BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 930
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 25, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 930 (Evans) - As Amended: August 15, 2011
Policy Committee: Human
ServicesVote:4 - 1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill repeals various anti-fraud provisions in the In-Home
Supportive Services (IHSS) program that were put in place as
part of a 2009 budget agreement. Specifically, this bill:
1)Repeals the requirement that IHSS recipients provide
fingerprint images at the time of assessment or reassessment.
2)Repeals the requirement that the standardized timesheet
include designated spaces for the index fingerprints of the
provider and the recipient.
3)Deletes the prohibitions related to the use of a post office
box address by an IHSS provider.
4)Requires that when an IHSS provider applicant is denied
eligibility to provide supportive services due to a criminal
record and that individual appeals the decision, the county,
public authority, or nonprofit consortium responsible for that
denial must send the Department of Social Services (DSS) the
individual's state-level criminal offender record information
(CORI) that has been provided by the Department of Justice
(DOJ).
FISCAL EFFECT
Savings of $41.6 million ($21 million GF) spread over seven
years associated with not implementing the finger imaging
requirements. Those savings would be offset to an unknown degree
by forgone savings associated with deterring fraudulent
activity.
SB 930
Page 2
1)Absent this bill, it is assumed that the administration would
need to comply at some point with current law and implement
the finger imaging requirements and the prohibition against
providers using post office boxes. Previous budget estimates
suggest that total costs for finger imaging would be
approximately $41.6 million ($21 million GF) over seven years.
Therefore, this bill removes that cost pressure.
2)Though these anti-fraud provisions were never implemented, the
Governor's 2010-11 budget assumed all of the anti-fraud
initiatives adopted in 2009 would result in approximately $390
million ($135 million GF) in savings in the first full year.
It is unclear how much of that would have been attributable to
finger imaging and the prohibition against post office boxes.
Proponents of this finger imaging policy would argue, however,
that there are foregone savings of perhaps tens of millions of
dollars associated with this legislation.
Proponents of this legislation, on the other hand, argue that
there is no evidence of widespread fraud in the IHSS program
and therefore it is unlikely the level of savings assumed by
the previous administration is realistic.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, this bill is intended to
repeal three central components of the IHSS Anti-Fraud
Initiative included in the 2009-10 budget trailer bill, (AB X4
19, Statutes of 2009). The author argues that there is no
evidence to support the effectiveness of these three
anti-fraud mandates and states, "In the absence of this
evidence, the $41.6 million to be spent on this part of the
program should be spent on other priorities."
In addition, this bill clarifies that counties and public
authorities are responsible for forwarding background check
information to DSS in the event a provider is denied
certification to work as an IHSS provider and that applicant
appeals the decision to DSS.
2)Arguments in support . The California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) and County Welfare Directors Association of
California (CWDA) note in their joint support letter that the
state has estimated that it would need $8.2 million this year
SB 930
Page 3
alone and a total of $41.6 million over the next seven years,
to implement the recipient fingerprinting requirement.
According to CSAC and CWDA , "Clearly, in these difficult
fiscal times, the expenditure of millions to implement an
anti-fraud initiative in the absence of demonstrated
widespread fraud would be imprudent at best."
The Western Center on Law and Poverty quotes a May 8, 2010
letter to DSS from the Obama Administration concerning
fingerprinting in the CalFresh program, which notes that
"Ým]ost States satisfy the requirement to establish a system
to prevent duplicate participation by matching names with
social security numbers, which is far less costly than finger
image systems yet equally effective at detecting duplicate
participation."
3)Arguments in opposition . The California District Attorneys
Association (CDAA) suggests that the anti-fraud measures in
question, and particularly the fingerprinting requirements
have a deterrent effect and that repealing these measures
"will significantly hinder efforts to deter persons from
seeking duplicate aid and could potentially make the discovery
of such fraud more difficult." CDAA also opposes repeal of
the prohibition on using post office boxes, asserting that
"Ýt]he less physical information law enforcement and
prosecutors have about persons who would defraud the IHSS
program, the harder it is to intercede and stop such
activity."
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081