2009-10 Budget Analysis Series Federal Economic Stimulus Package

Document Sample
2009-10 Budget Analysis Series Federal Economic Stimulus Package Powered By Docstoc
					                      2009-10 Budget Analysis Series
       Mac Taylor
Legislative Analyst
                      Federal Economic
                      Stimulus Package:
 March 10, 2009       Fiscal Effect on California
                                    20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




        Contents
        Summary ............................................................................................. 3
        Overview of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ............... 5
        Key Considerations for the Legislature ............................................... 8
        Education ............................................................................................. 9
        Health ................................................................................................ 18
        Labor and Workforce Development .................................................. 24
        Social Services ................................................................................... 27
        Transportation ................................................................................... 32
        Housing Programs ............................................................................ 36
        Resources and Environmental Protection ......................................... 38
        Criminal Justice and Other Programs ............................................... 44
        Tax Changes in the Federal Economic Stimulus Package ................. 45




FED-2                                                               LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




 summary
     The recently enacted federal economic stimulus package—titled the American Recovery and
 Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—commits a total of $787 billion nationwide. As reflected in the figure
 below, this funding provides: (1) $330 billion in aid to the states, (2) about $170 billion for various
 federal projects and assistance for other non-state programs, and (3) $287 billion for tax relief.
     This report focuses on the state aid component of the stimulus package, as it consists of the
 federal dollars with which the Legislature will be most involved. As the figure shows, the state
 aid “pie” also consists of three pieces: (1) federal dollars that can be used to address budget
 shortfalls, (2) funds that supplement existing state spending, and (3) competitive grants. We
 estimate that California will receive over $31 billion from the first two components (see table on
 next page) and billions more in competitive grants.

 The State “Trigger”
       A significant portion of the $31 billion in aid to California will be available to address the state’s
 budgetary problems. We estimate that, based on the enacted state 2009-10 budget, California can
 use $10.4 billion in new federal dollars for this purpose over the life of ARRA. Of that amount,
 $8 billion would be available in 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Director of Finance and State Trea-
 surer will determine their own estimate of the latter amount by April 1 of this year. If the amount
 is less than $10 billion, then annual state program reductions of nearly $1 billion and revenue
 increases of about
 $1.8 billion adopted          Federal Economic Stimulus Package
 as part of the 2009-10        Provides Significant Aid for States
 budget package will
                                                                            State Aid
 go into effect.                                                           $330 Billion
                                                                                            Funds to Offset
       Given the state’s                                                                    State Spending
                                                      Competitive Grants
 continuing economic
 struggles, however,
 it is possible that
                                 Federal Stimulus Package
 state revenues (and                     $787 Billion
 the Proposition 98
                                Tax Relief
 minimum funding
 level) may continue                                                        Funds to Supplement
 to fall. In that case,                                                     State Spending

 it may be possible to
 use additional federal                                   State Aid

 education dollars for                     Relief to
                                       Other Entities
 budgetary relief.



LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                    FED-3
                                             20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




        Key Considerations for the Legislature
            The Legislature will need to take many actions in the coming months to ensure that the
        funds are used in ways that meet its priorities and preferences. To assist in this process, we offer
        the following considerations in making decisions regarding these new federal funds:
           •	    Maximize the Benefit of Federal Funds to the General Fund Budget. In this report, we
                 make specific recommendations about how to help the state’s budgetary situation under
                 different scenarios.
           •	    Recognize the Short-Term Nature of New Federal Funds. Most of the state aid coming
                 to California is intended to supplement current state spending. There is the risk, how-
                 ever, that the higher levels of service provided by the federal dollars will create ongoing
                 expectations of state support once the funding expires. We offer strategies to address
                 this risk.
           •	    Act Quickly in a Handful of Cases. In certain instances, the state will need to act rap-
                 idly to ensure it receives the maximum amount of relief or to use the funds in the most
                 effective way possible. Addressing a Medi-Cal eligibility issue and providing direction
                 on the use of transportation funds are two such examples.
           •	     Use Next Few Months to Oversee Implementation of New Federal Spending. For
                  most of the new federal dollars and programs, the Legislature will have more time
                  to take necessary actions. For example, the Legislature can use its budget process to
                  monitor the state’s revenue picture and take whatever actions are needed to use federal
                                                                                                                      dollars to keep the
         California Will Receive Over $31 Billion in State Aid                                                        2009-10 budget in
                                                                                                                      balance. Similarly,
         (In Millions)
                                                                                                                      the Legislature can
                                                                   Federal Fiscal Year
                                                                                                                      use policy and
               Program Area                                    2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Totals
                                                                                                                      budget subcom-
          Health                                                 $3,986 $4,026                $1,024        $9,036    mittee hearings
          Education                                                    —         7,973               —        7,973
          Labor and workforce development                         3,498          2,420               79       5,997
                                                                                                                      to craft needed
          Social Services                                         1,500          1,441             577        3,518   legislation, specify
          Transportation                                          1,302          1,302               —        2,604   its wishes as to
          General purpose fiscal stabilization                         —         1,100               —        1,100
          Resources/environmental                                    597              —              —           597  how new dollars
          Housing programs                                           381              —              —           381  are to be spent and
          Criminal justice                                           264              —              —           264
                                                                                                                      oversee the ad-
          Other                                                       27              —              —             27
                                                                                                                      ministration’s plans
             Totalsa                                           $11,555 $18,262                $1,680      $31,497
                                                                                                                      with regards to the
           a Does not include significant additional federal funds the state is likely to receive from competitive
             grants.                                                                                                  new funds.



FED-4                                                                          LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




overview of the ameriCan reCovery
and reinvestment aCt
    On February 17, 2009, President Obama                      ➢	 Almost $100 billion is available to sup-
signed into law the American Recovery and                              plant or offset states’ general fund spend-
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, H.R. 1.                               ing.
The spending and tax-cut plan is intended to
help stabilize state budgets and spur economic                 ➢	 As much as $130 billion will be available
growth. The stimulus package commits a total of                        to states to supplement or increase state
$787 billion nationwide, and it will have a signifi-                   spending on a wide variety of programs.
cant fiscal impact on California.
                                                               ➢	 States and other entities (such as local
                                                                       governments) will also be able to apply
One-Third of the Federal Funding
                                                                       for up to $100 billion in competitive or
Is for State Aid
                                                                       discretionary grants.
    Figure 1 shows how ARRA funding falls into
three main categories. The stimulus package            All of the funding for state relief is provided on a
provides about $330 billion in federal funds in        temporary basis and generally will be only avail-
aid to states. A variety of tax provisions intended    able for the next few years.
to boost the economy
will cost the U.S. Trea-         Figure 1
sury $287 billion more.         Federal Economic Stimulus Package
Finally, about $170 bil-        Provides Significant Aid for States
lion is available to be
spent by federal agen-                                                    State Aid
                                                                         $330 Billion
cies on federal projects                                                                  Funds to Offset
                                                                                          State Spending
                                                   Competitive Grants
or for other non-state
programs, such as direct
grants to local entities.
                                Federal Stimulus Package
State Aid Comes in                    $787 Billion

a Variety of Forms
                               Tax Relief
    Of the roughly
$330 billion in aid                                                              Funds to Supplement
                                                                                 State Spending
available nationwide for
states:
                                                           State Aid

                                        Relief to
                                      Other Entities




LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                         FED-5
                                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




        California Will Receive a Significant                                for competitive grant funding included in ARRA.
        Amount of Additional Federal Funds                                   Finally, given the complexity of this legislation,
             Of the $330 billion available under ARRA                        our estimates of the state’s allocations included
        nationwide for state aid, we estimate that Cali-                     in this report should be considered preliminary
        fornia will receive approximately $31 billion                        and subject to revision as more information be-
        in additional federal funds during the current                       comes available.
        and the next two federal fiscal years (FFYs). As
                                                                             Some Federal Funds Are Available
        Figure 2 shows, the state’s health programs will
                                                                             To Offset General Fund Spending
        receive the largest share of these federal funds,
        about $9 billion, and education-related programs                                        2009-10 Budget Package Is Linked to
        will receive nearly $8 billion in additional federal                               Federal Fiscal Relief. The Governor signed the
        funds. These programs are followed by labor and                                    2009‑10 Budget Act and related legislation on
        workforce development and social services pro-                                     February 20, 2009, to address the state’s pro-
        grams, which will receive about $6 billion and                                     jected $40 billion shortfall. Based on the ad-
        $3.5 billion, respectively.                                                        ministration’s estimates, the act assumes that the
             In some of the program areas, the year-by-                                    state will receive $8 billion in federal stimulus
        year flows of funds are estimates and may occur                                    funds to offset General Fund expenditures. The
        differently than depicted in Figure 2. In addition,                                Governor vetoed an additional $510 million from
        this figure does not capture the unknown, but                                      the universities’ budgets in anticipation that even
        potentially significant additional federal funds                                   more fiscal relief would be available to backfill
        that the state is likely to receive when it applies                                that reduction.
                                                                                                                           LAO Estimates of
                                                                                                                      Offsets Under Budget
         Figure 2                                                                                                     Package. Our estimates
         California Will Receive Over $31 Billion in State Aid                                                        of federal funds that can
         (In Millions)                                                                                                offset General Fund costs
                                                                   Federal Fiscal Year                                under the 2009-10 bud-
               Program Area
                                                                                                                      get package are similar
                                                               2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Totals
                                                                                                                      to the administration’s.
          Health                                                 $3,986 $4,026                $1,024        $9,036
          Education                                                    —         7,973               —        7,973
                                                                                                                      As Figure 3 shows, we
          Labor and workforce development                         3,498          2,420               79       5,997   project that state spend-
          Social Services                                         1,500          1,441             577        3,518   ing would be reduced by
          Transportation                                          1,302          1,302               —        2,604
          General purpose fiscal stabilization                         —         1,100               —        1,100   almost $8 billion through
          Resources/environmental                                    597              —              —           597  2009-10, with an ad-
          Housing programs                                           381              —              —           381  ditional $2.4 billion in
          Criminal justice                                           264              —              —           264
          Other                                                       27              —              —             27 offsets in 2010-11.
                                                                                                                           These amounts cap-
             Totalsa                                           $11,555 $18,262                $1,680      $31,497
           a Does not include significant additional federal funds the state is likely to receive from competitive    ture offsets in General
             grants.                                                                                                  Fund expenditures that


FED-6                                                                            LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                           20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




occur “on the natural” or with the state making                           and a 0.125 percentage point increase in person-
relatively minimal changes to existing programs to                        al income tax rates included in the budget pack-
receive the funds. For example, the single greatest                       age would trigger off—that is, not go into effect.
source of relief comes from the increase in the                                Language Open to Interpretation. The
percentage of program costs funded by the fed-                            language in the 2009‑10 Budget Act describing
eral government for the state’s Medicaid program,                         what needs to happen in order for the trigger to
known as Medi-Cal in California. This source                              be reached is somewhat open to interpretation.
of funding and the others shown in Figure 3 are                           For example, the language states that the federal
discussed in more detail later in this report.                            legislation must “make available” by June 30,
                                                                          2010, federal funds “that may be used” to offset
Federal Stimulus and the State Trigger                                    $10 billion in General Fund expenditures. This
    The budget package requires the State Trea-                           wording raises such questions as whether $10 bil-
surer and the Director of Finance to determine                            lion must actually be used to offset state General
by April 1, 2009 if ARRA makes available by                               Fund costs, or whether this requirement would
June 30, 2010 additional federal funds that may                           be satisfied if funds of this amount were identified
be used to offset at least $10 billion in General                         that theoretically could be used in this way.
Fund expenditures. If they determine that federal                              Our estimate of $8 billion in federal funds
fiscal relief reaches that $10 billion threshold,                         being available to offset General Fund expen-
then nearly $1 billion in cuts to various programs                        ditures, shown in Figure 3, excludes offsets


 Figure 3
 Stimulus Funds Potentially Available to Offset General Fund Expenditures
 Based on Enacted Budget Package
 (In Millions)
                                                                             State Fiscal Year           2008-09 and
                                                                                                           2009-10
  Program Area/Provision                                             2008-09       2009-10       2010-11 Combined              All Years
  General Purpose
  State Fiscal Stabilization Fund                                          —       $1,100              —          $1,100        $1,100
  Health
  Medi-Cal-related programs                                           $2,631       $3,740        $1,957           $6,371        $8,328
  Early Start program                                                     —            53            —                53            53
  Labor and Workforce Development
  Workforce Investment Act discretionary funds                             —           $37           $37              $37          $74
  Unemployment Insurance—interest relief                                   —            30           209               30          239
  Social Services
  CalWORKs Emergency Fund                                                 $40        $200           $190            $240          $430
  Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs                             33          45             24              78           102
  Department of Child Support Services                                     22          30              7              52            59

    Totalsa                                                           $2,726       $5,235        $2,424           $7,961       $10,385
  a The General Fund impact of the education American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds is addressed later in this report.




LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                                               FED-7
                                        20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




        the state might achieve from education-related            a greater amount of General Fund spending for
        federal funds. This is because our estimate is            state education programs, as we discuss in the
        based on the level of state revenues assumed in           “Education” section of this report. Ultimately,
        the 2009‑10 Budget Act and the corresponding              the interpretation of this provision of statute is
        level of support provided for state education pro-        a matter for the Director of Finance and the
        grams. The state’s continuing economic struggles,         State Treasurer to decide. The administration has
        however, suggest that revenues (and the Proposi-          indicated that its preliminary conclusion is that
        tion 98 minimum guarantee) may continue to                the available federal funds will be insufficient to
        fall. Under such a scenario, it may be possible to        avoid the tax increase and cuts contained in the
        use additional federal education funding to offset        February budget package.


