BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Leland Y. Yee, Chair
BILL NO: AB 191
A
AUTHOR: Bocanegra
B
VERSION: May 24, 2013
HEARING DATE: June 25, 2013
1
FISCAL: Yes
9
1
CONSULTANT: Mareva Brown
SUBJECT
CalFresh
SUMMARY
This bill would raise the maximum gross income allowed for
CalFresh beneficiaries if an applicant is categorically
eligible for the program due to Medi-Cal eligiblity, as
specified. This bill additionally requires the state to
notify the legislature and to develop a plan to maintain
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) if
program costs exceed allocated funding. It requires the
California Department of Social Services (DSS) to ensure
that receipt of LIHEAP benefits does not adversely affect
eligibility or benefit level under the CalFresh program. It
also entitles a homeless household to use the homeless
shelter deduction rather than the standard utility
allowance, if the benefit is greater.
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1) Establishes under federal law the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) pursuant to the
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageB
Food Stamp Act of 1964 which provides federal funds to
states to assist needy households in maintaining
proper nutrition. (P.L. 88-525, 78 � 703-709)
2) Establishes in California statute the CalFresh
program to administer the provision of federal SNAP
benefits to families and individuals meeting specified
criteria. (WIC 18900 et seq.)
3) Establishes in federal regulations income
eligibility standards that define participants as
those whose incomes are determined to be a substantial
limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more
nutritious diet, as specified. Permits some forms of
assistance to be excluded from the calculation of
income for the purposes of eligibility for SNAP and
others, such as a homeless deduction, to be
automatically calculated. (7 CFR 273.9)
4) Provides that any child who is eligible for federal
SNAP benefits is automatically certified to receive
free school meals without an additional application.
(7 USC � 2020(u)(2)(A)).
5) Establishes in state law a LIHEAP program, "Heat
and Eat," which provides a nominal benefit and program
information to beneficiaries who, in turn, are able to
reduce required paperwork and, in some cases, increase
SNAP benefits by qualifying for a standard utility
allowance. (WIC 18901.2 (a))
6) Creates within federal statute a program of
broad-based categorical eligibility which permits
states to make qualifying applicants who are eligible
for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
automatically eligible for SNAP nutrition benefits. (7
USC � 2014)
7) Creates in California statute a program of
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageC
categorical eligibility for CalFresh benefits if an
individual is a CalWORKs recipient, or is receiving
indigent cash assistance from a county, or is eligible
to receive food assistance through the Food Assistance
Program for Legal Immigrants (WIC 18930). Participants
still must meet other requirements specified in
federal law; however, they are not required to go
through a separate application process if they do
qualify for CalFresh benefits.
8) Establishes in state law the Medi-Cal program to
provide health care to low-income individuals, as
specified. (WIC 14000 et seq.)
This bill:
1) Requires that if the demand for the nominal LIHEAP
service benefit exceeds allocated funding established
by the California Department of Community Services and
Development (CSD) in the LIHEAP state plan, CSD and
DSS shall report that information to the Legislature
and develop a plan to maintain the program as
intended.
2) Prohibits receipt of the nominal LIHEAP service
benefit from adversely affecting a CalFresh recipient
household's eligibility or reducing a household's
CalFresh benefits, in addition to existing
prohibitions that the LIHEAP benefit disqualify a
CalFresh applicant or beneficiary from receiving other
LIHEAP or utility benefits.
3) Provides an entitlement for a homeless family to
use the homeless shelter deduction in calculating
CalFresh benefit levels instead of the full standard
utility allowance (SUA), if using the SUA results in a
lower amount of CalFresh benefits for a homeless
household.
4) Requires DSS, to the extent permitted by federal
law, to raise the maximum gross income allowed in the
CalFresh gross income test for any individual who is
categorically eligible for CalFresh and a member of a
household that receives, or is eligible to receive,
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageD
medical assistance under the state's Medi-Cal program.
FISCAL IMPACT
An Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis concluded
this bill would have a number of potential costs and
revenues including:
Administrative costs for an estimated 5,000 new
cases of up to $400,000 ($200,000 GF) per year and
approximately $8 million in additional federal
(SNAP) funding. Those federal benefits would
generate more than $200,000 in GF revenue through
increased sales taxes.
Administrative costs for an estimated 60,000
individuals who are Medi-Cal recipients but are not
participating in CalFresh of about $1.5 million
($750,000 GF) and up to $80 million in additional
federal SNAP funding. Those federal benefits would
generate close to $2 million in GF revenue through
increased sales taxes.
Administrative costs of $787,000 ($393,000 GF)
related to an estimated 10,000 Medi-Cal
beneficiaries who would be added to the program and
would participate in CalFresh as a result of federal
health care reform in 2014. The federal benefits
would generate over $1 million in GF revenue through
increased sales taxes.
Approximately $3 million (GF) annually for an
estimated 750 new participants in the California
Food Assistance Program (CFAP), which provides
nutrition benefits for recent, legal immigrants who
are ineligible for federal SNAP benefits. The
nutrition benefits provided to those families will
generate approximately $80,000 in state sales tax
revenue.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the bill
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageE
According to the author, while nutrition is a critical
component of overall health and wellbeing, many households
with a Medi-Cal recipient who would be otherwise eligible
for the program are barred from participating in the
program because they have a gross income above the CalFresh
limit. This means that while they would qualify under net
income qualifications, it is only the CalFresh gross income
test that prevents otherwise eligible households from
accessing CalFresh food benefits. These households
typically are working poor families with high expenses,
such as child care costs.
Under this bill, these families' gross income test would be
raised from the current limit of 130% of Federal Poverty
Level (FPL) to 200% of FPL. The net income test would still
apply. The FPL in 2013 for a family of four is $23,550
annually. The author states that this bill has the
potential to increase CalFresh participation by 227,000
Californians.
This policy additionally would benefit children of these
families because children in CalFresh households are
automatically enrolled for free school meals, through an
existing process called direct certification, the author
writes. According to California Food Policy Advocates
(CFPA), of the 2.5 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are
currently eligible for CalFresh, only 1.3 million actually
participate in the program, or just over half.
The author further states that AB 191 could bring up to $10
million in federal nutrition benefits to the state.
According to USDA estimates, every SNAP (CalFresh) dollar
spent generates $1.79 in economic activity. The author also
states that this bill would also bring California up to
speed with 27 other states that have used categorical
eligibility to increase CalFresh access.
Additionally, this bill was amended to include cleanup
language from AB 6 (Fuentes, Chapter 501, Statutes of
2011), which created California's "Heat and Eat" program to
permit applicants to draw down a nominal LIHEAP benefit
and, by extension, simplify the application process for
beneficiaries. The cleanup language, which is mirrored in
this year's Human Services budget trailer bill, AB 74
(Committee on Budget, 2013), would ensure that if payments
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageF
from the program exceed allocated funding, the state and
legislature would work out a plan to ensure the
continuation of the program. It also prohibits use of the
LIHEAP benefit from disadvantaging any applicant or
beneficiary of the program. The final cleanup piece from AB
6 is to permit applicants and caseworkers to apply the
homeless shelter deduction rather than the standard utility
allowance (SUA) if the homeless deduction results in a
higher food benefit for a household.
CalFresh
CalFresh food benefits for low-income, needy Californians
are wholly funded through the SNAP program at the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA). CalFresh is administered
locally by county welfare departments, and the federal,
state, and county governments share in the cost of
administration of the program.
Generally, eligibility for the program is determined by the
USDA and is consistent across the nation, although states
may seek waivers to modify some elements of the program. It
includes a gross and net income asset test, work
requirements, and other documentation requirements. From
that information, a caseworker calculates eligibility and
benefits based on specified income and deductions.
Currently, the maximum allowable gross income is 130% of
the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). All households must meet
both gross and net monthly income thresholds to qualify,
with the exception of households with elderly or disabled
members who are not subject to gross income criteria but
must have a net monthly income at or below 100% of the FPL.
Cash resources generally cannot exceed $2,000, or $3,250
for households in which there is a household member who has
a disability or is 60 years of age or older. The average
CalFresh benefit per household per month is $336 ($153 per
person), with nearly 1.9 million households in California
receiving benefits. The CalFresh benefit is delivered on an
EBT card, which can be swiped at grocery stores, farmer's
markets and other food sales locations.
Categorical Eligiblity
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageG
Federal law provides two pathways for SNAP eligibility:
either by meeting federal eligibility requirements, or by
being automatically or "categorically" eligible for SNAP,
based on being eligible for other low-income assistance
programs. In April 2012, there were 46 million people in 22
million households benefitting from SNAP, according to a
summary of the program by the Congressional Research
Service in 2012.
Traditionally across the country, categorical eligibility
establishes the eligibility for SNAP benefits through
eligibility in the state TANF program or other specified
public benefits. In California, this translates to
categorical eligibility for CalFresh benefits if the
recipient is eligible for or receiving the CalWORKs
benefits, or county-run General Assistance programs.
Additionally, the 1996 welfare reform law permitted states
to convey categorical eligibility to recipients of a TANF
"benefit," beyond cash aid, based on a wide range of
benefits and services. TANF benefits other than cash
assistance typically are available to a broader range of
households and at higher levels of income than are TANF
cash assistance benefits.<1> In total, 43 jurisdictions
have implemented what the USDA has called "broad-based"
categorical eligibility.
