BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Deborah V. Ortiz, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1796
A
AUTHOR: Leno
B
AMENDED: May 17, 2004
HEARING DATE: June 16, 2004
1
FISCAL: Appropriations
7
9
CONSULTANT:
6
Vazquez / ak
SUBJECT
Food stamps: eligibility
SUMMARY
This measure permits persons with felony convictions
involving possession or use of drugs to qualify for food
stamp benefits.
ABSTRACT
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 state 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 (CalWORKs) and food stamp programs if the conviction
occurred after the provisions' effective dates.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1796 (Leno) Page
2
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, selling, furnishing,
administering, giving away, possessing or purchasing for
sale, or manufacturing a controlled substance.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis
(prior to the amendment excluding persons with sale,
transport or manufacturing convictions), the bill's fiscal
impact includes:
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.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Background
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
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1796 (Leno) Page
3
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.
Discussion
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.
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 (EBT)
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.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1796 (Leno) Page
4
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 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."
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.
Arguments in support
Supporters of this bill have 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, "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."
Prior legislation
SB 659 (C. Wright), 1999. 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 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. This measure was vetoed
by Governor Davis.
AB 767 (Goldberg), 2001. This measure adopted the basic
framework of SB 659, creating exceptions to the
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1796 (Leno) Page
5
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. This measure was vetoed by
Governor Davis.
AB 1947 (Washington), 2002. This bill 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 measure was vetoed by Governor Davis.
Comparison of AB 1796 with prior legislative efforts
AB 1796 differs from prior efforts because as introduced it
only applies to food stamps. Previous bills emphasized
treatment and 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.
PRIOR ACTIONS
Assembly Floor: 42 - 30Pass
Assembly Appropriations: 14 - 5 Do Pass
Assembly Human Services: 5 - 2Do Pass
POSITIONS
Support: Alameda County Board of Supervisor's Health
Committee
Alameda County Community Food Bank
All of Us or None
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1796 (Leno) Page
6
Beacon House Association of San Pedro
Blacksmith Records, Inc.
California Association of Addiction Recovery
Resources
California Association for Alcohol and Drug
Educators
California Association for Alcohol and Drug
Executives, Inc.
California Association of Food Banks
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Food Policy Advocates
California Hunger Action Coalition
California Narcotics Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs' Association
California State Conference of the NAACP
Continued---
California State Sheriffs' Association
Central Coast Hunger Coalition
City and County of San Francisco
Coalition California Welfare Rights
Organizations, Inc.
County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators
Association
of California
Drug Policy Alliance Network
Ecology Center
Ecumenical Council of Pasadena Area Churches
Family Rights and Dignity
Food Bank for Monterey County
Fourwinds Lodge
Friends of Choice
Free Battered Women
Helping Other People Eat
Jardini?re
JERICHO
Lambda Letters Project
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and
Homelessness
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Maternal and Child Health Access
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug
Dependence of the South Bay
Nextcourse
Office of the Attorney General
Senior Gleaners, Inc.
Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs,
Inc.
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Women of Color Resource Center
Approximately 150 individuals
Oppose:None received
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1796 (Leno) Page
8
-- END --