BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1796
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Lois Wolk, Chair
AB 1796 (Leno) - As Introduced: January 7, 2004
SUBJECT : Food stamps; eligibility.
SUMMARY : Permits convicted drug felons to qualify for food
stamp benefits. Specifically, this bill provides that
California shall opt out of the lifetime federal
disqualification from food stamps for persons convicted of a
felony involving controlled substances.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Under federal law, prohibits recipients of food stamps or
benefits funded by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) funds from qualifying for benefits if they have been
convicted of a felony crime involving controlled substances,
but allows states to opt out of the disqualification in whole
or part;
2)Provides that persons convicted of specified felonies related
to controlled substances are ineligible for aid under the
CalWORKs and food stamp programs if the conviction occurred
after the provisions' effective dates.
FISCAL EFFECT : The Department of Social Services (DSS)
estimates total food stamp administrative costs of $74,000, of
which $25,900 are general fund in 2004-05, assuming a January
2005 implementation date, and $70,000 ($24,500 General Fund) in
ongoing annual food stamp administrative costs. The annual
impact for the California Food Assistance Program for immigrants
is under $25,000. There could be savings to the extent that the
availability of food assistance aids in the recovery of persons
who thereafter become self-sufficient, reducing the need for
assistance by others in the household.
COMMENTS : The lifetime ban on food stamps and TANF-funded
benefits for persons with felony drug convictions was included
in the 1996 federal welfare reform bill, as Section 115 of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
There is little legislative history explaining the provision,
AB 1796
Page 2
since it was first raised in a floor amendment and not the
subject of committee hearings.
The federal provision gives states the ability to opt out of the
disqualification. California declined to include any opt-out
provision for food stamps when it implemented welfare reform in
1997. According to the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 32 states and territories have chosen
to avoid the rule in whole or in part. Twelve states have opted
out entirely, including Maine, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma and Oregon. Eight states have qualifying conditions
which relate to participation in or completion of drug treatment
programs, whether as part of the criminal sentence or otherwise:
Hawaii, Maryland, Utah, Nevada, New Jersey, Washington, Kentucky
and South Carolina.
According to DSS estimates, 1640 persons are denied food stamps
annually because of the drug felon prohibition.
The drug felon rule has been the subject of much criticism by
drug treatment providers, advocates for the poor and law
enforcement organizations because it permanently disqualifies
otherwise needy persons from receiving food assistance and may
interfere with their current or continued recovery. A person
may be disqualified even if they are in a treatment program and
need a healthy diet to succeed, or if the conviction occurred
long before the time they needed assistance, or if they have no
current substance problem.
A report released in 2002 by the Sentencing Project concluded,
"The lifetime welfare ban . . . makes the possibility of
returning to their communities as productive members more
difficult than before their conviction, and in some cases
improbable." It also noted a disparate impact of the rule on
women of color, since 46% of women convicted of felony drug
offenses are African-American or Latina.
A 2001 paper published by the University of Maryland School of
Medicine found that "[p]roper nutrition is a crucial element of
the recovery process as it helps the body to reverse the effects
of the substance while boosting the body's ability to complete
detoxification."
The premise of the original rule was that substance abusers
should be prevented from misusing public benefits to fuel their
AB 1796
Page 3
addiction. However, the lifetime ban denies aid to many who
pose no such risk, and, especially after the food stamp program
has moved to an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system, there
is very little ability for recipients to convert food assistance
into drugs. Moreover, it is noteworthy that passage of
Proposition 36 in 2000 demonstrated the voters' intention to
take a remedial, non-punitive approach to substance abuse.
Opponents of the rule have also argued that it imposes a special
penalty only upon persons poor enough to need public assistance;
those convicted of such crimes who do not need food stamps or
cash aid face no added financial penalty beyond the criminal
consequences.
PRIOR RELATED LEGISLATION:
SB 659 (C. Wright), 1999-2000. This bill created a set of
exceptions to the bar on food stamps and CalWORKs for those who
completed, enrolled in, or applied for certified drug treatment
services, or for whom five years had elapsed since successfully
fulfilling conditions, or who were not using a controlled
substance. It also required passage of a drug screening test in
some cases as a condition of eligibility, and subjected
recipients to tests after qualifying. It also created
interagency county level teams to provide case management
services to all families eligible for aid. Passed the Assembly
60-8 and the Senate 30-4; vetoed by Governor Davis.
AB 767 (Goldberg), 2001-2002. This adopted the basic framework
of SB 659, creating exceptions to the disqualification from
CalWORKs and food stamps, but was narrower. It applied only to
convictions for possession and use, not for sale or transport,
and did not contain the interagency teams. It passed the
legislature and was vetoed by Governor Davis.
AB 1947 (Washington), 2001-2002. This created an exception to
the ban for persons enrolled in Proposition 36 treatment
programs. (Those completing such programs are eligible to apply
to have their convictions dismissed, which re-establishes
eligibility.) As introduced it applied to both CalWORKs and
food stamps, but in final form was amended to cover only food
stamps. This bill was also vetoed by Governor Davis.
AB 1796 differs from prior efforts because as introduced it only
applies to food stamps. Previous bills emphasized treatment and
AB 1796
Page 4
rehabilitation as a condition for eligibility for cash aid and
food assistance. Proponents of AB 1796 argue that many of the
qualifying conditions in SB 659 and AB 767 are unnecessary
because the potential to misuse benefits in the way originally
envisioned is virtually impossible in an EBT system involving
food and not cash. Moreover, the costs of administering complex
determinations and drug testing have raised concerns as counties
have suffered budgetary reductions and denial of cost of doing
business increases over the past several years.
Arguments of supporters
As noted, supporters of AB 1796 contend that the current
lifetime ban is unfairly punitive and counter-productive, and
that access to food assistance aids in recovery from substance
addiction. The California Association of Addiction Recovery
Resources asserts that, "denying individuals food assistance
threatens their ability to become self sufficient, provide and
care for their children and overcome their drug addiction."
Among its reasons for supporting the bill, Family Rights and
Dignity argues that "the ban unfairly punishes parents and
individuals who have served their time, are looking to start
over and need food assistance."
The California Police Chiefs Association asserts in support,
"preventing an otherwise eligible person from receiving food
stamps because of a prior drug conviction makes little sense ?
[and] merely increases the chances that they will fall back into
re-offending behavior." According to the California Narcotics
Officers' Association (CNOA), "the federal prohibition on
eligible persons receiving food stamps due to a prior drug
conviction is not only silly, but increases the possibility that
the individual will return to the same illegal drug behavior
that got them in trouble in the first place."
Free Battered Women observes that the current prohibition has a
negative impact on victims of domestic violence. "Survivors of
domestic violence are often charged with drug-related crimes
when their batterers coerce them into participating in the drug
trade ? Survivors' options for keeping themselves and their
children safe from violence are limited when their access to
material resources such as food stamps . . . is restricted."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 1796
Page 5
Support
Alameda County Community Food Bank
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Beacon House Association of San Pedro
California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources
California Catholic Conference
California Food Policy Advocates
California Narcotics Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Conference of the NAACP
Coalition California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.
Drug Policy Alliance Network
Family Rights and Dignity project of the San Francisco Coalition
on Homelessness
Fourwinds Lodge
Free Battered Women, a Project of the California Coalition for
Women Prisoners
JERICHO: A Voice for Justice
Lambda Letters
Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness
Senior Gleaners, Inc.
Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs, Inc.
Support Cont.
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Women of Color Resource Center
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Casey McKeever / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089