BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES Senator McGuire, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 297 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |McGuire | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |----------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------------| |Version: |March 26, 2015 |Hearing |April 21, 2015 | | | |Date: | | |----------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------------| |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Mareva Brown | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Public benefits: eligibility determinations SUMMARY This bill would require the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to develop and make available to the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) an electronic verification process that allows county human services agency eligibility workers to, at their option, access data available electronically from public and private sources to determine eligibility for specified means-tested public benefit programs. It would clarify when an eligibility worker should conduct a telephone, or a face-to-face interview with a CalFresh applicant. Additionally, the bill would require the department to issue guidance for recording and storing electronic and telephonic signatures and would require CDSS to coordinate with county human services agencies to make available a standard technological solution with the capacity to store telephonic and electronic signatures, as specified. ABSTRACT Existing law: 1) Establishes in California a variety of public social services programs to provide for protection, care, and assistance to the people of the state who are in need, to promote the welfare and happiness of all of the people of the state by providing appropriate aid and services to all SB 297 (McGuire) PageB of? of its needy and distressed and to provide general rules for the administration of these programs. It is the legislative intent that aid shall be administered and services provided promptly and humanely, with due regard for the preservation of family life, and without discrimination. (WIC 10000 et seq). 2) Establishes a Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) with the goals of prompt and accurate verification of eligibility, reduction of administrative complexity, and requires the state to coordinate efforts with the statewide Med-Cal eligibility system to ensure the mutual benefits of SAWS. (WIC 10816, WIC 10823) 3) Establishes rights in federal and state credit reporting acts for consumers to correct information that is reported incorrectly. ((15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.) 4) Establishes under federal law the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the nation's population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households. It establishes SNAP eligibility requirements, including income that is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level and is determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting a recipient to obtain a more nutritious diet (7 CFR 271.1; 7 CFR 273.9) 5) 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.) 6) Requires the personal interview to be conducted promptly following the application for assistance. If an applicant is incapable of acting in his or her own behalf, the county department shall verify this fact by personal contact with the applicant before aid is authorized. (WIC 11052.5) 7) Establishes in CalFresh statute the option for a county welfare department to exempt an applicant for food benefits from complying with face-to-face interview requirements for purposes of determining eligibility at initial application SB 297 (McGuire) PageC of? and recertification. (WIC 18901.1) This bill: 1) Requires CDSS to develop and make available to the SAWS system an electronic verification process that allows county human services agency eligibility workers to, at their option, access data available electronically from appropriate public and private agencies and programs for use in connection with the determination of eligibility for means-tested public benefit programs, as defined. 2) Requires CDSS, in developing this electronic verification process, to consult with county human services agencies, eligibility workers, representatives of SAWS, and client advocates. 3) States Legislative intent that the electronic verification process be utilized to the greatest extent possible prior to requesting verification of data elements from an applicant or recipient. 4) Requires the electronic verification process to be completed no later than the expiration of the federal waiver for Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, which requires states to evenly allocate the development costs for systems that are federally funded and enables the state to apply for 90 percent federal funding for IT systems. 5) Requires that, if information obtained from an agency through the verification process is subject to the requirements of either the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.) or the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Title 1.6 (commencing with Section 1785.1) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code), CDSS shall report to the Legislature, in a manner specified, the ways in which the electronic verification process guarantees the rights established under these laws to protect individuals from negative actions resulting from incorrect information. 6) Revises language in existing statute regarding a county's requirement to conduct a telephone interview for SB 297 (McGuire) PageD of? an applicant or for recertification of CalFresh benefits and requires that submission of required documents shall be done using electronic and telephone technologies to the greatest extent possible. 7) Requires a face-to-face interview be conducted if any of the following occur: a. A face-to-face interview is requested by the applicant, recipient, or authorized representative. b. On a case-by-case basis, a face-to-face interview is deemed necessary by the county to clarify a condition of eligibility. c. A face-to-face interview is required in order to make timely and reasonable accommodations to serve a household with a person who has a disability, is advanced in age, or is homeless. For purposes of this subparagraph, the face-to-face interview shall be conducted in a mutually acceptable location. d. An electronic interview may be conducted in place of a telephone or face-to-face interview if the county human services agency and the applicant or recipient both have the capacity to participate in an electronic interview. 8) Requires a face-to-face, telephone, or electronic interview to be conducted by a county human services agency eligibility worker. 9) Requires CDSS to issue guidance for recording and the storing of electronic and telephonic signatures in order to facilitate submission of required information by applicants and recipients. 10) Requires CDSS to coordinate with county human services agencies to make available a standard technological solution that has the capacity to store telephonic and electronic signatures. Requires the department, in identifying this solution, to work with county human services agencies, client advocates, the Statewide Automated Welfare System, and the Office of Systems Integration to ensure maximum compatibility with the Statewide Automated Welfare System and to provide that the telephonic and electronic signatures will be stored within SB 297 (McGuire) PageE of? the Statewide Automated Welfare System, as appropriate. 11) Clarifies that a county is not be required to use the state's telephonic storage if the county is complying with the state's guidance on recording and storing signatures. 12) States Legislative intent that this section ensures that applicants and recipients in all counties have the ability to utilize telephonic and electronic signatures. 13) Prohibits the state and counties from allowing an eligibility interview to be conducted by anyone other than a county human services agency eligibility worker. FISCAL IMPACT This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Purpose of the bill: The author states that while California has made great strides in streamlining the application and recertification processes for Californians who access CalFresh nutrition benefits, the state still lags far behind the nation in providing food to eligible children and families. Recent Legislation and administrative efforts to identify unnecessary barriers to food benefits have resulted in technological advances and a slight increase in the state's participation rate. This bill takes two critical steps toward continuing this process, according to the author. First, it requires the state to establish a data verification process that could be used to immediately verify income and other required information on applications for CalFresh, Medi-Cal, CalWORKs and other eligibility programs. The author states that by requiring the state to complete planning in time to remain eligible for federal 90/10 funding established under the ACA, it would enable this process to be completed with a minimum of state funding. Additionally, the bill requires CDSS to establish and make available to counties the capacity to store telephonic and SB 297 (McGuire) PageF of? electronic signatures. Current law and practice requires counties to conduct required CalFresh intake interviews over the telephone in most circumstances. However, according to the author, only seven counties have the capacity to store voice signatures. This means that once an applicant applies online and completes a telephone interview, their interview is typically printed, sent to them through the mail for signature, and required to be mailed back within 30 days of the initial application. The author states this process is unnecessarily cumbersome and results in applicants who qualify for benefits being dropped without receiving benefits if they do not meet the paperwork deadline. Hunger Nationally, the USDA reported an estimated 14.3 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2013, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members.<1> A 2012 policy brief released by the National Poverty Center, titled "Extreme Poverty in the United States, 1996 to 2011,"<2> found that SNAP (CalFresh) benefits were effective in reducing extreme poverty within that time period and noted that expansion of SNAP programs could be particularly beneficial in reducing extreme poverty in nonelderly households with children. The report defined a new group of poor as families who experienced unemployment in the Great Recession but are unable access to means-tested income support programs. The report dubbed these families as "extreme poor" and defined it as subsiding on $2 or less per person, per day and estimated that --------------------------- <1> USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-173) 41 pp, September 2014 <2> http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief28/polic ybrief28.pdf SB 297 (McGuire) PageG of? the number of households that were extremely poor in a given month numbered about 1.46 million in 2011, including 2.8 million children - or 16 percent of all children in poverty. Since the Great Recession, according to researchers at the USDA, inflation has kept the number of families who are not able to afford sufficient food at approximately the same rate, even with an increase in employment nationwide.<3> CalFresh SNAP funds 100 percent of food benefits to eligible households nationwide. California, its 58 counties and the federal government share the cost of administering the program, which is known as CalFresh. Specific eligibility requirements are set by the USDA, including gross- and net-income asset tests for most recipients, work requirements and specific documentation requirements. The maximum gross income allowed to be eligible for the SNAP program is 130 percent of the federal poverty level, or $26,117 for a family of four in 2015. The average monthly benefit for a CalFresh recipient in 2014 was $141.99 per month, or $4.73 per day, according to the USDA. CalFresh Participation California historically has had an exceptionally low rate of participation in the program -- ranked last or near last in the country for years. The dismal participation rate prompted concerns from the USDA, stories in the state's newspapers and two Legislative hearings in last year, including a joint Senate and Assembly Human Services committee hearing on March 11, 2014. In 2012, California's SNAP participation rate was 63 percent of eligible individuals, moving the state up into the second-lowest ranking in the country, slightly above Wyoming. California's rate was 20 percentage points lower than the national average. Meanwhile, just 49 percent of California's eligible working poor families received CalFresh benefits, the worst rate in the --------------------------- --------------------------- <3> Nord, Mark, et al, "Prevalence of U.S. Food Insecurity Is Related to Changes in Unemployment, Inflation, and the Price of Food," Economic Research Report No. (ERR-167) June 2014 SB 297 (McGuire) PageH of? SB 297 (McGuire) PageI of? country, compared to a national average of 72 percent.<4> CalFresh Refresh As pressure mounted to increase California's participation rate, the state embarked on a series of strategies to improve and make consistent eligibility practices statewide. The effort, nicknamed CalFresh Refresh by CDSS, was prompted by legislative changes, CDSS initiative and an ongoing series of meetings between the Department, counties and advocates. The focus was to streamline the application and re-certification processes and to reduce churn in the program, which typically was the result of a participant not submitting the proper paperwork on time, being dropped from the program, and then submitting the documents and being reinstated. Changes included moving from quarterly to semi-annual reporting requirements for participants to remain eligible, screening all applicants for expedited service and removing a state requirement that all CalFresh applicants had to submit their fingerprint images in order to receive benefits. At the same time, the state moved from requiring a face-to-face interview to a telephone interview option. Use of telephone interviews Under a federal USDA waiver,<5> and under current regulatory requirements,<6> California's county human services agencies have the option to allow CalFresh applicants to satisfy the interview requirement over the telephone rather than mandating a face-to-face interview. --------------------------- <4> USDA, "Reaching Those in Need: Estimates of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates in 2012," February 2015 <5> USDA Food and Nutrition Services Waiver #2130007, implemented August 1, 2013. <6> US 7 CFR 273.2(e)(3) and California Manual of Policies and Procedures Section 63-300.46 SB 297 (McGuire) PageJ of? CDSS informed counties in February 2014<7> that they were permitted to complete a telephone interview without having an applicant schedule an appointment by calling a county call center or other number specified by the county. The applicant also has the option of scheduling appointments or requesting an accommodation, if they have special needs. Counties have implemented the telephone interviews statewide, however, many counties say they have not been able to secure a signature over the telephone because of either a lack of clarity around what constitutes a legal telephone signature, or a lack of data storage capacity to record and store the full interview. Seven counties independently have created methods for storing electronic signatures through their call centers. Without the ability to store telephonic signatures as part of the interview process, county eligibility workers are left to mail the completed application and interview to the client, ask the client to review and sign it and then to mail it back to the county. If this process is not completed within 30 days, the application is closed. Fiscal benefit to CalFresh benefits According Moody's Economics, an independent provider of credit ratings and financial services research, CalFresh benefits have the highest economic multiplier effect out of all government programs or fiscal policy tools that stimulate the economy. In testimony before Congress in 2008, as the nation tried to mitigate effects of the deepening recession, Moody's chief economist Max Zandi said that extending food stamps is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump. A $1 increase in food stamp payments boosts GDP by $1.73. People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks (on local goods and services). Because these programs are already operating, increased benefits can be quickly delivered to recipients.<8> To the extent that this bill increases CalFresh participation, the state could --------------------------- <7> CDSS All County Letter # 14-20, February 27, 2014 <8> https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Business_7_2 4_08.pdf SB 297 (McGuire) PageK of? expect to receive additional state General Fund revenues due to increased taxable purchases by recipients. Data verification County eligibility workers verify an applicant's CalFresh application through a variety of sources, including the applicant Income Eligibility and Verification System (IEVS), a federally required system that matches social security numbers with income information. IEVS performs data matches against several agency data bases to verify certain types of income and/or property. These matches use the applicant's name and Social Security Number (SSN) and include: the Employment Development Department's wage, unemployment and disability benefit information, as well as information reported to the Franchise Tax Board, Social Security Administration and other sources of information. Information retrieved from IEVS can take up to a week after the date of request to process various data matches and to send an abstract report to the requesting county. From there, a county eligibility worker reviews and compares the IEVS reported data with the case record and the application. Any significant differences must be clarified with the applicant. During the recent construction of the Medi-Cal CalHEERS application processing hub, required by and largely financed by the Affordable Care Act, various state departments and advocates discussed the need to integrate all the state's eligibility systems and to streamline the verification process. While the CalHEERS system processes information quickly, it does not include an immediate verification component. Various state programs are separately paying for and accessing similar sources of information - EDD matches, for example - that could be brought into a single hub, eliminating duplicated efforts and saving caseworker and applicant time. The ACA envisioned instant verification for Medicaid and other eligibility program, and some states are moving to use of verification hubs using federal, state and appropriate private sources of income and other information. This bill would move California toward that hub before the expiration of the federal government's generous 90/10 funding program for ACA-related technology. Related legislation: SB 297 (McGuire) PageL of? SB 312 (Pan, 2015) would authorize a county welfare department to conduct a required personal interview with an applicant for CalWORKs benefits either telephonically or through electronic means, as specified. AB 1970 (Skinner, 2012) would have permitted counties to use electronic methods of communication for the application and recertification processes in CalWORKs and CalFresh, and would have established alternatives to in-person interviews for applications and redeterminations. It died in the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 6 (Fuentes, Chapter 501, Statutes of 2011) removed the CalFresh fingerprinting requirement, modified reporting requirements from quarterly to semi-annually, and made other changes. AB 231 (Steinberg, Chapter 743, Statutes of 2003) permitted counties to exempt a household from complying with the face-to-face interview required by a CalFresh applicant, in addition to other policy changes. POSITIONS Support: California Association of Food Banks California Catholic Conference California Food Policy Advocates California Hunger Action Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB) Children Now Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations Community Food and Justice Coalition Hunger Action Los Angeles Hunger Advocacy Network National; Association of Social Workers Redwood Empire Food Bank Sacramento Hunger Coalition San Diego Hunger Coalition United Ways of California Western Center on Law & Poverty Oppose: SB 297 (McGuire) PageM of? None. -- END --