Understanding and Improving The Food Stamp Program

Understanding and
Improving the Food Stamp

Program in California
A Primer and Policy Guide for Advocates
Understanding and
Improving the Food Stamp
Program in California
A Primer and Policy Guide for Advocates
Autumn Arnold
George Manalo-LeClair
Amy Marinacci
& Stacy Robinson
Understanding and Improving the
Food Stamp Program in California
November 2001
California Food Policy Advocates

116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 530
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone (415) 777-4422
Fax (415) 777-4466
Email cfpa@cfpa.net
www.cfpa.net
California Food Policy Advocates
California Food Policy Advocates is a public policy and

advocacy organization whose mission is to improve the health
and well-being of low-income Californians by increasing their
access to nutritious and affordable food.
CFPA is California’s only statewide advocacy organization

with a focus on food and nutrition for low-income people.
The organization’s work emphasizes the critical importance of
preserving, improving and expanding participation in the
federal food programs, the state’s strongest tool in
overcoming malnutrition and hunger. CFPA works with
community-based organizations to identify critical food access
problems and to mobilize effective solutions to them.
CFPA uses research and analysis, advocacy, and community

education and mobilization to ensure that every Californian
has access to the nutrition required to grow, to learn, and to
lead a productive life.
Funding for California Food Policy Advocates’ food stamp

work comes from The California Endowment, The California
Wellness Foundation, MAZON: A Jewish Response to
Hunger, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation,
Rosenberg Foundation, Share Our Strength and Wallis
Foundation. We are truly grateful for this support.
November 14, 2001
Dear Friends:
California Food Policy Advocates is pleased to share with you our “Understanding and
Improving the Food Stamp Program: A Primer and Policy Guide for Advocates.” This guide is
designed to provide up-to-date, non-technical information about how the Food Stamp Program
works—and doesn’t work—for the 1.7 million Californians who currently receive food stamp
benefits. It also provides detailed information about the many opportunities we have to make
the program a more viable tool in the fight against hunger.
California is fortunate to have a strong network of advocates, food providers, administrators

and others who believe that no one in California should experience the devastating effects of
hunger. As our nation’s largest and most comprehensive hunger relief program, the Food
Stamp Program is the most effective vehicle for achieving this important goal. In California,
however, fewer than half of all eligible people participate in the Food Stamp Program.
Research, anecdotal evidence and common sense all lead to the conclusion that low
participation results from program complexity, burdensome paperwork, lack of awareness,
misinformation about eligibility, and inadequate benefits.
The Food Stamp Program’s complexity has deterred too many Californians from getting food
stamps. We do not want this same complexity to limit the effectiveness of our advocacy. To
assist advocates in eliminating critical barriers to food stamp participation, this guide focuses
separately on federal-, state- and county-level opportunities for change. Though some issues
can be addressed at all three levels of government, this division reflects our current thinking
about the most effective and expeditious way to improve the program. We have also included a
brief history of food stamps, an overview of eligibility and benefits, recipient characteristics,
information about county activities, and contact information for elected officials.
This year in particular is a critical time for pursuing improvements in the Food Stamp Program.
Congress is looking to reauthorize the Food Stamp Program before the end of the year, and our
nation as a whole is adjusting to our new economic and political environment. We look
forward to your continuing partnership in advocating for changes that will improve the health
and well being of millions of Californians.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Hecht
Executive Director, CFPA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents............................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 7
A brief history................................................................................................................................. 8
Who receives benefits?.................................................................................................................. 10
Administration and funding ........................................................................................................ 13
Benefits and eligibility .................................................................................................................. 15
Use of benefits............................................................................................................................... 18
Fraud and trafficking.................................................................................................................... 19
Federal advocacy.......................................................................................................................... 20
Federal reauthorization .......................................................................................................... 21

Federal immigrant restorations.............................................................................................. 22
ABAWD restorations.............................................................................................................. 24
Adequacy of benefits .............................................................................................................. 26
Program simplification........................................................................................................... 28
Quality control........................................................................................................................ 29
Unrealistic income limits ........................................................................................................ 31
Food Stamps in California ............................................................................................................ 32
Barriers to Participation
Monthly reporting.................................................................................................................. 33
Lengthy application................................................................................................................ 34
Unrealistic auto resource limit................................................................................................ 35
Finger imaging requirement................................................................................................... 36
Extending benefits to ineligible people

Help for legal immigrants....................................................................................................... 37
Help for high-unemployment areas....................................................................................... 38
Ineligibility for SSI recipients ................................................................................................. 39
No help for drug felons in recovery ....................................................................................... 41
Opportunities for improving participation

Food Stamp otreach ................................................................................................................ 42
Transitional benefits ............................................................................................................... 43
Streamlining programs........................................................................................................... 44
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)............................................................................................ 46
Food stamps at the county level ................................................................................................... 48
Ofice hours and location......................................................................................................... 49

County-level outreach ............................................................................................................ 51
Individual ABAWD exemptions............................................................................................ 53
APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................... 54
INTRODUCTION
For millions of Americans, the federally funded Food Stamp Program is a lifeline in a constant
struggle to put food on the table. As our nation’s largest and most comprehensive hunger relief
program, the Food Stamp Program has been the cornerstone of domestic food assistance since the
late 1970s. It currently provides an average monthly benefit of $73 per person1 to approximately
17 million people in the United States. 2
In theory, the Food Stamp Program uses a simple mechanism to improve nutrition among low-
income households. Qualifying families and individuals receive coupons each month that they
use to purchase food items at their local grocery store. According to the Food Stamp Act of
1977, the program is designed to help low-income households avert hunger by allowing them to
select and purchase appropriate food through “normal channels of trade.”3
These “normal channels of trade”—more commonly known as grocery stores and farmers
markets—ensure that the Food Stamp Program also supports local and national economies.
Grocery stores throughout the country redeem roughly $15 billion in food stamps every year,
and these benefits have a positive ripple effect throughout the community.
Though the basic food stamp mechanism is simple, the implementation of the Food Stamp
Program is notoriously complex. Current and potential participants—the majority of whom are
working families with children—are subject to restrictive eligibility requirements, burdensome
paperwork, and a confusing maze of bureaucracy. During the past 25 years, the program has
not changed significantly to reflect the changing needs of food stamp recipients or the changing
face of hunger in America.
Food stamp participation has plummeted by almost 40 percent since 1994—with an even
greater drop in California. Low participation has very real consequences: millions of eligible
people in California and throughout the United States are not getting the food assistance to
which the federal government has determined they are entitled. In addition, the Food Stamp
Program does not currently provide any assistance to a growing sector of hard-working people
who earn wages that are too high to qualify for food stamps but too low to buy adequate food
and keep up with the rising costs of housing, transportation and child care.
The Food Stamp Program has tremendous potential to ensure that vulnerable families and
individuals do not experience the devastating effects of hunger. During the past few years,
advocates in California have achieved significant progress in improving the Food Stamp
Program. Through persistent advocacy at the federal, state and local levels, advocates and
administrators can continue to transform the Food Stamp Program into a more viable strategy
for ending hunger in California.
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Stamp Program: Average Monthly
Benefit Per Person, 26 October 2001.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Stamp Program: Average Monthly
Participation (Persons), 26 October 2001

3 7 USC, sec 2011, chapter 51.
Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Prepared by California Food Policy Advocates (www.cfpa.net)
November 2001
Page 7
A BRIEF HISTORY
The Food Stamp Program began at the end of the Great Depression as a limited, four-year
program to eliminate farm surpluses. The program was terminated after the start of World War
II, which spurred the nation’s economy and provided an outlet for America’s surplus crops. 4
During the 1950s, some members of Congress pushed to reinstate the Food Stamp Program, an
by 1960, food stamps were a part of the Democratic party’s campaign platform. As one of his
first acts in office, President John F. Kennedy established pilot food stamp programs in West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, eastern Kentucky, northern Minnesota, southern Illinois and Detroit.5
After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson promoted food stamps as a

strategy in the War on Poverty. In 1964, Congress created a permanent food stamp program.
During this phase of the program, participants were required to pay a cash amount for their
food stamps based on their family size and income. Despite its role in keeping many poor
families from participating, the food stamp purchase requirement was not eliminated until
1977. 6
Under the 1964 version of the Food Stamp Program, states could determine whether to
participate, how to establish eligibility, and which counties would implement the program. By
1969, food stamps were available in approximately half of the counties in the United States.
The program continued to evolve in the 1970s. Amendments in 1970 set national standards for
eligibility, and food stamps were available in every county of every state by 1975.7 The Food
Stamp Act of 1977 abolished the purchase requirement and created the program’s current
structure.
Aside from changes made early in the Reagan administration that temporarily halted the
program’s growth, Congress eased eligibility restrictions during the 1980s and early 1990s.
Food stamp participation reached record levels; by 1994, slightly more than 10 percent of the
U.S. population received food stamps. 8
An intense backlash against low-income families and reliance on welfare culminated in 1996,
when Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
This welfare reform measure ended entitlement to cash assistance and made deep cuts in the
Food Stamp Program. Legal immigrants were hit hardest by these cuts: the initial law made
non-citizens ineligible for food stamps. In addition, able-bodied adults without children
became subject to strict work requirements in order to receive food stamp benefits.
4 Peter K. Eisinger, Toward an End to Hunger in America (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press,
1998), p. 38.
5 Eisinger, p. 38
6 Eisinger, p. 39.
7 Eisinger, 39.
8 Eisinger, 40.

November 2001
Page 8
In all, food stamp cuts accounted for just over 50 percent of the $54 billion in non-Medicaid
savings from the welfare reform law. In addition to cuts targeted toward immigrants and
adults without children, overall food stamp benefits were cut almost 20 percent by 2002.9
In 1997 and 1998, the federal government made several important restorations of benefits to
young and elderly legal immigrants. Currently, all legal immigrants are eligible for federal
food stamps except for legal immigrants who entered the United States after August 22, 1996
AND adults between the ages of 18 and 64 who have fewer than 40 quarters of work.
California and twelve other states responded to these cuts by creating state-funded food stamp
programs for legal immigrants who are ineligible under federal law. California’s legal
immigrant program, called California Food Assistance Program (CFAP), operates seamlessly
with the federal Food Stamp Program. As a result, all legal immigrants in California are able to
get food stamps if they meet the program’s eligibility requirements.
Despite federal restorations, food stamp participation fell sharply among legal immigrants and
their citizen children after the welfare law was enacted. Nationally, participation in the Food
Stamp Program by legal immigrants dropped by 83 percent between 1994 and 1998, compared
with a 28-percent drop among the general food stamp population during the same period of
time.10
Significant drops in overall food stamp participation prompted several administrative changes
at the national level. In 2000, the Clinton administration created a number of state options to
help make the Food Stamp Program more accessible for working families. Because of these
changes, states now have the option to reduce reporting requirements, ease restrictions on car
ownership, and extend categorical eligibility to families receiving services funded by
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
This fall, Congress has an opportunity to make sweeping improvements to the Food Stamp
Program when it reauthorizes the program this fall (for more information on reauthorization,
please see page 21). Advocates are hopeful that during reauthorization, Congress will reverse
many of the food stamp cuts enacted in 1996. Congress can also take steps to modernize and
simplify the program so that it better meets the needs of hungry people throughout the United
States.
9 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Depth of the Food Stamp Cuts in the Final Welfare Bill, 14
August 1996. p. 1.
10 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, National Food Stamp
Conversation 2000, Summer 2000, p. 9.

November 2001
Page 9
WHO RECEIVES BENEFITS?
Unlike many other health and nutrition programs, the Food Stamp Program does not seek to
target a specific population like children, pregnant women or senior citizens. Instead, it is
designed to provide assistance to hungry people regardless of their age, gender, marital or
family status. It is one of the few federal programs that has maintained its status as a federal
entitlement program for people who need assistance in making ends meet.
Earned Income and resources

For the first time ever, the majority of food stamp households in California have earned
income.11 This reflects an significant increase in the percentage of food stamp households with
earnings. In 1991, just 19 percent of food stamp households had earned income.12 It also
reflects a California’s significantly higher percentage of households with earned income than
the United States as a whole.13
At the same time, food stamp recipients in California have very little income and few resources.
Only 10 percent have income above the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line is
$14,630. Thirty-seven percent have incomes at or below half the poverty line. 14
Nearly 75 percent of all food stamp households have no countable resources, which include
cash, checking accounts, savings accounts, stocks or bonds. Among households that do have
countable resources, the average value is $418. Only 8 percent of food stamp households have
more than $500 in countable resources. 15
Earned Income
United States California
Federal Households State Households
27%
No Earned Income No Earned Income
47%
Earned Income 53% Earned Income
73%
11 California Department of Social Services, Food Stamp Household Characteristics Survey FFY 1999.
12 US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households
Federal Fiscal Year 1998, June 1999.
13 US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Advanced Report: Characteristics of Food
Stamp Households Federal Fiscal Year 2000, June 2001.

14 USDA National Food Stamp Conversation 2000, p. 16.
15 USDA, National Food Stamp Conversation, p.19.

November 2001
Page 10
Age of participants
The Food Stamp Program serves a wide range of people in need of food assistance, but it is
most frequently a child nutrition program. In 2000, 80 percent of all food stamp benefits went
to household with children.16 As depicted in the chart below, California’s food stamp recipients
are more likely to be children than the rest of the United States.
While children continue to make up a significant percentage of recipients, California has seen
significant drops in the number of children participating. Unfortunately, food stamp participation
is dropping faster than child poverty. During federal fiscal year 1997, child poverty dropped only
3 percent, while children’s participation in the Food Stamp Program dropped by 10 percent.17
Age
34%
Children Children
49% 51% Adults Adults
66%
Change: The percentage of participants who are Change: The number of children participating
children has remained relatively stable over time. dropped from 1998 to 1999, and the percentage of
At the same time, the percentage of households with recipients who are children dropped from 68
children has declined steadily since 1992, with percent in 1998.
dramatic drops occurring between 1998 and 2000.18
Citizenship Status
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 greatly limited eligibility for
food stamps for hundreds of thousands to immigrants. Subsequent action restored some
federal benefits to immigrants and California has restored benefits to legal immigrants ineligible
under federal law (see page 22 for more information about legal immigrants). Because of our
state-funded immigrant program, California has a greater percentage of non-citizens receiving
food stamps than the country as a whole.19
16 US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Advanced Report: Characteristics of Food
Stamp Households Federal Fiscal Year 2000, June 2001.
17 . United States General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to Declining
Participation, July 1999, p. 10.

18 USDA, Advanced Report.
19 USDA, Advanced Report and CDSS, Food Stamp Household Characteristic Survey, FFY 1999.

November 2001
Page 11
Citizenship Status
4% 12%
Citizen Citizen
Non-citizen Non-citizen
96% 88%
Change: There was an 83 percent drop in food Change: There was a slight increase in the
stamp participation by legal immigrants from 1994 number of non-citizens receiving food stamps in
to 1998, due primarily to eligibility restrictions California from 1998 to 1999 due to creation and
established in 1996.20 expansion of the California Food Assistance
Program for immigrants.
Ethnicity
A greater percentage of food stamp recipients in California are Hispanic compared to the rest of
the country and to other racial/ethnic groups in California.21
Ethnicity
Other Native
1% Other Asian
American
2% or PI
Asian 9%
4% White
Vietnamese 25%
Hispanic 4%
19% White
39%
African-
Hispanic
American
African- 44%
18%
American
35%
20 USDA, National Conversation on Food Stamps 2000.

21 USDA, Advanced Report and CDSS, Food Stamp Household Characteristic Survey, FFY 1999.

November 2001
Page 12
ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDING
The Food Stamp Program is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture,
which funds all food stamp benefits and 50 percent of states’ administrative costs. In 2000, the
total federal cost of the food stamp program was $17 billion, including $15 billion in food stamp
benefits.
States and counties share the remaining 50 percent of administrative costs, with the state
providing 70 percent and counties providing 30 percent of the state/county share. States must
also pay for any food stamp benefits extended to people ineligible under federal rules. For
example, California has extended food stamp benefits to recent legal immigrants who are
federally ineligible. California pays the federal government for these food stamp benefits and
does not receive any administrative funding for this portion of its caseload.
Because the Food Stamp Program is a federal entitlement program, basic eligibility criteria and
benefits levels are the same in every state. States do have the authority to make limited changes
in some eligibility criteria, including some work requirements, auto resource limits and the use
of categorical eligibility.
In addition, many administrative decisions within the Food Stamp Program are controlled by
states and counties. For example, each state develops its own application, while counties
determine their food stamp office hours.
The chart on the following page describes the division of responsibility among federal, state and
county food stamp administration. It also outlines the opportunities for change at each level of
the Food Stamp Program.

November 2001
Page 13
The Food Stamp Program: Division of Responsibilities and Opportunities for Change
FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES STATE RESPONSIBILITIES COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
§ Setting benefits levels § Developing food stamp § Processing food stamp

§ Determining federal applications and reporting applications
eligibility for specific forms § Conducting food stamp
categories of people (e.g. legal § Determining frequency of interviews
immigrants) reports and recertification § Issuing benefits
§ Setting income limits for periods § Processing reports
eligibility § Funding benefits for legal § Re-certifying cases
§ Establishing rules for assets immigrants ineligible under § Providing funding for 15
§ Establishing federal work federal law percent of administrative costs
requirements § Providing funding for 35 § Utilizing California’s finger and
§ Developing and enforcing percent of total administrative photo imaging systems
quality control systems costs § Operating Food Stamp
§ Providing funding for food § Planning for and Employment and Training
stamp benefits implementing Electronic programs
§ Providing funding for half of Benefits Transfer § Planning for and implementing
states’ administrative costs § Implementing mechanisms Electronic Benefits Transfer
§ Setting policies for benefits for fraud prevention and § Implementing mechanisms for
issuance (e.g. coupons and quality control fraud prevention and quality
Electronic Benefits Transfer) control
Opportunities for federal change Opportunities for state change Opportunities for county change
§
§ Restoring federal food stamp § Ending monthly reporting § Extending office hours to make
eligibility to all excluded § Changing the auto resource food stamps more accessible
groups, including legal limit using federal rules § Using individual exemptions
immigrants § Establishing categorical for ABAWDs
§ Eliminating time limits for eligibility using federal rules § Outstationing caseworkers at
able-bodied adults without § Requesting “Labor Surplus non-food stamp office sites
dependents (ABAWDs) Area” waivers for ABAWDs § Using and promoting
§ Increasing food stamp § Increasing food stamp alternative methods of
benefits participation through application (e.g., phone, mail or
§ Raising income limits outreach funding fax)
§ Improving the quality control § Establishing transitional § Increasing food stamp
system benefits for welfare leavers participation through outreach
§ Improving program access § Restoring eligibility to people activities
through overall simplification convicted of a drug felony § Streamlining food stamp
§ Creating new policies to § Streamlining food stamp enrollment with other health,
increase participation and enrollment with other health, nutrition and work support
serve more hungry people. nutrition, and work support programs
programs
§ Evaluating California’s finger
imaging system
§ Creating new policies to
increase participation and
serve more hungry people
BENEFITS AND ELIGIBILITY
Benefits
As a federal entitlement program, the Food Stamp Program is designed to provide benefits to
anyone who meets the program’s eligibility, application, and reporting requirements. Food
stamp benefits are awarded on a sliding scale based on the size of the household and the
household’s income. The benefits formula also takes into consideration some key household
expenses, including rent, utilities, health care, and child care. For more detailed information about
how to calculate food stamp benefits, please refer to Appendix F for CFPA’s benefits estimation worksheet.
Benefit levels range from $10 to $135 per person per month, with an average monthly benefit of
$73.22 At roughly $0.80 per meal, these modest benefits are intended to supplement a household’s
existing food budget. Most recipient households report that their food stamps do not last through
the month, leaving them with few resources for purchasing food. Once their food stamps are gone,
many people end up in line at soup kitchens, food pantries, and other charitable food programs.
Food stamp benefits can be used only for the purchase of food, as well as for seeds and plants
that produce food. Food stamps cannot be used to buy vitamins or medicines, alcohol, pet food,
or most hot food that has already been prepared. In most counties of California, benefits are
issued in the form of paper coupons that can be redeemed at authorized retailers such as
grocery stores and farmers markets. These retailers then receive face-value reimbursement for
food stamp coupons through USDA.
Eligibility23
Eligibility for the Food Stamp Program is based on a household’s financial resources and other,
non-financial characteristics. A household is defined as any group of people that lives together
and purchases and prepares food together. Food stamp eligibility criteria are generally the
same in every county of every state, though states now have the flexibility to change rules
pertaining to car ownership, able-bodied adults without dependents, and people who have
been convicted of a drug felony. Applicants must also meet the application, verification, and
interview requirements established by their county. To qualify for food stamps, each household
must meet the following financial criteria:
• Gross income limits. Most households must have a pre-tax income below 130 percent
of the federal poverty line for their family size. The following chart shows the
maximum pre-tax income that a family can have and still be eligible for food stamps.
These amounts are updated each year to adjust for inflation. Updated information can
be found at http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/menu/apps/eligibility/income/incomechart.htm.
22USDA, Average Monthly Benefit.

23Please see CFPA’s Comprehensive Guide to the Food Stamp Program in California for technical information
about financial eligibility criteria in California. Information can also be found in the recipient eligibility
section of the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service website at www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/RecipElig.HTM.

November 2001
Page 15
Household size Gross Monthly Income Limit (effective until 9/30/02)
1 $931
2 $1,258
3 $1,585
4 $1,913
5 $2,240
6 $2,567
7 $2,894
8 $3,221
+1 +$328
• Deductions. During the application process, each household is allowed to take

deductions based on their expenses for housing, child care, and utilities. They can also
take a deduction for medical expenses if someone in the household is elderly or
disabled. Each household is also allowed a 20-percent deduction on any earned income
as well as a standard deduction of $134. Most deductions are limited and do not reflect
the a household’s actual out-of-pocket expenses. Because benefits are awarded on a sliding
scale based on net income, the more deductions a household has, the higher their benefits.
Last year, California Food Policy Advocates pursued a change in the utility expense
deduction to help ease the financial burden that California’s energy crisis caused for
low-income families. Thanks to active support from advocates and the Governor’s
office, California was granted a 20-percent increase in the Standard Utility Allowance
(SUA). The SUA is a fixed amount in each state that many households use as a utility
deduction instead of their actual utility expenses. As of April 1, 2001, this resulted in a
benefit increase of about $11 a month for roughly half of the 660,000 households in
California who receive food stamps.
• Net income limits. The household’s net income, which is calculated by subtracting
deductions from the gross income, must be below 100 percent of the federal poverty line
in order for the household to qualify for benefits.
• Resource tests. Most households may have up to $2,000 in liquid assets, including cash,
checking accounts, savings accounts, stocks or bonds. Households with at least one
household member age 60 or older may have up to $3,000 in liquid assets. Homes and
lots do not count as part of the resource test, nor do the resources of people receiving
cash assistance through Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or CalWORKs.
• Auto Resource limits. Under current law in California, a household can own a car with
a fair market value of up to $4,650 and still receive food stamps. The value of a car
above $4,650 is counted against the $2,000 resource limit described above. If the value of
the car exceeds these limits, the household is ineligible for food stamps.
Applicants must also meet the following non-financial criteria in order to qualify for food
stamps:

November 2001
Page 16
• Citizenship status. Under federal law, all legal immigrants who entered the country after
August 22, 1996 are ineligible for food stamps. Legal immigrants between the ages of 18
and 64 who have fewer than 40 quarters of work history are also ineligible for food
stamps, regardless of when they entered the country. However, California has
permanently extended state-funded benefits to legal immigrants disqualifying by these
federal rules. As a result, all legal immigrants in California are able to get food stamps.
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for food stamps under state or federal law.
• SSI status. Based on an administrative agreement between California and the federal
government, recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in California are ineligible
for food stamps.
• Drug felon status. Any person convicted of a drug-related felony after August 22, 1996
is ineligible for food stamps.
• Striker status. Strikers and their households can only get the amount of food stamps
they were eligible to receive before the strike began. Otherwise, they are ineligible for
food stamp assistance while striking. There are some exceptions to this rule; please see
CFPA’s Comprehensive Guide to the Food Stamp Program in California. for more detailed
information about strikers.
• Student status. People between the ages of 18 and 50 who are not disabled and are
enrolled at least half time at a college or university can get food stamps if they meet
certain criteria relating to employment, work study, and receipt of CalWORKs benefits.
• Work requirements. All adults receiving food stamps must register for work or job
training through the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program operated by each
county. Adults do not have to meet this requirement if they are elderly, disabled, caring
for a child under 6, or otherwise exempted from work. Able-boded adults (ages 18 to
49) without dependents must complete at least 20 hours each week of work, an
approved work activity, or workfare. If they do not meet this requirement, they are
limited to receiving food stamps for three months out of a three-year period.
• Monthly reporting. In California, food stamp recipients must complete and submit a
monthly report on changes in their income or household composition. If recipient
households do not complete the report, their food stamp benefits will be discontinued.
• Annual recertification. Most households in California are certified to receive benefits

for a period of one year. After a year has passed, they must reapply for food stamp
benefits by providing updated household information and completing an interview with
a caseworker.
Once a household turns in an application, the local food stamp office has 30 days to determine
food stamp eligibility and provide benefits. Households with very low incomes and few
resources may qualify for expedited services, which are designed to provide applicants with
food stamp benefits within three days of submitting an application.

November 2001
Page 17
USE OF BENEFITS
Food stamps and nutrition
Despite popular notions that food stamp recipients use their benefits to purchase junk food,
research has shown that food stamp households use their benefits to significantly improve their
nutritional intake.
According to studies by USDA, food stamp participants purchase more nutrients per dollar
than similar households that are not receiving food stamps. 24 USDA studies have also found
that low-income consumers obtain more nutrients per dollar spent on food than any other
segment of the population. At only $.80 per meal, food stamp benefits do not allow for
abundant spending on non-essential food items. 25
In addition, USDA has found that a given increase in food stamp benefits will raise the level of
household food spending by two to nine times more than the same increase in cash benefits. By
providing benefits that are redeemable only for food, the Food Stamp Program ensures that
households’ food resources are protected from spending on other basic needs like rent,
transportation, or utilities. 26
Duration of benefits
USDA’s research has shown that while most food stamp households use the program for a very
short period of time, economic conditions play a significant role in determining the average
length of program participation. One USDA study, which studied duration of benefits during
the economic expansion of the mid-1980s, found that more than half of all households left the
program within six months, and more than two-thirds stopped receiving benefits within a year.
The most recent study, which looked at duration of benefits during the recession of the early
1990s, found a longer average period of benefits use: 42 percent of households left the program
within six months and 57 percent left within the year.27
In general, food stamp participation mirrors the persistent nature of poverty and many families’
ongoing struggle to make ends meet. Though most participation spells are short, roughly half
of all households return to the program within two years. Approximately one-quarter receive
benefits for a single short period of time, while the remaining 25 percent receive benefits for a
period of several years. 28 These average periods of duration include elderly and disabled
households, who are unable to work and may receive food stamp benefits for a very long
period of time.
24 USDA, National Conversation on Food Stamps, p. 22.

25 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Background on the Food Stamp Program, 18 October 2001, p. 8.
27 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Background, p. 3.

November 2001
Page 18
FRAUD AND TRAFFICKING
On the whole, the Food Stamp Program is very successful in ensuring that the right level of
benefits are issued to people who meet the program’s strict eligibility requirements. USDA
requires rigorous investigations and audits of over 50,000 food stamp households every year.
These reviews have found that 93 percent of all food stamp benefits are issued to eligible people
and in the correct amounts. 29
Of the benefits that are not issued correctly, most are small overpayments to eligible households
that still leave these families with incomes well below the poverty line.30 In addition, only 2
percent of households that receive benefits are completely ineligible for food stamps—and some
of these families receive food stamps as a result of mistakes in determining eligibility, not fraud.31
Multiple aid fraud

California recently established a state-wide finger-imaging system to prevent people from
opening multiple food stamp cases under different names or in different counties (see page 36
for more information about California’s finger-imaging system). This kind of fraud, called
multiple-aid fraud, is extremely rare, accounting for less than 1 percent of all food stamp fraud
investigations. 32
Trading benefits for cash

Food stamp trafficking—in which food stamps are sold for cash—is a major concern for the
Food Stamp Program, since it undermines the program’s ability to guarantee that benefits are
being spent on food. Although it is difficult to obtain precise information about trafficking, a
recent USDA study found that the extent of food stamp trafficking is relatively small. The rate
of trafficking has fallen from four cents per benefit dollar in 1993 to an average of three and a
half cents per benefit dollar in 1996 through 1998.33
EBT and fraud

One of the most promising developments in the fight against food stamp fraud is the use of
electronic benefit transfer (EBT) to issue food stamp benefits. With an EBT card, food stamp
customers no longer receive paper food stamp coupons. And because EBT creates an electronic
record for each transaction at the grocery store, fraud is easier to detect.
Penalties for fraud and trafficking

Food stamp fraud is a crime under federal law as well as state law. Both the federal government
and most states have active programs to prosecute and punish offenders. The Food Stamp
Program also imposes severe criminal and civil penalties for stores that accept food stamps for
anything but food purchases. 34
29 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Background, p. 7.

30 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Background, p. 7
31 USDA, National Conversation on Food Stamps, p. .31
32 California Department of Social Services Fraud Investigation Activity Report DPA 266.
34 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Background, pp. 7-8

November 2001
Page 19
FEDERAL ADVOCACY
As a federal entitlement program, the Food Stamp Program guarantees that most citizens and
some legal immigrants can get food assistance if they meet income and asset requirements that
demonstrate their need for food. The program is designed so that families in California get the
same level of food assistance—given the same economic circumstances—as families in every
other state. Most advocates believe strongly in the uniformity of the program, as well as in its
status as an entitlement program.
States and counties create policies that have a profound effect on food stamp participation and
program outcomes, but the structure of the Food Stamp Program cannot change significantly
without action at the federal level. This year, federal reauthorization of the Food Stamp
Program has presented an opportunity for making major improvements in this important
program.
Beyond reauthorization, lawmakers have many opportunities to make major and minor
changes to the Food Stamp Program through legislation, administrative changes, and funding
decisions. As lawmakers and administrators develop ways to counteract the current economic
slowdown, food stamps can help provide a safety net for newly unemployed or underemployed
workers—while making immediate investments into the local and national economy.
Expanding access to food stamps will provide a significant economic boost for low-income
families and communities throughout California and the United States.
In this section on federal advocacy, we discuss Food Stamp Reauthorization, as well as a

number of key issues that must be addressed at the federal level. They include:
• Immigrant restorations
• ABAWD restorations
• Adequacy of benefits
• Quality control improvements
• Program simplification
• Unrealistic income limits

November 2001
Page 20
FEDERAL REAUTHORIZATION
In order to maintain the Food Stamp Program and programs like it, Congress must periodically
pass legislation to continue, or “re-authorize,” it. The Food Stamp Program was last
reauthorized under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
The food stamp provisions contained in this law will expire in October 2002, which means that
the program must be reauthorized by that date.
Why is reauthorization important?

Reauthorization is a critical opportunity to make major improvements to a program that has
failed to fully meet the needs of the people it is intended to serve. In particular, reauthorization
focuses on federal legislation that govern the actions of states and counties. It presents a critical
opportunity to change federal eligibility rules, benefits levels, and program evaluation methods.
Congress may also use reauthorization to enact new laws requiring states to make use of
existing food stamp options, such as changes to reporting systems and use of ABAWD
exemptions and waivers. In the current political climate that values state control and local
decision-making, however, this is not a likely outcome of federal reauthorization.
Reauthorization and the Farm Bill

Because of the Food Stamp Program’s history as a farm support, it is traditionally reauthorized
as part of the Farm Bill developed by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. The
exception to this rule occurred during 1996 welfare reform, when food stamps were
reauthorized as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
In general, advocates are in favor of keeping Food Stamp Reauthorization within the Farm Bill,
which also includes crop subsidies and conservation funding. Many advocates believe that the
Food Stamp Program will suffer fewer cuts and restrictions if it can be reauthorized through the
Agriculture Committee. If the program is reauthorized in conjunction with Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, many advocates fear that Congress may increase work
requirements and time limits for food stamp recipients.
Reauthorization timing
Congress does not have to reauthorize the Food Stamp Program until October 2002, but
members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are looking to pass a Farm Bill
before the end of this year—in part because the same surplus-based federal funding levels will
not be available in the next legislative session.
In order to reauthorize the Food Stamp Program on this accelerated timeline, both the House
and Senate must pass the versions developed by their respective Agriculture Committees. A
conference committee composed of members of both houses will work out the final differences
between the House and Senate bills for the final version, which is likely to be passed before
Congress adjourns this December. The Farm Bill will then go to the President for his signature.
For up-to-date information on reauthorization, please visit CFPA’s web site at www.cfpa.net.

November 2001
Page 21
FEDERAL IMMIGRANT RESTORATIONS
Immigrants were hit hard by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act, which ended food stamp eligibility for non-citizens. Some federal benefits
were restored in the years after welfare reform, but Congress continues to exclude many legal
immigrants from our nation’s hunger safety net.
Any legal immigrant who entered the country after August 22, 1996 is ineligible for federal food
stamps—including taxpayers working in low-income jobs, parents sharing resources with
citizen children, and senior citizens and children. Legal immigrants who were lawfully in the
U.S. on August 22, 1996 must meet one of the following criteria in order to be eligible for federal
food stamp benefits:
• They are under 18 years of age;

• They are disabled or blind;
• They are 65 or older as of August 22, 1996; or,
• They can be credited with 40 quarters (i.e., 10 years) of work.
Increases in hunger among immigrants

There is a clear relationship between food stamp cuts and hunger among immigrants. A study
of the effect of the 1996 cuts found a 30 percent increase in hunger among children and
households with children whose food stamps had been cut.
The study also found that immigrant households experiencing food stamp cuts were almost
twice as likely to experience food insecurity with severe hunger than those who were not; and
over half as likely to experience food insecurity with moderate hunger. 35
Drops in immigrant participation

Denying food stamps to recent immigrants has consequences beyond compromising the health
of ineligible immigrants. Confusion and fear about new eligibility rules—as well as the
complexity involving mixed status households—have caused participation rates among legal
immigrants to plummet.
Among citizen children of immigrant parents, food stamp participation dropped by 75 percent
after welfare reform—even though the children’s eligibility remained unchanged. Participation
in the Food Stamp Program by legal immigrants dropped by 83 percent between 1994 and 1998,
compared with a 28-percent drop among the general food stamp population during the same
period of time.36
35 California
Food Security Monitoring Project and California Food Policy Advocates, Impact of Legal
Immigrant Food Stamp Cuts in Los Angeles and San Francisco, May 1998.
36 USDA, National Conversation on Food Stamps, p. 9

November 2001
Page 22
Restoration of benefits
To help prevent hunger among legal immigrants, California created the California Food
Assistance Program, which allows the state to purchase food stamp benefits from the federal
government and extend eligibility to recent, legal immigrants. This program will cost California
approximately $72.5 million in 2001-2002. Especially during a time of intense budget cuts at the
state level, this program is vulnerable to cuts by lawmakers who believe that food stamp
benefits for immigrants are a federal responsibility.
Ø Restoring federal eligibility for all legal immigrants will protect immigrants from state budget
cuts and boost participation among immigrants and their children.

November 2001
Page 23
ABAWD RESTORATIONS
Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) face strict limits on their food stamp
eligibility as a result of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act. ABAWDs are defined as non-disabled adults between the ages of 18 and 49 who have no
children. Unless they are working at least 20 hours a week or participating in workfare,
ABAWDs can only receive food stamps for three months out of a 36-month period.
Work and hunger among ABAWDs

Studies show that ABAWDs are an important part of our nation’s workforce—even if
their jobs are seasonal or sensitive to local employment trends. According to a recent
national study by the Urban Institute, 75 percent of ABAWDs have jobs, and an
additional 10 percent are active job seekers. Forty percent of ABAWDs are women.37
According to the same study by the Urban Institute, low-income adults without
children are at serious risk of going hungry, which diminishes their chances of success
in the workplace. Almost 40 percent of ABAWDs worried about or had problems
affording food.38
Drop in ABAWD participation

As a result of these restrictions, food stamp participation among ABAWDs has plummeted by
almost 70 percent since the law was passed.39 (See chart on next page for details.)
37 Stephen H. Bell and L. Jerome Gallagher, Prime-Age Adults without Children or Disabilities: The “Least
Deserving of the Poor—or Are They?, New Federalism National Survey of American’s Family Series B, No.
B-26 (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2001), p. 2.
38 Bell, p. 3.
39 United States General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Implementation of Food Stamp Employment
and Training Programs for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents,.27 February 2001.

November 2001
Page 24
Monthly Average Number of ABAWDS Receiving
Food Stamps in the U.S. [in thousands]
1,200,000
1,133,000
1,000,000
monthly average number of

800,000
ABAWDS receiving food stamps
600,000
400,000 362,000
200,000
0
FFY 1996 FFY 1999
Protections for ABAWDs

After imposing these strict time limits, Congress designed a number of protections to prevent
hunger among ABAWDs who live in high unemployment areas or face other barriers to
employment. Some states, including Oregon, have used these protections in combination to
ensure that no ABAWDs lose food stamps because of three-month time limits. They include:
Individual exemptions
States are granted exemptions for 15 percent of their ABAWD caseload. These exemptions
allow caseworkers in county food stamp offices to extend benefits on a month-by-month basis
for ABAWDs who do not meet the work requirement—up to 15 percent of their ABAWD
caseload. These 15-percent exemptions are underutilized, particularly in California, where
counties have only used 3 percent of these individual waivers. (See page 54 for more
information about the 15-percent ABAWD exemption.)
Labor Surplus Area waivers

States are also given the option to request Labor Surplus Area (LSA) waivers for geographical
regions with high unemployment. When granted, these waivers exempt ABAWDs living in the
Labor Surplus Area from time limits. Despite the fact that 45 of its 58 counties qualified for
waivers last year, California has not requested them from USDA. (See page 38 for more
information about LSA waivers in California.)
Ø Eliminating time limits for ABAWDs would protect vulnerable adults and support their efforts
to participate in the work force.
Ø California and its counties can help low-income adults by using Labor Surplus Area waivers and
individual ABAWD exemptions, which were designed by Congress to mitigate the harm caused
by ABAWD time limits.

November 2001
Page 25
ADEQUACY OF BENEFITS
At an average benefit of only $73 per person per month40 , the Food Stamp Program rarely
provides enough assistance for low-income families to meet their nutritional needs. In a recent
survey of clients at charitable food programs, nearly 80 percent of respondents who also receive
food stamps reported that their food stamp allotment does not last through the month.41
Inadequate benefits are harmful for many reasons. Families receiving food stamps may
continue to experience hunger, particularly near the end of the month. Other families may
purchase cheaper, less healthy food in order to maximize their food budget. Still others choose
not to enroll in the program because the low benefits are not worth the time, hassle, and lost
wages associated with applying for the program.
Inadequate benefits
The maximum food stamp benefit matches the current purchase price of the Thrifty Food Plan
(TFP), the most frugal of four hypothetical food plans used by USDA to measure the cost of
food purchase. Because families are assumed to spend 30 percent of their income on food, food
stamp benefits are intended to make up the difference between that amount and the full cost of
the TFP.42
In reality, however, families have much less than 30 percent of their income to spend on food, in
part because housing now demands a much greater portion of most household budgets.
Almost 70 percent of low-income households use more than half of their income to pay for
housing. 43 Once a family pays for housing and other fixed expenses like transportation, child
care, and utilities, they typically have very little money for food.
In addition, the Thrifty Food Plan was designed as a temporary diet for emergency use. It
assumes that families have the time and expertise to prepare foods from scratch, as well as the
resources necessary to purchase foods from a large, low-cost grocery store. As a result, food
stamp benefit levels fall short of households’ actual food expenses. 44
Ø Raising food stamp benefits to better reflect the cost of purchasing healthy food will improve
health among recipients and increase participation in the program.
Low Minimum Benefit

The minimum food stamp benefit, which applies only to one- and two-person households, has
been frozen at $10 since 1977. The value of the minimum benefit has eroded so much that it
40 USDA, Average Monthly Benefit..

41 From America’s Second Harvest’s report Hunger 1997: The Faces and Facts, available at
www.secondharvest.org.
42 Janet Poppendieck, Sweet Charity: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement (New York: Viking
Pengiun 1998), p. 72.

43 California Budget Project, Still Locked Out: New Data Confirm that California Housing Crisis Continues,
March 2001, p. 3.
44 Poppendieck, p. 73.

November 2001
Page 26
does little to help seniors and others who receive it. The current policy also fails to provide a
baseline amount for people in households with three or more people.
Ø Increasing the minimum benefit will help seniors buy enough food to maintain their health. It
will also boost participation among households for whom the $10 benefit is not worth the time and
hassle of enrolling in food stamps.
Ø Expanding an increased minimum benefit to all households will help to ensure that families who
meet the eligibility and enrollment requirements receive a worthwhile benefit amount while
enrolled in the program.
High Housing Costs

Food stamp benefit and eligibility limits are the same for every state, and the program does not take
into account the high cost of living that many Californians face. Almost 70 percent of low-income
Californians spend over half of their income on housing, but the Food Stamp Program only
considers up to $340 in shelter costs when determining benefits.
Ø By raising the shelter cap or using actual housing costs to determine benefits, the Food Stamp
Program will better meet the needs of Californians who face some of the highest costs of living in
the country.
Low Standard Deductions

The Food Stamp Program allows each household to take a “Standard Deduction” of $134 from
their gross income when determining food stamp benefits. Because it is not indexed to family
size, the existing standard deduction penalizes families with children.
Ø Increasing the standard deduction and indexing it to family size will provide more adequate
benefits to families who need nutritional assistance.

November 2001
Page 27
PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION
The Food Stamp Program is governed by a series of complex regulations at the federal, state
and local levels. These regulations are designed to prevent fraud and ensure that food stamp
benefits reach people most in need of food assistance. Not surprisingly, this complexity is a
significant barrier to participation in the Food Stamp Program. It also makes it more difficult
for states and counties to process applications and provide benefits in a timely manner to
people in need.
Simplicity vs. specificity

Even though the Food Stamp Program’s complex regulations make the program unwieldy for
recipients and administrators, many regulations were put into place to protect specific groups
of hungry people. For example, calculating deductions for shelter and utility costs requires time
and detailed information from the food stamp applicant. But many of these deductions result in
higher benefits for low-income families with significant out-of-pocket expenses. Many families
would suffer extreme hardship if these deductions were taken away or rolled into a single
standard deduction.
Other groups, such as senior citizens, benefit from regulations that recognize their special needs
and adjust certain rules to accommodate those circumstances. The medical expenses deduction,
for example, ensures that senior citizens receive a benefit that reflects their health care
expenditures.
Categorical exclusions
In addition to considering income, household composition and deductible expenses, local food
stamp offices must determine whether or not someone has been categorically excluded from the
Food Stamp Program under federal law. These exclusions, which currently include certain legal
immigrants, drug felons, students, strikers, and able-bodied adults without dependents
(ABAWDs) who have reached a three month time limit, add significant complexity to the
program.
Simplification and Quality Control

Much of the Food Stamp Program’s complexity at the state and local level is driven by pressure
from the federal government to reduce error rates, which measure the degree to which states
make mistakes in issuing benefits. As discussed on page 29, states and counties face severe
financial penalties for errors in benefits. They have responded to these policies by requiring
more information from recipients—usually in the form of more paperwork, more verification,
and more frequent interviews with a caseworker.
Ø Efforts to simplify the Food Stamp Program should focus on reforming the quality control
system, which discourages states and counties to ease the administrative burden on applicants
and food stamp recipients.
Ø Removing categorical exclusions of certain immigrants, drug felons, strikers, students and
ABAWDs would also significantly reduce complexity within the Food Stamp Program.

November 2001
Page 28
QUALITY CONTROL
Federal administrators have established national quality control standards to ensure that states
make accurate food stamps allotments to eligible people. These standards help to prevent error,
fraud and abuse within the program—but they have also discouraged states from making their
programs more accessible and accommodating to working families and others in need of
assistance.
Because the household income of low-wage workers tends to change from month to month,
counties are more likely to make errors in issuing benefits for these cases. As counties and states
feel increasing pressure to reduce their error rates, the Food Stamp Program’s quality control
system creates a clear disincentive to assist families with earned income.
Penalties for food stamp errors

Currently, each state’s food stamp quality control is judged solely by the state’s error rate, a
measure of the degree to which the state makes mistakes in issuing benefits. The federal
government provides financial incentives to states with error rates below the median and
penalizes states with error rates above the median—which means that roughly half the states
are penalized under this system each year.
California is one of many states facing millions of dollars in penalties this year because of errors
in payment. This is primarily because food stamp benefit calculations for immigrants and
working families are complicated and therefore prone to payment errors; California serves
many more of these cases than any other state. USDA does make some penalty adjustments for
states that are prone to errors, but these adjustments are neither codified nor guaranteed.
Error rate vs. participation

To avoid financial penalties, states frequently create burdensome paperwork requirements and
other procedures to ensure higher payment accuracy. While increasing accuracy is an
important and worthwhile goal, these procedures often work in direct conflict with efforts to
increase enrollment among immigrants and working families. As the chart on the next page
shows, participation has declined most dramatically in states with the best improvement in
error rates.

November 2001
Page 29
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Improving the Quality Control system

The Food Stamp Program’s exclusive emphasis on payment accuracy ignores other important
indicators of program performance, such as higher participation rates and improved food
security. It also creates disincentives for states to increase enrollment among working families
and immigrants. A better, more participation-friendly quality control system would:
Ø Add well-being indicators like participation rates and food security measures to each state’s
evaluation process
Ø Revise the penalty scheme so that states are only penalized if their error rate exceeds an acceptable
standard. Currently, half of the states are penalized each year because the penalty structure is
based on a median score.
Ø Include performance measures like timeliness of benefits issuance and the rate of people who are
unjustly denied benefits.

