California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1471 — Human services.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 439, Statutes of 2012.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2012. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law provides for the county-administered In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, under which qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons are provided with services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes and avoid institutionalization. Existing law authorizes services to be provided under the IHSS program either through the employment of individual providers, a contract between the county and an entity for the provision of services, the creation by the county of a public authority, or a contract between the county and a nonprofit consortium. Existing law establishes the California In-Home Supportive Services Authority (Statewide Authority) and requires the authority to be the entity authorized to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations for any individual provider who is employed by a recipient of supportive services. Existing law establishes the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act, which serves to resolve disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment between the Statewide Authority and recognized employee organizations. Existing law authorizes individual providers to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations for the purpose of representation on all matters within the scope of representation. Under existing law, the Statewide Authority is the employer of record, for collective bargaining purposes, of individual providers of in-home supportive services in each county upon implementation by a county. This bill, would, among other things, clarify that predecessor agencies to the Statewide Authority cannot meet and confer in good faith with a recognized employee organization after the Statewide Authority assumes those agencies' rights and responsibilities. The bill would also require, if the Statewide Authority and the recognized employee organization negotiate changes to locally administered health benefits, the Statewide Authority to give a county and a specified entity 90 days' notice before the changes are implemented. This bill would provide that the scope of representation shall exclude providing assistance to IHSS recipients through the establishment of emergency backup services. This bill would change references from the employer and public agency to the Statewide Authority in these provisions, and would make other technical and clarifying changes to these provisions. Existing law authorizes managed care health plans, as defined, to assume the authority, previously granted to counties, to contract for the provision of in-home supportive services with a qualified agency, as defined, subject to specified restrictions and requirements. Existing law requires qualified agencies to establish procedures to ensure specified contract limitations on caseload are being met and there is coordination of information between managed care health plans, qualified agencies, counties, and the department. This bill would, among other things, create an alternative means to meet a documentation requirement for entities seeking authorization as a qualified agency, as specified, and would specify that counties and managed care health plans are also required to establish those procedures. By increasing the duties of local entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that the state shall be immune from liability resulting from the state's implementation of those provisions, and from the negligence or intentional torts of a contract provider providing services pursuant to those provisions. Existing law requires all counties, commencing July 1, 2012, to have a County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) , and requires counties to pay the County IHSS MOE instead of paying the nonfederal share of IHSS costs, as specified. This bill would specify that the MOE shall be adjusted for the annualized cost of increases in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed before the Statewide Authority assumes specified responsibilities for certain counties. This bill would require the Department of Finance to consult with a specified organization, as prescribed, to implement the MOE. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid Program provisions. One of the methods by which these services are provided is pursuant to contracts with various types of managed care plans. Existing law provides that, not sooner than March 1, 2013, IHSS shall be a Medi-Cal benefit available through managed care health plans in specified counties, and requires managed care health plans to, among other things, enter into a contract with the State Department of Social Services to pay wages to IHSS providers, as specified. Existing law requires the department to assume responsibility for providing workers' compensation coverage for specified employees who provide in-home supportive services pursuant to contracts with counties. This bill would, among other things, require managed care health plans to enter into a contract with the department to pay benefits to IHSS providers, as specified. This bill would provide that a managed care health plan shall not be deemed to be the employer of an in-home supportive services provider for purposes of liability, as specified. This bill would also require the department to provide workers' compensation coverage for specified employees pursuant to contracts with managed care health plans. Existing law provides that specified provisions relating to the California In-Home Supportive Services Authority and managed care health plans that contract for the provision of in-home supportive services shall become inoperative under certain circumstances. This bill would include among those provisions the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act. Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, among other provisions, authorizes a licensee of certain adult residential facilities or group homes to utilize secured perimeters, as defined. Under existing law, only individuals meeting specified criteria may reside in a facility that utilizes secured perimeters. These criteria include a requirement that the individual is not a foster care child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to specified law. This bill would revise the list of laws, pursuant to which the juvenile court has jurisdiction over a foster child, for purposes of eligibility to reside in a facility with secured perimeters, as described above. Under existing law, prior to the initial licensure or first renewal of a license of any person to operate or manage specified psychiatric and mental health care facilities, the State Department of Social Services is required to submit fingerprint images and other information pertaining to the applicant or licensee to the Department of Justice. Existing law imposes similar requirements on the State Department of Social Services upon the employment of, or contract with or for, any direct care staff. This bill would transfer the responsibilities of the State Department of Social Services with respect to submitting the fingerprint images and information described above to the applicant, licensee, or direct care staff person, as appropriate. Existing law requires each county to pay 30% of the nonfederal share of costs of administering the CalFresh program. Existing law also requires counties to expend an amount for programs that provide services to needy families that, when combined with the funds expended above for the administration of the CalFresh program, equals or exceeds the amount spent by the county for corresponding activities during the 1996–97 fiscal year. Existing law provides that any county that equals or exceeds the amount spent by the county for corresponding activities during the 1996–97 fiscal year entirely through expenditures for the administration of the CalFresh program in the 2010–11 and 2011–12 fiscal years shall receive the full state General Fund allocation for the administration of the CalFresh program without paying the county's share of the nonfederal costs for the amount above the 1996–97 expenditure requirement. This bill would extend counties' eligibility to receive the full allocation for CalFresh administration under the above circumstances to the 2012–13 state fiscal year. This bill would make various other technical changes to provisions relating to health and human services programs. This bill would appropriate $1,000 from the General Fund to the California Health and Human Services Agency. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 439, Statutes of 2012.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 12:15 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 49. Noes 26. Page 6631.).

  5. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 6605.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 31 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 11. Page 4930.).

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. Ordered to third reading.

  11. From committee: That the measure be returned with further amendments to the Senate floor for consideration. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (August 23).

  12. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

  13. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  16. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  17. Ordered to second reading.

  18. Withdrawn from committee.

  19. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  20. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  21. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (June 26).

  22. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  23. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  24. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  25. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 14).

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  27. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  28. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  29. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  30. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 47. Noes 23. Page 4086.)

  31. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  32. Ordered to second reading.

  33. Withdrawn from committee.

  34. Assembly Rule 96 suspended. (Ayes 46. Noes 24. Page 4011.)

  35. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 46. Noes 24. Page 4011.)

  36. Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  37. From printer. May be heard in committee February 10.

  38. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Budget · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Budget

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 1471 BUDGET Concurrence in Senate Amendments By BLUMENFIELD

Passed 49 Yea · 26 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 482405
Republican 0200
Democratic 1000
Total 492605
% of votes cast 61%33%0%6%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gordon — Yea
Butler — Yea
Eng — Yea
Carter — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fong — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Allen — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hall — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Campos — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Gorell — Nay
Fletcher — Not Voting
Portantino — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Halderman — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Conway — Nay
Cook — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Lara — Yea
Miller — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Swanson — Not Voting
Wagner — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Not Voting
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Nay
Logue — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Silva — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Williams — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB1471 Committee on BUDGET (Blumenfield) By Leno

Passed 23 Yea · 11 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211006
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 231106
% of votes cast 58%28%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Blakeslee — Nay
Cannella — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Huff — Nay
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Pavley — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Lieu — Not Voting
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Harman — Not Voting
Hernandez — Yea
Liu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

From Committee: Amendments returned with further amendements to Senate floor for consideration.

Passed 10 Yea · 4 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10402
Total 10402
% of votes cast 63%25%0%13%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Evans — Not Voting
Fuller — Nay
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Anderson — Not Voting
Emmerson — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
La Malfa — Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 11 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Total 11500
% of votes cast 69%31%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Evans — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Leno — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Liu — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
La Malfa — Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 11 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Total 11500
% of votes cast 69%31%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Leno — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Liu — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
La Malfa — Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11005
Total 11005
% of votes cast 69%0%0%31%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Hancock — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
La Malfa — Not Voting

Official roll call →

AB 1471 BUDGET Assembly Third Reading By BLUMENFIELD

Passed 47 Yea · 23 Nay · 10 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4621010
Republican 0200
Democratic 1000
Total 4723010
% of votes cast 59%29%0%13%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Carter — Yea
Fong — Yea
Allen — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Campos — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Cedillo — Yea
Halderman — Nay
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Fletcher — Not Voting
Portantino — Not Voting
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Conway — Nay
Cook — Nay
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Lara — Yea
Logue — Not Voting
Mendoza — Not Voting
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Not Voting
Smyth — Nay
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Hall — Not Voting
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Silva — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Valadao — Not Voting
Williams — Yea
Eng — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Not Voting
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

