Subscribe Donate

Tag: pandemic

Home | Newsroom |

Up-to-date COVID-19 information

OVERVIEW

  • June emergency allotments for CalFresh food benefits will be issued on July 17th for CalSAWS and July 24th for CalWIN. May allotments were issued on June 12th for CalSAWS and June 19th for CalWIN.
  • COVID-19 vaccines are free. Click here for more information.
  • Rapid COVID tests are also free, and can be shipped to you. Click here to order
  • Diagnostic testing for COVID-19 is covered at no cost for all Californians.
  • California’s eviction moratorium has ended, but you should still apply for rent relief if you need it! If you receive an eviction notice, do not ignore it. Seek local legal help right away.
  • California’s COVID-19 Rent Relief program can be accessed here, or call 833-430-2122.
  • Federal Child Tax Credit payments are not considered income for any family, and will not change receipt of public benefits.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Food and Financial Security

  • Federal Child Tax Credit payments are not considered income for any family, and will not change receipt of public benefits, including unemployment insurance, Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, SSDI, TANF, WIC, Section 8, or Public Housing. Find out more about California’s Golden State Stimulus payments — if you qualify, and how to get it. También en español.
  • Restaurant delivery service is available for older Californians. Information and sign-up details for interested participants and restaurants are available here.
  • California households receiving SNAP food stamp benefits (CalFresh) can now purchase groceries online through a USDA pilot program.
  • Here is a Distance Learning Student Resource Guide from the California Department of Social Services. The guide includes information on free or low-cost internet, English language learning, adult education and workforce skills, video conferencing resources, and more.

Health Care

  • Keep your Medi-Cal contact information current. Make sure your county has your current address, phone number, and email address – especially if you moved since 2020. Later this year, counties will start contacting people to help them renew their Medi-Cal. If they cannot contact you, your Medi-Cal may end so you want to make sure they have your current information. Find your local county at this link.
  • COVID-19 vaccines are free. Click here for more information. All health plans must cover vaccine administration for free, and Medi-Cal covers vaccine administration for free.
  • Diagnostic testing for COVID-19 is covered at no cost for all Californians. You will need to go to a state testing site, one run by your county, or get a test at a medical provider that can enroll you in a special Medi-Cal program for people without insurance. You can contact your county public health departmentlocal clinic, and medical provider to receive information about your options for free testing.
  • There is a conflict between the California regulation governing health plans for COVID-19 diagnostic testing and federal testing requirements under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the CARES Act. This conflict in current law might result in a health plan billing you for testing. If this happens and you want assistance with reviewing the bill, please contact Helen Tran at htran[at]wclp.org or (213) 235-2638.
  • Everyone is encouraged to seek care if they are sick, regardless of income or immigration status. For more information about your right to health care, visit the Health Consumer Alliance’s COVID-19 information site.

Housing

  • Here is Western Center’s Know Your Rights toolkit for California tenants. Inquilinos de California: Conozca Sus Derechos.
  • California’s COVID-19 Rent Relief program helps eligible renters and landlords with unpaid/future rent and utility payments due to COVID-19, regardless of immigration status. Get info, check eligibility, and apply here, or call 833-430-2122.
  • The fact sheet below explains the current protections and financial assistance available to California renters and landlords. Versions are also available in SpanishChineseRussian, and Vietnamese.

(Click image below to access PDF – Español aqui – Tiếng việt ở đây – Русский здесь – 这里的中国人)

  • The Eviction Laws Database captures state, territorial, and local laws covering the eviction process — from pre-filing to post-judgment, as of January 1, 2021. The database was launched by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in partnership with the Center for Public Health Law Research, and consists of two datasets:
    • State/Territory Dataset – covers eviction laws, regulations, and court rules that were in effect as of January 1, 2021 in all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and eight U.S. territories
    • Local Dataset – covers eviction laws, including those at the county and local level, in 30 local jurisdictions in effect as of January 1, 2021

Additional Resources

 

 

 

 

U.S. and California History Directly Impacts Housing Instability during COVID-19

We are one year into the COVID-19 pandemic, and the foundation of California’s precarious housing policies are crumbling, leaving a disproportionate number of Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) with low incomes vulnerable to mass evictions, housing instability, and homelessness.

It’s a sad reality, but not surprising since California’s housing laws and policies were built on a foundation of racism and white supremacy. Colonization and land theft by European settlers led to the devastation and genocide of Native communities, and planted seeds for centuries of racialized housing practices that we still see today. Generations of government sponsored housing segregation and private discrimination keep BIPOC communities in poverty, contribute to the racial wealth gap, and is a direct cause of housing instability for BIPOC communities during this deadly pandemic.

BIPOC communities are the hardest hit by the pandemic, which is partially a result of historic and current political decisions to uphold white supremacy within housing policies. To understand how and why we are facing an immense economic and housing crisis for millions of people within our communities, we must understand and accept that the housing system was sanctioned by the government to keep BIPOC communities segregated. Only then can we begin to heal and work toward a more equitable future.

In 1934, the federal government created the Federal Housing Administration, which is often applauded for making home-ownership accessible to many Americans by guaranteeing home loans. But the FHA explicitly refused to guarantee home loans for Black people or to even insure mortgages in white neighborhoods where Black people were present.[1] The policy ensured that neighborhoods were racially segregated, often to the detriment of Black neighborhoods. If a Black family could afford to purchase a home, exclusionary zoning kept them out of white neighborhoods, forcing them into devalued, low-income neighborhoods. That had a profound impact on Black families’ ability to acquire wealth through homeownership, and in turn prevented them from passing down generational wealth. Black families today have disproportionately less generational wealth than white families, placing them at increased vulnerability for economic crashes and job insecurity as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Not only did the federal government obstruct homeownership for Black families, but local governments in California, particularly in the Bay Area, also promoted racial segregation, which kept Black Californians in poverty. In the 1940s, the city of Richmond, California, led by the federal government, created racially segregated neighborhoods to accommodate the growing Black population. However, those publicly funded buildings were poorly built and resembled shanties. Communities were also created for white war workers that explicitly forbade any newly constructed homes from being rented to Black people, forcing Black people to rely more and more on public housing, blocking upward financial mobility.[2]

San Francisco, one of the most liberal and forward-thinking cities in the Bay Area, intentionally segregated Black communities by forcing them into public housing in Hunters Point and the Western Addition.[3] These local policies created “ghettos” whereby Black families were forced to remain in “undesirable,” poverty stricken urban neighborhoods. Now those neighborhoods are facing unprecedented attacks, enduring economic devastation from the pandemic and increasing gentrification and displacement from the same developers who undervalued the neighborhoods.

Those racially discriminatory practices did not end, but continue to impact Black communities today. In 2008, many Black neighborhoods were devastated by the financial collapse caused by predatory subprime mortgages.[4] Since many Black families lost their homes and savings, they were thrust into housing instability with little to no financial safety nets. The federal government did not provide support for low-income residents harmed by predatory lending, but instead decided to bail out the predators – the banks. In a particularly appalling move, the federal government sold those foreclosed properties to large private equity firms, rather than non-profit developers or residents, allowing corporate landlords to monopolize the housing market.

Today, corporate landlords use homeownership and “house-flipping” as a way to further concentrate their wealth on the backs of BIPOC communities, causing long-term harm. Due to these policies, our communities have a rational fear that another housing crisis similar to 2008 is coming, which will lead to more corporate ownership of California’s scarce housing stock.

Since BIPOC communities are being sold to corporate owners, many BIPOC people must rent, which also causes housing instability. Housing instability stems from the tangible problem that people simply cannot afford rent. Since 1990, rent prices in California have skyrocketed as wages stay primarily stagnant.  For example, in 1990, the average one-bedroom apartment was $799; today that same one bedroom is $1400.

Studies show that Black renters pay more for housing than white renters for units with similar characteristics in similar neighborhoods, simply because the renter is Black.[5] Additionally, the median income for Black renter households was $32,140, compared to $42,000 for Hispanic renter households, $45,000 for white renter households, and $62,220 for Asian renter households.[6]  In 2018, the California Housing Partnership Corporation found that renters need to make 3.5% the minimum wage, or about $38.54/hour to afford median rents.

Given the high cost of rent, it’s no surprise that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many California tenants struggled to pay rent in an increasingly expensive and hostile housing market. In December 2020, 1.1 million California households were behind on rent, owing an estimated $7.3 Billion in arrears.[7]

The high price of rent is not the only problem when analyzing housing affordability and instability for renters, other costs such as utilities, access to transportation, rental application fees, security deposits, etc. all contribute to unaffordable costs of housing. Approximately 17 million Californians are renters, and 1 in 4 are considered severely housing cost burdened, paying over half of their income on housing prior to the pandemic — Black (59%) and Latinx (57%) households are the most housing cost burdened.

Since BIPOC communities are forced to pay more of their income towards housing costs, their quality of life is deteriorated. Often, our communities are forced to live in substandard conditions, which impacts health and job opportunities. Many people of color live in conditions where they are exposed to mold, lead, pests, and lack basic necessities like heat and running water, resulting in illness and death. Families are forced to pick between paying rent or going to the doctor for basic health needs, which is especially important during a global health crisis. Due to the high cost of housing, some families are forced into overcrowding, which can lead to an increased exposure to infectious diseases. Our communities are forced to deal with a trifecta of crises all highlighted by the pandemic and rooted in racism.

Even though many tenants are housing cost burdened, federal, state and local governments have dramatically cut spending on publicly funded affordable housing. While public housing has a history of racial exclusion and criminalization, it is a critical safety net for people of color with low-incomes because it provides the opportunity for families to pay lower housing costs while maintaining safe and stable housing. Since the 1970s, funding for public or subsidized housing has drastically declined and policy makers have failed to restore it.[8]  Today, California has fewer than 300,000 units of public housing and about 219 public housing projects. It’s no coincidence that there is a lack of funding for public and subsided housing considering that people of color are often those who reside in them.

However, public housing is not without its own history of racism. The War on Drugs is famously known for the criminalization of Black and Latinx communities, and it also had a secondary effect of influencing public housing policies. Beginning with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which sought to terminate the “reign of terror “of criminal activity in public housing communities, HUD authorized grants for public housing authorities to actively investigate and eliminate drug crimes in public housing authorities.[9] A consequence was over-policing, deliberate harassment, and targeting of people of color in public housing communities.

The Cranston-Gonzales Act of 1990 expanded the definition of eviction to “include any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment”.[10] Public housing authorities were also granted the authority and discretion to terminate tenancy if a family member or guest of the tenant was engaging in drug-related criminal activity, regardless of if the family member or guest was under the tenant’s control.[11]

Now, nuisance ordinances are used to further target communities of color.  Citations of minor violations like excessive noise, parking multiple cars in the parking lot, or having items on a patio are used to harass communities of color.  Since those evictions are based on something other than non-payment of rent, tenants are still being evicted during a pandemic because renter protections do not apply to them.

In a broader sense, evictions further compound racial segregation in housing. Evictions systemically target people of color — in San Francisco, 24% of Latinx households and 21% of Black households were threatened with eviction from 2013-2018, compared to only 12% of white households.[12]

In courts across California, you can see the racial disparities. As a former tenants’ attorney in Los Angeles, the majority of my clients who were evicted were Black women and Latinx families, and the landlords were white. This is particularity atrocious considering that most tenants are unrepresented.  Many are left at the mercy of unjust renter protections, an inaccessible and confusing court system, and potential homelessness.

Insufficient legal protections for renters, plus a lack of financial support from the government, plus the preexisting affordable housing crisis and looming economic recession may lead to even more devastating effects on BIPOC renters for generations to come. Lack of financial support and government intervention could also lead to an increased rate of eviction, particularly for BIPOC renters already experiencing cost burdens. The combination of increased rent burdens on top of already high rent will lead to inevitable displacement and homelessness among BIPOC renters.

