms, GA populations. General Assistance the total population of the state. programs are an important part Among the 25 states with uni- coverage is now more restricted and of this equation in the majority of form statewide GA programs, its benefit levels are almost universal- states. As states develop their the number of recipients assist- ly lower in real terms than in 1992. responses to this new flexibility, ed each month ranges from less it is important that the funding than 0.1 percent of all persons and coverage of any General (Oregon and Utah) to just over 1.8 grams. Five states (Connecticut, Assistance programs be taken into percent of all persons (New York). Hawaii, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsyl- account. Comparing the number of recipients vania) eliminated benefits for able- to the number of persons in poverty bodied employable individuals without provides a better measure of GA children. Pennsylvania eliminated ben- Notes assistance in relation to need. In the efits for families as well. In each of New York state GA program, the these states except Ohio, a portion of 1. The information in this report was largest in the country relative to need, persons losing eligibility for cash assis- collected through a telephone survey of each state and the District of Columbia the recipients represent only about 11 tance may continue to be eligible for between June and August 1996. For the percent of those living in poverty. medical assistance. Arizona and Rhode 1992 data see “National General Island eliminated benefits for pregnant Assistance Survey, 1992,” by Marion GA Changes over the women. Four states (Arizona, Florida, Nichols, Jon Dunlap, and Scott Barkan, Oregon, and Rhode Island) tightened Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Last Four Years the eligibility criteria for persons with and National Conference of State Since the last GA survey in 1992, disabilities, and three states (Arizona, Legislatures, December 1992. in most states GA benefit levels have Hawaii, and New Mexico) decreased fallen and eligibility criteria have the duration for which benefits are 2. For uniform statewide programs become more stringent. available to disabled recipients. our information was collected from the Vermont, though not eliminating able- state authority. For states with local dis- Benefit Levels. Eight states have bodied employable individuals without cretion, our information comes from the particular county listed in table 2. enacted nominal benefit increases children altogether, tightened the since 1992, but none of these have criteria for GA eligibility for that 3. Vendor payments are made by the exceeded the rate of inflation. Thus, population. GA agency to a person or business (such real benefit levels have remained as a landlord or utility company) in stagnant or fallen. Six states have Other Evidence. Other trends re- exchange for services provided to the GA actually reduced nominal benefits. inforce the conclusion that GA is con- recipient. Vouchers can be used by recipi- The most extreme of these, tracting. Wisconsin, for example, has ents as payment for specific items only, California, gave counties the right to replaced its state-required county- such as food or transportation. seek fiscal relief from the state man- based GA program with a program of date by reducing GA benefit levels. optional block grants. Several Wis- The California county we surveyed, consin counties have chosen not to n 5 NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES No. A-4 Address Correction Requested 1996. 1996 General AssistancePrograms and L.JeromeGallagher, Uccello, HeatherR.McCallum, issues coveredhere,seeCoriE. For additionalinformationonthe Institute. Research AssistantattheUrban L. Jerome Gallagher Associate attheUrbanInstitute. Cori E.Uccello , UrbanInstitute,no.6719, Telephone: (202)833-7200 Washington, D.C.20037 2100 MStreet,N.W. INSTITUTE URBAN THE is aResearch is a State n Fax: (202)429-0687 (http://www.urban.org). For extracopiescall(202:857-8687)orvisittheUrbanInstitute’s website Urban Institute. Permission isgrantedforreproductionofthisdocument,withattributiontothe the UrbanInstitute,itsboard,sponsors,orotherauthorsinseries. The viewsexpressedarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflect Copyright ©1997 Publisher: Series editor: tor ofAssessingtheNewFederalismuntilhisdeathinAugust1996. The seriesisdedicatedtothememoryofStevenD.Gold,whowasco-direc- Wood JohnsonFoundation. FundforNewJersey, theMcKnightFoundation,andRobert Fund, the John D.andCatherineT. MacArthurFoundation,theCommonwealth the HenryJ.KaiserFamilyFoundation,W.K. KelloggFoundation,the The project issupportedbyfundingfrom theAnnieE.CaseyFoundation, and AlanWeil. eral tothestateandlocallevels.Project co-directors are AnnaKondratas ject tomonitorandassessthedevolutionofsocialprograms from thefed- This seriesisaproduct ofAssessingtheNewFederalism,amulti-yearpro- Designed by n The UrbanInstitute,2100MStreet,N.W., Washington, D.C.20037 E-Mail: [email protected] Stephen H.Bell Robin MartellandBarbaraWillis n Web Site:http://www.urban.org Washington, D.C Permit No.8098 Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID .