Press Clippings

” 2 THE\”RECORDER THUllSDA y’ OcrOBER 25, 1990 Welfare Recipients Winners in CRLA. WELFARE RECIPIENTS LEAGUE v. McMAHON: California Rural Legal As\u00ad sistance settled a 13-year-old class action with the state Department of Social Ser\u00ad vices on Oct. 11. CRLA General Counsel Ralph Abascal of San Francisco and Grace Galligher, directing attorney for Sacramento’s Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, represented the plaintiffs throughout the action, Welfare Recipients League v. McMahon, 268972, in Sac\u00ad ramento County Superior Court. Robert .Newman, staff attorney of the Los Angeies office of the Western Center on Law and Poverty worked on the suit . . through 1989. Brian Paddock, regional counsel at Sacramento-based Legal Ser\u00ad vices of Northern California, joined the plaintiffs team in 1989. The Department of Social Services was represented by Deputy Attorney General Michael Hammang and by James Simon, senior staff counsel for the De\u00ad partment of Social Services, both of Sac\u00ad ramento. Terms of the settlement call for all fu\u00ad ture applicants for Aid to Families With Dependent Children to receive welfare payments retroactive to the date they file an application for aid with the depart\u00ad ment. In the past, applicants received payments beginning on the date an appli\u00ad cation was completed – a difference of as much as 45 days, or about $1,236 for a family of four. The change is expected to cost the state between $25 million and $30 million each year in added payments. In addition, the settlement will allow welfare applicants who have been denied retroactive payments since a preliminary injunction was issued in the case in 1982 to receive a flat compensation award of $100 each. The payment, CRLA officials estimate, will total about $120 million if all affected families can be identified and paid. Attorneys for the state declined to estimate what the settlement might cost, but agreed the final cost will depend on how many former applicants claim the awards. RUSSELL D. CURTIS i THE RECORDER CRLA GENERAL COUNSEL RALPH ABASCAL:\u00b7 He and three other attorneys for the i>?\u00b0r had challenged the payment policies of the state Department of Social Ser\u00ad vices. Previously, only families determined to be in \”immediate need0 – defined by state officials as those in danger of evic\u00ad tion, lacking clothing or adequate food – received retroactive aid payments. Aid to all other families began at the completion of the application. The settltment was reached two years after the California Supreme Court denied the state’s request for review of an earlier court of appeal decision. The Third Dis\u00ad trict Court of Apeal in Sacramento ruled in 1987 that state aid reg\u00b5lations violated state law. – KAREN ILOYD ”

” ”

” ”

” ”

” ”

” ”

” ”

” ”