Despite the history, we have a chance to change our future. To create a more equitable housing system and heal from the past, we must work together to strengthen our housing policies for communities of color, and actively fight against racist and discriminatory policies. As we’ve seen with shelter-in-place orders, housing is literally a matter of life or death. Governments need to ensure that all people have access to safe, stable, and affordable housing.

Second, the pandemic has shown that evictions lead to death, so we must expand renter protections and rent forgiveness, and end discriminatory housing policies. Finally, the voices of communities of color must be central in creating solutions to affordable housing. We need to place decision making power back into communities to assist in planning, administering and creating housing policies that honor and stabilize our communities.

We can use momentum from the unprecedented nature of the COVID pandemic to fix our broken housing policies, the question is, will we?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Richard Rothstein, The Color of the Law A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (2018).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Sophia Weeden, Black and Hispanic Renters Face the Greatest Threat of Eviction in Pandemic, (2021), https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/black-and-hispanic-renters-face-greatest-threat-eviction-pandemic

[6] Id.

[7] National Equity Atlas (2021), The Coming Wave of COVID-19 Evictions: A Growing Crisis for Families in California, https://nationalequityatlas.org/research/analyses/COVID-19-evictions-california

[8] Amee Chew, Chione Lucina Munoz Flegal, Facing Hisotry, Uprooting Inequality: A Path to Housing Justice in California, (2020) https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl_report_calif-housing_101420a.pdf

[9] Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 Ibid. § 5122 (1988). 42 U.S.C. §§ 1190-03 (2012)

[10] Sarah Clinton, Evicting the Innocent: Can the Innocent Tenant Defense Survive a Rucker Preemption Challenge?, 85 B. U. L. Rev. 293, 297 (2005)

[11] See Pub. L. No. 101-625, §. 503, 104 Stat. 4079, 4184-85 (1990); See e.g. Hous. Auth. of Joilet v. Chapman, 780 N.E. 2d. 1106, 1108 (Ill App. Ct. 2002) (holding that public housing residents can be terminated for the criminal conduct of her guest regardless of whether the tenant had control of the guest); See also, Bennington Hous. Auth. v. Bush, 933 A.2d 207, 212-214 (Vt. 2007) (finding that a housing authority can evict an entire family for the misdeeds of one family member).

[12] San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Housing Needs and Trends Report, (2018),  https://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Housing-Needs-and-Trends-Report-2018.pdf

Pandemic reveals tale of 2 Californias like never before

“It’s all very frustrating, since with the fifth largest economy in the world, these things are fixable. The money is there,” said Courtney McKinney, spokesperson for the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “It is a question of priorities — whether or not millions of people being plunged into poverty is seen as enough of a destabilizer to encourage the wealthy, business and political class in California to put money into addressing poverty and the trappings of poor environment in smart, sensible ways. Easier said than done.”

Read More

 

 

These Californians don’t get stimulus checks — why advocates want Newsom to do more for them

“Christopher Sanchez, a policy advocate at the Western Center on Law & Poverty, said the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated inequities for California’s undocumented communities, many whom live paycheck-to-paycheck and lost jobs at unequal rates during the pandemic-induced recession.

“The governor’s proposal is absolutely a great step in the right direction for undocumented families,” Sanchez said. “However, we know that there are going to be individuals who are left out.”

Read More

Western Center Analysis of Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2021-2022 California Budget Proposal

PDF available here

Governor Newsom has released his proposed 2021-22 state budget. Due to a strong, unanticipated influx of General Fund revenue, Newsom proposes to spend billions of dollars on a one-time basis to address the immediate needs of tenants, landlords, businesses, schools and others in the midst of the pandemic. The budget follows the outlines of the 2020-21 budget agreement, which largely avoided the draconian cuts to education, health and public benefit programs that characterized many past budgets during economic downturns. This proposed budget, while not austere, is conservative both in terms of its long term economic outlook and ambition to meet existing needs of millions of Californians.

Though the budget avoids deep cuts and proposes immediate action to bolster spending, the Governor assumes slower growth in revenue in future years, resulting in significant deficits beginning in 2022-23, which could result in lower spending in the future. In short, the 2022-23 state budget and beyond will either require deep cuts or substantial new revenues to maintain current spending levels.

BACKGROUND

The 2020-21 budget assumed that there would be a substantial loss of state General Funds due to the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The budget was passed using half of the Prop 2 Budget Stabilization reserves (aka Rainy Day Fund) and by assuming that the state would receive $14 billion from the federal government in the form of COVID relief by September 2020. Without that funding, the “trigger” mechanism would institute $14 billion in budget cuts.

Despite the fact that federal COVID relief did not arrive in September as projected, budget cuts have not been implemented. In late December, the federal government approved additional COVID relief, but much-needed funding for state and local governments was not included. The state did receive billions to address some COVID related costs, and to fund transportation, education and rental assistance. But in general, those funds cannot be used to fill holes in state budgets.

Fortunately, the deep recession did not result in the massive loss of state General Fund revenue that was predicted. Throughout the second half of 2020, state revenue coffers exceeded estimates by billions of dollars. This counterintuitive outcome reflects the growing impact of income inequality in California, where despite double digit unemployment, tax receipts continue to climb because the incomes of the wealthy are growing — most of the lost jobs were in low wage employment. Additionally, many of those who lost jobs received unemployment insurance that was supplemented by the federal CARES Act. Higher income workers largely did not suffer job losses, and many online enterprises saw substantial increases in profits leading to higher tax payments to the state.

Additionally, anticipated higher caseloads for health and human service programs did not materialize, resulting in lower state spending in the 2020-21 budget. By late November, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office projected a $26 billion surplus for the state. The Governor’s budget, however, is cautious, and pegs the surplus at $15 billion. But starting with the 2022-23 budget, the Governor projects that revenue will be more than $6 billion short of estimated expenses, and by the 2024-25 budget, the deficit could grow to $11 billion if no adjustments to spending or revenue are made.

COVID-19

The Governor is calling for “early action” by the Legislature on a package of assistance to respond to the COVID crisis. Among the items in the package are:

  • $600 checks to all households receiving the state earned income tax credit. This would provide cash to approximately 4 million Californians.
  • $575 million to small businesses and non-profits impacted by the COVID crisis.
  • $2 billion in Prop 98 funds to safely re-open public schools starting with classes for the youngest children.
  • $1.2 billion to help Californians with low incomes acquire green vehicles.

While this spending is welcome, it does not come close to meeting the needs of struggling Californians. Increased cash payments to the poorest Californians are needed now and should not be limited to those who have earnings from work. More state assistance is needed to ensure tenants are not saddled with debt that will decimate their credit and drive them further into poverty. The greatest public health crisis in memory is the time to provide health care for all.

FINANCIAL SECURITY

CalWORKs

The budget proposes a 1.5% increase in CalWORKs grants to begin October 1, 2021. The increase will bring the grant for a family of three to 49% of the federal poverty level or a maximum grant of $891 a month. This is similar to a proposed increase from last year’s budget that was dropped when the pandemic started. This funding is provided from the Child Poverty subaccount.

Overall spending on CalWORKs is declining to account for lower than anticipated caseload. The 2020-21 budget assumed the caseload would rise by more than 200,000 families. However, the increase was far more modest, resulting in an increase of about 50,000 cases. Thus, funding for the 2020-21 budget is proposed to be clawed back. Funding for 2021-22 is $600 million lower than the current year but a caseload increase to 480,000 families is funded in the budget.

  • Total TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funding: $9.3 billion. This amount includes $7.4 billion for CalWORKs program expenditures and 1.9 billion in other programs.
  • Average monthly caseload for CalWORKs is to be 482,436 2021 – 22, this is a 19% increase from last year.
  • CalWORKs Time on Aid Exemption – $46.1 million one-time General Fund (TANF) block grant funding to temporarily suspend any month in which CalWORKs aid or services are received from counting towards the CalWORKs 48th month time based on a good cause exemption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • CalWorks Grant Increase – 1.5% increase to CalWORKs maximum aid payment levels effective October 1, 2021. $50.1 million in 2021 – 22. The increased grants costs are funded entirely by the Child Poverty and Family Supplemental Support Subaccounts of the Local Revenue Fund.