Recent efforts in Congress to eliminate the Categorical
Eligibility program have thus far been unsuccessful,
however, the issue has arisen several times in recent
years, including in current conversations about the federal
funding for SNAP.
Participation rate
California's SNAP participation rates have consistently
ranked among the lowest in the nation. In 2010, just 55
percent of all eligible individuals participated in
CalFresh, according to USDA data, which is an improvement
over prior years. Since the beginning of the recession,
CalFresh enrollment has increased approximately 21 percent
from FY 2009 to FY 2010. Still, that growth has not met the
-------------------------
<1> Falk, Gene and Randy Alison Aussenberg, "The
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Categorical
Eligibility," Congressional Research Service, July 17,
2012.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageH
growing need for nutrition assistance, according to a 2013
report, "Lost Dollars, Empty Plates," published by the
California Food Policy Advocates.<2>
According to the report, more than 4.1 million Californians
were participating in CalFresh as of November 2012, up from
3.9 million participants a year earlier. The USDA's target
participation rate for states was 71 percent in 2011.
Between 2004 to 2008, CalFresh served approximately
one-third of California's eligible working poor and no more
than half of all eligible individuals in the state. From
FFY 2002 to 2006, CalFresh served no more than 11 percent
of the state's eligible seniors, 60 years or older.
CalFresh participants received more than $612 million in
federal monthly nutrition assistance benefits for eligible
children, adults, and seniors, for an average household
benefit of $332 per month during FY 2012.
Related legislation
AB 6 (Fuentes) Chapter 501, Statutes of 2011 made a number
of broad changes to CalFresh policy, including implementing
"Heat and Eat," to draw federal funds from the LIHEAP block
grant and to simplify verification of utility costs for
CalFresh applicants.
AB 1560 (Fuentes, 2012) was identical to this bill. It was
held on the suspense file in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
AB 433 (Beall) Chapter 623, Statutes of 2008, established
categorical eligibility for CalFresh benefits for
individuals at or below 130% of the federal poverty level,
regardless of the level of their assets. Language that
would have established categorical eligibility for Medi-Cal
beneficiaries was stripped from the final version of the
bill.
AB 2205 (Evans, 2006) would have established CalFresh
categorical eligibility for Medi-Cal recipients if they
-------------------------
<2>
http://cfpa.net/CalFresh/CFPAPublications/LDEP-FullReport-20
13.pdf
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageI
were eligible for or receiving services from the CalWORKs
program. This bill was vetoed by the governor.
COMMENTS
1. Identical language regarding LIHEAP benefits and
use of the Standard Utilities Allowance (SUA) for
homeless families is included in this year's Human
Services trailer bill, AB 74 (Committee on Budget).
The trailer bill was passed by both houses on June 14,
2013. Staff recommends deleting this language from the
bill as it is now redundant.
Staff recommends the following amendment: Remove
Section 1 from this bill.
2. In response to concerns that the bill's language
could permit the higher gross income test for
additional participants, the author has proposed
amending the bill to clarify that the gross income
test change shall only apply to individuals determined
categorically eligible for CalFresh because of their
Medi-Cal eligibility. Staff recommends the following
amendment:
(2) The department, to the extent permitted by federal
law, shall raise the maximum gross income allowed in
the CalFresh gross income test for any individual who
is categorically eligible for CalFresh pursuant to
paragraph (1), and who is a member of a household that
receives, or is eligible to receive, medical
assistance under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
14000) of Part 3.
(2) The department shall to the extent permitted by
federal law, design and implement a program of
categorical eligibility for CalFresh, for the purposes
of establishing the gross income limit for the
TANF/MOE funded service that confers categorical
eligibility for any household who is categorically
eligible pursuant to section (1) and that includes a
member that receives, or is eligible to receive,
medical assistance under chapter 7 (commencing with
section 1400) of Part 3.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageJ
PRIOR VOTES
Assembly Floor: 54 - 23
Assembly Appropriations 12 - 5
Assembly Human Services 5 - 2
POSITIONS
Support: AARP
AFSCME
Alameda County Community Food Bank
Asian Law Alliance
California Association of Food Banks
California Catholic Conference
California Food Policy Advocates
County Health Executives Association of
California (CHEAC)
Feeding America San Diego
Food for People, Inc.
Greenlining Institute
Health Access California
Interfaith Community Services
Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles
Jewish Family Service of San Diego
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
National Association of Social Workers
San Diego Hunger Coalition
San Francisco and Marin Food Banks
Second Harvest Food Bank
St. Anthony Foundation
Women Organizing Resources Knowledge &
Services
Oppose: None received
-- END --
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 191 (Bocanegra)
PageK