” \u00b7\u00b7 … \ufffd \u00b7: : A te\ufffdb\ufffdfire, d \/!\ufffd\ufffdJ,zt! rt\/1?,;\ufffd;’,yi This is the story ofho}\ufffdJ\ufffdn\ufffd(‘ .. ,1 fami!y:tip\ufffd\u00b7\u00b7’b\ufffd\ufffdom\ufffd\u00b7\ufffdnt\ufffdr,\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd’4 ) )1J,; \ufffd _: bureaucratic nigh\ufffdmare Jha!tfif,s; a moth\ufffdr spending’.’ as’ much;tii1J,e: dealing . ll?i.{\ufffd fi\ufffd\ufffdf,,cial: stfryi\ufffda:l. \ufffdf .-\u00b7 \u00b7 .. she does.:the: survival of ht!r . \u00b7. 1 \u00b7, \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 .\u00b7 ‘. }::: ;’;}. \ufffduml4-:son. . . . . . I . ‘i .: \ufffd-: i ‘ . \u00b7\u00b7s \ufffd’ <; . .\" ' i :._; ! , : ' .. . ,i,':,;. '::\\,-:\u00b7'.f \ufffd\ufffd:\ufffd\ufffdt\/\\\\ ;\u00b7\ufffd:,:\ufffdt\u00b7i;\ufffd;;,i,\ufffd. t:T Ht:Ultilf:f'I Friday, August 4, 1995 \u00b7 .,B n -URNED ' , wl\ufffdt\ 1ra-:i\ufffd\ufffd ::\ufffd, Burch establish the fund .and was From Page lA .......... named. its \ufffd\ufffdt\ufffde., _-or: t:h:e person . .. .. \u00b7 \/ \u00b7 ; responsible for all the money Kevin's stoiy on television- de- . conilng into or going out of the clded to donate $10,000 to . . the account. , \u00b7 \u00b7 trustfund. \u00b7. ;\u00b7 ... \u00b7 ' \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \"It was never my int\ufffdntlon that \u00b7 \ufffdo me, she \u00b7(the _donor)_ is\u00b7 8;11 it would stay in my name,\" Zano-angel;\" Burch said. \u00b7 Although it s Uni said. \u00b7 caused me a lot of grief, it's worth On March 6, Napa National ft. Kevin needs it.\" \u00b7. \u00b7i :. was notified by Contra Costa legal_ The \"grter Burch refers\u00b7to re-,. aid attorney Evelyn Rlnzler that lates to the fact Napa County the fund would have to be officials. who say they are enforc\ufffd changed for family needs. \u00b7 tng state and federal laws, want \u00b7 .Burch had sought assistance to terminate Burch's welfare ben- . from Rinzler's office because Ke\u00adefits; including Medi-Cal, be- vin was in Brookside Hospital in cause of the $10,000 donation. . San Pablo Bay at the time. While Burch said the fund is Following her attorney's advice, strictly for Kevin's needs, co_unty Burch on _April 27 -changed \u00b7th\ufffdr,.. officials contend the money is an fund to the \"Kevin Daly lrrevo\ufffd asset, and. therefore_. makes cable Special Needs Fund,\" and Burch ineligible for welfare. . substituted herself for Zanolini as \"When people get windfall in- trustee, according to county doc\u00adcome. we expect them to use that uments. tn\"come instead, of .r\ufffdlyi\ufffdg .. ?n . the By giving herself a\ufffdcess to\u00b7 the state\/' safd Teny' Longoria; direc- . account; \u00b7 Burch; It seems, jeop\u00adtor of the county's Health and . \u00b7 \u00b7 ardized; ner \u00b7 welfare benefits -Human Services Agency. \u00b7 monthly .payments and Me.di-Cal. State and fede\ufffdal laws say that\u00b7 The trust; fund, . according to tf a welfare recipient receives a Oakland attorney Lany Padway, iarge sun'l of money, then they who would later help Burch, is become ineligible for aid and \"permanently and irrevocably for . . _, ... , -\ufffd.