Whitfield v. Board of Supervisors, A048613

• Decision Date: 31 January 1991
• Docket Number: No. A048613,A048613
• Citation: 227 Cal.App.3d 451,277 Cal.Rptr. 815
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ledora WHITFIELD, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, County of Alameda, et al., Respondents.

Page 815

277 Cal.Rptr. 815

227 Cal.App.3d 451

Ledora WHITFIELD, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, County of Alameda, et al., Respondents.

No. A048613.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Jan. 31, 1991.

Review Denied April 17, 1991.

Charles R. Garry and Lynn S. Carman, Bay Area Legal Foundation, San Francisco, for petitioners and appellants.

Kelvin H. Booty, Jr., County Counsel and William E. Rundstrom, Asst. County Counsel, County of Alameda, Oakland, for respondents.

BENSON, Associate Justice.

Ten homeless general assistance recipients appeal from the trial court's denial of their petition for writ of mandate. Appellants challenge the adequacy of Alameda County's general assistance grant level. Specifically, they ask that the county be ordered to conduct a factual study of the cost of subsistence for Alameda County indigents and to enact a new general assistance ordinance based on that study. The issue on appeal is whether the county satisfied its mandatory duty under the Welfare and Institutions Code to determine and adopt an appropriate standard of aid and care for its indigent population. We hold that it did not and reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are undisputed. In 1978 Alameda County's general assistance ("GA") grant was $132 per month. That year GA recipients sued the county in a class action to raise the GA grant (Thames v. Alameda County, Alameda County Super.Ct. No. 514682-0).

After the lawsuit was filed, Alameda County conducted a study of subsistence costs of GA recipients in the county ("the 1979 GA study"). The study, submitted to the respondent Alameda County Board of Supervisors ("Board"), calculated costs of housing, food, clothing, transportation, and certain personal items. It determined the total need level to be $159 per month. Based on the study, the Board enacted an ordinance setting the basic GA grant at $160 per month. The Board later raised the grant to $170.

In December 1980 the county conducted another GA costs study ("the 1980 GA study"). Using essentially the same methodology as the 1979 study it concluded the cost of subsistence for Alameda County GA recipients had risen $37 during 1980, to $207 per month. Based on that study, the Alameda County Social Services Agency ("SSA") recommended the GA grant be raised accordingly. Conceding the 1980 study appeared accurate and complete, the county administrator nevertheless recommended that the Board delay deciding on the increase. He noted the strain the increased grant would impose on the county's finances and the risk that such an increase might encourage indigents to move to Alameda County from counties with lower grant levels.

In May 1981 the SSA withdrew its study-based recommendation of a $37 increase, in favor of an $18 monthly increase to $188 per month. This increase was based on the newly formulated California Necessities Index ("CNI"), which the state uses to grant cost of living increases in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC") and Supplemental Social Security Income programs. As described by the SSA in its recommendation to the Board, "[t]he State's method establishes a flat grant based upon an overall cost-of-living factor [the CNI], rather than using an established need amount for each individual cost component (i.e., food, housing, clothing, transportation and personal items)." In June 1981 the Board acted on the SSA's revised recommendation and established a new grant level of $188 per month.

Based on the county's increases in the GA grant level, the plaintiffs in the Thames class action obtained court approval to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.

Following the GA grant increase to $188 per month, the county failed to increase the grant in 1982, increased it to $200 per month in January 1983 (presumably based on the CNI), failed to increase the grant in 1984, and increased the GA grant to $211 per month in January 1985 based on the CNI.

In September 1985 the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County informed the SSA that the existing $211 grant level was inadequate, based on the lack of annual increases and on alleged methodological flaws in the 1979 GA study. Legal Aid offered to negotiate with the county to avoid litigation. Extensive negotiations followed. The Board met in closed session three times to consider offers and counter-offers.

In February 1986 the county offered to raise its GA grant level to the state's AFDC level over one and one-half years. Effective July 1, 1986, the $211 grant would increase to $273 per month, reflecting all CNI increases since January 1, 1980. The AFDC grant at that time was $289. The next year the GA grant would match AFDC, less $1. Thereafter, each July 1 the GA grant would be raised by the CNI and kept $1 less than the AFDC grant. Legal Aid accepted the county's offer.