healthcare labor health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1471 do?
Existing law provides for the county-administered In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, under which qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons are provided with services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes and avoid institutionalization. Existing law authorizes services to be provided under the IHSS program either through the employment of individual providers, a contract between the county and an entity for the provision of services, the creation by the county of a public authority, or a contract between the county and a nonprofit consortium. Existing law establishes the California In-Home Supportive Services Authority (Statewide Authority) and requires the authority to be the entity authorized to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations for any individual provider who is employed by a recipient of supportive services. Existing law establishes the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act, which serves to resolve disputes regarding wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment between the Statewide Authority and recognized employee organizations. Existing law authorizes individual providers to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations for the purpose of representation on all matters within the scope of representation. Under existing law, the Statewide Authority is the employer of record, for collective bargaining purposes, of individual providers of in-home supportive services in each county upon implementation by a county. This bill, would, among other things, clarify that predecessor agencies to the Statewide Authority cannot meet and confer in good faith with a recognized employee organization after the Statewide Authority assumes those agencies' rights and responsibilities. The bill would also require, if the Statewide Authority and the recognized employee organization negotiate changes to locally administered health benefits, the Statewide Authority to give a county and a specified entity 90 days' notice before the changes are implemented. This bill would provide that the scope of representation shall exclude providing assistance to IHSS recipients through the establishment of emergency backup services. This bill would change references from the employer and public agency to the Statewide Authority in these provisions, and would make other technical and clarifying changes to these provisions. Existing law authorizes managed care health plans, as defined, to assume the authority, previously granted to counties, to contract for the provision of in-home supportive services with a qualified agency, as defined, subject to specified restrictions and requirements. Existing law requires qualified agencies to establish procedures to ensure specified contract limitations on caseload are being met and there is coordination of information between managed care health plans, qualified agencies, counties, and the department. This bill would, among other things, create an alternative means to meet a documentation requirement for entities seeking authorization as a qualified agency, as specified, and would specify that counties and managed care health plans are also required to establish those procedures. By increasing the duties of local entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that the state shall be immune from liability resulting from the state's implementation of those provisions, and from the negligence or intentional torts of a contract provider providing services pursuant to those provisions. Existing law requires all counties, commencing July 1, 2012, to have a County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) , and requires counties to pay the County IHSS MOE instead of paying the nonfederal share of IHSS costs, as specified. This bill would specify that the MOE shall be adjusted for the annualized cost of increases in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed before the Statewide Authority assumes specified responsibilities for certain counties. This bill would require the Department of Finance to consult with a specified organization, as prescribed, to implement the MOE. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid Program provisions. One of the methods by which these services are provided is pursuant to contracts with various types of managed care plans. Existing law provides that, not sooner than March 1, 2013, IHSS shall be a Medi-Cal benefit available through managed care health plans in specified counties, and requires managed care health plans to, among other things, enter into a contract with the State Department of Social Services to pay wages to IHSS providers, as specified. Existing law requires the department to assume responsibility for providing workers' compensation coverage for specified employees who provide in-home supportive services pursuant to contracts with counties. This bill would, among other things, require managed care health plans to enter into a contract with the department to pay benefits to IHSS providers, as specified. This bill would provide that a managed care health plan shall not be deemed to be the employer of an in-home supportive services provider for purposes of liability, as specified. This bill would also require the department to provide workers' compensation coverage for specified employees pursuant to contracts with managed care health plans. Existing law provides that specified provisions relating to the California In-Home Supportive Services Authority and managed care health plans that contract for the provision of in-home supportive services shall become inoperative under certain circumstances. This bill would include among those provisions the In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act. Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, among other provisions, authorizes a licensee of certain adult residential facilities or group homes to utilize secured perimeters, as defined. Under existing law, only individuals meeting specified criteria may reside in a facility that utilizes secured perimeters. These criteria include a requirement that the individual is not a foster care child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to specified law. This bill would revise the list of laws, pursuant to which the juvenile court has jurisdiction over a foster child, for purposes of eligibility to reside in a facility with secured perimeters, as described above. Under existing law, prior to the initial licensure or first renewal of a license of any person to operate or manage specified psychiatric and mental health care facilities, the State Department of Social Services is required to submit fingerprint images and other information pertaining to the applicant or licensee to the Department of Justice. Existing law imposes similar requirements on the State Department of Social Services upon the employment of, or contract with or for, any direct care staff. This bill would transfer the responsibilities of the State Department of Social Services with respect to submitting the fingerprint images and information described above to the applicant, licensee, or direct care staff person, as appropriate. Existing law requires each county to pay 30% of the nonfederal share of costs of administering the CalFresh program. Existing law also requires counties to expend an amount for programs that provide services to needy families that, when combined with the funds expended above for the administration of the CalFresh program, equals or exceeds the amount spent by the county for corresponding activities during the 1996–97 fiscal year. Existing law provides that any county that equals or exceeds the amount spent by the county for corresponding activities during the 1996–97 fiscal year entirely through expenditures for the administration of the CalFresh program in the 2010–11 and 2011–12 fiscal years shall receive the full state General Fund allocation for the administration of the CalFresh program without paying the county's share of the nonfederal costs for the amount above the 1996–97 expenditure requirement. This bill would extend counties' eligibility to receive the full allocation for CalFresh administration under the above circumstances to the 2012–13 state fiscal year. This bill would make various other technical changes to provisions relating to health and human services programs. This bill would appropriate $1,000 from the General Fund to the California Health and Human Services Agency. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Who sponsors AB 1471?
AB 1471 is sponsored by Committee on Budget.
What is the current status of AB 1471?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2012. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1471?
Track AB 1471 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1471

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1471

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →