BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 283 (Hancock) - CalWORKs and CalFresh eligibility.
Amended: As Introduced Policy Vote: Human Services 4-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: SB 283 would:
Repeal the existing lifetime prohibition from receipt of
CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits for an individual convicted
in state or federal court of a drug-related felony, and
would instead provide that a person convicted of a
drug-related felony shall be eligible to receive benefits
subject to compliance with conditions of supervised release,
if applicable.
Remove the existing prohibition from eligibility for
General Assistance (GA) benefits for an individual
ineligible for CalWORKs due to a disqualifying drug-felony
conviction, as specified.
Require the Department of Social Services (DSS) to request
a waiver of federal regulations to allow for the
pre-enrollment of otherwise eligible applicants (all felony
and misdemeanor offenders) to the CalFresh program up to one
month prior to the applicant's reentry into the community
from county jail or state prison.
Require counties to implement a pre-enrollment process
within six months of the waiver approval.
Fiscal Impact (as approved on May 23, 2013):
One-time costs for automation system changes potentially
in excess of hundreds of thousands to low millions of
dollars (Federal/General) if significant programming changes
are required for CalFresh.
Increased federal CalFresh/CFAP benefits potentially in
the tens of millions of dollars. An additional 20,000
individuals would result in benefits of $35 million
(Federal) and $350,000 General Fund. Additional economic
benefit of $0.6 million (General Fund) in increased sales
tax revenue.
Increased CalFresh administrative costs in excess of $2.2
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 1
million ($1.1 million General Fund) assuming administrative
costs for new cases only.
To the extent increased program participation assists in
reducing the rate at which individuals violate the terms of
their parole/probation or are convicted of new crimes, there
would be substantial future cost savings in the millions of
dollars in state/local incarceration costs. For every 200
inmates who do not recidivate who otherwise would have
served 90 to 180 days (the maximum term) in county jail for
parole/probation violations, savings to local jails of
approximately $1.8 to $3.6 million (Local). For every 200
inmates that are deterred from committing new crimes, up to
$2 million (General Fund) in state prison cost savings or
$7.3 million in local jail cost savings. A portion of
savings would potentially be offset by increased
participation in the benefit programs.
Background: Federal law prohibits individuals who have been
convicted of certain drug felony offenses from receiving federal
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, but allows a state
to opt out partially or entirely from the provisions of the
automatic aid disqualification through the enactment of
legislative exemptions removing or limiting the class of drug
felons that are otherwise affected by the federal lifetime ban.
Existing California law provides that an individual is
ineligible for aid under the CalWORKs program if the individual
has been convicted in state or federal court of any offense
classified as a felony and that has as an element the
possession, use, or distribution of a controlled substance.
California law also excludes those who are disqualified from
TANF by the federal ban from receiving state GA benefits. The
lifetime ban applies to all persons convicted of a drug felony
after December 31, 1997.
California partially opts out of the federal prohibition against
SNAP (known as CalFresh in California) eligibility for persons
convicted of a drug felony unrelated to distribution or sales
who can prove participation in a 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
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 2
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.
According to the Legal Action Center, as of November 2011, 14
states have opted out of the ban on TANF benefits and 16 states
and Washington, D.C., have opted out of the ban on SNAP
benefits. Many states have modified bans for one or both
programs subject to various conditions related to drug treatment
and/or fulfilling sentencing requirements.
Proposed Law: This bill would opt California out of the
provisions under federal law prohibiting eligibility for TANF
and SNAP benefits through a state program and would provide that
persons convicted in state or federal court of any offense
classified as a felony that has as an element the possession,
use, or distribution of a controlled substance shall be eligible
to receive CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits subject to the
following:
As a condition of eligibility for CalWORKs and CalFresh
benefits, an applicant who is on probation, parole, or any
other form of supervised release shall comply with the
terms of the supervised release, including participation in
a drug treatment program, if required.
If the county social services agency receives
verification that the individual's supervised release has
been revoked, the individual shall become ineligible for
CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits for the duration of the
revocation period.
This bill also removes the existing prohibition from eligibility
for GA benefits for an individual ineligible for CalWORKs due to
a disqualifying drug-felony conviction who is a member of an
assistance unit receiving CalWORKs aid. The DSS would be
required to develop and adopt regulations to implement the
bill's provisions by January 1, 2015.
This bill further requires the DSS to request a waiver of
federal regulations to allow for the pre-enrollment of otherwise
eligible applicants to the CalFresh program up to one month
prior to the applicant's reentry into the community from county
jail or state prison, and would require counties to implement a
pre-enrollment process within six months of the waiver approval.
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 3
This provision would apply to all felony and misdemeanor
offenders, not just individuals convicted of drug-related
felonies.
Related Legislation: SB 649 (Leno) 2013 proposes to revise the
penalty for simple possession of a controlled substance from a
felony to an alternate felony-misdemeanor offense. This bill is
pending a vote on the Senate Floor.
SB 1506 (Leno) 2012 would have revised the penalty for simple
possession of a controlled substance from a felony to a
misdemeanor offense. This bill failed on the Senate Floor.
SB 1060 (Hancock) 2012 would have repealed the lifetime ban on
CalWORKs eligibility subject to conditions related to drug
treatment. This bill was held on the Suspense File of this
committee.
AB 828 (Swanson) 2011 and AB 1756 (Swanson) 2010 proposed a
complete opt out of the ban on CalFresh eligibility for
applicants convicted of felony drug offenses, but did not
address CalWORKs eligibility. These bills were held on the
Suspense File of this committee.
AB 1996 (Swanson) 2008 proposed a complete opt out of the ban on
CalFresh eligibility. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with
the following message:
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.
AB 508 (Swanson) 2007 proposed a complete opt out of the ban on
CalFresh eligibility for applicants convicted of felony drug
offenses, but did not address CalWORKs eligibility. The bill was
vetoed by the Governor.
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 4
AB 1796 (Leno) Chapter 932/2004 established a partial exemption
to the federal ban for individuals who were convicted of drug
possession/use felonies to receive CalFresh benefits subject to
conditions related to drug treatment. The bill did not modify
eligibility for CalWORKs benefits.
SB 659 (Wright) 1999 would have ended the lifetime ban on
CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits if individuals participated in or
completed specified drug-treatment programs as well as periodic
medical drug screening tests. The bill was vetoed by the
Governor.
Staff Comments: This bill will result in a significant increase
in the number of individuals potentially eligible for CalWORKs,
CalFresh, and GA. Since it is a lifetime ban on eligibility, the
number of affected individuals continues to grow over time, and
the number of individuals who may become eligible at any point
in time during their lifetimes increases.
A 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study indicated
approximately 15 percent of all offenders and 27 percent of
female offenders convicted of drug felonies at the time of the
study could have met the program eligibility requirements and
could have been negatively impacted by the federal TANF ban. For
SNAP, it was estimated that about one quarter of all offenders
and 36 percent of female offenders were parents of minor
children whose incomes were low enough to qualify for the
program. The study noted that the percentage affected by the ban
at any time during their lifetimes would be greater than the
percentages of those initially affected because at a later date
some of the offenders may meet the eligibility criteria for
receiving benefits.
Based on statistics from the DOJ Crime in California annual
reports through 2011, there have been over 900,000 adult felony
convictions in state courts for drug offenses in California
since the ban was established (55,000 felony drug convictions in
2011). This data does not include convictions for juveniles. At
the federal court level, information from the U.S. DOJ Bureau of
Justice Statistics reflects approximately 240,000 felony
convictions related to drug offenses over the last nine years
(26,500 per year) through 2009. Although the data does not
disaggregate those who have previously been convicted of a drug
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 5
felony, data from the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) for FYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 indicates
annual new admissions to state prison of about 10,600
individuals (66 percent), and 5,400 repeat offenders admitted to
state prison for a felony drug conviction (16,000 total
commitments). The rate of new to returning commitments has
remained steady even after the implementation of 2011 Public
Safety Realignment, as calendar year 2012 data from CDCR
indicates 65 percent of new commitments related to drug crimes
are new admissions and not returning offenders.
Information from the DSS reflects there are currently about
10,500 child-only CalWORKs cases that include an ineligible
adult related to felony status. After reducing the potential
caseload to account for non-drug related felonies and
ineligibility assuming a portion of felony cases recidivate and
would be initially ineligible, increased CalWORKs assistance,
services, and child care costs to add one individual to about
6,000 cases are estimated at $51 million assuming an increase to
the AU grant of $122 per month, employment services cost of $382
per month, and monthly child care costs of $757 (assuming a
utilization rate of about 28 percent and 1.3 children per family
per case). Annual ongoing costs would increase or decrease
commensurate with the number of eligible cases successfully
meeting these requirements. Assuming a reduction to the eligible
caseload to reflect sanctioned cases, future recidivists, as
well as adjusting for newly eligible cases (including a portion
of those previously assumed to have recidivated), a CalWORKs
child-only caseload of 8,000 cases would increase annual costs
to $68 million for cash assistance, services, and child care.
There would also be an impact to CalWORKs cases in larger AUs
with an ineligible drug felon that would need to be considered.
It is unknown how many individuals previously convicted of a
drug felony who would impact existing or prospective CalWORKs
cases. For every 2,500 individuals added to an existing or
prospective CalWORKs case, increased CalWORKs assistance and
services costs (no child care) are estimated at $15 million
(General Fund) per year.
Administrative costs to verify parole, probation, or supervised
release would vary dependent on the number of enrollments and
the process of verification required. Assuming simple
verification of documentation, an additional 5 minutes per case
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 6
at enrollment and semi-annually thereafter would result in
additional costs likely in the low hundreds of thousands of
dollars. The one-time costs for automation system changes to the
IEVS match process are unknown at this time. Automation costs
could potentially be significant if substantial programming
changes are required.
The provisions of this bill could result in increased GA benefit
and administration costs in the tens of millions of dollars.
Although the GA program was in existence prior to January 1,
1975, the subsequent restriction on GA eligibility was enacted
with the ban on CalWORKs in 1998. To the extent the Commission
on State Mandates determines the expansion of the program
results in a higher level of service from the level established
under the existing GA eligibility standards, it is unclear if
the costs would be considered a state-reimbursable mandate.