SSI/SSP

There is no SSP grant adjustment in the Governor’s budget. The budget describes the passing through of federal COLAs that are required under current federal law, but that is not an increase. Indeed, state spending for SSI is proposed to decline again, by an estimated $20 million. Yet again, as in past years, these “savings” are not re-invested into the program to benefit recipients who still have not had grant cuts restored from the last recession. The ongoing failure to address these cuts is unreasonable and unjust.

  • $2.69 billion General Fund, a 0.6% decrease from last year’s budget.
    • Monthly average case load is expected to be 1.18 million recipients this fiscal year, a 1.1% decrease.

$2.4 Billion in Earned Income Tax Credit Assistance

The Governor is proposing a one-time $600 increase in state Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) payments to families that receive CalEITC. With so many people in California struggling, and with many working families losing jobs or income from work, putting cash in people’s pockets is good for people experiencing poverty and good for the state economy. The Legislature may wish to consider increasing the size of the payments or providing more cash assistance to the lowest income families.

The Governor’s proposal will benefit more than four million California families, but it leaves out several million California households who do not have earnings from work. This includes CalWORKs families, virtually all SSI recipients, immigrants with neither SSNs or ITINs, people on General Assistance and many others who are unemployed. The Legislature should consider ways to provide assistance to all low income families and individuals.

Food Security

  • $30 million in one-time General Funding for emergency food assistance to food banks, tribes, and tribal organizations.
  • Supplemental Nutrition Benefit and Transitional Nutrition Benefit Programs Adjustment – $22.3 million ongoing General Fund.
  • California Food Assistance Program – $11.4 million in one-time General Funding for households to receive max allowable allotment based on household size.
  • $10 million one-time General Funding to the Office of Farm to Fork’s Farm to School Program. Brings healthy food to schools and supports agriculture education, including school gardening, farms and cooking.

Higher Education

  • $100 million in Prop 98 funds to address food and housing insecurity for community college students.
  • Increase of $15 million ongoing General Fund to the CSU Graduation Initiative 2025 that targets students experiencing food and housing insecurity.
  • $35 million ongoing from the General Fund for Cal Grants which will add 9,000 students to the Cal Grant awards, bringing the total to 50,000 awards.

Child Support

  • $24.9 million ($8.5 million General Fund) ongoing for local child support agencies to improve collections and services
  • $23.8 million ($8.1 million General Fund) for local child support courts and state operations for child support funding.

Miscellaneous

The proposal includes $35 million one-time General Fund to support micro-grants of up to $10,000 seed funding. These grants are for underserved groups, including undocumented immigrants, to start small businesses.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE/ FINES & FEES

Online Traffic Court Adjudication Pilot

The Governor is proposing again to expand the traffic court online adjudication pilot program statewide. This pilot allows people to pay traffic tickets online rather than make an appearance in court. People with low incomes are given a minimum reduction of 50% of the fines, fees and assessments due to the court. It also allows them to get on a payment plan not to exceed $25 a month.

The proposal allots $12.3 million General Fund, increasing the total to $58.4 million ongoing General Fund by 2024-25, to expand the program statewide, and to include non-traffic infractions.

The Legislature chose not to move forward with the proposal last year and instead used the funding provided for the pilot to reduce criminal fees. Advocates also expressed concern about the design of the pilot and were seeking changes that would expand discounts to people with low incomes.

HEALTH CARE

The Governor’s proposal takes a baseline approach to health care with no major expansions, including no proposal to expand Medi-Cal to undocumented elders or eliminate the harmful Medi-Cal assets test. The proposal resumes the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal initiative (CalAIM), which was put on hold due to the pandemic; expands Continuous Glucose Monitoring systems; extends suspension of Medi-Cal benefits and supplemental provider rates for 12 months; proposes one-time funding for behavioral health services, particularly for school-aged children; and takes further steps to implement the Master Plan on Aging.

