SOCIAL SERVICES; GENERAL ASSISTANCE;

WELFARE;

Program Description; Background; Court Cases; Connecticut laws/regulations;

You asked for (1) a recent history of the cash portion of the General Assistance (GA) program, (2) caseload trends, and (3) a discussion of the state’s and towns’ obligation to provide for the poor.

SUMMARY

The modern cash assistance component of the GA program (and its successor SAGA program) has undergone many changes over the last 20 years but the most significant policy changes have occurred during the last 10. In the early 1990s, the legislature began limiting the amount of time that people considered to be employable could get cash assistance. At that time there was also growing interest in having the state take over the program which, until that time, was run independently by each town in accordance with state rules and funded, in large part, by state aid.

Over the next several years, the program would see reductions in benefit levels and a narrowing of eligibility so that by 1996, only those individuals who were disabled or could meet some other definition of unemployable could get assistance.

GA cash assistance caseloads have dropped dramatically since 1990. They went from 19,444 in May of that year to 5,430 in May 2003, a 72% decrease. The changes in eligibility during this time are undoubtedly the reason for the decline.

If the legislature were to eliminate all GA cash assistance, it is not clear whether there would still remain either a statutory or constitutional obligation on the part of the state or its towns to support those individuals losing assistance. The state Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that there was no unenumerated right to support when the law clearly did not offer one, but the circumstances of that case were different from what they would be under this senario.

PROGRAM HISTORY

Time Limits and Benefit Reductions

For at least the last 20 years, the legislature has periodically revised the GA program, although the most dramatic changes have occurred over the last 10 years. These changes have reflected a philosophical shift away from providing ongoing assistance to the poorest of poor single individuals (poor families can generally get federally-funded cash assistance) who for whatever reason could not support themselves, to a more limited assistance for people who could probably never work.

Even before the state began eliminating assistance altogether for the “able-bodied,” it conveyed an expectation that those recipients who could work should. The GA program’s early “workfare” provisions made towns (1) ensure that employable recipients engaged in some sort of work-related activity that the town had to create as a condition of receiving ongoing cash support and (2) deny assistance to those who refused (PA 80-395; PA 82-214). (Ironically, by most accounts, town workfare programs were considered failures and in many cases there was no work for recipients to do. OLR reported in 1997 that the percentage of GA recipients engaged in workfare activities dropped in FYs 1993-1995 from 63% to less than 19%. ) Making sure able-bodied GA recipients work became an even more elusive goal when, in 1991, the legislature reduced the differential in reimbursements to towns operating workfare (work, education, or training requirement for recipients) programs (PA 91-8, JSS).

In 1992, the legislature, for the first time, imposed a time limit on benefits (nine months in a 12-month period) for employable recipients. But towns, if recipients petitioned them, could continue to pay benefits for the additional three months and receive the same state reimbursement as they would have for the first nine months of assistance. (The state Supreme Court subsequently ruled that towns could refuse to provide this additional support, see below. ) That same legislation eliminated the $ 50 per month administrative fee that towns received for each GA recipient participating in workfare. (PA 92-16, MSS).

The 1992 legislation also required the state to take over GA, effective July 1, 1996, with the help of an implementation task force. (The final task force report, issued on July 12, 1995, stated that one of the goals would be to control both state and municipal costs through maximized efficiency, elimination of duplicative services, and the acquisition of increased federal revenues. Another goal was to provide “income support” and medical assistance to employable individuals pending their return to employment. )

In the interim, the legislature (1) reduced the state’s share of GA expenditures from 85% to 80% and (2) lowered the maximum monthly benefit for single, employable people from $ 314 to $ 300 (PA 93-418). (This act also established the Community Employment Incentive Program in the Labor Department to fund employment placement projects for GA recipients. The money was to be awarded either to a municipality or regional group of towns based on a project plan providing education, training, or other assistance in securing employment or a private substance abuse or mental health services provider that had a project plan incorporating job placement in its treatment process. )

In 1995, benefits for employable recipients were further limited by the establishment of a 16-month lifetime limit on benefits, all of which had to be taken within a 24-month eligibility period (The legislation allowed people to apply to DSS for extensions for good cause) (PA 95-194). That same act delayed until April 1, 1997 state administration of the GA program and limited the impending takeover to the 14 towns that had DSS regional or sub-offices. The state was to take over the remaining 155 towns by July 1, 1998. Under the act, town reimbursement would gradually increase, from 80% to 90% on April 1, 1996 and 100% on April 1, 1997.

Although the trend up until this point was a limit on benefits, a 1996 law (PA 96-268) began the process of eliminating GA cash assistance altogether for employable, individuals. These people were defined as those who had been employed for at least six months within the previous five years, had a high school diploma or GED, or had completed vocational training. Anyone meeting this description became ineligible for GA cash assistance but could receive up to $ 600 in a stipend over a six month period from the Department of Labor (DOL). Employable people who did not meet the definition of job-ready were still subject to the 16-month benefit limit. (All GA recipients could still qualify for GA medical benefits. ) (The stipend program was repealed in 1997; funding for the CEIP program, which by law could include cash incentives, ended in FY 2002-03. (For more on CEIP, go to OLR report 96-R-1056. )

State Takeover and More Benefit Reductions

The state took over GA for the 14 DSS offices in April 1997, with the complete takeover, except for Norwich, occurring in 1998. (The law allowed towns to petition DSS to continue running their own programs; ultimately, only Norwich got DSS approval. )

In addition to the takeover, the legislature continued to make more eligibility-related program changes. PA 97-2, June 18 Special Session, barred all employable people from receiving cash assistance and instead divided GA/SAGA recipients into two groups: those who were “transitional” and those who were “unemployable. ” An employable person was defined as someone who (1) was between the ages of 16 and 64, (2) had no documented physical or mental impairment, or who had such an impairment that was expected to last less than two months that prohibited him from working or participating in education, training, or work. “Unemployable” individuals were defined as those individuals who:

1. were under age 16, age 65 and older, or age 55 or older with a history of chronic unemployment;

2. had a physical or mental impairment expected to last at least six months;

3. had applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), social security income (presumably disability income or SSDI), or other DSS financial assistance (the Social Security Administration discontinued SSI and SSDI to people with disabilities based primarily on substance abuse, effective January and February, 1997, respectively);

4. were needed to care for a child under age two or an incapacitated child or spouse; or

5. were full-time high school students.

Transitional recipients were people:

1. with (a) a documented physical or mental impairment expected to last between two and six months that prevented them from working and (b) with a few exceptions, worked at least three of the most recent five calendar quarters, earning at least $ 500 in each quarter or was eligible for unemployment compensation within the previous six months;

2. waiting on a determination on their ability to work given their medical documentation of a severe physical or mental impairment which was expected to last at least six months; or

3. with mental illness or a substance abuse problem, and participating in a treatment plan approved by either the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) commissioner or the local welfare official (the law also required substance abusers to participate in treatment but allowed assistance to be provided to people waiting for a treatment slot. )

To conform with the definitional changes, the legislation also eliminated the maximum $ 300 per month benefit for single employable people (only those who were not job ready), and instead came up with a three-tiered payment, effective August 31, 1997: (1) $ 350 per month for a single, unemployable person, (2) $ 200 per month for a “transitional” recipient who had to pay for shelter, and (3) $ 150 per month for transitional recipients who did not pay for their shelter.

The 16-month lifetime limit of benefits was to apply to transitional recipients who were considered transitional solely due to substance abuse or mental illness. People who had dependent, minor children or were classified as transitional but not solely due to substance abuse or mental illness were exempt from the time limits.

The act also made someone who failed requirements under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Temporary Family Assistance, or SAGA requirements ineligible for GA or SAGA.