        Key Considerations for the LegisLature
            As noted earlier, the federal economic                dollars will create ongoing expectations of state
        stimulus package will provide about $31 billion           support once the funding expires. There are ways
        in additional federal dollars directly to the state       to limit this risk:
        for a wide array of programs. In response, the                ➢	 The Legislature should dedicate this
        Legislature will need to take many actions in the                  limited-term federal assistance as much
        coming months to ensure that the funds are used                    as possible to limited-term purposes. For
        in ways that meet its priorities and preferences.                  instance, we recommend using some of
        To assist in that process, we discuss below some                   the education funds to pay for one-time
        key considerations in making decisions regarding                   mandate costs and data systems develop-
        these new federal funds.                                           ment.
            Maximize the Benefit of Federal Funds on
        the General Fund Budget. Given both the dete-                 ➢	 For ongoing programs receiving supple-
        riorating economic situation and the gloomy out-                   mental funding, the Legislature could
        year state budget forecast, we believe the Legisla-                spread out dollars over three years
        ture must maximize the use of stimulus dollars to                  (instead of one or two), thereby reducing
        offset General Fund expenditures. In this report,                  the level of new spending. In addition,
        we make specific recommendations about how                         the Legislature could make explicit that
        to do so. Some federal dollars may only be avail-                  the supplemental funding is in effect
        able for General Fund relief in certain situations                 only for the duration of the added federal
        (such as certain education funds if state revenues                 funds.
        decline further).
                                                                      ➢	 The Legislature could also use the near
            Recognize the Short-Term Nature of New
                                                                           term to explore and implement program
        Federal Funds. Most of the state aid coming to
                                                                           reforms that often take several years to
        California is intended to supplement current state
                                                                           achieve savings. For example, the Legisla-
        spending. There is the risk, however, that the
                                                                           ture could expand “pay for performance”
        higher levels of service provided by the federal
                                                                           programs that provide fiscal incentives


FED-8                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




        for Medi-Cal providers that could ulti-                Use Next Few Months to Oversee Imple-
        mately save tens of millions of dollars            mentation of New Federal Spending. For most
        annually. By starting now, the state would         of the new federal dollars and programs, the
        be more likely to have in place program-           Legislature will have more time to take necessary
        matic savings that could offset the loss of        actions. For example, the Legislature can use its
        supplemental federal funds in the out-             budgetary process to monitor the state’s revenue
        years.                                             picture and take whatever actions are needed to
                                                           use federal dollars in keeping the 2009-10 bud-
     Act Quickly in a Handful of Cases. In cer-
                                                           get in balance. Similarly, the Legislature can use
tain instances, the state will need to act rapidly
                                                           policy and budget subcommittee hearings to:
to ensure it receives the maximum amount of
relief or to use the funds in the most effective               ➢	 Address any needed legislation related to
way possible. We have identified the following                      the use of new federal dollars.
situations where quick action is needed:
                                                               ➢	 Oversee departments’ plans and efforts
   ➢	 To receive major new federal funding for                      in applying for competitive grants and
        the Medi-Cal Program, California must                       spending supplemental funds.
        make a change in state law regarding
        eligibility by July 1, 2009.                           ➢	 Ensure that the use of federal stimulus
                                                                    dollars is consistent with existing state
   ➢	 The Legislature should provide direction                      policies.
        on its preferred approach to distributing
        new federal dollars for transportation and             ➢	 Provide any needed assistance to local
        input on the federal government’s plans                     governments regarding their use of new
        regarding the allocation of high-speed rail                 federal dollars.
        funds.                                                  Below, we describe by program the addition-
                                                           al federal funding the state will be receiving and
   ➢	 To fully access state clean waters monies,
                                                           major issues for legislative consideration.
        legislation must authorize specific types
        of financial assistance.


eduCation
    As Figure 4 (see next page) shows, ARRA                to individuals, colleges, and local educational
will provide California with almost $8 billion in          agencies (LEAs).
state-administered education funding. The ARRA
also allows the state to apply directly for billions       Major Provisions
of dollars in additional grants and subsidized             State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
bonds. In addition, ARRA offers the potential for              Nationwide, ARRA provides $54 billion for
California to benefit indirectly from billions more        state fiscal stabilization. Funding allocations are
in competitive grants, tax credits, and subsidies          based on states’ school-age and total popula-


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                     FED-9
                                                               20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         tions. The majority of stabilization funding will                                          $4.9 billion in fiscal stabilization funds for K-12
         support education (82 percent), with the remain-                                           and higher education. States must follow specific
         der set aside for other government services.                                               rules for distributing this funding between K-12
             California Will Receive Almost $5 Billion to                                           and higher education, as well as allocating fund-
         Support K-12 and Higher Education. According                                               ing within those sectors.
         to the most recent U.S. Department of Educa-                                                   California Will Receive Additional $1 Billion
         tion (USED) estimates, California will receive                                             for Other Government Services. The state also


          Figure 4
          California to Receive Large Boost in Federal Funding for Education
          (In Millions)
          Program                                                      Funding                                                 Description

          State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
          Education                                                     $4,875a      Generally mitigates K-12 and higher education cuts.
          State Incentive Grants                                            —b       Competitive program supports states that demonstrate need in certain
                                                                                       education areas (including teacher quality, student data systems, and
                                                                                       assessment systems) and presents innovative ways to address those needs.
           Subtotal                                                    ($4,875)
          K-12 Education
          Title I                                                       $1,511c      Supplemental services for low-income students and support for low-performing
                                                                                       schools.
          Individuals With Disabilities Education Act                    1,268       Supplemental services for special education students.
          Child Care and Development Block Grant                            220      Approximately $28 million is earmarked for specific activities. The rest must sup-
                                                                                       plement state funding for child care for low-income families.
          Enhancing Education Through Technology                             71      Classroom use of technology. Funds may be used for hardware, software,
                                                                                       infrastructure improvement, and professional development.
          McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance                                 18      School districts' efforts to educate homeless youth.
          Child Nutrition                                                    10      Assistance to high-need districts in purchasing meal-related equipment.
          Institute of Education Sciences Grant                             —b       Competitive program to help state develop/expand a statewide longitudinal
                                                                                       student database.
          School Construction Subsidies                                     —b       Tax credit bonds for public school construction or repair.
          Qualified Zone Academy Bonds                                      —b       Interest-free tax credit bonds for qualified infrastructure efforts.
          Impact Aid                                                        —b       Facility cost funding for districts with high percentages of students living on
                                                                                       federal land.
          Title V Innovation and Improvement                                —b       Competitive program to help districts and states develop performance-based
                                                                                       compensation systems for teachers and administrators. Funds do not pass
                                                                                       through state.
           Subtotal                                                    ($3,098)
              Total Education Funding                                   $7,973
           a An additional $1.1 billion is provided for other government services.
           b Total benefit for California is unknown at this time.
           c Consists of $1.1 billion in basic grants, $45 million in Program Improvement Grants, and $383 million in School Improvement Grants.




FED-10                                                                                                    LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                  20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




will receive almost $1.1 billion for “public safety         for higher education. If a federal award is greater
and other government services.” This funding is             than needed to reach 2008 or 2009 state funding
relatively free of federal constraints. While fund-         levels (whichever is higher), then remaining funds
ing does not need to be used for K-12 or higher             are to be allocated to K-12 education based on
education, the law specifically permits such uses,          schools’ Title I counts. If a federal award is less
including school building modernization, renova-            than needed to restore education funding to
tion, and repair. The 2009-10 budget package                2008 or 2009 levels, then funds must be allo-
assumes that these funds will be used to offset             cated in proportion to the relative shortfalls that
General Fund costs.                                         exist for K-12 and higher education.
     California Could Receive More Education
Funding Through Competitive Grants. Of the                  K-12 Education
$54 billion in ARRA stabilization funding nation-               As Figure 4 shows, ARRA funds 11 targeted
wide, the act sets aside $5 billion for K-12 educa-         K-12 programs—with California expected to re-
tion incentive grants. The USED is to award these           ceive at least $3.1 billion, plus the opportunity to
grants on a competitive basis. While LEAs will              apply for various competitive grants The majority
apply directly for some of these grants ($650 mil-          of available monies provide supplemental funding
lion nationwide), states will apply for the remain-         on top of existing base federal grants. The ARRA
der ($4.4 billion nationwide). The portion going            funding typically is intended to be used consistent
to states will be distributed according to their            with existing program rules. It also funds several
identified fiscal and program needs. At least               one-time opportunities for state or local improve-
50 percent of the state money must be distribut-            ments to K-12 infrastructure and systems.
ed to LEAs based on their Title 1 counts (number                Title I. The ARRA provides California with
of low-income students).                                    a $1.5 billion augmentation to the existing Title
     Law Establishes Minimum Level of State                 I program to support supplemental services for
Spending on Education. To receive fiscal stabili-           low-income students. As a condition of receiving
zation funds, the state must maintain at least the          these funds, the California Department of Educa-
same level of state support for K-12 and higher ed-         tion (CDE) must provide the USED with informa-
ucation as in 2005-06. If the state were to experi-         tion on the current per-pupil distribution of state
ence a “precipitous” decline in financial resources         and local funds.
that threatens its ability to maintain sufficient state         ➢	 Formula Grants. The bulk of the Title
support, however, the U.S. Secretary of Education                    I money ($1.1 billion) is to be allocated
can waive or modify this requirement.                                using certain formulas that are based
     Funding Must First Be Used to Mitigate                          largely on LEAs’ concentration of low-
State Funding Cuts. Fiscal stabilization funds                       income students. Schools must use funds
must first be used to mitigate state funding cuts                    to target services to low-income students
for K-12 and higher education in 2009, 2010, and                     who are not meeting or are in danger
2011. Funds for K-12 education must be allocated                     of not meeting academic proficiency
based on existing funding formulas, whereas                          standards. If more than 40 percent of
states have discretion in how they allocate funds                    students at a school are low-income,


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                       FED-11
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




                then the school may run a “schoolwide”                  Child Care and Development Block Grant
                program, in which funding may be used              (CCDBG). The ARRA provides California
                for the benefit of all students rather than        $220 million to supplement state funding for
                targeting only specific at-risk students. Of       child care for low-income families. These CCD-
                the $1.1 billion, the state must set-aside         BG funds are intended to allow the state to pro-
                4 percent, or $45 million, to support              vide care to more children than otherwise would
                LEAs and schools in Program Improve-               have been possible. Allowable uses include fund-
                ment or PI. (LEAs and schools enter PI             ing more child care slots, reducing family fees for
                when they have failed to meet federal              child care, supplementing provider fees, lowering
                performance targets for two consecutive            eligibility requirements to enable more families
                years.) Funding may be used for general            to use services, and professional development
                LEA and school improvement activities.             and recruitment of providers. Funds may not be
                                                                   used to construct facilities. Of the total funding,
            ➢	 School Improvement Grant (SIG). The                 we estimate about $28 million must be used to
                remaining funds ($383 million) would be
                                                                   improve the quality and availability of child care,
                provided through a SIG, which is some-
                                                                   including $10 million to improve the quality of
                what more restrictive. The SIG funding
                                                                   infant and toddler care.
                can only fund LEAs with schools in PI for
                                                                        Enhancing Education Through Technology
                specific school-level improvement activi-
                                                                   (EETT). The ARRA provides California $71 mil-
                ties. The SIG rules also specify minimum
                                                                   lion for supplemental support of the existing
                and maximum grants of $50,000 and
                                                                   EETT program. Generally, EETT funds are in-
                $500,000, respectively, per PI school, but
                                                                   tended to improve the use of technology in
                states can decide how to prioritize SIG
                                                                   the classroom. Funds may be used to purchase
                funding among PI schools.
                                                                   hardware or software, undertake professional
              Special Education Funding. The ARRA pro-             development, and support instructional technol-
         vides a $1.3 billion augmentation in Individuals          ogy staff and services at the local level.
         with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding                 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance. The
         for special education. Of this amount, $1.2 bil-          ARRA provides California $18 million for supple-
         lion is for K-12 education and $41 million is for         mental support of the existing McKinney-Vento
         preschool. Consistent with IDEA, funding must             Homeless Assistance program. Generally, these
         be used to ensure that special education stu-             funds are intended to help districts improve the
         dents receive a free and appropriate education            enrollment, attendance, and success in school of
         as determined by their individualized educa-              homeless children.
         tion programs. Also consistent with IDEA, LEAs                 Child Nutrition Equipment. The ARRA pro-
         may use up to 50 percent of any year-over-year            vides California $9.7 million for National School
         increase in IDEA monies to reduce their local             Lunch Program equipment assistance (a new
         maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. Local            one-time funding grant). The CDE is required to
         savings resulting from a MOE reduction must be            allocate these funds to LEAs through a competi-
         used for federal education priorities.                    tive process based upon need for equipment


FED-12                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




assistance. Priority is to be given to schools with       erty areas. To participate, school districts must
at least 50 percent of the student population             partner with a local business and develop an
eligible for free or reduced price meals.                 academic program that better prepares students
     Student Longitudinal Data System Grants.             for college or the workforce.
The ARRA includes $250 million nationwide for                 Impact Aid. The ARRA provides $100 mil-
competitive grants from the Institute of Educa-           lion nationwide for supplemental support of the
tion Sciences (IES) to support the development of         existing Impact Aid program. The ARRA requires
statewide student longitudinal data systems that          that 40 percent of this funding be distributed via
include postsecondary education and workforce             formula grants directly to eligible districts and
information. Up to $5 million of the funds nation-        60 percent be available for competitive grants.
ally may be used for state data coordinators and          Impact Aid monies are intended to fund facility
for awards to public or private organizations to          costs for districts with high percentages of stu-
improve data coordination. Presumably, these              dents living on military bases and Native Ameri-
grants will be similar to previous IES grants such        can reservations.
as the one California used for the development                New Teacher Performance-Based Compen-
of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement          sation Grants. The ARRA provides $200 million
Data System (CALPADS).                                    nationwide for competitive grants intended to
     New Subsidized School Construction                   promote the development and implementation
Bonds. The ARRA includes $22 billion nation-              of performance-based compensation systems for
wide for a new type of subsidy for school con-            teachers and administrators. States or districts
struction bonds issued in calendar years 2009             with innovative program ideas in this area may
and 2010. These bonds may be issued by state or           apply for the grants.
local governments for (1) construction, rehabilita-
tion, or repair of public school facilities; or           Higher Education
(2) the acquisition of land on which a public                 The federal stimulus package funds five
school will be constructed. The amount of new             targeted higher education programs, which will
bonds that states (including local governments            provide benefits directly to California colleges or
within the state) can issue is based upon the             students. None of these programs require state
number of children living below the poverty line          administration.
in each state. Based on this criterion, California            Higher Education Tax Credits. Under current
could issue about $3 billion in subsidized bonds.         law, the federal Hope tax credit reimburses eli-
(A portion of this amount is reserved for large           gible students for the enrollment fees they pay for
school districts to issue bonds directly.)                college. The stimulus package replaces the Hope
     Qualified Zone Academy Bond. The ARRA                credit with the American Opportunity tax credit,
provides a $1.4 billion augmentation nationwide           which is larger and available to more students.
to the existing Qualified Zone Academy Bonds              Figure 5 (see next page) summarizes these added
(QZAB) program. These subsidized bonds can                features.
be used to improve facilities or provide teacher              Pell Grants. The federal Pell Grant program
training for school districts in certain high pov-        provides grants to low-income undergraduate


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                    FED-13
                                               20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         students to help them with the costs of attend-                 economic stimulus package directs funds to work-
         ing college. The ARRA increases the maximum                     force investment boards for job training purposes.
         Pell Grant from $4,731 in 2008-09 to $5,350 in                  It is likely that community colleges and adult
         2009-10, and expands eligibility for the program.               education programs will receive a portion of these
         We anticipate that students at California public                funds to carry out such activities.
         colleges and universities, including community
         colleges, will receive about $500 million in ad-                issues for
         ditional Pell Grant funds in 2009-10.                           LegisLative Consideration
              Other Programs. Under ARRA, California                          In this section, we discuss various opportu-
         universities are eligible for hundreds of millions of           nities the state has for using federal education
         dollars in competitive grants for scientific re-                funds to achieve General Fund relief. We also
         search. Public and private colleges and universities            describe several other opportunities the state has
         in the state will receive an estimated $21 million              for maximizing the benefit of these funds—for
         in additional federal work-study funds in 2009-10.              example, by using them to restore reductions
         Changes to the rules for Section 529 college sav-               made in the 2009‑10 Budget Act, mitigate deep-
         ings plans will allow students to count computer                er reductions in 2010-11 or 2011-12, or bolster
         equipment and technology and services, includ-                  existing state education initiatives.
         ing Internet access, as qualified higher education
         expenses in 2009 and 2010. Additional teacher                   Using Federal Funds to Offset
         quality grants and Public Health Service Corps                  State Education Expenditures
         training funds for health care providers will benefit               The 2009-10 budget package was premised
         California higher education students and institu-               on the use of only $510 million of education
         tions. As we discuss in the “Labor and Workforce                federal stimulus funds to offset state costs. If the
         Development” section of this report, the federal                Proposition 98 minimum guarantee were to drop

          Figure 5
          New Federal Tax Credit Expands Hope Credit
           Hope Credit (2008 Tax Year)                                        American Opportunity Credit (2009, 2010)

           • Directly reduces tax bill.                                 • Directly reduces tax bill and/or provides partial tax refund
                                                                          to students without sufficient income tax liability.
           • Covers 100 percent of the first $1,200 in tuition payments. • Covers 100 percent of the first $2,000 in tuition pay-
             Covers 50 percent of the second $1,200 (for maximum ments and textbook costs. Covers 25 percent of the
             tax credit of $1,800).                                        second $2,000 (for maximum tax credit of $2,500).
           • Designed for students who:                                 • Designed for students who:
             —Are in first or second year of college.                     —Are in first through fourth year of college.
             —Attend at least half time.                                  —Attend at least half time.
             —Are attempting to transfer or acquire a certificate or      —Are attempting to transfer or acquire a certificate or
              degree.                                                       degree.
           • Provides full benefits at adjusted income of up to        • Provides full benefits at adjusted income of up to
             $96,000 for married filers ($48,000 for single filers) and $160,000 for married filers ($80,000 for single filers)
             provides partial benefit at adjusted income of up to        and provides partial benefit at adjusted income of up to
             $116,000 ($58,000 for single filers).                       $180,000 ($90,000 for single filers).



