With the state facing a $26 billion budget shortfall, social programs across California are cutting costs by limiting eligibility. So why are state lawmakers voting to enroll more people in Calfresh, the state's food stamp program, if there's not enough money to go around?
Because despite the social stigma attached to food stamp programs, lawmakers say they may actually help improve the economy at no cost to the state's ailing general fund.
That's the claim that assembly members such as Jim Beall, D-San Jose; Felipe Fuentes, D- Sylmar; and Nancy Skinner, D- Berkeley, have been making in recent efforts to get Calfresh benefits in the hands of more Californians.
"Food stamps are the number one economic stimulus tool," said Frances Chacon, a staff consultant for the Assembly Human Services Committee.
Because emergency food assistance programs like Calfresh are funded entirely by the federal government, the federal government generally requires changes within the system to be cost-neutral to state governments, making food stamp legislation popular during times of economic downturn.
Forty-four million Americans get food stamps today, compared to about 26 million five years ago. In 2006 the program cost U.S. taxpayers about $32 billion. In 2010 the cost had increased to $68 billion.
Proposed legislation authored by Assembly member Beall would set up a pilot program in two California cities that would use the Social Security database to seek out and enroll eligible seniors into the Calfresh program who aren't already receiving benefits.
"No other state has done this before, which is kind of amazing," Chacon said.
The bill passed through the Human Services Committee without any opposition on file and a long list of support from farmers, grocers, restaurateurs, senior advocates, and legislators.
Seniors represent the minority of Calfresh recipients, with only 10% of eligible seniors actually receiving benefits. And only 5% of seniors receiving Social Security benefits who are also eligible for Calfresh are currently receiving benefits, according to a study by Mathematica Policy Research.
Yet advocates say seniors are among the most vulnerable demographic when it comes to hunger, because the majority rely on fixed incomes that must be budgeted to cover rising medical costs along with rent and other standard living costs. That means seniors who are eligible for Calfresh but are not enrolled likely have to choose between paying for their medications and buying food every month, said Kerry Birnbach, a Nutrition Policy Advocate for CFPA, California Food Policy Advocates.
Still, social stigmas against relying on food stamps, limited transportation options, and complicated enrollment processes alienate the senior population from the Calfresh program.
"Many of the seniors who need our help have never received government assistance in their lives. They are middle class," said Shannon Lehey, Executive Director of Catholic Charities of California United.
"In Solano County, 80% of seniors we serve rely on us for emergency food assistance every month," said Lehey.
Mark Lowry of the Orange County Food Bank also testified that the growing population of aging baby boomers has overwhelmed food banks.
"Requests for emergency food assistance have doubled in the last two years but donations to the food bank have remained stagnant," said Lowry.
Part of the pilot program that would seek to enroll more eligible seniors in Calfresh calls for a federal waiver that would permit the state to share data from the Social Security Database as a means of finding eligible seniors and simplifying their enrollment process.
Allowing the Department of Social Services, which administers Calfresh, to share existing Social Security data could mean less paperwork and red tape for seniors, said Birnbach. Instead of requiring seniors to verify their monthly income with receipts or pay stubs, the pilot program would verify their income by referencing existing data from the Social Security database. In order to receive a federal waiver, the pilot program must be cost neutral to the state.
"This is a double edged sword," said Chacon, because while the federal government would pay to feed additional Calfresh recipients, the pilot project could leave California with a heavier caseload of Calfresh recipients long after the pilot project has ended. And the state is still responsible for 35 percent of the costs associated with administering the Calfresh program, with local county governments responsible for an additional 15% of administrative costs. If the pilot project were to be successful, however, sharing Social Security data might simplify the application process and lower administrative costs.
But while 35% may be a small fraction of the total costs, increased costs of any kind have become taboo in the current budget crisis culture.
That's why other initiatives pertaining to Calfresh are focused on streamlining the enrollment process and increasing caseload.
Assembly Bill 6, authored by Assembly member Fuentes, D-Sylmar, would do away with the fingerprinting as a means to verify Calfresh eligibility, and requires counties to report Calfresh statistics on a semi-annual basis instead of a quarterly basis.
Some critics say that eliminating fingerprinting could increase fraud in the program. A study by the Department of Social Services, for example, has claimed that fingerprinting saves $60 million a year in welfare costs statewide.
An Assembly staff analysis of the bill, meanwhile, projects that eliminating finger printing would increase food stamp rolls by 4.3 percent, at a cost to the federal government of $352 million. Not all of this would be due to fraud; some increase in the caseload would come from making the process easier.
Assembly bill 402, authored by Assembly member Skinner, D-Berkeley, would allow school districts to determine a child's eligibility in Calfresh based off of their school lunch program application.
But while increased caseloads could mean greater administrative burdens for the state, legislators are hoping that enrolling more eligible Californians in the Calfresh program will actually bring in more general fund revenues than are required to make the changes. That's because food stamps are known to have a high multiplier effect, meaning that for every $1 the state spends on the Calfresh program, it gains a $1.74, according to figures by the United States Department of Agriculture.
"That's a higher multiplier effect than any other social program," said Chacon.
But with such low Calfresh enrollment numbers among a growing population of seniors, California could actually be missing out on federal funds.
"The state is missing out on an estimated $4.9 billion in federal benefits per year due to low participation," stated a 2010 Calfresh report by CFPA.
Contact the writer: Jennifer Chaussee is a correspondent with the California Health Report at www.healthycal.org. This story is part of the California Budget Project, a partnership of the Union Tribune, The Orange County Register, and the California Health Report, online at healthycal.org. To see more stories about California and its economic problems go to ocregister.com/CaProject.