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 --