\ufffd!!-.. ,,\\)P:''\u00b7,_'i;!\ufffd!'\\; :\u00b7i. ( \u00b7'> .. ,.; :\u00b7 … . ‘., … \ufffd :\u00b7 \ufffd\ufffd-. must live of1: the n\ufffdw income. the special needs of a child.\” It is : \ufffd\ufffd:.ia’n.i. by .,_, bumi,d\u00b7-, Knin c:. =i:: .;;:: ii:u::.\ufffd:\ufffd. .\u00b7 \ufffd\ufffd\ufffdi’.\”! : ::y \ufffd:d\ufffd\ufffd Daly, during a cerem\ufffdny-rwith rire .. ters \ufffdutslde for benefits for 11 months; or the provided by state agencies like Brookside Hospital hi1li\ufffdoud \ufffdy:.s.,,-\u00b7_ .. \u00b7 time equal to how long th\ufffd\ufffd welf,\u00b5-e, Pa\ufffdway said. \u00b7 ,,.>1L ;\u00b7:1,:\u00b7:: ii:\u00b7 \u00b7 ll,_-1:1 ( . .\u00b7 ‘ . . the money in Kevin’s \ufffd-\ufffd,! __ fun\ufffd,.’:\/ -\ufffdadway,who specializesmper- ! \u00b7\u00b7 \u00b7\u00b7Q– \u00b7 \u00b7\u00b7;_, __ \u00b7 \u00b7 -, :i\u00b7:_ \u00b7_\u00b7_. \ufffd—‘\u00b7-\ufffd\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7Of\u00b7 \u00b7\u00b7 -Mi\ufffd-\u00b7 R\u00b7-‘ . d\u00b7\u00b7 \u00b7ne\u00b7 …. \u00b7 s\u00b7 \u00b7S!’.,}_\u00b7,,\u00b7 …. \ufffd __ ,\u00b7. :: will last. ‘ . . .. _.., ,\u00b7,,;-: . ;:\”\/sonalJnjwy cases, said.there are . \” .. \””:’- \u00b7′.: : -: \”If this person- ca\ufffd\ufffd into\u00b7th1\ufffd\ufffd;.riiany’m,\u00a2tcal,expen\ufffdes, like cer-. \u00b7.- , , _ , ‘ ,… \ufffd , .. \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 . \u00b7; \u00b7 money, she should b\ufffd able_:to live . taih. n}\ufffd ‘1 \ufffd \ufffdurg\ufffdrte\ufffd or expen -\u00b7.1. e \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 a r \u00b7 : . _ \u00b7; of \u00b7:’ s !\u00b7,:: , t :’ o\u00b7 \u00b7 .. \u00b7 .. \u00b7:\u00b7:, __ \u00b7 t. i _ . _ \u00b71 .u ;\u00b7: ‘. r . ‘. \u00b7 m \u00b7’;\u00b7 . \u00b7:: o < _ \ufffd1.:'l: \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7:::_ : .,i:_1 _ !: off that,\" said Konnne ' Chee,. 'stve''burif:creains; that Medi-Cal spokesperson. for the. '. sta;\ufffde, __ : l?\ufffd-,( c;Ioes, nof.cover.:: ' '. . . \u00b7 . .: \u00b7 partment of Social Services. . \"Part- of the fund Is to cover Chee said the rules are stnn- medical needs -that fall through ';\" gent .. because: qf the . prev\ufffdlin\ufffd,- .. the cracks,\" he s\ufffdd. \u00b7 ,, , ; -\u00b7 ,. By \u00b7 DEREKJ;. MOORE attitude that those who don t Burch said she would have pre-: . . -\ufffdstet Staft'W\ufffdter \ufffd ' :;, \u00b7; \u00b7; wo;rk should not be supported by ferred riot to have been named as NAPA- Denise Burth was a week away (IQm ; , taxpayer dollars. . . . the trustee of the \u00b7 fund, but she going off welfare wheri _her life began to unrav\ufffd. ; : \u00b7 \"This is my money and your could not find anyone else to do It has been unraveling ever since. . . \u00b7 ', \u00b7\u00b7 \u00b7: \u00b7 money that people are using to it. A single parent With\ufffd chil\ufffd. B\ufffd,\ufffd .' live on\u00b7,\" Chee said. \"It's an issue \u00b7 She said she had trouble 1n the .final stages. of a work-t;ratntng Pro\ufffd .0f!:;. of fairness. People who \u00b7are able- reaching Zanolini for questions Feb. 19 when\u00b7 a fire ;a.t her,Thtrd, Street h\ufffd111\ufffd.1 . , .. bodied should be out there work- about the account, while \u00b7bank destroyed her dreams, and . Setln\ufffdt.so l ucky. Neith\ufffd \ufffd\\,},!:. ,’,1 follow the rules. but with \ufffde dren’s Hospital. . . , month-old.M\ufffd \ufffddb.e \ufffdon __ \ufffdf a \ufffd , .. ,\u00b7 ;.: i; : ;: _burden . of ;taking care of ,K\ufffdvm_ \u00b7 \u00b7 When Burch trted –to. can tact friend who died In tJie..\ufffdes .\ufffdspite hero!c,-.111.;- :\ufffd’ : and her other\u00b7 two childre\ufffd, \u00b7she. Rlnzler for further advice on the \u00b7 eft’oqs tiy.Keym to \ufffdve:blnl.’i\”.!\u00b7: ,,’\u00b7 .. \u00b7 .. :’. ,: . ,’!’- r 1 ,7 ,i has not been able to keep track of fund, Rtnzler told her she could\u00b7 Ke$.’s:story has \ufffden \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd \ufffd the.\ufffdeglst\ufffd.\ufffdd ,,: . \u00b7,, the1_11 all. . no. long\ufffdr be 9f help because on a\ufffdyh:eatelevtsl9.n: 11e s\u00b5ffered 9\ufffd,o.vef\ufffdft . __ . \ufffdt \u00b5i_ tcying \ufffd,. do_\ufffderythi1_1\ufffd \ufffdY Kevin had. since .been moved to pe\ufffdt\ufffd{\ufffd body, Incl_ u_ \ufffd_thfrd._degre_ e _ \ufffd d \ufffd\/W \u00b71 \u00b7\”\”‘ lli.,e \ufffd\ufffdk\ufffd. ;\ufffdtit 1\ufffd\u00b7s ,\ufffd\ufffd\\1: _:f\ufffden I Oakland an _ _ d g_ \u00b5t_ :of.Contra Costa to lils\u00b7fa\ufffd \ufffdd, \ufffdISO-:He \ufffd In Oa1:d\ufffd. :-‘:\” !.\\\ufffd\u00b7 \u00b7 keep\u00b7\u00b7 running ,intp_ \ufffdtu\u00b5ib,l1I1g Countv.l’J \u00b7.-, \u00b7\ufffd\u00b7 ! , . C\ufffddJ:en’s Hospital, where\u00b7he \ufffdd\ufffdrg\ufffds \ufffd\ufffd – -_\u00b7 1 _. . f’ :… bl\u00b5cks i ,don’t \ufffdow abou _ t ,\” __ \u00b7\ufffd,\ufffd – e .. -\ufffd\ufffdr\ufffd-\ufffdd – not :\ufffdt\ufffd – ,P _ .\ufffdwed the tragedy,.an 1′ 1-\”) \u00b7 :;\u00b7 1 \u00b7\ufffd ! ‘ .TRUST FONi{‘ \u00b7\u00b7 ,:1,. :.. It was fromAprtl 27 to June 27(; outpouring of \ufffdonatlons \ufffd\ufffd the C0!11ffl\u00b5n1ly,; ) ; Burch O ened the \”Kevin\u00b7 Daly when Burch _ search\ufffdd for new.’ prompted Burch to open a trust fund f0,r- her son\ufffd Trust Funa\” on Feb. 23 at Napa legal help, – that . she. may have m\ufffddical ,needs not coveredl>}’ the state . s \ufffd\ufffd\ufffdi- National . Bank on Claremont gotten herself into tr.ou1lle in the; program, Medi-Cal. ) . $ ‘ \u00b7miru’ –.,. Ori’ ‘with ai). opening balance of eyes of welfare officials. , \u00b7 lil_ all, \ufffds bills co\ufffdd to\ufffd more than: _ l \\ i ,,?’!.’:, . $5; e _ . _:, . , . \u00b7 .. \u00b7 on_ April 27, when_ the new Bui-\u00a2b said.,, ._ \u00b7 ,_ . .. . : f 1\/.,., \u00b7 \u00b7 tli’ – \u00b7th \u00b7 h \u00b7blems fund was created,. Burch with-. \ufffd\ufffdax IO, \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffdf \ufffd\ufffdo WOI_Il\ufffd w.-\ufffd\u00abHt\ufffdfh: ._\u00b7 it \ufffdy.’\ufffdde\ufffd\ufffd:ewo%\ufffd.ro ‘ drew $100 from the trust fnnd to : .-\/\/ ;’.,: \u00b7 . \ufffd B\ufffdYt\ufffd,1\ufffd- \u00b7 \u00b7, \u00b7 ., \u00b7. ”

” ”

” ”

” an .tt l1lt 1t!trcur\ufffd\ufffdcws ….. , . ., Sen ing Northern California Si11cc l\/l,51 _ __________________ ._. _JU_L_l’_\u00b7 1_7_, 1_1_9’6_ FINAL EDITION 3& CENTS 1 \u00b7Clinton seeks 2-year limit on welfure Executive order planned if Congress doesn’t approve bill BY THOMAS FARRAGHER two years you will be expected to work and AND WIWAM HERSHEY earn a paycheck, n\u00ab;>t draw a welfare MercuryNewaWuhingt.onBureau check,\” Clinton, speaking by satellite hook- WASHINGTON _ President Clinton’s up, told a National Governors’ Association conditional pledge Tuesday to deny aid to meeting in Puerto Rico. WIison Seeks greater flexibility in administering welfare welfare recipients who don’t find jobs after In an earlier _addr\ufffdss to \ufffdhe governors, two years drew skepticism from Gov. Pete Republican pres1d\ufffdnt1a! ca\ufffdd)date Bob Dole Wilson and outrage from state welfare ad- had questioned Clmton s wlllmgness to S’!,r vocates who called it election-year pander- port welfare reform and charged tat tb e i administration has frustrated ef orts Y n ilinton said he would issue an executive states to move on their own by delaying order placing a two-year time limit on some approval of needed fed\ufffdral \”.\”aivers. welfare payments if the GOP-led Congress Bruce Reed, Clinton s chief adviser on didn’t deliver welfare reform this year. welfare, said the proposed executive ort] programs \”We’ll \ufffday to welfare rcclr;ent\ufffd, within See WELFARE, Page I 10A SanJoseMercuryNews From Page One Wednesday,.Tuly17, 1996 Critics shred Clinton’s welfare plan \u25a0 WELFARE from Page lA is \”just a little more leverage\” on Congress, which is considering legislation that could cut welfare rolls by up to 40 percent. Votes are scheduled this week in the House and Senate on mea\u00ad sures that would end current fed\u00ad eral welfare guarantees and pro\u00ad vide states with block grant.s to fund their own programs. Clinton’s proposal would affect participants in the federal ,Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (,JOBS) program. Heed \ufffdaid that if states moved rvery eligible welfare recipient into that program, !iO 1xrcent of the country’s adult welfare popula\u00ad tii:>n would be affected by Clin\u00ad ton’s proposal. 344,000 eligible in state In California, 344,000 adults are eligible for the state’s equiva\u00ad lent of the JOBS program. But while Wilson – like many gover\u00ad nors – has called for greater flt!xibility in administering we!- fare programs, his press officer questioned the timing of Clinton’s anhouncement. \ufffd Is this an election-year con\u00ad version?\” asked Scan Walsh, press secretary to Wilson, who has cut the average welfare grant to a family of three by 14 percent since taking office. \”Why not just block-grant ail of welfare to states and allow us to enact fun- ASSOCIATED PRESS President Clinton speaks by satellite television hookup to the National Govemors’ Association meeting in Puerto Rico on Tuesday. datnentaJ reform?\” 111′ encouraging, but we’ve heard It before. We need Since Wilson became governor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. .. in.\” 1991, the average family of relief from federal mandates to Implement our system three has seen its monthly wel- ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. .. fate check dwindle from $694 to that wlll make llves better for families and ehlldren $594. Californians can now make ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. . mare at minimum-wage jobs than who’ve already hit rock bottom. I at’.welfare counters. Corinne Chee, a Caiifornia De\u00ad partment of Social Services offi\u00ad cial, said the state ls seeking fed\u00ad eral approval to enact further cuts and would prefer a whole\u00ad sale revamping of the system than Clinton’s proposal Tuesday. \”It’s encouraging, but we’ve heard it before,\” Chee said. \”We need re!ief from federal mandates to implement our system that will make lives better for families and children who’ve already hit rock bottom.\” ound bites’ Casey McKeever, directing at\u00ad torney for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Sacramento, called Tuesday’s wrinkle In the \u00b7:-,.\ufffdatlon’s 2-year-old welfare de- – Corinne Chee, California Department of Social Services bate little more than \”sloganeer\u00ad ing and sound bites.\” \”You can’t do this on the cheap,\” said McKeever. \”It’s got to be done with education and training and child care and job creation. You don’t pull the rug out from people and just expect people to float, because a lot of them won’t float.\” Clinton’s pledge, announced just four months before the elec\u00ad tion, appears calculated to pro\u00ad tect him politically if Congress fails to pass welfare iegislation or If he decides to veto what it does pass. . \”I far prefer a bill passed by Congress and I know you do, too,\” said Clinton. But ”one way or another we will make work and responsibility the law of the land, but we want a good welfare reform bill.\” Clinton has twice vetoed Re\u00ad publican welfare proposais and threatened to veto the current legislation when GOP leaders at\u00ad tached a proposed overhaul of Medicaid, the state-federal health Insurance program for the poor. Dole had backed Medicaid over\u00ad haul as part of the welfare bill. However, iast week congressional Republicans indicated they would remove the Medicaid provisions, which Clinton said made a wel\u00ad fare bill more possible. WELFARE OVERHAUL Congress is considering welfare\u00ad reform .legislation to end the 60- year-old guarantee of aid to the disadvantaged. The !egislation would: \u25a0 Give states vast new flexibility to design their own systems and establish their own rules. Every adult would have to go to work within two years or lose benefits. \u25a0 End the federal guarantee of assistance to eligible families with children. Limit benefits to five years. States could exempt up to 20 percent of families from the lifetime cutoff. \u25a0 Allow states to prohibit pay\u00ad ments to unmarried teen-age mothers, and require teen moms to stay in school and live with en adult. \u25a0 Require states to bar additional payments to women who con\u00ad ceive additional children while on welfare, unless the state passes legislation opting out of the provision. \u25a0 Reduce the growth in the food\u00ad stamp program by $28.4 billion over six years, limit the deduc\u00ad tions for shelter costs, and al\u00ad low some states to receive food stamps as an optional block grant. \u25a0 Bar aid to most non-citizens. \u25a0 Overhaul rules for the Supple\u00ad mental Security Income pro\u00ad gram to cut off payments to children with less-severe dis\u00ad abilitles. Source: Mercury News wire services But Clinton is stlll concerned by provisions in the Republican bill that would deny social servic\u00ad es to legal immigrants and limit benefit.s to some hard-pressed re\u00ad cipient.s. Kevin Aslanian, executive di\u00ad rector of the C,oalition of Califor\u00ad nia Welfare Rights Organizations, called Clinton’s latest proposal cowardly and immoral. \”They attack babies and fami\u00ad lies and do nothing about corpo\u00ad ntt! welfare,\” Asianian said. \”There may be some brave souls who will fight this, but most of the people In Congress care about only one thing: their next re-elec\u00ad tion.\” Vanessa Gallman of the Mercury New, Washington buremi cont1ilntied f,o thi,s report. ”

” ”

” ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/1931): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” 17ze Newspaper of Record for California St.ate Government CAPITOL WE.EKLY Monday, November 8, 1999 J ,832 Open State Jobs ill Tit is Week 5\u00b7 Edition! Statewide Task-Force Possible Solution to CalWORK.s Mental Health Funding Issues by Margie Gentzel A statewide task force may offer so\u00ad lutions to manifold funding issues which impact the mental health component of the California Work Opportunity and Respon\u00ad sibility to Kids (CalWORK.s) Program. Over $130 million of fundi_ng, including rollover f \u00b7nds, is\u00b7 available to fund mental health services, yet very little funding has been spent to provide mental _health sup-. portive services to CalWORKs recipients. Adovocates for CalWORKs recipients es\u00ad timate that .001 percent of total funds has been spent since the initial January 1, 1998 receipt of mon\ufffdys that are specifically ear\u00ad marked for mental health .services. The California Department of \ufffdocial Services authorizes the provision of men\u00ad tal health supportive services to recipients of CalWORKs moneys. The Estimates Branch and Financial Plamiiilg Branch of the Department describes these services as a mandate of AB 1542, which implements the CalWORKs program: \”(the legislation) mandates, to the extent that funding is availabie, that counties provide for the treatment of mental or emotional difficul\u00ad ties that may limit or impair a participant’s abiiity to make ihe transition from welfare to work or retain employment over a long period of time. Available mental health ser\u00ad vices _must include assessment, case man\u00ad agement, and treatment and rehabilitation _services.\” Jody Berger is a Welfare Advocate for the Legal Aid Society of San f rancisco, who \u00b7 observes CalWORKs recipients who struggle with mental health issues, yet still must search for work to receive aid. She finds \”one of the problems with CalWORKs generally is that i\ufffd works on a county-by\u00ad county basis. \u00b7The counties are not using the (mental health) moneys because their CalWORKs plans are still in development and not finalized.\” CalWORKs became state law on January 1, 1998. Moneys be\u00ad came available at that time .to fu\ufffdd mental health supportive services for CalWORKs recipients .One solution to the inertia of counties to enact the mental health component of their county CalWORKs:plan is offered by Lucy Quacinella, Staff Attorney with the National Center forYouth Law: \”The Cali\u00ad fornia Department of Social Services could convene a statewide task force to consider proposals for how counties could begin to use the mental health supportive services Ple\ufffdse \u00b7see CalWORKs Funding, page 6 $3.95 CalWORKs Funding From Page 1 funds according to unifonn protocols de\u00ad signed to fairly and accurately assess indi\u00ad vidual needs and to provide access to\u00b7 treat\u00ad ment services in a manner that accommo\u00ad dates clients’ concerns over confidentiality and encourages voluntary participation. The task force should also address the unique treatment needs of women with yQung chil\u00ad dren, the current waiting lists for special\u00ad ized women’s services, and how CalWORKs funds can be used to make ap\u00ad propriate treatment services available to the families who need them.\” The California Department of Social Services is currently holding private forums on the CalWORKs funding issues at four metropolitan sites in the stale. The forums review the evaluation and referral process for mental health, substance abuse and do\u00ad mestic violence treatmenL How\ufffdr. the forums are not open to members of the pub\u00ad lic, and participation is by invitation only. Participation is composed primarily of state and county employees. Lucy Quacinella, National Center for Youth Law, believes a separate, public forum is necessary to en\u00ad sure representation by consumer advocates \”to ensure that a consumer voice is heard among the governmental entities and pro\u00ad viders, we propose that at least 30% of the representation be from groups representing wnsumers.\” Jo Weber represents the California De\u00ad partment of Social Services in her role as Branch Chief of the Work Services and Demonstration Project. She says the state wants to include families at all meetimi:s which review the CalWORKs process. ”The state is reviewing the assessment and iden\u00ad tification protocolG through a series of fo. rums. We are looking at barriers to creating a system that adequately provides mental health services. We are looking at the amount of services being offered to folks. Currently, we aren’t seeing enough services being offered. The state will go back into counties and communities to see what we can do. There is a fear by recipients of dis\u00ad closing their mental health issues. We are learning how to get these services to people in a less threatening way. We need to help families by providing these services during a difficult family time.\” . The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORK.s) pro\u00ad gram was created in response to the 1997 California Welfare to Work AcL AB 1542 (Assembly Members Ducheny and Ashburn and Senators Thompson and Maddy) served as the vehicle for California welfare reform. The reform of the California welfare sys\u00ad tem was mandated by the federal govern\u00ad ment through Public Law 104-193, which placed the federal Aid to Families with De\u00ad pendent Children (AFDC) program [now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)] and federal child care funding into two block grants. The federal law required that an increasing percentage of California individuals who receive welfare must be employed or in a federally funded work pro\u00ad gram. Toe 1999 federal Temporary Assis\u00ad tance for Needy Families (‘to\\NF) grant is $3.7 billion, with an additional $114 mil\u00ad lion carry-over of 1998-1999 funds. The Final Analysis of the 1999 State Budget Act lists \”total expenditures of $6 bilHon for CalWORK.s through the Department of So\u00ad cial Services in 1999-00.\” The current state budget authorizes to\u00ad tal expenditures of$57.7 million from the General Fund for mental health services for CalWORK.s recipients, with an additional $60.5 million of General Fund moneys au\u00ad thorized for substance abuse treatment ser\u00ad vices. A total of over $130 million is avail\u00ad able when rollover funds are included in the mix. Currently, a statewide monthly caseload is projected to serve 96,804 re\u00ad cipients for mental health services and 27,141 recipients for substance abuse ser\u00ad vices. Mental health services cover initial assessment, case management, treal!Uent, and rehabilitation services. Funds were rolled over due to the abys\u00ad mal provision of services to needy clients. For example, in 1997-98 $1.8 million of the total allocation was spent on services; so counties rolled over $25.2 million of funds into the next fiscal year budget. Counties will likely continue to roll over huge amounts of moneys that are not being spent to provide CalWORK.s recipients with nec\u00ad essary mental health services. The state cut\u00ad off to permit counties to spend the roll over funding is June 30, 2000. Commencing July 1, 2000, any funds not spent will trans\u00ad fer to the California General Fund. The California Department of Social Services estimates that 96,804 recipients are eligible to receive mental health supportive services and 27,141 recipients are eligible to receive substance abuse services. The Estimates Branch and Financial Planning Branch of the Department obtained this cal\u00ad ::ulation, in their estimate, \”on an epicie\u00ad miological catchment area study adjusted for poverty and social security income cases, which estimated that 21 percent of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program recipients have a diagnosable men tal or substance abuse use disorder.\” The California Department of Social Services is currently drafting protocols !er the implementation of mental health ser vices to recipients of CalWORK.s mental health supportive sei;vices. No public mem\u00ad \ufffd!! who m consumer:: of mental health services have been invited to participate di\u00ad rectly in the process of developing the pro\u00ad tocols. \”This is a statewide crisis,\” according to Lucy Quacinella, National Center for Youth Law. \”The California State Legisla ture made it clear that CalWORK.s benefi\u00ad ciaries are to be provided with mental health services if needed, in order to get and keep a job. The-state is not focusing on the needs of mental health clients – – they are virtu ally being ignored.\” The County of Sacramento is attempt\u00ad ing to resolve CalWORK.s recipients’ ac\u00ad cess to mental health and substance abuse services. On September 1, 1999 the County presented a CalWORK.s Referral Report, which offers a review of the utilization of referral activities. The County analyzed re\u00ad ferrals received by the County Clinical Team from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 at three Sacramento CalWORKs sites. Of the total number of CalWORKs recipients re\u00ad viewed, 17% were assessed as experienc\u00ad ing co-existing disorders (mental health and substance abuse issues); 16% were assessed as experiencing substance abuse disorders, and 67% were assessed as experiencing mental health disorders. The referrals analyzed by the County Clinical Team revealed that the referral pro\u00ad cess at Sacramento County is impacted by client and staff issues. The CalWORK.s Referral Report stated that clients did not self-refer due to \”fear of losing CalWORKs’ benefits, fear of child welfare involvement\/ losing their kids, (county) denial issues, and mental health stigma concerns.\” The report aiso cited County of Sacramento staff is\u00ad sues, including a \”mistaken \u00b7belief that a release was needed to make a referral for assessment and a continued discomfort rais\u00ad ing the (health) issues with recipients.\”. The Department of Social Services published a report of its findings to improve the CalWORK.s referral process. The re\u00ad port is based on a work group which shared Jdeas to make the services provided by the CalWORK.s program more accessible for clients. The July 22, 1999 CMHDA\/ CADPAAC\/CWDA Policy Work Group re\u00ad port suggests increasing identification and referral of clients with mei:ital health, do\u00ad mestic violence and substance abuse issues by doing more outreach 1-Vithin and outside the Department of Social Services; using riers may enter the system later, or their bar\u00ad current mental health, alcohol abuse and . riers are such that they will not manifest domestic violence systems for case finding; themselves immediately. We need to learn conducting frequent trainings; advising re- more about the entire population in order to ferral sources that referrals are desired; and design identification and referral proce\u00ad muketing directly to CalWORK.s recipients. dures, as well as services, that are most ac- Advocates who represent CalWORK.s cessible and appropriate. It is unrealistic to clients view the appropriate receipt of men- think that many individuals in this popula\u00ad tal health services as a goal which is not yet tion will self-refer for (treatment) under the realized in California. Kevin Aslanian, Ex current set of incentives. California is not ecutive Director, Coalition of California unique in its difficulties with identification Welfare Rights Organizations, says his cli- and referral. This popul\ufffdtion often distrusts ents’ experience is that the \”mental health public systems. Many do not understand or services are not there. The rule is the county believe the implications of the new is supposed to assess if (mental health is- timelines.\” sues) are an impediment to employment, but The solution to such lack of recipient the county forces people to work. Recipi- participation in the supportive services man\u00ad ents can have thei\”r kids taken away because dated by CalWORK.s programs is offered if they are determined to be mentally ill the by advocates who represent CalWORKs kids may be considered (by the county) to clients: the organization of a statewide task be in danger. Then the recipient loses force to hold public hearings on CalWORK.s CaiWORK.s funding.\” supportive services for mental health, sub- As counties complete Year Two of the stance abuse, and domestic violence issues. CalWORK.s program, staff are l?eginning to Whether such a task force will convene re\u00ad identify individuals who have mental health mains to be seen. However, grave problems issues who have not received services. The in providing mental health services to re\u00ad Welfare Reform Project discusses this popu- cipients clearly exist and are acknowledged lation in its publication, Preliminary by all interests. The issue of whether Thoughts on Identification and Referral. California’s new welfare program will con\u00ad This report was drafted after staff visited six tinue to move Californians off the welfare\u00b7 counties to determine how CalWORKs pro- rolls onto employment rolls during chang\u00ad gm:r.:: :m: :i.::r;ing clients. The report notes ing economic times depends on the that lhfl variety in recipients and !heir health sustainability of all aspects of the new problems may necessitate the creation of CalWORKs program. Critical program various types of identification and referral components will be addressed in future is\u00ad tools: \”There are subsets of this population sues of Capitol Weekly. These service com\u00ad that we are just beginning to identify. Many ponents include programs for legal immi\u00ad of the \”harder-to-serve\” recipients have _not grants, teenagers, emergency food assis\u00ad yet been engaged in the Welfare to Work lance, and domestic violence. process. Those that are coming in initially are often already employed or ready-to-be employed. Those with more significant bar- STATE EMPLOYEE DISCOUNT For a limited time, Sierra Hart Auto Center will offer all State employees the same discounted Fleet rates paid by Cal.Trans and CHP. These rates are substantially lower and noI1Dally given only to the largest of Fleet customers. They will cover anything from SMOG, Oil Changes and Tune-Ups to major auto repairs. Sierra Hart has been specializing in Fleet repair for over 11 years and with this limited time offer we are going to pass these savings on to all State employees, so call today for your free quote. FAMILY OWNED SERVICE CENTER Six service bays Califonda smog certified = Light and heavy duty vehicles ASE Ceriffied Courtesy shuttle from downtown \” 24 hour roadside assistance SIERRA\ufffdHART AU T O C F.NT ER (916) 371-8026 1050 Triangle Court W Sacramento 95605 \u25a0 TRIANGLE CT. CAPITOlAVE … 6 For Faster Job lnformation–Slgn Up for Capitol Weekly’s Web Slte-cwww.capitolweekly.coml Capitol Weekly November 8, 1999 \\ _\/ ”

” ”

” ”

” ”

” ”