BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1756
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1756 (Swanson)
As Amended April 5, 2010
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 4-1 APPROPRIATIONS 10-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Beall, Ammiano, Hall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano, Coto, |
| |Swanson | |Davis, Bonnie Lowenthal, |
| | | |Hall, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Hill |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Tom Berryhill |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Restores federal food stamp eligibility to all
Californians with drug felony convictions; and eliminates the
eligibility conditions for drug users and possessors.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Up to $1 million in food stamps benefits to the extent
additional individuals receive food stamps. For every 900
beneficiaries, about $1 million in food stamps are received
annually. These benefits are 100% federal funds.
2)Minor absorbable workload to local welfare departments to
process additional food stamps applications or adjust existing
family food stamps benefits.
3)Unknown General Fund and local tax revenues to the extent that
new food stamp recipients spend funds on taxable goods.
4)Unknown savings, to the extent federal food assistance reduces
the need for other kinds of public benefits.
COMMENTS : The lifetime ban on food stamps and temporary
assistance for needy families-funded benefits for persons with
felony drug convictions was included in the 1996 federal Welfare
Reform Act (Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
AB 1756
Page 2
Opportunity Reconciliation Act). However, this new law also
gave states the ability to opt out of the ban for either of
these programs or based on particular drug felonies. California
declined to include any opt-out provision when it implemented
welfare reform in 1997, but several years later, with AB 1796
(Leno), Chapter 932, Statutes of 2004, opted out of the ban for
drug users applying to the food stamp program. These
individuals were deemed eligible for these benefits based on the
condition that they offer the following proof: completion of,
participation or enrollment in, placement on a waiting list to a
government-recognized drug treatment program, or other proof of
having ceased using illegal drugs.
The author of this bill seeks to opt out of the ban for drug
distributors and eliminate the above-references conditions.
This bill is similar to the one that the author introduced last
year (it was ultimately held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee), but as already mentioned, no longer contains the
conditions that were placed upon drug users.
Under a prior version of this bill, the Governor's veto message
clarified that he supports drug treatment programs for drug
users, but pointed out that the bill's expansion of food stamp
eligibility to drug distributors based on the incentive of drug
treatment was not an appropriate solution because treatment does
not stop the distribution.
Small estimated increase in caseload : Currently close to 2
million low-income families receive food stamps. According to
previous Department of Social Services' assumptions about the
affected caseload, this bill will increase the number of food
stamps recipients by about 840, significantly less than a 1%
increase in caseload, and most of these newly eligible
participants will be part of families already receiving food
assistance.
Other state actions : According to a 2005 report by the General
Accounting Office (GAO), 15 states fully implemented the federal
ban on food stamp benefits to convicted drug felons, and 35
states had laws modifying the federal ban on food stamps. Of
the 35 states with exemptions, 14 states exempted all convicted
drug felons from the food stamp ban, and 21 have laws that
exempt some convicted drug felons from the food stamp ban
provided they meet certain conditions.
AB 1756
Page 3
Who is affected by this bill? The GAO report also notes that
proportionally more female drug felons than males are affected
by the ban. The GAO calculates that about 27% of female and 15%
of all drug offenders released from prison in 2001 in states
that had not modified the ban would have met the eligibility
requirements and therefore, be affected by the ban.
Nutrition and drug felons : 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.
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 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. 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.
The Western Center on Law & Poverty supports this bill and
states that, "The lifetime ban on Food Stamps for people with
past drug felony convictions creates barriers to successful
integration back into society. Access to Food Stamps would help
with the recovery process, prevent recidivism and support
parents in rebuilding their relationships with their children.
The ban undermines California's efforts to reduce recidivism of
parolees and probationers while reducing state correction
costs."
AB 1756
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Frances Chacon / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089 FN:
0004102