BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2192
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 4, 2006

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
                                 Noreen Evans, Chair
                  AB 2192 (Bass) - As Introduced:  February 22, 2006
           
          SUBJECT  :  CalWORKs; eligibility disqualification.

           SUMMARY  :  Permits persons convicted of felony crimes involving  
          use or possession of drugs to qualify for CalWORKs under  
          specified circumstances.  Specifically,  this bill  : 

          1)Opts California out of the lifetime prohibition on receipt of  
            benefits funded by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  
            (TANF) block grant and establishes CalWORKs eligibility for  
            otherwise eligible persons convicted of a drug-related felony  
            subject to specified conditions.

          2)Does not confer CalWORKs eligibility upon persons convicted of  
            unlawfully transporting, importing, selling, furnishing,  
            possessing for sale, manufacturing, cultivating or committing  
            similar acts related to controlled substances.

          3)Requires that to be eligible for CalWORKs, a person convicted  
            of a drug-related felony must provide proof of one of the  
            following:

             a)   Completion, participation in, enrollment in or placement  
               on a waiting list for a government-recognized drug  
               treatment program; or

             b)   Other evidence that the illegal use of controlled  
               substances has ceased, pursuant to regulations adopted by  
               the State Department of Social Services.

          4)Permits implementation by all-county letter on January 1,  
            2007, and requires regulations to be adopted no later than  
            July 1, 2007.

           EXISTING FEDERAL LAW  prohibits recipients of benefits funded by  
          Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from  
          qualifying for aid 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.









                                                                  AB 2192
                                                                  Page  2

           EXISTING STATE LAW:  
           
           1)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.

          2)Permits otherwise eligible applicants for food stamps to  
            qualify for benefits if they have been convicted of a  
            drug-related felony involving possession or use of controlled  
            substances if they meet specified conditions regarding  
            treatment or cessation of use.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to analyses of last year's AB 855,  
          increased benefit costs of $1.2 million (assuming half of  
          currently ineligible persons qualify) would be partially offset  
          by savings due to improved success in parole and avoidance of  
          incarceration, estimated by the Little Hoover Commission at  
          approximately $700,000 taking into account the nature of the  
          population and success rates of treatment programs.

           COMMENTS  :  This bill partially opts California out of the  
          lifetime ban on CalWORKs benefits for persons convicted of  
          drug-related felonies to the same extent that AB 1796 (Leno),  
          Chapter 932, Statutes of 2004, opted out of the ban as applied  
          to food stamps.  It is identical to last year's AB 855 (Bass),  
          which passed the Legislature and was vetoed by the Governor.  

           Historical 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 when it implemented welfare reform in 1997.  According  
          to a 2005 report of the Sentencing Project, 11 states plus the  
          District of Columbia have entirely opted out of the TANF ban,  
          including Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon.  An  
          additional 14 states have partially opted out of the ban on  
          TANF-funded benefits,, either by limiting the ban to certain  
          offenses (such as sale or trafficking) or establishing  








                                                                  AB 2192
                                                                  Page  3

          qualifying conditions which relate to participation in or  
          completion of drug treatment programs.

          According to the Department of Social Services (DSS) estimates,  
          373 persons are denied CalWORKs each month because of the drug  
          felon prohibition.

           CalWORKs substance treatment services.   The CalWORKs program  
          itself includes substance abuse treatment as a permitted  
          welfare-to-work activity.  Section 11325.8 of the Welfare &  
          Institutions Code establishes a process for identifying persons  
          in need of treatment and providing them with services.   
          Participants can be referred for treatment after an assessment  
          by a case manager and an evaluation by a county drug and alcohol  
          program finding that substance abuse will "impair the ability of  
          the participant to obtain and retain employment."  The  
          Governor's 2006-07 budget appropriates $48.9 million in CalWORKs  
          funds expressly to be used for substance abuse services.

          The drug felon ban disqualifies a parent or guardian from  
          receiving aid and services under CalWORKs, although needy  
          children are still eligible.  Thus, current policy prevents a  
          person from receiving CalWORKs substance treatment services, or  
          any other welfare-to-work services, she or he may need to become  
          employable.

