Low-income California children would get up to $5,000 if they lost a parent to COVID-19 under legislation that state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, plans to introduce in January.
The Hope for Children Act would create savings accounts with up to $3,000 for children as old as 9 and up to $5,000 for children 10 to 17 years old. Also, children ineligible for federal survivor benefits would receive survivor support through a program called CalHope, which would be established by Skinner’s legislation.
Children would be eligible for a savings account, called a Hope Savings Account, if they lost a parent or a primary caregiver to COVID-19.
Skinner’s bill would also require the state’s Health and Human Services Agency to report on the cost and the authority needed to provide similar savings accounts to children who are long-term wards of California’s foster care program and others disproportionately affected by poverty.
“The Hope for Children Act will offer a more secure future to children who lost their parents to this deadly pandemic,” said Skinner, who is chair of the Senate Budget Committee, in a statement.
“Children who are long-term wards of California’s foster care system and others disproportionately impacted by extreme poverty also face uncertain futures, so the act creates the possibility of Hope Accounts for these children,” Skinner said.
An estimated 20,000 children in California lost a parent or primary caregiver to COVID-19, according to Skinner’s office.
Nationwide, that number may be more than 140,000 and 65 percent of those may be from racial and ethnic minority households, according to a study in the journal Pediatrics. Many who died were low-wage workers, according to the senator’s office.
Savings accounts for children like the Hope Savings Account aim to promote social and economic well-being. According to Skinner’s office, they are a “hopeful new policy.”
The CalHope program would provide state-funded monthly benefits to children who had a parent die without documenting enough federal work credits for federal survivor benefits.
According to Skinner’s office, for several reasons parents and caregivers may not have logged enough work credits with the federal government for their children to be eligible for federal survivor benefits.
The parent may have been undocumented, incarcerated, and among other reasons, pushed out of the workforce to care for their child.
“The Hope for Children Act is the first of its kind that seeks to provide support to children who must now fill the role of their parental figures to meet their basic needs,” Shimica Gaskins, president and CEO of Grace – End Child Poverty in CA, said in a statement.
“The trust accounts, modeled after ‘baby bonds,’ will ensure that these children have financial resources when they are transitioning into adulthood and will create the opportunity for California to support foster children and other children disproportionately impacted by poverty in the future,” Gaskins said. “The CalHope program will also provide survivor benefits so that burden is lifted.”
Elena Chavez Quezada, chief impact officer for End Poverty in California, added in statement, “The Hope for Children Act provides critical financial support to those who have suffered the most in this pandemic: children who have lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19.”
“The bill sets the foundation for trust accounts that grow over time and give vulnerable young people a financial jumpstart at age 18 — one that can disrupt cycles of intergenerational poverty and help close the racial wealth gap,” Quezada said.
Skinner added, “At a time when California has immense wealth, we can afford to ensure that children who have suffered an inconceivable loss will be comforted knowing they’ll have a little help at a time when they no longer have parents to rely on.”
26 comments
I assume “and you know what that means” that if they lost a provider there is a program for the survivors. “Welfare” The five grand won’t take them far it is more like a gift.
I didn’t know California had a great wealth. Maybe they could put a third lane on hiway 5 going down to LA.
Forgive those responsible for the death of your parent and get $5,000.00?
Sure, why not! Sounds like a good deal.
… and just who will administer the accounts? Oh, yeah. The new governmental tax-sucking Dept of Waif Banking or some such inanity. Anything to create another “hire your nephew/niece/son/daughter’s best friend… …. ….. Not to worry… children and parents who didn’t die will pay the salaries.
State funded? NO it’s taxpayer funded! Stop with giving taxpayer money away already enough is enough.
Should apply to “all” children who lost a parent to COVID-19. This is where and how lawmakers and the voters can get past the “starting gate” and a certain way of thinking. No matter how wealthy or how poor, parents die. Please stop making it a socio-economic and policitcal issue!
To keep it fair every child upon birth could get a 3k savings account made by their state. Upon their 18th birthday they have access to it. Stop picking and choosing who gets it with tax payers money. Every one or no one.
I believe that no one should get any handouts from the taxpayers.
Help teach people how to thrive,
Don’t make them dependant.
Stop taking my money and giving it to people who should never have had kids. STOP rewarding poor decisions.
Call it the “Isn’t Socialism Great!?!” bill.
Did they lose their parent BEFORE or AFTER vaccines were available?
This sounds so nice.
I fear it leads to something else.
Permanent welfare.
I suggest that instead of saving, offer better opportunities and support for job training, vocational and college so that children can become working and responsible members of society.
Even today there are innumerable opportunities for people to work, grow and become wealthy.
Just giving people money is not the best answer.
Opportunities to become successful through work and education make a lot more sense to me.
It’s also much better for everyone else too.
“…the racial wealth gap,”
’nuff said.
Why not provide those funds to local churches, food pantries and other charitable organizations? Even the most disorganized, costly, heck , even crooked groups would still be significantly more efficient than a state bureaucrat determining how, and who to pass taxpayer to. State “representatives” are so quick to cut checks they do not personally have to take account of, other than crowing how they did this or that. Perhaps the state ought to dip into Skinners accounts first, let her put her money where her hands are.
no way. not my tax money. California’s EDD and DMV fiasco’s remember!
The cheats and illegals are already coming out of the woodwork. Stop this continued free give aways.
Based on what they are saying, it’s clearly a ploy to continue welfare payments to welfare recipients even after they die.
Only in California.
If it comes up for a vote, Californians will vote for it. We are that stupid.
The Hope for Children Act is Excellent, but should be amended to say All California Children.
@T-rex… Like your perspective!
Why not have the “Hope for Children Act” turn into a fund and be funded by donations … I’m sure with all the bleeding hearts in this State of California It would be more than sufficiently funded. Or, is it that bleeding hearts only bleed when it’s with taxpayer money ?
@Did I Say that-‐-great point!
A trust account is only as good as the person in control of it.
“The trust accounts, modeled after ‘baby bonds,’ will ensure that these children have financial resources when they are transitioning into adulthood and will create the opportunity for California to support foster children and other children disproportionately impacted by poverty in the future”
OK, so which bank controls these accounts? (In other words, who got greased ?) Skinner? She’s a pro at this crap.
This is another reason people cheat on their taxes because they are tired of this sort of bs money spending from the government.
Newscum bragging of California’s immense wealth so they can do this. This is a crock of crap.
I will do our taxes accordingly this year to not support this.
I don’t get why this is necessary. The child would be eligible for Social Security “Survivor Benefits” on the death of a parent who had paid into the system. Judging by all this money the government is passing around, I’d say they have got too much and need to cut taxes severely.
Just another boondoggle, Gittyup. Politicians will sell their soul to get their name attached to a bill. Those who may still have a soul they haven’t already sacrificed. If theirs is hell-bound aready, they’ll bargain to spend yours.
It’s not necessary at all, just another stupid idea some glorified politician wanting to look like some caring savior.
I’ve given up on trying to figure out why politicians continuously spend spend spend on new causes, most of them need to be let go and not replaced. A new rule needs to be implented upon each persons new term/once a year called “one and done”. One bill/law per person per year.
And will somebody please stuff a rag in Nancy Pelosi’s mouth for Christmas!
Send the bill to China
Comments are closed.