Annual costs for GA assistance for 5,000 individuals is
estimated at $13 million assuming an average GA benefit of $214
per month per individual.
The extent to which CalFresh eligibility and participation would
increase is unknown, but potentially very significant given the
number of disallowed drug felons over time. Although available
data on the number 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 have already applied in the past
or simply do not apply for CalFresh because they know they are
disqualified under existing law.
Assuming a portion of the 6,000 individuals added to CalWORKs
would also be eligible for CalFresh, it is assumed there would
also be a number of new cases eligible as well, including
able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDS). Based on data
that indicated 30 percent of CalFresh applications denied due to
a non-exempt drug felony are part of an existing household and
70 percent are new cases, it is roughly assumed 20,000 cases
could become eligible. At the average CalFresh benefit cost of
approximately $148 per month, additional CalFresh benefits of
$35 million (100 percent federal funds) and CFAP benefits of
$350,000 (General Fund) annually could result.
The administrative cost of a CalFresh caseload increase is
dependent on the number of cases and whether or not the cases
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 7
are new or are being added as a previously excluded individual
to a household already receiving CalFresh benefits. For the
14,000 new cases, the associated administrative costs would be
$2.2 million ($1.1 million General Fund). 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 households
receiving benefits.
It is unknown the extent to which the costs to administer the
program by the deletion of the requirement to verify drug
rehabilitation/cessation would offset the workload involved with
the new requirement to verify compliance with probation or
parole. Processing new CalFresh cases would still require a
review of prior offenses and verification specific to drug
convictions. To the extent there are fewer appeals due to
denials for drug felony convictions could result in cost 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.
To the extent a federal waiver is approved to allow the
pre-enrollment of inmates in CalFresh up to one month prior to
reentry into the community, the state could incur potentially
major state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) related to the
mandate on counties to implement the process within six months
of waiver approval. This provision would apply to all felony and
misdemeanor offenders, not just individuals convicted of
drug-related felonies. As a result, there could potentially be
very major increases in federal CalFresh and state CFAP benefits
and administrative costs given the substantial number of
offenders released from county jail and state prison every year.
From county jails alone, there were over 89,000 bookings to
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 8
county jail per month in 2012, or over 1 million annually. There
could also be major automation costs to implement such a process
as well as ongoing administrative costs to the counties and
local jail and state prison staff.
To the extent increased CalWORKs, CalFresh, and GA participation
assists in reducing the rate at which individuals violate the
terms of their parole/probation or are convicted of new crimes,
there would be substantial future cost savings in the millions
of dollars in state/local incarceration costs. The most
significant impact will likely be incurred at the local level as
pursuant to 2011 Public Safety Realignment, no parole violators
will be returned to prison (with the exception of inmates
sentenced to life terms) but will serve up to a maximum term of
180 days in county jail. For every 200 inmates who do not
recidivate who otherwise would have served 90 to 180 days in
county jail for parole/probation violations, savings to local
jails are estimated of $1.8 to $3.6 million (Local). For every
200 inmates that are deterred from committing new crimes, up to
$2 million (General Fund) in state prison cost savings or $7.3
million in local jail cost savings could be realized. A portion
of savings would potentially be offset by increased
participation in the CalWORKs, CalFresh, and GA programs.
Recommended Amendments: Staff recommends the following technical
amendments:
SEC. 5. Section 18901.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
18901.3. (a) Subject to the limitations of subdivision (b),
pursuant to Section 115(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 104-193 (21
U.S.C. line 21 Sec. 862a(d)(1)(A)), California opts out of the
provisions of Section 115(a)(2) of Public Law 104-193 (21 U.S.C.
Sec. 862a(a)(2)). An individual convicted in state or federal
prison court after December 31, 1997, including any plea of
guilty or nolo contendere, of any offense classified as a felony
that has as an element the possession, use, or distribution of a
controlled substance , as defined in Section 102(6) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 802(6}) or Division 10
(commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, .
shall be eligible to receive CalFresh benefits under this
section.
Staff recommends a similar amendment to Section 3 of the bill to
add a reference to the definition of "controlled substance" as
SB 283 (Hancock)
Page 9
noted above.
Given the magnitude and complexity of the pre-enrollment process
and the numerous entities involved, the author may wish to
consider an amendment providing the counties a period in excess
of six months in order to implement the pre-enrollment process.
Staff notes the benefits provided under both the CalWORKs and
CalFresh programs that this measure would provide to previously
incarcerated individuals would appear to be consistent with the
goals of 2011 Public Safety Realignment by providing services
such as job search assistance and subsidized child care that
could assist with an offender's successful reentry into local
communities. The author may wish to consider and explore any
possible alternative funding sources, potentially funds or
future growth funds allocated under 2011 Public Safety
Realignment that could serve to support the provisions of this
measure.
Author amendments: Delete the pre-enrollment process and make
other technical changes.
Committee amendments: Delete the provisions of the bill related
to CalWORKs and GA to narrow the bill to apply to CalFresh only.