BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 2013|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 2013
Author: Senate Health and Human Services Committee, et al
Amended: 6/21/00
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/5/00
AYES: Escutia, Haynes, Figueroa, Mountjoy, Polanco, Solis,
Vasconcellos
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-1, 5/1/00
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Karnette, McPherson,
Perata, Vasconcellos
NOES: Kelley
SENATE FLOOR : 38-1, 5/18/00
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Brulte, Burton, Chesbro,
Costa, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Haynes, Hughes,
Johannessen, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley, Knight, Leslie,
Lewis, McPherson, Monteith, Mountjoy, Murray, O'Connell,
Ortiz, Peace, Perata, Polanco, Poochigian, Rainey,
Schiff, Sher, Solis, Soto, Speier, Vasconcellos, Wright
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 61-5, 8/10/00 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Food Stamp Program: application form
SOURCE : California Food Policy Advocates
DIGEST : This bill requires the State Department of
Social Services to develop and implement simplified and
shortened application forms for the Food Stamp Program.
CONTINUED
SB 2013
Page
2
Assembly Amendments:
1.Specify that the simplified and shorter application form
is for nonassistance food stamp cases.
2.Require DSS to permit a county sufficient time to
reprogram its automated system before requiring the
county to implement the simplified form.
3.Requires DSS to report to the Legislature by July 1,
2001, on implementation of the simplified form.
ANALYSIS : Currently, the Food Stamp Program application
consists of two parts. The first part is a simplified form
to gather information to process expedited food stamp
services for those who need food stamps immediately. The
second form is a longer form with questions necessary for
the county welfare department to determine food stamp
eligibility. In addition to these two forms, which are
used for food stamp applicants only, multi-program forms
have been developed and are currently in use, which include
the CalWORKS, food stamp and Medi-Cal programs.
This bill:
1.Requires DSS to work with stakeholder groups in
developing the form, evaluate using the form for Medi-Cal
and CalWORKS applications, and seek any necessary federal
approvals to implement the form.
2.Requires DSS to permit a county sufficient time to
reprogram its automated system before requiring the
county to implement the simplified form.
3.Requires DSS to report to the Legislature by July 1,
2001, on implementation of the simplified form.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
1.Minor absorbable costs to CDSS to develop the simplified
application form. CDSS has already begun to meet with
stakeholder groups on this effort.
SB 2013
Page
3
2.Unknown reimbursable one-time costs to counties, likely
over $200,000 from the State General Fund spread over two
to four fiscal years, to the extent the new form requires
reprogramming of county automated systems. For many
counties, however, these costs should be absorbable
within a larger effort that will be undertaken in the
next two to four years to incorporate quarterly reporting
for CalWORKS and food stamps, pursuant to AB 510
(Wright), Chapter 826, Statutes of 1999.
Under AB 510, a five-county demonstration project in Los
Angeles and four other counties will test switching from
monthly to quarterly reporting for CalWORKS and food
stamps. These five counties will be reprogramming their
automated systems within Fiscal Year 2000-01 to change to
a quarterly reporting system (costs are included in the
2000 Budget Act). If the evaluation due January 1, 2003,
indicates quarterly reporting should be implemented
statewide, other counties will phase in implementation
between January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2005.
Since this bill requires DSS to allow counties sufficient
time to reprogram their automated systems to implement
the new form, the bulk of reprogramming costs in all
likelihood will be absorbable as part of the AB 510
reprogramming effort.
3.Unknown offsetting savings in county NAFS administrative
costs, likely over $500,000 (State General Fund)
annually, to the extent the new form reduces county
eligibility worker time to process NAFS applications.
Using Fiscal Year 2000-01 projected caseloads and costs,
every five minutes in reduced eligibility worker time per
case will generate $511,000 General Fund savings annually
($1 million total funds). This estimate is 257,595
households, and cost-hour for an NAFS worker of $47.62,
assuming 50 percent sate sharing (i.e., all counties are
assumed to be at their maintenance of effort level for
NAFS administrative costs).
4.No state fiscal impact from any news NAFS cases as a
result of the new form. The federal government pays 100
percent of the cost of food stamp benefits.
SB 2013
Page
4
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/11/00)
California Food Policy Advocates (source)
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Western Center on Law and Poverty
California Church IMPACT
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative
Jericho
California Catholic Conference
California Dietetic Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/11/00)
State Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the California Food
Policy Advocates (CFPA), the sponsor of this bill,
California has historically had one of the lowest rates of
food stamp participation in the country. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the
food stamp program, reported the State's 57 percent
participation rate in 1994 was the second lowest in the
nation, while more recent studies by CFPA indicate only 52
percent of eligible, non-immigrant Californians received
food stamps in 1998. Supporters attribute the low rate of
participation to cumbersome paperwork and administrative
requirements, including the current nine-page application
form. The USDA found that individuals must spend five
hours and make at least two trips to the welfare office to
complete the food stamp application process.
This bill requires a shorter, simpler application form in
order to simplify the food stamp application process.
Supporters note other simplification efforts are underway
for Healthy Families and Medi-Cal. Moreover, other states
have simplified their forms: Texas uses a four-page,
bilingual application form, while Tennessee uses a two-page
form fore the food stamp, TANF, and Medicaid programs.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The State Department of Finance
is opposed to this bill for the following reasons:
1.There would be unknown, but presumably significant, costs
SB 2013
Page
5
associated with the implementation of a new form as it
would require the reprogramming of the current data
systems to capture significant program data elements at
the state and county levels. County consortia systems
are presently designed in accordance with current
application forms. The costs of conducting the required
automated system reprogramming at the county level would
be borne by the State General Fund and Federal Trust
Fund.
2.The DSS reports a need for at least two new Associate
Governmental Program Analysts at a cost of approximately
$140,000 ($105,000 General Fund; $35,000 Federal Trust
Fund) due to increased workload associated with this
bill. We note that the provision of any new positions
due to increased workload associated with this bill would
be subject to the normal budget process.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn, Bates, Baugh,
Bock, Brewer, Briggs, Calderon, Campbell, Cardenas,
Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Cunneen, Davis,
Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra, Florez, Floyd, Gallegos,
Jackson, Keeley, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert, Leonard,
Longville, Lowenthal, Machado, Maddox, Margett, Mazzoni,
Migden, Nakano, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Papan,
Pescetti, Reyes, Romero, Scott, Shelley, Steinberg,
Strom-Martin, Thomson, Torlakson, Villaraigosa, Vincent,
Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright,
Zettel, Hertzberg
NOES: Ackerman, Havice, House, McClintock, Olberg
CP:kb 8/11/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****