There have been no additional substantive changes in the program since 1997. As has been the case for the state’s other cash assistance programs, the legislature has frozen GA cash benefits during this time.

CASELOAD TRENDS

Table 1 shows the trend in the number of paid GA/SAGA cash assistance cases since 1990. Arguably the policy changes during the last 13 years have had a direct impact on caseloads.

Table 1: Paid GA/SAGA Cash Assistance Cases (1990-2003)

Month and Year	Cash Recipients
May 1990	19,444
May 1992	32,890
May 1996	16,175
May 1997	7,508
May 1998	5,539
May 1999	4,994
May 2000	4,691
May 2001	4,662
May 2002	5,019
May 2003	5,430

Source: Office of Fiscal Analysis

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR THE POOR

Towns are responsible for providing aid to their poor residents but only to the extent provided for in the GA law. And the Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that time-limited GA benefits are constitutional, although it has not considered the constitutionality of an outright elimination of cash assistance.

Statutory Duty to Provide Support

CGS § 17b-116 requires anyone “who does not have an estate sufficient for his support and has no relatives who are obliged by law to support him” to be provided for and supported to the extent required under the GA program and subject to the statutes regarding the limitations on who can get assistance. CGS § 17b-134 likewise requires towns to “furnish necessary support…to all paupers therein,” subject to the provisions of the GA law, and requires the state to reimburse them for 100% of these costs, unless the support is otherwise provided for by the state. CGS § 17b-111, which is the statute that establishes SAGA and essentially supersedes the previous section in this respect, does not appear to create any obligation on the part of the state other than the program’s implementation and the general obligation described above makes no reference to it. But a reference to it elsewhere in law seems to suggest the state currently has this obligation (see CGS § 17b-118).

Constitutional Right to Support

Although the state constitution contains no express provision requiring the state or its towns to provide assistance to the poor, there is a good deal of consensus that certain unenumerated rights exist. Nevertheless, the state’s Supreme Court has decided that state residents do not have an unenumerated constitutional right to support (Moore v. Ganim, 233 Conn. 557 (1995)).

In that 1995 case, the plaintiff GA recipients challenged the new state law that limited GA to nine months in a 12-month period.

The plaintiffs made a number of constitutional claims, including one that asserted that the towns had a constitutional duty to provide assistance to the poor. They based their argument, in part, on the historical statutory commitment to provide to the poor, dating back to the pre-constitutional Ludlow Code of 1650. The majority, while acknowledging the state’s longstanding statutory commitment to provide aid, held that the constitutional claims were not valid.

Chief Justice Peters concurred with the majority but disagreed with its constitutional conclusions, stating that she believed the constitution included an implicit governmental obligation to provide for the poor. But, she added, that obligation was framed so as to give elected officials considerable discretion to “choose the manner in which the obligation” was implemented and to impose reasonable conditions on its provision, thus the statutory limits were acceptable. The two dissenting justices asserted that the right to minimal subsistence was absolutely fundamental and implicit in the constitution.

We have attached copies of analyses of these cases (97-R-0393 and 94-R-0745) for your additional information.

Implications of Eliminating Cash Assistance

If the legislature were to eliminate cash assistance for GA and SAGA beneficiaries, it is not clear whether the obligation to provide cash support to the poor would revert back to the town. Presumably, the legislature would amend CGS § 17b-111 and –116 to eliminate the state’s obligation. If it went further and removed the towns’ obligation as well, those aggrieved by the policy change could potentially look to the constitution for relief, but it is not clear whether they would find it.

As we indicated above, in the Ganim case, the court accepted the limit placed on the amount of benefits of GA benefits provided and stated that there was no unenmerated right to assistance in the state constitution, despite the state’s long history of providing for the poor. (See OLR report 98-R-1407 for a summary of the state’ s historical policy for providing aid to the poor. ) Since SAGA medical assistance would apparently still be available, the state, and towns if they were sued, could argue that the obligation was still being met.

RC: ts