BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 828 (Swanson)
Hearing Date: 08/25/2011 Amended: As Introduced
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Human Services 4-3
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 828 would provide that a conviction for a drug
felony does not make an individual ineligible to receive
CalFresh benefits, if otherwise eligible.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Expansion of CalFresh Unknown; potentially major benefit
Federal
eligibility costs in the millions of dollars annually
Increased CalFresh State-reimbursable costs,
potentiallyFed/General
administration in the millions of dollars annually
Removal of verification Potentially significant
county workload Fed/Gen/Loc
relief and cost savings in state hearings
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Federal law prohibits individuals who have been convicted of
drug felonies from receiving benefits under the federal
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the
Food Stamp Program and known in California as CalFresh, but
allows a state to opt out partially or entirely from the
provisions of the automatic aid disqualification.
Existing California state law opts out of the federal
prohibition against SNAP eligibility, in part, for persons
convicted of a drug felony unrelated to distribution or sales
(primarily possession and use convictions) who can prove
completion, enrollment in, or placement on a waiting list for a
AB 828 (Swanson)
Page 1
government-recognized drug treatment program, or provide other
evidence that illegal use of controlled substances has ceased.
Existing state law retains the federal prohibition against
eligibility for CalFresh benefits for persons convicted of a
felony involving transporting, importing, selling, furnishing,
giving away, possessing for sale, manufacturing a controlled
substance, possessing precursors with intent to sell,
cultivating or processing marijuana, or convicted of a felony
involving soliciting, inducing, encouraging, or intimidating a
minor to participate in any such crimes.
This bill would amend state law to opt out of the entire federal
prohibition. No individual convicted of a drug felony (including
distribution and sales crimes) would be automatically deemed
ineligible for CalFresh, without condition. This bill would also
delete the current requirement for drug felons whose crimes are
related to possession and/or use to prove cessation or
rehabilitation upon application to the program.
The extent to which CalFresh eligibility and participation would
increase is unknown, as eligibility is based on several
criteria. This bill expands eligibility to individuals who meet
the income, citizenship, and documentation requirements, and are
only excluded due to a disqualifying drug conviction or are
unable or unwilling to provide required rehabilitation/cessation
documentation required of those previously convicted of a
possession/use crime.
Although available data on the number of adults who apply for
CalFresh and are disqualified by one of the specified drug
convictions indicates a small caseload impact, it is unknown how
many individuals who have a disqualifying drug conviction simply
do not apply for CalFresh because they know they are
disqualified under existing law.
There are likely thousands of people living in the state with a
disqualifying drug conviction on their records who have never
applied for CalFresh, but who might otherwise qualify. According
to data from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) as of December 2010, there were over 16,250 individuals
incarcerated in state prison for felony drug offenses that would
make them disqualified for life, without exception, under
current law (distribution and sales crimes). Including parolees,
the number of individuals increases to nearly 30,700 currently
incarcerated or on parole for felony sales and distribution drug
AB 828 (Swanson)
Page 2
offenses.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study completed in 2004
indicated approximately 15 percent of convicted drug felons
would be negatively impacted by the federal ban. Applying the 15
percent to the number of non-exempt drug felons currently on
parole (14,450) who could potentially be eligible (individuals
in prison would be ineligible at this time) would result in a
caseload impact of 4,600 cases. Although it is unknown how many
of the eligible cases would participate in the program, at the
average CalFresh benefit cost of approximately $148 per month,
additional CalFresh benefits of up to $8.2 million (100 percent
federal funds) annually could result. Although not all cases
would participate, the estimate above only reflects the current
number of parolees potentially eligible. The number of eligible
individuals to consider is much larger, but it is unknown at
this time how many additional individuals have ever been
convicted of a disqualifying drug offense in state or federal
court. The number of convicted drug possession/use felons (over
14,500 currently on parole) who would be eligible for CalFresh
if they presented specified documentation, and who do not, is
also unknown.
The administrative cost of a CalFresh caseload increase is
dependent on the number of cases and whether or not the cases
are new or are being added as a previously excluded individual
to a family case already receiving CalFresh benefits. For the
4,600 cases noted above, the associated administrative costs
would be less than $1 million ($500,000 General Fund), and would
be dependent upon the number of cases being added to an existing
family case already receiving CalFresh benefits. Although
CalFresh administrative costs are normally shared 50 percent
federal, 35 percent state, and 15 percent county, by increasing
the responsibilities of counties in the administration of the
program, increased costs could potentially be state-reimbursable
if so determined by the Commission on State Mandates. As noted
above, the number of potentially eligible individuals to
consider is much larger but unknown at this time. Additional
administrative costs would increase commensurate with the
participating caseload and ratio of new to existing family
cases.
Additional costs to administer the program would be offset to a
degree by the deletion of the requirement to verify
AB 828 (Swanson)
Page 3
rehabilitation/cessation, as provided under current law.
Processing new CalFresh cases without reference to drug
convictions, and related verification, would take less time and
ease the burden on county eligibility workers. The extent to
which these administrative efficiencies would offset the
increased administrative costs of this bill would be dependent
not only upon the level of increased CalFresh participation, but
also the level of county administrative relief associated with
cases that would have otherwise required verification. To the
extent there are fewer appeals due to denials for drug felony
convictions, could also result in costs savings to the state
hearings process of an unknown, but potentially significant
amount.
Additional costs to the state would also be offset by a likely
increase in sales tax revenue. Studies show that low-income
families spend a significant portion of their money on food, and
increasing CalFresh access would allow them to spend that money
on taxable items.
Prior Legislation. AB 1756 (Swanson) 2010 was identical to this
measure and was held on the Suspense File in this Committee.
Another similar bill, AB 1996 (Swanson) 2008 was vetoed by the
Governor with the following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1996 without my signature. In
vetoing similar legislation last year, I made it clear that I
support the use of drug treatment programs as a viable
intervention tool for drug users. It is important to provide
individuals with the correct incentive to transition from a life
of crime and substance abuse to one of work and personal
responsibility. However, extending food stamp eligibility to
drug dealers or traffickers, upon the condition that they engage
in drug treatment, will not ensure these individuals will stop
selling or trafficking illegal drugs. Therefore, this bill does
not provide a targeted approach to the right population and does
not ensure adequate public safety protections.