BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1560
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1560 (Fuentes) - As Introduced: January 30, 2012
Policy Committee: Human
ServicesVote:4 - 2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill eliminates the CalFresh gross income test for any
individual who is a member of a household that includes someone
who receives, or is eligible to receive, medical assistance
under the Medi-Cal program and is determined to be categorically
eligible for CalFresh. Applicants, however, would still be
subject to a net income test in order to determine benefit
levels.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Based on a 2012 Mathematica Policy Research estimate,
approximately 74,000 new households (227,000 individuals)
would become eligible for CalFresh. However, given
California's low participation rate, Mathematica's estimate
assumes that only 5,000 households (9,000 individuals) will
actually participate.
Administrative costs for those 5,000 new cases could be up to
$787,000 ($393,000 GF) per year and result in approximately
$650,000 in additional federal Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance Program (SNAP) (CalFresh) funding.
2)There are 1.2 million Medi-Cal recipients currently eligible
for CalFresh but not participating in the program. If
expanding categorical eligibility causes five percent of these
recipients to participate in CalFresh because a barrier to
participation is removed and it becomes easier to apply for
and receive benefits, it would result in an additional 60,000
individuals receiving nutrition benefits.
AB 1560
Page 2
Administrative costs for those individuals would be
approximately $3 million ($1.5 million GF) and based on the
average monthly benefit for a non-CalWORKs CalFresh case
($335.34) this bill could result in up to $80 million in
additional federal SNAP (CalFresh) funding. Those federal
benefits would generate close to $2 million in GF revenue
through increased sales taxes.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The intent of this legislation is to utilize an
enrollment strategy that streamlines CalFresh eligibility for
Medi-Cal recipients by removing the gross income test for
CalFresh for families that have at least one person who has
already been deemed eligible for Medi-Cal. Further, once
enrolled in CalFresh, any children in those families would be
automatically certified for free school meals. The author
notes, however, that families will still be subject to a net
income test to determine both their eligibility and their
benefit level. Generally, families with high housing,
healthcare or child care costs would benefit from this
legislation.
The author argues that connecting CalFresh eligibility to
Medi-Cal eligibility in this way helps ensure that low-income
households can support healthy living because nutrition
assistance would now be offered hand-in-hand with Medi-Cal,
thus connecting nutrition as a key component of proper
healthcare.
Medi-Cal currently reaches 7 million low-income Californians.
The sponsors, the California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA) note
that this legislation provides an opportunity to more easily
connect those recipients with CalFresh and subsequently, free
school meals. In 2014, with the implementation of health care
reform, an additional 2 million people will enroll in
Medi-Cal; aligning program eligibility now will have a
significant impact on current participants and will ensure
that new enrollees also receive these federal nutrition
benefits.
2)Background . CalFresh eligibility is based on several factors
including income, disability, age, and citizenship status.
The maximum allowable gross income is 130% of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines (FPG). Households with elderly or disabled
AB 1560
Page 3
members are not subject to gross income criteria but must have
a net monthly income at or below the FPG. Other households
must meet both gross and net monthly income tests.
Federal law gives states options to improve access to
nutrition assistance. Families authorized to receive any
benefit or service funded by the federal Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant can be deemed
categorically eligible for SNAP benefits and do not need to
make a separate application and meet additional eligibility or
paperwork requirements. While categorical eligibility based
upon receipt of cash aid was long a feature of federal policy,
in 1999 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
issued guidance under the 1996 welfare reform law and expanded
the scope of the option to include receipt or eligibility for
services as well as cash. In addition, once eligible for food
stamps, the federal Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization
Act of 2004 provides that children are automatically certified
to receive free school meals.
In 2008, California used categorical eligibility to
successfully remove the asset test from CalFresh (AB 433
(Beall), Chapter 625, Statutes of 2008). Other recent
legislation removed additional barriers to CalFresh by, for
example, changing from quarterly to semi-annual reporting, and
eliminating finger imaging requirements (AB 6 (Fuentes),
Chapter 501, Statutes of 2011).
3)Food Stamps and Hunger . According to research by the
University of California at Los Angeles, over 2.2 million
Californians cannot always afford enough food and almost
one-third, or 658,000 of these adults experience episodes of
hunger. According to the US Department of Agriculture, only
about half of eligible food stamp recipients participate in
the program due to programmatic and administrative barriers.
California ranks last in the nation with a participation rate
of 39 percent by eligible people.
4)School Meals Program . School meal programs are also
underutilized. Only half of income eligible students receive
lunch at school, and 18% receive school breakfasts. Some
low-income children with incomes between 133% and 185% of the
federal poverty level, currently ineligible for food stamps,
may not receive school meals because their families cannot
afford the 40 cents required for a reduced price lunch and 30
AB 1560
Page 4
cents for breakfast. The children in new food stamps
households would be eligible for free school meals.
5)Additional Federal Child Welfare Services Funds. The federal
government awards funding to states through the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families (PSSF) program that can be used in the
Child Welfare Services program for efforts to reduce the
incidences of child abuse and neglect, and to promote
stability and permanency for at-risk children within families.
The federal government sets a capped amount for funding and
then awards those funds to states and territories based upon
the number of children in each state who are receiving food
stamps. Despite serving over 25% of the national child welfare
caseload, California receives less than 15% of the federal
PSSF funds because of the low food stamps participation rate.
To the extent this legislation increases food stamps
participation among families with children, California's share
of the PSSF funding should increase.
6)Related Legislation AB 433 (Beall), Chapter 625, Statutes of
2008, originally included a proposal to make Medi-Cal
recipients categorically eligible for CalFresh. That bill was
amended to eliminate the language pertaining to the gross
income test and retain the language removing the asset test
for CalFresh applicants.
In 2006, AB 2205 (Evans), included Categorical Eligibility to
remove the asset test and raise the income threshold for
Medi-Cal recipients in order to boost CalFresh participation.
That bill was vetoed due to cost concerns.
Categorical eligibility was contained in the original version
of AB 696 (Chu) and passed the Assembly with that provision.
That issue was deleted in the Senate Appropriations Committee,
and the bill, containing only a repeal of the finger imaging
requirement, was vetoed.
In 2002, AB 2415 (Keeley), contained a provision for
categorical eligibility along with the requirement to
implement quarterly reporting in the CalWORKs program. That
bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee because
quarterly reporting was implemented through the budget.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
AB 1560
Page 5
319-2081