On April 29, 1986, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 0-86-66 (the subject of the present litigation) which implemented the county's agreement with Legal Aid. As agreed, beginning in 1987 the GA grant has been set at $1 less than the state AFDC grant as adjusted by the CNI. When the present action was filed on November 9, 1989, Alameda County's monthly GA grant was $340 per month.

Appellants' petition for writ of mandate in the superior court challenged Ordinance No. 0-86-66 as being void on the grounds that: (1) it is not based on any factual study of actual subsistence costs in Alameda County; (2) it fails to set standards for general assistance aid and care as required by statute; (3) the use of the AFDC grant as adjusted by the CNI is arbitrary and capricious since neither is based on local subsistence costs; and (4) the 1979 GA study is itself methodologically flawed. Appellants sought, among other things, an order compelling the county to conduct a factual study of minimum subsistence costs for Alameda County indigents and then to establish new GA grant standards based on that study. Appellants also sought attorneys' By order dated November 28, 1989, the trial court denied appellants' petition for writ of mandamus. Appellants' timely notice of appeal followed. ²

fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. ¹

DISCUSSION

County general assistance "is a program of last resort for indigent and disabled persons unable to qualify for other kinds of public benefits." (Boehm v. Superior Court (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 494, 499, 223 Cal.Rptr. 716 ("Boehm II ").) "The program is unique because the responsibility for funding and administering it rests entirely upon individual county governments." (Ibid.)

The statutory basis for this responsibility is found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000. ³ It provides in relevant part that "Every county ... shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions." Section 17000 imposes on Alameda County "a mandatory duty to relieve and support its indigents, and the excuse that it cannot afford to do so is unavailing." (City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 44, 47, 128 Cal.Rptr. 712; Mooney v. Pickett (1971) 4 Cal.3d 669, 676, fn. 7, 94 Cal.Rptr. 279, 483 P.2d 1231; Guidotti v. County of Yolo (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1552, 1561, 271 Cal.Rptr. 858; Poverty Resistance Center v. Hart (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 295, 303, 271 Cal.Rptr. 214.)

Section 17001 imposes a further mandatory duty on the board of supervisors of each county to adopt " 'standards of aid and care' " for the indigent and dependent poor. (Poverty Resistance Center v. Hart, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 304, 271 Cal.Rptr. 214; Boehm v. County of Merced (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 447, 451, 209 Cal.Rptr. 530 ("Boehm I "); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.App.3d at p. 47, 128 Cal.Rptr. 712.) "Such standards are in the nature of an administrative regulation." (Poverty Resistance Center, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 304, 271 Cal.Rptr. 214; Mooney v. Pickett, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 679, 94 Cal.Rptr. 279, 483 P.2d 1231.) These standards are expressed in county ordinances stating the general assistance grant levels for qualifying citizens.

"Under section 17001 counties have 'broad discretion to determine eligibility for, the type and amount of, and conditions to be attached to indigent relief.' " (Clay v. Tryk (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 119, 124, 222 Cal.Rptr. 729, [fn. omitted], quoting City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.App.3d at p. 49, 128 Cal.Rptr. 712.) However, there are clear-cut limits to this latitude in administering relief. The counties' discretion "can be exercised only within fixed boundaries. In administering General Assistance relief the county acts as an agent of the state. [Citation.].... [T]he agency's regulations must be consistent, not in conflict with the statute, and reasonably necessary to effectuate its purpose. (Gov.Code, § 11374.)" (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 211, 211 Cal.Rptr. 398, 695 P.2d 695, quoting Mooney v. Pickett, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 679, 94 Cal.Rptr. 279, 483 P.2d 1231; Guidotti v. County of Yolo, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 1562, 271 Cal.Rptr. 858.)

Section 10000 states that the statutory purpose and legislative intent of the provisions governing general assistance are "to provide for protection, care, and assistance to the people of the state in need thereof, and to promote the welfare and happiness Where, as here, the general assistance level is challenged as insufficient, "the standard must be justified by an identified factual predicate concerning the actual cost of subsistence within the county. [Citations.]" (Poverty Resistance Center v. Hart, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 304, 271 Cal.Rptr. 214 ...