November 2001
Page 30
UNREALISTIC INCOME LIMITS
The Food Stamp Program is designed to provide food assistance to households in the United
States that are at greatest risk of hunger. Yet many families who experience hunger or food
insecurity have incomes above 130 percent of the federal poverty line and are therefore
ineligible for food stamps. This is especially likely in areas of California where the high cost of
housing compromises families’ ability to put food on the table—even if a family’s income is
well above food stamp income limits.
Ineligible families who need food assistance

In many parts of California, an income above 130 percent of the poverty line is not a guarantee
against hunger. A family of three, for example, can’t earn more than $1,585 a month and still
receive food stamps. With a single, full-time wage earner making $10 per hour, however, a
family of three would earn just over $1,600 a month, making them ineligible for food stamps.
With a high monthly rent typical of California’s urban areas, this family would almost certainly
struggle to put food on the table as they stretched their remaining income to cover utilities,
child care, transportation, and other basic necessities.
This disparity—in which families in need of food assistance are ineligible for food stamps—can
be explained in part by the use of the federal poverty line in making benefits calculations. The
poverty line was developed using the Thrifty Food Plan, the most frugal of four food plans used
by USDA to measure the cost of food purchase.
Using the assumption that a family spends one third of their income on food, the Thrifty Food
Plan is multiplied by three to determine the federal poverty line. In reality, however, food
accounts for much less than one-third of a typical family’s income, particularly in areas where
low-income families pay more than half of their income for housing.
As a result, official poverty does not include many families who are unable to make ends
meet—or who may experience hunger when they experience a sudden crisis. Given the current
structure of the Food Stamp Program, which is tied directly to official measures of poverty,
these families fall through the cracks. 45
Ø Expanding the Food Stamp Program’s gross and net income limits would support working
families and protect them from experiencing the devastating effects of hunger.
45 Poppendieck, p. 72.

November 2001
Page 31
FOOD STAMPS IN CALIFORNIA
California is home to 1.7 million people who receive food stamps—and another 2.1 million who
are eligible for benefits but aren’t participating in the program. One out of every six
Californians has an income below the Food Stamp Program’s income limits, and California
accounts for roughly 10 percent of the nation’s food stamp caseload.
Hunger in California
Despite our state’s recent prosperity and agricultural abundance, 4.4 million people experience
hunger or live at serious risk of going hungry. USDA ranks California as the 11th worst state in
terms of hunger and food insecurity. 46
Many families in California experience hunger because of high shelter costs, which put
tremendous pressure on a family’s budget and limit the resources they have to purchase
adequate food. In many communities of California, low-income families face housing costs
unheard of in other parts of the country—and almost 70 percent of low-income Californians
spend over half of their income on housing. 47
The Food Stamp Program will become even more critical in California as low-income families
and individuals continue to experience the effects of the economic slowdown. In addition,
California now faces a $9.5 billion budget shortfall, which will make it significantly more
difficult for state and county governments to fund basic services for people in need of
assistance.48
Food Stamp Participation

Between 1995 and 2000, food stamp enrollment dropped by 45 percent, so that now fewer than
half of 3.7 million eligible people in California are getting assistance. California has many
opportunities to increase its participation rate, improve service to recipients and create a more
cost-effective program—but it takes advantage of few of these options.
In this section on state-level policies, we identify a number of ways that California can improve
and streamline its administration of the Food Stamp Program. They include:
• Removing barriers to participation, including California’s monthly reporting, lengthy

application, unrealistic auto rule, and finger imaging requirement.
• Extending benefits to people ineligible under federal or state laws, including legal
immigrants, able-bodied adults without dependents, SSI recipients, and drug felons.
• Seizing opportunities to improve participation and support hungry families,
including outreach funding, transitional benefits, categorical eligibility, and Electronic
Benefits Transfer.
46 M. Nord et al., Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Hunger by State, 1996-98 (Washington, DC: Economic
Research Service, USDA, 1999) and its August 2000 addendum, How Many Households? How Many People?
47 California Budget Project, Still Locked Out, p. 3.
48 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Snapshot of Fiscal Conditions Around the Country, 19 October 2001.

November 2001
Page 32
MONTHLY REPORTING
In order to receive food stamps, eligible households must periodically report their income to the
county food stamp office. Food stamp caseworkers use this information to adjust benefits if the
household’s income has changed. Unlike the vast majority of states, however, California still
requires that households submit these reports each month. This monthly reporting requirement
buries food stamp recipients in paperwork—and it prompts many low-income families to
decide that getting food stamps is worth neither the time nor the hassle.
Paperwork vs. Participation

There is clear evidence that keeping up with paperwork and verification is a hindrance to
continued participation, particularly among working families with busy schedules. In
CalWORKs, for example, failure to turn in a monthly report is the number one reason that
families are discontinued from the welfare-to-work program, accounting for 40 percent of all
case discontinuances each month.49
Monthly reporting also puts a heavy burden on county food stamp workers, who must process
monthly reports (called CA-7 forms) and verification for the entire caseload every month.
Throughout California, counties are processing over 650,000 pieces of paper each month, even if
food stamp households have no reported changes in income.
Removing the burden of monthly paperwork and income verification is a key step in increasing
California’s dismal food stamp participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent each month.
Opportunities for change

Since 1999, USDA has given states a wide range of options for reporting. More than 40 states
have taken advantage of these strategies to modernize and simplify reporting requirements.
These options range from requiring reports each quarter or every six months, to reporting only
when household income changes significantly or reaches a certain threshold.
Ø California can achieve significant administrative saving—roughly $22.5 million each year—by
ending monthly reporting for food stamp and CalWORKs recipients. Ending monthly reporting
will also ease the paperwork burden that keeps so many hungry families from getting and
maintaining food stamp benefits.
49 California Department of Social Services, CA 253 monthly report.

November 2001
Page 33
LENGTHY APPLICATION
Long and complex food stamp applications have long been cited by low-income households as
a barrier to getting food stamps. Many people who need food assistance end their application
process as soon as they see or try to the complete the application form itself.
The current application for food stamps in California is nine pages long, with questions that
rival the Internal Revenue Service for complexity and use of technical jargon. The application is
especially challenging for working families with little time to complete paperwork, people with
limited education, and people who have difficulty reading or writing.
California’s new application

Fortunately, California has taken steps to remedy this situation. Thanks to the hard work of
advocates during the 1999 legislative session, California’s Legislature passed SB 2013, which
requires California to develop a simpler and shorter food stamp application form.
After the passage of SB 2013, California’s Department of Social Services formed a working
group made up of state administrators, county food stamp officers, and representatives from
California Food Policy Advocates. This group developed and tested application alternatives
with focus groups, caseworkers and applicants.
DSS recently selected an alternative called the County-Assisted Form as California’s new food
stamp application. This form is a simple 3-page application that asks applicants to provide
basic household information. More complicated and sensitive information is gathered during
an interview with a county worker, who will fill out a statement of facts form based on
information from the applicant.
The County-Assisted Form was selected largely because the short, simple form makes it easier
for community-based organizations to conduct outreach and assist clients with applications.
Representatives of DSS’s fraud and quality control units also favored the County-Assisted Form
because more difficult (and therefore error-prone) questions are held until the interview with
the county worker.
Ø Once the new application is released to counties, community-based organizations can use the
County-Assisted Form to promote food stamps and help their clients successfully initiate the
application process.

November 2001
Page 34
UNREALISTIC AUTO RESOURCE LIMIT
In California, owning a dependable car with a “Blue Book” value of $4,650 or more makes low-
income households ineligible for food stamps. As a result, many hungry Californians face an
impossible choice: give up a car they need to get to work, or keep the car and become ineligible
for food stamps.
Only 27 percent of food stamp recipients own a vehicle.50 But there are many hungry families
in California—particularly in rural areas—who own a reliable car and can’t get food stamps as a
result. Recent research has shown that having a car is an important factor in whether a family
can make a successful transition from welfare to work. 51 In addition, the majority of food stamp
households now have at least one person who is working. 52
Despite the critical link between reliable transportation and success at work, the auto resource
limit for the food stamp program is unrealistically low. It has increased by only 3 percent since
1977, while the Consumer Price Index for cars has tripled. To correct for the real value of an
automobile based on the limit set in 1977, the current limit would need to be $12,867.
AB 144
USDA has given states have many options to raise the auto-resource limit for food stamps. The
vast majority of states have either exempted one car or removed the auto-resource limit entirely.
In 2001, the California Legislature took an important step in support of working families by
passing AB 144, a bill that would require California to raise the auto resource limit used in Food
Stamps and CalWORKs. In October 2001, the Governor unexpectedly vetoed AB 144.
Ø California should support work and prevent hunger among low-income families by removing the
auto-resource limit. In addition to getting more food to more families, this change would lower
the state’s costly food stamp error rate and reduce the administrative costs associated with
requiring caseworkers to verify the value of a car.
50 CDSS, Food Stamp Household Characteristic Survey, FFY 1999.

51 Car equals success at work stat

November 2001
Page 35
FINGER IMAGING REQUIREMENT
As of August 1, 2000, all adult members of food stamp households in California are required to
undergo finger and photo imaging. California is one of only a few states to implement a finger
imaging requirement with the intention of preventing people from opening multiple food
stamp cases under different names or in different counties.
While multiple-aid fraud prevention is a valid goal, finger imaging is a costly and unproven
method for achieving it. In addition to the $90 million California will spend on implementing
the program over four years, finger imaging has a cost in terms of program participation.
Having to provide a finger image adds stigma to an already-stigmatized progress—and it adds
complexity to an overly lengthy and complex program. It also limits the degree to which
counties can outstation caseworkers at community-based organizations and other sites.
Fraud prevention vs. cost

A handful of other states have implemented finger imaging systems, though no state has shown
conclusive evidence that finger imaging is a cost-effective method of preventing fraud. The
majority of other states use significantly less costly fraud reduction methods, such as matching
Social Security numbers.
In August 2000, California’s Department of Social Services identified only 85 food stamp cases
to investigate for multiple aid fraud. DSS does not release statistics on how many of these
investigations led to convictions. Nationally, less than 1 percent of all food stamp fraud
investigations are related to multiple aid fraud.53 Given that finger imaging will cost California
$90 million over four years, many advocates believe another method of fraud prevention would
better match the size and scope of California’s fraud problem—without deterring hungry
people from getting food stamps.
Finger-imaging audit
Thanks to the efforts of advocates throughout California, the Legislature’s Joint Audit
Committee commissioned an audit of the finger-imaging requirement. This audit is scheduled
to be completed in January 2003.
Ø Depending on the results of the audit, California should consider replacing finger imaging with a
more cost effective, less invasive method of preventing and detecting multiple aid fraud.
53 CDSS Fraud Investigation Activity Report DPA 266.

November 2001
Page 36
HELP FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS
California has taken several important steps to assist legal immigrants whose food stamp
eligibility was eliminated by the 1996 welfare reform law. As described in the section on federal
food stamp restorations, any legal immigrant who entered the country after August 22, 1996 is
ineligible for federal food stamp benefits. Able-bodied legal immigrants between the ages of 18
and 64 who do not have 40 quarters of work are also ineligible for federal benefits, even if they
entered the United States prior to August 22, 1996.
In 1998, the California Legislature created the California Food Assistance program (CFAP) to
provide food stamps to some legal immigrants who were ineligible under the welfare reform
law. In 1999 and 2000, the Governor and Legislature expanded CFAP to include all legal
immigrants who are ineligible for federal benefits because of their immigration status. During
these years, CFAP was extended in one-year increments, causing great uncertainty among
immigrants, advocates and counties about how long recent legal immigrants would be eligible
for benefits. In 2001, California affirmed its commitment to legal immigrants by extending
CFAP indefinitely.
How CFAP works

The California Food Assistance Program is based on a federal option that allows states to
purchase food stamp benefits from the federal government and provide them to legal
immigrants who are excluded by federal laws. Purchasing and distributing these benefits will
cost California roughly $72.5 million this year. As of June 2001, 78,000 legal immigrants
received assistance through CFAP.
Although CFAP is funded with state dollars, the program operates seamlessly with the federal
Food Stamp Program. The application process, reporting requirements and benefits are the
same for both programs. In addition, California does not communicate to food stamp recipients
any distinction between CFAP and the federal program.
Confusion among immigrants

One of the most challenging outcomes of food stamp cuts in the 1996 welfare reform law is
widespread confusion about whether immigrants are eligible for food stamps. With frequent
changes in California’s eligibility rules and ongoing difficulties with language barriers, this
confusion has not abated. As a result, food stamp participation among legal immigrants has
plummeted.
In addition, many immigrants have serious concerns about whether receipt of food stamp
benefits will affect their immigration status. According to recent guidance from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, food stamp participation does not count as public charge,
and will not count against immigrants if they choose to pursue citizenship.
Ø Advocates can help to protect legal immigrant from hunger by providing accurate information
about the availability of benefits in California. In the process, they should let immigrants know
that food stamps do not count as public charge.

November 2001
Page 37
HELP FOR HIGH-UNEMPLOYMENT AREAS
By enacting the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress established strict work-related time limits on
food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs).
Unless they are working at least 20 hours a week or participating in workfare, ABAWDs can
only receive food stamps for three months out of a 36-month period. To mitigate the harm
caused by these time limits, Congress has also established protections for adults who are willing
to work but live in places where jobs are hard to find.
ABAWDs in California
Labor Surplus Area Waivers

To protect workers in high-unemployment areas, USDA offers waivers for geographical regions
that have been designated by the U.S. Department of Labor as “Labor Surplus Areas”. These
regions must have an unemployment rate that is at least 6 percent and above 120 percent of the
national unemployment average. Labor Surplus Area (LSA) waivers allow states to exempt all
ABAWDs in a given area from food stamp time limits.
Thirty-six states, including Texas and New York, use LSA waivers to protect low-income adults
from unrealistic and punitive time limits.
California’s Labor Surplus Areas

Last year, 45 counties in California were either fully or partially designated as having a labor
surplus. The Department of Labor has not yet released Labor Surplus Area designations for
2001-02. The new designations will be available on the Department of Labor Employment and
Training Administration’s web site (www.doleta.gov) and CFPA’s web site (www.cfpa.net)
when they are released later this fall.
Despite the availability of these important protections for ABAWDs, California has not
requested and implemented Labor Surplus Area waivers. As the economy continues to slow
down and job markets become tighter throughout the state, counties in California with high
unemployment areas need waivers to prevent hunger among low-income adults.
Ø California should request and implement ABAWD waivers for all counties in California that
have been designated by the federal government as Labor Surplus Areas.

November 2001
Page 38
INELIGIBILITY FOR SSI RECIPIENTS
Elderly, blind or disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are currently
ineligible to receive food stamps in California. California is the only state in the nation where
SSI recipients are unable to receive food stamps, even though California’s SSI grant for an
individual is $200 less than the income limit for food stamps.
Cash out for SSI recipients

California’s policy regarding SSI and food stamps, called “cash out”, comes from an
administrative arrangement between California and the federal government. This arrangement,
which was made in the early 1970s when SSI became a federal program, recognized California’s
relatively high State Supplemental Payment (SSP). As the name suggests, the SSP is an amount
added by California as a supplement to monthly SSI grants from the federal government.
Hunger among senior citizens

For many low-income senior citizens in California, hunger is a persistent and difficult reality.
Many senior citizens in California struggle to pay high housing and medical costs on a fixed
income. As a result, many do not have enough money to purchase food. USDA reports that
over 1.4 million households in California with an elderly person are food insecure, which means
that they don’t have the right types of food to maintain their health, they don’t know where
their next meal is coming from, or they simply don’t have enough to eat.
At the same time, food stamp participation among eligible senior citizens is extremely low.
Only about 30 percent of eligible senior citizens receive food stamps, for many of the same
reasons that non-elderly people don’t participate in the program.54
Ending “cash out”

Nearly all SSI recipients in California would enjoy improved health and nutrition if they were
able to supplement their modest monthly grant with food stamp benefits. But the question of
whether to end California’s cash-out policy presents a difficult dilemma.
Mixed-status households—meaning those that include SSI recipients AND low-income, non-SSI
recipients—benefit from the current cash-out policy because the income of the SSI recipient is
not counted when benefits are calculated for the rest of the family. A family of four with a
disabled child, for example, would get a food stamp benefit amount for the other three
household members without having to consider their disabled child’s SSI payment. Counting
SSI income could put the mixed-status household above the income limit for food stamps and
disqualify the entire family from receiving benefits.
Pure SSI households—meaning those composed only of SSI recipients—are hurt by the cash-out
policy. As of January 2002, single SSI recipients will receive a monthly grant of $750. This
monthly income is roughly $200 below the Food Stamp Program’s gross monthly income limit
for one-person households. If the cash-out policy were eliminated (or if these households lived

November 2001
Page 39
in any other state), these single SSI recipients would be eligible for food stamp benefits. For
example, a single senior citizen who paid $536 each month55 for housing could be eligible for up
to $80 a month in food stamp benefits.
Couples on SSI receive a monthly SSI grant that is very close to the two-person household
income limit for Food Stamps. If cash out ended, many couples would qualify only for the
current minimum benefit of $10 or a slightly higher food stamp benefit.
Ø Because ending cash out entirely would bring significant hardship to many households that
currently receive food stamps, California should pursue a targeted end to cash out for pure SSI
households only.
Ø To compensate for extremely low food stamp participation among senior citizens—as well as for
the difficulty that many SSI recipients may have in getting to county food stamp offices—
California should institute a centralized processing system to allocate benefits automatically to
eligible SSI recipients.
55This represents the median housing cost for seniors with incomes at or below the SSI grant level,
according to unpublished tabulations of 2000 American Housing Survey Data by the California Budget
Project.

November 2001
Page 40
NO HELP FOR DRUG FELONS IN RECOVERY
In addition to restricting benefits for legal immigrants and able-bodied adults, the 1996 welfare
law eliminated food stamp benefits for people who were convicted of a drug felony after
August 22, 1996. More than half of the states have used a federal option to fully or partially
remove this ban within their state. Despite bipartisan attempts to remove the ban through
legislation, California has upheld the full denial of benefits to drug felons.
Food stamps for people in recovery

One of the most critical factors in staying sober is getting enough food to eat. Without adequate
nutrition, people who are leaving prison and/or recovering from drug addiction face a nearly
impossible challenge in maintaining their sobriety. Because convicted felons face serious
barriers to becoming employed, food stamps are extremely critical in preventing hunger and
thereby helping to prevent a return to drug use or criminal behavior.
The effects of this ban on food stamp benefits go far beyond the people it was intended to
target. Quite frequently, convicted drug felons are parents with children. If parents are unable
to get food stamp benefits once reunited with their family, it may compromise the entire
household’s ability to get enough food.
Removing the ban in California

During the past two legislative sessions, Republicans and Democrats in California have
supported legislation that would allow non-violent drug felons to receive food stamps if they
have completed a drug recovery program. The benefits restoration would result in only minor
costs to the state, but Governor Davis vetoed both bills.
Ø Restoring food stamp benefits to people in recovery is a critical step toward supporting sobriety
and good health among people who have paid their debt to society—as well as for families who
rely on them for support.

November 2001
Page 41
FOOD STAMP OUTREACH
Since 1995, California has seen a 45-percent drop in food stamp participation. Last year, more
than half of all Californians who were eligible for food stamps—roughly 2 million people—
didn’t get them. While the strong economy is partly responsible for the drop in food stamp
participation, other, less positive factors have contributed significantly to the decline. A 1999
report by the General Accounting Office found that the drop in food stamp participation was
significantly higher than the drop in child poverty during the same period of time.56
Lack of knowledge
Lack of knowledge about food stamps is a major barrier to participation among hungry
Californians. A recent USDA survey found that over 72 percent of people eligible but not receiving
food stamps did not know they were eligible for benefits. 57 In many cases, families do not know
they can work and still be eligible for assistance.
Stigma
Even if families do know about food stamps, they may choose not to participate because they
perceive the Food Stamp Program to be a welfare program for people who don’t work. This
stereotype persists even now that the majority of food stamp households in California have at
least one person who is working. 58 In addition to pervasive stereotypes about food stamps,
practices like finger imaging and monthly reporting serve to further stigmatize the program
and its recipients. Having to use food stamp coupons—which are both time consuming and
visible to other shoppers in grocery store lines—also makes people less likely to use the
program.
Resources for outreach

To help overcome widespread misinformation about the Food Stamp Program, USDA provides
states with dollar-for-dollar matching grants for outreach and education. Seventeen states,
including New York and Texas, have invested in promoting food stamps.
California has not yet utilized these federal resources. In 2000, the California Legislature
responded to advocates’ request for California to draw down matching funds by designating $3
million in TANF funding for outreach. Because this money came from federal TANF funding, it
did not meet the criteria for a federal outreach match. In addition, the California Department of
Social Services (CDSS) did not require that counties spend this money on food stamp outreach.
During the 2001 legislative session, Governor Davis removed from the budget $2 million in food
stamp outreach funding that would qualify for a federal match.
Ø California should invest in food stamp outreach by drawing down available federal funds to
promote food stamp participation among hungry Californians.
56 GAO, Various Factors Have Led to Declining Participation, p. 10.

57 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program
Final Report, July 1999.

November 2001
Page 42
TRANSITIONAL BENEFITS
Food stamp participation in California has plummeted by 45 percent since 1995. A significant
portion of this decline comes from low-income families who leave the Food Stamp Program
when they leave CalWORKs—even though they continue to be eligible for food stamp benefits.
The vast majority of families who leave CalWORKs report that they have a hard time paying for
basic needs such as food and housing. Many parents leave welfare to take low-paying jobs that
don’t provide enough income to cover food and rent. In addition, roughly 40 percent of families
leaving welfare are discontinued for failing to turn in a monthly report—which means that they
may or may not have source of income once their CalWORKs case is terminated.59
Given these circumstances, half of all families leaving welfare have earnings low enough to
qualify for food stamp benefits, yet only 20 percent of such families continue to receive them.
State Options for Transitional Benefits

In November 2000, USDA gave states the option to extend transitional food stamp benefits to
families leaving welfare. This option allows California to extend automatic food stamp benefits
to families leaving welfare for a period of up to six months. Approximately 5,000 families
leaving CalWORKs each month would receive transitional benefits if California implemented
this options.
Ø Providing automatic, transitional food stamp benefits to families leaving welfare is a cost-effective
way to support work; these benefits will help to prevent hunger as families make the transition
from welfare to work.
Ø Counties can also be proactive about tracking and contacting families as they leave welfare to
encourage them to continue receiving food stamp benefits.
59 California Department of Social Services, CA 253 monthly report.

November 2001
Page 43
STREAMLINING PROGRAMS
People who need help with basic needs like food, housing and medical care face a dizzying
array of programs administered by different agencies. Frequently, these programs have
inconsistent eligibility and reporting requirements. Families in need of housing, health care,
and food assistance, for example, must enroll in at least three distinct programs in order to get
help.
Advocates and recipients of aid have long pointed to this fragmentation of services as waste of
time for recipients and a waste of money within federal, state and local governments. In
addition, multiple application processes with redundant questions and confusing eligibility
differences are a strong deterrent to participation. Many advocates believe that creating
streamlined eligibility within similar programs will promote participation, create greater
efficiency and provide significantly better service to people in need of assistance.
Using categorical eligibility

Categorical eligibility is a strategy used with multiple programs to speed enrollment and waive
inconsistent eligibility requirements. In most cases, categorical eligibility simply means that if a
group of people is enrolled in one program, that same group of people can be granted eligibility
for another program.
Under the Clinton Food Stamp Initiative, states were given the option to extend categorical
eligibility for food stamps to households receiving services funded by Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF)—even if those services do not include cash aid. States must confer
categorical food stamp eligibility on the recipient of any service funded with 50 percent or more
TANF dollars. This explains the categorical food stamp eligibility currently available to people
enrolled in CalWORKs. In addition, states may confer categorical eligibility on recipients of any
service funded with less than 50 percent TANF dollars.
Categorical eligibility does not create automatic food stamp benefits for recipients of TANF-
funded services. Categorically eligible people must still go through the process of applying for
food stamps and having their benefits determined. In order to get any benefits, their net income
must fall below the Food Stamp Program’s net income limit.
Categorical eligibility does eliminate some of the eligibility requirements that prevent low-
income people from getting food stamps. For example, the asset test—in which most
households can have no more than $2,000 in liquid resources—does not exist in other assistance
programs. If someone is categorically eligible for food stamps, they are no longer subject to that
asset test. A categorically eligible household is also exempt from the auto resource test, in
which a household can’t own a vehicle with a “Blue Book” value of $4,650 or more and still get
food stamps.
Categorical food stamp eligibility also benefits families with incomes just above Food Stamp
Program gross income limit (i.e., 130 percent of poverty). Even though most families with
incomes just above the food stamp limit are likely to experience hunger or food insecurity, they

November 2001
Page 44
are not eligible for food stamps. If they become categorical eligible, these families can receive
benefits if their out-of-pocket expenses are high enough for their net income to fall below the
Food Stamp Program’s net income limits.
Options for triggering categorical eligibility

States have used a wide range of TANF-funded services to trigger categorical eligibility for food
stamps, including child care assistance, vocational training, counseling services, transportation
assistance, and information and referral resources.
In Michigan, for example, any family with a child or pregnant woman on Medicaid is eligible
for Employment Support Services, which are funded partly by TANF. As a result, families with
Medicaid cases are categorically eligible for food stamps. Maine has extended categorical
eligibility to Medicaid recipients by giving them a one-page referral flyer funded with TANF
funding.
Ø California has not pursued categorical food stamp eligibility beyond households receiving cash
assistance. By expanding categorical eligibility to include recipients of other TANF-funded
services, California can increase food stamp participation—particularly among people using other
health and nutrition programs

November 2001
Page 45
ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER (EBT)
Under the 1996 welfare reform law, all states are required to phase out paper food stamp coupons
and implement a computerized benefits system called Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT).
Under the EBT system, food stamp recipients will receive a plastic debit-like card that allows
them to purchase food items. This card will be credited with the household’s food stamp
benefit amount at the beginning of each month. Grocery stores and other vendors will use
existing debit-card technology to accept EBT cards for payment.
California’s EBT system will be administered by Citicorp, a private corporation that has
contracted with the majority of the 40 states that have already implemented EBT. As
California’s EBT contractor, Citicorp will play a key role in ensuring that low-income families
do not face barriers in accessing their benefits.
Benefits of EBT
Because EBT cards are used in the same way as bank-issued debit cards, EBT has the potential
to reduce the stigma and delay associated using paper food coupons in grocery check-out lines.
It also has the potential to help recipients become familiar with banking technology, reduce
fraud and trafficking, and prevent loss and theft of food stamp benefits.
Concerns about EBT

At the same time, EBT represents a major change in how food stamp recipients receive their
benefits. For recipients who are unfamiliar with electronic banking practices, who are non-
English speakers, or have physical or mental disabilities, EBT cards are likely to present a
significant challenge. Counties will be responsible for ensuring that food stamp recipients
receive the training and information they need to use their cards, while Citicorp will be
responsible for setting consumer protection policies having to do with lost or stolen cards or
resolving account disputes.
Under the state’s EBT laws, each county has the option to include cash benefits on the same EBT
card used for food stamps. If included on the card, cash benefits could be withdrawn from
ATMs or used to make purchases where debit cards are accepted. Many advocates and
recipients are concerned about whether recipients will have low-cost, convenient access to cash
benefits in counties where these benefits are included on the EBT card.
California’s timeline
California is one of the last states to implement EBT, and it will not meet the federal
requirement that all states change to EBT by October 2002. Two counties—San Diego and San
Bernadino—are in the process of conducting EBT pilots with a non-Citicorp vendor. An EBT
pilot in Alameda County developed under the contract with Citicorp is expected to be fully
operational by October 2002.

November 2001
Page 46
By that same date, California anticipates that 21 of California’s largest counties, encompassing
approximately roughly 83 percent of the state’s food stamp caseload, will be at least at the initial
phase of county-level EBT conversion.60
Ø As counties implement EBT, advocates will have an opportunity to promote food stamps among
people who have been reluctant to enroll because of the stigma associated with using paper
coupons at the grocery store.
Ø Community-based organizations will also need to monitor county-level EBT implementation to
ensure that recipients are able to access their benefits after the transition takes place.
60Brian Lawlor, Legal Services of California, Status Report on the California EBT Project, 15 March 2001. For
additional information about EBT, please refer to Legal Services of Northern California’s web site at
www.lsnc.net, or Consumers Union’s web site at www.consumer.org, under “financial services.”

November 2001
Page 47
FOOD STAMPS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL
Food stamp recipients in California receive their benefits through local county food stamp
offices. While county offices must adhere to extensive state and federal regulations when
processing applications and making benefits determinations, they also have considerable
freedom to set policies that will dictate how easily an applicant or recipient can access benefits.
In effect, California has 58 different food stamp programs—with local implementation policies
that vary widely from county to county.
Many counties in California have developed more progressive policies to counteract significant
drops in food stamp participation, particularly among working families, immigrants, and the
elderly. Other county offices still struggle to provide recipients the level of convenience,
dignity and customer service that will keep them enrolled in the program.
County efforts to make the program more accessible are particularly important at a time when
state and federal governments have shifted a great deal of decision-making power to the local
level. Even very small steps—such as providing clerical assistance in filling out the application,
or extending office hours one night each week—can make it easier for clients to get food
stamps.
The benefit of county-level advocacy is that counties have the freedom to develop food stamp
policies that meet the specific needs of their local communities. The challenge is that county-
level decisions are often less formal than legislative changes made at the state or federal level,
and change must happen on a county-by-county level.
In this section, we discuss some of the local implementation issues that can make a significant
difference for people in need of food assistance. They include:
• Office hours and location

• Local outreach
• Use of individual ABAWD exemptions

November 2001
Page 48
OFFICE HOURS AND LOCATION
For the first time ever, the majority of food stamp households in the U.S. have at least one
person who is employed.61 Despite this significant shift in the food stamp population, the
program continues to be notoriously inaccessible for people who are working. A recent study
by USDA showed that it takes an average of five hours and almost three trips to the local food
stamp office in order to complete the application process. 62
Working families usually don’t have large amounts of time to invest in a food stamp application
process, especially if their local food stamp office is only open during regular business hours.
Most people with low-paying jobs will lose wages if they take time off to apply for food stamps,
and few people are willing to tell their boss, “I need to take five hours off today because I need
food stamps.”
A handful of counties in California have recognized the need to extend their office hours to
meet the needs of people who work during the day and can’t make it to the office in time. For
example:
• Sacramento County’s Department of Human Assistance has developed some of the most
progressive office hours in the state at one of their office locations, with caseworkers
available for food stamps and other assistance programs every weekday from 7 a.m. to 9
p.m. Caseworkers share office space based on a two-shift system, with a slight pay
increase for the second shift.63
• San Joaquin County has extended its food stamp office hours to 7 p.m. on Monday
evenings; Tulare County’s food stamp offices are now open until 6 p.m.
• A number of counties, including Contra Costa, Sierra and Sutter counties, offer
appointments outside of regular business hours by special arrangement.
Office location
Especially in more rural counties, inconvenient office locations also present a major barrier to
food stamp participation. In many cases, hungry families must rely on public transportation—
especially when owning a reliable car will compromise the family’s food stamp eligibility. In
places where public transportation is limited or non-existent, families who need food stamps may
simply go without.
During the past year, a number of counties—including Yuba and Mono counties—have added
additional locations to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program. Other counties have
outstationed workers at schools, clinics or community agencies.

62 USDA, Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program.
63 See CFPA’s Best Practices to Improve the Food Stamp Program in California for more information about this
and other practices for improving access to food stamps.

November 2001
Page 49
Waiving the face-to-face interview
In general, counties are required to conduct a face-to-face interview with food stamp applicants,
but this requirement can be waived under many extenuating circumstances. The face-to-face
interview requirement must be waived for elderly or disabled people who cannot come to the
office. It can also be waived on a case-by-case basis for people who have transportation
difficulties or similar hardships.
Ø Counties should extend their food stamp office hours beyond regular working hours so that
families who work during the day can get food stamps.
Ø Counties should also make an effort to provide additional office locations so that food stamp
applicants with limited time and transportation can get assistance.
Ø Counties should implement policies in which face-to-face interviews are waived as standard
practice for people who face difficulties in getting to the food stamp office.

November 2001
Page 50
COUNTY-LEVEL OUTREACH
Lack of knowledge about food stamps is a major barrier to participation in the Food Stamp
Program. In a recent survey of people who are eligible for food stamps but not receiving them,
USDA found that over 72 percent didn’t know that they could get benefits. 64 In particular, families
frequently assume that because they are working, they are not eligible for assistance. This
misinformation prevents many hungry families from getting food assistance.
In response to significant drops in food stamp participation, many counties have developed
innovative outreach methods to raise awareness about food stamps. Because California has not
made a significant investment in food stamp outreach funding, most of these outreach programs
are conducted using county funding for caseworker time and materials.
Despite this limitations, many counties have made an effort to find and enroll eligible people. For
example:
• Some counties have developed relationships with community-based organizations,

including local food banks and emergency food providers. These agencies help with
outreach by distributing food stamp materials and hosting county outreach workers who
assist clients with applications or give informational sessions on food stamps. In addition
counties have outstationed food stamp workers at schools, health fairs, treatment facilities,
homes for victims of domestic violence, job training programs, homeless shelters, and
migrant camps.
• In some cases, local food banks and community agencies have taken on a significant role in
conducting outreach. Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, for example, recently launched a
USDA demonstration project on food stamp outreach . Through this project, trained
outreach workers set up information centers at food pantries and other food distribution
sites. Using laptop computers and other technology, these workers initiate applications and
collaborate with county caseworkers to help enroll clients in the Food Stamp Program.
• Some counties have developed shorter application forms for food stamps that can be used
by volunteers, staff or caseworkers at community-based organizations. Napa County has
collaborated with the local food bank to initiate the application process for food bank
clients, while Humboldt County created a short form for use by food bank volunteers
during the client intake process at their local food bank.
• In addition to outstationing workers, some counties have overcome geographical barriers

by promoting mail-in and fax-in options for applications. In Kern County, MediCal
workers are encouraged to fax in food stamp applications for their clients, which allows the
county to streamline its outreach efforts while helping families overcome transportation
problems in applying for food stamps.
64 USDA, Customer Service within the Food Stamp Program.

November 2001
Page 51
• Many counties have an extensive network of health care workers who actively recruit
participants for enrollment in MediCal, California’s health care program for low-income
families and individuals. Some counties have recognized the opportunity to pair food
stamp and MediCal outreach by training MediCal workers to evaluate food stamp
eligibility.
Ø Counties should promote food stamps by conducting outreach at community-based agencies,

collaborating with other health and nutrition programs on outreach, and expanding their use of
alternative methods for accepting applications.

November 2001
Page 52
INDIVIDUAL ABAWD EXEMPTIONS
Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) face strict limits on their food stamp
eligibility as a result of the 1996 welfare reform law. ABAWDs are defined as non-disabled
adults between the ages of 18 and 49 who have no children. Unless they are working at least 20
hours a week or participating in workfare, ABAWDs can only receive food stamps for three
months out of a 36-month period.
After enacting these time limits, Congress put measures into effect to protect individual adults
who may face significant challenges in finding employment. The Food Stamp Program allows
each state to exempt up to 15 percent of its ABAWD cases each year. Any exemptions that are
unused at the end of the year roll over to the next year’s allocation.
California distributes these ABAWD exemptions to counties based on their ABAWD caseload.
The exemptions provide an opportunity for counties to reduce hunger among low-income
adults at very little cost to the county or state.
Unused exemptions
Despite this important opportunity to exempt adults from food stamp time limits, counties in
California have used very few of the exemptions available to them. Between October 1999 and
September 2000, counties in California used a total of only 3,900 out of 116,892 possible
exemptions. As a result of this low rate of use, California has almost 300,000 unused months of
ABAWD exemptions.
In the absence of any substantial guidance from the state on how these exemptions should be
used, counties have a responsibility to develop policies that reflect the needs of their local
communities. For example, Santa Cruz County’s policy considers seasonal unemployment,
natural disasters, lay-offs due to business closure or relocation, and the presence of severe
barriers to employment, such as homelessness, lack of education or transportation, and
substance abuse. San Francisco County has a written policy encouraging caseworkers to use
screen their ABAWD cases carefully and to proactively apply exemptions for ABAWDs facing
homelessness, unemployment and food insecurity.
Individual ABAWD exemptions are most effective when they are combined with another
federal protection for adults—specifically, Labor Surplus Area waivers for high unemployment
areas (see page 38 for more information on LSA waivers). In other states, these two strategies
are used in combination to improve food stamp participation among ABAWDs.
In Oregon, for example, all but six counties are eligible for Labor Surplus Area waivers. In labor
surplus counties, Oregon uses waivers to exempt all ABAWDs from time limits. The state then
designates its individual exemptions for use in non-labor surplus area counties. As a result, the
state does not revoke food stamps from non-working ABAWDs at the end of three months.
Ø Counties should develop and implement policies to utilize all available 15-percent
ABAWD exemptions.

November 2001
Page 53
APPENDIX
A. Average monthly participation in the Food Stamp Program, 1961-

1999, from USDA’s National Conversation on Food Stamps 2000
B. County-by-county food stamp participation
C. County maps
County-by-county drops in food stamp participation since 1995

Counties using ABAWD exemptions
Counties that outstation food stamp caseworkers
Counties with WIC/Food Stamp collaboration
D. State maps
States restoring food stamp benefits to legal immigrants

1997 participation rates for the Food Stamp Program
States with USDA-approved outreach plan
States requiring monthly reporting
E. Contact information for elected officials
Federal and state decision makers

U.S. Senate directory
California representatives from the U.S. House of Representatives
California State Senate
California State Assembly
F. Benefits estimation worksheet

AVERAGE MONTHLY PARTICIPATION IN THE
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM 1961–1999
PERSONS IN THOUSANDS
30,000
Denotes periods
of economic recession
25,000 Purchase
Requirement Onmibus Budget
Eliminated Reconcilation Act
of 1981
20,000 Personal
Responsibility
and Work
Opportunity
Reconciliation
Act of 1996
15,000 National Food Stamp

Expansion Act of 1977
of FSP
(1974)
10,000
5,000
0
1981
1961
1971
1991
1982
1983
1965
1962
1963
1972
1973
1992
1993
1985
1995
1967
1969
1979
1975
1978
1987
1988
1998
1970
1999
1964
1968
1977
1997
1980
1989
1966
1974
1984
1994
1976
1986
1990
1996
Sources: 1961–1985 U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Foresty;
1985–1998 U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Food Stamp Participation Drop in California
By county 1995-2001
County Nov-95 Nov-96 Nov-99 Nov-00 Jun-01 Drop (people) Drop (%)
Alameda 122,156 105,967 69,516 57,320 56,206 -65,950 54%
Alpine 196 157 74 70 61 -135 69%
Amador 1,392 1,387 977 787 807 -585 42%
Butte 27,073 26,957 18,284 16,368 16,372 -10,701 40%
Calaveras 3,205 3,084 2,066 1,576 1,451 -1,754 55%
Colusa 1,836 1,619 886 892 1,035 -801 44%
Contra Costa 53,578 50,032 29,795 23,570 21,259 -32,319 60%
Del Norte 4,364 4,311 3,343 3,098 3,083 -1,281 29%
El Dorado 7,379 7,004 3,631 3,325 3,205 -4,174 57%
Fresno 135,455 128,521 82,085 78,754 82,097 -53,358 39%
Glenn 3,179 2,948 2,269 2,111 2,103 -1,076 34%
Humboldt 14,516 14,067 10,362 8,989 9,101 -5,415 37%
Imperial 29,477 26,112 16,927 16,816 16,227 -13,250 45%
Inyo 1,881 1,774 1,020 930 747 -1,134 60%
Kern 84,348 86,156 57,486 52,626 56,208 -28,140 33%
Kings 15,800 15,139 10,364 9,679 10,744 -5,056 32%
Lake 8,824 8,416 6,324 6,579 5,913 -2,911 33%
Lassen 2,949 2,850 1,956 1,665 1,783 -1,166 40%
Los Angeles 1,054,240 1,001,164 726,838 670,813 659,668 -394,572 37%
Madera 15,454 15,812 11,930 11,225 12,218 -3,236 21%
Marin 6,064 5,167 3,153 2,652 2,248 -3,816 63%
Mariposa 1,494 1,526 920 737 724 -770 52%
Mendocino 10,954 9,969 6,607 5,791 5,776 -5,178 47%
Merced 42,852 41,429 24,359 23,922 26,163 -16,689 39%
Modoc 1,359 1,370 995 775 839 -520 38%
Mono 389 416 243 195 219 -170 44%
Monterey 29,241 24,361 15,695 14,033 14,284 -14,957 51%
Napa 5,664 4,440 1,995 1,740 1,492 -4,172 74%
Nevada 4,410 3,950 2,036 1,554 1,512 -2,898 66%
Orange 147,838 133,098 75,098 65,904 65,457 -82,381 56%
Placer 9,797 9,406 4,727 3,628 3,704 -6,093 62%
Plumas 1,396 1,354 702 590 599 -797 57%
Riverside 120,813 121,071 70,296 60,499 55,301 -65,512 54%
Sacramento 165,564 162,053 118,910 110,217 109,334 -56,230 34%
San Benito 3,090 2,916 1,877 1,501 1,671 -1,419 46%
San Bernardino 216,857 210,979 140,762 129,926 127,447 -89,410 41%
San Diego 204,201 190,331 103,692 87,370 82,738 -121,463 59%
San Francisco 84,922 49,141 27,228 22,487 22,571 -62,351 73%
San Joaquin 79,040 69,048 50,495 45,105 44,793 -34,247 43%
San Luis Obispo 12,077 11,579 6,867 6,073 6,051 -6,026 50%
San Mateo 18,579 15,445 5,810 4,526 4,456 -14,123 76%
Santa Barbara 25,054 24,134 15,029 13,405 13,698 -11,356 45%
Santa Clara 100,511 86,191 44,013 33,650 33,111 -67,400 67%
Santa Cruz 15,104 13,819 6,909 5,870 6,285 -8,819 58%
Shasta 22,017 22,831 15,134 13,207 11,395 -10,622 48%
Sierra 203 187 131 94 102 -101 50%
Siskiyou 5,584 5,441 3,670 3,134 3,005 -2,579 46%
Solano 28,641 28,853 17,613 12,109 12,011 -16,630 58%
County Nov-95 Nov-96 Nov-99 Nov-00 Jun-01 Drop (people) Drop (%)
Sonoma 21,589 19,974 9,066 7,624 7,226 -14,363 67%
Stanislaus 53,589 51,458 38,161 33,189 33,146 -20,443 38%
Sutter 7,294 6,824 4,735 4,104 4,298 -2,996 41%
Tehama 7,223 6,938 5,016 4,394 4,669 -2,554 35%
Trinity 1,495 1,469 952 822 775 -720 48%
Tulare 65,928 65,896 46,822 43,009 48,076 -17,852 27%
Tuolumne 4,365 4,113 2,829 2,277 2,185 -2,180 50%
Ventura 43,098 37,256 24,804 21,909 20,243 -22,855 53%
Yolo 22,799 14,677 8,857 7,773 7,829 -14,970 66%
Yuba 13,236 12,571 8,587 7,549 7,484 -5,752 43%
California 3,191,633 2,975,158 1,970,928 1,770,537 1,732,180 -1,438,428 46%
Source: California Department of Social Services Data from DFA 256 - Food Stamp Program Participation and Coupon Issuance
Report, compiled by California Food Policy Advocates
# of Participants
Drops in Food Stamp
Participation since
1995
Above 60% Drop:
Above 50% Drop:
Above 40% Drop:
Below 40% Drop:

Counties Using
ABAWD Exemptions
Annual Percent of
ABAWD Allocation
Used
(out of 100% not
15%)
Not using any:
Less than 5%:
More than 5%
Counties that Outstation Food Stamp Caseworkers
At Locations Outside of the Food Stamp Office
Counties with Outstationing:
Counties without Outstationing:
Information not available:

Counties with WIC/Food
Stamps Collaboration
WIC/FS Collaboration:
No WIC/FS Collaboration:
States Restoring Food Stamp Benefits to Legal Immigrants
Restored Benefits to Legal Immigrants:
Without Restored Benefits to Legal Immigrants:

1997 State Participation Rates for the Food Stamp Program
State Food Stamp Program Participation Rates

Above 67%: Below 58%:
58% to 67%:
States with USDA-Approved Outreach Plan
Have approved plan:

Without plan:
States Requiring Monthly Reporting for
Majority Food Stamp Caseload
States requiring monthly reporting:
States not requiring monthly reporting:

STATE AND FEDERAL DECISION MAKERS
The Food Stamp Program is administered by the Food and Nutrition Service, a division of the
United States Department of Agriculture.
President George W. Bush appointed Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman. Eric M. Bost was
subsequently appointed as Undersecretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
Undersecretary Bost is responsible for overseeing the Food and Nutrition Service, as well as the
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
The Honorable Ann Veneman President George W. Bush

Secretary, Department of Agriculture 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
14 th Street and Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20500
Washington, D.C. 20250 202-456-1414
202-720-3631 president@whitehouse.gov
www.usda.gov
The Honorable Eric M. Bost Vice President Richard Cheney

Undersecretary of Food, Nutrition, Old Executive Office Building
and Consumer Services Washington, DC 20501
United States Department of Agriculture Phone: 202-456-1414
Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, Room 240-E vice.president@whitehouse.gov
12 th & Jefferson Drive, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
www.fns.usda.gov
In addition to Undersecretary Bost and his staff at Food and Nutrition Service in Washington,
D.C., advocates in California may receive guidance from the Food and Nutrition Service’s
Western Region office in San Francisco.
Dennis Stewart Patricia Cruise

Regional Director, Food Stamp Program State Program Officer, California
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA Food and Nutrition Service, USDA
550 Kearny Street, Room 400 550 Kearny Street, Room 400
San Francisco, CA 94108 San Francisco, CA 94108
415-705-2333, ext. 301 415-705-1361, ext. 307
DENNIS_STEWART@fns.usda.gov Pat_Cruise@fns.usda.gov
At the state level, the Food Stamp Program is administered by the California
Department of Social Services, a division of the larger Health and Human Services
Agency. Decision makers at the state level include:
Governor Gray Davis

State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-2841
Grantland Johnson, Secretary Rita Saenz, Director
Health and Human Services Agency California Department of Social Services
1600 9th Street, Suite 460 744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
916-654-3345 916-657-3667
www.dss.cahwnet.gov
The following pages include lists of legislators at the state and federal levels. To find
out who represents you in Congress and in the state Legislature, visit www.vote -
smart.org, or the specific web site for each legislative body:
U.S. Senate: www.senate.gov

U.S. House of Representatives: www.house.gov
State Senate: www.senate.ca.gov
State Assembly: www.assembly.ca.gov
Printed directories of these state and federal representatives can also be purchased from
Capitol Enquiry at www.capenq.com.
UNITED STATES SENATE
107TH CONGRESS
As of October 4, 2001
All phone numbers are in area code (202).
Room numbers beginning with SD are in the Dirksen Building, SH are in

the Hart Building, and SR in the Russell Building. All zip codes are 20510,
and all phone numbers are in area code (202).
All addresses should following the following format:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer

United States Senate
112 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents in SMALL CAPS.

Representatives from California in bold.
Name Phone Room Name Phone Room
Vice Pres. Cheney, Dick (WY) 42424 Cantwell, Maria (WA) 43441 SH-717
Akaka, Daniel K. (HI) 46361 SH-141 Carnahan, Jean (MO) 46154 SH-517
Allard, Wayne (CO) 45941 SD-525 Carper, Thomas R. (DE) 42441 SH-513
Allen, George (VA) 44024 SR-204 Chafee, Lincoln D. (RI) 42921 SR-141A
Baucus, Max (MT) 42651 SH-511 Cleland, Max (GA) 43521 SD-461
Bayh, Evan (IN) 45623 SR-463 Clinton, Hillary Rodham (NY)44451 SR-476
Bennett, Robert F. (UT) 45444 SD-431 Cochran, Thad (MS) 45054 SR-326
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (DE) 45042 SR-221 Collins, Susan M. (ME) 42523 SR-172
Bingaman, Jeff (NM) 45521 SH-703 Conrad, Kent (ND) 42043 SH-530
Bond, Christopher S. (MO) 45721 SR-274 Corzine, Jon S. (NJ) 44744 SH-502
Boxer, Barbara (CA) 43553 SH-112 Craig, Larry E. (ID) 42752 SH-520
Breaux, John B. (LA) 44623 SH-503 Crapo, Mike (ID) 46142 SR-111
Brownback, Sam (KS) 46521 SH-303 Daschle, Tom (SD) 42321 SH-509
Bunning, Jim (KY) 44343 SH-316 Dayton, Mark (MN) 43244 SR-346
Burns, Conrad (MT) 42644 SD-187 DeWine, Mike (OH) 42315 SR-140
Byrd, Robert C. (WV) 43954 SH-311 Dodd, Christopher J. (CT) 42823 SR-448
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse 45852 SR-380 Domenici, Pete V. (NM) 46621 SH-328
(CO)
Dorgan, Byron L. (ND) 42551 SH-713 Lugar, Richard G. (IN) 44814 SH-306
Durbin, Richard J. (IL) 42152 SD-332 McCain, John (AZ) 42235 SR-241
Edwards, John (NC) 43154 SD-225 McConnell, Mitch (KY) 42541 SR-361A
Ensign, John (NV) 46244 SR-364 Mikulski, Barbara A. (MD) 44654 SH-709
Enzi, Mike (WY) 43424 SR-290 Miller, Zell (GA) 43643 SD-257
Feingold, Russell D. (WI) 45323 SH-506 Murkowski, Frank H. (AK) 46665 SH-322
Feinstein, Dianne G. (CA) 43841 SH-331 Murray, Patty (WA) 42621 SR-173
Fitzgerald, Peter G. (IL) 42854 SD-555 Nelson, Bill (FL) 45274 SH-716
Frist, Bill (TN) 43344 SR-416 Nelson, E. Benjamin (NE) 46551 SH-720
Graham, Bob (FL) 43041 SH-524 Nickles, Don (OK) 45754 SH-321
Gramm, Phil (TX) 42934 SR-370 Reed, Jack (RI) 44642 SH-208
Grassley, Charles E. (IA) 43744 SH-135 Reid, Harry (NV) 43542 SH-528
Gregg, Judd (NH) 43324 SR-393 Roberts, Pat (KS) 44774 SH-302
Hagel, Chuck (NE) 44224 SR-248 Rockefeller, John D., IV (WV) 46472 SH-531
Harkin, Tom (IA) 43254 SH-731 Santorum, Rick (PA) 46324 SR-120
Hatch, Orrin G. (UT) 45251 SR-104 Sarbanes, Paul S. (MD) 44524 SH-309
Helms, Jesse (NC) 46342 SD-403 Schumer, Charles E. (NY) 46542 SH-313
Hollings, Ernest F. (SC) 46121 SR-125 Sessions, Jeff (AL) 44124 SR-493
Hutchinson, Tim (AR) 42353 SD-239 Shelby, Richard C. (AL) 45744 SH-110
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (TX) 45922 SR-284 Smith, Bob (NH) 42841 SD-307
Inhofe, James M. (OK) 44721 SR-453 Smith, Gordon (OR) 43753 SR-404
Inouye, Daniel K. (HI) 43934 SH-722 Snowe, Olympia J. (ME) 45344 SR-154
JEFFORDS, JAMES M. (VT) 45141 SH-728 Specter, Arlen (PA) 44254 SH-711
Johnson, Tim (SD) 45842 SH-324 Stabenow, Debbie (MI) 44822 SH-702
Kennedy, Edward M. (MA) 44543 SR-315 Stevens, Ted (AK) 43004 SH-522
Kerry, John F. (MA) 42742 SR-304 Thomas, Craig (WY) 46441 SH-109
Kohl, Herb (WI) 45653 SH-330 Thompson, Fred (TN) 44944 SD-511
Kyl, Jon (AZ) 44521 SH-730 Thurmond, Strom (SC) 45972 SR-217
Landrieu, Mary L. (LA) 45824 SH-724 Torricelli, Robert G. (NJ) 43224 SD-113
Leahy, Patrick J. (VT) 44242 SR-433 Voinovich, George V. (OH) 43353 SH-317
Levin, Carl (MI) 46221 SR-269 Warner, John W. (VA) 42023 SR-225
Lieberman, Joseph I. (CT) 44041 SH-706 Wellstone, Paul (MN) 45641 SH-136
Lincoln, Blanche L. (AR) 44843 SD-355 Wyden, Ron (OR) 45244 SH-516
Lott, Trent (MS) 46253 SR-487
107th CONGRESS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
California Representatives, as of October 4, 2001

Excerpted from the complete House Directory available at http://clerkweb.house.gov
All phone numbers are in area code (202).
Room numbers with 3 digits are in the Cannon House Office Building, 4 digits beginning
with 1 are in the Longworth House Office Building, 4 digits beginning with 2 are in the
Rayburn House Office Building. All zip codes are 20515.
The Honorable Joe Baca

U.S. House of Representatives
1133 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents in SMALL CAPS;
Representative State District Phone Room

Baca, Joe CA 42d 225-6161 1133
Becerra, Xavier CA 30th 225-6235 1119
Berman, Howard L. CA 26th 225-4695 2330
Bono, Mary CA 44th 225-5330 404
Calvert, Ken CA 43d 225-1986 2201
Capps, Lois CA 22d 225-3601 1118
Condit, Gary A. CA 18th 225-6131 2234
Cox, Christopher CA 47th 225-5611 2402
Cunningham, Randy ‘‘Duke’’ CA 51st 225-5452 2350
Davis, Susan A. CA 49th 225-2040 1517
Dooley, Calvin M. CA 20th 225-3341 1201
Doolittle, John T. CA 4th 225-2511 2410
Dreier, David CA 28th 225-2305 237
Eshoo, Anna G. CA 14th 225-8104 205
Farr, Sam CA 17th 225-2861 1221
Filner, Bob CA 50th 225-8045 2463
Gallegly, Elton CA 23d 225-5811 2427
Harman, Jane CA 36th 225-8220 229
Herger, Wally CA 2d 225-3076 2268
Honda, Michael M. CA 15th 225-2631 503
Horn, Stephen CA 38th 225-6676 2331
Hunter, Duncan CA 52d 225-5672 2265
Issa, Darrell E. CA 48th 225-3906 1725
Lantos, Tom CA 12th 225-3531 2217
Lee, Barbara CA 9th 225-2661 426
Lewis, Jerry CA 40th 225-5861 2112
Lofgren, Zoe CA 16th 225-3072 227
McKeon, Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ CA 25th 225-1956 2242
Matsui, Robert T. CA 5th 225-7163 2308
Millender-McDonald, Juanita CA 37th 225-7924 125
Miller, Gary G. CA 41st 225-3201 1037
Miller, George CA 7th 225-2095 2205
Napolitano, Grace F. CA 34th 225-5256 1609
Ose, Doug CA 3d 225-5716 215
Pelosi, Nancy CA 8th 225-4965 2457
Pombo, Richard W. CA 11th 225-1947 2411
Radanovich, George CA 19th 225-4540 123
Rohrabacher, Dana CA 45th 225-2415 2338
Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA 33d 225-1766 2435
Royce, Edward R. CA 39th 225-4111 2202
Sanchez, Loretta CA 46th 225-2965 1230
Schiff, Adam B. CA 27th 225-4176 437
Sherman, Brad CA 24th 225-5911 1524
Solis, Hilda L. CA 31st 225-5464 1641
Stark, Fortney Pete CA 13th 225-5065 239
Tauscher, Ellen O. CA 10th 225-1880 1122
Thomas, William M. CA 21st 225-2915 2208
Thompson, Mike CA 1st 225-3311 119
Waters, Maxine CA 35th 225-2201 2344
Watson, Diane E. CA 32d 225-7084 2413
Waxman, Henry A. CA 29th 225-3976 2204
Woolsey, Lynn C. CA 6th 225-5161 2263
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
Capitol office: District office(s)
Ackerman, Richard (SD-33)

State Capitol, Room 4066 17821 E. 17th Street, Suite 180
Sacramento, CA 95814 Tustin, CA 92780
(916) 445-4264 (714) 573-1853
Alarcón, Richard (SD-20)

State Capitol, Room 4035 6150 Van Nuys Blvd, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814 Van Nuys, CA 91401
(916) 445-7928 (818) 901-5588
Alpert, Dede (SD-39)

State Capitol, Room 5050 1557 Columbia Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Diego, CA 92101
(916) 445-3952 (619) 645-3090
Battin, Jim (SD-37)

State Capitol, Room 3076 15708 Pomerado Road, Suite N-107 73-710 Fred Waring Drive
Sacramento, CA 95814 Poway, CA 92064 Suite 112
(916) 445-5581 (858) 675-8211 Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 568-0408
Bowen, Debra (SD-28)

State Capitol, Room 4040 2512 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 200
Sacramento, CA 95814 Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(916) 445-5953 (310) 318-6994
Brulte, James (SD-31)

State Capitol, Room 305 10681 Foothill Blvd., Suite 325
Sacramento, CA 95814 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(916) 445-3688 (909) 466-9096
Burton, John (SD-3)

State Capitol, Room 205 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 14800 3501 Civic Center Drive, Rm 425
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Rafael, CA 94903
(916) 445-1412 (415) 557-1300 (415) 479-6612
Chesbro, Wesley (SD-2)
State Capitol, Room 4081 50 D Street, Ste. 120-A P.O. Box 785
Sacramento, CA 95814 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Ukiah, CA 95482
(916) 445-3375 (707) 576-2771 (707) 468-8914
710 E Street., Ste. 150 1040 Main Street Suite 205
Eureka, CA 95501 Napa, CA 94559
(707) 445-6508 (707) 224-1990
Costa, Jim (SD-16)
State Capitol, Room 5100 901 Tower Way, Ste. 202 2550 Mariposa Mall, Suite 2016
Sacramento, CA 95814 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Fresno, CA 93721
(916) 445-4641 (805) 323-0442 (209) 264-3078
Dunn, Joseph (SD-34)

State Capitol, Room 2080 12397 Lewis St., Ste. 103
Sacramento, CA 95814 Garden Grove, CA 92840
(916) 445-5831 (714) 705-1580
Escutia, Martha (SD-30)

State Capitol, Room 5080 400 N. Montebello Blvd, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814 Montebello, CA 90640
(916) 327-8315 (323) 724-6175
Figueroa, Liz (SD-10)

State Capitol, Room 2057 43271 Mission Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95814 Fremont, CA 94539
(916) 445-6671 (510) 413-5960
Haynes, Ray N. (SD-36)

State Capitol, Room 2187 6800 Indiana Ave., Ste. 130
Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92506
(916) 445-9781 (909) 782-4111
Johannessen, Maurice (SD-4)

State Capitol, Room 5061 410 Hemsted Drive, #200 2967 Davison Court , Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95814 Redding, CA 96002 Colusa, CA 95932
(916) 445-3353 (530) 224-4706 (530) 458-4161
1170 N. Lincoln St. #106

Dixon, CA 95620
(707) 678-3195
Johnson, Ross (SD-35)

State Capitol, Room 3063 18552 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 395
Sacramento, CA 95814 Irvine, CA 92612
(916) 445-4961 (949) 833-0180
Karnette, Betty (SD-27)

State Capitol, Room 5066 3711 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 801
Sacramento, CA 95814 Long Beach, CA 90807
(916) 445-6447 (562) 997-0794
Knight, William “Pete”
(SD-17)
State Capitol, Room 2054 1008 West Avenue, M-14, #G 15278 Main St, Suite D
Sacramento, CA 95814 Palmdale, CA 93551 Hesperia, CA 92345
(916) 445-6637 (661) 274-0188 (760) 244-2402
25709 Rye Canyon Rd 128 E. California Ave., Suite A

Suite 105 P.O. Box 1844
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Ridgecrest, CA 93556
(661) 294-8184 (760) 371- 1640
Kuehl, Sheila James (SD-23)

State Capitol, Room 4032 10951 W. Pico Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95814 Suite 202
(916) 445-1353 Los Angeles, CA 90064
Machado, Michael (SD-05)

State Capitol, Room 3086 1020 N. Street, Ste. 504 31 E.Channel Street, Room 440
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Stockton, CA 95202
(916) 445-2407 (916) 323-4306 (209) 948-7930
Margett, Bob (SD-29)

State Capitol, Room 3082 55 East Huntington Drive, Suite 330
Sacramento, CA 95814 Arcadia, CA 91006
(916) 445-2848 (626) 447-5894
McClintock, Tom (SD-19)

State Capitol, Room 3070 223 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95814 Suite 326
(916) 445-8873 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
McPherson, Bruce (SD-15)

State Capitol, Room 2054 701 Ocean Street, Room 318A 25 San Juan Grade Road, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95814 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Salinas, CA 93906
(916) 445-5843 (831) 425-0401 (831) 753-6382
Monteith, Dick (SD-12)

State Capitol, Room 4090 1620 N. Carpenter Road, SuiteA-4 777 West 22nd Street, Suite B
Sacramento, CA 95814 Modesto, CA 95351 Merced, CA 95340
(916) 445-1392 (209) 577- 6592 (209) 722-4988
1901 Howard Road, #B

Madera, CA 93637
(209) 674-2898
Morrow, Bill (SD-38)

State Capitol, Room 4052 27126 A Paseo Espada, Suite 1621 2755 Jefferson St., #101
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Carlsbad, CA 92008
(916) 445-3731 (949) 489-9838 (760) 434-7930
Murray, Kevin (SD-26) 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1020
State Capitol, Room 4082 Culver City, CA 90230
Sacramento, CA 95814 (310) 641-4391
(916) 445-5215
O'Connell, Jack (SD-18)

State Capitol, Room 5035 228 W. Carrillo Street, Suite F 89 S. California St., Suite E
Sacramento, CA 95814 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Ventura, CA 93001
(916) 445-5405 (805) 966-2296 (805) 641-1500
1260 Chorro Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 547-1800
Oller, Thomas “Rico” (SD-1)

State Capitol, 2048 4230 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814 Granite Bay, CA 95746
(916) 445-5788 (916) 969-8232
Ortiz, Deborah (SD-6)

State Capitol, Room 5114 1020 N St., Ste. 576 5975 Birdcage Centre Lane
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Suite 145
(916) 445-7807 (916) 324-4937 Citrus Heights, CA 95610
(916) 961-1482
Peace, Steve (SD-40)
State Capitol, Room 3060 7877 Parkway Drive, Suite 1B
Sacramento, CA 95814 La Mesa, CA 91942
(916) 445-6767 (619) 463-0243
Perata, Don (SD-9)

State Capitol, Room 4061 1515 Clay Street, #2202
Sacramento, CA 95814 Oakland, CA 94612
(916) 445-6577 (510) 286-1333
Polanco, Richard G. (SD-22)

State Capitol, Room 313 300 S. Spring St., #8710
Sacramento, CA 95814 Los Angeles, CA 90013
(916) 445-3456 (213) 620-2529
Poochigian, Charles (SD-14)

State Capitol, Room 5087 4974 E. Clinton, #100 841 Mohawk St., #190
Sacramento, CA 95814 Fresno, CA 93727 Bakersfield, CA 93309
(916) 445-9600 (209) 253-7122 (805) 324-6188
Romero, Gloria (SD-24)

State Capitol, Room 4062 1255 Corporate Center Dr., Ste. PH-9
Sacramento, CA 95814 Monterey Park CA 19754
Scott, Jack (SD-21)
State Capitol, Room 5064 215 N. Marengo, Suite 185
Sacramento, CA 95814 Pasadena, 91101
(916) 445-5976 (626) 683-0282
Sher, Byron (SD-11)

State Capitol, Room 2082 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Jose, CA 95113
(916) 445-6747 (408) 277-9460
Soto, Nell (SD-32)

State Capitol, Room 4074 822 N. Euclid Avenue, Suite A 215 North D. Street, Ste. 106
Sacramento, CA 95814 Ontario, CA 91762 San Bernardino, CA 92401
(916) 445-6868 (909) 984-7741 (909) 381-3832
505 S. Garey Avenue, 2nd Floor

Pomona, CA 91766
(909) 381-3832
Speier, Jackie (SD-8)

State Capitol, Room 2032 400 South El Camino Real, Suite 630 455 Golden Gate Ave., Rm 14200
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Mateo, CA 94402 San Francisco, CA 94102
(916) 445-0503 (650) 340-8840 (415) 557-7857
Torlakson, Tom (SD-07)

State Capitol, Room 2068 1948 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95814 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(916) 445-6083 (925) 280-0276
Vasconcellos, John (SD-13)

State Capitol, Room 4074 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Ste 209
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Jose, CA 95113
(916) 445-9740 (408) 286-8318
Vincent, Edward (SD-25)

State Capitol, Room 5052 1 Manchester Blvd, Suite 600
Sacramento, CA 95814 Inglewood, CA 90301
(916) 445-2104 (310) 412-0393
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY
The Honorable Jane Doe

California State Assembly
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0001
Member Name Party District Capitol Phone Capitol Fax Room No.
Aanestad, Samuel M. Rep 3rd (916) 319-2003 (916) 319-2103 Room 4144
Alquist, Elaine Dem 22nd (916) 319-2022 (916) 319-2122 Room 3120
Aroner, Dion Dem 14th (916) 319-2014 (916) 319-2114 Room 2163
Ashburn, Roy Rep 32nd (916) 319-2032 (916) 319-2132 Room 4167
Bates, Patricia C. Rep 73rd (916) 319-2073 (916) 319-2173 Room 6031
Bogh, Russ Rep 65th (916) 319-2065 (916) 319-2165 Room 2002
Briggs, Mike Rep 29th (916) 319-2029 (916) 319-2129 Room 2130
Calderon, Thomas M. Dem 58th (916) 319-2058 (916) 319-2158 Room 2013
Campbell, John Rep 70th (916) 319-2070 (916) 319-2170 Room 2174
Campbell, Bill Rep 71st (916) 319-2071 (916) 319-2171 Room 2158
Canciamilla, Joseph Dem 11th (916) 319-2011 (916) 319-2111 Room 6011
Cardenas, Tony Dem 39th (916) 319-2039 (916) 319-2139 Room 6026
Cardoza, Dennis Dem 26th (916) 319-2026 (916) 319-2126 Room 3160
Cedillo, Gil Dem 46th (916) 319-2046 (916) 319-2146 Room 5016
Chan, Wilma Dem 16th (916) 319-2016 (916) 319-2116 Room 4098
Chavez, Edward Dem 57th (916) 319-2057 (916) 319-2157 Room 4130
Chu, Judy Dem 49th (916) 319-2049 (916) 319-2149 Room 5126
Cogdill, Dave Rep 25th (916) 319-2025 (916) 319-2125 Room 4208
Cohn, Rebecca Dem 24th (916) 319-2024 (916) 319-2124 Room 2137
Corbett, Ellen M. Dem 18th (916) 319-2018 (916) 319-2118 Room 4126
Correa, Lou Dem 69th (916) 319-2069 (916) 319-2169 Room 6025
Cox, Dave Rep 5th (916) 319-2005 (916) 319-2105 Room 3104
Daucher, Lynn Rep 72nd (916) 319-2072 (916) 319-2172 Room 2111
Diaz, Manny Dem 23rd (916) 319-2023 (916) 319-2123 Room 2170
Dickerson, Richard L. Rep 2nd (916) 319-2002 (916) 319-2102 Room 5160
Dutra, John A. Dem 20th (916) 319-2020 (916) 319-2120 Room 3091
Firebaugh, Marco Antonio Dem 50th (916) 319-2050 (916) 319-2150 Room 2003
Florez, Dean Dem 30th (916) 319-2030 (916) 319-2130 Room 2141
Frommer, Dario Dem 43rd (916) 319-2043 (916) 319-2143 Room 2160
Goldberg, Jackie Dem 45th (916) 319-2045 (916) 319-2145 Room 5155
Harman, Tom Rep 67th (916) 319-2067 (916) 319-2167 Room 5158
Havice, Sally Dem 56th (916) 319-2056 (916) 319-2156 Room 5150
Hertzberg, Robert M. Dem 40th (916) 319-2040 (916) 319-2140 Room 219
Hollingsworth, Dennis Rep 66th (916) 319-2066 (916) 319-2166 Room 3098
Horton, Jerome Dem 51st (916) 319-2051 (916) 319-2151 Room 2179
Member Name Party District Capitol Phone Capitol Fax Room No.
Jackson, Hannah-Beth Dem 35th (916) 319-2035 (916) 319-2135 Room 4140
Keeley, Fred Dem 27th (916) 319-2027 (916) 319-2127 Room 3152
Kehoe, Christine Dem 76th (916) 319-2076 (916) 319-2176 Room 4112
Kelley, Dave Rep 80th (916) 319-2080 (916) 319-2180 Room 4162
Koretz, Paul Dem 42nd (916) 319-2042 (916) 319-2142 Room 2176
La Suer, Jay Rep 77th (916) 319-2077 (916) 319-2177 Room 2016
Leach, Lynne C. Rep 15th (916) 319-2015 (916) 319-2115 Room 3132
Leonard, Bill Rep 63rd (916) 319-2063 (916) 319-2163 Room 4117
Leslie, Tim Rep 4th (916) 319-2004 (916) 319-2104 Room 4164
Liu, Carol Dem 44th (916) 319-2044 (916) 319-2144 Room 4139
Longville, John Dem 62nd (916) 319-2062 (916) 319-2162 Room 3123
Lowenthal, Alan Dem 54th (916) 319-2054 (916) 319-2154 Room 4146
Maddox, Ken Rep 68th (916) 319-2068 (916) 319-2168 Room 4153
Maldonado, Abel Rep 33rd (916) 319-2033 (916) 319-2133 Room 4015
Matthews, Barbara S. Dem 17th (916) 319-2017 (916) 319-2117 Room 5135
Migden, Carole Dem 13th (916) 319-2013 (916) 319-2113 Room 2114
Mountjoy, Dennis Rep 59th (916) 319-2059 (916) 319-2159 Room 3141
Nakano, George Dem 53rd (916) 319-2053 (916) 319-2153 Room 2148
Nation, Joseph Dem 6th (916) 319-2006 (916) 319-2106 Room 3126
Negrete McLeod, Gloria Dem 61st (916) 319-2061 (916) 319-2161 Room 5175
Oropeza, Jenny Dem 55th (916) 319-2055 (916) 319-2155 Room 2196
Pacheco, Rod Rep 64th (916) 319-2064 (916) 319-2164 Room 4116
Pacheco, Robert Rep 60th (916) 319-2060 (916) 319-2160 Room 4177
Papan, Louis J. Dem 19th (916) 319-2019 (916) 319-2119 Room 3173
Pavley, Fran Dem 41st (916) 319-2041 (916) 319-2141 Room 5144
Pescetti, Anthony Rep 10th (916) 319-2010 (916) 319-2110 Room 4158
Reyes, Sarah L. Dem 31st (916) 319-2031 (916) 319-2131 Room 2117
Richman, Keith Rep 38th (916) 319-2038 (916) 319-2138 Room 5128
Runner, George Rep 36th (916) 319-2036 (916) 319-2136 Room 6027
Salinas, Simon Dem 28th (916) 319-2028 (916) 319-2128 Room 2175
Shelley, Kevin Dem 12th (916) 319-2012 (916) 319-2112 Room 319
Simitian, S. Joseph Dem 21st (916) 319-2021 (916) 319-2121 Room 5119
Steinberg, Darrell Dem 9th (916) 319-2009 (916) 319-2109 Room 5136
Strickland, Tony Rep 37th (916) 319-2037 (916) 319-2137 Room 4009
Strom-Martin, Virginia Dem 1st (916) 319-2001 (916) 319-2101 Room 3146
Thomson, Helen Dem 8th (916) 319-2008 (916) 319-2108 Room 6005
Vargas, Juan Dem 79th (916) 319-2079 (916) 319-2179 Room 2188
Washington, Carl Dem 52nd (916) 319-2052 (916) 319-2152 Room 2136
Wayne, Howard Dem 78th (916) 319-2078 (916) 319-2178 Room 4005
Wesson, Herb Dem 47th (916) 319-2047 (916) 319-2147 Room 3013
Wiggins, Patricia Dem 7th (916) 319-2007 (916) 319-2107 Room 4016
Wright, Roderick Dem 48th (916) 319-2048 (916) 319-2148 Room 6012
Wyland, Mark Rep 74th (916) 319-2074 (916) 319-2174 Room 3147
Part I. Find Gross Income Eligibility
A. Gross Monthly Earned Income $____________(A)

Households with elderly or disabled members not subject to this test
B. Add Other Income (TANF, GA, social security, etc.) + $____________(B)
C. Gross Monthly Income = $____________(C)
If Gross Monthly Income is higher than figure on chart, household is ineligible:
HH SIZE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +1
MAX
GROSS 931 1,258 1,585 1,913 2,240 2,567 2,894 3,221 +328
INCOME
Part II: Find Net Income
D. Gross Monthly Earned Income (from A) $____________(A)
E. Subtract Earned Income Deduction (20% of A) - $____________(E)
F. Net Earned Income = $____________(F)
G. Add other income (welfare, unemployment…) + $____________
= $____________(G)
H. Subtract $134 Standard Deduction - $_____134____(H)
I. Subtract Dependent Care Costs - $____________ (I)

(up to $175 per child over 2, up to $200 if under 2)
J. Subtract Child Support Payments - $____________ (J)
K. Subtract monthly medical costs over $35 for - $____________ (K)

Any elderly or disabled household member
L. Adjusted income = $____________(L)
M. Find Excess Shelter Costs $____________(M)

(if homeless, enter $143)
rent + utilities or rent + SUA of $206
N. Telephone (zero unless you have no utility costs, $____________(N)

and are not claiming homeless deduction, then enter $20)
Make sure that income guidelines and deduction amounts are valid. Maximum benefit
levels and income guidelines are updated each October and some deductions are updated
as well. Check FNS’ website to ensure current information:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/RecipElig.HTM
O. Total Shelter Costs (add lines M and N) = $____________(O)
P. ½ of Adjusted Income (L) - $____________ (½ L)
Q. Excess shelter costs (Subtract P from O.) $____________(Q)

Use difference or $340, whichever is smaller.
Elderly or disabled households can use full difference.
(if homeless, Q = $143)
R. Adjusted Income (L) $____________ (L)
S. Subtract Excess Shelter Costs (Q) - $ ____________ (Q)
T. Monthly Net Income = $____________ (T)
Part III: Find Amount of Food Stamps
U. Compare Monthly Net Income to Chart (If Monthly Net Income is higher than figure
on the Chart, household is ineligible)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +1
HH SIZE
MAX NET 716 968 1,220 1,471 1,723 1,975 2,226 2,478 +252
INCOME ($)
V. Multiply the Household's Net Income (T) by 0.3 $____________(V)
W. Round up to the next dollar to find

Adjusted Food Stamp Income $____________(W)
X. Subtract Adjusted Food Stamp Income (W) from the figures in the chart below:
HH SIZE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +1
MAX FOOD 135 248 356 452 537 644 712 814 +102
STAMP
ALLOTMENT
Y. Maximum Food Stamp Allotment (from above chart) minus

Adjusted Food Stamp Income (W): $____________(Y)
The amount on line Y is the estimate of the monthly benefit.
Make sure that income guidelines and deduction amounts are valid. Maximum benefit
levels and income guidelines are updated each October and some deductions are updated
as well. Check FNS’ website to ensure current information:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/RecipElig.HTM

Understanding and Improving The Food Stamp Program

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding and Improving The Food Stamp Program

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding and

Improving the Food Stamp

California Food Policy Advocates

California Food Policy Advocates is a public policy and

CFPA is California’s only statewide advocacy organization

CFPA uses research and analysis, advocacy, and community

Funding for California Food Policy Advocates’ food stamp

California is fortunate to have a strong network of advocates, food providers, administrators

Federal reauthorization .......................................................................................................... 21

Food Stamps in California ............................................................................................................ 32

Extending benefits to ineligible people

Opportunities for improving participation

Food stamps at the county level ................................................................................................... 48

Ofice hours and location......................................................................................................... 49

Participation (Persons), 26 October 2001

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson promoted food stamps as a

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Conversation 2000, Summer 2000, p. 9.

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Earned Income and resources

Stamp Households Federal Fiscal Year 2000, June 2001.

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Participation, July 1999, p. 10.

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

20 USDA, National Conversation on Food Stamps 2000.

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES STATE RESPONSIBILITIES COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES

§ Setting benefits levels § Developing food stamp § Processing food stamp

22USDA, Average Monthly Benefit.

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

• Deductions. During the application process, each household is allowed to take

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

• Annual recertification. Most households in California are certified to receive benefits

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

24 USDA, National Conversation on Food Stamps, p. 22.

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Multiple aid fraud

Trading benefits for cash

EBT and fraud

Penalties for fraud and trafficking

29 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Background, p. 7.

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

In this section on federal advocacy, we discuss Food Stamp Reauthorization, as well as a

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Why is reauthorization important?

Reauthorization and the Farm Bill

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

• They are under 18 years of age;

Increases in hunger among immigrants

Drops in immigrant participation

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Work and hunger among ABAWDs

Drop in ABAWD participation

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

monthly average number of

Protections for ABAWDs

Labor Surplus Area waivers

Understanding and Improving the Food Stamp Program in California

Low Minimum Benefit

40 USDA, Average Monthly Benefit..