In-home supportive services: providers.
Summary
Existing law provides for the county-administered In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, under which qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons receive services enabling them to remain in their own homes. Existing law prohibits a new applicant or an applicant whose application has been denied on the basis of a conviction and for whom an appeal of that denial is pending from providing supportive services if he or she has been convicted of specified crimes in the previous 10 years. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Health Care Services to develop a provider enrollment form that each person seeking to provide supportive services must complete, sign under penalty of perjury, and submit to the county, containing designated statements relating to the provider's criminal history. Existing law authorizes a recipient of services who wishes to employ a provider applicant who has been convicted of a specified offense to submit to the county a prescribed individual waiver, signed by the recipient, or by the recipient's authorized representative. This bill would add the felony offenses of forgery, embezzlement, extortion, and identity theft to the list of criminal convictions that would preclude an applicant from providing supportive services. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to revise the provider enrollment form to account for these additional criminal exclusions. By changing the definition of the crime of perjury, and by increasing the duties of counties in administering the In-Home Supportive Services program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Jun 2012
Assembly Passage
May 2012
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 16, 2012
Last action Jun 26, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly May 14, 2012
How they voted
40–10
Passed · 22 other
Total votes 72
May 14, 2012
D
Democratic45
33% Yea
I
Independent1
0% Nay
R
Republican26
96% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
14
Key actions
5
Committee
6
Amendments
1
Jun 11, 2012
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
May 24, 2012
Committee
Referred to Coms. on HUMAN S. and PUB. S.
upper
May 14, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (40-10-22)
assembly
Apr 18, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 6.) (April 18).
lower
Mar 28, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 26, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (March 20).
lower
Mar 1, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on HUM. S.
lower
Feb 17, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
LH
Linda Halderman
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1714
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1714. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline