BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1796
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1796 (Leno)
As Amended August 23, 2004
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |42-30|(May 24, 2004) |SENATE: |21-12|(August 25, |
| | | | | |2004) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HUM. S.
SUMMARY : Permits persons with specified felony convictions
involving possession or use of drugs to qualify for food stamp
benefits if they have completed or are enrolled in a drug
treatment program, or can demonstrate that drug use has ceased.
The Senate amendments :
1)Add to the crimes for which eligibility is not available as
follows:
a) Cultivating, harvesting, and processing of controlled
substances pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11358; and,
b) Unlawfully soliciting or inducing a minor to participate
in any of the excluded crimes.
2)Add as a condition to receive benefits proof of one of the
following:
a) Completion of a recognized drug treatment program;
b) Participation in a government recognized drug treatment
program;
c) Enrollment in a government-recognized drug treatment
program ;
d) Placement on a waiting list for a government-recognized
drug treatment program; or,
e) Other evidence that the illegal use of controlled
substances has ceased, as established by the Department of
Social Services (DSS) in regulations.
AB 1796
Page 2
3)Authorize DSS to implement this bill through an all-county
letter no later than January 1, 2005.
4)Require DSS to adopt regulations to implement this bill, which
may be through emergency regulations, no later than July 1,
2005.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW prohibits recipients of food stamps 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 food stamp programs if the conviction occurred after
the effective date of the federal welfare reform law.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Provided that California shall opt out of the lifetime federal
disqualification from food stamps for persons convicted of a
felony involving controlled substances.
2)Excluded from food stamp eligibility persons convicted of
unlawfully transporting, importing, manufacturing, purchasing
or possessing for sale, giving away or furnishing a controlled
substance.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. The Assembly Appropriations Committee
analysis prepared before this bill contained any exceptions or
qualifications found up to several million dollars in federal
food stamp benefits, but subsequent amendments lower that amount
significantly. The fiscal impact also includes:
1)Minor absorbable workload to local welfare departments to
process additional food stamp applications or adjust existing
family food stamps benefits.
2)Unknown General Fund and local tax revenues to the extent that
new food stamp recipients spend funds on taxable goods.
3)Unknown savings, to the extent federal food assistance reduces
the need for other kinds of public benefits.
AB 1796
Page 3
COMMENTS : The lifetime ban on food stamps 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 of 1996.
The federal provision gives states the ability to opt out of the
disqualification. 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.
DDS estimates 1,640 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.
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. They also contend
that the lifetime ban 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.
Senate amendments narrow this bill significantly, requiring a
demonstration of completion or participation in drug treatment,
or other evidence that drug use has ceased. They are the
AB 1796
Page 4
product of discussions between the author's office, the bill's
supporters and the California Health and Human Services Agency.
Analysis Prepared by : Casey McKeever / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089
FN: 0008663