           Restricted payments.   The rationale supporting the drug felon  
          ban derives in part from a concern that persons with felony drug  
          convictions are likely to misuse public benefits to support a  
          substance abuse habit.  The ban, however, requires no such  
          showing and makes no allowances for those who present no risk.   
          Current law, at Welfare & Institutions Code Section 11251.3(b),  
          provides that when the drug felon disqualification is applied,  
          the aid payment on behalf of the eligible family members be paid  
          through vouchers or vendor payments for at least rent or  
          utilities, preventing the excluded parent from having access to  
          that portion of the monthly grant. 

          Apart from the rules pertaining to disqualified drug felons,  
          state law currently provides that counties may provide  
          "restricted payments" on behalf of a recipient to the provider  
          of shelter and utilities if the "county determines that the  
          recipient has demonstrated such an inability to manage funds  
          that payments to the [parent or relative caretaker] have not  
          been or are not currently used in the best interest of the  








                                                                  AB 2192
                                                                  Page  4

          child."  A presumption of misuse occurs when a parent has  
          previously failed to pay rent.  In these cases payments are made  
          directly to the landlord or utility company, or to a third party  
          payee.  Thus, counties have the ability to avoid misuse of  
          benefits under current law when there is reason to believe that  
          assistance payments are not being used in the best interest of  
          the children.

           Criticism of the lifetime ban.   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  
          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 Sentencing Project report 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.  

          Supporters of AB 2192 observe that Proposition 36 of 2000  
          demonstrated the voters' intention to take a remedial,  
          non-punitive approach to substance abuse.  Moreover, as stated  
          by Western Center on Law and Poverty, AB 2192 saves foster care  
          and group home costs because it "helps give children who are in  
          foster care or might otherwise go into foster care a permanent  
          placement."  

          Supporters 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 cash aid face no added  
          financial penalty beyond the criminal consequences.  

           Previous efforts to modify the lifetime ban.   Prior to AB 855 of  
          2005, there have been several previous legislative efforts to  
          modify the CalWORKs ban.  The first was SB 659 (C. Wright) of  
          1999-2000, which applied to all drug felonies and created a set  
          of exceptions to the bar similar to those contained in AB 2192.   
          The bill passed the Assembly 60-8 and the Senate 30-4, but was  








                                                                  AB 2192
                                                                  Page  5

          vetoed by Governor Davis.  AB 767 (Goldberg), 2001-2002, adopted  
          the basic framework of SB 659 but applied only to convictions  
          for possession and use.  It also was vetoed by Governor Davis.   
          AB 1947 (Washington) of 2001-2002 created an exception to the  
          ban only for persons enrolled in Proposition 36 treatment  
          programs.  As introduced it applied to both CalWORKs and food  
          stamps, but in final form was amended to cover only food stamps.  
           Again, it met with Governor Davis' veto.

          As previously noted, AB 1796 (Leno) of 2004 was limited from its  
          inception to food stamps and contained the limitations and  
          qualifications currently in AB 2192.  It was signed by Governor  
          Schwarzenegger and became effective on January 1, 2005.

           AB 855 veto.   The Governor's veto message of last year's AB 855  
          stated that the bill "does not provide adequate assurances that  
          these individuals are abstaining from drug use. ? such as drug  
          testing, use of voucher payment in lieu of cash and mandatory  
          treatment."  As noted by Western Center on Law and Poverty,  
          current law on restricted payments "already addresses this  
          concern," and "the likelihood of needing to utilize this  
          provision is significantly reduced by the requirement in AB 2192  
          that the applicant be in treatment or have completed treatment."  
           The message also observed that "not enough time has passed to  
          determine whether providing food stamps to drug felons improves  
          individuals' ability to maintain sobriety and become more  
          self-sufficient ?"  

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
          Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)
          A New Way of Life Re-entry Project
          California Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association  
          of California (CADPAAC)
          California Catholic Conference
          California Commission on the Status of Women
          California Peace Officers' Association 
          California Police Chiefs Association
          County Welfare Directors Association of CA (CWDA)
          Families to Amend California's Three Strikes
          National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter (NASW-CA)
          National Center on Youth Law (NCYL)








                                                                  AB 2192
                                                                  Page  6

          Western Center on Law & Poverty

           Opposition 
           
          None on file.
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Casey McKeever / HUM. S. / (916)  
          319-2089