BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 493
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 11, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    AB 493 (Perea) - As Amended:  April 28, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              Human 
          ServicesVote:4 - 2 

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          Yes    Reimbursable:              Yes

           SUMMARY  

          This bill prohibits CalWORKs recipients from withdrawing cash 
          from their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit cards from 
          automated teller machines (ATMs) located in gambling 
          establishments or strip clubs.  In addition, CalWORKs recipients 
          would be prohibited from using their EBT cards to purchase 
          tobacco or alcohol. 

           FISCAL EFFECT 

          1)EBT reprogramming cost in the range of tens of millions of 
            dollars (GF/TANF).  The current EBT system is not designed to 
            monitor what is being purchased using cash assistance, nor 
            does it limit the purchase of items.  It merely limits where a 
            CalWORKs participant can withdraw their cash. Therefore, this 
            bill would require a complete reprogramming of the EBT system. 


          2)Reimbursable mandated costs of several hundred thousand 
            dollars (GF/TANF) for an increased fraud investigations 
            workload associated with ensuring that vendors are not selling 
            CalWORKs recipients prohibited items. Currently, state, 
            federal and county welfare fraud investigators conduct vendor 
            fraud investigations for CalFresh by trying to use CalFresh 
            benefits on the EBT card to purchase non-food items.  
            Presumably, under this legislation a similar state and county 
            effort would need to be launched to protect against retailers 
            allowing CalWORKs EBT cash benefits from being used to 
            purchase alcohol and tobacco.  

          3)Costs, potentially up to $100,000 (GF/TANF) for the oversight 








                                                                  AB 493
                                                                  Page  2

            and monitoring associated with prohibiting the use of EBT 
            cards at gambling establishments and strip clubs. Executive 
            Order S-09-10 prohibited the use of EBT cards at ATMs located 
            in gambling establishments. This bill would codify that 
            executive order and expand it to include a prohibition against 
            using EBT cards in strip clubs. According to information 
            provided by the Office of Systems Integration, the initial 
            vendor costs associated with the executive order exceeded 
            $50,000. Those costs did not account for the on-going 
            monitoring required. 

          COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . The intent of this legislation is to make it 
            difficult for CalWORKs recipients to use their cash 
            grants to purchase anything but basic necessities. The 
            author hopes that by limiting where families can access 
            their cash and prohibiting them from using their EBT 
            cards to purchase certain items that he will be able to 
            control how and where their money is spent.  According to 
            the author, "Given the current climate of the state's 
            economy and the limited resources available to all of 
            California's programs, it is more important than ever to 
            ensure that state aid is to provide basic necessities for 
            California's under-resourced families."

           2)Support  . In support of the bill, CalTax references their 
            report "Making Government Work - How California Can Improve 
            Efficiency and Reduce Fraud."  In that report the highlight 
            several news reports that suggest there are problems with the 
            state's EBT policies. They assert that withdrawing funds from 
            gambling establishments and adult venues "amounts to fraud and 
            is a gross misuse of taxpayer's dollars and reduces the amount 
            of resources available for Californians that struggle to make 
            ends meet."  
                
            The California Professional Firefighters write in support of 
            the bill, "AB 493 strengthens the EBT system to ensure that 
            funds are used for their intended purpose - meeting a 
            recipient's basic needs."  

          3)Is This A Significant Problem  ? In June of 2010, the Los 
            Angeles Times ran a story highlighting the fact that CalWORKs 
            cash assistance could be accessed by recipients in card rooms 
            and Indian casinos. In response to the story, Governor 








                                                                  AB 493
                                                                  Page  3

            Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-09-10 banning the use 
            of EBT cards at ATMs located in casinos, card clubs and strip 
            clubs. The EBT data distributed by the Department of Social 
            Services (DSS) at the time shows that less than 1/10 of 1% of 
            EBT cash redemptions statewide took place in a casino or card 
            room.  In other words, out of $315 million in CalWORKs grants 
            that were redeemed through EBT cards in May of 2010, $237,000 
            was redeemed in Indian casinos and $17,000 was redeemed in 
            card rooms. In addition, data showed that only $12,000 had 
            been accessed at strip clubs over a three year period.

            While it is clear that CalWORKs recipients should not be using 
            their cash grants to gamble, it is not clear that is what was 
            happening in these cases. Unfortunately, there is no way to 
            track how the money obtained from those ATMs was ultimately 
            spent. It may be that those recipients lived in remote rural 
            areas and the ATMs at Indian casinos were the closest ones to 
            their location. It may be that CalWORKs recipients were 
            working in those casinos and withdrawing their cash benefits 
            from machines at their workplace.  And, as welfare rights 
            advocates pointed out, it may be that the fees charged at ATMs 
            in casinos and card rooms are less than those charged by 
            machines in other areas because casinos want to encourage 
            patrons to withdraw cash to facilitate their gambling. 

            Of course, it also may be that some of these CalWORKs 
            recipients were indeed withdrawing cash to gamble.  

           4)Committee Questions  . Current law states that no person 
            concerned with the administration of a public assistance 
            program shall dictate how any recipient shall expend the aid 
            granted to him (WIC 10501). This bill seeks to contradict that 
            statute and does pose a difficult policy question. While the 
            CalWORKs grant is intended to provide assistance with basic 
            necessities, should the state begin to prohibit the use of EBT 
            cards to purchase certain items that fall outside that 
            definition, as this bill does with alcohol and tobacco? In 
            addition, where should the state draw the line in developing 
            that policy? Should CalWORKs recipients be prohibited from 
            using their grant money to pay for cable television? To 
            purchase magazines? It is a difficult policy road to travel 
            down in terms of deciding how people should be allowed to 
            spend their money. In addition, it is unclear why CalWORKs 
            recipients would be singled out for these types of 
            prohibitions and Supplemental Security Income recipients, for 








                                                                  AB 493
                                                                  Page  4

            example, are not. 

            Further, nothing in this legislation would prohibit a CalWORKs 
            recipient from using their cash grant to purchase alcohol and 
            tobacco, nor would it prohibit them from using that grant in a 
            gambling establishment or strip club should they decide to do 
            so. CalWORKs recipients can withdraw their cash benefit from 
            their EBT card.  In the case of this bill, a recipient would 
            need to go to another ATM machine and withdraw their cash 
            before using it to purchase prohibited products. The 
            Legislature should consider whether or not it is prudent for 
            the state to invest millions of dollars in reprogramming and 
            increased fraud investigators for a policy that is unlikely to 
            change a recipient's behavior. 

           5)Opposition  . In opposition to the bill, the Western Center on 
            Law and Poverty writes, "AB 493 singles out poor people by 
            placing the restrictions only on the use of public funds 
            managed through the CalWORKs program and not for any other 
            publicly funded benefit.  If enacted, it would undermine the 
            goal of creating a dignified and mainstreamed experience for 
            EBT customers and so does the rhetoric that drives these kinds 
            of proposals.  Treating EBT customers differently than others 
            reinforces negative stereotypes about our low-income neighbors 
            and stymies our society's ability to envision an improved 
            future for them and their families." 

            Also in opposition, the California Welfare Directors 
            Association notes that "While it may seem logical to ban the 
            purchase of alcohol or tobacco products with CalWORKs funds, 
            given that these items are not essential to one's well-being, 
            starting the state down this path raises thorny questions 
            about what would be banned next and where the list would end.  
            Additionally, the EBT system cannot currently stop the 
            purchase of certain specified items, and would have to be 
            significantly reprogrammed to operate in this way." 

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916) 
          319-2081