FED-14                                                                       LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                  20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




from the enacted level due to declining revenues, revenues were to deteriorate further, the state has
however, the state could be in the position to                additional options to achieve state General Fund
use billions more in federal funds for budgetary              relief by substituting federal funds for General
solutions. This is due to the way that the stabili-           Fund spending. Under this approach, programs
zation requirements are structured. As shown in               would receive the same total amount of funding
Figure 6, we identify almost $7 billion in poten-             envisioned in the enacted 2009-10 budget, but
tial offsets to state education spending across               more federal and less state funding would be
the next three years assuming more pessimistic                used. These options include:
state revenues. Of this amount, approximately                     ➢	 Title I/Economic Impact Aid (EIA). The
$3.5 billion could be achieved in 2009-10 (or                          state EIA program provides funding for
$3 billion more than the current budget). In ad-                       supplemental services for education-
dition to the options listed in the figure, the state                  ally disadvantaged students and English
has an opportunity to reduce significantly its                         Learners (EL). Because EIA is partly based
existing special education mandate obligations.                        on Title I counts (and Title I counts over-
     Use Education Stabilization Funding to                            lap significantly with EL counts, the other
Maximize General Fund Relief. California ap-                           EIA factor), EIA is a natural candidate for
pears to have options for using most, if not all,                      such a funding swap. This option would
education stabilization funding for state Gen-                         result in up to $1.1 billion in General
eral Fund relief. The exact timing of such relief,                     Fund (Proposition 98) savings spread
however, would depend on several factors,                              across the next few years.
including the interpretation of various formulas
in the federal law and the final determination of                 ➢	 Title I/Quality Education Investment Act
the 2009-10 Proposition 98 minimum guarantee.                          (QEIA). The state QEIA provides funding
For example, if revenues fell substantially below                      to 487 schools for school improvement
the level assumed in the budget, California could                      efforts. Given that the vast majority of
use more than $3 billion
in federal stabilization
                                Figure 6
funding to offset 2009-10
                                Potential Federal Offsets to State General Fund
state education expen-
                                Education Expenditures
ditures and avoid having
to make deeper cuts to          (In Millions)

education programs. In                                                             State Fiscal Year

this case, approximately         Program                                     2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Totals
$1.5 billion in stabili-         Education Stabilization Funds                $3,321    $1,554        —    $4,875
zation funding would             Title I, Basic Grants                            —        946     $182     1,128
                                 Title I, School Improvement Grants               —        192       192      383
remain available to aid          Individuals with Disabilities Education          85        85        85      256
the state in 2010-11.              Act (IDEA), state special schools
                                 IDEA, residential placements                     59        65        72      196
     Options for Using
Other Federal Funds. If              Totals                                   $3,466    $2,842     $531    $6,838



LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                         FED-15
                                        20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




                these schools are in federal PI and are           school districts filed a claim with the Commis-
                implementing specific school-level im-            sion on State Mandates arguing that Chapter 959,
                provement strategies consistent with SIG          Statutes of 1990 (AB 2586, Hughes), constituted
                rules, SIG funding could be used to fund          a reimbursable mandate by regulating the types
                QEIA. This option would provide the               of behavioral interventions that could be used
                state with up to $383 million in General          for special education students. The administra-
                Fund (non-Proposition 98) savings spread          tion recently negotiated a settlement with dis-
                across the next few years.                        tricts. Under the terms of the settlement, districts
                                                                  would receive $520 million to cover retroactive
            ➢	 IDEA/State Special Schools. The CDE                claims. (Of this amount, $10 million would be
                operates three state special schools
                                                                  paid in 2009-10, with the remainder paid in
                (the Fremont School for the Blind, the
                                                                  $85 million increments over the course of six
                Fremont School for the Deaf, and the
                                                                  years, beginning in the 2011-12 fiscal year.) We
                Riverside school for the Deaf) and three
                                                                  instead recommend using IDEA funding provided
                regional diagnostic centers (North, Cen-
                                                                  under ARRA to reimburse districts in 2009-10 for
                tral, and South). The state special schools
                                                                  these retroactive claims in one lump sum. Under
                and diagnostic centers are funded with
                                                                  this approach, a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the
                Proposition 98 ($47 million) and non-
                                                                  state’s outstanding mandate obligations would be
                Proposition 98 ($39 million) General
                                                                  achieved.
                Fund monies. The state could use IDEA
                funds to cover these costs over the next          Other Opportunities for Maximizing
                three years—resulting in total General            Benefit of Federal Education Funds
                Fund savings of $256 million ($140 mil-
                                                                       Several other opportunities exist for the state
                lion Proposition 98 and $116 million
                                                                  to maximize the benefit of federal education
                non-Proposition 98).
                                                                  funds.
            ➢	 IDEA/Residential Placement. The                         Apply for State Incentive Grant, Use to
                Department of Social Services covers              Support Certain Education Programs. As de-
                residential costs for special education           scribed above, the state will need to apply if it
                students who have been diagnosed with             is to benefit from any of the $5 billion available
                serious emotional disorders and require           nationwide for education incentive grants. While
                residential placement. The state covers           relatively little is known about the criteria that
                a share of these costs. The state could           the U.S. Secretary of Education will use to evalu-
                use IDEA funds to cover these costs over          ate grant proposals, federal law suggests grants
                the next three years—resulting in total           must be used to improve academic achievement,
                General Fund savings of $196 million              especially at low-performing LEAs. Given this
                (non-Proposition 98).                             requirement, the state could use grant funds to
                                                                  restore some funding for certain education pro-
             Use IDEA Funding to Pay Retroactive Spe-
                                                                  grams that were reduced in the 2009‑10 Budget
         cial Education Mandate Claims. In 1994, three
                                                                  Act. For example, the budget reduces funding for


FED-16                                                               LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




alternative high schools, supplemental instruction         various proposals to provide funding to LEAs to
related to failing the high school exit exam, EL           prepare for implementation of CALPADS. The
programs, Foster Youth programs, state assess-             Legislature has recognized that while CALPADS
ments, and an alternative teacher-training pro-            will be of benefit both to the state and LEAs, the
gram. Incentive funding also might be reserved             new system will require much work at the local
to mitigate future cuts in these areas.                    level to collect and maintain reliable data. The
     Use Title I Set-Aside Funding to Benefit All          limited-term federal EETT funding is an ideal
Schools Serving Low-Income Students. Federal               source of funding for these activities. The EETT
funding available to help low-income schools in            funding can be used for efforts to improve local
need of academic improvement has exceeded                  infrastructure in preparation for CALPADS, train
identified program costs in recent years. As a             local staff on education data quality, and con-
result, the state has built up substantial carry-          duct various other related activities that generally
over funding. Thus, we recommend using the                 will help prepare educators to use data and tech-
additional $45 million in ARRA Title I set-aside           nology more effectively at the school-site level.
funding to benefit all low-income students. To             In short, this one-time federal funding could
this end, we recommend allocating the addition-            offset the need for the state to provide additional
al funds using the basic Title I formulas, which           funding for LEAs and/or allow for faster imple-
would ensure funds are spread broadly across               mentation of CALPADS.
Title I schools. Title I regulations allow states to            Statewide Education Database Grant. Cali-
distribute set-aside funds in this manner when             fornia used a $3.2 million IES grant to help fund
such funds are found to exceed PI needs.                   the development of CALPADS, which will be
     Child Care and Development Block Grant.               fully implemented in the 2009-10 school year.
Due to the state budget situation, the 2009‑10             While CALPADS will significantly improve the
Budget Act made various reductions to child                state’s longitudinal student data system, it does
care and development programs. The one-time                not yet meet all of the federal criteria delineated
increase in federal CCDBG funding comes with               for such systems. For example, recently enacted
relatively restrictive rules requiring states to           federal legislation requires such systems to in-
spend above existing levels. The funds, however,           clude data from preschool through postsecond-
could be used to backfill cuts already made.               ary education. CALPADS, however, currently is
Specifically, provider reimbursement rates, family         designed only to include K-12 student informa-
fee rates, and/or the number of child care slots           tion. We recommend the state pursue additional
could be partly restored to prior-year levels. The         IES funding to begin a CALPADS improvement
$220 million in available CCDBG funding would              project that would meet these federal require-
be sufficient to sustain some of these restorations        ments. (Such a project also could address Cal-
through 2010-11. The restorations could be spe-            ifornia-specific issues highlighted in a recently
cifically linked to the duration of the availability       released report, Framework for A Comprehensive
of the federal funds.                                      Education Data System. This report, developed
     Enhancing Education Through Technology.               by McKinsey and Company at the request of
In recent years, the Legislature has considered            CDE and the Governor, recommends a multi-


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                      FED-17
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         phased approach for expanding CALPADS to                  waiver program into a no-interest loan program
         include preschool and postsecondary data as               for needy students who could fully repay the
         well as undertaking additional improvements to            loan with federal tax reimbursements. This ac-
         maximize security and data quality.)                      tion would add hundreds of millions of dollars
             Leverage Federal Tax Credits to Increase              in CCC revenues each year—without affecting
         College Funding. In the 2009‑10 Budget Analysis           affordability.
         Series: Higher Education, we noted that addi-                 Adjust Campus Financial Aid Funding for
         tional revenue could be raised through California         Increases in Pell Grants. Both University of
         Community Colleges (CCC) fees with minimal                California (UC) and California State University
         net effect on student costs. This is because              (CSU) employ campus-based financial aid grant
         financially needy students are exempt from fees,          programs to help their students pay their edu-
         and most other students would be fully or partly          cation costs. In general, the campus-based aid
         reimbursed through federal tax credits. Because           programs seek to cover those costs that the stu-
         ARRA expands the size and availability of these           dent is unable to meet through family contribu-
         tax credits, middle- and upper-income students            tions, loans, and grants (such as Cal Grants and
         would be even better protected from the effect            the Pell Grant). Because the size of Pell Grants
         of CCC fee increases. The Legislature, thus, could        will be increasing under ARRA, this will reduce
         increase revenue received by community col-               the amount of aid to be covered by campuses.
         leges through fees, while having only a minimal           As noted by the Governor, this has the effect
         effect on college affordability. In effect, raising       of providing fiscal relief to the campuses. The
         fees would be an effective strategy for leveraging        Legislature may wish to take this fiscal relief into
         more federal money for higher education.                  consideration as it determines the level of state
             In addition, the Legislature may wish to              funding needed to cover university operations.
         consider modifying the community college fee


         heaLth
              One of the largest portions of federal fiscal        program. This percentage is known as the federal
         relief to states will come in the form of an in-          medical assistance percentage or FMAP. The
         creased federal share of costs for state Medicaid         ARRA temporarily increases the FMAP for all
         programs (known as Medi-Cal in California).               states retroactively to October 2008 and continu-
         Below, we summarize and discuss the increased             ing through December 2010, subject to certain
         federal share and other key health-related com-           requirements and restrictions, which we discuss
         ponents of ARRA.                                          below. The ARRA provides a base FMAP in-
                                                                   crease of 6.2 percentage points for all states, plus
         Increased Federal Share of                                additional increases determined by a formula
         Funding for Medi-Cal                                      that incorporates each state’s unemployment rate
             The federal government pays a certain                 and current federal share.
         percentage of the cost of each state’s Medicaid


FED-18                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                              20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




    Significant Funding for California. Based on                            ➢	 Eligibility. States may not receive the
recent employment data, California likely would                                    FMAP increase after July 1, 2009, unless
qualify initially for the highest unemployment-                                    they maintain eligibility levels and pro-
based FMAP increase available under ARRA.                                          cedures that were in place as of July 1,
Thus, our preliminary estimate is that Medi-Cal                                    2008. The FMAP increase is not avail-
will receive an FMAP increase of 11.6 percentage                                   able for Medicaid eligibility expansions
points, equivalent to $10.1 billion in additional                                  enacted after July 1, 2008 or for certain
federal funds for the state through December                                       health programs that already receive
31, 2010. This amount will be distributed among                                    enhanced federal matching funds.
several state departments that administer por-
tions of the Medi-Cal Program, as well as to                                ➢	 “Prompt Pay.” As of June 1, 2009, states
local governments, who also share in the cost of                                   are not eligible for the enhanced FMAP
some Medi-Cal services. Figure 7 summarizes                                        for days during which they do not meet
our estimates of state and local savings. The state                                federal prompt pay requirements. These
portion of the federal funds, $8.3 billion, will                                   requirements specify, among other provi-
reduce state General Fund costs over the period.                                   sions, that state Medicaid programs pay
    Requirements and Restrictions. In order to                                     90 percent of noninstitutional medical
receive the enhanced FMAP, states must comply                                      claims within 30 days. The ARRA would
with certain requirements and restrictions. The                                    apply these provisions to nursing homes
most significant of these are the following:                                       and hospitals as well.

                                                                            ➢	 “Rainy Day Funds.” States may not use
                                                                                                   funds attributable to
 Figure 7                                                                                          the increased FMAP as
 State and Local Savings From                                                                      deposits into a rainy day
 Increase in Federal Share of Medi-Cal Costs                                                       fund or reserve.
 (In Millions)                                                                                          State Currently Does
                                                   2008-09    2009-10    2010-11        Total      Not Qualify for En-
  State Departments                                                                                hanced FMAP. Based on
  Health care services                              $1,973     $2,838     $1,482       $6,293      our review of the ARRA
  Social services (IHSS)                               282        389        206          876      provisions affecting
  Developmental services                               234        313        163          710
  Other departments                                    143        200        106          449      Medicaid, California cur-
   Subtotals                                       ($2,631)   ($3,740)   ($1,957)     ($8,327)     rently does not qualify
  Other Entities                                                                                   for the FMAP increase
  Local government                                   $305       $408       $203          $916
                                                                                                   due to a procedural
  Public hospitalsa                                   293        361         179          833
   Subtotals
                                                                                                   change to Medi-Cal
                                                    ($598)     ($769)      ($382)     ($1,749)
                                                                                                   Program eligibility rules
    Total Federal Fund Relief                      $3,229     $4,508      $2,339      $10,077
  a Includes University of California hospitals.
                                                                                                   the state enacted as part
  IHSS = In-Home Supportive Services.                                                              of the 2008‑09 Budget


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                                   FED-19
                                            20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         Act. This change required children to submit a               its new midyear status report requirement before
         midyear status report to confirm their continuing            the state can access these funds. Therefore, we
         eligibility for Medi-Cal every six months, along             recommend that the Legislature enact legisla-
         with their parents, who were already required to             tion as soon as possible to reverse the children’s
         submit this report. In order to receive the new              midyear reporting requirement.
         federal funds, the state would need to reverse
         this policy prior to July 1, 2009. This reversal             Other Medicaid Provisions
         would result in additional General Fund costs                     In addition to the FMAP enhancement, the
         to the state of $70 million in 2009-10 (as esti-             federal economic stimulus package includes
         mated at the enhanced FMAP rate). Based on our               other funding for state Medicaid programs that
         review and our discussions with the state Depart-            we discuss below. We summarize the major
         ment of Health Care Services (DHCS), which                   provisions in Figure 8. None of these provisions
         administers Medi-Cal, the state currently meets              are likely to offset General Fund expenditures in
         all other ARRA requirements.                                 the Medi-Cal Program, but some may increase
              State Policy Change Needed to Access In-                state costs.
         creased Federal Funds. The federal government                     Health Information Technology (HIT). The
         made increased FMAP funding available as of                  ARRA provides an estimated $15 billion nation-
         February 25, 2009 for six months of prior ex-                wide over nine years to pay most of the costs
         penses. The department indicated in discussions              to implement and administer electronic health
         that it will be ready to begin drawing down the              records for qualifying Medicaid providers, such
         additional funds as soon as mid-March. Howev-                as children’s hospitals and physicians who serve
         er, DHCS also reported that it must certify to the           a minimum percentage of Medicaid enrollees
         federal government that California has reversed              in their practice. Only technologies that meet