Medi-Cal

  • The Governor’s proposal assumes a 10.1% Medi-Cal case rate from 2019-20 to 2020-21 and 11.7% from 2020-21 to 2021-22, starting with nearly 14 million Californians and increasing to 15.6 million (peaking at 16.1 million in January 2022), representing nearly 40% of California’s population in 2021-22. The administration bases this estimate on continuous coverage requirements under federal law and a pandemic-induced recession, although enrollment numbers have not born out these projections.
  • The proposal includes $12 million ($4.2 million General Fund) to add Continuous Glucose Monitoring systems as a Medi-Cal benefit for beneficiaries ages 21 and older with diabetes, effective January 1, 2022.
  • The proposal implements the CalAIM initiative effective January 1, 2022, including $1.1 billion ($531.9 million General Fund) for FY 2021-22, growing to $1.5 billion ($755.5 million General Fund) in FY 2022-23. This investment follows the proposal that was put on hold last year.
  • The proposal includes $750 million General Fund, available over three years, for DHCS to invest in critical gaps across the community-based behavioral health continuum, including the addition of at least 5,000 beds, units, or rooms. Funding would be made available to counties, requiring local funding match, via a competitive application process.
  • The proposal includes $400 million ($200 million General Fund) one-time over multiple years to implement an incentive program through Medi-Cal managed care plans, in coordination with county behavioral health departments and schools, to build infrastructure, partnerships, and capacity statewide to increase the number of students receiving preventive and early intervention behavioral health services.
  • The Governor’s proposal extends the suspension of Medi-Cal benefits, eligibility, and provider rates by 12 months. Specifically:
    • Optional benefits restored in 2019 Budget, specifically audiology and speech therapy services, incontinence cream and washes, eyeglasses and contacts, and podiatric services, have been extended by 12 months to 12/31/2022 for a cost of $47 million ($15.6 million General Fund).
    • The proposal delays the suspension of Medi-Cal post-partum extended eligibility by 12 months to 12/31/2022 for a cost of $27.1 million General Fund.
    • Supplemental provider payments are also extended by 12 months to 6/30/2022 for a cost of $3.2 billion ($275.3 million General Fund, $717.8 million Prop 56 funds, and $2.2 billion in federal funds).
      • Payments to intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, freestanding pediatric subacute facilities, and Community Based Adult Services proposed to be extended to 12/31/2022 to align with managed care calendar rate year. The 7% IHSS hour cuts has also been proposed to be suspended to 12/31/2022.
      • Supplemental payment for Women’s Health, Family Planning, the Loan Repayment program, behavioral health integration program, AIDS waiver, home health, and pediatric day health no longer subject to suspension.
    • The proposal reflects last year’s announcement to postpone the carve-out of prescription drugs through Medi-Cal Rx to April 2021. Under revised estimates, Medi-Cal Rx is projected to result in less net savings of $612 million ($238.1 million General Fund) in FY 2021-22.
    • The proposal makes permanent the restoration of adult over-the-counter cough/cold and acetaminophen drug benefits for savings of $21 million ($7.8 million General Fund) effective July 2021, although the waiver provided temporary reinstatement earlier as of March 2020.
    • The proposal includes $94.8 million ($34 million General Fund) to make permanent and extend telehealth flexibilities, including implementing remote patient monitoring services as an allowable telehealth modality in fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care delivery systems.
    • The proposal states the administration’s intention to focus on health disparities and cultural and language competency through health plan contractual language.

