BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair
BILL NO: AB 508
A
AUTHOR: Swanson
B
VERSION: March 29, 2007
HEARING DATE: June 26, 2007
5
FISCAL: Appropriations
0
8
CONSULTANT:
Flores
SUBJECT
Food stamps: eligibility: drug felons
SUMMARY
Repeals the lifetime disqualification from food stamps for
persons convicted of specified felonies a felony involving
controlled substances.
ABSTRACT
Current federal law
1) Prohibits recipients of food stamps or benefits funded
by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds
from qualifying for benefits if they have been convicted
of a felony crime involving controlled substances, but
allows states to opt out of the disqualification in whole
or part . ;
Current state law
1)Provides that persons convicted of drug felonies are
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 508 (Swanson) Page
2
eligible to receive food stamps subject to specified
limitations.
2)Excludes from eligibility persons convicted of unlawfully
transporting, importing, selling, furnishing,
administering, giving away, possessing for sale,
manufacturing a controlled substance, possessing
precursors with intent to sell, or cultivating,
harvesting or processing marijuana, or who have been
convicted of soliciting, inducing, encouraging or
intimidating a minor to participate in any such crimes.
3)Requires as a condition of eligibility for food stamps
that applicants convicted of a drug felony prove
completion, participation in, enrollment in, or placement
on a waiting list for a government-recognized drug
treatment program, or provide other evidence that illegal
use of controlled substances has ceased.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee , this
bill will generate analysis:
1) U u p to $1 million in additional federal food stamps
benefits to the extent additional individuals receive food
stamps, with associated increases in local tax revenues to
the extent that new food stamp recipients spend funds on
taxable goods, and unknown savings, to the extent federal
food assistance reduces the need for other kinds of public
benefits.
The bill also generates 2) M m inor absorbable workload to
local welfare departments to process additional food stamps
applications or adjust existing family food stamps
benefits.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 508 (Swanson) Page
3
This bill entirely opts California out of the lifetime ban
on food stamp benefits for persons convicted of
drug-related felonies. It extends the partial restoration
of benefits contained in AB 1796 (Leno), Chapter 932,
Statutes of 2004, which applied only to convictions related
to use or possession, and required proof satisfaction of
participation in a condition related to drug treatment
program or other evidence of cessation of illegal drug use.
Historical background
. The lifetime ban on food stamps and TANF-funded benefits
for persons with felony drug convictions was included in
the 1996 federal welfare reform bill : , as Section 115 of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act. There is little legislative history
explaining the provision, since it was first raised in a
floor amendment and not the subject of committee hearings.
The federal provision gives states the ability to opt out
of the disqualification. California declined to include
any opt-out provision when it implemented welfare reform in
1997. According to a 2005 report by the General Accounting
Office (GAO), 15 states fully implemented the federal ban
on food stamp benefits to convicted drug felons, and 35
states had laws modifying the federal ban on food stamps.
Of the 35 states with exemptions, 14 states exempted all
convicted drug felons from the food stamp ban, and 21 have
laws that exempt some convicted drug felons from the food
stamp ban provided they meet certain conditions. According
to a 2005 report of the Sentencing Project, 11 states plus
the District of Columbia have entirely opted out of the
TANF ban, including Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma and
Oregon. An additional 14 states have partially opted out
of the ban on TANF-funded benefits, either by limiting the
ban to certain offenses (such as sale or trafficking) or
establishing qualifying conditions which relate to
participation in or completion of drug treatment programs.
The GAO report also notes that proportionally more female
drug felons than males are affected by the ban. The GAO
calculates that about 27 percent % of female and only 15
percent % of all drug offenders released from prison in 2001
in states that had not modified the ban would have met the
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 508 (Swanson) Page
4
eligibility requirements and therefore, be affected by the
ban.
Criticism of the lifetime ban. The drug felon rule has
been the subject of much criticism by drug treatment
providers, advocates for the poor and law enforcement
organizations because it permanently disqualifies otherwise
needy persons from receiving assistance and may interfere
with their current or continued recovery. Individuals may
be disqualified even if they are in a treatment program and
need a healthy diet to succeed, if the conviction occurred
long before the time they needed assistance, or if they
have no current substance problem.
The Sentencing Project report concluded, "The lifetime
welfare ban . . . makes the possibility of returning to
their communities as productive members more difficult than
before their conviction, and in some cases improbable." It
also noted a disparate impact of the rule on women of
color, since 46% of women convicted of felony drug offenses
are African-American or Latina.
Previous efforts to modify the ban
There have been several legislative proposals to modify the
CalWORKs ban. The first was SB 659 (Wright), 1999-2000,
which applied to all drug felonies but required treatment
or cessation of use conditions similar to those later
enacted in AB 1796. The bill passed the Assembly 60-8 and
the Senate 30-4, but was vetoed by Governor Davis. AB 767
(Goldberg), 2001-2002, adopted the basic framework of SB
659 but applied only to convictions for possession and use.
It also was vetoed by Governor Davis. AB 1947
(Washington), 2001-2002, created an exception to the ban
for persons enrolled in Proposition 36 treatment programs.
As introduced, it applied to both CalWORKs and food stamps;
in final form, it covered only food stamps. Governor Davis
vetoed it.
As previously noted, AB 1796 (Leno) of 2004 enacted a
partial opt-out for food stamps, covering persons convicted
of use or possession crimes and requiring proof of
treatment or cessation of use. Governor Schwarzenegger
signed it, becoming effective on January 1, 2005. AB 855
(Bass) and AB 2192 (Bass) of 2005-06 sought to apply the
eligibility limitations of AB 1796 to the CalWORKs program.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 508 (Swanson) Page
5
The governor vetoed both.
Arguments in support: c C riticism of the lifetime ban
. Supporters of AB 508 argue that it is an injustice to
penalize convicted felons twice for the same mistake.
Convicted felons who are released from prison have already
served out the sentence for their crime. In addition, as
stated by Western Center on Law and Poverty, the lifetime
"ban on food stamps undermines California's efforts to
reduce recidivism of parolees and probationers while
reducing state correction costs."
Supporters of AB 508 observe that Proposition 36 of 2000
demonstrated the voters' intention to take a remedial,
non-punitive approach to substance abuse. Moreover, as
stated by Western Center on Law and Poverty, AB 508 would
save foster care and group home costs because it "helps
give children who are in foster care or might otherwise go
into foster care a permanent placement."
Arguments in opposition Opposition to the bill.
Opponents cite their concern that allowing persons
convicted of drug felonies to be eligible for food stamps
opens the door for these individuals to use public benefits
to support drug sales and substance abuse. Opponents also
argue that although food stamps are now provided through
electronic benefit transfer (EBT) system, it is unclear
that this is enough to prevent fraud. Supporters have also
argued that it imposes a special penalty only upon persons
poor enough to need public assistance; those convicted of
such crimes who do not need cash aid face no added
financial penalty beyond the criminal consequences.
Previous efforts to modify the ban. There have been
numerous previous legislative efforts to modify the
CalWORKs ban. The first was SB 659 (C. Wright) of
1999-2000, which applied to all drug felonies but required
treatment or cessation of use conditions similar to those
later enacted in AB 1796. The bill passed the Assembly
60-8 and the Senate 30-4, but was vetoed by Governor Davis.
AB 767 (Goldberg), 2001-2002, adopted the basic framework
of SB 659 but applied only to convictions for possession
and use. It also was vetoed by Governor Davis. AB 1947
(Washington) of 2001-2002, created an exception to the ban
only for persons enrolled in Proposition 36 treatment
programs. As introduced it applied to both CalWORKs and
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 508 (Swanson) Page
6
food stamps, but in final form was amended to cover only
food stamps. Again, it met with Governor Davis' veto.
As previously noted, AB 1796 (Leno) of 2004 enacted a
partial opt-out for food stamps, covering only persons
convicted of use or possession crimes and requiring proof
of treatment or cessation of use. It was signed by
Governor Schwarzenegger and became effective on January 1,
2005. AB 855 (Bass) and AB 2192 (Bass) of 2005-06 sought
to apply the eligibility limitations of AB 1796 to the
CalWORKs program. They were both vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
Assembly votes
Floor 42 - 34
AppropriationsAppropriatinos 11 - 5
Human Services 5 - 2
POSITIONS
Support: Alameda County Board of Supervisors
California Catholic Conference
City and County of San Francisco
Coalition for Effective Public Safety
Support: City of Oakland (sponsor)
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Oppose: California District Attorneys Association
Jan Scully, District Attorney, of Sacramento
County
-- END --