We can all agree $1.3 billion is a lot of money. Divide it among 750,000 working poor Californians and it's still a lot -- about $1,700 per family. That's how much the IRS estimates eligible Californians missed out on last year from our country's largest resource for low-income people -- the Earned Income Tax Credit. With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget threatening significant cuts in social programs, California should do much more to let people know about this critical resource. It can -- without spending a lot of money.

The credit is easy to apply for: Eligible people -- those whose household income is $35,458 or less -- fill out a one-page form. Last year, 2.4 million Californians received $4.2 billion in credits, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But 23 percent of eligible families in California never applied for a resource that can increase their wages by as much as 40 percent, according to the IRS.

The EITC was designed to reward the work initiative of those who may be transitioning off welfare. The maximum payment is $4,300 for a family with two or more children and income of less than $14,000. Twenty-one million Americans received $36 billion in EITC refunds last year. The credit also lifts more children out of poverty than any other federal program, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Many counties do have active EITC awareness campaigns, but the outreach is uneven. For instance, in the Sacramento region there are Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites in Sacramento, Yuba and Yolo counties, but not in Placer, Sutter or El Dorado counties, according to the Web site of the California Franchise Tax Board (go to www.ftb.ca.gov , then click on VITA and enter your county). Volunteers prepare basic tax returns and generally are located in community and neighborhood centers, libraries, schools or shopping malls.

So how can California expand its outreach? By following the lead of Washington state. In 1999, after the IRS estimated that 40 percent of eligible Washingtonians were not applying, the state spent $316,000 to develop materials to raise awareness of the credit, conduct a media campaign and set up a hot line. Significant media time was donated, the toll-free number received 67,000 calls and the state spent less money on this awareness campaign each year. Five years later, an estimated 80 percent of eligible Washingtonians -- thousands more families -- are receiving the credit.

A similar campaign would, of course, cost more in California. But if every dollar the state invested brought almost $20 into the hands of California's working poor families -- as it did in Washington -- it would be worth it. The state can make a small, cost-effective investment that will yield significant returns for working poor Californians. It should do it now.