Other Health Proposals                                                                     

  • The proposal includes $11.2 million in 2020-21 and $24.5 million in 2022-23 to establish the Office of Health Care Affordability, which is charged with increasing cost and quality transparency, developing cost targets for the health care industry, enforcing compliance, and filing gaps in market oversight. The Office will be under the newly created Department of Health Care Affordability and Infrastructure, which will also house the current Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.
  • The proposal provides $25 million in one-time Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds over five years, for the oversight and accountability commission to augment the mental health student services act partnership grant; $25M ongoing Prop 98 General Fund to fund partnerships and county behavioral health departments to support student mental health.
  • The proposal provides $750M in one-time General Funding for competitive grants to counties to acquire and rehabilitate real estate assets to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources.
  • The proposal establishes a new Office of Medicare Innovation and Integration that will explore strategies and models to strengthen and expand low and middle income Californians access to services and supports, while developing new partnerships with federal government.
  • The administration will appoint a senior advisor on Aging, Disability, and Alzheimer’s to advance cross-Cabinet initiatives and partnerships; $5 million General Fund to further implement Master Plan on Aging; $3 million one-time General Fund for OSHPD to grow and diversify geriatric medicine workforce.
  • In response to the pandemic, the proposal includes $300 million as an initial estimate for vaccine distribution, including a public awareness campaign.

HOUSING

The Governor’s budget proposal includes important investments to address California’s existing housing crisis at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic is making the crisis worse for low-wage workers and communities of color. The proposal builds on recent efforts to provide stability to at-risk households and invest in programs that will aid economic recovery, and increase the supply and production of very low, low, and moderate income housing. In total, the Governor proposes more than $8 billion in housing resources.

Preventing Evictions and Foreclosures

Last August, the Legislature enacted AB 3088 to create strong statewide eviction protections for tenants unable to pay rent due to hardship caused by COVID-19. The bill extended rental protections to January 31st, 2021 to forestall an incoming wave of evictions. The administration is seeking an immediate extension of AB 3088 beyond January 31, 2021 to allow the state to use federal resources to assist those with arrears, rent, and utilities so families and individuals with low incomes stay housed. The budget includes $11.7 million one-time General Funds for trial courts to process the anticipated increase in unlawful detainer and small claims filings resulting from AB 3088.

The Governor is relying on the federal COVID-19 relief bill that was enacted in late December, which will allocate $2.6 billion in rental relief funds to California. Rental assistance will be dispersed between the state and local governments with an estimated $1.4 billion going to the state and $1.2 billion to local jurisdictions with populations over 200,000. The federal program includes eligibility parameters related to eligible use of funds as well as income parameters, with the primary focus of the rental assistance to support individuals and households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI), with a priority for individuals and households with less than 50% AMI.

National Mortgage Settlement Program

In the 2020-2021 budget, the California Housing Finance Authority allocated $331 million in National Mortgage Settlement funds to prevent foreclosures and evictions. Last year, the Judicial Council provided $31 million of those funds to local legal service organizations, with the California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA) recently providing the remaining amount to 90 certified housing counselors throughout California. CalHFA plans to continue to provide mortgage assistance in 2021-22.

Anti-Discrimination

The Budget proposes $2 million General Fund dollars for the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to prosecute violations of anti-housing discrimination laws and to conduct surveys and education and outreach campaigns.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits

The budget proposes a third round of $500 million in tax credits to reduce funding gaps in affordable housing units. These tax credits will be administered by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee, and the California Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency.

Excess State Land Development

The Governor is proposing statutory changes to allow market-rate and commercial development on excess state land.

Construction Apprenticeships

In an effort to align housing development with workforce development, the budget proposes $8.5 million General Fund to expend access to state-approved construction apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships that will result in approximately 650 jobs.

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program

$500 million in General Fund dollars is included to create jobs and increase long-term housing development to further a more equitable housing supply in a post-COVID-19 housing market. This includes $250 million in the current fiscal year and $250 million in fiscal year 2021-22.

Expanded Facilities to Support Housing

To further the goal of ending homelessness in California, the Governor’s budget includes $250 million for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) and Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE). These funds will support physical upgrades and capital improvements.

Project Homekey

To accelerate the work on providing permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness and stop the spread of COVID-19 among this vulnerable population, the Governor is allocating $750 million to extend the program. $250 million is allotted for the current year (2020-21), and $500 million for fiscal year 2021-22. This will be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development.