English
Legislation that would repeal the law passed in 2009 requiring fingerprinting of IHSS consumers and providers has been approved by the State Senate by a vote of 23-16, with one abstention. The bill is SB 930, introduced by State Senator Noreen Evans (D-District 2) and cosponsored by UDW. The legislation now goes to the State Assembly, where it will be referred to a policy committee. Here’s the rollcall vote on the bill.
In 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger persuaded the Legislature to adopt the “IHSS Anti-Fraud Initiative”. Among the law’s provisions were requirements that (1) all IHSS consumers be fingerprinted, (2) the fingerprints of consumers and providers be placed on each IHSS timesheet, and (3) providers are prohibited from using Post Office Boxes as mailing addresses on IHSS forms.
The purported purpose of the fingerprints was to ensure the identity of the applicant and to prevent duplicate aid – people receiving IHSS under more than one name or in more than one county. However, neither the Schwarzenegger nor Brown administrations or the Department of Social Services (CDSS) have yet to identify any instances of duplicate aid (the problem the law was trying were to solve), or show that fingerprinting provides any kind of solution. In the absence of that evidence or information, UDW believes that the fingerprinting provisions are a waste of more than $40 million in taxpayer money.
Fingerprinting on timesheets is not an effective anti-fraud tool. IHSS consumers and providers would be self-affixing their fingerprint to the designated area on the timesheet. There is a high probably of errors and smudges. It is unlikely that the fingerprint image will have sufficient quality to be used for any purpose in the legal system. Indeed, CDSS has testified that they cannot legally compare timesheet fingerprints to the original fingerprints.
No evidence has ever been offered to connect post office boxes with fraud. In fact, there are many valid reasons that IHSS providers use P.O. Boxes. There are thousands of IHSS providers who live in rural parts of the state where P.O. Box mail delivery is the only means for receiving mail. Other providers must utilize P.O. Box mail delivery because their relatives, landlords or roommates do not allow them to get mail sent to their residence. This prohibition makes no sense and should be repealed.
