BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
643 (Skinner)
Hearing Date: 08/27/2009 Amended: 06/30/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Human
Services 4-1
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 643 specifies that "aid", for purposes of the
provisions relating to a recipient's change of residence,
includes benefits under the food stamp program, thereby
requiring county welfare offices to transfer a food stamp
recipient's benefits from one county to another without
requiring the recipient to reapply in the new county.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Automation changes Up to $100
General*
Eligibility worker training Unknown, potentially
significant General*
*State pays a portion of these activities. The $100,000 estimate
is for the state portion.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Under existing law, counties must transfer CalWORKs aid and
Medi-Cal without an interruption in service, when a recipient
moves from one county to another. There is an Inter-County
Transfer (ICT) process in place for doing so, and it is utilized
throughout the state. Recipients must notify the new county of
residence of their need for an ICT. Existing law provides that
in order to receive federal food stamps, however, a recipient
must reapply for food stamps in the new county of residence.
This bill would require counties to implement an ICT (though it
does not specify it would have to be the same ICT used for other
programs) for food stamps.
Currently, when CalWORKs cases are transferred from "County A"
to "County B", County B notifies County A of the need for a
transfer, and County A provides a copy of the recipient's
application and other documentation. There is a verification
process done by County B, and then a face-to-face interview is
done by County B with the recipient. Much of this information is
automated. DSS estimates that if automation systems were
modified to include food stamps, the state would incur an
additional cost of $500,000. because of the bill's delayed
implementation date, if the system upgrades could be done at the
same time as other changes, the modification costs would be
reduced. The exact amount is unknown because it depends on the
extent of this and other scheduled modifications, as well as the
budget for automation changes.
The bill does not actually require automation changes, or that
food stamps be tracked in the same way as CalWORKs cases.
However, if food stamps are subject, as provided for in this
bill, to the same regulations for uninterrupted service as
CalWORKs and are not tracked in the same system, the counties
must create a separate procedure for food stamps transfers. The
sponsor has indicated this process could be done by emails
Page 2
AB 643 (Skinner)
between county workers. While that is true in terms of statutory
flexibility, there is no process for in place currently. Because
transfers happen among the 58 counties, all counties would have
to train workers on whatever the new process would be, so that
there is no confusion and interruption in service.
County workload savings from not having food stamps applicants
re-apply in a new county would likely be very minor, if any.
While this process would be less burdensome and time-consuming
for recipients, counties would still have to conduct much of the
work they currently do for food stamps cases. This bill requires
County A to provide County B with required documentation,
instead of the recipient providing the same information. The
information would still need to be verified, and eligibility
would still be redetermined, as it is currently. The most
cumbersome parts of the process for the county are not changed
by this bill. Moreover, under this bill, County A would be
responsible for providing information to County B. Currently,
the responsibility falls on the applicant.
Any decrease in county eligibility workers' workload is unclear,
and is unlikely to yield actual savings.
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED: Implementation of the provisions of
this bill will be delayed until the necessary automation change
can be included in the next scheduled automation system update.
This delay will reduce the cost of the automation change by at
least 75%, but the exact cost is unknown because it depends on
how many other changes are scheduled at that time, the
complexity of this change, and the size of the existing DSS
budget for the next automation change.