BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1796|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1796
Author: Leno (D), et al
Amended: 5/17/04 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. COMMITTEE : 9-2, 6/16/04
AYES: Ortiz, Alarcon, Chesbro, Escutia, Figueroa, Florez,
Kuehl, Romero, Vasconcellos
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn
NO VOTE RECORDED: Battin, Vincent
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-5, 8/12/04
AYES: Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Karnette, Murray,
Speier
NOES: Battin, Aanestad, Ashburn, Johnson, Poochigian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Machado
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-30, 5/24/04 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Food stamps: eligibility
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill permits persons with felony
convictions involving possession or use of drugs to qualify
for food stamp benefits.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
AB 1796
Page
2
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.
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.
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.
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
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
AB 1796
Page
3
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 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.
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 percent of women convicted
of felony drug offenses are African-American or Latina.
AB 1796
Page
4
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
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2004-05 2005-06
2006-07 Fund
Food stamps 900 1,800
1,800Federal
AB 1796
Page
5
Administration 150 70 70 General &
Federal
Staff comments
The Department of Social Services (DSS) has estimated that
the annual ongoing costs of providing food stamps to these
individuals would be approximately $1.8 million in federal
funds. Administrative costs to implement these changes in
2005 would be approximately $150,000, with ongoing annual
administrative costs of approximately $70,000 in future
years.
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/16/04)
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
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
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
AB 1796
Page
6
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
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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez,
Chu, Corbett, Diaz, Dutra, Dymally, Firebaugh, Goldberg,
Hancock, Jerome Horton, Jackson, Kehoe, Koretz, Laird,
Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Maze,
Mullin, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Pavley, Reyes, Richman,
Ridley-Thomas, Salinas, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas,
Wesson, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cogdill, Cohn, Correa, Cox,
Dutton, Frommer, Garcia, Harman, Haynes, Houston, Keene,
La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maldonado, Matthews, McCarthy,
Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Pacheco, Parra, Plescia, Runner,
AB 1796
Page
7
Samuelian, Spitzer, Strickland, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Aghazarian, Bates, Daucher, Shirley
Horton, Maddox, Montanez, Nakano, Nation
CP:nl 8/16/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****