BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1998
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1998 (Achadjian)
As Amended April 12, 2012
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 8-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, | | |
| |Campos, Gordon, Hueso, | | |
| |Knight, Norby | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the board of supervisors (board) to
authorize county welfare directors to donate surplus computer
equipment directly to persons receiving specified public
benefits. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to authorize
the county welfare department to donate surplus computer
equipment directly to persons receiving public benefits under
one or more of the following programs: CalFresh; California
Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act (CalWORKs);
County Relief, General Relief, or General Assistance; or,
Medi-Cal.
2)Requires the board to make findings and declarations relating
to the public purpose served by the donation.
3)Requires the board to develop terms and conditions to govern
any donations made pursuant to this measure.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to
donate or lease any real or personal property that the board
declares to be surplus to a school or community college
district, a county children and families commission, or an
organization exempt from taxation pursuant to specified
provisions of federal law.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill would authorize county boards of
supervisors to authorize county welfare departments to donate
surplus computer equipment directly to individuals already
AB 1998
Page 2
receiving public benefits. This bill is sponsored by the County
of Santa Barbara.
The sponsor, Santa Barbara County, estimates that it surpluses
up to 100 computers per year from the Department of Social
Services (DSS), although it would "expect no more than half of
those (50) would go to DSS clients. Some would still go to
other county departments." The surplus equipment would be
depreciated computers from the county's CalWORKS, CalFresh, and
MediCal programs that have been "officially and legally
surplused under Federal and State rules, as required in the
Government Code." According to the author, the current process
for declaring property surplus is established by each board of
supervisors.
The pool of individuals receiving CalWORKS, CalFresh, and
MediCal benefits and therefore eligible to receive surplus
computer equipment under this bill is estimated to be
approximately 20,000 families.
According to the author, this bill would "allow a Board of
Supervisors to locally opt-in to amend their surplus property
plan to include the ability to donate surplus computer property
directly to �public assistance] recipients. Current Government
�C]ode does not provide the flexibility needed to get surplus
computers and computer equipment quickly into the hands of needy
low-income recipients of public assistance?without the
utilization of pass through agencies. AB 1998 would streamline
the donation process by allowing direct donation of surplus
computer equipment to low-income households. This would help
these individuals gain access to the type of computer technology
necessary to meet the conditions of receiving aid and give
recipients better access to online employment training and job
search information."
According to the sponsor, Santa Barbara County, counties should
have the authority to donate directly to individuals rather than
work through non-profit groups because: "�s]ome counties don't
have a non-profit with the capability of conducting this type of
distribution process. This is a true inefficiency for social
service departments as �federal government agencies] continue to
push electronic access by clients in our benefit programs."
Furthermore, "�i]n some counties, non-profits do not want to
engage in this process. And in some situations, the non-profit
AB 1998
Page 3
attempts to benefit from this arrangement in such a way as to
make it unbeneficial to the county to pursue it."
Additionally, using non-profits for donations can be costly:
"current law which requires going through non-profits has a
local cost attached to develop contracts and arrangements with
non-profits, conduct inventories, and conduct fiscal monitoring.
Our proposal 'cuts the middle man out' of the process and
allows us, with a Board approved process, to deal directly with
our clients with whom we already have regular contact. Current
law still allows the involvement of non-profits if that is
already working well in an individual county. Our proposal is
simply an additional option which some counties will find very
beneficial as they move toward more 'remote access' as a
business model, ultimately reducing administrative expenses
since clients will be able to access social services on-line,
without making multiple visits to our offices."
The sponsor also contends that the authority to donate surplus
computer equipment directly to needy families is better for
counties than trying to sell it because "then the state would
have to set up an additional fund that would have to be audited
etc. Direct donation would be much more effective and efficient
in getting the computers to the individuals who need them."
Finally, the author points out the permissive nature of the bill
and the possibility of routing donations to both non-profits and
individuals: "Non-profits are by no means excluded�.] I expect
in our county that we will split the available equipment and
still give some to a non-profit, but benefit program clients
will now be able to obtain equipment that has not been
previously available to them."
Nevertheless, by giving surplus computers directly to
individuals, the county would lose the opportunity to work with
the local non-profit or educational sectors to put the equipment
to a more public use, like making terminals available in a
school, library, or community employment center.
The Legislature may wish to consider whether or not the private
use of surplus public property is the best means to achieve the
larger public purpose of increasing employment among public
assistance recipients.
AB 1998
Page 4
The Legislature considered two similar surplus property bills
during the 2001-02 Session.
AB 314 (Chan), Chapter 18, Statutes of 2001, authorized the
board of supervisors to donate or lease any real or personal
property that the board declares to be surplus to a school or
community college district, a county children and families
commission, or a nonprofit corporation organized for the care,
teaching, or training of children, developmentally disabled
children, or Native Americans. The bill received unanimous
support in the Assembly Local Government Committee (11-0), as
well as on the Assembly Floor (77-0).
SB 1815 (Chesbro), Chapter 97, Statutes of 2002, added
tax-exempt organizations that provide health or human services
to the list of organizations to which counties may donate or
lease surplus property. The bill received unanimous support in
the Assembly Local Government Committee (11-0) on consent, as
well as on the Assembly Floor (72-0).
Support arguments: According to the author, this bill would
empower counties to donate surplus computer property directly to
public assistance recipients, allowing the county to streamline
the donation process, save time and money, and enable low-income
individuals to better utilize computer technology to increase
their employment opportunities.
Opposition arguments: This bill would allow counties to give
public property directly to individuals without clear
accountability. By failing to properly utilize the experience
and connections of the non-profit sector, surplus property will
likely go to a personal use rather than a broader public use,
resulting in reduced access and a duplication of effort.
Analysis Prepared by : Hank Dempsey / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0003328
AB 1998
Page 5