BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1796
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1796 (Leno)
As Amended May 17, 2004
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 14-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wolk, Dutra, Lieber, |Ayes:|Chu, Berg, Calderon, |
| |Longville, Mullin | |Corbett, Firebaugh, |
| | | |Goldberg, Leno, Nation, |
| | | |Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, |
| | | |Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, |
| | | |Wiggins, Yee |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Haynes, Garcia |Nays:|Runner, Bates, Correa, |
| | | |Haynes, Keene |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Permits persons with felony convictions involving
possession or use of drugs to qualify for food stamp benefits.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that California shall opt out of the lifetime federal
disqualification from food stamps for persons convicted of a
felony involving controlled substances.
2)Excludes from food stamp eligibility persons convicted of
unlawfully transporting, importing, manufacturing, purchasing
or possessing for sale, giving away or furnishing a controlled
substance.
EXISTING 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.
EXISTING LAW provides that persons convicted of specified
felonies related to controlled substances are ineligible for aid
under the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
and food stamp programs if the conviction occurred after the
provisions' effective dates.
AB 1796
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis (prior to the amendment excluding persons
with sale, transport or manufacturing convictions):
1)Up to several million dollars in food stamps benefits to the
extent that additional individuals receive food stamps. For
every 900 beneficiaries, about $1 million in food stamps are
received annually. These benefits are 100% federal funds.
2)Minor absorbable workload to local welfare departments to
process additional food stamp applications or adjust existing
family food stamps benefits.
3)Unknown General Fund and local tax revenues to the extent that
new food stamp recipients spend funds on taxable goods.
4)Unknown savings, to the extent federal food assistance reduces
the need for other kinds of public benefits.
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,
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 United
States 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.
The Department of Social Services estimates 1,640 persons are
denied food stamps annually because of the drug felon
prohibition. According to the author's office, data from the
California Department of Corrections show that about half of
felony drug convictions involve crimes eligible for benefits
under the bill, i.e., the convictions are for possession or
personal use.
The drug felon rule has been the subject of much criticism by
AB 1796
Page 3
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.
The premise of the original rule was that substance abusers
should be prevented from misusing public benefits to fuel their
addiction. However, the lifetime ban denies aid to persons who
have served their sentence without a showing that they are drug
dependent and would use the benefits to further their habit.
Additionally, the food stamp program has converted to an
Electronic Benefit Transfer system in which benefits are
received through a debit card subject to electronic tracking,
and there is very little ability for recipients to convert food
assistance into drugs.
Supporters also contend that passage of Proposition 36 in 2000
demonstrated the voters' intention to take a remedial,
non-punitive approach to substance abuse.
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."
Supporters of this bill 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.
The California Police Chiefs Association asserts in support,
AB 1796
Page 4
"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."
Analysis Prepared by : Casey McKeever / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089
FN: 0005416