BILL ANALYSIS
AB 643
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 643 (Skinner)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Beall, Ammiano, Hall, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Portantino, Torres | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| | | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Tom Berryhill, Logue |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires county welfare offices to transfer a food
stamp recipient's benefits from one county to another without
requiring the recipient to reapply.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a recipient to reapply to the Food Stamp Program when
moving from one county to another.
2)Requires, under the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids program, that there be no overlapping
or interruption of aid as a result of a recipient moving from
one county to another, and further requires that the counties
involved in the transfer of aid be responsible for determining
eligibility and cash aid authorization.
3)Requires counties to maintain a percentage of errors under the
national average when processing food stamp applications and
assesses penalties if the state is found out of compliance.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)If the necessary automation changes can be included in
AB 643
Page 2
existing automation maintenance and operations schedules,
automation costs would be less than $25,000 ($8,500 General
Fund (GF)).
2)One-time training costs in excess of $140,000 ($53,200 GF) to
train eligibility workers in the new inter-county transfer
process.
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill would require
county welfare offices to conduct an inter-county-transfer (ICT)
of a recipient's food stamp benefits when the recipient moves
from one county to another making the current reapplication
process unnecessary.
The author states that currently when recipients move to a new
county they are required to reapply which can be a burden
because it creates hurdles for families in need of uninterrupted
benefits. As well, it is costly and time-consuming process for
counties to re-process the application. The author notes that
other county-administered programs such as CalWORKs and MediCal
allow ICTs. In the CalWORKs program, an ICT places the
responsibility of eligibility and cash aid authorization on the
two counties involved in the transfer. The recipient's
responsibility is to notify the county in which they currently
reside of their intended move and file a form and any other
related changes that may affect the ICT. Based on CalWORKs
data, the author estimates that there will be approximately
19,000 food stamp recipients that will be assisted by this new
process.
At the time the policy committee heard this bill, the County
Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) had indicated that an ICT
for recipients of food stamp benefits did seem to make sense
but also expressed concerns. At the time of this analysis, it
was not clear if the latest amendments alleviated those
concerns. The following are the concerns from the as
introduced version of the bill.
One concern of CWDA was the Standard Utility Allowance (SUA).
SUAs are standardized utility figures states offer to
households. They are used in place of actual utility costs to
calculate a household's total shelter costs. (High shelter
costs can result in a deduction from a household's net income
AB 643
Page 3
for excess shelter costs. That can mean a higher food stamp
allotment.) It is generally in a household's interest to use
the SUA, unless its utility costs are high. CWDA states that
SUAs change from zone to zone and depending on where the
recipient moves, the SUA can change and possibly affect
eligibility.
A different example shows how a food stamp ICT may also affect
the county's federal food stamp error rate for quality control.
Food stamp error rates are calculated by the number of
overpayments and underpayments made to program recipients and
are expressed as a percentage, which cannot exceed 105% of the
national average. If counties are found to have errors above
that threshold, the state could incur penalties and be required
to use state money without the federal match to improve its
administration. To overcome these challenges, CWDA suggests
looking at other states that operate on a county system like
California for best practices. The Committee may wish to
consider allowing the author and CWDA to further examine
whether or not an ICT for food stamp recipients makes sense for
the client and within the federal rules in which counties are
required to operate.
Analysis Prepared by : Frances Chacon / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089
FN: 0001338