          Figure 8
          Other Key Medicaid Provisions in Federal Economic Stimulus Package
          Provision                                                           Fiscal Effects
                                                         Nationwide                                   California

          Health information technology     $2 billion appropriated for grants,       Unknown.
                                            $15 billion estimated spending for
                                            Medicaid incentive payments, and
                                            $22 billion for Medicare incentives.
          Disproportionate Share Hospital   Estimated $548 million.                   Direct increase of $54 million in federal
          (DSH) funding                                                               DSH funds for public hospitals. Also
                                                                                      results in increase of $9 million
                                                                                      (General Fund) for other hospitals.
          Transitional Medi-Cal expansion   Estimated $1.3 billion.                   Costs of $59 million (General Fund)
                                                                                      if California implements optional
                                                                                      expansion.
          Delay in various Medicaid         Potential savings.                        Potential savings.
          regulations



FED-20                                                                   LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




certain standards will be eligible for funding, and       2.5 percent a year for two years. We estimate
the state would need to administer a HIT over-            this will result in additional federal payments of
sight program to ensure that providers receiving          $54 million over that period to public hospitals in
federal funds adhere to ARRA’s specified criteria.        the state, including hospitals operated by the UC.
      The ARRA provides an estimated $22 billion          The nonfederal share needed to access these
nationwide over nine years for similar incentives         DSH funds is provided by the public hospitals
in the federal Medicare program, and $2 billion           themselves in the form of costs they incur to
for a variety of grants and other assistance to           deliver services. The federal DSH increase will
promote various health information technologies.          result in automatic increases in payments to cer-
The grant and other assistance programs require           tain other hospitals by an estimated $9 million in
varying levels of nonfederal funding to draw              General Fund costs ($24 million total funds) over
down this federal assistance—in some cases as             the next two years due to current provisions in
little as $1 of nonfederal funding for every              California law.
$10 received from the federal government. These                Transitional Medi-Cal. Current federal law
nonfederal shares could be provided by states or          requires states to provide an additional
potentially by local governments or other enti-           12 months of coverage to families enrolled in
ties. The federal grants will be awarded based on         Medi-Cal who increase employment income be-
a competitive application process, and the details        yond a certain level. Under the ARRA, for a two-
of the distribution are not yet established.              year period ending December 31, 2010, states
      In our recent report, the 2009‑10 Budget            could elect to (1) loosen restrictions on retaining
Analysis Series: Health (see page HE-15), we dis-         this Medi-Cal coverage by automatically enroll-
cuss how increasing the adoption of HIT among             ing these families in 12 months of coverage and
health care providers holds the potential to re-          (2) waive the minimum enrollment period now
duce the costs and increase the quality of health         needed to qualify for transitional coverage. We
care in California. We recommend that the state           estimate that the state would incur General Fund
seek to identify nonstate sources of funding              costs of $59 million (assuming the enhanced
from private health care organizations or pro-            FMAP provided in the ARRA) over two years to
vider organizations in order to participate in the        automatically provide the additional coverage for
proposed HIT programs to the extent possible.             the approximately 150,000 current transitional
We further recommend that the state Office of             enrollees. The state also would incur unknown
Health Information Integrity be directed to take          costs as a result of waiving the minimum enroll-
the lead in these efforts.                                ment period requirements, as it is unclear how
      Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Pay-          many enrollees might become eligible to receive
ment Increase. Under the federal DSH program,             the extended period of benefits. Given the state’s
the federal government provides a pool of funds           severe fiscal problems, we would recommend
each year to supplement Medicaid reimburse-               that the Legislature not expand this program.
ments to hospitals that serve a disproportion-                 Delay of Certain Medicaid Regulations.
ate number of Medicaid or other low-income                The ARRA extends through June 30, 2009, the
patients. The ARRA increases DSH funding by               current moratoria on certain federal regulations


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                    FED-21
                                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         that could otherwise increase state and local                      package includes additional funding for other
         costs for the Medi-Cal Program. For example,                       health-related provisions. We summarize the
         one regulation would limit the opportunity for                     most significant of these in Figure 9, and discuss
         the state to use so-called provider taxes to fund                  them further below.
         rate increases and achieve General Fund savings.                        Grant Money for Public Health Centers. The
         It also imposes a new moratorium through June                      ARRA provides $2 billion in grant money nation-
         30, 2009, on a regulation regarding outpatient                     wide to qualified health centers, including feder-
         hospital facility services. Lastly, ARRA expresses                 ally qualified health centers. Of the $2 billion,
         Congress’ intent that certain pending federal                      $1.5 billion is for construction and renovation of
         regulations should not be issued. If these federal                 facilities, and the purchase of HIT. The remain-
         regulations were in effect, the state and local                    ing $500 million is available to support new or
         agencies and health care providers would face                      existing health center sites or service areas and
         potentially significant adverse fiscal impacts.                    to provide supplemental payments for spikes in
                                                                            uninsured populations. At the time this report
         Other Health Provisions
                                                                            was prepared, the federal government had not
             In addition to the Medicaid provisions de-
                                                                            established how it would distribute these funds.
         scribed above, the federal economic stimulus

          Figure 9
          Other Major Health-Related Provisions in Federal Economic Stimulus Package
                                                                       Fiscal Effects                               Available to
                                                                                                                   Offset General
               Provision                                Nationwide                         California             Fund Spending?

          Grant money for public          $2 billion for construction, certain      Unknown.                            No
          health centers                  technology, and general purposes.

          Health workforce funding        $500 million for health workforce         Unknown.                            No
                                          development.
          Additional federal grants for $500 million for the federal Individuals About $50 million for the             Yes
          Early Start program           with Disabilities Education Act Part C Early Start Program.
                                        grants.
          Prevention and Wellness         $1 billion for various prevention and     $34 million for vaccina-         Unknown
          Fund                            wellness programs.                        tions. Unknown for other
                                                                                    programs.
          Supplemental funding for        $500 million for nutrition assistance     Unknown.                            No
          Women, Infants, and             programs, including $100 million for
          Children                        information systems.
          Safe Drinking Water State       $2 billion.                               $160 million to the state           No
          Revolving Fund                                                            for drinking water projects
                                                                                    that can begin construction
                                                                                    before February 17, 2010.
          Continuing employer-            Unknown.                                  Unknown.                            No
          sponsored health
          coverage (COBRA)
             COBRA = Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.




FED-22                                                                         LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




     Health Workforce Funding. The ARRA pro-              clinical and community-based strategies that
vides $500 million nationwide to support health           are proven to reduce chronic disease rates. The
care workforce development programs. Included             state is expected to receive $34 million of the
in this amount is $300 million for the federal            $300 million for the vaccination program. A fed-
National Health Service Corps, which pro-                 eral spending plan has not yet been announced
vides medical education scholarships and loan             for the remaining $700 million. Some funds will
replacement funds as well as grants to medi-              likely be distributed through grants, with guide-
cal training programs. The Office of Statewide            lines for such grants announced by May 2009.
Health Planning and Development currently                      Supplemental Funding for Women, Infants,
administers various health care workforce devel-          and Children (WIC). The ARRA provides supple-
opment programs, including medical education              mental funding of $500 million for the WIC
support funded in part through $1 million annu-           nutrition assistance program, including $100 mil-
ally from the National Health Service Corps. At           lion for information systems. Although the state-
the time this report was prepared, information            by-state allocation of these funds has not been
was unavailable regarding how these funds will            announced, it is likely that California will receive
be distributed or how much California might               a portion of this supplemental funding in order
receive.                                                  meet the increasing demand for WIC services in
     Additional Federal Grant Funds for Early             the state.
Start Program. The ARRA provides about                         Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
$50 million in grant funding in FFY 2009-10               (SDWSRF). The ARRA provides an estimated
for the federal IDEA Part C early intervention            $160 million to the state for “shovel-ready” drink-
programs, known in California as the Early Start          ing water projects that can begin construction
program. This funding can likely be used to offset        before February 17, 2010. The state Department
General Fund support of Early Start, which is             of Public Health (DPH) has already begun to
administered by the state Department of De-               solicit applicants and proposals for this funding
velopmental Services. Some IDEA Part C funds              and anticipates posting a list of eligible projects
support Early Start requirements in other depart-         by April 2009. The DPH anticipates that, once
ments including CDE and the Office of Admin-              the list is posted, it will begin awarding funding
istrative Hearings. At the time this analysis was         to eligible projects on a first-come, first-served
prepared, it was unclear what process the federal         basis until all funds are allocated.
government will follow to distribute these funds.              Provisions to Continue Employer-Sponsored
     Prevention and Wellness Fund. The ARRA               Health Insurance. The federal Consolidated
provides $1 billion nationwide for prevention             Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)
and wellness efforts, including: (1) $50 million to       allows employees and/or their family members
prevent heath care-associated infections,                 to temporarily extend their coverage in a group
(2) $300 million in grants to state and local             health plan when coverage would be lost due to
health departments to vaccinate certain eligible          certain events, such as loss of a job. This pro-
children and adults, and (3) $650 million for             gram can provide coverage up to 36 months. An
                                                          individual must pay the entire monthly premium.


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                     FED-23
                                        20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         Under ARRA, persons who lost employer-based              nine months and would cover 65 percent of the
         health coverage between September 1, 2008 and            premium, with the individual responsible for the
         January 1, 2010 due to job loss would be eligible        remaining 35 percent. The subsidy would be
         for a federal subsidy. The subsidy would last for        phased out for higher-income persons.


         Labor and worKforCe deveLopment
             Below, we discuss how ARRA impacts work-                 ➢	 $200 million available nationally for ad-
         force development programs and the unemploy-                        ditional dislocated worker assistance.
         ment insurance system in California.
                                                                      ➢	 $50 million available nationally for
         Workforce Investment Act (WIA)                                      YouthBuild activities, specifically target-
             The federal WIA provides funding for a range                    ing individuals who have dropped out of
         of workforce development activities through                         high school and re-enrolled in an alterna-
         statewide and local agencies. The WIA has                           tive school.
         separate funding streams for youth, adults, and
                                                                      ➢	 $750 million available nationally for com-
         dislocated workers. Pursuant to federal law,
                                                                             petitive grants for worker training and
         85 percent of the state’s total WIA funds (an es-
                                                                             placement in high growth and emerging
         timated $427 million in 2009-10) is allocated to
                                                                             industry sectors, including $500 million
         local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs). The
                                                                             targeted for preparing workers for ca-
         remaining 15 percent ($64 million in
                                                                             reers in energy efficiency and renewable
         2009-10) is available for state discretionary
                                                                             energy.
         purposes such as administration, statewide initia-
         tives, and competitive grants for employment                 Use WIA Funds for General Fund Relief. In
         and training programs.                                   the past, the Legislature has used the 15 percent
             Additional WIA Funds. As shown in Fig-               state discretionary funds for new initiatives and
         ure 10, ARRA provides additional WIA funds of            to achieve budget solutions by offsetting Gen-
         about $494 million for California. We estimate           eral Fund costs for employment and training
         that about $420 million will be allocated to local
         WIBs to administer local workforce development            Figure 10
         activities, while an estimated $74 million will be        Additional WIA Funds for California
         available for state discretionary purposes. These
                                                                   (In Millions)
         additional WIA funds would be available for
                                                                   Category                              Estimated Allocation
         expenditure over the 2009-10 and 2010-11 state
         fiscal years.                                             Adult                                         $81
                                                                   Youth                                         188
             Competitive Grants for WIA Funds. The                 Dislocated workers                            225
         ARRA also includes the following WIA discre-
                                                                     Total                                      $494
         tionary grants for state, local WIBs, and other
                                                                       WIA = Workforce Investment Act.
         providers and agencies:


FED-24                                                               LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                   20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




programs in other state departments. Given the               receive an additional $17.3 million in
state’s fiscal situation, we recommend that the              FFY 2008-09, $17.3 million in FFY 2009-10, and
Legislature direct all of the additional $74 million         $4.3 million in FFY 2010-11.
in discretionary funds to offset employment and
training program General Fund costs in either the            Unemployment Insurance
California Department of Corrections and Reha-                       The UI program is a federal-state program
bilitation or the California Conservation Corps.                that provides weekly UI payments to eligible
                                                                workers who lose their jobs through no fault of
Other New Employment                                            their own. To be eligible for benefits, a claimant
And Training Funds                                              must be able to work, be seeking work, and be
     Currently, the state receives about $80 mil-               willing to accept a suitable job. Regular UI ben-
lion in Wagner-Peyser Act (WPA) to support                      efits can be paid for a maximum of 26 weeks,
employment services to individuals and employ-                  while federally funded extended benefits may be
ers at “one-stop” locations throughout the state.               available to workers who have exhausted regular
In addition, California receives about $10 million              UI benefits during periods of high unemploy-
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), which                    ment. The regular UI program is financed by un-
targets training services to workers who have lost              employment tax contributions paid by employers
employment as a result of increased imports.                    for each covered worker.
     New Employment and Training Funds. The                          As we discussed in the 2009‑10 Budget
ARRA provides an additional $45.5 million in                    Analysis Series: General Government (see page
WPA funds to California for state employment                    GG-25), the UI fund is currently insolvent. The
services. The ARRA specifies that about $28 mil-                Governor has introduced a proposal to restore
lion be used to provide reemployment services                   solvency to the UI fund, which remains under
for Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants. We                   consideration by the Legislature. We find that
expect these additional WPA funds to be avail-                  the Governor’s plan has merit in that it restores
able in FFY 2008-09. The ARRA also provides                     solvency to the UI fund. The Employment De-
additional TAA training funds through December                  velopment Department, which administers the
2010. Specifically, we estimate that California will UI program, has already obtained a federal loan
                                                                                         to cover projected fund
  Figure 11                                                                              deficits, which means
  Unemployment Insurance (UI)—Major Fiscal Impacts                                       there will be no interrup-
                                                                                         tion in benefit payments.
  (Through 2011-12, in Millions)
                                                                                              Figure 11 summa-
   Provision                                                               Amount
                                                                                         rizes the major impacts
   Extended UI benefits now available through 2009                          $3,200       of ARRA on the UI
   Temporary increase of $25 in weekly benefits through 2009                 1,000
   Incentive payment if the state implements UI eligibility changes            844
                                                                                         program. As the figure
   Temporary relief of state interest payments for UI federal loans            314       shows, we estimate that
   Additional funds for UI administration                                       60       California could receive
    Total                                                                   $5,418       approximately $5.4 bil-


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                          FED-25
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         lion, with most funds going directly to recipients        will receive about $60 million of these funds in
         of unemployment benefits.                                 FFY 2008-09. These additional funds can only
              Extended and Increased UI Benefits. The              be used for certain UI administration purposes,
         ARRA extends the Temporary Emergency Un-                  including expenses for implementing federal op-
         employment Compensation (TEUC) program                    tions for UI modernization discussed below.
         through the end of calendar year 2009. Eligible                Our preliminary estimates indicate that
         workers in California can receive up to 33 weeks          ARRA‘s provision to temporarily waive UI fed-
         of extended benefits under TEUC, which had                eral loan interest costs will result in General
         been scheduled to terminate in March 2009. Our            Fund savings of $30 million, $209 million, and
         preliminary estimates indicate that the exten-            $75 million in state fiscal years 2009-10 through
         sion of TEUC will result in about $2.2 billion of         2011-12, respectively. We note that these interest
         extended benefit payments for eligible claimants          amounts depend on the nature of any corrective
         in FFY 2008-09 and about $1 billion in                    action to address the UI fund insolvency and/or
         FFY 2009-10.                                              the economy.
              The ARRA increases regular and extended                   Incentive Payments Tied to Significant UI
         benefits by $25 per week for claims filed by De-          Program Changes. The ARRA includes incentive
         cember 31, 2009. The federal government would             payments for states that choose to “modernize”
         fund this additional temporary benefit increase.          their UI programs by expanding eligibility. These
         Our preliminary estimates indicate that this              changes would essentially allow more low-wage,
         temporary benefit increase will result in about           part-time, or other unemployed workers to be
         $700 million in additional benefit payments for           eligible for UI benefits. States can receive the first
         eligible claimants in FFY 2008-09 and about               one-third of the incentive payment by adopting
         $300 million in FFY 2009-10.                              an alternative base period (ABP) for individuals
              Temporary Relief of UI Interest Costs for            who otherwise would not earn enough money to
         Federal Loan. As discussed above, states may re-          qualify for UI benefits using the existing base pe-
         ceive federal loans to cover UI benefit payments          riod. States can receive the remaining two-thirds
         when their funds are insolvent. Short-term fed-           of the incentive payment by adopting the ABP,
         eral loans are generally interest-free, but longer-       as well as at least two of four provisions related
         term loans must be repaid with interest. While            to part-time workers, individuals who separated
         the principal amount of borrowed funds is repaid          from their job for compelling family reasons,
         automatically from the UI fund whenever the               individuals enrolled in training programs, and de-
         fund has a positive balance, any interest charges         pendent allowances. California’s estimated share
         must be paid with other state funds (usually the          of the incentive payment is about $844 million.
         General Fund). The ARRA includes temporary                     Potential State Fiscal Impacts. California
         relief of these interest payments for states with         currently provides part-time worker coverage and
         federal UI loans through December 31, 2010.               extended UI benefits for individuals in training
              Additional Funds for UI Administration.              programs, thus meeting two of the four require-
         The ARRA includes additional funds for state              ments related to the two-thirds portion of the UI
         UI administration. We estimate that California            incentive payment discussed above. To receive


FED-26                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




any of the incentive payment, however, the state          is our understanding that if a state’s UI fund is in-
would have to adopt legislation implementing the          solvent, it must use the incentive funds to pay UI
ABP for determining UI eligibility.                       benefits. This could result in a reduction in future
     Preliminary estimates indicate that the ad-          General Fund costs if the fund continues to be
ditional payments for individuals qualifying for          insolvent past December 2010. This is because
UI benefits under the ABP would total about               the incentive funds would reduce the state’s UI
$70 million per year. In addition to the cost of          fund deficit, resulting in interest savings once the
these new benefit payments, implementing the              interest forgiveness period ends.
ABP could be a timely and/or labor-intensive                  Conversely, if the UI fund were solvent, the
process, as it would require changes to the               incentive payment funds may be available for
existing UI automated database. These one-time            other purposes. These could include paying
automation costs could be between $30 million             for administrative or capital expenditure costs
and $40 million, but the state could use the ad-          (including automation) in the UI program or state
ditional UI administrative grant discussed above          employment services. Some of these actions
to cover these costs.                                     could result in state General Fund savings.
     If the state implements an ABP in accordance             When considering the ABP and the new
with the federal requirements and receives an             federal incentive payments, we recommend that
incentive payment of about $844 million, there            the Legislature examine these issues within the
could be several potential state fiscal impacts. It       broader context of addressing the UI insolvency.


soCiaL serviCes
     For social services programs and beneficia-          California Work Opportunity and
ries, ARRA provides an estimated $5.3 billion in          Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs)
federal funding for California from FFY 2008-09               The CalWORKs program provides cash
through FFY 2010-11, as shown in Figure 12 (see           grants and welfare-to-work services to low-
next page). About $2.8 billion is in the form of          income families with children. The CalWORKs
direct payments to individuals—mostly recipients          program is primarily supported by state General
of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Se-         Fund and the federal Temporary Assistance for
curity, and/or food stamps. With respect to state-        Needy Families block grant.
and county-funded social services programs,                   Significant New Funding. For FFY 2008-09
ARRA provides about $2.2 billion in additional            and FFY 2009-10, ARRA creates a new fed-
funding, much of which can be used to offset              eral funding stream which provides 80 percent
General Fund costs. Finally, ARRA provides                federal financial participation in costs for ongo-
about $300 million in additional funds to existing        ing basic assistance (cash grants), non-recurring
programs which have no state General Fund par-            short-term assistance, and subsidized employ-
ticipation. Below, we describe how ARRA affects           ment which exceed the corresponding costs dur-
various social services programs.                         ing FFY 2006-07. State and county funds cover
                                                          the remaining 20 percent of these costs. On a


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                      FED-27
                                                     20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         cash flow basis, California will begin to receive                          additional federal funds, including a 2.5 percent
         these funds in the April to June quarter of 2009.                          share for counties.
         We estimate that this provision will provide                                   Automatic General Fund Relief. This new
         California with a total of about $450 million in                           federal stream results in General Fund savings


          Figure 12
          Social Services—Summary of Impacts in California
          (In Millions)
           Programs/Provisions                            Amount                                         Description

          Payments to Individuals
          One-time retiree payment                       $1,500           A one-time $250 payment to recipients of Social Security,
                                                                          Railroad Retirement, and certain veterans benefits.
          One-time SSI payment                               320          A one-time $250 payment to about one million SSI recipients.
          Food stamps benefits                               970          A 13.6 percent increase in food stamps benefits.
           Subtotal                                      ($2,790)
          State Programs With General Fund Costs
          IHSS, ADHC, and MSSP                           $1,356a          FMAP relief of 11.6 percent applies to these programs.
          CalWORKs                                          450           New 80 percent federal financial participation for increased
                                                                          benefit costs since 2007.
          Child support enforcement                          175          Federal incentive funds eligible for 66 percent federal match.
          Adoption Assistance Program                          97         FMAP relief of 6.2 percent for state/county costs.
          Foster Care                                          72         FMAP relief of 6.2 percent for state/county costs.
          DOR—Vocational Rehabilitation                        57         Additional funds to assist disabled individuals obtain and retain
                                                                          employment.
          DOR—Independent living services                        7        Additional funds for independent living centers and blind services.
          Food stamps administration                           22         Additional funds for state/county food stamps administration.
          CDA—Nutrition                                        13         Additional funds for home-delivered and congregate meals.
           Subtotal                                      ($2,249)
          State Programs With No General Fund Costs
          DCSD—Weatherization                               $192          Grants to local agencies to assist low-income individuals with
                                                                          weatherization projects to reduce utility costs.
          DCSD—Local block grant                               89         Formula grants to localities to assist low-income individuals in
                                                                          becoming self-sufficient.
          CDA—Employment                                       10         Additional funds for senior community service employment
                                                                          programs.
          TEFAP                                                12         Additional funds for commodities distribution.
           Subtotal                                        ($303)
             Total                                       $5,342
           a These amounts are also reflected in Figure 7, which itemizes FMAP relief.
             ADHC = Adult Day Health Care; MSSP = Multipurpose Senior Services Program; FMAP = Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentages;
             DOR = Department of Rehabilitation; CDA = California Department of Aging; DCSD = Department of Community Services and Development;
             IHSS = In-Home Supportive Services; SSI = Supplemental Security Income; CalWORKs = California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids;
             TEFAP = The Emergency Food Assistance Program.




FED-28                                                                                   LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




of $40 million, $200 million, and $190 million                  Increased State Costs for Food Stamps Ben-
for state fiscal years 2008-09 through 2010-11,            efits. Because CFAP benefits are statutorily linked
respectively. We note that the 2009‑10 Budget              to federal benefit levels, this 13.6 percent increase
Act scores General Fund savings of $147 million            will raise General Fund CFAP costs by $1 million,
from a 4 percent grant reduction (which could              $3.5 million, and $2.5 million for state fiscal years
be triggered off if sufficient federal fiscal relief       2008-09 through 2010-11 respectively.
is identified). Due to this new federal funding                 State Could Achieve General Fund Savings
stream, the net savings from this grant reduction          by Reducing Administrative Support. Due to
is only $29 million during 2009-10.                        the availability of additional federal funds, the
                                                           Legislature could achieve General Fund savings
Food Programs                                              by reducing state and county support for food
     The federal Food Stamps Program provides              stamps administration. Specifically, we estimate
monthly benefits to low-income households and              that this additional funding could allow the state
individuals to assist them with food purchases.            to achieve General Fund savings of $3.8 million
The cost of the benefits is borne entirely by the          in 2009-10 and $2.9 million in 2010-11. Counties
federal government. The associated administra-             also could achieve some savings.
tive costs are shared among the federal govern-                 Federal Funds Available for Distribution
ment (50 percent), the state (35 percent), and the         of Commodities. The ARRA increases funding
counties (15 percent). In addition to the federal          for The Emergency Food Assistance Program by
program, the California Food Assistance Program            $150 million. California is estimated to receive
(CFAP) provides state-only funded food stamp               about $6 million in FFY 2008-09 and $6 million
benefits to legal noncitizen adults under age 64           in FFY 2009-10 from this provision. These funds
who would otherwise be eligible for federal food           are used for the distribution of food commodities
stamps once they have resided in the United                to food banks.
States for five years.
     Food Stamps Benefit and Administra-                   Foster Care and Adoption
tive Funding Increase. The ARRA increases                  Assistance Program (AAP)
the monthly maximum food stamps benefit by                     The Foster Care program provides monthly
13.6 percent effective April 1, 2009. (We note             cash grants to individual and group home pro-
that future federal inflationary adjustments to            viders for the care and supervision of children
food stamps benefits are suspended until such              who have been removed from their homes for
time as their combined impacts would exceed                health and safety reasons. The AAP provides
this 13.6 percent increase.) We estimate that this         monthly cash grants to parents who adopt foster
provision will provide Californians with just under        children. The federal government pays a share of
$1 billion in additional food stamps benefits from         the costs for eligible Foster Care and AAP cases
FFY 2008-09 through FFY 2010-11. The state                 based on the state’s Federal Medicaid Assistance
also will receive about $11 million in additional          Percentages (FMAP) rate of 50 percent.
federal funding over the same time period for the              General Fund Relief From Temporary In-
administration of the food stamps program.                 crease in FMAP Rate. As further discussed in the


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                       FED-29
                                        20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         “Health” section of this report, ARRA temporar-          IHSS of $282 million in 2008-09, $389 million in
         ily increases the FMAP rate for states by a base         2009-10, and $206 million in 2010-11.
         amount of 6.2 percent, plus additional increases
         for high unemployment rates. The ARRA pro-               Economic Recovery Payments
         vides the base FMAP increase of 6.2 percent for              The ARRA provides a one-time additional
         the Foster Care and AAP programs retroactively           $250 payment to SSI recipients (except those
         to October 2008 and continuing through De-               residing in an institution), Social Security recipi-
         cember 2010. We estimate that this provision will        ents, Railroad Retirement recipients, and veterans
         provide California (the state and counties) with         receiving disability or pension benefits. The total
         $32.9 million in FFY 2008-09, $30.9 million in           federal funds received as a result of this proposal
         FFY 2009-10, and $7.7 million in FFY 2009-10             are estimated to be $1.8 billion ($320 million
         in additional federal funds for the Foster Care          to SSI recipients, $1.4 billion to Social Security
         program. In addition, we estimate $41.1 million          recipients, $9 million to Railroad Retirement
         in FFY 2008-09, $44.1 million in FFY 2009-10,            recipients, and $88 million to veterans). The pay-
         and $11.5 million in FFY 2010-11 in additional           ments are required to be made within 120 days
         federal funds for AAP. We estimate that the tem-         of the enactment of ARRA.
         porary FMAP increase for Foster Care and AAP
         will result in combined General Fund savings of          Child Support
         $32.8 million in 2008-09, $45 million in                      The child support enforcement program
         2009-10, and $23.5 million in 2010-11.                   helps custodial parents obtain child support from
              The ARRA also potentially allows for a re-          noncustodial parents. The program is supported
         duction in General Fund expenditures for certain         66 percent by federal funds and 34 percent by
         Foster Care children who are designated as seri-         state funds. States compete for federal incentive
         ously emotionally disturbed (SED). Please see the        funds based on the performance of their child
         “Education” section of this report for an option         support enforcement system. Prior to October
         to use additional IDEA federal funds in lieu of          2007, states could count the federal incentive
         General Fund to support residential costs for SED        funds towards the states’ 34 percent match.
         children.                                                     Restores Ability to Receive Federal Match
                                                                  for Incentive Funds. The federal Deficit Reduc-
         In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)                       tion Act eliminated the states’ ability to use
             The IHSS program provides various services           federal incentive funds to draw down a federal
         to eligible aged, blind, and disabled persons            match. In order to hold child support enforce-
         who are unable to remain safely in their homes           ment harmless, the Legislature appropriated
         without such assistance. The IHSS program is             sufficient General Fund dollars to backfill the lost
         funded by a combination of federal, state, and           federal funds. The ARRA temporarily (from Octo-
         local funds. The IHSS program is eligible for            ber 2008 to September 2010) restores states’ abil-
         the enhanced FMAP funding described in the               ity to use federal incentive funds to draw down
         “Health” section of this report. As shown in             federal matching funds. Based on the incentive
         Figure 7, we estimate a General Fund savings in          funds in 2008-09 and 2009-10, we estimate


FED-30                                                               LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                               20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




that this provision could provide California with             Additional Federal Funds for Senior Em-
about $175 million in additional federal funds.          ployment and Nutrition Programs. California
However, the amount of federal funds drawn               is eligible to receive federal ARRA funds of up
down as a result of this proposal will depend on         to $9.5 million for SCEP and up to $13 million
the amount of incentive funds California ulti-           for the Nutrition program. At this time, it is our
mately receives.                                         understanding that the actual amount of federal
    Remove General Fund Backfill to Achieve              dollars California will receive from these provi-
State Relief. Because ARRA temporarily rescinds          sions will depend on the ability to secure local
the federal law prohibiting the use of federal           matching funds to draw down these additional
incentive funds to draw down federal matching            federal funds. Because it is difficult to estimate
funds, we recommend the Legislature remove the           the amount of matching funds the local AAAs
existing General Fund backfill without reducing          will be able to provide, the actual amount of ad-
total funding for Department of Child Support            ditional SCEP and Nutrition funds California will
Services. Based on the amount of General Fund            receive is unknown at this time.
backfill in 2008-09 and 2009-10, we recom-                    Potential General Fund Offset. Because the
mend that the Legislature achieve General                Nutrition program is partially supported by the
Fund savings of about $22 million in 2008-09,            General Fund, there may be an opportunity to
$30 million in 2009-10, and $7.5 million in              replace some General Fund dollars with the ad-
2010-11. The actual level of savings achieved            ditional federal funds. However, whether these
will depend upon the final amount of incentives          savings could be achieved would depend on the
earned.                                                  ability to identify the required matching funds.

California Department of Aging (CDA)                     Department of Community Services
     The CDA administers California’s Senior             And Development (DCSD)
Community Employment and Nutrition pro-                      The DCSD administers California’s Weath-
grams. These programs are provided at the local          erization and Community Services Block Grant
level through Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs).             (CSBG) programs. The Weatherization Assistance
The Senior Community Employment Program                  Program (WAP) reduces the cost of heating and
(SCEP) provides part-time, subsidized training           cooling for low-income families by improving the
and employment for low-income individuals                energy efficiency of their homes through attic
age 55 or older. The Nutrition program provides          insulation, heating system repair, and other con-
several services including home delivered and            servation measures. The CSBG program provides
congregate meals to individuals age 60 and               a range of services, such as job training and tax
older. The SCEP is funded with a combination             preparation guidance, to assist low-income peo-
of federal and local matching funds, while the           ple in attaining the skills, knowledge, and moti-
Nutrition program is funded through a combina-           vation necessary to achieve self-sufficiency. Both
tion of federal funds with state and local match-        programs are supported by federal funds that are
ing funds.                                               allocated to local community action agencies
                                                         pursuant to an existing funding formula.


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                  FED-31
                                           20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




              Additional Federal Funds for WAP and                   employment, as well as maximizing their ability
         CSBG Programs. The ARRA provides increased                  to live independently in their communities. The
         federal funds of $192 million for WAP and                   DOR’s two major programs are (1) Vocational
         $89 million for the CSBG program. In addition               Rehabilitation (VR), which provides training,
         to increasing funding for these programs, ARRA              education, and other services to prepare disabled
         makes some program policy changes that may                  individuals for employment; and (2) Independent
         expand program eligibility, increase maximum                Living Services (ILS), which assists disabled in-
         benefits, and set aside a higher percentage of              dividuals to live independently. The DOR pro-
         funds for training and technical assistance. At             grams are supported with federal and state funds.
         this time, it is unclear whether state legislation is            Additional VR and ILS Funds. The ARRA
         needed to implement these changes.                          provides an additional $56.5 million in VR funds
                                                                     and about $7 million in ILS funds. The ARRA
         Rehabilitation Services                                     targets about half of the ILS funds to independent
             The Department of Rehabilitation (DOR)                  living centers, while the remaining half of ILS
         provides programs and services to assist individu-          funds are to be used for services for older blind
         als with disabilities in obtaining and retaining            individuals.


         transportation
             Figure 13 shows the amount of funding pro-              $770 million) be allocated to regional transporta-
         vided by ARRA for transportation programs. As               tion agencies for projects selected by them. The
         shown in the figure, California will receive about          other 3 percent of funds (about $77 million) must
         $3.6 billion in additional federal funds from               be used for transportation enhancement projects,
         formula-based highway and transit programs.                 such as bicycle and pedestrian paths and land-
         None of these additional funds will offset Gen-             scaping. In addition, the federal act requires the
         eral Fund expenditures. In addition, the state, lo-         timely use of funds through a series of “use it or
         cal governments, and transit agencies can apply             lose it” deadlines. These timelines for the use of
         for additional funding that will be provided on a           funds are as follows:
         discretionary basis.                                            ➢	 At least one-half of the Caltrans’ share
                                                                              of the funds must be obligated within
         Major Provisions
                                                                              120 days. (Funds are obligated for a
              Highway Funds. California is expected to                        transportation project when a project
         receive about $2.6 billion in federal economic                       is fully designed and is ready to adver-
         stimulus funds for highway and road projects.                        tise for construction.) This requirement
         Of this amount, ARRA allows 67 percent of                            means that the state must obligate about
         the funds (about $1.7 billion) to be used by the                     $900 million of the highway and road
         state Department of Transportation (Caltrans)                        funds by July 2009. If Caltrans fails to
         for state transportation programs and projects.                      meet this requirement, one-half of the
         The federal act requires that 30 percent (about


FED-32                                                                  LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




        funds will be taken back and redistrib-                  requires the timely use of these transit funds
        uted to other states that have been able                 through a series of deadlines:
        to meet this deadline.                                       ➢	 At least 50 percent of these formula-
                                                                            based funds must be obligated within
   ➢	 All of the funding for highways and roads
                                                                            180 days. This means that each local
        must be obligated within one year (by
                                                                            agency must obligate one-half of its funds
        March 2010). Any funds that have not
                                                                            by no later than early September 2009.
        been obligated by this deadline will be
                                                                            The federal government will withdraw
        taken back and redistributed to states that
                                                                            one-half of the funds originally appor-
        have been able to meet this deadline.
                                                                            tioned from any recipient that fails to
   ➢	 Funding that is provided to the states                                meet this requirement and redistribute
        through the redistribution of funds after                           the money to other states or agencies that
        March 2010 must be obligated by Sep-                                have been able to meet this deadline.
        tember 20, 2010. After this deadline,
                                                                     ➢	 All of the funding must be obligated
        ARRA funds for highways and roads will
                                                                            within one year (by March 2010). The
        no longer be available.
                                                                            federal government will withdraw any
     Transit Funding Distributed Directly to                                funds that have not been obligated by
Regions. Of the $7.55 billion available nation-                             this deadline and redistribute the money
wide, California’s share of the formula-based                               to states or agencies that have missed
transit funds is just over $1 billion. This includes                        both deadlines.
$968 million for larger metropolitan areas for
                                                               The State Could Additionally Benefit From
bus, rail and related capital assistance, and
                                                            Discretionary Programs. Beyond the formula-
$66 million for light and commuter rail systems.
This funding will be
provided directly to the        Figure 13
regions and local op-           Transportation Component of the
erators, which means            American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
the state is not involved
                                (In Millions)
in the distribution or
                                 Program                               Nationwide Total California's Share
accountability of these
funds. Another $34 mil-          Formula-Based Funding
                                 Highways and roads                         $27,500           $2,570
lion is provided for the         Transit                                      7,550            1,068
nonurbanized areas in            Discretionary Funding
the state. This funding is       High-speed and intercity rail               $8,000              —a
administered by Cal-             Supplemental discretionary grants            1,500              —a
                                 Aviation infrastructure                      1,300              —a
trans.
                                 Other transit grants                           850              —a
     Similar to highway
                                  Totals                                    $46,700           $3,638
funds, the federal act            a
                                  The amount is unknown as it will depend on receipt of discretionary grants.




LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                           FED-33
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         based funds, other competitive grant programs             maintain its efforts with regard to state funding
         could provide additional benefits to California.          for the types of transportation projects that use
            ➢	 First, the California High-Speed Rail               federal economic stimulus dollars. If that level of
                 Authority could receive a substantial             state funding is not maintained, California would
                 amount of capital funding, as ARRA pro-           not be eligible to receive any federal highway
                 vides $8 billion to support the develop-          funds that are redistributed in August 2011. In
                 ment of intercity high-speed rail service         addition, ARRA requires a number of periodic
                 nationwide. This money will be allocated          reports on the use of federal economic stimulus
                 through a competitive process based on            funds for transportation.
                 the U.S. Transportation Secretary’s stra-
                                                                   Issues for Legislative Consideration
                 tegic plan, which will be developed no
                 later than April 18, 2009.                             State Law Sets Process to Allocate Federal
                                                                   Funds. Current state law sets up a process to
            ➢	 Second, $1.5 billion is available nation-           allocate federal funds available to the state for
                 wide to be awarded on a competitive               highway purposes. Specifically, the California
                 basis for projects that will have a signifi-      Transportation Commission (CTC), working with
                 cant impact on the nation, a metropoli-           Caltrans, determines the amount of funding to
                 tan area, or a region. States, local govern-      set aside for highway rehabilitation and repair
                 ments, and transit agencies are all eligible      projects in the State Highway Operation and
                 to apply for this funding; however, no            Protection Program (SHOPP), and the remaining
                 state can receive more than $300 million.         amount that would be made available to regions
                 Caltrans has indicated that it will work          and Caltrans for highway expansion projects in
                 with local governments or transit agen-           the State Transportation Improvement Program.
                 cies to guarantee that the state maximizes        Current state law also specifies that highway
                 the amount of funding it receives from            rehabilitation and safety improvements (that is,
                 this program.                                     SHOPP projects) have priority over highway ex-
                                                                   pansion projects. As of February 2009, Caltrans
            ➢	 Finally, there are other discretionary grant
                                                                   indicated that it has about $1.5 billion in SHOPP
                 programs that could benefit the state.
                                                                   projects that could begin construction within
                 These include $1.3 billion in discre-
                                                                   180 days. This means that the state could com-
                 tionary grants for airport facilities and
                                                                   ply with the federal deadlines for these ARRA
                 equipment and $850 million for transit
                                                                   funds. Thus, under current law, nearly all of the
                 projects. The federal government may
                                                                   state’s federal economic stimulus highway funds
                 also spend a portion of the $1.3 billion
                                                                   ($1.7 billion) could be made available for SHOPP
                 in California for Amtrak to make track,
                                                                   projects. At the time this analysis was prepared,
                 equipment, and security improvements.
                                                                   CTC had not yet decided on the amount to use
            Maintenance of Effort and Reporting                    for SHOPP. However, it has set a minimum target
         Requirements. The federal act requires the Gov-           (or floor) to provide at least $500 million for
         ernor to certify by mid-March that California will        these projects.


FED-34                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




     Administration Proposes Different Alloca-                     for an average of 20 percent less than the
tion of Funds. Instead of allocating the federal                   estimated cost of the project. While this
stimulus funds using the process set up by cur-                    competitive environment would likely
rent law, the administration is proposing legisla-                 result in lower construction prices for
tion to allocate the $2.6 billion in total state and               any projects funded with federal stimulus
local ARRA funds in a different manner. Under                      money, small- and mid-sized projects in
the administration’s proposal, about $1.6 billion                  particular are likely better able to cap-
(or 62.5 percent) of the highway funds would go                    ture cost savings because they typically
to the regions to be used at their discretion, and                 receive more bids than larger projects.
$964 million would be provided to the state for
SHOPP and other state projects. Thus, the pro-
                                                              ➢	 Avoid the Cost of More Expensive
                                                                   Future Repairs. Making needed highway
posal would result in less funding being available
                                                                   repairs now would result in cost sav-
for SHOPP projects compared to the amount that
                                                                   ings by avoiding higher future costs that
would be available under current law. In fact,
                                                                   would occur if repairs were delayed.
Caltrans indicates that it would likely use about
half of the $964 million (about $500 million) for             ➢	 Benefit All Regions. Because SHOPP
SHOPP projects and the other half for Proposi-                     projects are located throughout the state,
tion 1B projects.                                                  funding these projects would provide
     Use Federal Funds to Maximize Highway                         transportation benefits and construction-
Rehabilitation. As we have noted in past analy-                    sector jobs in every region of the state.
ses, the limited availability of funding for highway               In addition, ARRA requires the state to
maintenance and rehabilitation means that there                    give funding priority to projects located
is a significant volume of highway rehabilitation                  in “economically distressed” areas as
work that cannot move forward on a timely basis.                   defined in federal law. Funding SHOPP
(See, for example, the Analysis of the 2008‑09                     projects throughout the state would help
Budget Bill, page A-30.) While Proposition 1B,                     the state meet this requirement.
passed by voters in 2006, provided a one-time
                                                              In light of the benefits and the backlog
infusion of $500 million for SHOPP projects, this
                                                          of needed repair work, we recommend that
has only made a relatively small reduction in the
                                                          the Legislature direct Caltrans and CTC to use
overall backlog of highway repair work.
                                                          $1.5 billion (out of the $1.7 billion the state
     In our December 2008 report, Advancing
                                                          would receive under current law) for SHOPP
Transportation Projects to Stimulate the Econ‑
                                                          projects that are ready for construction. Further-
omy: An Alternative Approach, we found that
                                                          more, given the short deadlines on the use of the
advancing highway repair projects would have
                                                          federal funds, we recommend that the Legislature
a number of benefits to the state. This approach
                                                          provide this direction to CTC expeditiously. (The
could:
                                                          Legislature can do so through various means, in-
   ➢	 Maximize Savings From Competitive
                                                          cluding the adoption of legislation.) If the Legisla-
        Construction Prices. Caltrans is cur-
                                                          ture were to adopt the administration’s proposal
        rently awarding construction contracts


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                    FED-35
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         to change the way these funds are allocated, we           highway repairs (although at a later time than
         recommend that the Legislature direct CTC to              if the federal funds were used immediately for
         dedicate the state’s entire share of funding (about       SHOPP projects).
         $964 million) for SHOPP projects.                              Input Into High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan
             Federal Funds Could Provide Cash Flow for             Could Increase State’s Share of Funding. Before
         Proposition 1B Bond Projects. While we recom-             the $8 billion in federal stimulus money would
         mend using the federal stimulus funds ultimately          be available for any high-speed rail systems, the
         for SHOPP projects, these same funds could                U.S. Secretary of Transportation must submit to
         be used to provide interim financing for some             Congress by April 18 a strategic plan with guide-
         Proposition 1B bond projects. The state has a             lines for the allocation of funds. California could
         number of projects that have been scheduled to            potentially increase its share of the high-speed
         go to construction by mid-2009 using Proposi-             rail funding by providing input to that strategic
         tion 1B bond money. However, due to the state’s           plan. There are two specific advantages that
         recent inability to issue bonds, many of these            the state may have over other proposed high-
         projects are delayed. In order to prevent further         speed rail systems in the country. First, the state’s
         delays to high-priority Proposition 1B projects,          system calls for a train that can reach sustained
         we recommend that the Legislature consider us-            speeds of over 200 miles per hour, a faster speed
         ing ARRA funds to provide cash-flow loans for             than many systems proposed in other states.
         Proposition 1B projects. This would be similar to         Therefore, California would benefit from a plan
         the state’s current process of providing short-term       that gives preference to higher-speed trains. Sec-
         loans for bond projects from the Pooled Money             ond, with the passage of Proposition 1A in 2008,
         Investment Account. Once the state is able to             the state has substantial state funding to match
         issue Proposition 1B bonds, these funds would             the federal funds that other proposed systems
         then be available for SHOPP projects. This ap-            may not be able to provide. The state could re-
         proach would allow the state to meet its com-             ceive more of the federal set-aside for high-speed
         mitment to high-priority Proposition 1B projects,         rail development if the ability to match funds is
         while providing substantial funding for needed            given preference in the strategic plan.


         housing programs
             The ARRA provides approximately $13.5 bil-            2008 grant awards. The remaining $3.5 billion
         lion nationwide for various housing-related               will be competitively awarded.
         programs, including funds for affordable housing
         development, homelessness prevention, rental              Major Provisions
         assistance, and emergency assistance for the                  California to Get Between $1.1 Billion and
         redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed                 $1.3 Billion for Housing Programs. Preliminary
         homes. Of this amount, about $10 billion will             estimates of California’s share of the housing
         be allocated to state and local housing agencies          monies range from about $1.1 billion to $1.3 bil-
         based on funding formulas used to make the                lion. (The actual amount will largely depend
                                                                   on how well California’s state and local govern-

FED-36                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




ments, and nonprofit entities fare in receiving            should help to accelerate the process of get-
competitive grants.) Of that amount, California            ting the funds to providers. Based on our initial
state housing agencies—namely the Depart-                  review, it does not appear as though state leg-
ment of Housing and Community Development                  islation would be required to draw down the
(HCD) and the Tax Credit Allocation Commit-                federal funds. Under the act, most of the hous-
tee (TCAC)—are expected to receive about                   ing money is to be allocated based on existing
$400 million in formula-based grants, as well as           funding formulas. It is likely that only minimal
some unknown amount in competitive grants.                 administrative actions will be required to obtain
Some, if not all, of this funding could be allocat-        formula-based grants. At the time this analysis
ed to the state during the current state fiscal year.      was prepared, the U.S. Department of Housing
However, given the timing, it is not likely that           and Urban Development (HUD) was still devel-
the state would begin making awards for hous-              oping some of the details regarding the use of
ing and community development projects until               these monies. The state, however, would need to
2009-10. In general, these funds will not provide          apply to HUD to receive any of the competitive
any state General Fund relief, since the affected          grants available under the federal Neighborhood
housing programs are supported almost entirely             Stabilization Program. This program, with total
by federal funds. (The relatively small amount of          national funding of $2 billion, provides grants for
General Fund spending is needed to meet fed-               emergency assistance to redevelop abandoned
eral match requirements.)                                  and foreclosed homes.
    Housing Money Must Be Spent Rapidly. The                    Tax Credit Allocation Agency May Not Be
ARRA places an emphasis on rapid distribution              Best Suited to Administer Loans. The federal
of the housing stimulus funds. For example, in             Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program of-
the case of the Community Development Block                fers tax credits to investors as a means to attract
Grant program, the act requires state and local            private capital into new construction, acquisition,
recipients to give priority to projects that are           and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing.
ready to go (“shovel ready”) within 120 days               In California, TCAC administers the program.
from the date funds are made available to the              Because of the downturn in the housing market
recipient. Depending on the program, grant                 and the overall economy, the value of tax credits
recipient agencies are required to spend between           to investors has declined, making it difficult for
50 percent and 75 percent of the funds within              affordable housing project sponsors to raise the
two years, and all of the funds within three years.        capital required to finance housing projects.
Failure to meet these time frames could result in               In recognition of this problem, ARRA pro-
reallocation of the funds to other states or local         vides one-time, formula-based grants to state
governments.                                               housing tax credit agencies to make up for the
                                                           lost value of the tax credits. California is estimat-
Issues for Legislative Consideration                       ed to receive about $325 million. Under the act,
    Providing Funds to Existing Programs Mini-             the tax credit agencies will use the grant funding
mizes Implementation Issues. The act does not              to make loans (on a competitive basis) to afford-
create new affordable housing programs. This               able housing projects previously and newly ap-


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                   FED-37
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         proved to receive tax credits. In addition to these       the funds. Moreover, since the funds are being
         formula-based grants, the act also authorizes a           provided on a one-time basis, we do not think
         state housing tax credit agency to exchange up            it would be prudent to establish within TCAC
         to 40 percent of its 2009 federal tax credit al-          the resources to administer the program. For this
         location for a cash grant. This would provide up          reason, we think it would be more efficient and
         to an additional approximately $300 million for           effective to have the grant program administered
         loans to affordable housing projects.                     by either HCD or CalHFA. Both of these agen-
             The TCAC historically has not administered            cies have experience making competitive project
         loan programs. Traditionally, HCD and the Cali-           awards, and more staff resources and expertise
         fornia Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) have               than TCAC to handle the anticipated high vol-
         administered such programs. It is unlikely that           ume of applications. Accordingly, we recom-
         TCAC has sufficient staff and internal program            mend that the Legislature direct TCAC to contract
         expertise to administer the funds and comply              with either HCD or CalHFA for administration of
         with related federal requirements, particularly           the tax credit supplement funds.
         given the short time frames for allocation of


         resourCes and environmentaL proteCtion
              The ARRA includes several resources and              mental protection areas under each of these four
         environmental protection-related provisions that          categories.
         will have a fiscal impact on California. All of
         these additional federal funds supplement spend-          Funds Flowing to the State by Formula
         ing on resources and environmental protection-                Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)—
         related programs and do not benefit the state’s           State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
         General Fund. We will discuss these provisions            The ARRA includes about $283 million provided
         in the following four broad categories.                   directly to the state in grant and loan funding
            ➢	 Funds that flow directly to the state.              (including for loan forgiveness and “negative-
                                                                   interest rate” loans) for wastewater infrastructure,
            ➢	 Competitive or discretionary grants.                through the existing Clean Water SRF. (Negative-
                                                                   interest rate loans have a zero interest rate and
            ➢	 Funds that will be spent directly by
                                                                   some degree of forgiveness of the loan principal,
                 federal agencies on federal projects and
                                                                   effectively making the interest rate negative.) The
                 programs in the state or administered
                                                                   funds will all be made available in FFY 2008-09.
                 directly by federal agencies to individual
                                                                   The SWRCB administers the program on behalf
                 grantees in the state.
                                                                   of the state in cooperation with the U.S. Environ-
            ➢	 Industry-specific tax credits and other             mental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
                 financial incentives.                                 The ARRA changes the state’s existing pro-
                                                                   gram in two ways. First, the current state match-
            Figure 14 summarizes the federal funding
                                                                   ing fund requirement is waived as a condition of
         provided in ARRA in the resources and environ-


FED-38                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                                        20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




receiving the federal economic stimulus mon-                                                     includes three forms of financial assistance—
ies. Second, the federal authorization expressly                                                 grants, loan forgiveness, and negative-interest

 Figure 14
 Stimulus Funding for California Resources and
 Environmental Protection Programs
 (In Millions)
 Program                                                       Funding                                                      Description

 Funding Flowing Directly to State, by Formula
 Clean Water State Revolving Fund             $283                             Existing program, largely for wastewater treatment upgrades.
 State Energy Programs                         239                             Focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
 Energy Efficiency and Conservation             56a                            Block grants to be used to reduce total energy usage, improve overall energy
                                                                                 efficiency, and reduce fossil fuel emissions.
     Subtotal                                                    ($578)
 Competitive or Discretionary Grants
 Leaking Underground Storage Tank                                   $17        Financial assistance for cleanup of leaking tanks.
 Diesel Emission Reduction                                            2b       On- and off-road diesel emission projects; $210 million nationwide.
 Wildland fire management                                           —b         Hazardous fuels reduction, forest health, and ecosystem improvements on state
                                                                                 and private lands; $250 million allocated nationally.
 Brownfields remediation                                            —b         $100 million nationwide.
 Defense environmental cleanup                                      —b         $5.1 billion nationwide for environmental cleanup at former military installations.
 Wireless and broadband access                                      —b         $4.4 billion nationwide for broadband deployment in unserved and underserved
                                                                                 areas.
     Subtotal                                                      ($19)

 Funding Spent Directly by Federal Agenciesc
 Smart (Electricity) Grid                    —b                                $4.5 million nationwide in competitive grants for electricity transmission
                                                                                  infrastructure modernization.
 Non-defense environmental cleanup                                  —b         $438 million to Department of Energy for environmental cleanup at non-defense
                                                                                  federal sites nationwide.
 Army Corps—Flood control                                           —b         $4.6 billion for construction and operations of various civil works projects
                                                                                  nationwide (such projects are mainly for flood control in California).
 Department of Interior—Water programs                              —b         $1 billion for federal water-related programs nationwide, which potentially
                                                                                  includes federal Central Valley and Colorado River Projects in California.
 Hazardous Substance Superfund                                      —b         $600 million for cleanup at abandoned hazardous waste sites nationwide under
                                                                                  the federal Superfund program.
 Federal land and resource management                               —b         At least $1.7 billion for federal land and resource management activities
                                                                                  nationwide.
     Subtotal                                                       (—)
 Tax/Financial Incentives in Energy Area
 Various tax incentives                                             —b         For energy efficiency and renewable energy, including personal income tax,
                                                                                 investment, and production tax credits.
 Renewable energy tax credit bonds and loan                         —b
   guarantees
    Subtotal                                                        (—)
        Total Funding                                             $597
  a In addition, the state is potentially eligible for an unknown portion of $400 million of competitive grants to be allocated nationwide.
  b Total benefit to California unknown at this time.
  c Includes funding administered directly by federal agencies to individual grantees.




LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                                                                         FED-39
                                          20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         rate loans—that are expressly prohibited under             total of $56 million, with $22 million available for
         state law for the Clean Water SRF program. We              state use and $34 million to be passed through to
         recommend urgency legislation to authorize the             small cities. An additional $400 million is avail-
         board to include these categories of financial as-         able nationally in the form of competitive grants,
         sistance under the state’s program so as to maxi-          although there is currently no information avail-
         mize the federal funding allocated to the state.           able on how these grants are to be awarded.
              State Energy Programs—Energy Commis-                      The purpose of the EECBG program is for
         sion. The ARRA includes $3.1 billion for State             the grant recipients to reduce total energy usage,
         Energy Programs under the existing Energy Policy           improve overall energy efficiency, and reduce
         and Conservation Act, of which $239 million                fossil fuel emissions. The EECBG is a program
         will come to California. The ARRA directs states           that, while authorized in the Energy Indepen-
         to focus on funding energy efficiency programs             dence and Security Act of 2007, has not been
         (such as energy efficient retrofits of buildings and       funded prior to the ARRA. Statutory changes will
         industrial facilities) and renewable energy                be required in order for the Energy Commission
         programs, and in particular to expand those                to be able to spend the funds within the schedule
         programs already approved by the state. States             that the federal government has set. The funds
         are also directed to prioritize joint projects             have to be obligated by September 30, 2010.
         between states. All funds must be obligated by
         September 30, 2010.                                        Competitive or Discretionary Grants
              To access these funds, the Governor must                   Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund
         provide various assurances to the U.S. Secretary           Program. The ARRA appropriates $200 million
         of Energy. These include assurances that (1) the           nationally to the U.S. EPA for the Leaking Un-
         use of the funds will be prioritized to the two            derground Storage Tank Fund Program. The state
         program areas referenced above, (2) the state will         is expected to receive between $15 million and
         adopt a policy that ensures that utilities’ financial      $17 million in the first year of funding and may
         incentives are aligned with helping their custom-          be eligible to receive an additional $5 million in
         ers use energy more efficiently, and (3) the state         the second year should other states be unable to
         will have a plan for exceeding the international           fully utilize their grants. It is likely that the state
         energy code for residential buildings within eight         will require minor legislative changes to allow
         years of enactment of the ARRA.                            federal funds to be deposited specifically into the
              Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block              Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Contami-
         Grants—Energy Commission. The ARRA in-                     nation Orphan Site Cleanup Fund in addition to
         cludes $2.8 billion for Energy Efficiency and              other funds annually made available in the state
         Conservation Block Grants (EECBG), of which                budget. The state matching requirements for this
         $784 million is to be allocated nationwide                 program are waived for the ARRA funds.
         directly to the states. (The majority of the remain-            Diesel Emission Reduction. The ARRA ap-
         der will be allocated to local jurisdictions, with a       propriates $300 million to U.S. EPA for grants
         small amount for tribes and other entities.) Of the        and loans awarded nationally for on- and off-
         allocation to the states, California will receive a        road diesel emission reduction projects, includ-


FED-40                                                                 LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




ing for diesel engine retrofit and replacement.            pensation, and Liability Act. There is no cost-
Of this total, $90 million is allocated directly to        share requirement in order to receive the money.
states (of which the Air Resources Board [ARB]             While there is no allocation specific to California,
expects the state to receive at least $1.8 million).       projects in California may be eligible for grant
The remaining balance—$210 million—is to be                funds. The Department of Toxic Substances
awarded directly by U.S. EPA as competitive                Control (DTSC) would be the state’s applicant
grants. As U.S. EPA’s grant guidelines have yet to         agency.
be developed, it is not known what amount of                    Department of Defense Environmental
grant funds that the state could potentially access        Cleanup. The ARRA appropriates $5.1 billion
directly. Therefore, it is unknown whether the             to the Department of Defense for environmen-
state could use these funds, for example, to offset        tal cleanup activities. There are several former
state agency costs (proposed by the Governor               military installations in California that could be
to be funded from the General Fund and special             eligible for these funds. The DTSC administers
funds) to comply with ARB’s recently enacted               the cleanup of some of these sites with federal
diesel regulations. We think that this latter op-          reimbursement through the state budget.
portunity should be considered once the federal                 Wireless and Broadband Access. The ARRA
grant guidelines have been finalized.                      appropriates $4.4 billion to the National Tele-
     Wildland Fire Management. The ARRA ap-                communications and Information Administration
propriates $250 million to the U.S. Forest Service         (under the Department of Commerce) for com-
for state and private forestry activities, including       petitive grants awarded nationally to increase the
hazardous fuels reduction, forest health, and              deployment of broadband services in “unserved
ecosystem improvement activities on state and              and underserved areas.” While there is a 20 per-
private lands. While the U.S. Forest Service has           cent state matching requirement (which can be
yet to determine how this funding will be de-              waived), the ARRA gives priority to states with a
livered to the state, it is likely that a significant      source of matching funds. California has recently
portion of the funding coming to the state would           enacted legislation that could provide a source
be administered by the California Department of            for these matching funds—Chapter 393, Statutes
Forestry and Fire Protection. The department has           of 2008 (SB 1193, Padilla). Chapter 393 created
already submitted a $176 million list of potential         the ratepayer-supported California Advanced Ser-
projects to the U.S. Forest Service. The ARRA              vices Fund under the California Public Utilities
prohibits a state from having a cost-share require-        Commission (CPUC) to help promote the deploy-
ment if funds are passed through to other enti-            ment of broadband infrastructure in unserved
ties. Since state law currently has such a require-        and underserved areas. As the amount of the
ment, a statutory change would be needed to                allocation of the ARRA competitive grants to
allow such pass-throughs.                                  California is unknown, is it uncertain whether the
     Brownfields Remediation. The ARRA ap-                 current level of revenues supporting the Califor-
propriates $100 million nationally for projects            nia Advanced Services Fund would allow the
to be awarded by competitive grants under the              state to leverage the maximum amount of federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-                 funding potentially allocated to the state.


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                  FED-41
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




              In order to access these grant funds, the            the energy generator and the energy user so that
         ARRA requires that there be a single central-             better choices can be made about how energy
         ized entity from within a state that applies for all      is produced, delivered, and consumed. In par-
         of the grant funds on behalf of all eligible grant        ticular, these investments are seen as necessary
         recipients in a state (which would include, for           to move renewable energy resources onto the
         example, cable providers, wireless carriers, and          grid cost-effectively. What portion of this funding
         community-based organizations). The ARRA                  the state might be eligible for is uncertain. The
         does not specify who the state representative             CPUC assumes that the funding would not flow
         should be, nor does it require that this entity be        through the state, but would flow directly to the
         a state agency. Since the Legislature has made            applicants—entities making capital investments
         broadband access a funding priority, we recom-            for some part of the electric transmission grid,
         mend that the Legislature enact legislation des-          such as utilities that own transmission and/or
         ignating the CPUC as the state entity to access           distribution systems.
         these funds. This would improve the Legislature’s              DOE—Non-Defense Environmental Clean-
         oversight of the state’s access to and use of these       up. The ARRA appropriates $438 million to DOE
         funds to ensure that the state is maximizing fund-        for environmental cleanup of nonmilitary sites.
         ing for which it is eligible and that the expen-          Previous appropriations for this fund have been
         diture of the funds is consistent with legislative        used for the cleanup of civilian energy research
         priorities.                                               sites. The allocation of these funds has yet to be
              In addition to the new broadband deploy-             determined.
         ment grant program discussed here, the ARRA                    Army Corps of Engineers—Flood Control.
         also provides $2.5 billion to the Rural Utilities         The ARRA appropriates $4.6 billion to the Army
         Service under the U.S. Department of Agriculture          Corps of Engineers for investigations, construc-
         for an existing program awarding competitive              tion, and operations and maintenance of vari-
         loans, grants, and loan guarantees for broadband          ous civil works projects (which, in California,
         infrastructure projects that primarily serve rural        are mostly for flood control). While there are no
         areas. It is expected that these funds would flow         direct appropriations to the state, the Corps is
         directly to the rural telecommunications carriers.        a partner with the state on federally authorized
                                                                   flood control projects for which costs are shared
         Funds Spent Directly by                                   among federal, state, and local governments.
         Federal Agencies                                          These include projects in the State Plan of Flood
              Department of Energy (DOE)—Smart (Elec-              Control, modifications to Folsom Dam, and other
         tricity) Grid Investment Program. The ARRA ap-            projects in Central and Southern California.
         propriates $4.5 billion to DOE for the Smart Grid         In some cases, the state Department of Water
         Investment Program. This funding—likely to be             Resources (DWR) has “fronted” the federal share
         administered by a competitive grant process—is            of funding, mainly through bonds (Proposi-
         for electricity transmission infrastructure invest-       tion 1E), in order to expedite the projects. These
         ments that make the transmission grid “smarter”           latter cost-sharing agreements were made with
         by improving the flow of information from both            the expectation that when federal funds became


FED-42                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




available, the federal government would in some           land management activities on Bureau of Land
way compensate the state for the funds it fronted,        Management lands, $280 million for construc-
such as by providing matching funds for ongoing           tion and resource management activities of the
flood control projects. We recommend that the             U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $750 million for
Legislature and DWR urge the federal govern-              construction and deferred maintenance activities
ment to provide such compensation to the state.           in the National Park Service, and $900 million to
     U.S. Department of the Interior—Water                the U.S. Forest Service for capital improvements
Programs. The ARRA allocates about $1 billion             and maintenance projects ($650 million) and for
to water-related programs under the Depart-               wildland fire management on federal forest lands
ment of the Interior, which includes the Bureau           ($250 million).
of Reclamation. Included in this amount is up to
$50 million that may be transferred for programs          Energy-Related Tax and
and activities under the California Bay-Delta             Financial Incentives
Restoration Act. Additional funding is appropri-               The ARRA extends and expands the scope
ated for canal inspections, development of rural          of a number of energy efficiency and renewable
water treatment facilities, water reclamation and         energy tax incentives. For example, the personal
reuse projects, and for other construction and            income tax provisions extend a tax credit for
maintenance projects. Traditionally, a majority           energy efficiency upgrades to existing homes to
of funding for the Bureau of Reclamation, which           2009 and 2010, also increasing the cap on these
only operates in western states, has been allo-           incentives from $500 to $1,500. The bulk of the
cated to California-related projects, including the       tax incentives pertain to the development of re-
federal Central Valley Project and the Colorado           newable energy. For example, project developers
River Project.                                            of a broader group of renewable energy sources
     U.S. EPA—Hazardous Substance Superfund               are now eligible for the 30 percent federal invest-
Program. The ARRA appropriates $600 million               ment tax credit. The production tax credit for
for the federal Superfund program administered            renewable energy facilities has been extended to
by U.S. EPA that cleans up abandoned hazard-              the end of 2012 or 2013, depending on the type
ous waste sites. There are a number of existing           of facility. Renewable energy facilities may also
federal Superfund sites in California receiving           now apply to the Department of the Treasury for
funding for cleanup from the federal Superfund.           grant funding in lieu of the investment/produc-
Additional funds may therefore come to Califor-           tion tax credits.
nia for the cleanup of these sites.                            The ARRA also includes provisions providing
     Miscellaneous Funding for Federal Land and           renewable energy-related loan guarantees and
Resource Management. In addition to the above,            tax credit bonds. Specifically, the ARRA pro-
the ARRA includes funding for the land and                vides $6 billion nationwide for a loan guarantee
resource management activities of a number of             program to be administered by DOE for renew-
federal resources agencies, potentially for activi-       able energy power generation and transmission
ties in the state. This funding, to be spent nation-      projects. The ARRA also authorizes an additional
ally, includes $320 million for construction and          $1.6 billion nationwide of new clean renewable


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                  FED-43
                                         20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         energy tax credit bonds, up to one-third of which         credit bonds to finance state, local, and tribal
         is to be made available for qualifying projects           programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas
         of state, local, and tribal governments. Finally,         emissions. Legislation may be required to facili-
         the ARRA authorizes an additional $2.4 billion            tate the state’s issuance of these bonds.
         nationwide of qualified energy conservation tax


         CriminaL JustiCe and other programs
              The federal economic stimulus package also           victims of crime and their families. (The state’s
         provides additional funds for a variety of criminal       Restitution Fund—fines and penalties collected
         justice programs and other programs run by the            from criminal offenders—is the primary source of
         state. Below, we describe the likely increases            funding for the program.) The federal economic
         in federal funds to the state from ARRA. These            stimulus package includes a one-time increase
         increases in federal funds generally would not            of about $8 million in federal funds for VCP in
         result in an offset of General Fund expenditures.         California.
              Additional Funding for Public Safety Grants.              Competitive Grants Provide Funds to Hire
         Under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice As-               Additional Sworn Officers. Currently, the federal
         sistance grant, Violence Against Women Act,               Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
         and Victims of Crime Act, the federal govern-             office distributes funding through a wide range of
         ment provides grant funds to help support local           programs to assist law enforcement agencies. In
         public safety programs. In California, these grant        the past, many local law enforcement agencies,
         funds are administered by the California Emer-            as well as some state-level agencies, in California
         gency Management Agency, which receives the               have received federal grants from various COPS
         funds from the federal government and distrib-            programs. The federal economic stimulus pack-
         utes them to eligible sub-grantees. The federal           age includes $1 billion for a new COPS Hiring
         economic stimulus package includes a one-time             Recovery Program (CHRP) to provide competi-
         increase of about $250 million nationwide in              tive grants for law enforcement agencies to hire
         federal funds for these three programs. As part of        additional full-time sworn officers. The CHRP
         the conditions for acceptance of federal funds,           grants are intended to support the full cost of
         the state must agree not to supplant existing state       additional officers for three years, based upon
         funding with any federal funds.                           approved entry-level salaries and benefits. Al-
              Increased Funding for Crime Victims Com-             though there is no funding match requirement,
         pensation. Under the Victims of Crime Act, the            grant recipients must retain all of the additional
         federal government provides grant funds to help           positions awarded under the grant with state or
         support state victim compensation and assistance          local funds after the three-year period. Grant
         programs. In California, these funds partially sup-       applications are scheduled to be available at the
         port the Victim Compensation Program (VCP),               end of March. The Legislature should direct the
         which is operated by the Victim Compensation              various state-level law enforcement agencies
         and Government Claims Board and helps pay                 (such as the California Highway Patrol) to report
         for certain unreimbursed expenses incurred by             at budget hearings regarding their intention to


FED-44                                                                LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                                 20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




apply for CHRP grant funding and the longer-run            ferred maintenance construction and renovation
fiscal impact on the state once federal funding            projects. While the list of eligible projects is still
expires.                                                   being developed by the federal government, it is
     Potential Additional Patrols at Southern Cal-         possible that some of the federal funds provided
ifornia Border. The federal economic stimulus              to the California National Guard may help the
package provides $30 million nationally to local           state avoid future General Fund costs for the
law enforcement for patrolling the United States-          same purposes.
Mexico border. This new program targets south-                 Transit and Port Security Projects to
west border states and designated high-intensity           Receive Federal Grants. The ARRA makes avail-
drug trafficking areas. An additional $10 million          able nationally $150 million for public trans-
is available to support efforts to stem firearms           portation and railroad security assistance and
trafficking through Project Gunrunner—a coop-              $150 million for port security grants. The stated
erative program between the United States and              preference is for projects that can be started and
Mexico. California may benefit from a portion of           completed quickly. It is unclear what amount, if
these funds.                                               any, the state would receive because the grants
     California National Guard to Receive Fund-            are competitive. Moreover, it is uncertain what
ing for Building Construction and Renovation. A            the state’s need would be for these funds given
total of $26.5 million is expected to be provided          recent expenditures of Proposition 1B bond
to the California National Guard for various de-           funds for security projects.


tax Changes in the federaL eConomiC
stimuLus paCKage
     The ARRA contains a variety of tax provi-             $18 billion in tax subsidies for a variety of fiscal
sions that are designed to provide a boost to the          incentives to encourage “green” energy produc-
economy. Nationally, the act provides $287 bil-            tion and conservation. Some of the tax provi-
lion in federal tax relief, mainly over the next           sions listed in Figure 15 are discussed in their
three years. We estimate that Californians would           respective program areas earlier in this report.
receive between $30 billion and $35 billion of
this relief. Figure 15 (see next page) displays the        Major Personal Income Tax Changes
major elements of the tax package and their                    Below, we review selected personal income
estimated cost over the next ten years. Two                tax changes that are part of the stimulus legisla-
provisions—the “making work pay” credit and                tion. Estimates are available on the national im-
alternative minimum tax provision—comprise                 pact of the personal income tax provisions from
two-thirds of the total relief provided. Figure 15         the federal Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In
also shows that the federal economic stimulus              some cases, additional data on state-level effects
legislation contains $53 billion nationwide in             of existing provisions that are modified by the
other types of tax provisions that affect a vari-          stimulus bill are available. As a result, we can
ety of program areas. For instance, it includes            make rough estimates of the amount of the fed-

LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                        FED-45
                                                    20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




         eral benefits that would be coming to California                             New Making Work Pay Tax Credit. This
         from several of these provisions.                                         new tax credit is equal to 6.2 percent of earned


          Figure 15
          Tax Relief Provisions Included in the 2009 Federal Stimulus Legislation
          (In Billions)
                                                                                                                          National
          Provision                                                                 Description                            Totala

          Personal Income Tax
          “Making work pay” credit                  Creates a new credit of up to $800 in 2009 and 2010 based on           $116.2
                                                      annual income.
          Alternative minimum tax (AMT)             Raises income levels subject to the AMT in 2009.                         69.8
            threshold
          Child tax credit                          Reduces the annual wage threshold for eligibility in 2009 and            14.8
                                                     2010 from $12,600 to $3,000.
          Education tax credit                      Expands the existing “Hope” credit for higher education costs in         13.9
                                                     2009 and 2010.
          New homeowner tax credit                  Converts an existing incentive into a refundable credit for first-        6.6
                                                     time homebuyers who purchase a home in 2009.
          Taxation of unemployment                  Exempts up to $2,400 in benefits received in 2009.                        4.7
           benefits
          Earned income tax credit                  Increases benefits and raises the income threshold for eligibility        4.7
                                                      in 2009 and 2010.
          Energy improvement tax credit             Increases tax benefits in 2009 and 2010 from increasing the               2.0
                                                      energy efficiency of existing homes.
          Automobile sale tax deduction             Creates a new deduction of sales taxes paid on the purchase of            1.7
                                                     a new car over the next 12 months.
           Subtotal, Personal Income Tax                                                                                  ($234.4)

          Other Tax Provisions
          Renewable energy incentives               Extends or increases a variety of tax subsidies for “green” energy      $18.0
                                                     production and conservation.
          School construction bonds                 Increases federal subsidies for school construction and repair           10.9
                                                      projects.
          Recovery Zone Bonds                       Authorizes $25 billion in federally subsidized bonds for projects         5.4
                                                     that encourage growth in depressed areas.
          Extension of bonus depreciation Allows rapid depreciation of equipment purchases in 2009.                           5.1
          Build America Bonds                       Establishes a new type of federally subsidized bond that would            4.3
                                                     be available to state and local governments.
          Deferral of income on the                 Permits companies to repurchase their own debt in 2009 and 2010           1.6
           repurchase of debt                        and defer taxes on any reduction in the value of that debt.
          Other                                                                                                               7.2
           Subtotal, Other Tax Provisions                                                                                  ($52.5)
                                                                                                                           $286.9
             Total
           a Expected costs over the period from 2009 to 2019, as estimated by the federal Joint Committee on Taxation.




FED-46                                                                                  LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE
                               20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




income in tax years 2009 and 2010, up to a                    Increase in Child Tax Credit Refundability.
maximum of $400 for an individual or $800 for            Current federal law provides a tax credit of up to
a married couple that files a joint return. The          $1,000 per child. This credit is partially refund-
required annual earnings to reach the maximum            able. Refundable credits allow taxpayers to claim
$400 credit is just $6,451, so most workers will         the difference between the credit and tax liability
qualify for the maximum credit. The federal              as a tax refund if the credit exceeds the amount
law also phases out the credit for high-income           owed by the taxpayer. For nonrefundable credits,
earners. Specifically, the credit is reduced for         if the amount of the credit exceeds liability, the
individuals who earn more than $75,000 and               taxpayer can only claim the amount of credit
eliminated entirely for individuals earning above        needed to eliminate a tax payment. The child
$95,000. For married couples, the credit phases          tax credit allowed taxpayers to claim a refund-
out between $150,000 and $190,000. The JCT               able credit equal to 15 percent of earned income
estimates the national cost of this provision at         above $12,550. The stimulus legislation reduces
$116.2 billion. The state has about 11 percent           the threshold for claiming a refund to $3,000 for
of the nation’s total employment, so the income          tax years 2009 and 2010. This change would
gain to state taxpayers should be roughly 11 per-        have two effects. First, it would increase the
cent of $116.2 billion, or $12.8 billion.                number of low-income households that would
     Increase in Existing Earned Income Tax              be able to claim a partial refund of the credit. In
Credit (EITC). The existing federal EITC provides        addition, the change would increase the amount
taxpayers with a credit for up to 40 percent of          of the credit that would be refundable for house-
earnings up to a maximum credit of $5,028 for            holds with an income over $12,550.
a household with two or more dependents.                      The estimated national ten-year cost is
The amount that couples can claim under the              $14.8 billion. According to the IRS, 11.1 percent
EITC peaks at an income of $19,540 and gradu-            of all child tax credit payments went to Cali-
ally phases out up to an income of $43,415.              fornia. As a result, Californians would receive
The stimulus bill makes several changes for              roughly $1.6 billion in tax relief from this provi-
tax years 2009 and 2010. For households with             sion.
three or more dependents, the credit percent-                 Expansion of the Hope Education Tax
age increases from 40 percent to 45 percent of           Credit. As discussed in the “Education” section
earnings and the maximum credit increases to             of this report, the federal government signifi-
$5,657. In addition, for couples with dependents         cantly expanded the Hope Education tax credit.
the credit amount will peak at $21,420 of income         The estimated national cost is $13.9 billion over
and phase out up to $45,295. The estimated               ten years. Data on California’s share of these tax
national ten-year cost of this change is $4.7 bil-       benefits are not available. Because the state’s
lion. According to the Internal Revenue Service          community college fees are about 75 percent
(IRS), 10.6 percent of all EITC payments went            below the national average, however, California
to California. Therefore, the state impact of the        is likely to receive a smaller share of these funds
new provision over that period would be about            than its 11 percent share of the other tax credits.
$500 million.


LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE                                                                                   FED-47
                                             20 0 9-10 B u D g E t a n a Ly s i s s E r i E s




               Extension of Credit for First-Time Home-                Issues for Legislative Consideration
         buyers. The current credit for first-time home-                    State Conformity Issues. Most of these new
         buyers is equal to 10 percent of the purchase                 federal tax provisions are administered through
         price up to a maximum of $7,500. This credit,                 the federal tax system and do not require state
         however, was scheduled to expire on June 30,                  actions. In addition, according to the Franchise
         2009. The stimulus bill extends the credit to                 Tax Board, the changes to federal tax law will
         November 30, 2009, and increases the maxi-                    not automatically alter the state’s tax laws—and,
         mum credit amount to $8,000. The estimated                    thus, the new provisions will not reduce state tax
         national cost is $6.6 billion over ten years. No              collections. Because of the state’s fiscal situation,
         data are available on the estimated state impact.             we do not recommend that the state conform
         If the state received 11 percent of these funds, it           its tax policies to any of the federal personal or
         would reduce Californians’ federal tax liabilities            corporate income tax reductions included in the
         by about $700 million.                                        stimulus act.
              Sales Tax Deduction for New Car Pur-                          Bond Program Administration. Some of
         chases. Under the stimulus bill, taxpayers will               the bond-related tax credits in the stimulus bill
         be allowed to deduct the sales tax on new car                 may need to be administered by the state. At
         purchases from taxable income until February                  the present time, it is not clear whether federal
         2010, and will be able to take the deduction                  or state agencies will administer these programs
         even if they take the standard deduction instead              and allocation processes. If the federal govern-
         of itemizing. The limit on the cost of the ve-                ment decides to give states this responsibility, the
         hicle is $49,500 and the limits on the taxpayer’s             Legislature may need to choose a state agency
         income are $135,000 for a single taxpayer or                  to administer the funds. For example, the State
         $260,000 for a couple. The estimated national                 Treasurer administers several existing bond and
         cost is $1.7 billion. Past sales data show Cali-              tax credit allocation programs, however, other
         fornia accounting for about 12 percent of new                 state agencies also are involved. The Legislature
         car sales nationally. California’s share of this              also may need to determine how best to use the
         credit likely would tend to be higher because its             federal subsidies available for bonds to supple-
         average sales tax rate is high compared to other              ment existing state programs.
         states, but lower, because the economic down-
         turn is adversely affecting California more than
         other states.



         LAO Publications
         This report was coordinated by Farra Bracht, with input from all sections in the office.
         The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and
         advice to the Legislature.
         To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service,
         are available on the LAO’s Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,
         Sacramento, CA 95814.


FED-48                                                                    LEgisLativE anaLyst’s OFFicE