← California State Legislature · All bills
AB 1074
CalWORKs.
Assembly · Other
What this bill does
This bill would make technical changes to the provisions regarding a parent's eligibility to receive aid as if the child or children were living with them. The bill would also specify that those provisions do not require (A) all children to be removed from the parent or parents or (B) that, at the time of removal, the needs of the parent or parents were included in the grant. …
Read the full official summary
(1) Under existing law, if the federal government provides funds for the care of a needy relative with whom a needy child is living, aid to the child for any month includes aid to meet the needs of that relative, except as prescribed. Existing law establishes the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, under which each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families using federal, state, and county funds. Existing law provides that the parent or parents are to be considered living with the needy child for a period of up to 6 months, or for a time period as determined by the State Department of Social Services, of the needy child's absence from the family assistance unit, and that the parents are eligible for CalWORKs aid and childcare services if specified conditions are met, including, among others, that the child has been removed from the parent or parents and that the family was receiving aid under when the child was removed. Existing law requires all applicants for or recipients of CalWORKs to ensure and provide documentation that each child in the assistance unit who is not required to be enrolled in school has received all age-appropriate immunizations, as specified.
This bill would make technical changes to the provisions regarding a parent's eligibility to receive aid as if the child or children were living with them. The bill would also specify that those provisions do not require (A) all children to be removed from the parent or parents or (B) that, at the time of removal, the needs of the parent or parents were included in the grant. The bill would make these provisions that authorize the provision of aid and child care services, as specified, operative on July 1, 2026, or when the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation, whichever is later, and would prohibit the implementation of these provisions from resulting in a retroactive payment or underpayment. The bill would exempt a family participating in a reunification case plan from specified immunization requirements. To the extent that this bill would expand county responsibilities under the CalWORKs program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law generally requires a recipient of CalWORKs to participate in welfare-to-work activities as a condition of eligibility. Existing law requires the recipient and the county welfare department to enter into a written welfare-to-work plan that includes the activities and services that will move the individual into employment. Existing departmental guidance strongly encourages, for individuals receiving benefits as described in paragraph (1) , counties to use a CalWORKs family reunification plan, which is the case plan developed by the county child welfare services agency for the provision of services to those individuals, in lieu of the welfare-to-work plan.
This bill would instead authorize, for those individuals, either (A) a case plan, as specified, to serve as a CalWORKs family reunification plan or (B) a jointly developed child welfare services and CalWORKs welfare-to-work plan to serve as the CalWORKs family reunification plan, both of which would satisfy the requirement to have a welfare-to-work plan. To the extent that this bill would expand county responsibilities under the CalWORKs program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3) Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program.
This bill would provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for the purposes of implementing the bill.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Official summary from the Legislative Counsel’s office, via OpenStates.
Floor votes (3)
June 4, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 61 yes · 13 no · 5 other
Yes (61): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Damon Connolly, Sade Elhawary, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Al Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Avelino Valencia, Greg Wallis, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Rick Zbur, Anamarie Ávila Farías
No (13): Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Carl DeMaio, Diane Dixon, Stan Ellis, Heath Flora, James Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Ali Macedo, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta, David Tangipa
Other / no vote recorded (5): Leticia Castillo, Phillip Chen, Heather Hadwick, Joshua Hoover, Tom Lackey
Official motion wording
AB 1074 Patel Assembly Third Reading
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 9, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 34 yes · 4 no · 2 other
Yes (34): Ben Allen, Bob Archuleta, Jesse Arreguín, Angelique Ashby, Josh Becker, Catherine Blakespear, Christopher Cabaldon, Anna Caballero, Sabrina Cervantes, Dave Cortese, María Elena Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Tim Grayson, Shannon Grove, Melissa Hurtado, John Laird, Monique Limón, Mike McGuire, Jerry McNerney, Caroline Menjivar, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Steve Padilla, Sasha Pérez, Eloise Reyes, Laura Richardson, Susan Rubio, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Henry Stern, Tony Strickland, Tom Umberg, Suzette Valladares, Aisha Wahab, Akilah Weber Pierson, Scott Wiener
No (4): Marie Alvarado-Gil, Steve Choi, Brian Jones, Kelly Seyarto
Other / no vote recorded (2): Megan Dahle, Roger Niello
Official motion wording
3rd Reading AB1074 Patel By Limón
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 11, 2025 — Concurrence vote
Passed · 60 yes · 13 no · 7 other
Yes (60): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Damon Connolly, Sade Elhawary, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Al Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Avelino Valencia, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Rick Zbur, Anamarie Ávila Farías
No (13): Juan Alanis, Leticia Castillo, Laurie Davies, Carl DeMaio, Diane Dixon, Stan Ellis, Heath Flora, James Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Natasha Johnson, Ali Macedo, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta
Other / no vote recorded (7): Phillip Chen, Heather Hadwick, Joshua Hoover, Tom Lackey, Joe Patterson, David Tangipa, Greg Wallis
Official motion wording
AB 1074 Patel Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov