Search Demo

Folder Newsletters

pdf CCWRO Welfare News 2012-02

2740 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 1, 2012 Issue # 2012-02 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief uYOLO COUNTY UNAWARE OF IEVS PROCESSING TIMELINES During the DSS review of Yolo County’s IEVS processing system, the county asked DSS for documentation regarding the 45 and 90- day IEVS processing requirements. DSS informed Yolo County in an email that for active cases the processing timelines are 45 days and for closed cases is 90 days. For years Yolo County has been submitting claims to be paid for processing IEVS reports when they have no idea what the processing timelines are. uAB 98 OVERPAYMENTS- On 7\/6\/11 Jenny Hart of San Luis Obispo County asked DSS How are overpayments to be handled for AB 98 subsidies? If the county were to made aware immediately within that month? If the county did not find out until 6 months later? On 11\/23\/11, DSS responded that The incorrect amount paid to the employer and claimed by the county to the state under AB 98 is not an overpayment as defined in MPP because it is not and aid payment to the AU. Ms. A.M. has been participating in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity in Sacramento County during all of 2011. Her brother has been babysitting for her and her welfare worker told her we would pay for child care. I never thought they would lie to me said Ms. A.M. I turn in the forms and then Child Action says my brother had some trouble uCOUNTIES MAY NOT CAP CAR REPAIR SERVICES-Jennie Anglell and Karen Thrilkill of Mendocino County, asked DSS whether counties can impose a monetary ‘cap’ on supportive services, including car repairs. Geoffrey Miller, of CDSS responded on 10\/12\/11 that the Counties cannot impose a monetary ‘cap’ on supportive services, including car repairs. However, the county can establish a process for determining a reasonable limit on such expenditures for each case. This process must be in the county’s written policies. Please review ACL 04-04 (attachment page 1) and ACL 0054 (page 2) for additional guidance on this topic. uCOUNTIES CAUSE OVERPAYMENT CHARGE WELFARE RECIPIENTS WITH FELONY FRAUD -DSS has been working on revising their IEVS regulations for years. The current regulations are left over from the previous century. The last report of statewide IEVS reports known as DPA 482 reveals that statewide, during the quarter of April through June of 2011, counties received 493,695 IEVS hits. During those same three months they only processed 173,960 hits. This means that there were 319,735 potential overpayment cases piling up without county action. When counties get around to dealing with these overpayments, they charge the recipients with felony fraud when in reality many of the overpayments were caused by the counties not doing their job checking out the potential overpayments. uEMPLOYERS OBJECT TO UNFUNDED COUNTY DEMANDS FOR REPORTS Donna Cobb of San Joaquin County informed DSS that an employer called us stating that he wants to be reimbursed by us for the time and his copies of the information we have asked him to provide for us. I explained that this is a preliminary step to the DA investigation for the state. He is a lobbyist and not very happy with anything the state\/all governments are doing right now. My thought is to turn it all over to the DA and let them go talk to him. DSS responded, We agree that handing this issue to the DA is the best way. This could also be one reason why employers are reluctant to hire welfare recipients in some cases. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org CHILDCARE NOT PAID TO WELFARE-TO-WORK PARTICIPANTS The truth is the people who voted for this wanted to deny child care to welfare recipients. How are children protected if the county has no idea who is watching the child when they force welfare recipients to participate in the WtW program? Did the law require that childcare be verified before a welfare recipient is ordered to participate in an WtW activity? No way. with the law, therefore they cannot pay him. He wants his money. He worked hard. I said I would pay him and now I look like a liar in front of my brother. Her brother is a monolingual Armenian speaker but all of the forms he received were in English. He did not CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org Febraury 1, 2012 #2012- understand all of the requirements for a so-called trustline waiver. He went to the police department, but could not get copies of the police reports. He did not understand that he also had to get all of the court reports. The rules are clear a person who was nice enough to provide childcare to a welfare recipient thinking they would be paid but in fact need a trustline waiver gets zero help from the government. The court papers and the police report are in the computers of the police department and the courts. The welfare department simply can have the welfare computer contact the police department computer or the court computer. The welfare departments have dozens of so-called peace officers who can do this anytime. The regulations and the compassionate state law limits retroactive childcare to 120 days. MPP 47-620.32 provides that a welfare recipient living on a fixed income of 1985 is responsible for any childcare costs incurred until such time as the provider becomes Trustline registered. Why does California have a Trustline process? The childcare Trustline process was allegedly enacted to protect children from being cared for by persons who have a criminal record. The propaganda was we care about kids. The truth is the people who voted for this wanted to deny child care to welfare recipients. How are children protected if the county has no idea who is watching the child when they force welfare recipients to participate in the WtW program? Did the law require that childcare be verified before a welfare recipient is ordered to participate in an WtW activity? No way. The recommendation that safe childcare be verified before a WtW participants is forced to participate in a WtW activity has been rejected by those alleging to be concerned with the safety of the child. Now Ms. A.M. has liability of thousands of dollars because she detrimentally relied on the promise of her welfare worker that we will pay for child care and when the worker never said anything about Trustline and never verified that Ms. A.M. has safe and childcare that can be paid for. uSAN MATEO COUNTY REFUSES TO USE REPORTED CHILD CARE TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS – Ms. RN 207089 of San Mateo County reported that she paid $150 for childcare on her QR7. San Mateo County refused to include the $150 childcare expense deduction in computing the food stamp benefits resulting in depriving Ms. RN 207089 of $68 in food stamp benefits. Why did this happen? Because after spending billions on a computer system we still lack a system where the information from the QR-7 is scanned into the system and the computer determines the correct benefits. The reason that the $150 child care was not used is because the worker did not tell the computer that it must use the $150 child care expense that was already in the computer. uLOS ANGELES DPSS TERMINATED ALL BENEFITS FOR REPORTING INCOME ON THE QR-7 – On 7\/19\/11 Los Angeles County District #013 issued a notice of action terminating the benefits of Ms. RN 508035 for failure to submit a QR-7. In reality the QR-7 was submitted to the county and the county received the completed QR-7. The QR-7 showed her IHSS income and all necessary paystubs. The report was rejected by DPSS and returned to the working welfare mom. It appears that if somebody reports income in Los Angeles with paystubs the odds are your benefits will be terminated for turning in a QR7 that has information on it. Is the lesson don’t report? uLOS ANGELES DPSS FAILS TO PROVIDE TRANSITIONAL FOOD STAMPS Ms. RN 508038 is a Public Assistance Food Stamp household. Her and her four (4) children’s CalWORKs ended on 7\/31\/11 because she did not keep the telephone Cash Aid\/ CalFresh Redetermination interview appointment scheduled for 6\/24\/11. It does not appear that Ms. RN 508038 was ever provided with an in-person redetermination appointment. Often DPSS clients are given phone numbers to call that are not answered. After the questionable termination of her and her four (4) children’s benefits, the DPSS also improperly refused to issue transitional food stamps. County Client Abuse Report ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News 2012-09

1163 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 2, 2012 Issue # 2012-09 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On April 25, 2012, DSS Fraud Bureau released a Report of Findings and Recommendations of Placer County’s IEVS system to Richard Burton, Director of Placer County Health and Human Services Administration. The report reveals that Placer County has a backlog of 8,237 IEVS reports. Placer County processes about 350 IEVS reports a month but receives 700 IEVS reports a month. The DSS report cleverly fails to state the number of IEVS reports that are processed each month in the report. However, that information is available on the Internet in the DPA 482 reports. It would take Placer County 23 months just to catch up on the backlog, without considering the new IEVS reports. The County is required to process the IEVS report within 45 days according MPP 20-006.424. All the report said is that the county has to prepare a corrective action plan. DSS reviewed 20 cases for New Hire Match (NHR Match) that revealed in five cases the county had no evidence that the NHR reports were reviewed and processed. Strangely, DSS recommended that the county should use the NHR report to trigger an automatic recalculation of benefits if the income was not reported or the benefits should be reduced to terminated. It should be noted that the process for reporting income is the QR7. This may have been a valid recommendation if CalWORKs and Food stamp were still in the monthly reporting era of the previous century. In addition, only if the income exceeds the IRT are recipients required to immediately report a new hire. This could have also been a one time earnings and not a recurring earnings. Finally the regulations require that when the county receives an IEVS report they must contact the recipient to receive clarification and not to institute an unlawful automatic recalculation as recommended by DSS. See MPP 20-006.543. The report also reveals that Placer County also utilizes an appeals representative who works on the case prior to it going to the hearings unit. This practice violates MPP 22-073.13. Ms. Jones receives a 296X notice of action (NOA) stating that her CalWORKs and Food Stamp benefits will terminate at the end of the month because the county has not received a complete income report. The notice fails to mention what was missing. Ms. Jones turned her income report in and assumed that she will get her benefits the next month. Ms. Jones did not ask for a state hearing. On the third day of the next month the day she receives benefits – she received no benefits on her EBT card. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Placer County Causes Overpayments and Violates Federal and State law Families Lose Benefits for Alleged Incomplete Reports She calls the county the next day and is not able to talk to anybody. Nobody calls her back even when she leaves a message for her worker. She finally goes to the welfare office and is informed that the income report was incomplete. She looks at the NOA she received and it does not explain what was incomplete. Had Ms. Jones asked for a state hearing she would have received benefits the next month. Now she has to reapply. She will lose about 5-6 days of aid for that month, which is about a 17% reduction in benefits. CalWORKs and food stamp recipients who receive a NOA terminating their benefits for no CA7 or QR7, should always immediately ask for a hearing so they can get aid paid pending after which they can submit the income report and get a receipt. Asking for a $3000 state hearing is the only way to assure that the benefits will not be reduced for allegedly not turning in a complete report. The federal law – 7 CFR 273.12(a)(4)(iii) allows the state agency to terminate SNAP benefits if the monthly\/quarterly\/semi-annual report is: (a) not received or (b) incomplete. The federal law does not authorize the state to terminate benefits for both. DSS needs to change this process to assure the integrity of the program telling people that the report is incomplete when the county has not even seen the report is dishonest and an insult the intelligence of recipients of public assistance. It also makes a mockery of program integrity when the administrators of the program disrespect program integrity by issuing dishonest statements in the 298X NOA. 7 CFR 273.12(a)(4)(iii) Failure to file a complete form by the specified filing date. If a household fails to file a complete report by the specified filing date, the State agency will send a notice to the household advising it of the missing or incomplete report no later than 10 days from the date the report should have been submitted. If the household does not respond to the notice, the household’s participation shall be terminated. The State agency may combine the notice of a missing or incomplete report with the adequate notice of termination described in paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. 273.12(a)(4)(v) Reduction or termination of benefits. If the household files a complete report resulting in reduction or termination of benefits, the State agency shall send an adequate notice, as defined in 271.2 of this chapter. The notice must be issued so that it will be received by the household no later than the time that its benefits are normally received. If the household fails to provide sufficient information or verification regarding a deductible expense, the State agency will not terminate the household, but will instead determine the household’s benefits without regard to the deduction. CCWRO Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org June 2, 2012 #2012–09 On April 25, 2012 the Department of Health and Human Services published a Request for Public Comment relative to the response to 4004 of P.L. 112-96. April 2, 2012, Pages 24667 – 24669 [FR DOC # 2012-9260]. Comments are due June 11, 2012. Section 602(a)(1)(viii) provides as follows: Ensure that recipients of assistance provided under the State program funded under this part have access to using or withdrawing assistance with minimal fees or charges, including an opportunity to access assistance with no fee or charges, and are provided information on applicable fees and surcharges that apply to electronic fund transactions involving the assistance, and that such information is made publicly available. This is a significant step of getting rid of the millions of dollars that banks fleece from TANF recipients to access their very limited fixed income. This guidance will allow HHS to require states to come up with a plan to show how they would assist EBT cardholders to access their benefits free of fees and surcharges. States could be required to provide EBT cardholders with the locations of banks and other businesses, like WalMart, where they can access their benefits without paying hefty fees and surcharges at application and recertifications. The primary question becomes what constitutes an opportunity ? For example: A EBT cardholder lives in East Los Angeles may have an opportunity to use the EBT card free of fees if he or she could travel to the West Los Angeles and access a bank that provides free access to the EBT card. The fact that the person does not have the resources to travel from East Los Angeles to West Los Angeles may not mean that they do not have an opportunity to access their EBT benefits without paying hefty fees and surcharges. Advocates are encouraged to submit comments by June 11, 2012 to HHS at [email protected]. Your should include Comments on EBT Federal Register Notice in the subject line of the message. How much did banks fleece from CalWORKs recipients in March and April of 2012. See Chart #1. County Client Abuse Report Madera County Does Not Issue 10-Day Notices of Action — Madera County on 12-27-11 terminated CalFresh benefits of Ms. 512007 effective 12-31-11. It appears that after spending millions on C-IV computer system, the computer system is programmed to allow an untimely NOA to go out. Madera County Terminates CalFresh For Failure To Complete Annual Redetermination When The Recipient Completed The Redetermination –Ms. R.N. 511032 received a notice of action (NOA) on 11-10-11 terminating CalFresh benefits as of 11-30-11 for failing to complete the annual redetermination. The case was actually terminated on 11-30-11. The record shows that the recipient completed the annual redetermination on 11-21-11, but the computer (C-IV) failed to rescind the termination. Even if the recipient had filed for a state hearing, the recipient would not have been able to receive timely benefits. This could have been prevented if the C-IV computer was programmed to automatically lift the termination once the computer knows that the redetermination has been completed. After the information regarding the redetermination has been entered, the worker must take another step and rescind the termination which often does not happen, and thus, the unlawful termination of food stamp benefits. San Mateo County Terminates Benefits To A Household For Failure To Submit A QR 7 When The County Already Had A Completed QR 7 — On 11-15-11 San Mateo County issued a NOA to Ms. 511074 alleging that the HH had not submitted a completed QR7. The termination went into effect on December 1, 2011. On 11-18-12 the county received a complete QR7, but somehow it did not register with CalWIN and the termination went into effect unlawfully. San Mateo County asserts that San Mateo County is currently working on incorporating a rescind process for QR7 that are received timely. It is our intent to minimize a gap in assistance for our CalFresh participants assert San Mateo County. This does not mean that the same is not happening right now. The correct remedy should be that when a QR7 comes in, it should be entered into CalWIN and CalWIN should automatically rescind the termination. Los Angeles County Terminates CalFresh For A Household Entitled To Transitional CalFresh –On 8-3-11 Los Angeles County issued a NOA to Ms. 511028 indicating that the HH is eligible for five (5) months of transitional CalFresh (TFS). On November 4, 2011 the same HH was terminated from CalFresh for failure to complete the annual redetermination that is not a requirement for HH receiving TFS. Los Angeles County has not agreed to take any corrective action. Thus, this may be happening all the time. Fresno County Denies The Application For Failure To Show Up For An Interview, When The Record Shows That The Interview Was Conducted Mr. 501009 was scheduled for an interview on 12-20-11. He kept his appointment and was approved for CalFresh. He was even handed a NOA approving CalFresh. On 12-20-11 he received another notice in the mail saying that he missed his appointment. Who says the left hand knows what the right hand in doing in Fresno County. EBT Fee and Surcharge HHS Request for Public Comment CHART #1 – EBT Fees Banks Fleece from Welfare Recipients Month\/Year EBT ATM Surchagre EBT ATM Transaction Fee EBT Balance Inquiry EBT Pur- chase Transaction Surcharge Total Welfare Money Banks Fleece from EBT clients March 2012 $1,347,326.00 $42,087.00 $32,638.00 $528.00 $1,442.579.00 April 2012 $1,329,925.00 $40,349.00 $32,144.00 $675.00 $1,403,093.00 Estimate Annual 16,063,506.00 $494.,616.00 $388,692.00 $7,218.00 $16,954,032.00 ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News 2012-20

1347 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 December 6, 2012 Issue # 2012-20 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t on Page 2 such that a determination of continued eligibility cannot be made without it. We wonder if they have taken a good look at the SAWS 1. How would the SAWS 1, which is an application form, provide information to make an eligibil- ity determination? All the SAWS 1 asks for is the name of the applicant, the social security number of the applicant and some other information, like Immediate Need, etc. It seeks no information about members of the Assistance Unit (AU), the social security numbers of the members infor- mation that is vital to make any determination. Moreover the law and the regulations are clear ITC is not an applica- tion, therefore it would unlawful to require an ITC family to submit a SAWS 1 as a condition of eligibility. A simple re- view of MPP 40-187, that is the official state policy (not an underground rule like this Regulation Interpretation) does not even mention a SAWS 1 as a condition of transferring case from one county to another. Moreover, this regulation interpretation fails to mention the regulation that justifies county’s desire to seek a SAWS 1. 50\/50 Custody and Medi-Cal Eligibility. On August 23, 2012, Lori Lady from Tulare County asked DSS about the following scenario: Mom and dad share custody and care- taking responsibility of Maggie. Dad comes in and applies for CalWORKS for himself and Maggie. According to both parents, the court papers provided, both parents have 50% custody and legal responsibility for Maggie. Because of Medi-Cal regulations allow only one parent to be linked to Medi-Cal, would dad be allowed cash based Medi-Cal in the CalWORKs case? Mom is already receiving Medi- Cal. On September 10, 2012 somebody at DSS, (the name of the responder was withheld for some unlawful reason) responded as follows: No, dad would be granted CalWORKs cash aid only for himself and Maggie and his linkage to Medi-Cal would be suppressed. Mom would continue to receive Medi-Cal for herself and child. Had dad applied for CalWORKs first, he would have been granted case aid based Medi-Cal. Face-to-Face Interview for CalWORKs Not – On May 2, 2012 the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA)- County Advisory Committee (CAT) asked DSS whether a face-to-face interview is required for CalWORKs redeter- mination interviews? Also, are electronic signatures accept- able for CalWORKs? On July 23, 2012 DSS responded that, Applications are acceptable through the use of an electronic or handwritten signature, transmitted by fax or other electronic transmission for both CalWORKs and Cal- Fresh programs (ACIN 1-14-11) Grant Reductions, CW sanctions and Penalties Equals Child Abuse – Recent research revealed that whenchildren in poverty receive 20 additional dollars a month it has a positive effect on the child’s devolopment. Conversely, the punitive provisions that CalWORKs laws are infested with, such as reduction of benefits for the family by 25% or more for failure to participate in a workfare activity, failure to immunize children under the age of 6, attendance of school by children and cooperation with child support that primarily benefits the government and not the children, are actually state acts of child abuse that if committed by the citizenry would be classified as a felony. Placer County Welfare Officials Save Another Life – Mr. 1BOLG45 had a huge share of cost that was preventing him from obtaining appropriate medical care. He was also work- ing part time and needed to be eligible for the 250% program. With the assistance of local welfare advocates, Mr. 1BOLG45 contacted Placer County early on 11-26-12 and by the end of the day, his 250% program was active effective 11-1-12. Kudos to Placer County. SIP Issue – Ana White, of the Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services GAIN Program Policy Section II, is the DPSS SIP analyst. ((562) 908-5741 [email protected].) On 7-2-12 she contacted Mr. Miller of DSS inquiring whether a per- son who is in a masters program and a teaching credential pro- gram, can be a SIP. Mr. Miller responded that; if the program is a blended credential and masters program, the SIP would be fine. There may be a problem if the credential is earned before the master degree is attained. Student Homework DSS Policy – On June 18, 2012, Counties asked DSS, what the state policy for counting student home- work for computing the federal TANF work participation rates is. DSS answered that the educational institution should develop a general policy about the number of hours of homework that are expected per class and used that policy to compute the number hours of homework needed. The policy, plus the classes taken by the student, should be sufficient verification for federal reporting purposes. DSS Wants Inter-Country-Transfer Recipients to Make an Ap- plication Without Legal Authority – Regulation Interpretation dated 97-12 asking whether a county receiving a inter-county- transfer (ITC) needs a new SAWS-1. Crystal Grant and Paulette Stokes of DSS responded on 9-20-12 that As the sending coun- ty is required to provide that most recent SAWS 1, a new SAWS 1 should not be needed unless the change in circumstances is In Brief Number of Unduplicated Participants During September, 2012 117,372 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned 49,870 Number of Participants Sanctioned During September, 2012 8,886 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants be- ing Sanctioned Duriong The Month of September 2012 42% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanc- tions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During September 2012 $6.2 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of Cal- WORKs During september 2012 4,286 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During September 2012 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During September 2012 $27,232 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transpor- tation by the County During September 2012 64,473 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During September 2012 55% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant During September 2012 $6.4 million September 2012 California Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes Report How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2012-2013 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $936,188,654 million 2012-2013 Welfare-to-Work Child Care Stage 1 Appropriation $464,440,952 million Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports CCWRO Welfare News December 6, 2012 #2012-20 ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-2.pdf

1093 downloads

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-2.pdf

1103 downloads

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-2.pdf

1138 downloads

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-2.pdf

1118 downloads

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-24.pdf

1290 downloads

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News Below are the minutes of the last meeting with DSS between welfare advocates and DSS. The next meeting will be held on August 28, 2003 @ 1 P.M. Persons who have issued that they would like to be raised, please e-mail them to CCWRO at [email protected]. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Welfare Advocates Workgroup Meeting March 27, 2003 Participants: Advocates Kevin Aslanian – CCWRO Karla Barrow – LAFLA Jodie Berger – LSNC Stephen Bingham -BALA Sujatha Jagadeesh Branch – Child Care Law Center Grace Galligher – CCWRO Stephanie Haffner – CRLA Nu Usaha – WCL&P Kate Meiss – NLS Hope Nakamura – Legal Aid of San Mateo County Joseph Ramos – ICLS Julie Aguilar Rogado – LSNC CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003 DSS News – 3\/27\/03 Advocates Meeting With DSS Minutes Food Stamp Emergency Regulations DSS Staff Teena Arneson CDSS, Fraud Bureau Teri Ellen Work Support Services Bureau Mark Gagnon Fraud Bureau Venus Garth Work Services Branch Maria Hernandez CalWORKs Eligibility Bu- reau Jo Lee Fraud Bureau Cynthia McDowell Work Services Branch Debbie McFadden Program Integrity Branch Charr Lee Metsker Employment and Eligibility Branch Connie Navarrette Legal Office Gordon Scott Employment and Eligibility Branch Marie Saur Work Services Branch Pat Sutherland Food Stamps Bureau Antonia Taylor Work Services Branch Lyn Vice Childcare Bureau Bruce Wagstaff Welfare to Work Division Discussion, Action Items, and Follow-up Is- sues Medi-Cal Services For Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients Maria Hernandez reported that the Depart- ment of Health Services (DHS) and CDSS jointly signed a letter to remind the counties that individuals who time out on CalWORKs are eligible for continuing Medi-Cal services under Section1931 (b) of the Medi-Cal program. The letter was sent to all county CalWORKs program CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 managers. Ms. Hernandez will work with DHS to have the letter published on CDSS’ website. Computer Software Removing Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients From Receiving Medi-Cal Services The Advocates stated that some of the software that is be- ing used by the counties is arbitrarily removing timed-out CalWORKs clients from receiving Medi-Cal services. The Advocates were asked to name the counties that have these software problems so CDSS could review the counties on a case by case basis. Debbie McFadden explained that CDSS does not have the authority over the software or the computer programming used by the counties. However, Ms. McFadden stated CDSS staff will follow-up and research this issue. This is an open item. Immediate Need\/County Office Hours Maria Hernandez stated that a question and answer (Q&A) letter will be distributed to remind counties of immediate need and county office hours procedures. We anticipate the letter will be on the CDSS website by the first week in May 2003. Two Parents Required To Attend Application\/ Re-determi- nation Interview Maria Hernandez confirmed that an All County Letter (ACL) will be sent informing counties of the application\/interview requirements and procedures. It’s anticipated the ACIN will be posted on the CDSS website by the end of March 2003. Retroactive Childcare Payment Lyn Vice requested that a correction be made to the December 5, 2002, minutes regarding Retroactive Childcare Payment. Ms. Vice stated on page three of the minutes that an overly broad statement was made which gives the impression that there was not a retroactive payment policy that was appropri- ate. The minutes have been corrected and the sentence was deleted from the minutes. Ms. Vice also agreed to send Dora Lopez a copy of the letter that CDSS is addressing to Los Angeles County regarding the childcare payment policy. Ms. Vice distributed copies of ACL No. 03-10, retroactive payments, which was released on February 27, 2003. The ACL implements the provisions of AB 444 Section 11323.3, regarding retroactive payments. Emergency regulations are currently being written by CDSS and according to statute will be completed by July 1, 2003. Sujatha Branch will work with Ms. Vice on the emergency regulations and Ms. Branch will represent the Advocates. Ms. Vice will check into Ms. Branch’s inquiry regarding the level of effort required by counties after a client refuses to sign a childcare availability notice. Aid Paid Pending Child Care The Advocates stated that counties are requesting that cli- ents submit verification before childcare services are paid. Advocates also stated that this issue typically occurs when there is a sanction notice sent to clients informing them that they are being terminated and their supportive services will end. This is an open item. Aid Paid Pending – Supportive Services CDSS’ Legal office is currently reviewing policies regarding aid paid pending for supportive services (transportation and ancillary services). This is an open item. Transportation Services Teri Ellen reported that an ACL on transportation Q&A will be distributed in the next three weeks. Ancillary Services Ms. Ellen stated that a draft Q & A on Ancillary Services ACL will be ready for review by the Advocates in the near future. Supportive Services for Refugees Kate Meiss expressed a concern regarding refugee clients in Los Angeles County being denied supportive services to which they are entitled. CDSS staff will contact Ms. Meiss with information about whom she can contact at the state level regarding her concern. Refugee Letter A request was made by the Advocates to post on CDSS’ website the refugee letter dated December 9, 2002, which was distributed to all counties. Charr Lee Metsker agreed to post the letter on CDSS’ web- site. Budget Update Bruce Wagstaff briefly discussed the Governor’s proposed realignment proposal. It was reported that the cost of living adjustment (COLA) was still on the floor of the Senate. Mr. Wagstaff stated that there is a lot of work to do with the State Budget and there will be many realignment issues. Quarterly Reporting Bruce Wagstaff reported that a draft quarterly reporting ACL was written, but the letter was delayed because a waiver was needed by, USDA, Food and Nutrition Services (FNS). Using the Director’s authority to waive CalWORKs regu- lations the ACL was revised and a letter has been sent to FNS requesting approval of the revised quarterly reporting process. Mr. Wagstaff stated that CDSS may be seeking pos- sible legislative authority, so the Director would not need to conduct a CalWORKs regulations waiver. January 2004 is CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 3 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 the estimated start-up date for Quarterly Reporting. Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDS) Waiv- ers Gordon Scott reported that seven counties are waiting FNS approval for a labor surplus waiver. Mr. Scott stated that only 22 counties were eligible and of those counties four are being processed and four are not interested (Kern, Colusa, Imperial and Sutter). The other counties are pend- ing and will be processed as received. An updated list of the counties approved ABAWD wavier is attached. This item is to be updated and a status copy of this information will be distributed at the next meeting. Implementation of Supplemental Food Stamps Patrick Sutherland reported on a proposed program that would allow clients leaving CalWORKs to automatically become eligible for five additional months of food stamps. No monthly or quarterly reporting would be required. Also, there is a provision in the program that requires the county to recompute a client’s last month’s benefits while removing CalWORKs income which would result in a larger food stamp allotment. Cost of implementation of the program has not been determined yet. The feasibility of quarterly reporting for CalWORKs and semi-annual reporting for food stamps were also discussed. Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Status Debbie McFadden reported that thirteen counties have imple- mented EBT for cash and food stamps. Ms. McFadden stated that EBT should change the stigma of using food stamps. It was stated that CDSS is currently working vigorously on a wireless EBT system for clients to purchase food at farmers markets. Ms. McFadden reported that 50 percent of the EBT surcharges are currently free for clients. However, CDSS is working with banks to negotiate the removal of surcharges for clients using their EBT card for ATM cash transactions. EBT Committees Ms. McFadden reported that there are several committees that have been established to discuss and address EBT issues. The various committees include representatives from the State Treasurer’s office, client advocates, Grocers Association and County Welfare Director Association, Consumers Union, Legal Services of Northern California, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and the California Reinvestment Center. In addition, there is a statewide client advocates EBT forums that are held quarterly. Kevin Aslanian requested a schedule of the quarterly EBT forums. EBT 1-800 Telephone Number The Advocates inquired on how much information is provided to the client once they are given their EBT card. For example, if a client is charged twice on a purchase or their EBT balance is wrong, does the client know what to do? Have the clients been instructed or trained to call and use the EBT 800 # for assistance. Ms. McFadden stated that there are instructional videos and there is a lot of training material available for clients. In addition, the EBT 800# operators that are avail- able speak 11 languages. EBT Card To Be Used In FNS Approved Restaurants The Advocates stated clients that are approved to use their EBT card to purchase prepared food at FNS authorized restaurants are not able use their EBT card for this purpose. Additionally, this issue also impacts homeless clients that have an EBT card. This is an open item. Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Manage- ment Report The Advocates stated that counties are not completing the IEVS management report. Based on the IEVS quarterly report (482) the advocates concluded that the counties are not identifying and processing overpayments timely. These overpayments are negatively impacting the clients. Teena Arneson reported that the Fraud Bureau is aggressively working with counties to clean-up their IEVS data and the counties are required to submit the IEVS quarterly reports (482). It was stated that there were no formal enforcement authority for counties that fail to report their IEVS data. This is an open item Homeless Assistance CDSS website statistics on homeless assistance seems to be outdated. Charr Lee Metsker will look into the matter and will discuss findings at the next meeting. Section 8 in Los Angeles County Kate Meiss reported that Los Angeles County is denying security deposits and last month’s rent to Section 8 recipients. Maria Hernandez stated that there is an ACL regarding this issue; and Ms. Hernandez agreed to fax copy to Ms. Meiss. Policy Interpretations The Advocates expressed an interest in receiving copies of the policy interpretations that CDSS distributes to the counties. Mr. Wagstaff stated that policy interpretations are case specific and suggested that CDSS look into how they are handled by the Department of Health Services. This is an open item. 60 Months Time Limits The Advocates stated that clients are exempt, but county workers are making mistakes and counting their time. Clients need to be notified when exemptions end. Ms. Hernandez stated that there are no requirements to notify clients when their exemption ends but noted that as a result of this concern the Department would consider revising the form providing 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 4 the exemption determination (CW 2186B) so that counties could enter the exemption end date, when known. Advocates noted that the determination of when an exemption ends is a potential adverse action which requires a notice of action. Learning Disability (LD) Screening The Advocates stated that counties are not using the LD screening tools and\/or are not using the LD screening tools correctly. Additionally, it was stated that clients would have to self-identify as having LD issues to be assessed, and those who did not self-identify would not be assessed. The Department intends to clarify the role of the counties in serving limited English-speaking recipients who may have learning disabilities. Santa Clara County is informing limited English-speaking recipients about learning disabilities with some success. A summary of the available data on learning disabilities was provided: Currently, little data is available from the counties on the number of CalWORKs clients who have learning disabilities. Preliminary data from one county shows that approximately six percent of those clients who are screened have a learning disability, which appears to be in line with the percentage EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OALON:07\/29\/03 OAL FILE NO. 03-0729-04E AGENCY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TOPIC: ABAWD, Food Stamp Voluntary Quit, and FSET Emergency Regulations SECTIONS AFFECTED: MPP, Manual Poli- cies & Procedures SECTIONS: 63-300-63- 505 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the Regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is : 8\/4\/03 OAL DECISION DUE:8\/8\/03 AGENCY CONTACT : Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586 CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, in depth Con- sultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Wel- fare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance and Refugee Immigration of our caseload that some thought would have learning dis- abilities (10 percent). Preliminary data from three counties show that of the 4,231 individuals offered learning disabilities screening, 2,667 (or 63 percent) declined screening and 1,564 (or 37 percent) were referred. Of the 1,564 individuals referred to screening, 1,560 (or 98 percent) were screened and 452 (or 29 percent) of those screened were determined to be potentially learn- ing disabled. However, with little available data, we are unable to draw any solid conclusions about the learning-disabled popula- tion in CalWORKs. Hopefully, as more counties implement their learning disability protocols, and more data becomes available, we will be able to more accurately determine the impact of learning disabilities on our clients and the Cal- WORKs program. The next meeting was not scheduled. Emergency Regulation ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-24.pdf

1118 downloads

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News Below are the minutes of the last meeting with DSS between welfare advocates and DSS. The next meeting will be held on August 28, 2003 @ 1 P.M. Persons who have issued that they would like to be raised, please e-mail them to CCWRO at [email protected]. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Welfare Advocates Workgroup Meeting March 27, 2003 Participants: Advocates Kevin Aslanian – CCWRO Karla Barrow – LAFLA Jodie Berger – LSNC Stephen Bingham -BALA Sujatha Jagadeesh Branch – Child Care Law Center Grace Galligher – CCWRO Stephanie Haffner – CRLA Nu Usaha – WCL&P Kate Meiss – NLS Hope Nakamura – Legal Aid of San Mateo County Joseph Ramos – ICLS Julie Aguilar Rogado – LSNC CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003 DSS News – 3\/27\/03 Advocates Meeting With DSS Minutes Food Stamp Emergency Regulations DSS Staff Teena Arneson CDSS, Fraud Bureau Teri Ellen Work Support Services Bureau Mark Gagnon Fraud Bureau Venus Garth Work Services Branch Maria Hernandez CalWORKs Eligibility Bu- reau Jo Lee Fraud Bureau Cynthia McDowell Work Services Branch Debbie McFadden Program Integrity Branch Charr Lee Metsker Employment and Eligibility Branch Connie Navarrette Legal Office Gordon Scott Employment and Eligibility Branch Marie Saur Work Services Branch Pat Sutherland Food Stamps Bureau Antonia Taylor Work Services Branch Lyn Vice Childcare Bureau Bruce Wagstaff Welfare to Work Division Discussion, Action Items, and Follow-up Is- sues Medi-Cal Services For Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients Maria Hernandez reported that the Depart- ment of Health Services (DHS) and CDSS jointly signed a letter to remind the counties that individuals who time out on CalWORKs are eligible for continuing Medi-Cal services under Section1931 (b) of the Medi-Cal program. The letter was sent to all county CalWORKs program CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 managers. Ms. Hernandez will work with DHS to have the letter published on CDSS’ website. Computer Software Removing Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients From Receiving Medi-Cal Services The Advocates stated that some of the software that is be- ing used by the counties is arbitrarily removing timed-out CalWORKs clients from receiving Medi-Cal services. The Advocates were asked to name the counties that have these software problems so CDSS could review the counties on a case by case basis. Debbie McFadden explained that CDSS does not have the authority over the software or the computer programming used by the counties. However, Ms. McFadden stated CDSS staff will follow-up and research this issue. This is an open item. Immediate Need\/County Office Hours Maria Hernandez stated that a question and answer (Q&A) letter will be distributed to remind counties of immediate need and county office hours procedures. We anticipate the letter will be on the CDSS website by the first week in May 2003. Two Parents Required To Attend Application\/ Re-determi- nation Interview Maria Hernandez confirmed that an All County Letter (ACL) will be sent informing counties of the application\/interview requirements and procedures. It’s anticipated the ACIN will be posted on the CDSS website by the end of March 2003. Retroactive Childcare Payment Lyn Vice requested that a correction be made to the December 5, 2002, minutes regarding Retroactive Childcare Payment. Ms. Vice stated on page three of the minutes that an overly broad statement was made which gives the impression that there was not a retroactive payment policy that was appropri- ate. The minutes have been corrected and the sentence was deleted from the minutes. Ms. Vice also agreed to send Dora Lopez a copy of the letter that CDSS is addressing to Los Angeles County regarding the childcare payment policy. Ms. Vice distributed copies of ACL No. 03-10, retroactive payments, which was released on February 27, 2003. The ACL implements the provisions of AB 444 Section 11323.3, regarding retroactive payments. Emergency regulations are currently being written by CDSS and according to statute will be completed by July 1, 2003. Sujatha Branch will work with Ms. Vice on the emergency regulations and Ms. Branch will represent the Advocates. Ms. Vice will check into Ms. Branch’s inquiry regarding the level of effort required by counties after a client refuses to sign a childcare availability notice. Aid Paid Pending Child Care The Advocates stated that counties are requesting that cli- ents submit verification before childcare services are paid. Advocates also stated that this issue typically occurs when there is a sanction notice sent to clients informing them that they are being terminated and their supportive services will end. This is an open item. Aid Paid Pending – Supportive Services CDSS’ Legal office is currently reviewing policies regarding aid paid pending for supportive services (transportation and ancillary services). This is an open item. Transportation Services Teri Ellen reported that an ACL on transportation Q&A will be distributed in the next three weeks. Ancillary Services Ms. Ellen stated that a draft Q & A on Ancillary Services ACL will be ready for review by the Advocates in the near future. Supportive Services for Refugees Kate Meiss expressed a concern regarding refugee clients in Los Angeles County being denied supportive services to which they are entitled. CDSS staff will contact Ms. Meiss with information about whom she can contact at the state level regarding her concern. Refugee Letter A request was made by the Advocates to post on CDSS’ website the refugee letter dated December 9, 2002, which was distributed to all counties. Charr Lee Metsker agreed to post the letter on CDSS’ web- site. Budget Update Bruce Wagstaff briefly discussed the Governor’s proposed realignment proposal. It was reported that the cost of living adjustment (COLA) was still on the floor of the Senate. Mr. Wagstaff stated that there is a lot of work to do with the State Budget and there will be many realignment issues. Quarterly Reporting Bruce Wagstaff reported that a draft quarterly reporting ACL was written, but the letter was delayed because a waiver was needed by, USDA, Food and Nutrition Services (FNS). Using the Director’s authority to waive CalWORKs regu- lations the ACL was revised and a letter has been sent to FNS requesting approval of the revised quarterly reporting process. Mr. Wagstaff stated that CDSS may be seeking pos- sible legislative authority, so the Director would not need to conduct a CalWORKs regulations waiver. January 2004 is CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 3 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 the estimated start-up date for Quarterly Reporting. Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDS) Waiv- ers Gordon Scott reported that seven counties are waiting FNS approval for a labor surplus waiver. Mr. Scott stated that only 22 counties were eligible and of those counties four are being processed and four are not interested (Kern, Colusa, Imperial and Sutter). The other counties are pend- ing and will be processed as received. An updated list of the counties approved ABAWD wavier is attached. This item is to be updated and a status copy of this information will be distributed at the next meeting. Implementation of Supplemental Food Stamps Patrick Sutherland reported on a proposed program that would allow clients leaving CalWORKs to automatically become eligible for five additional months of food stamps. No monthly or quarterly reporting would be required. Also, there is a provision in the program that requires the county to recompute a client’s last month’s benefits while removing CalWORKs income which would result in a larger food stamp allotment. Cost of implementation of the program has not been determined yet. The feasibility of quarterly reporting for CalWORKs and semi-annual reporting for food stamps were also discussed. Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Status Debbie McFadden reported that thirteen counties have imple- mented EBT for cash and food stamps. Ms. McFadden stated that EBT should change the stigma of using food stamps. It was stated that CDSS is currently working vigorously on a wireless EBT system for clients to purchase food at farmers markets. Ms. McFadden reported that 50 percent of the EBT surcharges are currently free for clients. However, CDSS is working with banks to negotiate the removal of surcharges for clients using their EBT card for ATM cash transactions. EBT Committees Ms. McFadden reported that there are several committees that have been established to discuss and address EBT issues. The various committees include representatives from the State Treasurer’s office, client advocates, Grocers Association and County Welfare Director Association, Consumers Union, Legal Services of Northern California, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and the California Reinvestment Center. In addition, there is a statewide client advocates EBT forums that are held quarterly. Kevin Aslanian requested a schedule of the quarterly EBT forums. EBT 1-800 Telephone Number The Advocates inquired on how much information is provided to the client once they are given their EBT card. For example, if a client is charged twice on a purchase or their EBT balance is wrong, does the client know what to do? Have the clients been instructed or trained to call and use the EBT 800 # for assistance. Ms. McFadden stated that there are instructional videos and there is a lot of training material available for clients. In addition, the EBT 800# operators that are avail- able speak 11 languages. EBT Card To Be Used In FNS Approved Restaurants The Advocates stated clients that are approved to use their EBT card to purchase prepared food at FNS authorized restaurants are not able use their EBT card for this purpose. Additionally, this issue also impacts homeless clients that have an EBT card. This is an open item. Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Manage- ment Report The Advocates stated that counties are not completing the IEVS management report. Based on the IEVS quarterly report (482) the advocates concluded that the counties are not identifying and processing overpayments timely. These overpayments are negatively impacting the clients. Teena Arneson reported that the Fraud Bureau is aggressively working with counties to clean-up their IEVS data and the counties are required to submit the IEVS quarterly reports (482). It was stated that there were no formal enforcement authority for counties that fail to report their IEVS data. This is an open item Homeless Assistance CDSS website statistics on homeless assistance seems to be outdated. Charr Lee Metsker will look into the matter and will discuss findings at the next meeting. Section 8 in Los Angeles County Kate Meiss reported that Los Angeles County is denying security deposits and last month’s rent to Section 8 recipients. Maria Hernandez stated that there is an ACL regarding this issue; and Ms. Hernandez agreed to fax copy to Ms. Meiss. Policy Interpretations The Advocates expressed an interest in receiving copies of the policy interpretations that CDSS distributes to the counties. Mr. Wagstaff stated that policy interpretations are case specific and suggested that CDSS look into how they are handled by the Department of Health Services. This is an open item. 60 Months Time Limits The Advocates stated that clients are exempt, but county workers are making mistakes and counting their time. Clients need to be notified when exemptions end. Ms. Hernandez stated that there are no requirements to notify clients when their exemption ends but noted that as a result of this concern the Department would consider revising the form providing 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 4 the exemption determination (CW 2186B) so that counties could enter the exemption end date, when known. Advocates noted that the determination of when an exemption ends is a potential adverse action which requires a notice of action. Learning Disability (LD) Screening The Advocates stated that counties are not using the LD screening tools and\/or are not using the LD screening tools correctly. Additionally, it was stated that clients would have to self-identify as having LD issues to be assessed, and those who did not self-identify would not be assessed. The Department intends to clarify the role of the counties in serving limited English-speaking recipients who may have learning disabilities. Santa Clara County is informing limited English-speaking recipients about learning disabilities with some success. A summary of the available data on learning disabilities was provided: Currently, little data is available from the counties on the number of CalWORKs clients who have learning disabilities. Preliminary data from one county shows that approximately six percent of those clients who are screened have a learning disability, which appears to be in line with the percentage EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OALON:07\/29\/03 OAL FILE NO. 03-0729-04E AGENCY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TOPIC: ABAWD, Food Stamp Voluntary Quit, and FSET Emergency Regulations SECTIONS AFFECTED: MPP, Manual Poli- cies & Procedures SECTIONS: 63-300-63- 505 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the Regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is : 8\/4\/03 OAL DECISION DUE:8\/8\/03 AGENCY CONTACT : Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586 CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, in depth Con- sultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Wel- fare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance and Refugee Immigration of our caseload that some thought would have learning dis- abilities (10 percent). Preliminary data from three counties show that of the 4,231 individuals offered learning disabilities screening, 2,667 (or 63 percent) declined screening and 1,564 (or 37 percent) were referred. Of the 1,564 individuals referred to screening, 1,560 (or 98 percent) were screened and 452 (or 29 percent) of those screened were determined to be potentially learn- ing disabled. However, with little available data, we are unable to draw any solid conclusions about the learning-disabled popula- tion in CalWORKs. Hopefully, as more counties implement their learning disability protocols, and more data becomes available, we will be able to more accurately determine the impact of learning disabilities on our clients and the Cal- WORKs program. The next meeting was not scheduled. Emergency Regulation ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-25.pdf

1176 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003 CCWRO Litigation report County Victim Report Welfare Advocate ALERT – Medi-Cal Overpayment SHEYKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Case # 99CSO2696. This writ of mandate challenged the policies of DSS that require adult family members in a household who are not applicants for or recipients of CalWORKS or Food Stamp benefits to be finger-imaged and photo-imaged as a condition precedent for receipt of Food Stamps or CalWORKS benefits by eligible family members. Bay Area Legal Aid and Asian Law Alliance requested that CCWRO pursue the litigation and prosecution of this action. Co-counsel to Legal Services of Northern California. CASE STATUS- Oral argument scheduled for July 23, 2003. Research in preparation for argument. KING v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00016 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges Fresno County’s failure to advance Ms. King her CalWORKS transportation expenses. CASE STATUS- DSS offered settlement in case. Waiting for client’s expenses MEDINA v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00015 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges the decision to allow Fresno County to recover a CalWORKs overpayment which occurred in 1997. The overpayment occurred for the failure to report income. Fresno County learned about the overpayment in May 1998 but did nothing until July 2001. Recovery of the CalWORKs overpayment should be barred by the statute of limitations. The ALJ found that Fresno County could recover the CalWORKs overpayment even though recoupment of the commiserate Food Stamp overissuance was bared by the statute of limitations. CASE STATUS- Awaiting preparation of the administrative record. McFARLAND V. SAENZ Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS) This petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenges the ALJ’s finding that Kern County could impose a sanction for refusing to sign a Welfare to Work plan for which the activity is to attend a third party assessment. The normal process is for the counties to schedule the third party assessment and notify the participant of the date and time of the appointment. Kern County also proposed to count the receipt of $1,999 (which Kern County Department of Human Services paid petitioner as a settlement in a court action for misconduct in CCWRO Litigation Report CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 administering her CalWORKs case) as countable income for purposes of food stamps. The ALJ concurred. This decision is contrary to M.P.P. \u00df 63-502.2(j). CASE STATUS- Awaiting preparation of administrative record and updating research in case. SNEED v. SAENZ (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 764797) LASSDC requested that we co-counsel on this case. The Legislature enacted Welfare and Institutions Code \u00df 11450.04(a) to provide that if a child is born into a family unit who has received cash assistance continuously for the ten months prior the child’s birth, the child’s needs is not considered and is excluded from cash benefits. Such child is referred to as a MFG child. When the MFG child has a parent not related to the other child(ren) and the parent is unemployed and lives in the home, the parent’s needs are also not considered. CASE STATUS- Appealed. The Appellate Record is being prepared. KISELEV v. SAENZ- (Sacramento County Case No. 02CS00951) This lawsuit was filed at the request of LSNC. This writ of mandate challenges the policies of DSS to circumvent the adequate notice requirement and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Associacion Mixta Progresista v. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S.D.C. (N.D.Cal.) Civil No. C 72-852 SAW, requires that CDSS (formerly the State Department of Benefit payments) translate necessary forms and written materials into the applicants’\/recipients’ primary language when they constituted a substantial number (i.e., five percent or more of the applicant\/ recipient population) within a particular county. Petitioner Kiselev received a notice of action denying his In Home Supportive Services application in the English language. Mr. Kiselev speaks Russian and DSS admitted that the denial notice had been translated in to Russian. Mr. Kiselev did not request a hearing within the 90 days of receiving the notice. When he did request the hearing, Sacramento County argued that there was no jurisdiction because he waited too long to request the hearing. CASE STATUS: Reviewed Administrative Record. DEPARINI, POLISHCHUK v. BONTA, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DHA, A federal class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, was filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District in Sacramento on March 17, 2000. Case No. Civ. S.-00-655 FCD JFM. As a result of this lawsuit DHS uses 45 new notice codes in denying dental treatment authorization requests (TARs). CASE STATUS- CCWRO receives quarterly report for Health Services and is monitoring and reviewing quarterly reports. DURAN v. DURAN (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 95FL02624.) During November 1997, Mr. Duran was ordered to appear at a child support hearing. When he arrived with his 16 year old girlfriend, the deputy district attorney gave him a copy of the complaint for child support and told his that this is what you have to agree to. Since Mr. Duran is blind, his girlfriend, who had a limited education, read the complaint to him. Mr. Duran had no access to legal counsel or anyone who understood the complaint. Mr. Duran agreed to pay a child support arrearage of $5,290 which occurred during the period in which Mr. Duran was employed. CCWRO obtained employment records from EDD and the Social Security Administration. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CASE STATUS- case settled. GAVRILENKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 00CS01547) CCWRO is amending the petition for writ of administrative mandamus to a class action petition for writ of mandate; complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief along with the writ of administrative mandate. This action challenges the validity of the practice and policy of the California Department of Social Services ( CDSS ) that allows counties to impose the Maximum Family Grant limitation when the English language notice of action is issued to non- English speaking recipients when the CDSS has translated the notice of action into the recipient’s primary language. This policy and practice is inconsistent with state laws and regulations. CASE STATUS: CCWRO has represented potential plaintiffs in administrative hearings in order to exhaust the administrative remedies. When the individual cases are taken to hearing, the judge rules in the client’s favor. CCWRO is still looking for clients. Additional representative class members have administrative hearings in February. ROBLES v. SAENZ Sacramento County Case No. 03CSO0996 Lead Counsel is Jacquelyn Maruhashi of Asian Law Alliance who requested that CCWRO co-counsel on this case. This case was filed in Sacramento County because the Court has judges dedicated to hearing writ cases. The judges in Santa Clara County are not familiar with writ proceedings. This writ of administrative mandate and petition for writ of mandate pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 challenges the validity of the policy of the California Department of Social Services ( DSS ) that the indigent exception which exempts the income and resources of the immigrant’s sponsor for purposes of establishing eligibility for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants ( CAPI ) does not apply before August 29, 2002, the date that DSS issued All-County Letter No. 02-63. This policy is inconsistent with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b) which requires that federal deeming rules and exemptions governing the Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) Program, including all federal and state laws and regulations designed to protect SSI recipients and their resources, shall govern CAPI. Saenz has a duty under the law to conform DSS’ policies and practices in administering the CAPI program to the provisions of applicable statutes and their own duly promulgated regulations. The Social Security POMs which promulgated the Indigence exception to sponsor deeming for the SSI program existed prior to September 1, 2002, the date of ACL No. 02-63. The failure to apply the Indigence Exception to pre-September 1, 2002 CAPI applications where the applicant’s sponsor abandoned the applicant with no means of support which conflicts with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b). CASE STATUS: Awaiting for the Administrative record. County Welfare Department Victim Report A 72 year old man was served with a complaint for child support by Alameda County. We wondered how old is the poor child being deprived of child support. To our amazement the child was only 50 years old. Now Alameda must have been in deep hibernation for a while – a whole 30 years. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 4 CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility A noncustodial male parent was paying child support to Los Angeles County. The custodial parent moved to San Bernardino County. The noncustodial parent continued to pay child support to Los Angeles County. Several months later, he gets a complaint for failing to pay child support from San Bernardino County. He does not answer the complaint and San Bernardino enters default judgement and takes away his teaching credentials. He is now on CalWORKs, because he can no longer provide for himself and a child living with him. In 1998 the State of California should have had a statewide distribution system, but has failed to do so. The state is paying penalties for their deviant behavior, but those penalties present no relief to this victim. He still cannot teach and provide for his family and none of that penalty money goes to the real victims. Welfare Advocate ALERT Medi-Cal Overpayments Daniel Benson of San Diego Legal Aid has informed us that San Diego County has been pursuing Medi-Cal overpayments. The authority to collect Medi-Cal overpayments can be found in Welfare and institutions Code Section 14009. Subsection (c) states that the .. Amount of overpayment shall be based on the amount of excess income or resources and computed in accordance with overpayment regulations promulgated by the director. The regulations are embodied in the Medi-Cal handbook Article 16, section 50781 through 500793. Persons who need a copy of these regulations can e-mail CCWRO at [email protected] asking for a copy of these regulations. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-25.pdf

1162 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003 CCWRO Litigation report County Victim Report Welfare Advocate ALERT – Medi-Cal Overpayment SHEYKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Case # 99CSO2696. This writ of mandate challenged the policies of DSS that require adult family members in a household who are not applicants for or recipients of CalWORKS or Food Stamp benefits to be finger-imaged and photo-imaged as a condition precedent for receipt of Food Stamps or CalWORKS benefits by eligible family members. Bay Area Legal Aid and Asian Law Alliance requested that CCWRO pursue the litigation and prosecution of this action. Co-counsel to Legal Services of Northern California. CASE STATUS- Oral argument scheduled for July 23, 2003. Research in preparation for argument. KING v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00016 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges Fresno County’s failure to advance Ms. King her CalWORKS transportation expenses. CASE STATUS- DSS offered settlement in case. Waiting for client’s expenses MEDINA v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00015 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges the decision to allow Fresno County to recover a CalWORKs overpayment which occurred in 1997. The overpayment occurred for the failure to report income. Fresno County learned about the overpayment in May 1998 but did nothing until July 2001. Recovery of the CalWORKs overpayment should be barred by the statute of limitations. The ALJ found that Fresno County could recover the CalWORKs overpayment even though recoupment of the commiserate Food Stamp overissuance was bared by the statute of limitations. CASE STATUS- Awaiting preparation of the administrative record. McFARLAND V. SAENZ Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS) This petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenges the ALJ’s finding that Kern County could impose a sanction for refusing to sign a Welfare to Work plan for which the activity is to attend a third party assessment. The normal process is for the counties to schedule the third party assessment and notify the participant of the date and time of the appointment. Kern County also proposed to count the receipt of $1,999 (which Kern County Department of Human Services paid petitioner as a settlement in a court action for misconduct in CCWRO Litigation Report CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 administering her CalWORKs case) as countable income for purposes of food stamps. The ALJ concurred. This decision is contrary to M.P.P. \u00df 63-502.2(j). CASE STATUS- Awaiting preparation of administrative record and updating research in case. SNEED v. SAENZ (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 764797) LASSDC requested that we co-counsel on this case. The Legislature enacted Welfare and Institutions Code \u00df 11450.04(a) to provide that if a child is born into a family unit who has received cash assistance continuously for the ten months prior the child’s birth, the child’s needs is not considered and is excluded from cash benefits. Such child is referred to as a MFG child. When the MFG child has a parent not related to the other child(ren) and the parent is unemployed and lives in the home, the parent’s needs are also not considered. CASE STATUS- Appealed. The Appellate Record is being prepared. KISELEV v. SAENZ- (Sacramento County Case No. 02CS00951) This lawsuit was filed at the request of LSNC. This writ of mandate challenges the policies of DSS to circumvent the adequate notice requirement and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Associacion Mixta Progresista v. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S.D.C. (N.D.Cal.) Civil No. C 72-852 SAW, requires that CDSS (formerly the State Department of Benefit payments) translate necessary forms and written materials into the applicants’\/recipients’ primary language when they constituted a substantial number (i.e., five percent or more of the applicant\/ recipient population) within a particular county. Petitioner Kiselev received a notice of action denying his In Home Supportive Services application in the English language. Mr. Kiselev speaks Russian and DSS admitted that the denial notice had been translated in to Russian. Mr. Kiselev did not request a hearing within the 90 days of receiving the notice. When he did request the hearing, Sacramento County argued that there was no jurisdiction because he waited too long to request the hearing. CASE STATUS: Reviewed Administrative Record. DEPARINI, POLISHCHUK v. BONTA, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DHA, A federal class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, was filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District in Sacramento on March 17, 2000. Case No. Civ. S.-00-655 FCD JFM. As a result of this lawsuit DHS uses 45 new notice codes in denying dental treatment authorization requests (TARs). CASE STATUS- CCWRO receives quarterly report for Health Services and is monitoring and reviewing quarterly reports. DURAN v. DURAN (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 95FL02624.) During November 1997, Mr. Duran was ordered to appear at a child support hearing. When he arrived with his 16 year old girlfriend, the deputy district attorney gave him a copy of the complaint for child support and told his that this is what you have to agree to. Since Mr. Duran is blind, his girlfriend, who had a limited education, read the complaint to him. Mr. Duran had no access to legal counsel or anyone who understood the complaint. Mr. Duran agreed to pay a child support arrearage of $5,290 which occurred during the period in which Mr. Duran was employed. CCWRO obtained employment records from EDD and the Social Security Administration. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CASE STATUS- case settled. GAVRILENKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 00CS01547) CCWRO is amending the petition for writ of administrative mandamus to a class action petition for writ of mandate; complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief along with the writ of administrative mandate. This action challenges the validity of the practice and policy of the California Department of Social Services ( CDSS ) that allows counties to impose the Maximum Family Grant limitation when the English language notice of action is issued to non- English speaking recipients when the CDSS has translated the notice of action into the recipient’s primary language. This policy and practice is inconsistent with state laws and regulations. CASE STATUS: CCWRO has represented potential plaintiffs in administrative hearings in order to exhaust the administrative remedies. When the individual cases are taken to hearing, the judge rules in the client’s favor. CCWRO is still looking for clients. Additional representative class members have administrative hearings in February. ROBLES v. SAENZ Sacramento County Case No. 03CSO0996 Lead Counsel is Jacquelyn Maruhashi of Asian Law Alliance who requested that CCWRO co-counsel on this case. This case was filed in Sacramento County because the Court has judges dedicated to hearing writ cases. The judges in Santa Clara County are not familiar with writ proceedings. This writ of administrative mandate and petition for writ of mandate pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 challenges the validity of the policy of the California Department of Social Services ( DSS ) that the indigent exception which exempts the income and resources of the immigrant’s sponsor for purposes of establishing eligibility for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants ( CAPI ) does not apply before August 29, 2002, the date that DSS issued All-County Letter No. 02-63. This policy is inconsistent with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b) which requires that federal deeming rules and exemptions governing the Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) Program, including all federal and state laws and regulations designed to protect SSI recipients and their resources, shall govern CAPI. Saenz has a duty under the law to conform DSS’ policies and practices in administering the CAPI program to the provisions of applicable statutes and their own duly promulgated regulations. The Social Security POMs which promulgated the Indigence exception to sponsor deeming for the SSI program existed prior to September 1, 2002, the date of ACL No. 02-63. The failure to apply the Indigence Exception to pre-September 1, 2002 CAPI applications where the applicant’s sponsor abandoned the applicant with no means of support which conflicts with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b). CASE STATUS: Awaiting for the Administrative record. County Welfare Department Victim Report A 72 year old man was served with a complaint for child support by Alameda County. We wondered how old is the poor child being deprived of child support. To our amazement the child was only 50 years old. Now Alameda must have been in deep hibernation for a while – a whole 30 years. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 4 CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility A noncustodial male parent was paying child support to Los Angeles County. The custodial parent moved to San Bernardino County. The noncustodial parent continued to pay child support to Los Angeles County. Several months later, he gets a complaint for failing to pay child support from San Bernardino County. He does not answer the complaint and San Bernardino enters default judgement and takes away his teaching credentials. He is now on CalWORKs, because he can no longer provide for himself and a child living with him. In 1998 the State of California should have had a statewide distribution system, but has failed to do so. The state is paying penalties for their deviant behavior, but those penalties present no relief to this victim. He still cannot teach and provide for his family and none of that penalty money goes to the real victims. Welfare Advocate ALERT Medi-Cal Overpayments Daniel Benson of San Diego Legal Aid has informed us that San Diego County has been pursuing Medi-Cal overpayments. The authority to collect Medi-Cal overpayments can be found in Welfare and institutions Code Section 14009. Subsection (c) states that the .. Amount of overpayment shall be based on the amount of excess income or resources and computed in accordance with overpayment regulations promulgated by the director. The regulations are embodied in the Medi-Cal handbook Article 16, section 50781 through 500793. Persons who need a copy of these regulations can e-mail CCWRO at [email protected] asking for a copy of these regulations. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-28.pdf

1231 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-28 — September 12, 2003 IN BRIEF DSS NEWS New Legislation Passed – AB 1402 U.S. Senate Finance Committee Passes TANF Reauthorization County Statistical Reporting – At an August 14, 2003 County Welfare Director Asso- ciation meeting, counties were reminded that the WtW 25 and CW 115 reports should be accu- rate. The WtW 25 are the CalWORKs workfare program reports and the CW 115 are the child care reports. Often, CWDA representatives have publicly stated that the information in these reports are not accurate. Now counties are being told that DSS is using these reports to allocate funding to counties, thus, they should be accurate if they want to get the right amount of money. Off course, this also means that counties may be sub- mitting false reports to get more money and DSS never verifies the information contained in these reports. These reports are completed by county revenue enhancers who know every trick in the book to download more federal and state money. Food Stamp Error Rate – DSS and coun- ties have been meeting with FNS trying to get FNS to hold the state harmless for the error rate while counties switch from monthly reporting to quarterly reporting. Quarterly Reporting (QR) was only passed because it reduces the error rate by 75%. With monthly reporting there were 12 chances a year for an error to occur. With QR it goes down to 4 chances a year. The request was denied by FNS. IN BRIEF Food Stamp Error Rate Down – The Cu- mulative State Food Stamp error rate through March, 2003 was 7.49%. This may yield DSS a $10 million bonus. Off course, none of the bonus money will go to the people who brought the error rate down – the food stamp recipients of California. 2001 Food Stamp Sanction In Litiga- tion – When DSS got hit with a sanction for having a high error rate, they did not pay up like Food Stamp recipients who pay with sanctions–first an NOA then the sanction goes into effect unless one requests a fair hearing. If one does not win the hearing, then the sanction goes into effect within a couple of months. Less than 5% file for a hearing. It is late 2003 and the State still has not paid their $138 mil- lion sanction (which was reduced to $114 million) to the federal government. They are still working on the discovery of the sanction hearing. If only such due process could be afforded to the recipients of Food Stamps… equal justice . Secret Webpage for Counties by DSS – DSS is developing a secure webpage for coun- ties that will have up to date questions and answers regarding QR. So far there are 169 questions that have been posed to DSS with more coming. The pub- lic will not have access to these policy issuances. What is there to hide? Maria Hernandez of DSS as- sures us that all answers will be available on the in- ternet in the ACIN or ACL format. They need the secure webpage to get questions from counties. What is wrong with regulations e-mail? SFIS Update- The Statewide Fingerprint Iden- tification System (SFIS) has found a small number of individuals who have applied for aid in more than one county, DSS still loves this system because they allege it deters fraud. How does DSS know that SFIS deters fraud? It is their bureaucratic intuition. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-28 — September 12, 2003-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News ACIN I-58-03- Transitional Food Stamps This ACIN puts counties on notice that AB 1752 signed by the Governor on August 9, 2003, requires the Transitional Food Stamp Benefits program go into effect on January 1, 2004. The statute, W&IC 18901.6 was actually effective on August 9, 2003. Section 43 of AB 1752 states very clearly: SEC. 43. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Con- stitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to make necessary statutory changes to imple- ment the Budget Act of 2003 at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect immedi- ately. Immediately does not mean January 1, 2003. AB 1752 also suspended the 2003-2004 COLA for families. Why does that provision go into effect right away, while another provisions in the same bill take its sweet time? What about all the Food Stamps that households lost because this section did not take effect on August 9, 2003? How will these victims be made whole? ACL 03-41- 2003 Regional Market Rate Ceil- ings and Emergency Regulations The regional market rates have been reduced from 93% to 85% due to 2003-2004 budget action. The ACL contains emergency regulations promul- gated by State Department of Education imple- menting this Budget Cut. This cut takes effect on December 1, 2003 or prior thereto. Supportive Services Overpayment- Inyo County has asked DSS whether or not the county can recover supportive services overpay- ments. DSS responded that the county can recover the overpayments pursuant to 42-751.2, provided that such recovery does not interfere with the program participation. This means that if there is an over- payment, it can be recovered from transportation supportive services, provided the lack of transpor- tation services will not interfere with the partici- pants’ participation in WtW. RULE: The county cannot recover an overpay- ment which will interfere with the participants abil- ity to participate in a WtW activity and can only be recovered from a supportive services payment and not from the CalWORKs grant. Retroactive Payments Informing Notice- On 3\/26\/03 San Mateo County Child Care Manager Lorna Strachan asked DSS if San Mateo County can modify the CCP 7. DSS re- sponded the same day stating According to All County Letter 0-3-10, counties have the flexibil- ity to develope their own informing notice to meet their specific needs as long as the notice includes the information contained in the sample form. Prior CDSS approval on the form is not required. CCWRO Observation: Pretty bad. The county could do whatever they want to do with zero ac- countability. CDSS could care less if the county informing notice that is illegal. What you don’t know doesn’t hurt is the CDSS model. DSS Proposed Regulations DSS has published proposes regulations regard- ing: 1. ABAWD, Food Stamp Voluntary Quit, and FSET Emergency Regulations ORD# 1202-28; and 2. CalWORKS\/Food Stamps Intercept Program ORD# 0203-04. Comments are due by Septem- ber 17, 2003 For more information go to:http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/PublicHear_675.htm You can file your comments by e-mail also. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-28 — September 12, 2003-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Welfare Legislation passed AB 1402, by Lois Wolk, chairperson of the Assembly Human Services Committee passed the Assembly on August 28, 2003. AB 1402 makes the following changes in law: 1. This bill makes some technical changes in the way reported changes are treated. 2. AB 1402 would also require DSS to report to relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Leg- islature in April 2005 regarding the effects of the mid-quarter reporting requirement on pro- gram efficiency and integrity of implementa- tion. The report is to be based on data collected by CWDA and select counties, with DSS to de- termine, in consultation with CWDA, data col- lection needs. AB 1402 completely ignores the consumer community from this report. In fact, the legal services community representing the recipient community was intentionally excluded from this process. The report will also be based upon the county data, which is very suspect as we all know about how often counties manipu- late data that produces conclusion not supported by the evidence. 3. Finally this bill allows DSS to implement quarterly reporting based on All County Letters and not duly promulgated regulations until July 1, 2004. AB 231, by Steinberg – This bill was the fingerimaging abolition bill. The State Auditor General reported that this system is costing mil- lions of dollars and saving nothing, but CDSS still loves to fingerprint welfare recipients. The final version of AB 231 dropped the provi- sions that would have saved millions of dollars by repealing the fingerprint provision. The bill would exempt one car and make some other technical changes. ACTION: People are urged to write let- ters to Gray David asking him to sign AB 231. Senate Finance Committee Passed a TANF Reauthorization Bill On September 10, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building the U.S. Senate Finance Committee meet to consider a substitute to H.R. 4, (the House of Representatives TANF reauthorization bill) to reauthorize the TANF pro- gram. The Senate Finance Committee, on a partisan vote, with all Republicans voting yes and all Demo- crats voting no , the Senate Finance Committee passed a bill called the Family Opportunity Act of 2003 – the Senate TANF reauthorization bill. NEXT STOP: The bill will go to the floor for a hearing. It is very doubtful that the bill will be heard on the Senate Floor in September. TANF expires September 30, 2003. Thus, it is very likely that there will be another continuing resolution to al- low the Senate Bill to be considered on the floor and go to conference. The Senate Bill contains the following major provisions: — Work Participation Rates: Requires States to increase participation rates to 70% by FY 2008 as in HR 4; States are allowed to use extra credits towards the participation rates, such as using hours exceed- ing the 34 required hours towards overall partici- pation rates; giving states extra credits for people who leave TANF for jobs with higher wages; etc. — Work Hours: Single parents with kids under 6, including single parents of newborn babies, will be forced to work 24 hours a week. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-28 — September 12, 2003-Page 4 Single parents with kids over 4 will be required to work 34 hours a week; Two-parent families must work 39 hours a week. — What Counts as Work? The Senate Bill does not coincide with the limi- tations of what counts as work in HR 4. In addi- tion, the Senate Bill allows for some secondary education to count as work for 12 months for only 10% of the caseload. — Barriers to Work and Sanction Protections: The Senate Bill requires States to conduct pre- sanction reviews before reducing benefits. — More Child Care Money The Senate Bill adds another billion for a five year period for child care. — Superwaivers The bill gives up to 10 states- waivers of federal laws and regulations for the TANF, Social Services Block Grant and Child Care Development Fund programs. HR 4 allows for the waivers to included the Food Stamp program; the Workforce Reinvestment Act program; homelessness and housing programs and adult education programs. –Marriage Promotion\/Fatherhood Proposals There will be $200 million a year given to states with a 50% match to promote marriage. It is not clear if this is any marriage or only marriage be- tween a male and female. — Transportation The bill provides $25 million per year to pro- vide TANF recipients with cars needed to become self-sufficient. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-29.pdf

1173 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-29 — October 6, 2003 IN BRIEF DSS NEWS TANF UPDATE COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT Medicaid Regulations and Medi-Cal- At a recent state administrative hearing represen- tatives of the State Department of Health Services (DHS) testified under oath that DHS does not have to follow federal medicaid regulation when administering provisions of the Medi-Cal program. The State does sub- mit federal claims for Medi-Cal, thus, it is a part of the Medicaid program, but the well educated government officials representing the Department of Health Services did not know this. CAPI – Indigence Exception – Sponsor Whereabouts Unknown- This is a policy in- terpretation requested by Nancy Gillitzer of Fresno County Welfare Department. Many states have asked what happens if the CAPI applicant\/recipient does not know the where- abouts of the sponsor? Marshall Brown, with the approval of Vickie Walker stated: ..if the sponsor’s where- abouts are unknown, the applicant’s state- ment (if credible and nonconflicting with other case file information) can be accepted with- out confirmation. Supporting statements from third parties can also be used if the sponsor’s whereabouts are unknown. HA Reports Withheld by DSS- DSS pub- lishes monthly homeless assistance reports IN BRIEF on the internet. The last report published was for June, 2002. Duly promulgated state regula- tion require that each county submit a monthly report by the 20th day of the following month. This means that the September monthly report is due by October 20th. We have been informed by DSS officials that no report has been released since June of 2002 because Los Angeles County has knowingly re- fused to submit the homeless assistance reports as required by duly promulgated state regula- tions since June of 2002. How would Los Angeles County react to Cal- WORKs participants not submitting income re- ports for over one year? The manure will hit the fan. A notice of action stopping all benefits would have been mailed out in July of 2002 and ben- efits would have been stopped. But Los Ange- les County DPSS just keeps on getting their paychecks and intentionally violating the law. And then they have the colossal nerve to talk about their concern with the integrity of the Cal- WORKs program when it comes to the partici- pants. How practicing a little bit of what you preach DPSS. DSS News WtW Sanctions Climbing to New Heights- In July of 2002, 34.6% of the unduplicated Wel- fare to Work participants were sanctioned in California. This is the fruits of punitive polices promoted by the County Welfare Directors As- sociation (CWDA) to make it easier to sanction impoverished families of California. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-29 — 10\/6\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 A year later, we have taken another look at how many people are being sanctioned in Cali- fornia. The California Sanction machine has been humming and it has now reached 42.41% sanction rate. This is a huge 7.81% increase over a one year period. At this rate in 2004 the sanction rate will pass 50%. Counties admit that most sanctions are a re- sult of lack of child care. It is unlawful to im- pose a sanction when it is caused by lack of child care. Lack of child care is good cause. But then the primary purpose of the California WtW program has always been the desire to sanction. In July, 2003 the following counties have sanc- tion rates over 50%: Merced 128.59% Fresno 109.39% Plumas 107.41% Colusa 100.00% Napa 95.33% Trinity 80.49% San Joaquin 77.31% Tulare 68.77% Calaveras 65.69% Los Angeles 60.90% Tehama 56.30% San Diego 54.98% Monterey 52.65% Alameda 52.55% Sutter 52.28% Shasta 51.05% Humboldt 50.64% TANF UPDATE H.R.3146, which was enacted and became Public Law 108-89, extends the Temporary As- sistance for Needy Families block grant pro- gram and the child care block grant program through March 31, 2004. The Center for Law and Social Policy and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on September 19, 2003 published the Key Pro- visions in TANF Reauthorization Bills Passed by the Senate Finance Committee and the House. You can download this report at: http:\/ \/www.clasp.org\/Pubs\/DMS\/Documents\/ 1064343116.03\/Summary_SBS.pdf Meanwhile the state welfare directors have published their own side-by-side comparing the House and Senate bills passed in 2003. This side-by-side can be downloaded at:http:\/ \/www.aphsa.org\/publicat\/WMemo-03-9-10- TANF%20side-by-side.doc It looks like 2004 will be another year where poor families of America will be TERRORIZED by the Republicans and the Bush Administra- tion. CWD Victim Report Los Angeles County Victim – On December 31, 2002, Ms. 02350117 a single mom living in Los Angeles County, was verbally notified on 12\/31\/02 that effective 12\/31\/02 she will only receive aid for her child because she had already received aid for 60 months. The county said she has been getting aid since 9\/23\/97. On 12\/31\/02 Ms. 02350117 filed for a fair hear- ing against Los Angeles County stating that CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-29 — 10\/6\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Los Angeles County got it wrong. She started getting aid since June of 1998. The county recognized that they screwed up and agreed to a conditional withdrawal stating that the county would reevaluate her time limit. On 2\/15\/03 Ms. 02350117 received a letter stating that effective 3\/1\/03 her aid will be reduced because she had exceeded the 60- month time limit. Ms. 02350117 reopened her hearing filed on 12\/31\/02 because the county had failed to make a proper determination of her time limit. On 3\/10\/03 the hearing was held. Los An- geles County representative Victor Lojero argued that the case should be dismissed because the county had not taken any ad- verse action against Ms. 02350117. The county had no case file at the hearing and failed to show that the Ms. 02350117 had been on aid for more than 60 months when the county proposed to terminate the benefits given the lack of evidence Law Judge William Blum granted the claim be- cause the county could not prove that Ms. 02350117 had received aid for 60 months. San Diego County Victim – Ms. 02365372 of San Diego County is enrolled in college at San Marcos. On 12\/24\/02 she received a Christmas Present from Scrooge County San Diego – her 24 months had stopped and she was no longer eligible for supportive services. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS She has a learning disability and needs sup- portive services to complete her education. Section 42-710.12 provides that the county shall adopt a criteria for extending the 18\/24 month clock. All County Letter No. 0170 dated October 17, 2001 provides for a process of extending the 24\/18 month clock for persons with learning disabilities. In this case Ms. 02365372 was never evaluated for learning disability by San Diego County. Judge Patrick Cooney OR- DERED San Diego County to rescind their determination that her 24 month time period has expired and top provide Ms. 02365372 screening for learning disability. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-31.pdf

1216 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-31 – October 27, 2003 IN BRIEF EMERGENCY REGULATION ALERT NEW STATE REGULATION LAWSUIT ALERT FOR IMMEDIATE NEED IN BRIEF The Bush Tax Cuts- New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman describes Bush and his tax cuts as follows: President Bush is like a man who tells you that he’s bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for him- self. Eventually, the bill will come due – and it will be your problem, not his. And that’s the over half a trillion deficit that Bush has accumulated for us and our kids so he can pay off his political contributors in his pay to play governance. DSS Transition- DSS is in the process of transition. Each Department has a couple of people who head up the transition. The persons heading up the transition for DSS is King Gee, assistant director for Intergov- ernmental Affairs, a holdover from the Wil- son Administration. The other member was supposed to be Deputy Director Donna L. Mandelstam of Disability and Adult Pro- grams Division, but she was maneuvered out by Chief Deputy Director of DSS Tameron Mitchell, who used to work for De- partment of Health Services. So now the transition team is King and Mitchell. The new governor will be given a transition book which outlines current issues the depart- ment is considering and their status. There will also be a report on litigation status. Supportive Services Unlawfully Be- ing Withheld from Eligible Partici- pants – CWDA had a conference call to dis- cuss the concerns of advocates regarding par- ticipants who are not getting the supportive ser- vices. Counties have a budgetary concern about pro- viding services to which participants are en- titled. So, for years, counties have been com- mitting the colossal crime of witholding sup- portive services monies from impoverished families. They intentionally cheat poor families out of child care, transportation and ancillary services that they are entitled to. This inten- tional fraudulent activity needs to come to a halt. Supportive Services Aid Paid Pending – Under current DSS policy, counties are allowed to determine on a case-by-case basis to con- tinue aid paid pending (APP) or not to. At a September 4, 2003 CWDA meeting, county representatives said they would like to continue to have the power to decide which family they deem worthy of due process of law and which family they deem not worthy by deciding who gets APP on a case-by-case basis. Counties argue that they don’t want to pay APP because they are not able to recoup the APP if the claim- ant loses the hearing. The fact that denial of APP is a blatant violation of the Due Process Rights of WtW participants did not concern the CWDA meeting participants, because it is not their Due Process rights that are being muti- lated. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 27, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 EMERGENCY REGULATION ALERT On October 21, 2003, DSS submitted pro- posed emergency regulations regarding An- ticipating Income & Changes in the Food Stamp Program for QR to the Office of Ad- ministrative Law – FILE NO. 03-1021-01 E The proposed regulations effect MPP Sec- tions: 63-503-505 The last day for public comment is 10-27-03 You can get copies of the regulation by contacting Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657- 2586 DSS Regulation Scheduled for Public Hear- ing When: November 12, 2003 Where: State Office Building #9 744 P Street, Auditorium Sacramento, California Time: 10:00 a.m. November Child Care Intercounty Transfers ORD# 0603-16 HOW TO E-MAIL COMMENTS: All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on November 12, 2003. You can e-mail comments to: [email protected] CCWRO LAWSUIT IN PROGRESS At this time, CCWRO is working on a number of lawsuits to be filed soon. If you have a cli- ent\/victim issue that these lawsuits will ad- dress, contact: Grace A. Galligher, Directing Attorney CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or e-mail her at [email protected]. This week we will in- form you about the Immediate Need (IN) and Expedited Food Stamps lawsuit. This has been a long standing problem in California. Counties have been intentionally violating the regulations governing IN with the knowledge of the State Department of Social Services. In a recent letter from CDSS (in re- sponse to our demand letter that said, in es- sence, shape up or be sued) there is no prob- lem with IN in California. All is fine. Thus, if your client is hungry and becomes homeless because they did not get the IN they were en- titled to – it is news to DSS. They have no idea that such families and children are being abused by county welfare departments. The causes of actions in this case are: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of 63- 300 .21 \”Screening Applicants shall not be required to complete any CWD developed prescreening form.\” EXPLANATION: Counties require all appli- cants to complete a county screening form before they are given a SAWS 1 form. This violates Food Stamp regulations. About ev- ery county does this and it is illegal. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of 40-129. 32 \”At the time of application, every applicant shall be given the opportunity to request an Imme- diate Need payment by completing the Imme- diate Need section of the application.\” 40-129.33 \”The county shall not complete the Immediate Need section of the application or the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90), except at the applicant’s specific re- quest.\” .34 All Immediate Need payment requests received during regular business hours shall be accepted on that date. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 27, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS .341 In no event shall any person wishing to file a request for an Immediate Need pay- ment be denied the right to do so. EXPLANATION: Many counties have an in- teractive process. In these counties, like Los Angeles County and other SAWS counties, the county completes the SAWS 1 on line, prints it out and tells the applicant to sign it. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – 40-129.4 The Immediate Need Interview .41 If the applicant indicates on the initial application or the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) that the family has an emergency situation as defined in MPP 40- 129.13, the county shall conduct an Imme- diate Need interview no later than the next working day following the date the Immedi- ate Need request is received. .411 When feasible, the county should con- duct the interview the same day the Imme- diate Need payment is requested, but no later than the next working day. EXPLANATION: Persons who indicate that they are in IN are scheduled for an appoint- ment after the 2nd working day following the date of application. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 40-129.5 Action on The Immediate Need Payment Request .51 A determination of eligibility for an Im- mediate Need payment shall be made no later than the next working day following re- ceipt of the request. EXPLANATION: Counties refuse to make a determination on IN within the timeframes provided in law. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 40-129.53 When eligibility for an Immediate Need payment does not exist: 40-129.531 The Immediate Need payment request shall be denied and the applicant no- tified in writing in accordance with MPP 22- 001a.(1). Where notification is hand-delivered, a new Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) shall also be given to the applicant. EXPLANATION. This is a violation of Due Pro- cess of Law because applicants denied IN have a right to a FH, but they never get a NOA, thus, cannot file for a FH. ACTION: If you have a client who has been a victim of one of these causes of action, please let us know NOW! ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-32.pdf

1123 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-32-November 10, 2003 In This Issue IN BRIEF DSS USING UNDERGROUND RULES NEW WtW SANCTION REPORT COUNTY VICTIM OF THE WEEK In Brief The County Welfare Directors As- sociation (CWDA) states in their Octo- ber 10, 2003 meeting minutes that ..we will need to start applying SB 87 to refugee cases… . SB 87 provides for a process to assure that persons cannot be eligible for Medi-Cal any other way before the benefits are terminated. Yes, counties have been un- lawfully terminating Medi-Cal benefits to refugees and getting away with depriving refugees of medical assistance in violation of the State law. How long has this been going on? For years. SB 87 became effec- tive July 1, 2001. DSS has promulgated an illegal regulation (MPP 44-352.113) that allows counties to charge a person with an over- payment for a month that the county has collected child support repaying the aid. This is a violation of the Federal Child Support Law. This regulation was promulgated without ever going through the public hearing pro- cess for comment. At the end of the pro- cess it was dumped in the regulation pack- age in response to nonexisting testimony – which means it was promulgated through a LIE. DSS is circulating proposed regula- tions to implement transitional food stamps for persons who stop getting cash aid. -=-=-=- DSS Has a New Underground Rule – Denying Supportive Services to the Working Poor On June 4, 2003 DSS issued a under- ground rule stating that WtW participants who are self-employed are not eligible for support- ive services other than for commuting back and forth to the employment location. This policy is inconsistent with the statute and state regulations which in essence provide that supportive services shall be provided so par- ticipant can obtain and retain employment. There is nothing in the regulations which state that transportation supportive services is only available …to commute to and from her\/his place of work. This policy statement has been communicated to numerous counties – and it is ILLEGAL because it violates state law and it is a violation of the California Administrative Pro- cedures Act (APA) as it is an underground rule. Persons who know victims of this unlawful policy should contact Grace Galligher of CCWRO at 916-736-0616. -=-=-=- Sanctions Is What Welfare to Work Is All About CalWORKs was enacted in 1998. Mil- lions were given to welfare bureaucrats to ad- minister a program that would require a sec- CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-31-November 10, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ond- time pregnant woman to participate as soon as her baby was born. Because of the Republican family cap also known as the maximum family grant (MFG) rule, no cash aid would be granted for her baby. The Demo- crats in the State Legislature at that time also voted for the MFG. CCWRO predicted that forcing all to partici- pate in WtW would mean more families would be sanctioned lose 25% or more of their grant each month. We were right. Today 43% of the WtW unduplicated participants are sanctioned in California. The California Welfare Directors Association were the primary proponent of total participa- tion in WtW. The reason is simple – more money. Statewide Sanctions 43.09% Merced 131.69% Trinity 112.50% Fresno 111.23% Napa 107.77% Plumas 103.57% Colusa 94.59% San Joaquin 78.91% Tulare 73.53% Tehama 63.64% Kern 63.03% Siskiyou 60.00% Los Angeles 58.98% Calaveras 58.59% San Diego 55.89% Alameda 55.67% Sutter 53.46% Monterey 53.28% Humboldt 53.06% Lake 52.53% The reason that Merced, Trinity and Fresno County have over 100% sanctions is because they have sanctioned more people than they have reported unduplicated participants. It has been about 20 years and counties still do not know how to report their activities for which they receive millions and millions of dollars. But one thing is sure, 19 counties have a sanction rate above 50%. One would think that aggressive sanctioning would mean a successful welfare to work program. OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT THAT RESULTS IN TERMINATION OF CASH AID DURING 8\/03 Merced 2% Trinity 9% Fresno 6% Napa 11% Plumas 0% Colusa 8% San Joaquin 2% Tulare 17% Tehama 2% Kern 2% Siskiyou 14% Los Angeles 3% Calaveras 4% San Diego 9% Alameda 3% Sutter 1% Monterey 4% Humboldt 2% Lake 3% Yes, the only claim to fame for counties in the welfare to nowhere program, also known as welfare to work – are sanctions. The success in getting participants employment that resulted in self-sufficiency is 4% statewide, while the sanction rate is 43%. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-31-November 10, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 That’s a 1000% higher sanction rate compared to getting participants employment that results in self-sufficiency WHAT ABOUT TRANSPORTATION? Also during the month of August 2003, about 54% of the unduplicated participants did not re- ceive transportation supportive services. Special mention should be made of coun- ties that just did not pay anyone transporta- tion. For example, according to their own reports, Siskiyou County, has 175 undupli- cated participants, but paid transportation for 0 (zero) persons. Also, Alpine and Colusa County paid no transportation. Colusa County reported 27 unduplicated participants during August of 2003; but they were able to sanction 32 WtW participants and provided 0 (zero) transportation. Could it be the lack of transportation had some- thing to do with the high sanction rate of Colusa County? Some other counties that do not like paying trans- portation are Napa at 4%; Imperial at 11%; San Joaquin at 13%, Stanislaus at 15%, Shasta at 16%, San Mateo at 19%. San Ber- nardino and Riverside Counties did not pay transportation to over 70% of its participants. Specifically, River- side failed to pay transportation to 26% of its participants and San Bernardino County failed to pay for 72% of its participants. (SOURCE: DSS WtW 25 & 25A reports) We can assure you that the welfare to work bureaucrats working for these counties always get their travel claims paid on time and in full. County Victim of the Week On May 29, 2002, San Diego County mailed a notice to Ms. 2002114321 alleging that she had $9,075.56 overpayment in stage one chid care. Luckily, Ms. 2002114321 contacted Jenni- fer Welker at Legal Aid Society of San Di- ego County for representation at a fair hearing. The County admitted that they screwed up, which was the sole reason for the overpay- ment. The children of Ms. 2002114321 were placed in a Montessori School rather than in day care by the San Diego County Stage One contractor, the YMCA. Even though the County knew that Ms. 2002114321 was in no way, shape or form re- sponsible for the over- payment, they still tried to go after her. At the hearing, the claim- ant, through her attorney, raised the Equitable Es- toppel defense and received a 25-page al- ternated decision finding that the County of San Diego should be estopped from asking for the alleged overpayment because jus- tice required that equitable estoppel be applied, prohibiting the County from re- couping the entire overpayment at issue. CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-34.pdf

1118 downloads

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 In This Issue In Brief CalWORKs Policy News CWD Victim of the Week General Assistance Statistical Report State Emergency Regulations are Back IN BRIEF Los Angeles County continues with it’s tradition of not filing timely reports on Homeless Assistance, Child Care and Food Stamp activities. This shameless failure to report continues without any action from the State Department of Social Services. There is also silence from the DSS Program Integrity Bureau. It appears program integrity does not apply to county integrity. King Arnold, wants to give $4 billion to local government. He proposes to take it from the poor through the elimination of COLA and other mean-spirited cuts. He does this without any appropriation action by the State Legislature; then has a photo op with police to announce his unconstitutional action. Has anyone informed King Arnold that the California State Constitution states that the Legislature appropriates and the Executive spends? Why would King Arnold care about the Constitution when what is really important is to get a photo op with police. Applied Research Center has issued a report asserting that counties are employing routine, illegal, and unjust use of WtW sanctions; gross miscalculations of legitimate exemptions for the 60 month time limits; and the denial of job training and educational opportunities. Copy of the report can be found on their web page at www.arc.org. Applied Research Center mailed a letter to Rita Seanz asking her to halt the WtW program pending an investigation of the illegal actions by counties in California. In response, DSS said that only 30 families were reviewed and those families can ask for a State hearing. This is another example of DSS not taking responsibility for unlawful actions conducted by their agents who run the county welfare departments. Quarterly Reporting (QR) and Child Support – One of the unanswered issues for QR is; what are the child support obligations for a parent who was absent, but joins the family during the quarter? Will the parent still have to pay child support during the quarter he or she is living with his or her family. DSS is looking into this matter. Faxed\/Scanned CA7 Acceptable – On 9\/17\/03 Elaine Grothmann of Contra Costa County was informed by DSS Analyst, Ruth Van Den Berg, that a scanned\/faxed CA 7 shall be acceptable to CWDs. This policy interpretation was approved by Supervisor, Linda Lattimore. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CalWORKs Policy News San Diego County Has Problems with Getting Non-Work SSN. DSS Is No Help. On September 4, 2003, Dennis Mirabelli asked DSS why social security offices will not issue non- work social security numbers. Dennis says in his e-mail to DSS that .. several other counties that I have spoken with are also running into this same situation. If you could please provide me with any information or direct us as to whom we should contact, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. On September 8, 2003,@11:07 AM DSS CalWORKs specialist Beverly Thomas responded that … 40-105.2 and 21 state that as a condition of eligibility , each AFDC-FG and U parent applicant or recipient member of the AU shall: .211 Furnish his\/her Social Security Account Number (SSN) or numbers, if more than one. Within 30 days following the date of the application for assistance; or. And then it goes on to say in .212 If you should have further questions please contact me. On September 8, 2003, Dennis e-mailed Ms. Thomas again stating: Here is where I am a bit confused. Per I-54-01….instructs counties that in order for a noncitizens to comply with the SSN requirements, counties can assist the noncitizen in obtaining a non-work SSN. As per SSA office, they are no longer issuing a non-work SSN, is this material now obsolete and if so, how do we comply with the SSN requirements. On 9\/25\/03 Dennis e-mailed another letter to Ms. Thomas stating that SSA still refuses to issue non-work SSN numbers. SSA has always agreed to provide non-work SSN’s to noncitizens with a referral from the county welfare department stating that the person is eligible for public assistance except for a SSN. Moreover, this SSA policy has been promulgated in federal regulations in Federal Register\/Vol. 68, No. 186, 9\/25\/2003. the same day that Dennis was asking for help in this matter. Fresno County Doing Unlawful Vouchers Fresno County loves vouchers. Fresno County’s policy for all persons on voucher\/vendor payments is to pay the rent and utilities, then the remaining grant amount is issued to them in the form of store debit cards . On August 14, 2003, Charr Lee Metsker, Chief of Employment and Eligibility Branch informed Fresno that they have to stop the practice of issuing additional vouchers or store debit cards for any remaining grant amounts to felons or sanctioned voucher\/vendor recipients unless a case by case determination indicates such action is warranted. Fresno County is also putting first time- sanctioned persons on vendor payments. This is inconsistent with MPP 42-721.43 which only allows vendor payments for the second and third sanction. Fresno County was instructed to stop placing first time-sanctioned persons on vendor payments. County Victim of the Week Ms. S.G. of Los Angeles County did not have Christmas this year. Scrooge Schwarzenegger made sure that her children, aged 7 and 8, had a miserable Christmas while he was living it up in Idaho. Ms. S.G. was expecting the statutory cost of living increase that was supposed to go into effect on December 1, 2003, as required by law. Governor Schwarzenegger, ORDERED no COLA for the poor. But this was not the first time Ms. S.G. has been subjected to terror by the government. In July of 2002, she was taking care of her gravely ill mother. She received medical verification that would exempt her from the GAIN program, but the Los Angeles County sanction machine didn’t care about her verification – GAIN sanctions must go forward, and thus, she was unlawfully sanctioned for 12 months. (Con’t on Page 4) CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 This week we looked at a July, 2003 report on General Assistance (GA) in California. We are able to bring this in- formation to you because Los Angeles County has not sub- mitted their General Assis- tance reports. While refusing to submit reports on Expe- dited Food Stamps. ABAWDS, Homeless Assis- tance and others, Los Ange- les County continued to termi- nate benefits of Food Stamp recipients for failing to report, while they refuse to meet their reporting responsibilities. The average General Assis- tance Payment for July of 2003 was $236 a month. There were nine (9) counties that payed no cash to GA re- cipients. They are: Del Norte, Kings, Lake, Madera, Napa, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz and Sonoma Counties. The average cost for in-kind income per case for counties with over 50% of the GA re- cipients receiving in-kind ben- efits is $293 a case. This is a over 20% higher cost for in- kind income compared to cash payments to GA recipi- ents. Table #1 contains the average General Assistance Grant Statistic of the Week Amount county-by-county starting with the grinchiest counties of California. How can a human being live on $78 in the United States of America. It is disgraceful and shameful. This is what El Dorado County pays human beings on GA. Tehama $226.63 Tulare $229.04 Trinity $231.44 Kings $234.65 Mariposa $237.63 Contra Costa $244.11 Santa Barbara $249.08 San Bernardino $261.10 Siskiyou $268.22 Shasta $268.66 Butte $275.15 Inyo $283.02 Marin $285.63 Glenn $286.45 Stanislaus $301.59 Santa Cruz $305.83 Mendocino $311.18 Riverside $323.27 Amador $325.44 Sonoma $326.36 Solano $327.74 Alameda $374.69 Humboldt $376.16 San Diego $382.19 San Mateo $386.62 Fresno $387.07 San Francisco $395.15 Napa $452.13 Calaveras $510.91 Lassen $3,012.00 County Average Monthly GA Grant Statewide $236.02 San Benito $0.00 El Dorado $77.94 Yuba $93.33 Del Norte $111.00 Sierra $116.50 Sutter $124.79 Alpine $132.00 Lake $139.09 Plumas $139.58 Madera $171.83 Colusa $174.22 Imperial $179.00 Yolo $179.05 San Joaquin $179.48 Nevada $180.32 Placer $182.99 Orange $189.16 Sacramento $198.81 Los Angeles $200.86 Mono $203.25 Kern $207.91 Santa Clara $211.06 Ventura $211.26 Monterey $219.79 Merced $220.84 Tuolumne $221.33 Modoc $222.09 San Luis Obispo $226.51 County Average Monthly GA Grant TABLE #1 SOURCE: DSS GA 237 Report CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 County Victim of the Week (con’t from page 2) STATE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS ARE BACK For a while Schwarzenegger would not allow the State Department to file regulations. Now there are a slew of emergency regulations being filed with the Office of Administrative Law. 1.Date Submitted OAL on: 12\/23\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1223-06E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: CalWORKs and Food Stamp Program SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures , MPP, Section (s): 42-207 – 63- 1101 DSS AGENCY CONTACT : Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586 2. Date Sublimated OAL on: 12\/23\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1223-05E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: Transitional Food Stamps and Face-to-Face Interview Exemptions SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures , MPP, Section (s): 63-300 – 63- 504 3. Date Submitted OAL on: 12\/22\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1222-02 EE AGENCY: State Department of Education TOPIC: Regional Market Rate – Child Care and Development Programs SECTIONS AFFECTED: California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 05, Sections: 18021 – 18428 AGENCY CONTACT : Debra Strain @ (916) 319-0155 4.Date Sublimated OAL on: 12\/19\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1219-02 E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: Educational Awards\/ Scholarships and Eligible Teens’ Exemption SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures, MPP, Sections: 42-712 – 44-111 This means that Los Angeles County has crimi- nally stolen over $1,200 from Ms. S.G. and her two children. The County now has admitted that they were wrong to impose the sanction, but still refuse to return the stolen money back to her. Then, on August 1, 2003, while her mother was dying, the County stopped her benefits for failing to do an annual redetermination. She did not get a letter setting up an appointment for the annual redetermination, because the is no state regula- tion that requires such notification. The whole idea is to screw poor families, not to help them. On September of 2003, her mother died. Finally, in October, she reapplied for CalWORKs seeking expedited service food stamps and CalWORKs Immediate Need (IN). She was given food stamps, but IN was denied because the county had to do a home visit before they could issue IN. She had hoped that even if her COLA was with- held, at least she would get the money back from the unlawful GAIN sanction before Christmas. Well, Christmas came and no money. It appears that the county workers were too busy to pay back what they unlawfully took from her. All and all, Ms. S.G. and her kids had a horrible Christmas like many other CalWORKs participants in California – thanks to Scrooge Schwarzeneg- ger. NOTE: On January 14, 2004, A Superior Court Judge in San Francisco will entertain a motion in a law suit filed by Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Western Center on Law & Poverty to ORDER Governor Schwarzanegger to OBEY the LAW and issue the COLA too Ms. S.G. many other poor families of California receiving CalWORKs benefits. If you have a victim of Governor Swcharzanegger like Ms. S.G., contact Clare at 213-487-7211 ext. #25 for JUSTICE. L A W S U IT F IL E D ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-34.pdf

1058 downloads

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 In This Issue In Brief CalWORKs Policy News CWD Victim of the Week General Assistance Statistical Report State Emergency Regulations are Back IN BRIEF Los Angeles County continues with it’s tradition of not filing timely reports on Homeless Assistance, Child Care and Food Stamp activities. This shameless failure to report continues without any action from the State Department of Social Services. There is also silence from the DSS Program Integrity Bureau. It appears program integrity does not apply to county integrity. King Arnold, wants to give $4 billion to local government. He proposes to take it from the poor through the elimination of COLA and other mean-spirited cuts. He does this without any appropriation action by the State Legislature; then has a photo op with police to announce his unconstitutional action. Has anyone informed King Arnold that the California State Constitution states that the Legislature appropriates and the Executive spends? Why would King Arnold care about the Constitution when what is really important is to get a photo op with police. Applied Research Center has issued a report asserting that counties are employing routine, illegal, and unjust use of WtW sanctions; gross miscalculations of legitimate exemptions for the 60 month time limits; and the denial of job training and educational opportunities. Copy of the report can be found on their web page at www.arc.org. Applied Research Center mailed a letter to Rita Seanz asking her to halt the WtW program pending an investigation of the illegal actions by counties in California. In response, DSS said that only 30 families were reviewed and those families can ask for a State hearing. This is another example of DSS not taking responsibility for unlawful actions conducted by their agents who run the county welfare departments. Quarterly Reporting (QR) and Child Support – One of the unanswered issues for QR is; what are the child support obligations for a parent who was absent, but joins the family during the quarter? Will the parent still have to pay child support during the quarter he or she is living with his or her family. DSS is looking into this matter. Faxed\/Scanned CA7 Acceptable – On 9\/17\/03 Elaine Grothmann of Contra Costa County was informed by DSS Analyst, Ruth Van Den Berg, that a scanned\/faxed CA 7 shall be acceptable to CWDs. This policy interpretation was approved by Supervisor, Linda Lattimore. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CalWORKs Policy News San Diego County Has Problems with Getting Non-Work SSN. DSS Is No Help. On September 4, 2003, Dennis Mirabelli asked DSS why social security offices will not issue non- work social security numbers. Dennis says in his e-mail to DSS that .. several other counties that I have spoken with are also running into this same situation. If you could please provide me with any information or direct us as to whom we should contact, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. On September 8, 2003,@11:07 AM DSS CalWORKs specialist Beverly Thomas responded that … 40-105.2 and 21 state that as a condition of eligibility , each AFDC-FG and U parent applicant or recipient member of the AU shall: .211 Furnish his\/her Social Security Account Number (SSN) or numbers, if more than one. Within 30 days following the date of the application for assistance; or. And then it goes on to say in .212 If you should have further questions please contact me. On September 8, 2003, Dennis e-mailed Ms. Thomas again stating: Here is where I am a bit confused. Per I-54-01….instructs counties that in order for a noncitizens to comply with the SSN requirements, counties can assist the noncitizen in obtaining a non-work SSN. As per SSA office, they are no longer issuing a non-work SSN, is this material now obsolete and if so, how do we comply with the SSN requirements. On 9\/25\/03 Dennis e-mailed another letter to Ms. Thomas stating that SSA still refuses to issue non-work SSN numbers. SSA has always agreed to provide non-work SSN’s to noncitizens with a referral from the county welfare department stating that the person is eligible for public assistance except for a SSN. Moreover, this SSA policy has been promulgated in federal regulations in Federal Register\/Vol. 68, No. 186, 9\/25\/2003. the same day that Dennis was asking for help in this matter. Fresno County Doing Unlawful Vouchers Fresno County loves vouchers. Fresno County’s policy for all persons on voucher\/vendor payments is to pay the rent and utilities, then the remaining grant amount is issued to them in the form of store debit cards . On August 14, 2003, Charr Lee Metsker, Chief of Employment and Eligibility Branch informed Fresno that they have to stop the practice of issuing additional vouchers or store debit cards for any remaining grant amounts to felons or sanctioned voucher\/vendor recipients unless a case by case determination indicates such action is warranted. Fresno County is also putting first time- sanctioned persons on vendor payments. This is inconsistent with MPP 42-721.43 which only allows vendor payments for the second and third sanction. Fresno County was instructed to stop placing first time-sanctioned persons on vendor payments. County Victim of the Week Ms. S.G. of Los Angeles County did not have Christmas this year. Scrooge Schwarzenegger made sure that her children, aged 7 and 8, had a miserable Christmas while he was living it up in Idaho. Ms. S.G. was expecting the statutory cost of living increase that was supposed to go into effect on December 1, 2003, as required by law. Governor Schwarzenegger, ORDERED no COLA for the poor. But this was not the first time Ms. S.G. has been subjected to terror by the government. In July of 2002, she was taking care of her gravely ill mother. She received medical verification that would exempt her from the GAIN program, but the Los Angeles County sanction machine didn’t care about her verification – GAIN sanctions must go forward, and thus, she was unlawfully sanctioned for 12 months. (Con’t on Page 4) CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 This week we looked at a July, 2003 report on General Assistance (GA) in California. We are able to bring this in- formation to you because Los Angeles County has not sub- mitted their General Assis- tance reports. While refusing to submit reports on Expe- dited Food Stamps. ABAWDS, Homeless Assis- tance and others, Los Ange- les County continued to termi- nate benefits of Food Stamp recipients for failing to report, while they refuse to meet their reporting responsibilities. The average General Assis- tance Payment for July of 2003 was $236 a month. There were nine (9) counties that payed no cash to GA re- cipients. They are: Del Norte, Kings, Lake, Madera, Napa, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz and Sonoma Counties. The average cost for in-kind income per case for counties with over 50% of the GA re- cipients receiving in-kind ben- efits is $293 a case. This is a over 20% higher cost for in- kind income compared to cash payments to GA recipi- ents. Table #1 contains the average General Assistance Grant Statistic of the Week Amount county-by-county starting with the grinchiest counties of California. How can a human being live on $78 in the United States of America. It is disgraceful and shameful. This is what El Dorado County pays human beings on GA. Tehama $226.63 Tulare $229.04 Trinity $231.44 Kings $234.65 Mariposa $237.63 Contra Costa $244.11 Santa Barbara $249.08 San Bernardino $261.10 Siskiyou $268.22 Shasta $268.66 Butte $275.15 Inyo $283.02 Marin $285.63 Glenn $286.45 Stanislaus $301.59 Santa Cruz $305.83 Mendocino $311.18 Riverside $323.27 Amador $325.44 Sonoma $326.36 Solano $327.74 Alameda $374.69 Humboldt $376.16 San Diego $382.19 San Mateo $386.62 Fresno $387.07 San Francisco $395.15 Napa $452.13 Calaveras $510.91 Lassen $3,012.00 County Average Monthly GA Grant Statewide $236.02 San Benito $0.00 El Dorado $77.94 Yuba $93.33 Del Norte $111.00 Sierra $116.50 Sutter $124.79 Alpine $132.00 Lake $139.09 Plumas $139.58 Madera $171.83 Colusa $174.22 Imperial $179.00 Yolo $179.05 San Joaquin $179.48 Nevada $180.32 Placer $182.99 Orange $189.16 Sacramento $198.81 Los Angeles $200.86 Mono $203.25 Kern $207.91 Santa Clara $211.06 Ventura $211.26 Monterey $219.79 Merced $220.84 Tuolumne $221.33 Modoc $222.09 San Luis Obispo $226.51 County Average Monthly GA Grant TABLE #1 SOURCE: DSS GA 237 Report CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 County Victim of the Week (con’t from page 2) STATE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS ARE BACK For a while Schwarzenegger would not allow the State Department to file regulations. Now there are a slew of emergency regulations being filed with the Office of Administrative Law. 1.Date Submitted OAL on: 12\/23\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1223-06E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: CalWORKs and Food Stamp Program SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures , MPP, Section (s): 42-207 – 63- 1101 DSS AGENCY CONTACT : Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586 2. Date Sublimated OAL on: 12\/23\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1223-05E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: Transitional Food Stamps and Face-to-Face Interview Exemptions SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures , MPP, Section (s): 63-300 – 63- 504 3. Date Submitted OAL on: 12\/22\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1222-02 EE AGENCY: State Department of Education TOPIC: Regional Market Rate – Child Care and Development Programs SECTIONS AFFECTED: California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 05, Sections: 18021 – 18428 AGENCY CONTACT : Debra Strain @ (916) 319-0155 4.Date Sublimated OAL on: 12\/19\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1219-02 E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: Educational Awards\/ Scholarships and Eligible Teens’ Exemption SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures, MPP, Sections: 42-712 – 44-111 This means that Los Angeles County has crimi- nally stolen over $1,200 from Ms. S.G. and her two children. The County now has admitted that they were wrong to impose the sanction, but still refuse to return the stolen money back to her. Then, on August 1, 2003, while her mother was dying, the County stopped her benefits for failing to do an annual redetermination. She did not get a letter setting up an appointment for the annual redetermination, because the is no state regula- tion that requires such notification. The whole idea is to screw poor families, not to help them. On September of 2003, her mother died. Finally, in October, she reapplied for CalWORKs seeking expedited service food stamps and CalWORKs Immediate Need (IN). She was given food stamps, but IN was denied because the county had to do a home visit before they could issue IN. She had hoped that even if her COLA was with- held, at least she would get the money back from the unlawful GAIN sanction before Christmas. Well, Christmas came and no money. It appears that the county workers were too busy to pay back what they unlawfully took from her. All and all, Ms. S.G. and her kids had a horrible Christmas like many other CalWORKs participants in California – thanks to Scrooge Schwarzeneg- ger. NOTE: On January 14, 2004, A Superior Court Judge in San Francisco will entertain a motion in a law suit filed by Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Western Center on Law & Poverty to ORDER Governor Schwarzanegger to OBEY the LAW and issue the COLA too Ms. S.G. many other poor families of California receiving CalWORKs benefits. If you have a victim of Governor Swcharzanegger like Ms. S.G., contact Clare at 213-487-7211 ext. #25 for JUSTICE. L A W S U IT F IL E D ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-4.pdf

1014 downloads

” CCWRO #2003-3 January 27, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget LATEST NEWS – POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN – THE EASY TARGETS OF 2003 ATTACKED VICIOUSLY BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURTE Litigation Update TANF Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 __________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – On January 15, 2003, the Legislative Analyst released a report regarding the true amount of the State budget deficit. While the Governor estimates that the deficit is $34.6 billion, the analyst has estimated $26.1 billion. The truth is that no one will know what the true amount of the deficit will be until May of 2003. During early May, the Governor will present the \”May Revise\”. This is when the real budget writing will start. Program cuts alone cannot balance the budget. There has to be new revenues, which means new taxes. The Republicans are a definite minority in California. Minorities can only get benefits if they stick together. Thus, the Republican Caucus in the Senate and the Assembly stick together. Those who cross the caucus are punished. A number of Republicans who voted for the budget in 2002-2003 were either defeated in the primaries or termed-out. The word is that the Assembly Republicans are adamantly opposed to tax increases no tax is their bottom line. Capital insiders speculate that the budget impasse may last until the November election, when voters will decide on taxes to balance the State Budget. Some are suggesting taxes on services and property tax reform as a solution, but that does not seem likely at this stage of the game. Stay tuned for more. _______________________________________________________________________ LATEST NEWS – POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN – THE EASY TARGETS OF 2003 ATTACKED VICIOUSLY BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURTE The Democratically controlled Assembly and Senate have approved the senseless and vicious denial of the June 2003 COLA for CalWORKs families when there are millions and millions of TANF dollars available to provide for a COLA for impoverished families and their children of California. This is the just the first vicious and malicious attacks on the poor by the Governor and the Democratic legislature to make money available to more bureaucrats from the mouths of the poor children of California. This was the midyear massacre. The proposed 2003-2004 massacre is the further denial of the COLA and a 6% reduction of benefits. This is a sick sick CUT. CCWRO Litigation Update o SHEYKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Case # 99CSO2696) This writ of mandate challenged the policies of DSS that require adult family members in a household who are not applicants for or recipients of CalWORKs or Food Stamp benefits to be finger-imaged and photo-imaged as a condition precedent for receipt of Food Stamps or CalWORKs benefits by eligible family members. CASE STATUS- Appellant briefs filed. KING v. SAENZ, (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00016) This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 challenges Fresno County’s failure to advance Ms. King her transportation expenses. Ms. King lived in Fresno and obtained employment in French Camp, San Joaquin County. The round trip commute was 234.6 per day, six days a week. Although Fresno County paid the mileage for two job interviews, Fresno County refused to pay the monthly mileage allowance would be $1,504 (mileage rate is 34.5\u00a2\/mile). During the hearing, Fresno County argued that the mileage cost is unreasonably high and that the County determined that Ms. King would not be able to sustain this much travel expense when she is no longer eligible for public assistance. Fresno County also contended that supported service for transportation was intended to assist with transportation costs for recipient residents of Fresno County who are employed within the Fresno area. Focused on the remoteness of Ms. King’s employment site and noted that $1, 618 per month in transportation costs is unreasonable and ruled that Ms. King was not entitled to the requested transportation supportive services payment because the transportation expense was not incurred pursuant to a complete Welfare-to-Work contract and the request was for an unnecessary and unreasonable amount. CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record o MEDINA v. SAENZ, (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00015) This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 challenges the decision to allow Fresno County to recover a CalWORKs overpayment that occurred in 1997. The overpayment occurred for the failure to report income. Fresno County learned about the overpayment in May 1998 but did nothing until July 2001. Recovery of the CalWORKs overpayment should be barred by the statute of limitations. The ALJ found that Fresno County could recover the CalWORKs overpayment even though recoupment of the commiserate Food Stamp overissuance was bared by the statute of limitations. CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record o McFARLAND V. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS) This petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenges the ALJ’s finding that Kern County could impose a sanction for refusing to sign a Welfare to Work plan for which the activity is to attend a third party assessment. The normal process is for the counties to schedule the third party assessment and notify the participant of the date and time of the appointment. Kern County also proposed to count the receipt of $1,999 (which Kern County Department of Human Services paid petitioner as a settlement in a court action for misconduct in administering her CalWORKs case) as countable income for purposes of food stamps. The ALJ concurred. This decision is contrary to M.P.P. 63-502.2(j) which states: \”Money received in the form of a nonrecurring lump-sum payment, including, but not limited to, income tax refunds, rebates, or credits; retroactive lump-sum social security, railroad retirement benefits, or other payments; retroactive payments from the approval of an application for any assistance program; AFDC homeless assistance payments for temporary shelter or permanent housing [see M.P.P. 63-102(h)]; court ordered retroactive payments for any assistance program; supplemental or corrective payments received for a previous month from any assistance program; lump-sum insurance settlements; or refunds of security deposits on rental property or utilities. These payments shall be counted as resources in the month received, in accordance with Section 63-501.111 unless specifically excluded from consideration as a resource by other federal laws as specified in Section 63-501.3(l), 63-506 or 63-507.\” CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record ___ ___________________________________________________________________ TANF Update George Bush has submitted his 2003 TANF welfare deform bill. The bill is Bush’s way of demonstrating his compassion for the rich and distaste for poor families with children in America, with a $657 billion proposed tax cut proposal. Senator Grassley of Idaho is the new chairperson of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over TANF reauthorization. On 1\/16\/03 he issued a press release stating that he intends to pursue reauthorization of the welfare program in the Finance Committee this year. The last sentence of his press release states \”My goal is to enact a bipartisan bill as soon as possible\”. Senator Grassley co-sponsored the Senate Finance Committee bill authored by former chairman Baucus in 2002. And so, the games with the lives of poor families and children have begun. ____________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK o Ms. Y.H. received homeless assistance in Sacramento County on 1\/01. At the time, she was pregnant, so she had to find a place to live that would cost less than 80% of the grant for a pregnant woman with no other kids. When she found a permanent place to live, the county refused to issue the check to her, notwithstanding the law which states that the check shall be issued to the recipient. On 4\/02 the place she was living was labeled uninhabitable by the city and she became eligible for homeless assistance again. When she applied for homeless assistance, the county assigned a social worker to help her find a place to live. The social worker found a place that was infested with cockroaches. Ms. Y.H. did not want the place, but the social worker LIED to her by stating that, if she did not take that place, she would not be eligible for homeless assistance. After moving in, the cockroach infestation was so bad, she feared for the health of her baby, and so, she had to move. She is now homeless again compliments of the social worker who coerced her into using her once-in-a-12-month-time- exception homeless assistance for a cockroach-infested apartment. o Ms. P.O is wondering if anybody in Los Angeles County knows what they are doing. In December, she was notified that her benefits were being reduced from $548 to $336 \”because some of the aid you got was for Michael Davis\”. However, Michael Davis has never lived with her. Also, an overpayment recoupment cannot exceed 10% of the grant. In this case, LA County is recouping $212, which is 40%. She also received a letter demanding the school attendance verification of her 6-year-old who is not yet attending school. Ms. P.O. is disabled and has provided the county with several verifications of disability. On 12\/14\/02, she received a notice of action (NOA) stating that her benefits would be reduced from #336 to $0. The reason stated in the notice of action was that P.O. had a participation problem in Welfare to Work. On 12\/20\/02 she received another (NOA) stating that her benefits were being reduced from $548 to $336 because she had failed to provide verification of school attendance of her child. Ms. P.O. filed for a fair hearing. But that did not stop the county from achieving their primary goal sanction penalty whatever they can do to cut the benefits. On 1\/4\/03 the same worker mailed another NOA stating \”As of 01\/01\/2003, the County is changing your monthly cash grant from $548 to $336. Here’s why. You must give us proof of regular school attendance for all of the school age children in your assistance unit. This proof was not given.\” Ms. P.O. admits that she is guilty of not fabricating proof for a child that is not of school age yet in order to satisfy Los Angeles County’s hunger for more paper work. She filed for another fair hearing. Just imagine how many other victims like P.O. are being terrorized by Los Angeles County. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2003-8.pdf

1101 downloads

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-8 March 11, 2003- HEADLINES IN BRIEF- Welfare Policy Issues EDITORIAL – CalWORKs – A Program of Sanction, Penalties and Punishment – How About Trying Something Positive? DSS NEWS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT ________________________________________________ IN BRIEF- Welfare Policy Issues — Quarterly Reporting. DSS has proposed to drop the concept of re-averaging during the quarter in favor of doing perspective budgeting in those situations. This concept is waiting for approval from the Department of Finance. Meanwhile, DSS assumes that if the ACL implementing quarterly reporting is released during March, 2003, it will go into effect on November 1, 2003. — Milt Yee of DSS informed the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) CalWORKs committee that persons cannot be sanctioned for not attending a third-party assessment. If the participant who objected to the county-proposed plan fails to attend the third party assessment, then the county shall schedule the participant for the activity outlined in the proposed plan. If the participant fails to participate without good cause, then a sanction can be imposed. — Reimbursement for Extracurricular Activities for Children On 9\/18\/02 Bill Beinbrech of LA DPSS asked DSS; Is reimbursement for transporting children to extracurricular activities a State mandate or a county option? Michael Lipkin of DSS answered on 10\/3\/2; The policy in ACL 00-54, last paragraph, page 4 states, payments for this type of transportation could provided…if the CWD has determined it is necessary for the parent to participate in work activities. Payment for transportation to extracurricular activities is therefore a county option. — San Bernardino County asked DSS; Are there any financial penalties to the County for failure to timely process some of the IEVS pieces? IEVS stands for Income and Eligibility Verification System. This system, using the CalWORKs recipients social security numbers, identifies cases where income has not been reported. Many counties are slow to act on these reports, which allows the overpayment to grow and then they commence to persecute (CWDs call it prosecute) the parent for the large overpayment. These are large overpayments caused by the county intentional program violations. In a letter dated 7\/24\/02, DSS informed San Bernardino County that federal law and state regulations require processing matches, most within 45 days from the date of the match. Also counties will lose fraud incentive payments, larger errors and lawsuits from advocate groups. However, the 7\/24\/02 letter made no mention of any consequence or consequences if the county intentionally refuses to process the IEVS reports in a timely fashion. ________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL – CalWORKs – A Program of Sanction, Penalties and Punishment – How About Trying Something Positive? The CalWORKs program, is a punitive program, infested with sanctions and penalties. There are Welfare to Work (WtW) sanctions, immunization penalties, penalties for children not going to school, penalties for being convicted of a drug crime and intentional program violations penalties. Some CalWORKs participants have multiple penalties. The whole idea of the program is to punish parents and children of impoverished families. There is only one piece of the CalWORKs program that has a positive feature – CalLearn rewards for completing the program, however even this program has sanctions. There is no regulation or law that establishes a statewide policy on how sanctions and penalties are imposed. Counties are all over the place on this issue. Typically, many counties do not even have a policy. The CalWORKs program should be changed into a positive experience by giving people incentives to follow through and complete the objectives of law makers. For example, the Legislative Analyst states that meeting participation rates is important. If California does not meet the rates, it could lose federal money. Lawmakers should consider giving families a COLA if they meet the participation goals. Why not give eligible participants an incentive to meet the federal participation rates? Counties get incentives for collecting overpayments, etc. It is high time that the CalWORKs Program reward impoverished families and their children with dignity and respect when they meet the expectations of lawmakers. Today 25-35% of the WtW participants are being sanctioned, which means that the kids suffer. This is a cowardly act and child abuse at the highest level. CalWORKs and county welfare operators have become masters of this in California. ___________________________________________________ DSS NEWS –Stage 1 Child Care: On 11\/6\/02 Efhraim Rodriguez contacted DSS with the following inquiry: A participant is in Stage I and is determined to be stable and referred to Stage II. The Stage II AP will not contract with the participant’s provider (maybe it’s an in-home provider). However, the participant does not want to select another provider. On 11\/7\/02 Suzanne McNamee of DSS responded as follows: ANSWER\/COMMENTS: …The client can remain in Stage One, provided it has not been more than 24 months since they left cash aid. …Please note, however, that Stage Two cannot refuse to pay the client’s provider simply because said provider is license-exempt. There is no basis for refusal to pay a license-exempt provider. –San Francisco Stage One Benefits Stopped without a Proper Notice of Action Joyce Bosc of San Francisco County Welfare Department called DSS on 10\/11\/02 about a client whose Stage One child care benefits were discontinued by the San Francisco APP, known as Children’s Council, with the issuance of a letter that was not a notice of action and did not inform the victim of her fair hearing rights and how to file for a fair hearing. The victim has filed for a fair hearing and Ms. Bosc was looking for guidance from DSS. DSS informed Ms. Bosc of MPP 47-420.31 that states the county can only terminate Stage One benefits if a timely and adequate notice of action has been issued. We wonder how many other people have been unlawfully terminated by the San Francisco Children’s Council. –Can a CalWORKs participant be reimbursed for ancillary expenses for cosmetology tools and supplies purchased prior to signing the county’s employment plan? On 4\/4\/02 Dao Nguyen of Santa Clara County asked DSS the following question: … a client that signed up for cash aid on December 10, 2001. The client attended a CalWorks orientation that discussed the participation requirements of the program. The client enrolled in cosmetology training program at San Jose City College on January 10, 2002. She bought the tools and supplies required for the program totaling $780. According to the Appeal Worker, the client met with a CalWORKs representative at the school who told her that she would be reimbursed. The client did not sign her Welfare to Work employment plan until February 4, 2002. The county denied the request from the recipient. The county denied the $780 claim because client had not signed the employment plan prior to enrolling in the training program. This decision is being appealed by the client. The appeal hearing is April 10, 2002. On 4\/5\/02, Linda Horne of DSS answered: ANSWER: Section MPP 42-750 does not specifically prohibit a county from denying ancillary expenses to a client who voluntarily enrolled in a training program with prior approval of the training program from the county. However, if the county ultimately approved the client’s welfare to work activity in cosmetology and the tools and supplies are required for the training, the county should pay such costs. Especially since the client was told by a Calworks representative at the school that she would be reimbursed. ___________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT San Diego County Victim – A WtW participant enrolled her child in the Montessori School of San Diego. The enrollment was approved by the San Diego YMCA, which was administering the Stage One program for San Diego in 9\/99. On 6\/6\/01 San Diego County mailed a notice to the WtW participant stating that she has a $9,075.65 overpayment. The county said that she was overpaid because YMCA should never had enrolled her child in the Montessori School of San Diego. She appealed. She was represented by Jennifer Welker of Legal Aid Society of San Diego. In a 25 page decision issued by Rita Saenz, Director of DSS, the hearing decision held that under the equitable estoppel doctrine the participant did not have to pay back the overpayment caused by the county, Good work Jennifer. State hearing # 20021143321. — Los Angeles Tries to Sanction a Person Working Full Time. – On June 1, 2002, Los Angeles County mailed a notice of action in SH #2002182287 imposing a sanction for allegedly failing to participate in GAIN. The victim had to take a day of work, come to a hearing, only to be told by the county that the county screwed up – it was an administrative error. The claimant is working full time, but that does not prevent the CalWORKs administrators to try to impose a sanction, even if illegal. In this case the victim asked for a hearing. Many other victims do not and are unlawfully sanctioned by Los Angeles County. –San Diego County Wants to Sanction Disabled Person – San Diego County, one of the leaders in imposing sanctions upon CalWORKs families, issued a letter dated 5\/7\/02 that her aid would be reduced from $516 to $369 because she failed to cooperate with the WtW program. At the hearing, the county presented an authentic document signed by the claimants doctor that she was disabled. The county did not accept this document, because in certain places it was whited out, thus, they assumed the document was falsified. The county never contacted the doctor to determine if the statement was true or false. They just went forward with their primary mission – sanction. At the hearing the claimant testified that this was the document that the doctor gave her and she gave it to the welfare office. She never falsified the document as slanderously alleged by the county. She won her hearing and the county was not able to terrorize this victim. But just imagine how many other persons similarly situated are being terrorized by San Diego County today. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ` ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-03.pdf

1112 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 IN BRIEF BOB CAMPBELL GOES TO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE – Long-time CDSS lawyer, Robert Campbell, has taken a job with the State Department of Finance as its Chief Counsel. Representing CDSS’s legal interests, Bob was involved in a large part of the welfare litigation filed over the past 25 years. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DOES NOT REPORT AS REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATIONS – Los Angeles County continues to defy State regulations which requires quarterly reporting for Expedited Services Food Stamps, ABAWDS and Homeless Assistance monthly reports. In early November, CCWRO informed Liza Nunez, Chief Deputy Director of DPSS, that DPSS was not meeting their State- mandated reporting responsibilities. As of this week’s bulletin, DPSS continues to ignore it’s reporting responsibilities. UNSPENT TANF MONEY – GAO-03-1094, a report from the United States General Accounting office, reveals that at the end of fiscal year 2002, the U.S. Treasury reported that states failed to spend 8.9 billion TANF dollars. The same GAO report reveals that 2.3 billion TANF dollars meant for needy families, were transferred to the community development block grants which have no direct benefits in meeting the housing and feeding needs of poor families. MISSOULA ACTIVIST JOINS BAUCUS STAFF – Kate Kahan, a longtime welfare activist and a former welfare recipient, was hired by Senator Baucus of Montana, vice-chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Ms. Kahan will be working on welfare reform issues. GAO-03-210 Report- TANF Recipients With Impairments- This report reveals that 44% of TANF recipients reported having at least one impairment, while the non-TANF population reported 15% with impairments. The report also shows that recipients with impairments are less likely to become self-sufficient, and more likely to end up on other federal programs, such as SSI. 11\/03 Unemployment Rate 5.9% – True? or False? – In 2002, there were over 35 million persons in California. A recent Employment Development Department Labor Market Bulletin alleges that the California labor force included 17,503 million persons. This means that 50% of Californian’s were not in the labor force. The same report reveals that in November ’03, only 16,518 million persons were working, which means 46% of Californian’s were working, 54% were not. Finally, the report concludes that only 5.9% of Californians are unemployed. Something does not add up here. How does 54% unemployed become 5.9%? Maybe children under 18 and all adults over 65 can be excluded, but many of them are working or looking for work. In This Issue IN BRIEF Expedited State Hearings Eff. 2\/1\/04 Statistical Analysis – the WtW Jobs Story CWD Vicitms of the Week CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 EXPEDITED STATE HEARINGS EFFECTIVE 2\/1\/04 HOW WILL THE ESH HEARING BE CONDUCTED? The hearing will be conducted in person if it can be incorporated into the existing calendar for regularly scheduled cases. If the hearing cannot be incorporated into the existing calendar for regularly scheduled cases, then the hearing can be conducted telephonically. NEGOTIATING BEFORE THE HEARING The ACL urges counties and claimants to attempt to negotiate before the hearing. POSITION STATEMENTS The county will be required to have a position statement the day of the hearing if the case has not been settled. DEADLINE FOR DECISION The ALJ will issue a decision in the case within five working days from the date of the record closure. CONTACT PERSON: The ACL has designated Rosalie Morefield at 916-229-4155 as the contact person for this matter. You can also contact Kevin Aslanian at 916-736-0616 or 916-712-0071 for assistance with any aspect of expedited hearings. This week we look at what taxpayers and On January 19, 2004, DSS released an All County Appeals Letter regarding the subject of Expedited State Hearings (ESH) to be conducted by the CDSS State Hearings Divisions. Western Center on Law and Poverty attorney, Clare Pastore, presented this issue to Rita Saenz, former DSS Director, at the beginning of the Davis Administration. When Clare left to teach for a year, it was picked up by Kevin Aslanian who worked with the legal services community to achieve ESH in California. The primary CDSS contact person was Lonnie Carlson, the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Regional Office, who also worked hard on this issue. Judge Carlson’s commitment to a fair hearing is unparalleled, notwithstanding the political problems that the SHD faces daily. ISSUES THAT CAN BE HEARD AT ESH: (1) Expedited Food Stamps, (2) CalWORKs Immediate Need, (3) CalWORKs Homeless Assistance; and (4) other issues of urgency that CDSS-DHS deems necessary. A hearing for (4) can be filed as ESH, but it would only be granted if CDSS or DHS deems it to be an issue of urgency . WHEN WILL THE HEARING BE HELD? The hearing will be scheduled ten (10) working days from the filing date, unless the hearing can be incorporated into the existing calendar for regularly scheduled cases. . CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO SERVICES Statistic of the Week CalWORKs recipients receive for CalWORKs services. This is a budget line item that funds welfare-to-work county bureaucrats. For 2003- 2004, the State Legislature appropriated over 993,000 million. Some of the low performing counties re- garding job placement were San Bernardino at .6%; Kern County at 1.1%; Alameda County at 1.2%; Stanislaus at 1.3%; Orange at 1.4% and Los Angeles at 1.6%. We wonder how many em- ployment agencies would keep staff who could not find employment for more than 2% of their caseload in one month. Don’t laugh. Governor Schwarzanegger has determined that these are excellent numbers, thereby increasing funding by 3.5%. Governor Schwarzanegger promised to look at each item carefully before proposing his budget. The result of this careful review was to increase the budget for CalWORKs services to $1,030,767. This is an additional 37.5 million dollars for the WtW county bureaucrats; a 3.6% increase for 2004-2005. At the same time, he denies CalWORKs recipients their Ronald Reagan Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) and proposes another 5% reduction in benefits that are at the same level they were 15 years ago. To determine what Governor Schwarzanegger saw to warrant huge increases in service dollars for 2004-2005, we looked at the county reports to see how many of the WtW enrollees obtained employ- ment that resulted in termination of benefits. What the Governor must have seen is that dur- ing the month of November of 2003, out of 211,251 enrollees, a meager 6,269 participants found em- ployment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits, which does not necessarily mean they over- came poverty. He must have also estimated that the monthly cost would be over $13,000 per participant to find employment that made them ineligible for CalWORKs. For county-by-county analysis of the percentage of enrollees who obtained employment that resulted in termination of CalWORks benefits see TABLE 1 below. SOURCE-DSS WtW 25 and 25A reports. Statewide 2.97% Sierra 0.00% Inyo 0.00% Alpine 0.00% San Bernardino 0.63% Kings 0.77% Butte 0.98% Nevada 1.03% Imperial 1.09% Kern 1.10% Modoc 1.14% Alameda 1.18% Amador 1.25% Humboldt 1.26% Stanislaus 1.28% Mendocino 1.37% Orange 1.42% Madera 1.44% Tuolumne 1.45% Merced 1.45% Monterey 1.60% Mono 4.17% San Luis Obispo 4.66% Glenn 4.88% Ventura 5.02% Riverside 5.21% Calaveras 5.63% Yolo 6.29% Plumas 7.14% San Diego 7.59% Siskiyou 7.74% Solano 7.80% Sacramento 8.63% Placer 8.79% Sonoma 9.02% Napa 9.89% San Mateo 10.31% Santa Cruz 14.90% Santa Barbara 18.67% Los Angeles 1.64% Lassen 1.70% Tehama 1.71% Yuba 1.81% Mariposa 1.89% Colusa 2.13% San Benito 2.24% Shasta 2.32% Marin 2.37% Fresno 2.43% San Joaquin 2.54% Tulare 2.75% Lake 2.75% Sutter 2.84% Del Norte 3.01% San Francisco 3.07% Trinity 3.45% El Dorado 3.85% Contra Costa 4.09% Santa Clara 4.15% TABLE #1- Percentage of WtW Enrollees Obtaning Employment that Re- sults in Termination of CalWORKs Benefits During November, 2003 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 County Victims of the Week San Benito County Victim Report. Ms. K.F. of San Benito County applied for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal on 11\/12\/03. On the SAWS1, she indicated that she was homeless and did not have enough food for three days. Rather than scheduling an appointment for the next working day as required by state law, the County scheduled an appointment on December 3, 2003. This was a willful and blatant violation of the state law. The County authorized aid for December of 2003 and have now informed Ms. K.F. that her benefits have stopped effective January 31, 2004 because her husband is working over 100 hours a month. The County has no evidence to substantiate this. Ms. K.F’s benefits were terminated even though she has yet to receive a Notice of Action. She has filed for a fair hearing against the County for failing to schedule an appointment for Immediate Need and for expedited food stamps as required by law. Ms. K.F. is still homeless and has never been allowed to apply for homeless assistance. Los Angeles County Victim Report. Ms. S.W. of Los Angeles County has three children. Two of the children are disabled and are receiving SSI. On 12\/1\/03, caseworker Ms. Doyle, requested medical verification of the children’s disabilities. Ms. S.W. provided the GAIN contractor with the requested verification and obtained a receipt verifying her documents were received. Within a week she received a letter alleging that she had a participation problem because she failed to provide the County with the requested verification. The letter instructed her to come to the office on 12\/22\/03 to provide good cause for not providing the requested verification. Ms. S.W. called Ms. Doyle and was assured that it was just a bureaucratic mix up. However, a new worker called her and told her that she has been sanctioned. Ms. S.W. explained that she had a receipt showing she had turned in the verification then asked to talk to the caseworker’s supervisor, he then hung up on her. She filed for a fair hearing Another Los Angeles County Victim Report. Ms. M.M. and her five children applied for CalWORKs on 12\/27\/04 because her husband was laid off on 1\/21\/04. They went to the Belvedere District office and applied for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal. The Belvederes knowledgable staff informed Ms. M.M. that she had to wait 28 days from the date that her husband lost his job before she could apply for benefits. A call was made to District Director, Gustav Serrato, who stated that they indeed have to wait 28 days before they could reapply per MPP 41-440. When he was told that there was nothing in 41-440 that says a person has to wait 28 days to apply, he read the regulation again and agreed that the action was wrong. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-04.pdf

1629 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 IN BRIEF CalWORKs Privatization – Governor Schwarzanegger is considering privatizing the CalWORKs eligibility and employment functions. Counties are also looking into this matter. At a December retreat in San Francisco, the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) set up a committee to look into the Privatization issue. CalWORKs Fails Self-Sufficiency – CWDA has received information about a report done by the California Budget Project that shows while CalWORKs was successful in reduc- ing the caseload, it failed in making the fami- lies self-sufficient. For a copy of the report go to: www.cbp.org. Q-7 News – CWDA and CDSS has been test- ing the quarterly reporting form known as Q- 7. CDSS is now working on modifying the Q-7 form, since counties and clients alike have found it to be confusing. Quarterly Reporting (QR) regulation sta- tus – The first draft of the QR regulations have been completed and made available to CWDA. The recipient community has yet to see a copy of these regulations. Father Involvement Better for kids – The 1\/04 issue of Fragile Families Research re- ports that research shows that a father’s involvement, in terms of time and financial resources, is associated with better cogni- tive, social, and emotional development for children. This is another reason to do away with the 100 rule that denied 2-parent appli- cants CalWORKs for working over 100 hours no matter how little the earning are. Higher Welfare Grants good for families – The Number 20 report of Fragile Families Re- search reveals that higher welfare benefits are associated with a reduced likelihood of break- ing up… On the other hand the study finds that with respect to child support a …stronger child support enforcement is linked with a greater like- lihood of breaking up compared to cohabitation . For copies of these studies contact [email protected]. The Bush 2005 Proposed Budget in Brief Food Stamps: The Bush 2005 proposed bud- get would provide food stamp benefits to immi- grants who have been in the country for more than five (5) years. This could benefit an esti- mated 360,000 low-income immigrants. The proposed budget also allows one vehicle to be totally exempt as a resource. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): The budget proposed to renew the TANF Block Grant program at the current level of $16.7 billion a year for the next five (5) years. The Bush budget proposes to maintain state spending requirements, provide for supplemen- tal grants to states with high poverty or fast population growth and reauthorize the contin- gency fund. In This Issue IN BRIEF Senate Budget Hearing of 2\/5\/04 Bush 2005 Budget in Brief Statistic of the Week- Comparing WtW Sanctions to Obtained Employment that Resulted in Termination of Cal- WORKs by Unduplicated Participants during 11\/03. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 There was a major discussion about the Governor Schwarzanegger’s use of Section 27 which allows the Governor to appropriate money to respond to emergency situations. During 2003-2004, the DOF used this loophole to spend $4.3 billion. Mike Genest pointed out that the California Government Code provides that if a Director of a State Department overspends the amount of money appropriated by the State lawmakers, then he or she has to pay back the money from his or her own pocket. A bipartisan motion was made by Senator Wesley Chesboro, the Chair of the Committee to repeal Section 27 of the State Budget Bill and to direct the Legislative Analyst and the DOF to propose a new Section 27 that would only trigger for real emergencies, rather than being used to circumvent the constitutional budget process. The motion was seconded by Republican McClintock and it passed. The ’03-’04 budget authorizes the Governor to make 5% cuts in State government. The Department of Finance is suppose to report on the impact of these cuts. To date, no such report has been presented to the Legislature. Senators argued that they cannot make any cuts until they see the impact of the cuts made so far. Republican Senator Dick Ackerman made a motion to enact the Governor’s proposed midyear cuts. Chairman Chesboro stated that he would oppose such motion. Senator Sheila Kuhl stated that the Administration had failed to report on the impact of the Governor’s cuts on the State and its people. The Chair emphasized that before the Legislature can act on the proposed midyear . The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee met on February 5, 2004. Michael Genest of the Department of Finance and Liz Hill of the Legislative Analyst’s Office were witnesses at the hearing. Mr. Genest started his testimony by stating that Governor Schwarzanegger inherited a 12 billion dollar deficit. This prompted Senator Jack Scott of Los Angeles to point out that Mr. Genest’s statement was disingenuous. Senator Scott pointed out that Governor Schwarzanegger signed an executive order reversing the vehicle tax, thus causing a 4 billion dollar additional deficit. He concluded that 4 billion of the 12 billion dollar deficit was created by Governor Schwarzanegger. Senator McClintock of Thousand Oaks, who also ran for Governor and lost in 2003, pointed out that while Governor Schwarzanegger urged the firing of Governor Davis for spending too much, under Davis, the 2003-2004 budget was $71 billion. Governor Schwarzanegger’s proposed budget is more than 76 billion dollars. Michael Genest alleged that 71% of the ’04-’05 budget were cuts. Liz Hill of the Analyst’s office stated that, 45% of the budget are cuts in programs, while 55% are nonprogram reductions. Liz Hill also pointed out that the budget assumes that the State will receive $500 million from Indian gaming, which has not materialized. In addition, the budget assumes that the federal government will give California $350 million. Mike Genest stated that Governor Schwarzanegger hoped to get several billion dollars from the federal government, but the $350 million was not reflected in the Bush 2005 budget which was released this week. Senate Budget Hearing of 2\/5\/04 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 cuts, the legislature needs the required reports from the Administration. One of the Senators asked whether the mid- year cuts included the Medi-Cal rate reduc- tions. Senator Ackerman answered yes. The Senators wondered how they could approve midyear reduc- tions that included illegal re- ductions as the Medi-Cal rate reduction has been declared unlawful by the courts . Finally, Senator Kuhl pointed out that while Governor Schwarzanegger is worried about the negative conse- quences that tax increases would have on the economy, the Administration should look at the negative consequences that program reductions would have on the economy. Many of the program cuts will be dis- cussed on the various budget sub- committee hearings after the Legis- lative Analyst report is released on February 18, 2004. This report can be downloaded at www.lao.ca.gov. FUTURE BUDGET ACTION: The budget has been transmitted to the Senate subcommittee on Health and Human Services and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Welfare. The Assembly subcommittee is more commonly referred to as sub 1 and the Senate Subcommittee is referred to as sub 3 . The hearings schedules will be available soon and we will share the hearing dates with you when we find out. Meanwhile, if you are interested in knowing more about the DSS budget, you can go to: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/cdssweb\/ LocalAssis_1705.htm and download the infor- mation. Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 on Health, Human Services, Labor, and Veterans Affairs 916-445-5205 Senator Wesley Chesbro (Chair) -Dem (916) 445-3375 Fax (916) 323-6958 Senator Gilbert Cedillo, Dem (916) 445-3456 Fax (916) 327-8817 Senator Tom McClintock, Rep. (916) 445-8873 Fax: (916) 324-7544 Senator Bruce McPherson, Rep. (916) 445-5843 Senator Deborah Ortiz, Dem. (916) 445-7807 Fax (916) 323-2263 California State Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 1 Judy Chu, Chair Phone: (916) 319-2049 Fax: (916) 322-9208 Judy Chu, Chair Dem-49 (916) 319-2049 Mervyn M. Dymally Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Loni Hancock Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Ray Haynes Rep-66 (916) 319-2066 Robert Pacheco Rep-60 (916) 319-2060 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 Welfare to Work (WtW) Statistic of the Week The WtW 25, which is a monthly report completed by county wel- fare departments and mailed to DSS, reveal the number of un- duplicated participants who have found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits and the number of par- ticipants that have been sanc- tioned among other information. Any interested person can find this data at : http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/ CalWORKsDa_388.htm on the internet. The data show that Trinity, Napa, Merced, Fresno and Colusa Counties have the highest sanc- tions of unduplicated partici- pants. This may surprise some, but it should not. The fact is that often, persons who have not signed a contract to participate are sanctioned in California. The law provides that only partici- pants who fail to participate in WtW can be sanctioned. However, while 45% of the partici- pants are sanctioned in California, the November report shows that only 5% of unduplicated partici- pants found employment that re- sulted in termination of Cal- WORKs. This does not mean that these families are no longer living in poverty- it only means they are no longer eligible for CalWORKs. The TABLE below shows the per- centage of unduplicated participants in each county that were sanctioned. The counties with the highest sanc- tion rates are listed first, finishing with the counties with the lowest sanction rates. Statewide 45.30% 5.09% Trinity 166.67% 8.33% Napa 148.00% 12.00% Merced 140.41% 2.62% Fresno 122.48% 5.34% Colusa 119.35% 3.23% Plumas 87.10% 9.68% San Joaquin 82.32% 3.72% Alpine 75.00% 0.00% Sonoma 69.81% 14.44% Los Angeles 66.83% 3.24% San Luis Obispo 62.68% 14.79% Sutter 61.59% 3.04% Humboldt 60.61% 1.53% Monterey 59.40% 2.78% Tehama 58.18% 2.73% San Diego b\/ 57.83% 11.97% Yolo a\/ 56.96% 20.76% Siskiyou 56.21% 13.61% Calaveras 54.87% 7.08% Alameda 53.21% 2.20% Amador 51.11% 2.22% Shasta 50.17% 3.25% Mono 50.00% 7.14% Lake 47.90% 3.50% Kern 46.73% 1.79% Tulare 46.12% 12.77% Glenn 45.80% 6.11% Mendocino 44.47% 2.01% Butte 43.05% 1.54% Kings 38.94% 0.92% Tuolumne 34.56% 1.84% Nevada 33.53% 1.18% San Mateo 32.53% 22.13% Contra Costa 32.45% 4.89% Lassen 32.41% 2.76% Santa Barbara 31.81% 36.77% Marin 31.72% 2.99% Madera 31.42% 2.46% Mariposa 31.17% 2.60% Placer 29.41% 18.49% San Benito 28.16% 4.02% Stanislaus 26.17% 2.46% San Bernardino 25.89% 0.89% Sierra 25.00% 0.00% Santa Cruz 22.82% 22.98% Orange 21.39% 1.80% Santa Clara 20.15% 6.64% El Dorado 17.13% 5.30% Ventura 17.09% 5.81% Inyo 16.28% 0.00% Solano 14.71% 23.44% Modoc 12.50% 2.50% Yuba 12.41% 2.36% Riverside a\/ 11.95% 6.59% San Francisco 10.58% 4.18% Del Norte 8.11% 12.16% Sacramento b\/ 4.49% 13.48% Imperial 2.45% 1.74% We then show the percentage of unduplicated participants that were able to obtain em- ployment that resulted in ter- mination of CalWORKs, which is the alleged purpose of the program. The facts show that while only 5% of the unduplicated participants found employment that re- sulted in termination of Cal- WORKs, over 45% of the un- duplicated participants were sanctioned. The LESSON is clear – WtW is hugely successful in impos- ing sanctions (many of which are unlawful) on WtW partici- pants , while it is a dismal fail- ure in getting poor families jobs that may make them self- sufficient. Counties Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Counties Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Counties TABLE – Comparing WtW Sanctions to Obtained Employment that Resulted in Termination of CalWORKs by Unduplicated Participants during 11\/03. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-04.pdf

921 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 IN BRIEF CalWORKs Privatization – Governor Schwarzanegger is considering privatizing the CalWORKs eligibility and employment functions. Counties are also looking into this matter. At a December retreat in San Francisco, the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) set up a committee to look into the Privatization issue. CalWORKs Fails Self-Sufficiency – CWDA has received information about a report done by the California Budget Project that shows while CalWORKs was successful in reduc- ing the caseload, it failed in making the fami- lies self-sufficient. For a copy of the report go to: www.cbp.org. Q-7 News – CWDA and CDSS has been test- ing the quarterly reporting form known as Q- 7. CDSS is now working on modifying the Q-7 form, since counties and clients alike have found it to be confusing. Quarterly Reporting (QR) regulation sta- tus – The first draft of the QR regulations have been completed and made available to CWDA. The recipient community has yet to see a copy of these regulations. Father Involvement Better for kids – The 1\/04 issue of Fragile Families Research re- ports that research shows that a father’s involvement, in terms of time and financial resources, is associated with better cogni- tive, social, and emotional development for children. This is another reason to do away with the 100 rule that denied 2-parent appli- cants CalWORKs for working over 100 hours no matter how little the earning are. Higher Welfare Grants good for families – The Number 20 report of Fragile Families Re- search reveals that higher welfare benefits are associated with a reduced likelihood of break- ing up… On the other hand the study finds that with respect to child support a …stronger child support enforcement is linked with a greater like- lihood of breaking up compared to cohabitation . For copies of these studies contact [email protected]. The Bush 2005 Proposed Budget in Brief Food Stamps: The Bush 2005 proposed bud- get would provide food stamp benefits to immi- grants who have been in the country for more than five (5) years. This could benefit an esti- mated 360,000 low-income immigrants. The proposed budget also allows one vehicle to be totally exempt as a resource. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): The budget proposed to renew the TANF Block Grant program at the current level of $16.7 billion a year for the next five (5) years. The Bush budget proposes to maintain state spending requirements, provide for supplemen- tal grants to states with high poverty or fast population growth and reauthorize the contin- gency fund. In This Issue IN BRIEF Senate Budget Hearing of 2\/5\/04 Bush 2005 Budget in Brief Statistic of the Week- Comparing WtW Sanctions to Obtained Employment that Resulted in Termination of Cal- WORKs by Unduplicated Participants during 11\/03. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 There was a major discussion about the Governor Schwarzanegger’s use of Section 27 which allows the Governor to appropriate money to respond to emergency situations. During 2003-2004, the DOF used this loophole to spend $4.3 billion. Mike Genest pointed out that the California Government Code provides that if a Director of a State Department overspends the amount of money appropriated by the State lawmakers, then he or she has to pay back the money from his or her own pocket. A bipartisan motion was made by Senator Wesley Chesboro, the Chair of the Committee to repeal Section 27 of the State Budget Bill and to direct the Legislative Analyst and the DOF to propose a new Section 27 that would only trigger for real emergencies, rather than being used to circumvent the constitutional budget process. The motion was seconded by Republican McClintock and it passed. The ’03-’04 budget authorizes the Governor to make 5% cuts in State government. The Department of Finance is suppose to report on the impact of these cuts. To date, no such report has been presented to the Legislature. Senators argued that they cannot make any cuts until they see the impact of the cuts made so far. Republican Senator Dick Ackerman made a motion to enact the Governor’s proposed midyear cuts. Chairman Chesboro stated that he would oppose such motion. Senator Sheila Kuhl stated that the Administration had failed to report on the impact of the Governor’s cuts on the State and its people. The Chair emphasized that before the Legislature can act on the proposed midyear . The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee met on February 5, 2004. Michael Genest of the Department of Finance and Liz Hill of the Legislative Analyst’s Office were witnesses at the hearing. Mr. Genest started his testimony by stating that Governor Schwarzanegger inherited a 12 billion dollar deficit. This prompted Senator Jack Scott of Los Angeles to point out that Mr. Genest’s statement was disingenuous. Senator Scott pointed out that Governor Schwarzanegger signed an executive order reversing the vehicle tax, thus causing a 4 billion dollar additional deficit. He concluded that 4 billion of the 12 billion dollar deficit was created by Governor Schwarzanegger. Senator McClintock of Thousand Oaks, who also ran for Governor and lost in 2003, pointed out that while Governor Schwarzanegger urged the firing of Governor Davis for spending too much, under Davis, the 2003-2004 budget was $71 billion. Governor Schwarzanegger’s proposed budget is more than 76 billion dollars. Michael Genest alleged that 71% of the ’04-’05 budget were cuts. Liz Hill of the Analyst’s office stated that, 45% of the budget are cuts in programs, while 55% are nonprogram reductions. Liz Hill also pointed out that the budget assumes that the State will receive $500 million from Indian gaming, which has not materialized. In addition, the budget assumes that the federal government will give California $350 million. Mike Genest stated that Governor Schwarzanegger hoped to get several billion dollars from the federal government, but the $350 million was not reflected in the Bush 2005 budget which was released this week. Senate Budget Hearing of 2\/5\/04 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 cuts, the legislature needs the required reports from the Administration. One of the Senators asked whether the mid- year cuts included the Medi-Cal rate reduc- tions. Senator Ackerman answered yes. The Senators wondered how they could approve midyear reduc- tions that included illegal re- ductions as the Medi-Cal rate reduction has been declared unlawful by the courts . Finally, Senator Kuhl pointed out that while Governor Schwarzanegger is worried about the negative conse- quences that tax increases would have on the economy, the Administration should look at the negative consequences that program reductions would have on the economy. Many of the program cuts will be dis- cussed on the various budget sub- committee hearings after the Legis- lative Analyst report is released on February 18, 2004. This report can be downloaded at www.lao.ca.gov. FUTURE BUDGET ACTION: The budget has been transmitted to the Senate subcommittee on Health and Human Services and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Welfare. The Assembly subcommittee is more commonly referred to as sub 1 and the Senate Subcommittee is referred to as sub 3 . The hearings schedules will be available soon and we will share the hearing dates with you when we find out. Meanwhile, if you are interested in knowing more about the DSS budget, you can go to: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/cdssweb\/ LocalAssis_1705.htm and download the infor- mation. Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 on Health, Human Services, Labor, and Veterans Affairs 916-445-5205 Senator Wesley Chesbro (Chair) -Dem (916) 445-3375 Fax (916) 323-6958 Senator Gilbert Cedillo, Dem (916) 445-3456 Fax (916) 327-8817 Senator Tom McClintock, Rep. (916) 445-8873 Fax: (916) 324-7544 Senator Bruce McPherson, Rep. (916) 445-5843 Senator Deborah Ortiz, Dem. (916) 445-7807 Fax (916) 323-2263 California State Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 1 Judy Chu, Chair Phone: (916) 319-2049 Fax: (916) 322-9208 Judy Chu, Chair Dem-49 (916) 319-2049 Mervyn M. Dymally Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Loni Hancock Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Ray Haynes Rep-66 (916) 319-2066 Robert Pacheco Rep-60 (916) 319-2060 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 Welfare to Work (WtW) Statistic of the Week The WtW 25, which is a monthly report completed by county wel- fare departments and mailed to DSS, reveal the number of un- duplicated participants who have found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits and the number of par- ticipants that have been sanc- tioned among other information. Any interested person can find this data at : http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/ CalWORKsDa_388.htm on the internet. The data show that Trinity, Napa, Merced, Fresno and Colusa Counties have the highest sanc- tions of unduplicated partici- pants. This may surprise some, but it should not. The fact is that often, persons who have not signed a contract to participate are sanctioned in California. The law provides that only partici- pants who fail to participate in WtW can be sanctioned. However, while 45% of the partici- pants are sanctioned in California, the November report shows that only 5% of unduplicated partici- pants found employment that re- sulted in termination of Cal- WORKs. This does not mean that these families are no longer living in poverty- it only means they are no longer eligible for CalWORKs. The TABLE below shows the per- centage of unduplicated participants in each county that were sanctioned. The counties with the highest sanc- tion rates are listed first, finishing with the counties with the lowest sanction rates. Statewide 45.30% 5.09% Trinity 166.67% 8.33% Napa 148.00% 12.00% Merced 140.41% 2.62% Fresno 122.48% 5.34% Colusa 119.35% 3.23% Plumas 87.10% 9.68% San Joaquin 82.32% 3.72% Alpine 75.00% 0.00% Sonoma 69.81% 14.44% Los Angeles 66.83% 3.24% San Luis Obispo 62.68% 14.79% Sutter 61.59% 3.04% Humboldt 60.61% 1.53% Monterey 59.40% 2.78% Tehama 58.18% 2.73% San Diego b\/ 57.83% 11.97% Yolo a\/ 56.96% 20.76% Siskiyou 56.21% 13.61% Calaveras 54.87% 7.08% Alameda 53.21% 2.20% Amador 51.11% 2.22% Shasta 50.17% 3.25% Mono 50.00% 7.14% Lake 47.90% 3.50% Kern 46.73% 1.79% Tulare 46.12% 12.77% Glenn 45.80% 6.11% Mendocino 44.47% 2.01% Butte 43.05% 1.54% Kings 38.94% 0.92% Tuolumne 34.56% 1.84% Nevada 33.53% 1.18% San Mateo 32.53% 22.13% Contra Costa 32.45% 4.89% Lassen 32.41% 2.76% Santa Barbara 31.81% 36.77% Marin 31.72% 2.99% Madera 31.42% 2.46% Mariposa 31.17% 2.60% Placer 29.41% 18.49% San Benito 28.16% 4.02% Stanislaus 26.17% 2.46% San Bernardino 25.89% 0.89% Sierra 25.00% 0.00% Santa Cruz 22.82% 22.98% Orange 21.39% 1.80% Santa Clara 20.15% 6.64% El Dorado 17.13% 5.30% Ventura 17.09% 5.81% Inyo 16.28% 0.00% Solano 14.71% 23.44% Modoc 12.50% 2.50% Yuba 12.41% 2.36% Riverside a\/ 11.95% 6.59% San Francisco 10.58% 4.18% Del Norte 8.11% 12.16% Sacramento b\/ 4.49% 13.48% Imperial 2.45% 1.74% We then show the percentage of unduplicated participants that were able to obtain em- ployment that resulted in ter- mination of CalWORKs, which is the alleged purpose of the program. The facts show that while only 5% of the unduplicated participants found employment that re- sulted in termination of Cal- WORKs, over 45% of the un- duplicated participants were sanctioned. The LESSON is clear – WtW is hugely successful in impos- ing sanctions (many of which are unlawful) on WtW partici- pants , while it is a dismal fail- ure in getting poor families jobs that may make them self- sufficient. Counties Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Counties Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Counties TABLE – Comparing WtW Sanctions to Obtained Employment that Resulted in Termination of CalWORKs by Unduplicated Participants during 11\/03. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-05.pdf

1024 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-5- March 1, 2004 IN BRIEF DSS and CWD changes – Sylvia Pizzini, CDSS the Deputy Director for Child Welfare Services has resigned effective January 31, 2004. Bruce Wagstaff, who is Deputy Director for Welfare programs is also Deputy Director or Child Welfare Services Jane Rasmussen , has been appointed as interum Director for Sacramento County Welfare Department. Jane was set to retire, but has decided to work another year. Melody Brawley has been appointed Director of the Lassen County Welfare Department. Transitional Food Stamps – Counties have posed 200 questions regarding Transitional Food Stamps that have not been answered by DSS. DSS has no data how many persons are getting these benefits. Advocates believe that there is a great amount of underutilizatiuon of this program. Child Care Sacramento Training Planned – DSS is plannig one large Traing the Trainers session in Sacramento very soon regarding the Regional Market Rates changes in Child Care. Alameda County Banks all Continuing Cases – Due to money problems Alameda County now require all continuing cases and recipients who have a change to report to their worker or want to talk to their worker for any reason to first contact the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. If this system does not answer the questions, then the recipient will call and get hold of a clerical staff. If the clerical staff cannot answer the question, then the recipient will be allowed to talk to the eligibility worker. Currently only 1\/3 of the calls are answered by the eligibility worker. Alameda County admits that often recipients will get the wrong answer to their questions. Often the system was down. There are several outside vendors involved, thus, the county often does not even know why the system is down. WtW Participants Cannot Volunteer for more CWEP\/WEX hours – Monterey County asked DSS whether or not a WtW participant who was required to participate in CWEP\/WEX can agree to participate more than the hours required by ACL 02-31. This ACL states that the number of hours required to participate are the amount of Cash and aid and food stamp benefits divided by the state minimum wage. The DSS answer was An individual cannot volunteer to participate in unpaid community service or unpaid WEX activities. However, he or she may volunteer to participate in other allowable WtW activities above the 32-35- hour work requirement. In This Issue IN BRIEF DSS Ancillary Services ACL 04-04 Statistical Analysis – CWD Utilization of ABAWDS Exemptions CWD Victims of the Week CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-5- March 1, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 . DSS All County Information Notice 04-04 Q&As regarding WtW Ancillary Services On January 26, 2004, DSS released ACIN -04-04 regarding WtW ancillary ser- vices. This ACIN is a product of several meeting between DSS staff, advocates and county rep- resentatives. Advocates were primarily repre- sented by Jody Berger of Legal Services of Northern California, Usaha Nu of Western center on Law and Poverty, Kate Meiss of Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County and Kevin Aslanian of Coalition of Califor- nia Welfare Rights Organiza- tions. The ACIN addresses issues relat- ing to capping of services and costs; school supplies and costs; ADA access; time periods for ancillary services; hours and par- ticipation and reimbursement is- sues. The highlights of the ACIN are: Question #1 addresses the prob- lem of counties saying that there is a limit on the cost of the ancil- lary service. The ACIN clearly provide that the counties cannot impose caps on ancillary service payments. The ACIN provides that the county can establish a secondary review of the cost of services that exceed a county es- tablished amount, but that does not mean that the services can be denied solely because of the cost of the service. Question # 2 addresses the num- ber of times that the county can issue ancillary services pay- ments, including payments for replacement items. The answer is there is no limit on how many times ancillary payments can be issued… Question #4 addresses the issue of refusal to issue ancillary ser- vices because the participant re- ceived a paycheck. Some coun- ties have said use you paycheck to buy the tools you need to keep your job . The ACIN states A participant cannot be required to pay out of pocket for ancillary services (see MPP Section 42- 750.21) Question #6 addresses the issue of counties refusing to pay for electives classes selected by par- ticipants. The ACIN states: These costs must be paid by Cal- WORKs if the electives classes county toward the degree or cer- tificate program that is part of an approved WtW plan, even if they do not count towards the participant’s major or certificate (see ACL No.99-32). Question #8 addresses the ADA question. Do counties have to pay for costs for the participants to secure reasonable accommoda- tion in order to participate in his or her WtW activity. The ACIN states: Yes. A county is respon- sible, and must pay, for reason- able accommodations… Question #9 addresses the is- sue whether or not the county has to pay for ancillary ser- vices after the 18\/24 month period has expired. The ACIN states that persons who are employed or are par- ticipating in unpaid work for the county are eligible for ancil- lary services. Question #11 addresses the issue of how many hours one has to participate in order to be eligible for ancillary services and other supportive services. Some county workers say that if the person is not working the 32\/35 hours a week, then they are not eligible for supportive services. This is not true. Question #11 states There is no minimum number of hours required to re- ceive payments for ancillary ex- penses… This is the case for anybody working or meeting the requirements of his or her WtW plan. Question # 13 addresses the is- sue of reimbursement of the par- ticipants does not have a receipt. The ACIN states that When re- ceipts or other documentation are not available, a written declara- tion which includes an explana- tion of why the expense was nec- essary and no documentation is available, and signed by the par- ticipant under penalty of perjury, shall be acceptable if the CWD has no information to the con- trary. Issues Covered in the ACIN 1. capping of services and costs; 2. school supplies and costs; 3. ADA access; 4. time periods for ancillary services; 5. hours and participation ; and 6. reimbursement issues. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-5- March 1, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Statistic of the Week TABLE #1- Percentage of ABAWDS Exemptions Utilized During 2002-2003 Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Mono, Riverside, San Benito San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Shasta, Sierra, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne and Yuba 0%. San Joaquin 1.85% Orange 2.34% Monterey 4.32% Nevada 5.97% San Luis Ob. 8.48% Mariposa 10.34% Plumas 11.54% Contra Costa 12.67% Alameda 16.10% Butte 16.56% Napa\u00a3 37.18% Del Norte 37.50% Yolo 38.31% Inyo 55.56% Humboldt 65.23% Santa Cruz 94.59% Ventura 108.27% Siskiyou 128.70% Solano 148.58% Placer 177.67% San Fran 205.77% Sacramento 688.87% Modoc 8760.00% Statewide 44.01% This week we are looking at the utilization of ABAWDS exemptions by county welfare departments. ABAWDS stands for Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents. The 1996 Welfare [D]eform Act signed by the then President Clinton limited Food Stamp benefits to ABAWDS who are not working 20 hours a week to three months during a 3 year period. The law provided for a waiver of this harsh rule for counties, cities and zip codes that have high unemployment rates. The law also provides for a certain number of exemptions that are allocated to each state, which then allocates it to counties in California. These exemptions were designed to mitigate this provision of limiting food stamps to a three month period during every three years. In California, many counties do not use these exemptions and force the poor ABAWDS in their counties to get food from the food banks or pant- ies, or simply starve and refuse to use the avail- able exemptions. Counties who do this to poor ABAWDS in California are Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Ange- les, Madera, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Mono, Riverside, San Benito San Bernardino, San Di- ego, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Shasta, Sierra, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne and Yuba. Statewide only 44% of the exemptions are uti- lized. ACTION: You should ask your county how many exemptions they have used and why haven’t they used all available exemptions? CCWRO would be glad to provide support services in this matter. See TABLE #1 for the percentage of exemption utilized by each county in California. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-5- March 1, 2004 County Victims of the Week CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility Ms. A applied for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal in Sacramento County. She in- dicated that she needed Immediate Need (IN) on her 1\/8\/04 application (SAWS 1), but was only given a 1\/16\/04 appointment. On 1\/16\/04 she arrived for her face-to-face interview, turned in all completed forms, fin- ished the face-to-face interview and was fin- gerprinted. After she completed the fingerprint- ing she was arrested for some outstanding warrant. The message is clear – the welfare department and the POLICE department are the same. According to Sacramento County CalWORKs supervisor Lida Clemo, the 1\/8\/04 application was denied based on Code 244, failure to complete the application process. In the Sac- ramento application process, fingerprinting is the last step of the interview process. Thus, it must have been an unlawful denial for she completed the process. She received an NOA stating that the application was denied for not having an eligible child in the home. In fact, she has two daughters, one 17 year old, who is 8 months preg- nant and in dire need of prenatal care. The other daughter is 11years old. After she received her unlawful denial, she again tried to apply for IN, CalWORKs and Food Stamps on three occasions; 2\/3\/04, 2\/ 4\/04 and 2\/10\/04. Each time, the Sacramento Research Street office clerical and eligibility staff did not allow her to apply. Ms. A contacted an advocate at 4 p.m. on 2\/ 10\/04. There was no worker, no supervisor and no program manager available, even thgouh they get paid until 5 p.m. Finally at 4:40 p.m., the advocate was able talked to Lida Clemo, who, in a raised voice, could only tell say come back and apply again – we take applications . Ms. A. has tried to apply three (3) times and each time they refused to accept her applica- tion which was an illegal action. Lida Clemo never assured Armeida that her application would be ac- cepted. Ms. A did not want to be victimized again for the fourth time. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-06.pdf

948 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-6- March 13, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF Food Stamp Errors Up – California’s Food Stamp error rate is now 6.43%. This is .14% above the federal tolerance level of 6.29%. California has appealed the federal government’s imposed penalties for the State’s high error rate. While the State drags on the federal appeals process, the WtW and other welfare sanctions against poor fami- lies are imposed swiftly and harshly. New Child Care Rules NOA Re- quirement – On September 24, 2003, Alameda County asked DSS: Can a generic NOA be sent to the clients impacted by the recent Regional Market Rate (RMR) changes or do we have to send one to each client indicating the exact dollar amount by which their benefit can be changed? DSS responded to the effect that counties can send out a generic notice, but they are still required to send a specific no- tice of action to each impacted individual at least ten days before the change in the child care benefits occur. A copy of the NA Back 9 must accompany the notice . The NA Back 9 is the back of the notice of action. LA County Amends Contract for CalWORKs Refugee Employment Pro- gram (REP) For several years refugees re- ceiving CalWORKs benefits were required to receive services from Refugee Providers known as REP. These programs refused to provide transportation and ancillary services to participants, because transportation and ancillary services are not available to Refu- gee Cash Assistance recipients. This mat- ter was brought to the attention of DSS by In This Issue IN BRIEF Transitional Food Benefits 2\/25\/04 Meeting with DSS Duration of Sanctions Kate Meiss of Neighborhood Legal Services. After several letters from DSS and some pres- sure from Legal Services, DSS was mailed a letter from Phil Ansell, Director of DPSS Bureau of Program and Policy stating that the county has amended their contract with the REP con- tractors. The letter also stated that in January DPSS will mail out a claim form for retroactive supportive services. CW-61 Medical Evaluation form Cost- ing WtW participants and CalWORKs recipi- ents money – Counties are requiring applicants and recipients to submit a CW-61 to determine if they should continue to be a WtW participants. Many CalWORKs recipients are sanctioned for failing to submit a CW-61. Alameda County asked DSS whether the County could use ancillary services funds to pay for the completion of the CW-61 requested by doctors or can Medi-Cal pay for the comple- tion. DSS responded that ancillary services cannot be used to pay for the completion of the CW-61. In addition, DSS stated that …EDS, the fiscal intermediary for Medi-Cal billings in- formed us that Medi-Cal does not provide reim- bursement for completing the CW-61. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-6- March 13, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 . Welfare Advocates Meet with DSS This is a brief report of the meeting between welfare advocates and DSS on February 25, 2004. The meetings are attended by repre- sentatives from each legal services program in California and welfare support centers. The first item on the agenda was Budget Update . Bruce Wagstaff, DSS Deputy Director for welfare programs, re- ported that the budget is very difficult. All programs are on the line. DSS has alerady been severely hit by budget reductions. WTW division has been revamped. The division used to have 5 branches, now it is down to 4. The Welfare to Work Division was scheduled for a staff reduction of 19, but they lost 39 staffers. Bruce Wagstaff has also assumed the role of Deputy Director for both WTW and Child Welfare Programs. In light of the staff reductions at DSS they have instituted changes in the process of taking calls from counties. DSS has established dedicated time for county calls with questions. This means that there will be certain hours of the day that DSS staff will take calls from county welfare department staff. Child care and WTW is email only for County Welfare Departments. Bruce also said that DSS can’t con- tinue meetings with advocates given the severe staff cuts and propose instead a dedicated email function for advocates. DSS suggested that advocates include a pro- posed answer in with the email of their questions because it makes life much easier for the limited staff of DSS. DSS is trying to keep some kinds of contact with CWDA. Kevin Aslanian pro- posed CWDA have advocates meet every 3 months, like what’s done with the CWDA Transition Food Stamps Effective December of 2003, transitional food stamps have taken effect. Under this program, any CalWORKs case being terminated continues to receive food stamps at the same level that they were receiving when their cash aid benefits were stopped. The transi- tional food stamps is supposed to be automatic. For example; if Laura Bush was getting $560 a month in cash aid; food stamps at $180; and $2,000 a month child support from G.W. Bush, her cash aid would stop, but she would continue to receive Food Stamps at $180 a month for six (6) months. At this time there is no evidence that people are getting these transitional benefits. The state has also failed to issue a case code for transitional ben- efits. Finally DSS is collecting no date from the county computer systems showing how many people were terminated from cash aid and how of those terminated received transitional food stamp benefits. Given Schwarzenegger’s opposition to this program it is not surprising that there is no effort by DSS to assure that the law in this case is being obeyed. Given this situation, there is a need to ob- tain legislative oversight regarding this program by requiring a DSS report showing how many people were terminated from cash aid, which is readily available in the CA 237 monthly reports and how many of them are still getting food stamp benefits. This information should not be hard to obtain given the billions and billions that have been spend on computerization of the welfare system CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-6- March 13, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Medi-Cal Committee. Bruce said he would explore that possibility. Follow up items: \ufffd Program Integrity: DSS handed out a list of counties who will have a IEVS review during 03-04. For 03-04 San Joaquin, Imperial, Alameda, Calaveras and Tulare are left. Large to medium counties are reviewed once every 3 years. DSS also looks at the DPA482, which is a county quarterly report showing how many IEVS hits the county received, how many were resolved and how many are pending; CA812, which is a overpayment report and FNS 8209, which is a food stamp overpay- ment report to determine how counties are handling the IEVS reports. Kevin wants counties to have a specific plan and deadline on how to meet Corrective Action Plan for counties who have backlogged IEVS hits. CDSS says they identify specific weaknesses and give counties options to set out the specific processes to correct the backlogs. DSS agreed they are not getting consistent re- ports from county staff to follow up on the recommendations that DSS made in their review report. DSS has no sanction author- ity for counties who are not processing IEVS reports within 60 days as required by federal and state regulations. DSS agreed that making deadlines and reports could be useful and maybe Bruce needs to be signing off on the reports. Advocates pointed out that counties get 12.5% of the overpayments recouped according the state law. Thus, the law pro- vides for an incentive for counties to allow the over- payment to grow so they can get 12.5% of the overpay- ment. It is a way for counties to raise money from over- payments collected. NOTE: The DPA 482 reports will soon be on the Internet. The August 12, 2003 All IEVS Coordinators letter states that DSS is soon going to request that the DPA 482 reports be e-mailed to DSS so the information can be placed on the Inter- net. \ufffdAdvocates had raised the issue of restaurants accept- ing the Electronic Transfer Benefits (EBT) card. Debbie McFadden of the DSS Integ- rity Branch agreed to call Steve Bingham of Bay Area Legal Aid directly re: Citibank and restaurant cards. How to Get Policy Interpretations from DSS As stated in this report on our recent meeting DSS has agreed to accept and respond to policy and regulation in- terpretations as they do for counties and administrative law judges. DSS agreed during the 2\/25\/04 meeting that all questions will be e-mailed to Welfare [email protected] and a copy should be mailed to [email protected]. A copy of the response will be e-mailed to both the persons who posed the question and CCWRO. CCWRO will share the response with the legal services programs. CCWRO has developed a fillable form to impose the ques- tion. As an example, we have attached a question that was e- mailed to DSS for a response. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-6- March 13, 2004 – Page 4 \ufffdRetrieving info from closed files. Many counties are not able to retrieve old welfare files. These files especially are important in cases where information is needed for overpayment cases. On the other hand, if the county does not have the files, they cannot prove their case in a hearing and the claimant will prevail. For example: \ufffdA person who files a hearing because of denied MFG benefits three years ago will have jurisdiction to have a hearing because the county cannot produce a notice of ac- tion; \ufffd If the county cannot retrieve the MFG notices that were given or signed by the claimant, the claimant will prevail. \ufffdOverpayments have to be proven and the county has to produce the file for the overpayment. If the county fails to provide the file, then the county fails to establish an overpayment and the overpayment disap- pears. It is important not to do a conditional withdrawal – always get a hearing decision stating that the overpayment cannot be sustained because the county has failed to establish the overpayment. \ufffdTwo-parent families: Advocates raised the issue that in many families the stay- home-parent is not offered any services. \ufffdTemporary homeless assistance: Joe Ramos of Inland Counties Legal Services raised the issue that San Bernardino County is requiring homeless families to come to the county welfare department once every three days to get their next homeless assistance check for an additional 3 days. DSS said that the regulations state there is an initial 3 day period, after that, the county can pro- vide for up to 7 days, based on verification of continuing homelessness and search. \ufffdLearning Disabilities (LD): Advocates led by Kate Meiss and Jody Berger of Legal Services of Northern California raised ac- commodations for all aspects. DSS said that they are planning to do questions and answers. Advocates will e-mail Teri Ellen proposed questions and answers relative to LD issued. \ufffdTransportation: LA County Welfare Department (DPSS) has issued a new directive reducing rate from 32.5 a mile 15 cents a mile after 500 miles a month. The requires that transportation rates be based upon regional market rates. DSS stated that Los Angeles County has provided DSS with a study to justify this reduction. DSS said they will give study to Kate Meiss. Statistic of the Week Duration of WtW Sanctions There is no statewide data as to the dura- tion of WtW sanctions. We recently obtained information from Sacramento County as to the number and duration of the sanctions. During the month of February, 2004, there were a total 361 families in sanction. 28 fami- lies were sanctioned for one month; 20 fami- lies for two months; 14 families for three months; 10 families for four months. 149 cases were sanctioned from 5 to 17 months; 168 cases have been sanctioned more than 18 months. Thus, 47% of the sanctions were over 18 months. ADVOCACY TIP: We would encourage you to ask your county if they have data on the duration of the sanctions for persons who have been sanctioned by the county. This could be helpful information for advocacy. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-07.pdf

1024 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-7- March 18, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd Budget – The County Supervisors Asso- ciation of California (CSAC) has established a Budget Task Force to look at ways of mak- ing budget cuts in lieu of property tax shifts proposed by the Administration. A similar task force was set up by CSAC in 1992 and it recommended numerous cuts in programs favored by State legislators. This irritated many state Legislators. The outcome was that property taxes were shifted and many programs were cut. \ufffd Reauthorization News – Congressman Herger of California has introduced a bill that contains a change in caseload reduction credit that would hurt California. This is de- signed to push the Senate into enacting the much opposed House TANF reauthorization legislation. Many TANF reauthorization watchers believe that the Senate will not act on TANF until next year. \ufffdOpen CPS Court Legislation – Darrel Steinberg of Sacramento, Chair of the As- sembly Budget Committee, has proposed AB 2627 which would open dependency court proceedings which are now closed to the public. Social workers, in opposition to this bill, assert that closed hearings are in the best interest of the child. Proponents of the bill assert it will expose the shortcomings of the child welfare system and shed light on the blatant violations that are committed daily in the child welfare system such as not mak- ing reports available on time, not proving that In This Issue IN BRIEF State Required Reports Not Submitted for Years by Los Angeles County Statistical Report – 12\/03 WtW Sanctions reasonable efforts have been taken before re- moving the child from the home, etc. \ufffdMedi-Cal Rapid Response Team – Quar- terly Reporting (QR) – DHS has established a Medi-Cal Rapid Response Team which is a new way of making policy. Counties have raised the issue of families who are ineligible for CalWORKs during the QR period are still getting Medi-Cal. If a person becomes ineligible for CalWORKs during the second month of the QR period, but they still get CalWORKs until the end of the QR period, are they eligible for Medi-Cal during the third months of the QR period? \ufffdTurner Handbook – DSS has a Turner Hand- book which is supposed to contain all DSS No- tices of Action (NOA). However, DSS has been informed by several counties that not all NOAs in the handbook are on the DSS web page. \ufffdChild Care and QR problems – Under Quar- terly Reporting (QR) if the second parent re- turns home or income has increased, this could effect eligibility for child care. Child Care eligi- bility, like Medi-Cal, is determined monthly. Thus, many child care recipients will have over- payments. This can be resolved by making everything QR. Off course, QR was imple- CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-7- March 18, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 mented to reduce the Food Stamp error rate by 75% and not to make the system more ef- ficient. \ufffdDSS has a Child Care Change Form – DSS has developed a child care change re- port that is being shared with counties. A draft ACL and draft forms are being mailed to Carol Spooner of CWDA to get their input. No simi- lar input has been solicited from the represen- tatives of the child care recipients. \ufffdDSS is preparing a NOA for denying and time limit extenders – DSS is preparing a NOA language for denial and discontinuance of time limit extenders. \ufffdGetting Monthly Information in the QR system for WtW monthly participation – Counties need monthly data to report how many hours a participant participated so they can make reports to the State. The QR-7 has a space to report hours of work, but some counties want that information on a monthly basis. One county is forcing WtW participants to make monthly reports as a part of their WtW plan and they sanction the participant for fail- ure to make the report. In Tulare County staff makes monthly contacts with WtW participants to find out how many hours they participated. Another county is using the child care monthly reimbursement information to determine num- ber of participation hours. This county said that it would be confusing to client to have a monthly report for one program when Cal- WORKs reports are done quarterly. State Required Reports Not Submitted For Years by L.A. County At http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/researc you will find various statistical reports posted by the Department of Social Services (DSS) – re- ports required by state regulations Los Angeles County, has a history of ignoring state regulations without consequences. For the past three years Los Angeles County has refused to submit certain required reports. DSS is aware of this behavior, but has failed to take any action to assure that Los Angeles County Welfare Department show the same respect for the welfare regula- tions that they expect CalWORKs recipi- ents to show. For example, since June of 2002, Los Ange- les County has refused to submit Homeless Assistance Monthly reports required by state regulations. State regulations also require counties to re- port how many people have applied for and received expedited issuance food stamp ben- efits. Again, since March of 2002 Los Angeles County has refused to submit the reports re- quired by state regulations. State regulations require that each county submit a report STAT-46. This report reveals how many food stamp recipients received benefits for only three months. The last report was filed in September of 2003. CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/ Immigrant Eligibility CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-7- March 18, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Statistical Report of the Week Many of the people being sanctioned would like to participate, but some counties have made con- tacting workers about sanctions difficult . In Los Angeles, a participant who, after a year of sanc- tions, needs to contact his or her worker to say, I want to participate , finds that it could take a week or more to reach that worker. Then he\/she is told to call the GAIN worker. The sanctioned person calls the GAIN worker and leaves several mes- sages, but no call back. Finally, the person goes to the GAIN office and finds out that the GAIN worker is no longer working in the GAIN program. The GAIN office tells the sanctioned person that there is no worker assigned to your case, but we would notify you when a worker is assigned to your case. It could take weeks and even months before a worker is assigned. And then more weeks to get an appointment to agree to participate. And, thus, the high sanction rate in California. Ironically, there is a form, a request that the sanc- tion be cured, that a participant could complete, but the form is never offered to the sanctioned par- ticipant by DSS and counties. % of Unduplicated Participants Sanctioned During December, 2003 Statewide 46.20% Merced 138.11% Colusa 135.00% Fresno 127.46% Napa 120.65% Trinity 102.50% Yolo b\/ 88.04% San Joaquin 86.47% Amador 82.86% Sonoma 80.87% San Luis Ob. 69.23% Los Angeles 67.65% Siskiyou 64.38% Plumas 63.89% Monterey 63.44% San Diego 59.58% Sutter 59.07% Humboldt 58.47% Shasta 56.49% Alameda 53.26% Tehama 52.14% Calaveras 51.26% Glenn 50.00% Lake 47.07% Mono 46.67% Mendocino 46.28% Kern 44.84% Tulare 42.87% Tuolumne 42.33% Butte 42.09% Kings 39.34% Lassen 36.96% Mariposa 36.76% Contra Costa 36.52% Madera 34.27% Marin 32.17% Inyo 31.58% Nevada 31.49% San Mateo 29.43% Placer 27.62% San Bern. 27.35% Sierra 27.27% San Benito 26.09% TABLE 1 Stanislaus 25.03% Santa Cruz 23.47% Orange 21.98% Santa Barb. 21.13% El Dorado 19.69% San Fran 18.37% Santa Clara 17.96% Ventura 16.68% Solano 16.46% Alpine 12.50% Riverside 11.95% Yuba 11.68% Modoc 11.11% Del Norte 6.21% Sacramento 4.41% Imperial 2.19% December, 2003 WtW Sanctions This week we look at the trends in sanctions in the Welfare to Work (WtW) program of California Table 1 below reveals the highest percentage of sanctions statewide. Some counties, like Merced, Colusa, Fresno, Napa and Trinity counties, have more people being sanctioned that they have ac- tual unduplicated participants in the WtW program. In December of 2002, 36% of the WtW partici- pants were sanctioned. In December of 2003, Cali- fornia achieved a new milestone in the WtW pro- gram – they increased the sanction rate from 36% to 46%, a statistically significant 10% increase in one year. Meanwhile, 57% of the unduplicated participants in California were not receiving transportation as- sistance for December of 2003, which is a major reason for this high sanction rate in California. It is estimated that 50% of these sanctions have been in place for more than 12 months ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-08.pdf

934 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-8- March 30, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd Medi-Cal Waiver Group – The De- partment of Health Services has set up a Medi-Cal waiver group. For more informa- tion go to www.medi-calredesign.org. \ufffdQuarterly Reporting (QR) regula- tions – The final QR regulations will be filed with the Secretary of State on or about April 1,2004. \ufffd Transitional Food Stamps – A num- ber of counties have refused to implement transitional food stamps which was effective January 1, 2004. ADVOCATE ACTION: Advocates are urged to find out from their counties how many persons are receiving Transitional Food Stamps (TFS). This data can be com- pared to the number of persons terminated from CalWORKs. There are some termina- tions that are not eligible for TFS, such as termination due to inter-county-transfer, sanctions or penalties. \ufffd Minor Parent-Senior Parent -EBT Card On December 11, 2003, Shasta county asked DSS about a case of a senior parent who is the payee on the minor parents case, and the minor parent wants an EBT card. DSS RESPONSE: Minor parent may not have their own card issued unless the se- nior parent\/adult in the home refuses to be the payee… In This Issue IN BRIEF Analysis of the Schwarzanegger Welfare Change Proposal TANF Participation Rates in California – A Bad Data Problem County Victim of the Week \ufffd Drug Convictions in the Military – Or- ange County inquired on October 21, 2003 whether or not a military drug felony conviction is considered a state or federal court convic- tion as provided in 82-832.20. On October 22, 2003 DSS filed the follow- ing response: If the client was convicted at a Special or General court martial, it is considered a federal felony drug conviction and the TANF\/Cal- WORKs drug felon rules would apply. If the cli- ent was convicted at a Summary court martial, then it would only be considered a felony drug conviction if s\/he was represented by a lawyer at trial. If the client was merely punished under Article 15, it is not a conviction. \ufffd EBT News – Consumer Union reports that EBT cardholders can purchase money or- ders, purchase stamps, and get $50 cash back from the post office. This enhances the utilization of EBT cards by welfare recipients. ADVOCATE ACTION: Advocates are ad- vised to talk to their local County Welfare De- partment and get them to issue Notices of Points of Sale locations. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-8- March 30, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ANALYSIS OF THE SCHWARZANEGGER WELFARE CHANGE PROPOSAL The following is an analysis of Governor Schwarzanegger’s proposed changes to the CalWORKs program. These changes will not be heard in any committee where regular changes are made – they will be a part of the budget trailer bill. In the past trailer bills have been the vehicle for many of the welfare policies which nega- tively impact families in California today. The language for the trailer bill was submitted to the Legislative Counsel office and was printed on 2\/18\/04 @ 11:53 AM. This was to let folks know what version was being ana- lyzed. However, there will be no printed bill. That will be public sometime May or June of this year. The trailer bill: 1. Welfare & Institutions Code (W&IC) 10531(f) will be repealed. CCWRO comment: This subsection man- dates that mental health services be contin- ued after the adults become ineligible for aid, but their children are still eligible. 2. This proposal would give counties 12.5% of the supportive services overpayments that they recoup. CCWRO comment: In the CalWORKs and Food Stamp programs, some counties wait for the overpayment to build up so they can col- lect large overpayments and get their 12.5% bounty. In addition, counties prosecute the individual for felony fraud to make the recoup- ment of the overpayment a part of the plea bargain. The bill provides no incentives for un- derpayments. There should be a 12.5% county penalty for underpayments paid to the Cal- WORKs recipients or an organization that dis- covers the underpayments. 3. Eliminates W&IC 10531 (n) which requires that counties work on job creation. CCWRO comment: It appears that creating jobs for welfare recipients is not a concern of this administration. 4. Sanctions children because parents are not participating. W&IC 11320.(a) is amended by adding the following sentence: Failure or refusal by an applicant to comply, without good cause, shall be treated by the county as a failure to cooperate in completing an application for aid under this chapter. CCWRO comment: Failure to complete the application process means the application is denied and the family has to reapply. 5. The Schwarzanegger Administration will require all applicants and recipients to do 20 hours a week in what they call core activi- ties . The core activities are defined as activi- ties listed in W&IC 11326 (a) through (j) and (n). This excludes such activities as ESL, adult basic education, job skills training, vocational education, education directly related to em- ployment, getting a teachers credential, or other activities needed to make the person self-sufficient. CCWRO comment: Persons who do not speak a word of English cannot learn English, they would have to look for a job – a job that they cannot do because they do not speak English. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-8- March 30, 2004 – Page 3 6. Schwarzanegger proposes to amend W&IC 11320.3(a)(4) to limit the exemptions for nonparent caretaker relatives. CCWRO comment: Forces nonparent care- taker-relatives to participate in Welfare to Work. This will discourage poor relatives from taking care of their kin. 7. Schwarzanegger proposes to force disabled and pregnant women to participate in WtW unless they can prove that their disability pre- vents them from participating in WtW. 8. W&IC 11322.4 will be repealed which al- lows any CalWORKs applicant or recipient to participate in WtW, even volunteers. 9. WtW Plan to be signed in 60 days. Sec- tion 11325.21 provides that the WtW plan shall be signed within 60 days. 10. Eliminates the 18\/24 month participa- tion timeline, including self-initiated pro- gram participation. W&IC 11325.23(a)(1) is amended by deleting the words within the time period specified in subdivisions (a) and (d) of Section 11454. 11. Decreases benefits by another 25% for sanctioned families. The Schwarzanegger Administration proposal would amend W&IC 11327.5(d) by adding subsection (4) which reads: 1327.5(d)(4) If the noncomplying indi- vidual fails to cure the sanction by com- plying before the end of the first month of a first instance sanction, the end of the third month of a second instance sanc- tion, or the end of the sixth month of a third instance sanction, the maximum aid payment to the family shall be decreased by an additional 25 percent. This proposal completely disregards the fact that many sanctioned recipients are not able to cure the sanction because the county has erected barriers to curing the sanction. Such barriers, include, but are not limited to, inabil- ity to contact the person who has the author- ity to cure the sanction within the CWD bu- reaucracy, the failure to establish a manda- tory curing process by DSS for the state of California. 12. The bill provides that if the timed-out par- ent is not working, then the benefits of the chil- dren are reduced by 25%. The parents’ needs continue to be disregarded. CCWRO comments: The bill punishes chil- dren because their parents are not working – Currently when a parent has been on Cal- WORKs for over 60 months, only the children receive cash aid payments. 13. The trailer bill would also propose to re- duce CalWORKs grants by 5% and to deny the COLA for 2004. CCWRO comments: The CalWORKs fixed income is what former CalWORKs recipients received in 1989. This proposal will push it back into the mid eighties. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS Hearings on this proposed language will be held first in the Senate on April 15, 2004, in Room 4203 upon adjournment, which means when the Senate floor session ends, the sub- committee will start the hearing. CalWORKs is the first item on the agenda. The Assembly hearing will be held on the 5th day of May, 2004 at 1:30 PM in room 444. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CALIFORNIA TANF PARTICIPATION RATES Bad Welfare Statistical Data Problem According to the WtW 25 reports, dur- ing December of 2003 there were 121,878 un- duplicated participants in the welfare to work program. This is the figure that the State has to report to the federal government. DSS has argued that participants include all persons who are enrolled in the program, rather than those who are participating. The number of persons enrolled are 210,909, which far greater than the number of unduplicated par- ticipants. We have always questioned the data that the counties produce and the State distributes. Even the counties say that their numbers are unreliable, thus, all county data and statements should be suspect. A classic case in point are the number of WtW participants who received Stage 1 child care. Based on the WtW 25 and CW 15 reports, 90% of the unduplicated partici- pants are receiving child care but only 43% are getting trans- portation services. How could one need child care to partici- pate in a WtW activity, but not need transportation. The only time a participant may not need transportation is if they are do- ing their activity in their home and child care is being provided in the home as well. Counties and DSS produce the numbers Yolo 293.12% San Mateo 166.75% Solano 166.34% San Diego 150.74% Inyo 144.74% Marin 139.92% Lassen 131.88% San Benito 130.43% Monterey 129.25% Fresno 128.13% Riverside 118.94% Placer 116.85% Amador 114.29% Plumas 108.33% San Luis Obispo 107.69% Santa Cruz 102.50% San Bernardino 100.49% TABLE 1 as mindboggling as they are. It’s all in black and white. The child care reports shows that 18 counties had over 100 of its unduplicated participants getting child care. How could that be? How could Yolo County pay 293% of its undupli- cated participants? See Table 1 for a complete list of counties who paid Stage 1 child care to over 100% of their unduplicated participants. Are there enough people participating in the TANF program to meet the federal guidelines? Before that question can be answered, a verifiable accounting of the number of partici- pants should be viewed before any pragmatic changes are made based on faulty data of California Counties and DSS. WtW Redesign: The system needs to be re- designed to empower the people to decide how they are going to be- come self-sufficient, rather than allowing the county welfare bureau- crats to make these de- cisions – welfare bureau- crats who are not em- ployment specialists. Decmber 2003 Counties Who Provided Stage 1 Child Care to over 100 of the Unduplicated Participants CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-8- March 30, 2004 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-8- March 30, 2004 – Page 5 County Victim of the Week Ms. S.G of Los Angeles County, is the mother of two minor children. On October 19, 2002, her aid was reduced because she failed to par- ticipate in the GAIN orientation\/appraisal phase of the GAIN program. She did not have child care and transportation, but that did not matter to Los Angeles County – sanction was imposed. Ms. S.G. was never informed on how she could cure the sanction. She was told by her welfare worker to contact the GAIN worker. The GAIN worker said her case was closed and sent her to talk to the welfare worker. She left several messages with the welfare worker, but no calls were returned. On July 13, 2003, she received a letter stat- ing that her benefits would be stopped for fail- ing to submit a completed income report. On October 7, 2003 she reapplied for aid. The County paid aid for her and her children. The victimizing continues; in December, the County decided they made an error when they granted aid to Ms. S.G. The County decided that because she was sanctioned back in October of 2002, the sanction should be still be in effect in October, November and Decem- ber of 2003 and continuing. The county alleges that this was the second sanction of Ms. S.G. The second sanction should be for 90 days, not 360 days. CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility Beginning January 1, 2004, Los Angeles County began adjusting the overpayment with- out a notice of action. The County agreed to rescind the overpayment solely because an adequate notice of action was not mailed. However, the county continues to insist that once a recipient has been sanctioned, the sanction perpetually continues. It’s no wonder the State has a problem with the participation rates. When formerly sanc- tioned individuals apply for CalWORKs in Los Angeles County, rather than scheduling them for participation in the WtW program as man- dated by State regulations, they just continue the sanction in blatant violation of the State regulations. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-09.pdf

1533 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-9- April 27, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd Governor’s Illusionary Child Care Savings – The Governor’s 04-05 budget pro- poses to save millions of dollars by declin- ing child care for children, 11-12 years old when afterschool care is unavailable. The California County Welfare Directors Associa- tion (CWDA) child care committee minutes of their 3\/4\/04 meeting reads: Counties again stated that they have a large popula- tion of 11 and 12 years olds. There are not enough afterschool programs to take all of them in, even if the parents all worked a nice M-F 8-5 job. There are a lot of assumptions about savings in this proposal that the com- mittee didn’t believe would be realized. Com- mittee doesn’t believe the State will realize the millions they have stated they will save with this proposal. It will be an administra- tive nightmare. It appears based on as- sumption that our CalWORKs parents all have tidy 8-5 jobs Monday-Friday. CCWRO COMMENT: It is true. The writers of these proposals may never have experi- enced a nontraditional job. \ufffd FNS New Policy on IPV Waivers – On March 30, 2004, FNS Western Regional of- fice released FNS Administrative Notice (AN) 04-24 regarding Fraud Policy: 7 CFR 273.16. This AN addresses the issue of some states and counties within the states asking food stamp recipients to agree to a waiver of a Administrative Disqualification Hearing (ADH) when the agency has not even de- In This Issue IN BRIEF Expedited Food Stamp Statistical Analysis April 15th Budget Hearings veloped the sufficient basis for setting a ADH for the alleged food stamp overissuance. The AN states: The State must not offer an ADH waiver if it intends to refer the case to prosecu- tion and not suggest prosecution if the waiver is not signed. This is standard practice in many counties of California. The AN further states: If an ADH waiver is of- fered, it should be because the State agency has already determined that an administrative hearing is appropriate in this… and not prosec- tion. \ufffd High CAPI Denial Rates – In the January of 2004 CAPI application report known as CA 1037 reveal that California had 902 applications for CAPI and 600 denials or withdrawals. This is a 66% denial rate. The report does not show how many cases where withdrawn and how many were denied. One of the leading county’s for CAPI denials is Los Angeles County at 76%. They had 379 ap- plications and denied 289 of those applications. San Mateo County had an 81% denial rate. Statewide there are only 5,325 cases as of January 2004. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-9- April 27, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS REGULATIONS TO BE HEARD April 21, 2004- Job Retention Services for Former CalWORKs Recipients ORD# 1003- 24 May 19, 2004 – Transitional Food Stamps Interview Exemptions ORD# 1003-23 For more information go to: http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/PublicHear_675.htm EXPEDITED FOOD STAMPS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In this bulletin we have been complaining about the lack of reports on expedited food stamps. We had a surprise this week- the DSS webpage has actually posted Food Stamp Expedited Service (FS\/ES) data for 2003. The last time we had data was for 2002. The delay was that of Los Angeles County. There are still other counties who continue to refuse to report, Marin and San Benito Counties. We hope that someday Marin and San benito County will start meeting their reporting re- sponsibilities as they demand Food Stamp recipients to meet their own quarterly report- ing responsibilities. During the months of October through Decem- ber 2003, 51% of food stamp applicants were considered for Expedited Service. Los Angeles County considered 76% of the applicants for expedited food stamps. 60% of the applicants considered for ES were denied. Of the 40% who were granted ES, 39% of them received their benefits beyond the three days required by law. Other counties who refused to issue timely ES to food stamp recipients were El Dorado County at 46%; Humboldt at 47%; Santa Cruz at 46% and Tehema at 59%. The report reveals no demands by DSS for these counties to shape up and start obeying the law. In fact, statewide, 24% of the ES households received their ES benefits pass the legal three days timeline. One of the counties that denied the most FS\/ ES was Santa Clara County at 87%. This is the highest denial rate in California. Santa Clara County also was 23% late in giving ES benefits to the very few households who were able to clear the Santa Clara County Berlin Wall between the FS applicants in dire need of food and the benefits to which they are le- gally entitled to. Right behind Santa Clara County was San Diego County at 76% denial rate. San Diego County was late with 4% of the cases eligible for ES, which is a statistically significant num- ber for such a large county. ADVOCACY NOTE: If your county is breaking the law, you should write a letter to the county welfare director requesting that they explain the reasons for breaking the law and what steps they are taking to remedy the situ- ation. You should mail or e-mail a copy of the letter to CCWRO so we can keep track of what other legal services programs are doing to assure that the low-income household who are en- titled to expedited food stamps receive such benefits within the timeframes required by law. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-9- April 27, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Countie Appl. Requsted % ES % Issued Issued % of Filed ES Seeking Entit. In- 3 In More Cases ES Eligible Days Than Issued for ES 3 days More than 3 days Statewide 266400 134710 50.57% 59067 43.85% 44,656 14,411 24.40% Alameda 5340 2425 45.41% 1756 72.41% 1,552 204 11.62% Alpine 1.5 6 400.00% 2 33.33% 2 0 0.00% Amador 225 77 34.22% 63 81.82% 61 2 3.17% Butte 2319 733 31.61% 556 75.85% 496 60 10.79% Calaveras 370.5 126 34.01% 116 92.06% 100 16 13.79% Colusa 195 37 18.97% 29 78.38% 27 2 6.90% Contra Co 4887 1655 33.87% 500 30.21% 485 15 3.00% Del Norte 448.5 156 34.78% 128 82.05% 125 3 2.34% El Dorado 1039.5 140 13.47% 93 66.43% 50 43 46.24% Fresno 10092 2947 29.20% 2241 76.04% 1,864 377 16.82% Glenn 342 87 25.44% 73 83.91% 73 0 0.00% Humboldt 1693.5 469 27.69% 391 83.37% 208 183 46.80% Imperial 1623 18 1.11% 8 44.44% 8 0 0.00% Inyo 196.5 62 31.55% 51 82.26% 50 1 1.96% Kern 8293.5 4468 53.87% 1448 32.41% 1,404 44 3.04% Kings 1750.5 661 37.76% 341 51.59% 292 49 14.37% Lake 691.5 273 39.48% 209 76.56% 199 10 4.78% Lassen 298.5 156 52.26% 64 41.03% 53 11 17.19% L.A 93238.5 71314 76.49% 28735 40.29% 17,445 11,290 39.29% Madera 831 263 31.65% 205 77.95% 198 7 3.41% Marin 0 0 0 Mariposa 132 28 21.21% 26 92.86% 19 7 26.92% Mendocino 969 245 25.28% 230 93.88% 218 12 5.22% Merced 583.5 0.00% 0 0 Modoc 60 1 1.67% 1 100.00% 1 0 0.00% Mono 81 4 4.94% 3 75.00% 3 0 0.00% Monterey 3918 1160 29.61% 472 40.69% 449 23 4.87% Napa 598.5 375 62.66% 102 27.20% 92 10 9.80% Nevada 399 98 24.56% 66 67.35% 59 7 10.61% Orange 10084.5 660 6.54% 539 81.67% 538 1 0.19% Placer 1407 307 21.82% 175 57.00% 164 11 6.29% Plumas 175.5 39 22.22% 27 69.23% 27 0 0.00% Riverside 10204.5 4828 47.31% 1543 31.96% 1,393 150 9.72% Sacramento 16647 3726 22.38% 1141 30.62% 1,027 114 9.99% San Benito 0 0 0 San Bern. 20697 8740 42.23% 7136 81.65% 6,530 606 8.49% San Diego 10858.5 8136 74.93% 1935 23.78% 1,859 76 3.93% San Fran. 7843.5 3855 49.15% 1884 48.87% 1,879 5 0.27% San Joaq. 5107.5 200 3.92% 174 87.00% 140 34 19.54% San Luis 1465.5 591 40.33% 224 37.90% 215 9 4.02% San Mateo 0 532 0 521 97.93% 459 62 11.90% Santa Barb. 3151.5 1399 44.39% 308 22.02% 304 4 1.30% Santa Clara 8964 4949 55.21% 636 12.85% 490 146 22.96% Santa Cruz 2436 1338 54.93% 446 33.33% 241 205 45.96% Shasta 1813.5 438 24.15% 325 74.20% 287 38 11.69% Sierra 22.5 7 31.11% 7 100.00% 7 0 0.00% Siskiyou 556.5 180 32.35% 127 70.56% 116 11 8.66% Solano 2922 596 20.40% 589 98.83% 520 69 11.71% Sonoma 2065.5 1613 78.09% 927 57.47% 888 39 4.21% Stanislaus 3945 400 10.14% 159 39.75% 121 38 23.90% Sutter 777 227 29.21% 125 55.07% 117 8 6.40% Tehama 718.5 379 52.75% 166 43.80% 68 98 59.04% Trinity 156 62 39.74% 46 74.19% 40 6 13.04% Tulare 7108.5 727 10.23% 453 62.31% 432 21 4.64% Tuolumne 474 388 81.86% 122 31.44% 116 6 4.92% Ventura 4078.5 1321 32.39% 814 61.62% 555 259 31.82% Yolo 1050 353 33.62% 336 95.18% 329 7 2.08% Yuba 1053 735 69.80% 273 37.14% 261 12 4.40% Source: California State Department of Social Services CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-9- April 27, 2004 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 APRIL 15, 2004 BUDGET HEARINGS On April 15, 2004, the Senate Budget and Fis- cal Review Subcommittee #3 Health, Human Services, Labor and Veterans Affairs held a hearing on CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Immigrant Assistance Programs. The Subcommittee Chair Senator Wes Chesbro and Senator Gill Cedillo of Los An- geles were present at the hearing. A 30 page analysis of the various budget cuts proposed by Arnold Schwarzanegger was available at the hearing written by committee consultant Ana Matosantos. Because of the lack of a full committee mem- bership attendance, this was more of an in- formational hearing. Chairman Chesbro an- nounced that the voting will take place on or about May 13, 2004. The budget analysis revealed that since the enactment of the CalWORKs program ben- efits to the poor have been taking continuous hits while administration and services money for the bureaucrats has been going up and up. The Graph on the following page reveals the TANF spending trend during the past 5 years. While California spends $907,913,597 less on Payments to Families, it spends $64,167,692 on CalWORKs Administration, $315,81,052 for welfare to work services and $203,878,412 for child care. Clearly the spending trends show that the Governor and the Legislature have found that spending money for the bureaucracy is more important than spending money on meeting the basic survival needs of the babies, chil- dren and families living on a fixed income of what persons similarly situated received in 1989. The Governor proposes reduction of benefits and denial of the 1971 Ronald Reagan auto- matic cost-of-living adjustments. There was eloquent and comprehensive tes- timony from welfare moms who would be ef- fected by the Schwarzanegger draconian ben- efits reductions. De-linking CalWORKs COLA from Vehicle License Fee. The Governor had proposes specific language, drafted by Legislative Coun- sel, that would de-link the CalWORKs COLA to the Vehicle Tax. At the hearing, the Administration withdrew this proposed legislation because the linking of the CalWORKs COLA to the tax reduction was only a year statute. A court order in Guillen v. Schwarzenegger has ordered the State to is- sue the October 2003 COLA. So far, Schwarzenegger has refused to obey the court order. The Schwarzenegger Administration ap- pears to be above the law. TANF Transfers to non-CalWORKs Pro- grams – TANF money for poor families living on a fixed income of the level set for families living in 1989 have been used to balance the California budget since the enactment of the CalWORKs program in 1998-1999. Over the past five years, over $3.3 billion of TANF money has been used for non-CalWORKs transfers . These include transferring money to Title XX and other transfers. The Senate Subcommittee report reveals that: Since 1998-1999, TANF\/MOE funding for non-CalWORKs program has increased 50% to $1.1 billion. CalWORKs program funding has decreased by 757.5 million in the same period. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-9- April 27, 2004 – Page 5 This means that California has been taking money out of the mouths of poor families with needy babies and children and used to fund non-CalWORKs programs – or what is more commonly known as the bureaucracy. Chairperson Chesbro of the Sub. #3 ex- pressed his displeasure with taking money from the CalWORKs program and using it for non-CalWORKs programs. TRANSITIONAL FOOD STAMP PROGRAM – At the hearing, the Department of Finance in- formed the subcommittee that the Administra- tion is dropping its proposals to repeal the Transitional Food Stamp program. Work Participation Reforms. The Schwangenegger Administration has pro- posed a host of ill-conceived changes to the Welfare to Work program. All of the testimony was adverse to the proposals. In our last bulletin, we described some of the proposals that the Schwangenegger Admin- istration is proposing. There was a lot of dis- cussion about the mandatory job search proposal. Under this proposal all applicants will have to do job search before they can get cash aid. The County Welfare Directors As- sociation (CWDA) and County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) opposed this proposal and others. CCWRO testimony stated that over 30-40 percent of the Cal- WORKs applications are denied. It is foolish to spend child care, transportation and job club money for applicants who will have been de- nied aid anyhow. Universal Participation – The crux of the Schwangenegger Administration proposals are to comply with the upcoming TANF reau- thorization by the federal government. Legis- lative representative of Western Center on Law and Poverty Michael Herald testified con- vincingly that making wholesale changes in the program without knowing what the federal legislation would look like is premature and unwise. Even if the TANF reauthorization is passed this year, which is very unlikely given the fact that the TANF bill is stuck on the Sen- ate floor, the State could still make changes in the law next to comply with federal law. CWDA and CSAC urges the Legislature to leave the program alone, which in essence means not to enact the Schwangenegger Ad- ministration proposals. A copy of the proposed trailer bill was avail- able to the attendants of the hearing. CCWRO will provide a copy of this bill to its readers upon request. The next budget hearing will be on May 5, 2004, at 1:30 PM in room 444. This will be the Assembly Budget Committee Sub. #1 chaired by Assemblyman Merv Dymally of Los Ange- les County. MONEY TRANSFERRED TO NON-CALWORKS PROGRAMS 98-99 $284,965,000 99-00 $531,654,000 00-01 $606,149,000 01-02 $497,376,000 02-03 $636,521,000 03-04 $747,993,000 04-05 $832,627,000* *The Schwarzegenner Administration raid on TANF. SOURCE: Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-10.pdf

953 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-10- May 13, 2004 – Page 1 \ufffd New Deputy Director for the DSS Wel- fare Division being considered – Bruce Wagstaff has been the Deputy Director for the Welfare Division for the past two centu- ries, a long time. He has now been appointed Deputy Director for Children’s Programs and is also the Deputy Director for Welfare Pro- grams. Char Lee Metsker has been acting for him. Our sources tell us that she may be appointed Deputy Director for the Welfare Division of DSS. \ufffd CWDA CalWORKS Committee Recom- mend incentives to secure CalWORKs participation – The California Welfare Direc- tors Association (CWDA) CalWORK WtW Reform Committee has analyzed the Governor’s proposal to add a 25% sanction to the WtW penalties and has recommended that in lieu of increased sanctions, explore new incentives to encourage participation. CCWRO agrees. Rather than relying on negative reinforcements, the system should find positive incentives for participation, such as the returning the money the family lost while being sanctioned. The committee did oppose the Applicant Job Search proposal; the 25% reduction of MAP for nonworking parents who have been on aid for 60 months and requiring nonexempt adults to partici- pate in 20 hours in direct work activity per week. In This Issue IN BRIEF Welfare to Work News Food Stamp News 2004-2005 State Budget Update \ufffd DSS’s welfare to work division takes a staff hit- This division was expected to lose 19 employees but actually lost 40. It appears that CalWORKs bureaucrats are being negatively affected just as welfare recipient grant levels have been negatively affected. \ufffd Open Juvenile Courts – In California, ju- venile court proceedings have always been closed to the public and the press. Dr. David Sanders, Director of Los Angeles County Chil- dren and Family Services Department ad- dressed the CWDA Board of Directors on March 12, 2004 regarding his views on open juve- nile court proceedings. Dr. Sanders comes from Minnesota were the sun shines brightly on ju- venile courts involving child protective services (CPS) cases. He was the county welfare de- partment director in Hennepin County for 10 years. Dr. Sanders arguments for opening the juve- nile courts were: (1) more county accountabil- ity; (2) openness may lead to more resources and (3) many of the more sensationalized cases were already open because they were also criminal cases, not just dependence cases. Media would also get a more balanced picture of the cases it was reporting on. (cont’d on pg 2) IN BRIEF CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-10- May 13, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 One of the questions posed to Mr. Sanders was how opening the court affects the com- munity in small counties. Dr. Sanders replied that most Minnesota counties are small and were not affected by the opening of the county. \ufffd Child Care NOA required when the pay- ment regional market rates (RMR) change – On 9\/8\/03 San Mateo County inquired; Do we have to issue a notice to clients two weeks in advance to inform them of the changes to the RMR? On 10\/29\/03 DSS responded; MPP 47-420.3 specifies that counties must notify clients whenever there is an approval, denial, change or discontinuance in the amount of the child care subsidy. Since client’s child care payments will likely be affected as a result of the new RMR ceilings and change in the a payment rules, counties must provide timely notice to these individuals. Counties must issue notices of action to these clients at least ten days before the change in the child care benefit occurs. A copy of the NA Back 9 must accompany the notice. \ufffd San Juaquin County sits on 3,600 cases of possible overpayments – In a letter dated March 22, 2004, DSS informed San Juaquin County that they have 3,600 cases of poten- tial overpayments that have not been ad- dressed by the county. This means every month the overpayments continue to add up because the county is refusing to address the overpayment information at their fingertips. However, if the overpayment exceeds $400 or more, the county can prosecute the family for alleged welfare fraud . San Juaquin County has also failed to submit the state re- quired DPA 482 reports – covering up their fail- ure to do their job which is to process the over- payment reports according the law. There are certain reports, such as the Monthly Benefi- ciary Earnings Exchange Report (BEER) and annual Franchise Tax Board (FTB) discrep- ancy matches, that San Juaquin County is just not processing, although the San Juaquin wel- fare staff is well compensated for failing to do their job. \ufffd CAPI Regs Outdated – DSS refuses to update regulations – On 3\/11\/04 DSS was notified that state regulations of the CAPI pro- gram contain diagnose definitions that are in- consistent with the SSI POMS, which is the SSI regulations published by SSA. On the same day, DSS responded that be- cause the diagnoses regulations are …used so infrequently in CAPI, it wasn’t worth the effort to change out regs just for that. So, go ahead and use the criteria set forth in POMS. Likewise, use POMS for the Substantial Gain- ful Activity (SGA) levels since the CAPI regs have an outdated definition for SGA, which now goes up every year. Welfare to Work News On 3\/24\/04, Kern County welfare department asked DSS if the county can demand a doctor statement from a CalWORKs client getting SSI, SDI, and workers comp. DSS responded that MPP 42-712.31 … allows for the county to establish a range of documents that it will accept for verification of an exemp- tion. NEW LAWSUIT COMING CCWRO will soon be filing a lawsuit for a person whose 18 month clock was started without hav- ing a WtW assessment. This is happening in many counties. If you have a client similarly situated, please let us know. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-10- May13, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Comment: Why would one who is getting disability benefits determined by the state and federal government to be totally dis- abled have to get another piece paper so the county can fatten up their files. WtW Inter-County Transfer ACl Coming Soon DSS is in the process of clearing an ACL re- garding WtW intercounty transfers. A draft of this ACL was shared with the counties in Janu- ary and February. Counties have submitted their comments and DSS has made changes to the ACL based upon the comments submitted by county staff. The people effected by this ACL, the recipient community, were not part of this secret rulemaking process established by DSS and the counties. The second paragraph of the ACL states that MPP 40-187 …requires that a county approve or deny cash assistance for an individual who has transferred into the county, within 30 days from the date that it is notified of the transfer by the individual’s previous county. Within this 30-day time period, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) eeeeencncncncncououououourrrrraaaaagegegegegesssss coun- ties to make every effort to help the individual make a smooth and expeditious transition into the WtW program in his or her new county of residence. (Our emphasis added) The first sentence states that 40-187 requires a transfer, but the second sentence encourages counties to do what is required. So which is it? Required or not required? It appears that CDSS does not want to use it’s authority to tell counties to do their job- trans- fer the case within 30 days. The ACL does not establish an objective pro- cess to assure that the transferred recipient con- tinues to participate in his or her WtW activ- ity. FOOD STAMP NEWS On January 21, 2004, DSS informed the Direc- tor of Alameda County Social Services Resource Agency Director Chet Hewitt with the follow- ing recommendations: 1. The County should establish county-wide uniform written operational procedures for all aspects of intake, client contact unit and ben- efit center eligibility functions; to promote con- sistence and eliminate duplication. This recommendation can be interpreted to read that DSS found that Alameda County did not have county-wide operational procedures. This resulted in inconsistent treatment of applicants and recipients and duplication of activities that are wasting limited county resources. 2. The county should develop specific policies to be used by all districts and should ensure that written policies are known by all. This recommendation reveals that the county does not have county-wide policies. Moreover, it appears that workers may not know what the policies are. DSS requested that Alameda County provide DSS with a Program Improvement Response (PIR) plan no later than 2\/20\/04. Alameda County has failed to submit this PIR as of 4\/20\/04. We assume this because this docu- ment was included in our Public Records Act Request for January, February and March of 2004. If Alameda County had submitted one, then we would have had it, unless it is being unlawfully withheld from us. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-10- May 13, 2004 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Over the past five years, since the implementa- tion of the CalWORKs Program, welfare fami- lies have seen their benefits reduced by 24%. How was the 24% taken from the mouths of poor families in CalWORKs spent? It was used to provide a 12.4% increase in funding for the county welfare bureaucracy; 75% for county wel- fare service bureaucracy and 57% for child care. Meanwhile, TANF money, has become a Christ- mas tree for programs that have nothing to do with feeding, housing and clothing poor fami- lies. During the past 6 years, about 6 billion TANF dollars have been used for non-TANF programs. There is some good news. On May 5, 2004 the Assembly Budget Committee voted to deny TANF funds to fund ju- venile detention centers. This vote was based on the motion of State As- semblyman John Laird,,,,, 27th Assembly District representing Santa Clara, Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. More details of the May Revise will be coming in our next bulletin. During the past 6 years, about $6 billionTANFdollars have been used for non-TANF programs. J J J J JO H N L A I R DO H N L A I R DO H N L A I R DO H N L A I R DO H N L A I R D 2004-2005 State Budget May Revise Released On May 13, 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger released the May Revision of his ’04-’05 State budget. The major changes in the budget include the following: 1. The May revised budget would take 20 mil- lion dollars from the TANF Program and give it to the Department of Health Services to fund what is called Community Challenge Grants in 2004-2005 . These grants would promote re- sponsible parenting and reduce teenage preg- nancies. In 2004, we wonder how CalWORKs parents can successfully provide for their chil- dren on 1989 fixed income levels. This is another raid on impoverished families by Governor Schwarzenegger to fund his pet projects. 2. The proposed elimination of IHSS residual care has been rescinded. DSS would be pursu- ing a waiver re- quest to obtain federal dollars for IHSs residual care. 3. The Adminis- tration also drops its demand to repeal AB 231, which provided transitional food stamps. 4. The May revise rescinded the proposal to pro- vide CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKs for immi- grants in the form of block grants. This pro- posal was opposed by advocates and counties alike. The governor’s 2004-2005 State budget contin- ues to propose the mutilation of CalWORKs benefits by reducing benefits by 10% with no COLA for 2004-2005. ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-11.pdf

1061 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-11- May 26, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd The California County Welfare Direc- tors Association (CWDA) Fiscal Commit- tee is concerned that while the Schwarzenegger budget proposes to force all CalWORKs applicants to conduct job search before getting CalWORKs benefits, there is no additional child care and trans- portation money in the budget that this new mandated activity would require. The gov- ernor has now revised his proposal to give the counties the option to force applicants to do job search before they can get any public assistance benefits. \ufffdTulare County asked DSS on 1\/\/12\/04 whether or not the county could provide child care to WtW participants at the WtW activity site. DSS response on 1\/23\/04 was that the county could do this, but it could not interfere with the participants’ right to choose licensed or license-exempt providers as provided in MPP 47-301.2. A Child Care Program Policy Interpretation issued on 1\/22\/04 by Alana Lee stated that child care is to be paid for a child that is living with the participant and is needed for the participant to participate in a WtW activity, even if the minor child is not a member of the assistance unit. See MPP\u00a3 47-201.122 and 47-201.123. \ufffdOn 2\/17\/04, San Diego County asked if the county could reject an expired California driver license (CDL) to verify the age of the provider. On 2\/18\/04 Margo Chiu of DSS responded that; Since the expiration of the CDL does not change the age of the person In This Issue IN BRIEF State Budget Update Child Welfare Services in California and is needed for initial verification of age only, there is no requirements to update the CDL when it expires. \ufffd On 1\/12\/04, El Dorado Department of Social Services asked whether a client whose 60 months has expired is still be eligible for Stage Two child care. A response approved by K. R. on 3\/2\/04 states that; Clients are eligible for up to 24 consecutive months of CalWORKs child care from the moment they become former recipients [MPP 47-230.14; 5 CCR Section18408(b)], so long as they are working or participating in an acceptable Welfare-to- Work activity and remains income-eligible. This client is eligible for Stage One if services are not available in Stage Two. STATE BUDGET UPDATE The State Legislature has wrapped up the budget subcommittee hearings for the 04-05 state budget. It has been a rocky road, and the final outcome is still unclear. The Schwarzenegger January 2004 proposed budget proposed to: \ufffd Deny COLA for CalWORKs recipients for 03-04 and 04-05, CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-11- May 26, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 \ufffd Reduce by 5%, CalWORKs benefits which are at the same level that similarly situated families received in 1989; \ufffd Requires all applicants to participate in job search while applications for aid are pending. \ufffd Requires all aided adults not meeting work requirements to complete and sign a welfare- to-work plan within 60 days of the receipt of aid. \ufffd Requires all nonexempt recipients to engage in 20 hours per week of more narrowly defined core work activities within 60 days of entering program. \ufffd Reduces grant for cases that have been in sanction status for more than one month by an additional 25 percent. \ufffd Reduces grant for safety-net cases with a nonworking adult by an additional 25% if the parent is not working after 30 days of going off aid because of the 60 month limit. \ufffd The budget proposed to set up a county block grant for Healthy Families Program (HFP) for immigrants, Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) for legal noncitizens, and the California Food Assistance Program ([CFAP] state-only Food Stamps for immigrants). The budget then combined the funding for these programs and proposed a 5% reduction in funding. The enrollment of each program would be capped in the first part of calendar year of 2004. This means that if the county had 100 persons on CAPI during the first part of calendar year 2004, then a new applicant would have to wait until the caseload was reduced to 99 before he or she could get her CAPI benefits. \ufffd The budget also proposed major reductions in IHSS services for the needy aged, blind and disabled of California. During the budget hearings the Administration revealed that they will scale down the cutting of IHSS services and would delete their proposal to repeal the Transitional Food Stamp Program. THE MAY REVISE – In May, the Governor released his revised budget based upon new revenue assumptions – this is known as the May Revise . A copy of the May revise for the Department of Social Services can be downloaded at http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ cdssweb\/LocalAssis_1705.htm. The May revise also deleted the proposal for block grants to immigrants in addition to deleting transitional food stamps and scaling back the IHSS cuts. DEMOCRATS RESPOND- The State Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services Chaired by Senator Chesbro and Assembly Budget Committee’s subcommittee on Health and Human Services chaired by Merv Dymally approved a budget that rejected each and every proposal submitted by the Governor. WHAT’S NEXT – The Subcommittee reports have to go to the full committee for approval. Then it has to pass each floor. There is also the wheeling and dealing of the Big Five, which includes the Governor, the President Pro Tem, the Senate minority leader, the Speaker and the Assembly minority leader. They will get together like they have been doing for years and come up with a final budget. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-16- May 26, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Senator Chesbro Assemblyman Dymally California- Statewide December 2003 Cases Open on the Last Day of the Month 91,755 Federal AFDC-FC 49,287 State AFDC-FC 15,315 Non AFDC-FC 27,153 CCWRO COMMENT: A high percentage of the caseload are not even eligible for federal financial participation. A lot of the money comes out of the TANF program which should be used to cover poor families with children and not group homes getting over $3,000 a month for each kid. AGENCY RESPONSIBLE (LENGTH OF STAY IN MONTHS) County Child Wel. Dept. 84,177 Average Length of Stay (23.2 Months) County Probation Dept. 6,698 Average Length of Stay (10.5 Months) Other Departments 880 Average Length of Stay (20.0 Months) GENDER Male 47,666 Female 44,073 Unknown. 16 ETHNICITY Black 29,061 Hispanic 31,291 White 27,264 American Indian 1,407 Asian or Pacific Islander 2,732 CCWRO COMMENT: It is no secret that the child welfare program has targeted minorities since they are the least capable of fighting the closed juvenile court system. Minorities being held in foster care represent 66% of the Child Welfare Services in California This month we look at the child welfare system in California. The numbers are retrieved from the Department of Social Services webpage called CWS\/CMS2 – Child Welfare Services\/ Case Management System – Characteristics of Children in Out-of-Home Care This monthly report provides information on children in out-of-home care statewide and for each county. It shows the characteristics of the children, including age, gender, ethnicity, type of placement home, funding source, agency responsible, number of cases that were terminated and reason for termination. The data for the report are drawn from an extract that is created on the last day of each month from the Child Welfare Services\/Case Management System (CWS\/CMS). This web page also has a county-by-county data for cases in your county. For more information go to: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/ Children`s_405.htm Statistic of the Week CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-11- May 25, 2004 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 caseload, while whites are only 30%. 60% of California’s population is white. Meanwhile, 6.7% of California’s population is black while 34% of the children in foster care are black. It should also be noted that 75% of the children in the foster care system are there because their parents are poor – which in social worker language, means neglect . AGES Under 1 year old 4,022 1-5 years old 19,866 6-10 years old 20,559 11-14 years old 22,624 15-18 years old 23,523 19 years old 622 Unknown\/Missing 539 (The average age is 9.9 years old) CCWRO COMMENT: Based on these statistics, it appears that 539 children in the system are missing. We have serious concerns that allows 539 children to go missing, 66% of which are minorities. PLACEMENT TYPES Relative Home 31,236 Foster Family Agency 22,515 Foster Family Home 13,846 Group Home. 13,965 Guardian Home 7,777 Unspecified Home 1,339 Other Homes. 1,077 CCWRO COMMENT: 66% of the children are not placed with relatives. 25% are placed in what is called foster family agencies. These agencies get about $1,500 a month for each child, then they find a foster care parent who gets $500 a month and actually takes care of the child, while they put $1,000 a month in their pockets. Then there are 1,339 children living in what is called unspecified homes . We are unsure as to what this means. Are these children whose foster care parents receive money while they live in other homes or unspecified homes ? Maybe the foster family agency or group homes receive money for the children living in other homes or unspecified homes . Is anyone concerned about this? TERMINATIONS Cases Term. During the Month 2,070 Reunited with Parents 1,352 Adopted. 113 Other Terminations (Aged Out) 603 Unknown\/Missing. 2 CCWRO COMMENT: Only 5% of the children freed from foster care were adopted – and majority of those adopted must have been the kids under 5 years old. Of the children who were terminated, two were classified as unknown\/missing . The State has no idea where 539 children are – only 2 children are not getting foster care payments. The remaining 537 kids are still getting money while no one knows where they are. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Con- sultation, Informational Services, and Re- search Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. Gen- eral Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-13.pdf

1438 downloads

” ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-13.pdf

1021 downloads

” ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-14.pdf

877 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-14- June 30, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffdFood Stamp Program Name Change Proposed- In the June 22, 2004 Federal Register, page 34638, the United States Department of Agriculture pro- poses to change the name of the Food Stamp program. The Food Stamp Program name was originally created in 1939 when the benefits were issued in orange and blue stamps. In 1961 there was a pilot program and in 1964 a universal food assistance pro- gram was created and the name Food Stamp was retained. Now the coupons have been replaced with Electronic Benefit Transfer Cards (EBT). The FSP program is a eco- nomic stimulant for the local economy. Ev- ery $5 issued in Food Stamps benefits to poor households generates $9.20 in local and state economic activity. FNS is inter- ested in the views of advocates and others about changing the name of the Food Stamp program nationwide. For more information go to:www.access.gpo.gov\/su_docs\/fedreg\/ a040622c.html \ufffd Welf. & Inst. Code11450(f)(2(E)(iv)states: The county welfare department shall report to the department through a statewide home- less assistance payment indicator system, necessary data, as requested by the depart- ment, regarding all recipients of aid under this paragraph. This information has not been reported by DSS because the coun- ties have been violating this particular stat- ute since June of 2002 by not reporting. \ufffd On 2\/17\/04 Trinity County asked DSS if the county could accept a faxed copy of a SAWS 1 application for cash aid. The county proposed answer was, No, there is nothing in the regulations that allows us to accept an application for cash either by mail, or electronically. In This Issue DSS did not adopt the county’s proposed an- swer. DSS’s response is as follows: STATE POLICY RESPONSE: Yes you can. According to California W&IC 10851(f) it can be duplicated, copied, or reproduced, as long as it does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original. We still must have them sign under penalty of perjury if they have not; for a re-applying applicant. Alameda County Delays GA Cuts In our previous bulletin, we reported that Alameda County was proposing to cut 1,452 GA recipients from the rolls. Patricia E. Wall, Executive Director of the Homeless Action Cen- ter reports that on June 22, 2004, by a unani- mous vote of the Alameda County board of su- pervisors and on the recommendation of the social services agency, GA funding was restored in the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The social services agency had proposed to cut these funds and cut off 1452 people from Gen- eral Assistance (GA). Along with restoring the funds for these recipients, a GA task force will be established comprised of social services-rep- resentatives, advocates, and health care ser- vices agency representatives to ensure im- proved program efficiency in the areas of get- ting disabled people on SSI and in making sure that GA employment services are effective. IIIIIn Briefn Briefn Briefn Briefn Brief Alameda County Delays GA CutsAlameda County Delays GA CutsAlameda County Delays GA CutsAlameda County Delays GA CutsAlameda County Delays GA Cuts VVVVVictictictictictororororory on Budget Py on Budget Py on Budget Py on Budget Py on Budget Prrrrrocococococess ess ess ess ess VVVVVototototote in He in He in He in He in Houseouseouseouseouse TTTTTANF ExtANF ExtANF ExtANF ExtANF Extended for ended for ended for ended for ended for ThrThrThrThrThree Mee Mee Mee Mee Monthsonthsonthsonthsonths DSS DSS DSS DSS DSS AAAAAdvises Cdvises Cdvises Cdvises Cdvises County tounty tounty tounty tounty to Miscalculato Miscalculato Miscalculato Miscalculato Miscalculate Se Se Se Se Self-elf-elf-elf-elf- Employment IEmployment IEmployment IEmployment IEmployment Incncncncncomeomeomeomeome DSS CDSS CDSS CDSS CDSS County ounty ounty ounty ounty TTTTTelelelelells ls ls ls ls AlAlAlAlAlien Nien Nien Nien Nien Not Elot Elot Elot Elot Eligiigiigiigiigibbbbble for Rle for Rle for Rle for Rle for RCACACACACA IIIIIn Errn Errn Errn Errn Errororororor \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-14- June 30, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Los Angeles Welfare Advocates to Meet The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles County has monthly meetings. The meetings are always on the 2nd Wednesday of every month, at the same time and place, unless folks are notified otherwise. Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Time: 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. Place: Legal Aid Foundation, West Office, 1102 Crenshaw Blvd, L.A. 90019 Community Room, near South parking lot. Agenda 1. Advising clients on state hearings: when and how to request one, how to prepare. 2. Roundtable. 3. Agenda ideas for September (09\/08\/04). NOTE: THERE WILL BE NO AUGUST MEETING. Marjorie Shelvy (213) 640-3930 LAFLA; email: [email protected] or Yolanda Arias (213) 640-3923 LAFLA; email: [email protected] Fax: (213) 640-3911 (same for both). VICTORY ON BUDGET PROCESS VOTE IN HOUSE Children’s Defense Fund reports that in a se- ries of votes on June 24, 2004, the House of Representatives rejected budget process pro- posals that would have been devastating for children’s programs for many years to come and would have eased the way for more tax breaks for wealthy individuals and corpora- tions. On final passage, – the House rejected by a vote 146 to 268 the Spending Control Act (HR 4663) that set tight spending restric- tions on programs that must be appropriated each year, such as education, housing, some child welfare and child care programs, Head Start, and many other programs. TANF EXTENDED FOR THREE MONTHS On Tuesday, June 22, 2004, both the House and Senate agreed to pass an extension of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Fami- lies) until September. There were no policy changes on the bill. By September 30, 2004, a TANF reauthorization bill must pass or Con- gress must again pass another extension. Continue to ask your members of Congress to support a strong TANF bill including provi- sions that you think are critical in your state. We will keep you updated. DSS Advises County to Miscalculate Self- Employment Income – On 3\/12\/04, a Sacramento County welfare fraud investigator submitted a policy interpre- tation (PI) to DSS regarding earned income. He asked DSS If a client does not report his self-employment income, does he get 40% disregard when calculating the overpayment. The county’s proposed answer was that the overpayment should be calculated without any C o n t a c t s CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-14- June 30, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 deductions. The investigator asserted, If we make the decision to automatically give the recipient a 40% self-employment credit then reward them with a $225 disregard for unre- ported income and then 50% for unreported earned income there is no penalty for fading (sic) us or violating regulations. In fact there is no fraud. DSS responded by stating, Self-employed persons have the choice of either choosing to have the county take 60% of the earned income (after business expenses,) which gives recipients a 40% disregard, or verify the actual expenses MPP 113.212 and MPP 63- 503.41. The Food Stamps regulations give a detailed breakdown of treatment of self-em- ployment income. There are no other disre- gards allowed such as $225, then 50%. DSS is WRONG. 44-113.213 provides: .213 Combine the to- tal earning for the family determined in Sec- tion 44-11311 with any net self-employment income determined in Section 44-113.212; .215. Apply any remainder of the $225 disre- gard to any earned income for the family de- termined in Section -44-113.213; .216 Apply the 50% disregard to any remain- ing earned income for the family. The remainder would be countable income. The welfare fraud investigator is trying to in- crease the overpayment in violation of the state law. DSS Tells County Alien Not Eligible for RCA In Error On January 29, 2004 Humboldt County asked DSS whether a Mongolian citizen granted asy- lum is eligible for RCA. Two months later, DSS informed Humboldt County that; In regards to the Mongolian fam- ily applying for benefits after being granted asylum, it appears that they may have passed their deadline for Refugee Cash Assistance. The guide states that asylees are eligible for RCA for 8 months from the date of entry not the date that asylum is granted…. This policy interpretation is in direct conflict with ACL 00-46 and ACL 00-64, which pro- vide as follows: July 12, 2000 ALL-COUNTY LETTER NO. 00-46 TO: ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS SUBJECT: CHANGE OF DATE ASYLEES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REFUGEE ASSISTANCE Effective June 15, 2000, individuals who are granted asylum are now eligible for refugee assistance and services beginning on the date that they are granted asylum. Prior to this announcement, eligibility started with the month the asylee first arrived in the United States. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-14 – June 30, 2004 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 44 Exemption Based on Disability .441 An individual who has a disability is exempt from welfare-to-work participation when the following conditions exist: (a) The disability is expected to last at least 30 calendar days; and (b) The disability significantly impairs the individual’s ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare- to-work activities. .442 To qualify for this exemption, the individual shall do all of the following: (a) Provide verification from a doctor as defined in Section 42-701.2(d)(2) that includes the disability, the expected duration of the disability, and the extent to which the disability impairs employment and\/or participation in the welfare-to-work activities; and (b) Actively seek appropriate medical treatment, as verified by a doctor as defined in Section 42-701.2(d)(2). .443 The exemption may be reviewed at the time the condition is expected to end, or sooner if there is reason to believe that there has been a change in the condition. \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffdCOUNT TWO: County is demanding that Mr. V.O. use the welfare form to verify disability. First of all doctors often charge for the completion of the forms. Secondly, the regulations provide that applicants\/recipients are the primary source of verification (see 40- 157.2) and that county forms should not be used because they expose the individual’s right to confidentiality under MPP Section 19.001 that states: 19-001 In accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC) Section 10850 and 45 CFR Section 205.50(a), these regulations were created to protect the applicants and recipients against identif ication, exploitation or embarrassment that could result from the release of information identifying them as having applied for or having received public assistance. MPP 19-007.1 governs where the county or state forms are used to get verification. The regulations provide that if the applicant or recipient is not able to obtain the requested verification and needs assistance from the county to obtain the information needed to establish eligibility, then the applicant or On June 7, 2004, Mr. V.O. a Sacramento County resident, received a notice of action (NOA) dated June 4, 2004, stating that his …Medi-Cal only benefits will be discontinued effective April 30, 2004 because you will begin receiving cash based Medi-Cal benefits beginning July 1, 2004. Needless to say he was concerned that he would have no Medi- Cal until July, 1, 2004. But there were other problems. Mr. V.O. recieved another letter from the worker which stated: Please return completed Medical Re- port (cw61) no later than 7\/3\/04 to exempt you from participation in Welfare-to-Work. If it is not received completed by that date you will be scheduled in the next available Job Club. The form also threatened that Failure to pro- vide necessary information may cause a de- nial of discontinuance of your case. Mr. V.O. is disabled. Thus, he has asked to be exempted from the WtW program. The county needs to verify whether or not Mr. V.O. is dis- abled or not. It is true that in order for the county to exempt Mr. V.O. he has to provide medical informa- tion. MPP Section 42-712.44 is the basis for the exemption. But the word cw-61 , which is a state form that applicants and recipients can use to verify disability is not in this regulation or any other regulation. What Mr. V.O. has to provide is a medical statement that his disability is likely to last for more than 30 days and significantly impairs his ability to be regularly employed or partici- pate in WtW activities. He also has to accept the treatment that the doctor gives him. What are the CWD violations in this case? \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffdCOUNT ONE: County is demanding a CW 61 as a condition of granting the exepmtion, when there is nothing in 42-712.44 that even alludes to having a mandatory form completed by the doctor. CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-14- June 30, 2004 – Page 5 recipient can give the county permission to get the information for the applicant\/recipient. .1 Collateral Contacts in AFDC and APSB Pursuant to EAS Sections 40-157.22 and 40-181.31 individual consent forms, signed by the applicant or recipient are required for each contact made during the evidence gathering process. An exception to this rule is found in MPP Section 20-007.36 which exempts SIUs from the requirement of permission to contact collateral sources. .11 Permission If the applicant or recipient does not wish the county to contact a private or public source in order to determine eligibility, the applicant or recipient shall have the opportunity to obtain the desired information or verification himself or herself. County abuse of this process has been a long standing problem. The following is a September 20, 1988 DSS ACIN I-91-88 which states: September 20, 1988 ACIN I-91-88 Subject: PROTECTING CLIENT PRIVACY WHEN MAKING COLLATERAL CONTACTS IN AFDC, RCA AND RDP REFERENCE: MPP 19-007.1 Collateral Contact in AFDC MPP 40-157.2- Methods of Gathering Evidence The purpose of this letter is to clarify the application of AFDC regulations with regards to protecting client privacy when making collateral contacts during the evidence gathering process in determining eligibility for aid. Though the legislative process, it has been brought to the attention of the Department tat there is a potential problem in this area. Information has been received which indicates that some CWDs may not have been consistently following the regulations referenced above in verifying AFDC eligibility. It has been stated that form letters are routinely sent to schools, employers, and landlords by some counties without prior authorization by the applicant. In some cases these contacts have had adverse effects on recipients, ranging from embarrassment to loss of a job. In response to these problems, SB 2112 was introduced. This bill was intended to codify and reaffirm the AFDC privacy and confidentiality protections currently contained in DSS regulations. The bill was withdrawn on assurances that the Department would write to all counties reminding them of these protections and emphasizing the need to comply with them. The authority on this subject is found in MPP 19- 007.1 and 40-157.22. These regulations provide that when collateral contacts are needed in the evidence gathering process, individual consent forms, signed by the applicant or recipient are required for each contact made by the county. This does not mean that collateral contacts should be the first option. An applicant or recipient must first have the option of obtaining the desired information or verification himself or herself without any requirement to use county forms or form letters. If the person does not want to obtain the information, then he or she can request assistance from the county in obtaining the information by signing the county consent form. The intent of these requirements is to protect clients from being identified, exploited or embarrassed as a result of having applied for or received aid. Regulations provide certain specific and limited exceptions to these requirements. The exceptions apply to Special Investigative units, obtaining information from public records and verifying information obtained through IEVS in accordance with MPP 20-06.5. Additionally, for RDP and RCA clients, it is appropriate and mandatory that the CWD contact the voluntary agency (Volag) or sponsor as part of determining a refugee’s eligibility for cash assistance. The CWD must inquire what assistance, if any, the VOLAG or sponsor has provided to the refugee, and whether the refugee has refused an offer of employment or has voluntarily quit a job. This collateral contact must be made without regard to whether the refugee consents to the contact. (See MPP Section 69-204.2.) Practices such as those described in the second paragraph are in violation of the regulations referred to in this ACIN. Client privacy and the confidentiality of information about the client must be protected through proper application of the regulations cited above. Signed, Robert Horel, Deputy Director ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-15.pdf

789 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-15- August 2, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) has started the process of hiring a consultant to do a study with 8-10 counties with the highest participation rates to develop a best practice document. A low participa- tion rate county would also participate in the process. \ufffd There are 15,000 Hmong speaking refu- gees scheduled to arrive in the USA. About 5,000 will be coming to California. Many will end up in Fresno and Orange County \ufffd AB 205 regulations are ready for filing with OAL. AB 205 is the state law that man- dates state programs to treat registered do- mestic partners the same as married part- ners. For the purposes of CalWORKs a do- mestic partner will be treated as a steppar- ent. For the purposes of food stamps. The domestic partner will be a household mem- bers provided such member is purchasing and preparing his or her meals with other members of the household. \ufffd At the county option, homeless, elderly and disabled persons can use their food stamp EBT card to eat at a restaurant that accepts food stamps. Find out if your county has adopted this option. If not, encourage them to do so. \ufffdDSS is in the process of revising the QR 7 form. The only input to this process is from the county welfare directors. The recipients and advocate communities are completely shut out from the process. The revisions will be considered once all counties have imple- mented quarterly reporting. In This Issue IIIIIn Briefn Briefn Briefn Briefn Brief Los Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare Department Closes Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors Unlawfully WWWWWelfarelfarelfarelfarelfare Re Re Re Re Rules Nules Nules Nules Nules Not ot ot ot ot AAAAAvaivaivaivaivailablablablablable at le at le at le at le at WWWWWelfarelfarelfarelfarelfare Office Office Office Office Officeseseseses NNNNNeeeeew Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fiiiiiled – led – led – led – led – VVVVVu vu vu vu vu v. Mit. Mit. Mit. Mit. Mitchelchelchelchelchellllll NNNNNeeeeew Statw Statw Statw Statw State Budget – 200e Budget – 200e Budget – 200e Budget – 200e Budget – 20044444—–20052005200520052005 \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffdTANF Reauthorization Update- Because of the election and the Iraq war plus the Bush Con- stitutional Amendment against our gay broth- ers and sisters the nation’s business, like reau- thorizing TANF and WIA will be delayed and taken up next year. Los Angeles County Closes Office Doors Unlawfully Many welfare offices in Los Angeles close their doors at 3 P.M. Applicants or recipients, who have been in the office since early morning, and dare to leave to get some milk for their hungry babies would not be allowed back in. They would have to start all over again the next day. Moreover, persons are supposed to be allowed to apply for Food Stamps and CalWORKs at anytime during working hours. If a homeless family in immediate needs to ap- ply for Food Stamps, CalWORKs and Home- less Assistance on a Friday afternoon at 3:15 P.M., they will run into the Berlin Wall. The law says you can apply anytime. If they have never received homeless assistance, they are sup- posed to receive homeless assistance that same day. But in LA county this family must \ufffd mailto:[email protected] CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-15- August 2, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 spend the week end on the streets of Los An- geles in direct and intentional violations of the law. Below are the duly promulgated regulations that Los Angeles is violating: 11-600.214 Regular eight hours of a working day means the eight-hour period the CWD’s offices are open to the public. If the CWD office is never open eight hours on a- working day, the regular eight hours of the working day shall mean the hours that the CWD office is open, plus an additional time period(s) immediately before, after, or between these hours, which cumulatively equal eight hours. 11-600.215 Working days means Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, excluding federal and state holidays. 11-600.3 County Responsibilities .31 If a CWD closes its offices at any time during the regular eight hours of a working day, the CWD shall do all of the following during those hours of office closure: .311 Provide individuals the opportunity to file an application for and receive Food Stamp and\/or AFDC benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. (a) Make applications for such benefits readily available to individuals. (b) Provide a drop-box, mail slot, or other reasonable means for filing applications. (1) Applications deposited as described in Section 11- 600.311(b) shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of the CWD office closure. (2) In the event an individual certifies he\/she was denied the opportunity to file an application, and the CWD does not have evidence to the contrary, the application shall be processed in all respects as though it was filed on the date of the CWD office closure. .312 Provide individuals the opportunity to file an application for and receive expedited Food Stamp, immediate need AFDC, and\/or homeless assistance benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. Welfare Rules Not Available at Welfare Offices The law requires that counties make rules and regulations available to public assistance ap- plicants and recipients. Each county welfare office is required to have a visible sign that states: Rules and regulations of the State Department of Social Services are available for your use. Please ask for the materials or manuals you wish to see. MPP 17-017.3 The following information should be available to anybody going into the county welfare of- fice: __ Welfare and Institutions Code __ Health and Safety Code __ CalWORKs regulations __ Food Stamp regulations __ All County Letter These materials should be available to the public for public use. That means that any- body should be able to walk in and look at the regulations. Public use does not mean con- tact your welfare worker if you want to look at a regulations. That is the common response recipients get at the welfare offices, which is an illegal response – but not a surprising re- sponse. Here are the state regulations: MPP 17-017 .1 One set of the regulations and handbook materials (including All-County Letters) of the Department of Social Services, the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Health and Safety Code, and other laws relating to any form of public social service must be made available to the public during regular office hours in each central or district county office administering public social services and in each local or regional office of the department. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10608.) .2 These references shall be placed in the waiting or reception room or in a location available and convenient for public use. .3 A sign shall be prominently posted in each waiting\/ CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-15- August 2, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 room or reception room in appropriate languages as follows: Rules and regulations of the State Department of Social Services are available for your use. Please ask for the materials or manuals you wish to see. .4 A signout book should be used to prevent loss of regulations or other materials for public use. The maintenance of the reference materials in a current and usable condition is a condition of compliance with the statute. CALL TO ACTION: LETS COME TOGETHER AND FIGHT BACK NOW: Next time you go into your local welfare office, take the attached welfare regulation survey form, complete the form and return it to CCWRO. Your efforts can assure that someday all people will be able to have access to the regulations, even those who do not work for the welfare department or have a computer. NEW LAWSUIT FILED On July 15, 2004, BALA, CCWRO, LSNC and Welfare Law Center filed a law suit entitled Vu v. Mitchell in the Superior Court of San Francisco, Case No. CPF- 04-504362 against DSS. The lawsuit challenges DSS’s failure to translate into appropriate language all Food Stamp Program and certification materials. Specifically the complaint for a Writ of Mandate asserts that DSS is violating 7 U.S.C. 2020(c),(e)(1), (e)(2)(A); and 7 C.F.R. 272.4(b)(iii), (b)(3)(i); 272.5(b)(4). NEW STATE BUDGET 2004-2005 This week the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the State budget. The Budget Bill is SB 1113 The trailer bill, SB 1104, which enacts laws allegedly needed to implement the budget, makes several changes in the CalWORKs program. Often provisions of the trailer bill are not budget related, rather it is a process to make changes in the law by circumventing the regular lawmaking process. A more comprehensive report on the budget is coming soon. This report contains some of the major highlights of the CalWORKs ch provisions of the budget: \ufffd CalWORKs COLA for 04-05 at 2.75% will take effect October 1, 2004 in lieu of July 1, 2004. \ufffd SSI COLAs will also be 2.75%, but rather than taking effect January 1, 2005, it will take effect April 1, 2005. \ufffd Currently, CalWORKs participants receive supportive services for 18 months. SB 1104 would delete the 18 month limit on supportive services. \ufffd SB 1104 would require participants to enter into contract within 90 days. \ufffd SB 1104 would require participants 30 hours a week of core activities. Core activities are: Core Activities 1. Unsubsidized employment 2. Subsidized private sector employment 3. Subsidized public sector employment 4. Work experience 5. On-the job training (OJT) 6. Supported Work 7. Work Study 8. Self-employment 9. Community service 10. Job Search 11. Vocational education and training (12 month limit) Other Core Activities – Hours spent in classroom, laboratory, or internship activities shall count if the county determines that it would lead to self-supporting employment, and recipients makes satisfactory progress. 1. Adult Education and ESL 2. Education directly related to employment 3. Job training mailto:[email protected] MONITORING COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DECLARATION On or about _______________I, ______________________________________ visited the county welfare department of _______________________________________________ located at________________________________________________________________________. 1. That I was ___able\/___not able to locate a sign in the welfare lobby stating: Rules and regulations of the State Department of Social Services are available for your use. Please ask for the materials or manuals you wish to see. 2. That I asked CWD officials if I could see a copy of the following information and received the response set forth below: ASKED FOR AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE __ Welfare and Institutions Code _____ _____ __ Health and Safety Code _____ _____ __ CalWORKs regulations _____ _____ __ Food Stamp regulations _____ _____ __ All County Letters _____ _____ I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury statement is true and correct. Executed on ________________, 2004, in the City of _________________________________ County of ______________________ By_________________________________________ PLEASE Mailed this form to: CCWRO, 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 ATTN: Rules & Regulation Lawsuit Group Address of the county welfare office First Name and Last Name Name of the County Date ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-15.pdf

875 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-15- August 2, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) has started the process of hiring a consultant to do a study with 8-10 counties with the highest participation rates to develop a best practice document. A low participa- tion rate county would also participate in the process. \ufffd There are 15,000 Hmong speaking refu- gees scheduled to arrive in the USA. About 5,000 will be coming to California. Many will end up in Fresno and Orange County \ufffd AB 205 regulations are ready for filing with OAL. AB 205 is the state law that man- dates state programs to treat registered do- mestic partners the same as married part- ners. For the purposes of CalWORKs a do- mestic partner will be treated as a steppar- ent. For the purposes of food stamps. The domestic partner will be a household mem- bers provided such member is purchasing and preparing his or her meals with other members of the household. \ufffd At the county option, homeless, elderly and disabled persons can use their food stamp EBT card to eat at a restaurant that accepts food stamps. Find out if your county has adopted this option. If not, encourage them to do so. \ufffdDSS is in the process of revising the QR 7 form. The only input to this process is from the county welfare directors. The recipients and advocate communities are completely shut out from the process. The revisions will be considered once all counties have imple- mented quarterly reporting. In This Issue IIIIIn Briefn Briefn Briefn Briefn Brief Los Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare DepartmentLos Angeles Welfare Department Closes Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors UnlawfullyCloses Doors Unlawfully WWWWWelfarelfarelfarelfarelfare Re Re Re Re Rules Nules Nules Nules Nules Not ot ot ot ot AAAAAvaivaivaivaivailablablablablable at le at le at le at le at WWWWWelfarelfarelfarelfarelfare Office Office Office Office Officeseseseses NNNNNeeeeew Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fw Lawsut Fiiiiiled – led – led – led – led – VVVVVu vu vu vu vu v. Mit. Mit. Mit. Mit. Mitchelchelchelchelchellllll NNNNNeeeeew Statw Statw Statw Statw State Budget – 200e Budget – 200e Budget – 200e Budget – 200e Budget – 20044444—–20052005200520052005 \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffdTANF Reauthorization Update- Because of the election and the Iraq war plus the Bush Con- stitutional Amendment against our gay broth- ers and sisters the nation’s business, like reau- thorizing TANF and WIA will be delayed and taken up next year. Los Angeles County Closes Office Doors Unlawfully Many welfare offices in Los Angeles close their doors at 3 P.M. Applicants or recipients, who have been in the office since early morning, and dare to leave to get some milk for their hungry babies would not be allowed back in. They would have to start all over again the next day. Moreover, persons are supposed to be allowed to apply for Food Stamps and CalWORKs at anytime during working hours. If a homeless family in immediate needs to ap- ply for Food Stamps, CalWORKs and Home- less Assistance on a Friday afternoon at 3:15 P.M., they will run into the Berlin Wall. The law says you can apply anytime. If they have never received homeless assistance, they are sup- posed to receive homeless assistance that same day. But in LA county this family must \ufffd mailto:[email protected] CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-15- August 2, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 spend the week end on the streets of Los An- geles in direct and intentional violations of the law. Below are the duly promulgated regulations that Los Angeles is violating: 11-600.214 Regular eight hours of a working day means the eight-hour period the CWD’s offices are open to the public. If the CWD office is never open eight hours on a- working day, the regular eight hours of the working day shall mean the hours that the CWD office is open, plus an additional time period(s) immediately before, after, or between these hours, which cumulatively equal eight hours. 11-600.215 Working days means Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, excluding federal and state holidays. 11-600.3 County Responsibilities .31 If a CWD closes its offices at any time during the regular eight hours of a working day, the CWD shall do all of the following during those hours of office closure: .311 Provide individuals the opportunity to file an application for and receive Food Stamp and\/or AFDC benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. (a) Make applications for such benefits readily available to individuals. (b) Provide a drop-box, mail slot, or other reasonable means for filing applications. (1) Applications deposited as described in Section 11- 600.311(b) shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of the CWD office closure. (2) In the event an individual certifies he\/she was denied the opportunity to file an application, and the CWD does not have evidence to the contrary, the application shall be processed in all respects as though it was filed on the date of the CWD office closure. .312 Provide individuals the opportunity to file an application for and receive expedited Food Stamp, immediate need AFDC, and\/or homeless assistance benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. Welfare Rules Not Available at Welfare Offices The law requires that counties make rules and regulations available to public assistance ap- plicants and recipients. Each county welfare office is required to have a visible sign that states: Rules and regulations of the State Department of Social Services are available for your use. Please ask for the materials or manuals you wish to see. MPP 17-017.3 The following information should be available to anybody going into the county welfare of- fice: __ Welfare and Institutions Code __ Health and Safety Code __ CalWORKs regulations __ Food Stamp regulations __ All County Letter These materials should be available to the public for public use. That means that any- body should be able to walk in and look at the regulations. Public use does not mean con- tact your welfare worker if you want to look at a regulations. That is the common response recipients get at the welfare offices, which is an illegal response – but not a surprising re- sponse. Here are the state regulations: MPP 17-017 .1 One set of the regulations and handbook materials (including All-County Letters) of the Department of Social Services, the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Health and Safety Code, and other laws relating to any form of public social service must be made available to the public during regular office hours in each central or district county office administering public social services and in each local or regional office of the department. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10608.) .2 These references shall be placed in the waiting or reception room or in a location available and convenient for public use. .3 A sign shall be prominently posted in each waiting\/ CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-15- August 2, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 room or reception room in appropriate languages as follows: Rules and regulations of the State Department of Social Services are available for your use. Please ask for the materials or manuals you wish to see. .4 A signout book should be used to prevent loss of regulations or other materials for public use. The maintenance of the reference materials in a current and usable condition is a condition of compliance with the statute. CALL TO ACTION: LETS COME TOGETHER AND FIGHT BACK NOW: Next time you go into your local welfare office, take the attached welfare regulation survey form, complete the form and return it to CCWRO. Your efforts can assure that someday all people will be able to have access to the regulations, even those who do not work for the welfare department or have a computer. NEW LAWSUIT FILED On July 15, 2004, BALA, CCWRO, LSNC and Welfare Law Center filed a law suit entitled Vu v. Mitchell in the Superior Court of San Francisco, Case No. CPF- 04-504362 against DSS. The lawsuit challenges DSS’s failure to translate into appropriate language all Food Stamp Program and certification materials. Specifically the complaint for a Writ of Mandate asserts that DSS is violating 7 U.S.C. 2020(c),(e)(1), (e)(2)(A); and 7 C.F.R. 272.4(b)(iii), (b)(3)(i); 272.5(b)(4). NEW STATE BUDGET 2004-2005 This week the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the State budget. The Budget Bill is SB 1113 The trailer bill, SB 1104, which enacts laws allegedly needed to implement the budget, makes several changes in the CalWORKs program. Often provisions of the trailer bill are not budget related, rather it is a process to make changes in the law by circumventing the regular lawmaking process. A more comprehensive report on the budget is coming soon. This report contains some of the major highlights of the CalWORKs ch provisions of the budget: \ufffd CalWORKs COLA for 04-05 at 2.75% will take effect October 1, 2004 in lieu of July 1, 2004. \ufffd SSI COLAs will also be 2.75%, but rather than taking effect January 1, 2005, it will take effect April 1, 2005. \ufffd Currently, CalWORKs participants receive supportive services for 18 months. SB 1104 would delete the 18 month limit on supportive services. \ufffd SB 1104 would require participants to enter into contract within 90 days. \ufffd SB 1104 would require participants 30 hours a week of core activities. Core activities are: Core Activities 1. Unsubsidized employment 2. Subsidized private sector employment 3. Subsidized public sector employment 4. Work experience 5. On-the job training (OJT) 6. Supported Work 7. Work Study 8. Self-employment 9. Community service 10. Job Search 11. Vocational education and training (12 month limit) Other Core Activities – Hours spent in classroom, laboratory, or internship activities shall count if the county determines that it would lead to self-supporting employment, and recipients makes satisfactory progress. 1. Adult Education and ESL 2. Education directly related to employment 3. Job training mailto:[email protected] MONITORING COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DECLARATION On or about _______________I, ______________________________________ visited the county welfare department of _______________________________________________ located at________________________________________________________________________. 1. That I was ___able\/___not able to locate a sign in the welfare lobby stating: Rules and regulations of the State Department of Social Services are available for your use. Please ask for the materials or manuals you wish to see. 2. That I asked CWD officials if I could see a copy of the following information and received the response set forth below: ASKED FOR AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE __ Welfare and Institutions Code _____ _____ __ Health and Safety Code _____ _____ __ CalWORKs regulations _____ _____ __ Food Stamp regulations _____ _____ __ All County Letters _____ _____ I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury statement is true and correct. Executed on ________________, 2004, in the City of _________________________________ County of ______________________ By_________________________________________ PLEASE Mailed this form to: CCWRO, 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 ATTN: Rules & Regulation Lawsuit Group Address of the county welfare office First Name and Last Name Name of the County Date ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-16.pdf

777 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-16- August 31, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd DSS tells county to illegally deny food stamps to student. On 5\/13\/04 LaTanya Lee of Los Angeles County asked DSS whether or not a student who enrolls in school in August, but starts in September is eligible for Food Stamps in August. It was Los Angeles County’s position that the stu- dent should be eligible for one month. To support their position they referenced MPP 63-406.22 which states: .22 The enrollment status of a student shall begin on the first day of the school term of the institution of higher education. DSS responded that this poor student who needs food stamps for one month should be denied notwithstanding the clear mandatory language of 63-406.22. DSS states that if a student is enrolled, then they are ineligible. \ufffd DSS wants to impose unlawful food stamp sanctions. On 2\/22\/04, DSS asked FNS, the federal agency administering the Food Stamp program, whether or not the State can require food stamp recipients who have served their 1,3 or 6 month penalty period continue to be denied food stamps until they comply with the work requirement that caused the food stamp sanction. FNS has already told DSS that once a individual does the time , they have to be released from the sanction and be allowed to apply for food stamp benefits and received such benefits if otherwise eligible. In February Tom Gary of FNS again told DSS that they cannot deny food stamp benefits to an indi- vidual for failure to perform the act that caused the duration sanction that they served. In This Issue In Brief County Welfare Department Victim Statistical Analysis of Food Stamp Expedited Services for January -March, 2004 \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd Able Bodies Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDS) Clock. A DSS policy interpretation issued in 10\/2\/03 holds that the ABAWDS clock cannot start unless the county explains the ABAWDS rule and provide information to the applicant. \ufffd Americorps hours count for ABAWDS – On 3\/12\/04 Riverside county asked DSS whether or not the Americorps community ser- vice hours county for the purposes of satisfying the ABAWDS work requirements. On 4\/1\/04 DSS analyst Robert Nevin responded that in accordance with MPP 63-40.211 and 7 CFR 273.24(a)(2)(iii) Americorps hours would count towards the required ABAWDS hours of partici- pation. \ufffd Lonnie Carlson, Presiding Judge of Northern California to Retire – Lonnie Carlson, who started an administrative aid at DSS in the early seventies, then became Acting Director of DSS is going to retire on September 30, 2004. Lonnie has been instrumental of keeping the welfare hearing system responsive to the needs of the claimants and also trying to keep the counties happy, which is a hard thing to do. Lonnie has been the Chief Referee twice, Deputy Director for legal affairs, Chief Deputy Director and Acting Director before Eloise Anderson. He has also been involved in pro- moting youth soccer in Sacramento County. Lonnie will be missed sorely. mailto:[email protected] CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-#2004-16-August 31, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK Ms. V.R of Los Angeles County is homeless with three children. Even through she is homeless, she was still asked to participate in the wasteful GAIN pro- gram. She was scheduled for an orientation appoint- ment on 4\/22\/04 @ 8 a.m. She arrived late. She explained that she was experiencing child care and transportation problems. The county did not advance her funds for transportation – a violation of EAS 42-770.21 that states: .21 Payments for supportive services, ex- cept child care as described in Chapter 47- 100, shall be advanced to the participant when necessary and desired by the par- ticipant so that the participant need not use personal funds to pay for these services. No transportation funds were advanced to this homeless family of (4) four. She was late be- cause she needed child care to get her 5 and 7 year old kids off to school. She also had no child care for her three (3) year old. Since June of 2004, Ms. V.R. has been losing $135 month because of this stolen from Ms. V.R. and her homeless little children by Los Angels County DPSS. Statistic of the Week This week we look at the Food Stamp Expe- dited Food (FS-ES) Stamps in California’s 58 counties during the months of January through March of 2004 based upon the public data of the State Department of Social Services. The data reflected in these reports come from the 58 California counties. A detailed Table #2 on page 5 sest forth com- prehensive county-by-county data. 48% of the food stamp applicants were evalu- ated for FS-ES. The remaining 52% of the applicants were not even considered for FS- ES. Studies have shown that generally people apply for public assistance as a last resort, after borrowing from everyone and being food- less. The Top Ten worse counties who fail to deter- mine applicants for FS-ES are: Alameda 20% Marin 19% Sacramento 18% Madera 17% Tulare 13% Mono 13% Orange 7% Stanislaus 5% San Joaquin 4% Imperial 2% NOTE: We excluded Mono county because of the small caseload they have and San Mateo County failed to report any persons applying for food stamp benefits during January, February and March of 2004. The Top Ten Best Counties are: Tuolumne 86% San Diego 76% Yuba 73% Los Angeles 73% Santa Cruz 60% Sonoma 58% Kern 56% Santa Clara 56% Napa 55% Tehama 54% One may wonder what is the big difference CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-#2004-16- August 31,2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 between an applicant in Stanislaus County and Kern County. Both counties have high unemployment. A more classic case is the difference between Yuba County and Sutter county. Both counties are located in the same community. On the same street the left side houses can be in Yuba County and the right side houses can be in Sutter. However, Sutter county only considered 25% of the applicants for FS-ES, while Yuba County considered 73%. How unfortunate for a hungry family to live on the Sutter County side of the street. The Top Ten Counties not issuing FS-ES during the timelines mandated by law are: Mono 14% Los Angeles 14% Stanislaus 12% Tehama 7% Nevada 7% El Dorado 5% Fresno 4% Calaveras 4% Inyo 4% San Mateo 4% The rules for FS-ES are very simple. \ufffd If the food stamp household has less than $150 income and less than $100 in liquid re- sources, then the household is entitled to re- ceive food stamp benefits within three calen- dar days. \ufffd If the household has more than $150, but their income is less than the rent and utilities of the household, then the household is en- titled to receive food stamp benefits within three calendar days. Statewide 8% of the cases were in violation of 63-501.531. Los Angeles and Stanislaus County are the leaders of violating the three day rule. In those counties 14% of the cases determined to be in dire need of food had to wait pass the three days required by State Law. Stanislaus coun- ties violated this law in 12% of their cases. Table 1 describes county-by-county percent- age of violations of the three day FS-ES issu- ance rule. Statewide 8% Mono 14% Los Angeles 14% Stanislaus 12% Tehama 7% Nevada 7% El Dorado 5% Fresno 4% Calaveras 4% Inyo 4% San Mateo 4% San Joaquin 4% San Bernardino 3% Kings 3% Mariposa 3% Riverside 2% Shasta 2% Alameda 2% San Benito 2% San Luis Obispo 2% Santa Clara 2% Lake 2% Lassen 2% Sutter 2% Yuba 2% Marin 2% Santa Cruz 1% Amador 1% Contra Costa 1% Mendocino 1% Sacramento 1% Tulare 1% Solano 1% Kern 1% San Diego 1% Butte 1% Del Norte 1% Ventura 1% Madera 1% Placer 1% Santa Barbara 1% Humboldt 0% Sonoma 0% Monterey 0% Alpine 0% Colusa 0% Glenn 0% Imperial 0% Merced 0% Modoc 0% Napa 0% Orange 0% Plumas 0% San Francisco 0% Sierra 0% Siskiyou 0% Trinity 0% Tuolumne 0% Yolo 0% Table #1 – Percentage of applicants who right to FS-ES under 63-501.531 were violated by California Counties mailto:[email protected] 63-301.5 Expedited Service .51 Entitlement to Expedited Service The following households, if otherwise eligible, are entitled to expedited service: .511 Households with less than $150 in monthly gross income as defined in Section 63-502.1 pro- vided their liquid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; .512 Migrant or seasonal farmworker households who are destitute as defined in Section 63-503.43 provided their liquid resources as defined in Sec- tion 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; or .513 Households whose combined monthly gross income and liquid resources are less than the household’s monthly rent or mortgage, and utili- ties. .52 Identifying Households Needing Expedited Service The CWD’s application procedures shall be designed to identify households eligible for ex- pedited service at the time the household files an application. .521 A CWD employee or volunteer shall inform potential applicants orally of the right to expedited service for eligible households and how to initiate the process, the availability of assistance in filling out the application and shall be respon- sible for screening applications as they are filed. The CWD also shall advise individuals who in- quire about the Food Stamp Program by telephone of the expedited service processing standards for eligible households. The CWD shall assist an ap- plicant, upon request, in filling out forms and com- pleting the application process. .522 The screening shall consist of a review of the DFA 285-A1 or the SAWS 1 CA1\/DFA 285-A1 if the applicant elected to complete the expedited service section. The CWD shall imme- diately forward the application for processing when it is determined that the applicant is entitled to ex- pedited service. .523 Households being recertified or reapplying after less than a one-month break in certification shall be entitled to expedited service if determined eligible as specified in Section 63-301.51. .53 Processing Standards All households receiving expedited services, ex- cept those receiving expedited services during months in which allotments are suspended or can- celled shall have the case processed in accordance with the following regulations. Those households receiving expedited services during a suspension or cancellation shall have their cases processed in accordance with Sections 63-107.862 and .863. .531 Expedited Service Households (a) For households entitled to expedited service at initial application, the CWD shall make the autho- rization document, access device or coupons avail- able to the recipient either by mail or for pickup at the household’s request, no later than the third cal- endar day following the date the application was filed. For purposes of this section, a weekend (Sat- urday and Sunday) shall be considered one calen- dar day. However, if the third calendar day is a nonworking day when coupons cannot be issued, the CWD shall make coupons available on or be- fore the working day immediately preceding the nonworking day. Whatever system a CWD uses to ensure meeting this delivery standard shall be de- signed to allow a reasonable opportunity for re- demption of an authorization document or use of an access device no later than the third calendar day following the day the application was filed. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (1) For example, if the application is filed on Thurs- day, coupons must be made available to the house- holds on Monday. However, if Monday is a holi- day, coupons must be made available on Friday or Saturday if coupons are issued on that day. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-#2004-16-August 31, 2004 – Page 4 Statewide 273960 130,492 48% 56,773 69,951 44% 54% 4,396 8% Alameda 10296 2,041 20% 1,722 319 84% 16% 37 2% Alpine 8 3 38% 0 3 0% 100% 0 0% Amador 254 82 32% 74 6 90% 7% 1 1% Butte 2542 734 29% 579 157 79% 21% 4 1% Calaveras 357 115 32% 100 15 87% 13% 4 4% Colusa 190 40 21% 27 13 68% 33% 0 0% Contra Costa 5634 1,953 35% 614 1,339 31% 69% 8 1% Del Norte 469 204 43% 161 44 79% 22% 1 1% El Dorado 698 141 20% 107 36 76% 26% 5 5% Fresno 11276 2,998 27% 2,371 643 79% 21% 104 4% Glenn 372 98 26% 91 7 93% 7% 0 0% Humboldt 1818 511 28% 426 85 83% 17% 2 0% Imperial 1576 31 2% 9 22 29% 71% 0 0% Inyo 182 57 31% 52 5 91% 9% 2 4% Kern 8026 4,490 56% 1,498 2,938 33% 65% 12 1% Kings 1585 572 36% 274 289 48% 51% 9 3% Lake 638 332 52% 260 60 78% 18% 5 2% Lassen 354 172 49% 56 114 33% 66% 1 2% Los Angeles 94015 68,334 73% 27,049 37,582 40% 55% 3,818 14% Madera 1587 263 17% 179 73 68% 28% 1 1% Marin 810 154 19% 129 18 84% 12% 2 2% Mariposa 152 42 28% 34 6 81% 14% 1 3% Mendocino 938 342 36% 307 30 90% 9% 4 1% Merced 786 272 35% 55 230 20% 85% 0 0% Modoc 136 1 1% 1 0 100% 0% 0 0% Mono 80 10 13% 7 2 70% 20% 1 14% Monterey 3288 992 30% 416 560 42% 56% 1 0% Napa 646 354 55% 108 245 31% 69% 0 0% Nevada 482 111 23% 76 25 68% 23% 5 7% Orange 9925 690 7% 600 89 87% 13% 0 0% Placer 1596 321 20% 198 123 62% 38% 1 1% Plumas 162 42 26% 26 14 62% 33% 0 0% Riverside 9350 3,869 41% 1,243 2,645 32% 68% 31 2% Sacramento 17299 3,192 18% 948 2,261 30% 71% 12 1% San Benito 296 108 36% 98 12 91% 11% 2 2% San Bernardino 16161 7,090 44% 5,611 1,479 79% 21% 193 3% San Diego 10530 7,993 76% 1,817 6,186 23% 77% 13 1% San Francisco 8626 4,290 50% 2,053 2,225 48% 52% 0 0% San Joaquin 5225 195 4% 160 30 82% 15% 6 4% San Luis Obispo 1600 612 38% 245 298 40% 49% 5 2% San Mateo 0 589 0% 577 11 98% 2% 22 4% Santa Barbara 3480 1,446 42% 398 1,047 28% 72% 2 1% Santa Clara 9799 5,454 56% 753 4,938 14% 91% 15 2% Santa Cruz 2448 1,470 60% 475 959 32% 65% 7 1% Shasta 1980 553 28% 436 90 79% 16% 10 2% Sierra 23 9 39% 9 0 100% 0% 0 0% Siskiyou 573 174 30% 136 36 78% 21% 0 0% Solano 3107 733 24% 698 35 95% 5% 7 1% Sonoma 2777 1,605 58% 1,055 562 66% 35% 3 0% Stanislaus 4030 206 5% 86 120 42% 58% 10 12% Sutter 911 229 25% 117 114 51% 50% 2 2% Tehama 782 422 54% 181 248 43% 59% 12 7% Trinity 155 50 32% 41 3 82% 6% 0 0% Tulare 6962 927 13% 597 338 64% 36% 6 1% Tuolumne 469 402 86% 132 265 33% 66% 0 0% Ventura 4399 1,335 30% 828 401 62% 30% 5 1% Yolo 1037 260 25% 218 42 84% 16% 0 0% Yuba 1063 777 73% 255 514 33% 66% 4 2% C ounties A pplications F iled P ercentage of F S-E S A pplications D enied P ercentage of F S-E S A pplications A pproved F S-E S Issued L ate A pplications C onsidered for F S-E S P ercentage of A pplications C onsider ed for F S-E S F S-E S A pplications A pproved F S-E S A pplications D enied P ercentage of F S-E S Issued L ate Tab le #2 – Jan u ary – M arch , 2004 mailto:[email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-16.pdf

893 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-16- August 31, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd DSS tells county to illegally deny food stamps to student. On 5\/13\/04 LaTanya Lee of Los Angeles County asked DSS whether or not a student who enrolls in school in August, but starts in September is eligible for Food Stamps in August. It was Los Angeles County’s position that the stu- dent should be eligible for one month. To support their position they referenced MPP 63-406.22 which states: .22 The enrollment status of a student shall begin on the first day of the school term of the institution of higher education. DSS responded that this poor student who needs food stamps for one month should be denied notwithstanding the clear mandatory language of 63-406.22. DSS states that if a student is enrolled, then they are ineligible. \ufffd DSS wants to impose unlawful food stamp sanctions. On 2\/22\/04, DSS asked FNS, the federal agency administering the Food Stamp program, whether or not the State can require food stamp recipients who have served their 1,3 or 6 month penalty period continue to be denied food stamps until they comply with the work requirement that caused the food stamp sanction. FNS has already told DSS that once a individual does the time , they have to be released from the sanction and be allowed to apply for food stamp benefits and received such benefits if otherwise eligible. In February Tom Gary of FNS again told DSS that they cannot deny food stamp benefits to an indi- vidual for failure to perform the act that caused the duration sanction that they served. In This Issue In Brief County Welfare Department Victim Statistical Analysis of Food Stamp Expedited Services for January -March, 2004 \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd Able Bodies Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDS) Clock. A DSS policy interpretation issued in 10\/2\/03 holds that the ABAWDS clock cannot start unless the county explains the ABAWDS rule and provide information to the applicant. \ufffd Americorps hours count for ABAWDS – On 3\/12\/04 Riverside county asked DSS whether or not the Americorps community ser- vice hours county for the purposes of satisfying the ABAWDS work requirements. On 4\/1\/04 DSS analyst Robert Nevin responded that in accordance with MPP 63-40.211 and 7 CFR 273.24(a)(2)(iii) Americorps hours would count towards the required ABAWDS hours of partici- pation. \ufffd Lonnie Carlson, Presiding Judge of Northern California to Retire – Lonnie Carlson, who started an administrative aid at DSS in the early seventies, then became Acting Director of DSS is going to retire on September 30, 2004. Lonnie has been instrumental of keeping the welfare hearing system responsive to the needs of the claimants and also trying to keep the counties happy, which is a hard thing to do. Lonnie has been the Chief Referee twice, Deputy Director for legal affairs, Chief Deputy Director and Acting Director before Eloise Anderson. He has also been involved in pro- moting youth soccer in Sacramento County. Lonnie will be missed sorely. mailto:[email protected] CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-#2004-16-August 31, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK Ms. V.R of Los Angeles County is homeless with three children. Even through she is homeless, she was still asked to participate in the wasteful GAIN pro- gram. She was scheduled for an orientation appoint- ment on 4\/22\/04 @ 8 a.m. She arrived late. She explained that she was experiencing child care and transportation problems. The county did not advance her funds for transportation – a violation of EAS 42-770.21 that states: .21 Payments for supportive services, ex- cept child care as described in Chapter 47- 100, shall be advanced to the participant when necessary and desired by the par- ticipant so that the participant need not use personal funds to pay for these services. No transportation funds were advanced to this homeless family of (4) four. She was late be- cause she needed child care to get her 5 and 7 year old kids off to school. She also had no child care for her three (3) year old. Since June of 2004, Ms. V.R. has been losing $135 month because of this stolen from Ms. V.R. and her homeless little children by Los Angels County DPSS. Statistic of the Week This week we look at the Food Stamp Expe- dited Food (FS-ES) Stamps in California’s 58 counties during the months of January through March of 2004 based upon the public data of the State Department of Social Services. The data reflected in these reports come from the 58 California counties. A detailed Table #2 on page 5 sest forth com- prehensive county-by-county data. 48% of the food stamp applicants were evalu- ated for FS-ES. The remaining 52% of the applicants were not even considered for FS- ES. Studies have shown that generally people apply for public assistance as a last resort, after borrowing from everyone and being food- less. The Top Ten worse counties who fail to deter- mine applicants for FS-ES are: Alameda 20% Marin 19% Sacramento 18% Madera 17% Tulare 13% Mono 13% Orange 7% Stanislaus 5% San Joaquin 4% Imperial 2% NOTE: We excluded Mono county because of the small caseload they have and San Mateo County failed to report any persons applying for food stamp benefits during January, February and March of 2004. The Top Ten Best Counties are: Tuolumne 86% San Diego 76% Yuba 73% Los Angeles 73% Santa Cruz 60% Sonoma 58% Kern 56% Santa Clara 56% Napa 55% Tehama 54% One may wonder what is the big difference CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-#2004-16- August 31,2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 between an applicant in Stanislaus County and Kern County. Both counties have high unemployment. A more classic case is the difference between Yuba County and Sutter county. Both counties are located in the same community. On the same street the left side houses can be in Yuba County and the right side houses can be in Sutter. However, Sutter county only considered 25% of the applicants for FS-ES, while Yuba County considered 73%. How unfortunate for a hungry family to live on the Sutter County side of the street. The Top Ten Counties not issuing FS-ES during the timelines mandated by law are: Mono 14% Los Angeles 14% Stanislaus 12% Tehama 7% Nevada 7% El Dorado 5% Fresno 4% Calaveras 4% Inyo 4% San Mateo 4% The rules for FS-ES are very simple. \ufffd If the food stamp household has less than $150 income and less than $100 in liquid re- sources, then the household is entitled to re- ceive food stamp benefits within three calen- dar days. \ufffd If the household has more than $150, but their income is less than the rent and utilities of the household, then the household is en- titled to receive food stamp benefits within three calendar days. Statewide 8% of the cases were in violation of 63-501.531. Los Angeles and Stanislaus County are the leaders of violating the three day rule. In those counties 14% of the cases determined to be in dire need of food had to wait pass the three days required by State Law. Stanislaus coun- ties violated this law in 12% of their cases. Table 1 describes county-by-county percent- age of violations of the three day FS-ES issu- ance rule. Statewide 8% Mono 14% Los Angeles 14% Stanislaus 12% Tehama 7% Nevada 7% El Dorado 5% Fresno 4% Calaveras 4% Inyo 4% San Mateo 4% San Joaquin 4% San Bernardino 3% Kings 3% Mariposa 3% Riverside 2% Shasta 2% Alameda 2% San Benito 2% San Luis Obispo 2% Santa Clara 2% Lake 2% Lassen 2% Sutter 2% Yuba 2% Marin 2% Santa Cruz 1% Amador 1% Contra Costa 1% Mendocino 1% Sacramento 1% Tulare 1% Solano 1% Kern 1% San Diego 1% Butte 1% Del Norte 1% Ventura 1% Madera 1% Placer 1% Santa Barbara 1% Humboldt 0% Sonoma 0% Monterey 0% Alpine 0% Colusa 0% Glenn 0% Imperial 0% Merced 0% Modoc 0% Napa 0% Orange 0% Plumas 0% San Francisco 0% Sierra 0% Siskiyou 0% Trinity 0% Tuolumne 0% Yolo 0% Table #1 – Percentage of applicants who right to FS-ES under 63-501.531 were violated by California Counties mailto:[email protected] 63-301.5 Expedited Service .51 Entitlement to Expedited Service The following households, if otherwise eligible, are entitled to expedited service: .511 Households with less than $150 in monthly gross income as defined in Section 63-502.1 pro- vided their liquid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; .512 Migrant or seasonal farmworker households who are destitute as defined in Section 63-503.43 provided their liquid resources as defined in Sec- tion 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; or .513 Households whose combined monthly gross income and liquid resources are less than the household’s monthly rent or mortgage, and utili- ties. .52 Identifying Households Needing Expedited Service The CWD’s application procedures shall be designed to identify households eligible for ex- pedited service at the time the household files an application. .521 A CWD employee or volunteer shall inform potential applicants orally of the right to expedited service for eligible households and how to initiate the process, the availability of assistance in filling out the application and shall be respon- sible for screening applications as they are filed. The CWD also shall advise individuals who in- quire about the Food Stamp Program by telephone of the expedited service processing standards for eligible households. The CWD shall assist an ap- plicant, upon request, in filling out forms and com- pleting the application process. .522 The screening shall consist of a review of the DFA 285-A1 or the SAWS 1 CA1\/DFA 285-A1 if the applicant elected to complete the expedited service section. The CWD shall imme- diately forward the application for processing when it is determined that the applicant is entitled to ex- pedited service. .523 Households being recertified or reapplying after less than a one-month break in certification shall be entitled to expedited service if determined eligible as specified in Section 63-301.51. .53 Processing Standards All households receiving expedited services, ex- cept those receiving expedited services during months in which allotments are suspended or can- celled shall have the case processed in accordance with the following regulations. Those households receiving expedited services during a suspension or cancellation shall have their cases processed in accordance with Sections 63-107.862 and .863. .531 Expedited Service Households (a) For households entitled to expedited service at initial application, the CWD shall make the autho- rization document, access device or coupons avail- able to the recipient either by mail or for pickup at the household’s request, no later than the third cal- endar day following the date the application was filed. For purposes of this section, a weekend (Sat- urday and Sunday) shall be considered one calen- dar day. However, if the third calendar day is a nonworking day when coupons cannot be issued, the CWD shall make coupons available on or be- fore the working day immediately preceding the nonworking day. Whatever system a CWD uses to ensure meeting this delivery standard shall be de- signed to allow a reasonable opportunity for re- demption of an authorization document or use of an access device no later than the third calendar day following the day the application was filed. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (1) For example, if the application is filed on Thurs- day, coupons must be made available to the house- holds on Monday. However, if Monday is a holi- day, coupons must be made available on Friday or Saturday if coupons are issued on that day. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-#2004-16-August 31, 2004 – Page 4 Statewide 273960 130,492 48% 56,773 69,951 44% 54% 4,396 8% Alameda 10296 2,041 20% 1,722 319 84% 16% 37 2% Alpine 8 3 38% 0 3 0% 100% 0 0% Amador 254 82 32% 74 6 90% 7% 1 1% Butte 2542 734 29% 579 157 79% 21% 4 1% Calaveras 357 115 32% 100 15 87% 13% 4 4% Colusa 190 40 21% 27 13 68% 33% 0 0% Contra Costa 5634 1,953 35% 614 1,339 31% 69% 8 1% Del Norte 469 204 43% 161 44 79% 22% 1 1% El Dorado 698 141 20% 107 36 76% 26% 5 5% Fresno 11276 2,998 27% 2,371 643 79% 21% 104 4% Glenn 372 98 26% 91 7 93% 7% 0 0% Humboldt 1818 511 28% 426 85 83% 17% 2 0% Imperial 1576 31 2% 9 22 29% 71% 0 0% Inyo 182 57 31% 52 5 91% 9% 2 4% Kern 8026 4,490 56% 1,498 2,938 33% 65% 12 1% Kings 1585 572 36% 274 289 48% 51% 9 3% Lake 638 332 52% 260 60 78% 18% 5 2% Lassen 354 172 49% 56 114 33% 66% 1 2% Los Angeles 94015 68,334 73% 27,049 37,582 40% 55% 3,818 14% Madera 1587 263 17% 179 73 68% 28% 1 1% Marin 810 154 19% 129 18 84% 12% 2 2% Mariposa 152 42 28% 34 6 81% 14% 1 3% Mendocino 938 342 36% 307 30 90% 9% 4 1% Merced 786 272 35% 55 230 20% 85% 0 0% Modoc 136 1 1% 1 0 100% 0% 0 0% Mono 80 10 13% 7 2 70% 20% 1 14% Monterey 3288 992 30% 416 560 42% 56% 1 0% Napa 646 354 55% 108 245 31% 69% 0 0% Nevada 482 111 23% 76 25 68% 23% 5 7% Orange 9925 690 7% 600 89 87% 13% 0 0% Placer 1596 321 20% 198 123 62% 38% 1 1% Plumas 162 42 26% 26 14 62% 33% 0 0% Riverside 9350 3,869 41% 1,243 2,645 32% 68% 31 2% Sacramento 17299 3,192 18% 948 2,261 30% 71% 12 1% San Benito 296 108 36% 98 12 91% 11% 2 2% San Bernardino 16161 7,090 44% 5,611 1,479 79% 21% 193 3% San Diego 10530 7,993 76% 1,817 6,186 23% 77% 13 1% San Francisco 8626 4,290 50% 2,053 2,225 48% 52% 0 0% San Joaquin 5225 195 4% 160 30 82% 15% 6 4% San Luis Obispo 1600 612 38% 245 298 40% 49% 5 2% San Mateo 0 589 0% 577 11 98% 2% 22 4% Santa Barbara 3480 1,446 42% 398 1,047 28% 72% 2 1% Santa Clara 9799 5,454 56% 753 4,938 14% 91% 15 2% Santa Cruz 2448 1,470 60% 475 959 32% 65% 7 1% Shasta 1980 553 28% 436 90 79% 16% 10 2% Sierra 23 9 39% 9 0 100% 0% 0 0% Siskiyou 573 174 30% 136 36 78% 21% 0 0% Solano 3107 733 24% 698 35 95% 5% 7 1% Sonoma 2777 1,605 58% 1,055 562 66% 35% 3 0% Stanislaus 4030 206 5% 86 120 42% 58% 10 12% Sutter 911 229 25% 117 114 51% 50% 2 2% Tehama 782 422 54% 181 248 43% 59% 12 7% Trinity 155 50 32% 41 3 82% 6% 0 0% Tulare 6962 927 13% 597 338 64% 36% 6 1% Tuolumne 469 402 86% 132 265 33% 66% 0 0% Ventura 4399 1,335 30% 828 401 62% 30% 5 1% Yolo 1037 260 25% 218 42 84% 16% 0 0% Yuba 1063 777 73% 255 514 33% 66% 4 2% C ounties A pplications F iled P ercentage of F S-E S A pplications D enied P ercentage of F S-E S A pplications A pproved F S-E S Issued L ate A pplications C onsidered for F S-E S P ercentage of A pplications C onsider ed for F S-E S F S-E S A pplications A pproved F S-E S A pplications D enied P ercentage of F S-E S Issued L ate Tab le #2 – Jan u ary – M arch , 2004 mailto:[email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2004-21.pdf

913 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-21- December 14, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd San Benito County recently discov- ered that SB 1104 abolished the 18 month time periods for WtW self-initiated plans (SIP). Under SB 1104 SIP participants can continue to attend school for up to five (5) years to meet the goals in their plan. \ufffd From San Diego County Daniel Benson ([email protected]) reports that San Diego County is having the food stamp overissuances sent to the Franchise Tax board who then sends it to the IRS who sends it to the social security administration (SSA). The SSA then will garnish any type of social security other than SSI for that food stamp overissuance in the amount of 15%. This scenario is for those who are not pay- ing on their overissuance. This means that those clients who are hav- ing this done will have to request a hardship hearing through SSA to try and get that amount reduced. If you have any questions, contact Dennis at his e-mail address above. \ufffd Food Stamp EBT Update. Accord- ing to FNS, … 99.9 percent of all food stamp benefits are issued electronically. Forty-eight States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico have online operating Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems. Two States operate offline food stamp EBT systems and issue paper food coupons to recipients who move out of State and have remaining food stamp benefits. In Brief News from the State Capitol Child Care Fraud CWD Victim Report \ufffd \ufffd News from the Capitol 2005 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION BEGINS The 2005-2006 legisla- tive session began De- cember 6, 2004. The Senate elected its new leader, Senator Don Perata. As usual, there are changes in the chairs of the various committees. In the Senate, welfare legislation was consid- ered by the Senate Health and Welfare Com- mittee, which was later renamed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. This year, Human services has separated from the Health and Human Services Committee. The new chair for the Senate Human Services Committee is Joseph (Joe) S. Simitian. Senator Simitian is a former Santa Clara County Board Supervisor. Senator Joe Simitian \ufffd \ufffd In this Issue mailto:[email protected] CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-21- December 14, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The Assembly Human Services will be chaired by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) . Noreen Evans was first elected to the Santa Rosa City Council in 1996 and was re-elected to a second term in 2000. She served as a Santa Rosa Planning Com- missioner from 1993 to 1996. Ms. Evans received her Juris Doctorate De- gree from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento in 1981 and her BA degree (with honors) in government from California State University, Sacramento in 1978. She is currently an attorney with the Santa Rosa law firm of Lanahan & Reilley, LLP. Her practice emphasizes civil appeals and liti- gation. She is married to Mark Fudem, who is an at- torney. They have three children and live in Santa Rosa, California. The Assembly Budget Subcommittee for Health and Human Services has not been separated – and has a new chair from Los An- geles County, Hector De La Torre. Hector De La Torre majored in diplomacy and world af- fairs at Occidental College in Los Los Ange- les and attended George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Af- fairs. Mr. De La Torre later served as Assis- tant to the Deputy Secretary of Labor. Upon his return to California, Mr. De La Torre accepted a corporate position as a Project Manager in Communications. He was elected to the South Gate City Council in 1997 and represents the city on the Executive Board of Assemblyman Hector De La Torre the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, the Southern California Association of Gov- ernments and the League of California Cities. Mr. De La Torre resides in South Gate with his wife, Christine, and their two children. The Assembly Budget Committee will be chaired by Assemblyman Laird of Santa Cruz, which is a positive development for the people in poverty. Elected on November 5, 2002, Assemblymember John Laird represents the 27th State Assembly District, which includes Assemblywoman Noreen Evans CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-21- December 14, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 portions of Santa Cruz, Monterey and Santa Clara Counties. Prior to being elected to the As- s e m b l y , A s s e m b l y m e m b e r Laird served two terms on the Santa Cruz City Council, two terms as Mayor, and eight years as a Cabrillo College Trustee. Raised in Vallejo and educated in Vallejo public schools, Mr. Laird’s parents were both educators. He graduated from Adlai Stevenson College. In 1981, Assemblymember Laird was elected to a seat on the Santa Cruz City Council and served until term limits ended his council ser- vice in 1990. He was elected by the City Coun- cil to one-year mayor’s terms in 1983 and 1987, becoming one of the first openly gay mayors in the United States. John Laird lives in Santa Cruz with his part- ner John Flores. He is fluent in Spanish, has traveled widely, has conducted extensive fam- ily history research and is a life-long Chicago Cubs fan. CHILD CARE FRAUD Budget trailer bill SB 1104, included Section 1.3, which calls for a report due April 1, 2005 regarding an error rate study in the child care programs. In response, the Legislature enacted Educa- tion Code Section 8385 which mandates a study by the Department of Education in con- sultation with CDSS, welfare fraud investiga- tors and welfare fraud investigation experts to conduct a error rate study to determine the Assemblyman John Laird degree of errors and fraud in the Child Care Programs. The statute is silent on the fraud and abuse that counties inflict upon the consumers of the child care and supportive services programs for welfare to work participants. In our opinion, the Legislature should require vigorous and unyielding assessment and prosecution of county fraud in the same way that child care recipient fraud is pursued. The 2002 CDSS report reveals that over 75% of the children on CalWORKs are under 12 years of age. Children under 12 are eligible for child care. Statewide, during fiscal year 2003-2004, less than 29% of single parent WtW participants received child care. Thus, there is an esti- mated 46% of parents who should be eligible for child care but are not receiving it. It is estimated that welfare recipients have been unlawfully denied millions of child care dollars each year by counties such as Stanislaus County, which paid for child care for less than 7% of the single parents partici- pating in WtW activities; Santa Clara County at 23.17%; Contra Costa County at 22.96%; Los Angeles County at 22.75% and Orange County at 22.44%. In contrast, Yolo County provided child care to 64% of the unduplicated WtW participants, San Mateo County 62%, Fresno County 60%, San Diego County 54% and Solano County 51%. The need is there, it’s just that some counties meet the need and others unlawfully do not. mailto:[email protected] CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-21- December 14, 2004 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Child Care Overpayments and Underpay- ments should be treated equally, investigated equally and should carry equal penalties. TABLE #1 on page 4 reveals the percentage of unduplicated single parents receiving Stage 1 child care services during FY 2003-2004. The information on this table is based upon the CDSS CW 115 reports which can be found on the CDSS web page. CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK On December 1, 2004, Ms. P.S. applied for Cash aid, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal in Los Angeles County. Her benefits had stopped 11\/ 1\/04. She did not receive transitional food stamp benefits for the month of November, 2004. She arrived at the County Welfare Department (CWD) at approximately 11 a.m. She was not given a SAWS 1 to complete. Rather she was given a county screen- ing form to complete. After completing the form, she asked for a copy but the reception- ist refused to give one to her. By 11:15 a.m. Los Ange- les County had violated State regulation MPP 63.300. 31. which states: Applicants shall not be re- quired to complete any CWD developed prescreening form. After completing the county prescreening form, she had to wait for several hours. She sat through lunch without eating because she did not want to miss her name being called. The CWD did not have the human decency to tell people they could leave for lunch and come back at 1 P.M. Finally at 2:25 p.m. she was called by eligibility worker, Goar Bagda- saryan. Statewide 28.66% 1 Yolo 64.12% 30 Kings 28.37% 2 San Mateo 62.33% 31 San Joaquin 26.33% 3 Inyo 59.93% 32 Sutter 26.29% 4 Fresno 59.27% 33 Ventura 25.71% 5 San Luis Obispo 55.68% 34 Glenn 25.49% 6 San Diego 53.60% 35 Butte 25.29% 7 Solano 51.02% 36 Tehama 24.93% 8 Placer 47.97% 37 Sacramento 24.64% 9 Plumas 47.00% 38 Yuba 24.05% 10 Marin 45.51% 39 Santa Barbara 24.02% 11 Santa Cruz 43.52% 40 Santa Clara 23.17% 12 Napa 42.94% 41 Contra Costa 22.96% 13 Calaveras 40.74% 42 Los Angeles 22.75% 14 Tulare 40.33% 43 Alpine 22.50% 15 Lassen 39.06% 44 Orange 22.44% 16 Amador 38.32% 45 Sierra 22.00% 17 San Benito 37.61% 46 Merced 20.79% 18 Alameda 35.51% 47 Tuolumne 20.51% 19 San Francisco 32.43% 48 Lake 20.28% 20 Monterey 32.28% 49 Imperial 18.36% 21 Nevada 31.27% 50 Colusa 17.75% 22 Kern 30.66% 51 Mendocino 16.47% 23 San Bernardino 30.46% 52 Mono 15.61% 24 Mariposa 30.26% 53 Madera 15.27% 25 Sonoma 30.13% 54 Humboldt 15.20% 26 Riverside 29.84% 55 El Dorado 13.92% 27 Siskiyou 29.53% 56 Modoc 8.84% 28 Shasta 29.10% 57 Stanislaus 6.93% 29 Del Norte 28.64% 58 Trinity 5.88% TABLE #1- Percentage of Unduplicated Single Parents Receiving Stage 1 Child Care Services During FY 2003-2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-21- December 14, 2004 – Page 5 Ms. Bagdasaryan asked Ms. P.S. several questions, gave her a CW 1, also known as SAWS 1 and instructed her to sign it. The form included several question regarding Immedi- ate Need. This was another unlawful act by the county welfare worker. The regulations state that the Immediate Need questions of the SAWS 1 cannot be completed by the eligibility worker. MPP 40-129.33 states: The county shall not complete the Immediate Need section of the ap- plication or the Immediate Need Payment Re- quest (CA 4, 9\/90), except at the applicant’s spe- cific request. During the interview, welfare worker Bagdasaryan informed Ms. P.S. that lack of transportation was not an Immediate Need fac- tor. This was another false statement not sup- ported by the state regulations. 40-129.13 An \”Emergency Situation\” means one or more of the following exist: .131 Lack of Housing – The applicant is homeless as defined in MPP 44-211.511. .132 Pending Eviction – The applicant has re- ceived any type of eviction notice, including a three-day notice to pay or quit, evicting the fam- ily from its current residence. .133 Lack of Food – The applicant does not have enough food to sustain the family for a period of three calendar days. .134 Utility Shutoff Notice – The applicant has received a notice of termination of utility service or such service has been terminated. .135 Transportation – The applicant is unable to meet essential transportation needs such as those relating to food, medical care, or job opportunity. .136 Clothing – The applicant lacks essential cloth- ing such as diapers or clothing needed for inclem- ent weather. .137 Other – The applicant has other emergencies of similar importance to the family’s immediate health and safety. There is nothing in MPP 40-129.136 that states except for Los Angeles County. The county issued expedited food stamps, but said that they could not issue cash aid because she only had one need which was lack of food. Lack of transportation does not count in Los Angeles County. The next day, Ms. P.S. wisely contacted an advocate to help her get the Immediate Need (IN) benefits to which she was legally entitled. The advocate called the L.A. CWD West Val- ley Office and talked to Intake Supervisor, Julia Nazario. Ms. Nazario stated that the IN request was denied because Ms. P.S. did not give us the documentation. Ms. Nazario added, she did not ask for immediate need. When the advocate asked which statement was the correct; that she did not provide docu- mentation or she did not ask for IN, Ms. Nazario reverted back to the did not provide documentation position. When asked what documentation Ms. S.P. did not provide, Ms. Nazario listed the following: 1. Did not bring the children with her to the appointment with her. 2. Did not have birth certificates. 3. No school attendance verification. For about a year, Los Angeles County has stopped requiring children to be dragged into the welfare department to wait for hours and hours rather than being in school. Moreover, in order to receive IN, the applicant had to be apparently eligible, rather than com- pletely eligible. 40-129 .11 \”Apparent Eligibility\” means that the information provided on the Statement of Facts mailto:[email protected] CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-21- December 14, 2004 – Page 6 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 and information otherwise available to the county indicates that the applicant would be eli- gible for aid if the information on the Statement of Facts were verified. The regulations limit verification that families in emergency need to provide. Such persons only have to verify their alien status, and preg- nancy, if the pregnant applicant has no other children. The applicant also has to meet technical re- quirements, which are limited to providing a social security number and applying for un- employment benefits that are unconditionally available to the applicant. See MPP 40-129.2 40-129.2 Eligibility for an Immediate Need Pay- ment .21 Eligibility for an Immediate Need payment ex- ists when the applicant meets all of the following conditions: .211 Is apparently eligible for AFDC. (a) An alien applicant who does not provide verification of his\/her eligible alien status is not apparently eligible. (b) A woman with no eligible children who does not provide medical verification of pregnancy as specified in MPP 44-205.642 is not appar- ently eligible. .212 Has an emergency situation, without regard to whether it could have been anticipated, which cannot be addressed by the issuance of food stamps or homeless assistance or by referral to a commu- nity resource as specified in MPP 40-129.6. .213 Has resources that do not exceed the resource limitation as specified in MPP 40-129.22. .214 Has complied with the following technical con- ditions for AFDC: (a) Social security enumeration, application for unconditionally available income (including UIB), work registration of the principal earner who is exempt from GAIN due to remoteness, work registration of the nonfederal principal earner, and cooperation with the District Attor- ney in accordance with MPP 43-201.1. Finally, the advocate was able to reach Beth Sexton, who is the Deputy for CalWORKs in- take. She looked at the case and agreed that the county had wrongfully denied IN and is- sued IN. In addition, Ms. P.S. will receive her transitional food stamp benefits for the month of November, which was also unlawfully de- nied to her. Meanwhile, thousands of similar victims are being denied IN benefits in Los Angeles County because they do not have advocates. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hear- ing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Infor- mational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assis- tance and Refugee Immigration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 716-712-0071 mailto:[email protected]

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2005-01.pdf

802 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 1 In This Issue Capital Report State Budget Report CWD Victim Report\ufffd \ufffd \ufffd would be a revolt. However, poor women and children have always been easy targets and Gov- ernor Schwarzenegger is no exception. ASSAULT # 2. Decline the Ronald Reagan Cost of Living Increase for impoverished families. Savings of $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Currently, CalWORKs fixed incomes are at the level that similarly situated families received in 1990. The continuation of the erosion of the fixed in- come for low income families not only effects their basic survival needs, but forces them deeper into poverty. The CalWORKs cost-of-living ajjustment (COLA) was put into effect in 1971 by then Governor Ronald Reagan. Table #1 (Page 3) sets forth the COLA that famlies should receive on July 1, 2005 assuming that the Democratic Legislature does not agree to Schwarzanegger’s demands. ASSAULT # 3. Proposes to reduce the work in- centives enacted by the State Legislature in 1996. Savings of $80.4 million Current Work Deductions Take the gross Income and deduct $225 plus 50% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. Proposed Work Deductions Deduct $200 from the gross income plus 40% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. State Capital News 2005 STATE 2005 LEGISLATIVE SESSION BEGINS 2005-2006 State Budget News On January 5, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger delivered his second State of the Union speech. His main attack was aimed at Democrats by calling to change the way legislative districts are drawn. Democrats criticized the Governor for fail- ing to bring California money back to Cali- fornia as he suggested during his campaign for Governor. It is estimated that over $50 billion of California’s money goes to Wash- ington and never comes back. While this money could be used to supplement pro- grams like CalWORKs and it’s participants, the fact is that this money is used to subsi- dize other red States. These states con- tribute less than California but get more back from the Federal Government than Califor- nia. On January 10, 2005, the Governor unveiled his 2005-2006 proposed state budget. The former Terminator launched several assaults on impoverished California families with chil- dren in his proposed budget. ASSAULT #1- Reduce CalWORKs benefits for impoverished families by 6.5%. Savings $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This will lower the fixed incomes of CalWORKs fami- lies to 1988 levels. Remember, many these are working families. If any other workers salaries were reduced to 1988 levels, there CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: The cur- rent system makes work hardly beneficial. The current $225 standard deduction is deducted from the gross rather than the net. The count- able income is not deducted from the Mini- mum Basic Standard of Assistance Care (MBSAC), which is the minimum amount a family can live on, rather it is deducted from the maximum payment level, which reflects a starvation cap between what families need of the basic survival needs and the lesser amount they are given to survive. At least working parents should have their income de- ducted from the MBSAC. RECOMMENDATION: Yes, the work incen- tive needs reforming to make work pay; de- duct the standard deduction of $225 from the net income and the countable income from the MBSAC. ASSAULT # 4. Strengthen of the current sanc- tion process. Savings $12 million. Under the current sanction system more than 40% of the unduplicated welfare to work par- ticipants are sanctioned, however, most of the sanctions are unlawful. The budget has no legislative language for this proposal. After a few telephone calls we found out that CDSS has contracted with the Rand Corporation to study sanctions in California and to make recommendations. The specific proposals from DSS will be unveiled at bud- get hearings in April of 2005. SUMMARY OF THE 2005-2006 SCHWARZENEGGER ASSAULTS ON POOR FAMILIES (In Millions) 6.5% Benefit Reduction $210.7 No COLA $210.2 Reduction of Work Incentives $ 80.4 Sanctions Changes $ 12. TOTAL 513.3 The TANF Christmas Tree- CalWORKs Money Not Being Used for Payment to Families The total amount of money available for CalWORKs is $5.05 billion. $2.9 billion, is used for payments to poor fami- lies. Meanwhile 43% is used for purposes other than payments to families. The TANT block grant has been a Christmas tree for many years. Millions have been spent while poor families have been forced to suffer on fixed incomes at times, less than1990 lev- els. The 2005-2006 budget has again proposed to take money out of the mouths of poor chil- dren and give it to foster care programs and social services. The budget even proposed a $136 million reserve while sentencing poor families into deeper poverty. Moreover, the proposed budget will take $179 million CalWORKs money and give it to so- cial services. Another $49.9 million will be used for Foster Care Emergency Assistance grant and admin- istration. $138,4 million will be used for child welfare services. Another $201.4 million will be given to proba- tion departments. This is money that should be used to pay for Payment to Families. SUMMARY OF MONIES FOR NON-CalWORKs PROGRAMS (In Millions) Foster Care EA $188.3 Transfer to Title XX $179. Probation Facilities $201.4 Reserve $136. TOTAL $704.7 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The VICTORS AND LOSERS IN THE 2005-2006 BUDGET The 2005-2006 Budget is a clear cut assault on poor families with children. CalWORKs children not only get the least amount of assistance from the budget, but they are the only ones who receive less benefits in ’05-’06 than they received in ’04-’05. The average child in CalWORKs received $214 a month in ’04-’05, while in ’05-’06 the same child is scheduled to receive $197 a month. On the other hand, if that same child was in a foster care home, that child would receive $1,819 in ’05-’06, while receiving $1,805 in ’04- ’05. What is the difference? The CalWORKs child is living in a poor household, while the foster care child is generally in a middle class home. And if a middle class family decides to adopt a child will receive $765 for each adopted child in what is called adoption assistance in 2005- 2006, while the same adopted child received $744 in 2004-2005. Yes, CalWORKs children getting 10-25% of what foster and adopted children get will have their benefits reduced even further. 2004-2005 2005-2006 CalWORKs Child $214 $197- \ufffd Foster Care Child $1805 $1819 Adoption Child $744 $765 CWD Victim Report Ms. C.M. is a Sacramento mother of four chil- dren who received a vocational certificate with the help of the WtW program. In October she finally found a job but needed child care. She was referred to Child Action, the local child care dispensing agency, which is the only 2004-2005 2005-2006 Benefits Statutory Levels Benefit Levels $359 $331 $376 $346 $584 $540 $611 $565 $723 $671 $756 $702 $862 $799 $902 $836 $980 $909 $1,025 $951 $1,101 $1,021 $1,152 $1,068 $1,210 $1,119 $1,266 $1,170 $1,318 $1,221 $1,379 $1,277 $1,424 $1,230 $1,490 $1,287 $1,530 $1,417 $1,600 $1,482 Table #3 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 1 REGION 2 place WtW participants can receive child care services in Sacramento. Child Action de- mands that working moms come to the Child Action offices during regular working hours to attend an orientation class. Many working moms cannot take off from work. Ms. C.M. found a service provider, however, in December Ms. C.M. had yet to receive any child care assistance, thus, her hard to find child care provider quit. The county also failed to provide her with the transportation assis- tance that she was entitled to. Once her child care stopped, she had to stop working and stay home to take care of her children. Had she continued to work without child care, she would have been committing a FELONY – abandoning her children by leaving them home alone. Finally, Ms. C.M. received a letter in Decem- ber stating that her benefits would be lowered because she failed to keep an appointment with the WtW job club during November of 2004. She did not attend job club in Novem- ber of 2004, because she was working. In fact the county was aware that she was working and still scheduled a job club appointment. Ms. C.M. has now contacted a welfare advo- cate and has filed for a fair hearing to assure that her benefits are not being terminated. Average Monthly Aid to Children \ufffd \ufffd ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2005-01.pdf

765 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 1 In This Issue Capital Report State Budget Report CWD Victim Report\ufffd \ufffd \ufffd would be a revolt. However, poor women and children have always been easy targets and Gov- ernor Schwarzenegger is no exception. ASSAULT # 2. Decline the Ronald Reagan Cost of Living Increase for impoverished families. Savings of $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Currently, CalWORKs fixed incomes are at the level that similarly situated families received in 1990. The continuation of the erosion of the fixed in- come for low income families not only effects their basic survival needs, but forces them deeper into poverty. The CalWORKs cost-of-living ajjustment (COLA) was put into effect in 1971 by then Governor Ronald Reagan. Table #1 (Page 3) sets forth the COLA that famlies should receive on July 1, 2005 assuming that the Democratic Legislature does not agree to Schwarzanegger’s demands. ASSAULT # 3. Proposes to reduce the work in- centives enacted by the State Legislature in 1996. Savings of $80.4 million Current Work Deductions Take the gross Income and deduct $225 plus 50% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. Proposed Work Deductions Deduct $200 from the gross income plus 40% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. State Capital News 2005 STATE 2005 LEGISLATIVE SESSION BEGINS 2005-2006 State Budget News On January 5, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger delivered his second State of the Union speech. His main attack was aimed at Democrats by calling to change the way legislative districts are drawn. Democrats criticized the Governor for fail- ing to bring California money back to Cali- fornia as he suggested during his campaign for Governor. It is estimated that over $50 billion of California’s money goes to Wash- ington and never comes back. While this money could be used to supplement pro- grams like CalWORKs and it’s participants, the fact is that this money is used to subsi- dize other red States. These states con- tribute less than California but get more back from the Federal Government than Califor- nia. On January 10, 2005, the Governor unveiled his 2005-2006 proposed state budget. The former Terminator launched several assaults on impoverished California families with chil- dren in his proposed budget. ASSAULT #1- Reduce CalWORKs benefits for impoverished families by 6.5%. Savings $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This will lower the fixed incomes of CalWORKs fami- lies to 1988 levels. Remember, many these are working families. If any other workers salaries were reduced to 1988 levels, there CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: The cur- rent system makes work hardly beneficial. The current $225 standard deduction is deducted from the gross rather than the net. The count- able income is not deducted from the Mini- mum Basic Standard of Assistance Care (MBSAC), which is the minimum amount a family can live on, rather it is deducted from the maximum payment level, which reflects a starvation cap between what families need of the basic survival needs and the lesser amount they are given to survive. At least working parents should have their income de- ducted from the MBSAC. RECOMMENDATION: Yes, the work incen- tive needs reforming to make work pay; de- duct the standard deduction of $225 from the net income and the countable income from the MBSAC. ASSAULT # 4. Strengthen of the current sanc- tion process. Savings $12 million. Under the current sanction system more than 40% of the unduplicated welfare to work par- ticipants are sanctioned, however, most of the sanctions are unlawful. The budget has no legislative language for this proposal. After a few telephone calls we found out that CDSS has contracted with the Rand Corporation to study sanctions in California and to make recommendations. The specific proposals from DSS will be unveiled at bud- get hearings in April of 2005. SUMMARY OF THE 2005-2006 SCHWARZENEGGER ASSAULTS ON POOR FAMILIES (In Millions) 6.5% Benefit Reduction $210.7 No COLA $210.2 Reduction of Work Incentives $ 80.4 Sanctions Changes $ 12. TOTAL 513.3 The TANF Christmas Tree- CalWORKs Money Not Being Used for Payment to Families The total amount of money available for CalWORKs is $5.05 billion. $2.9 billion, is used for payments to poor fami- lies. Meanwhile 43% is used for purposes other than payments to families. The TANT block grant has been a Christmas tree for many years. Millions have been spent while poor families have been forced to suffer on fixed incomes at times, less than1990 lev- els. The 2005-2006 budget has again proposed to take money out of the mouths of poor chil- dren and give it to foster care programs and social services. The budget even proposed a $136 million reserve while sentencing poor families into deeper poverty. Moreover, the proposed budget will take $179 million CalWORKs money and give it to so- cial services. Another $49.9 million will be used for Foster Care Emergency Assistance grant and admin- istration. $138,4 million will be used for child welfare services. Another $201.4 million will be given to proba- tion departments. This is money that should be used to pay for Payment to Families. SUMMARY OF MONIES FOR NON-CalWORKs PROGRAMS (In Millions) Foster Care EA $188.3 Transfer to Title XX $179. Probation Facilities $201.4 Reserve $136. TOTAL $704.7 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The VICTORS AND LOSERS IN THE 2005-2006 BUDGET The 2005-2006 Budget is a clear cut assault on poor families with children. CalWORKs children not only get the least amount of assistance from the budget, but they are the only ones who receive less benefits in ’05-’06 than they received in ’04-’05. The average child in CalWORKs received $214 a month in ’04-’05, while in ’05-’06 the same child is scheduled to receive $197 a month. On the other hand, if that same child was in a foster care home, that child would receive $1,819 in ’05-’06, while receiving $1,805 in ’04- ’05. What is the difference? The CalWORKs child is living in a poor household, while the foster care child is generally in a middle class home. And if a middle class family decides to adopt a child will receive $765 for each adopted child in what is called adoption assistance in 2005- 2006, while the same adopted child received $744 in 2004-2005. Yes, CalWORKs children getting 10-25% of what foster and adopted children get will have their benefits reduced even further. 2004-2005 2005-2006 CalWORKs Child $214 $197- \ufffd Foster Care Child $1805 $1819 Adoption Child $744 $765 CWD Victim Report Ms. C.M. is a Sacramento mother of four chil- dren who received a vocational certificate with the help of the WtW program. In October she finally found a job but needed child care. She was referred to Child Action, the local child care dispensing agency, which is the only 2004-2005 2005-2006 Benefits Statutory Levels Benefit Levels $359 $331 $376 $346 $584 $540 $611 $565 $723 $671 $756 $702 $862 $799 $902 $836 $980 $909 $1,025 $951 $1,101 $1,021 $1,152 $1,068 $1,210 $1,119 $1,266 $1,170 $1,318 $1,221 $1,379 $1,277 $1,424 $1,230 $1,490 $1,287 $1,530 $1,417 $1,600 $1,482 Table #3 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 1 REGION 2 place WtW participants can receive child care services in Sacramento. Child Action de- mands that working moms come to the Child Action offices during regular working hours to attend an orientation class. Many working moms cannot take off from work. Ms. C.M. found a service provider, however, in December Ms. C.M. had yet to receive any child care assistance, thus, her hard to find child care provider quit. The county also failed to provide her with the transportation assis- tance that she was entitled to. Once her child care stopped, she had to stop working and stay home to take care of her children. Had she continued to work without child care, she would have been committing a FELONY – abandoning her children by leaving them home alone. Finally, Ms. C.M. received a letter in Decem- ber stating that her benefits would be lowered because she failed to keep an appointment with the WtW job club during November of 2004. She did not attend job club in Novem- ber of 2004, because she was working. In fact the county was aware that she was working and still scheduled a job club appointment. Ms. C.M. has now contacted a welfare advo- cate and has filed for a fair hearing to assure that her benefits are not being terminated. Average Monthly Aid to Children \ufffd \ufffd ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2005-01.pdf

729 downloads

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 1 In This Issue Capital Report State Budget Report CWD Victim Report\ufffd \ufffd \ufffd would be a revolt. However, poor women and children have always been easy targets and Gov- ernor Schwarzenegger is no exception. ASSAULT # 2. Decline the Ronald Reagan Cost of Living Increase for impoverished families. Savings of $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Currently, CalWORKs fixed incomes are at the level that similarly situated families received in 1990. The continuation of the erosion of the fixed in- come for low income families not only effects their basic survival needs, but forces them deeper into poverty. The CalWORKs cost-of-living ajjustment (COLA) was put into effect in 1971 by then Governor Ronald Reagan. Table #1 (Page 3) sets forth the COLA that famlies should receive on July 1, 2005 assuming that the Democratic Legislature does not agree to Schwarzanegger’s demands. ASSAULT # 3. Proposes to reduce the work in- centives enacted by the State Legislature in 1996. Savings of $80.4 million Current Work Deductions Take the gross Income and deduct $225 plus 50% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. Proposed Work Deductions Deduct $200 from the gross income plus 40% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. State Capital News 2005 STATE 2005 LEGISLATIVE SESSION BEGINS 2005-2006 State Budget News On January 5, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger delivered his second State of the Union speech. His main attack was aimed at Democrats by calling to change the way legislative districts are drawn. Democrats criticized the Governor for fail- ing to bring California money back to Cali- fornia as he suggested during his campaign for Governor. It is estimated that over $50 billion of California’s money goes to Wash- ington and never comes back. While this money could be used to supplement pro- grams like CalWORKs and it’s participants, the fact is that this money is used to subsi- dize other red States. These states con- tribute less than California but get more back from the Federal Government than Califor- nia. On January 10, 2005, the Governor unveiled his 2005-2006 proposed state budget. The former Terminator launched several assaults on impoverished California families with chil- dren in his proposed budget. ASSAULT #1- Reduce CalWORKs benefits for impoverished families by 6.5%. Savings $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This will lower the fixed incomes of CalWORKs fami- lies to 1988 levels. Remember, many these are working families. If any other workers salaries were reduced to 1988 levels, there CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: The cur- rent system makes work hardly beneficial. The current $225 standard deduction is deducted from the gross rather than the net. The count- able income is not deducted from the Mini- mum Basic Standard of Assistance Care (MBSAC), which is the minimum amount a family can live on, rather it is deducted from the maximum payment level, which reflects a starvation cap between what families need of the basic survival needs and the lesser amount they are given to survive. At least working parents should have their income de- ducted from the MBSAC. RECOMMENDATION: Yes, the work incen- tive needs reforming to make work pay; de- duct the standard deduction of $225 from the net income and the countable income from the MBSAC. ASSAULT # 4. Strengthen of the current sanc- tion process. Savings $12 million. Under the current sanction system more than 40% of the unduplicated welfare to work par- ticipants are sanctioned, however, most of the sanctions are unlawful. The budget has no legislative language for this proposal. After a few telephone calls we found out that CDSS has contracted with the Rand Corporation to study sanctions in California and to make recommendations. The specific proposals from DSS will be unveiled at bud- get hearings in April of 2005. SUMMARY OF THE 2005-2006 SCHWARZENEGGER ASSAULTS ON POOR FAMILIES (In Millions) 6.5% Benefit Reduction $210.7 No COLA $210.2 Reduction of Work Incentives $ 80.4 Sanctions Changes $ 12. TOTAL 513.3 The TANF Christmas Tree- CalWORKs Money Not Being Used for Payment to Families The total amount of money available for CalWORKs is $5.05 billion. $2.9 billion, is used for payments to poor fami- lies. Meanwhile 43% is used for purposes other than payments to families. The TANT block grant has been a Christmas tree for many years. Millions have been spent while poor families have been forced to suffer on fixed incomes at times, less than1990 lev- els. The 2005-2006 budget has again proposed to take money out of the mouths of poor chil- dren and give it to foster care programs and social services. The budget even proposed a $136 million reserve while sentencing poor families into deeper poverty. Moreover, the proposed budget will take $179 million CalWORKs money and give it to so- cial services. Another $49.9 million will be used for Foster Care Emergency Assistance grant and admin- istration. $138,4 million will be used for child welfare services. Another $201.4 million will be given to proba- tion departments. This is money that should be used to pay for Payment to Families. SUMMARY OF MONIES FOR NON-CalWORKs PROGRAMS (In Millions) Foster Care EA $188.3 Transfer to Title XX $179. Probation Facilities $201.4 Reserve $136. TOTAL $704.7 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The VICTORS AND LOSERS IN THE 2005-2006 BUDGET The 2005-2006 Budget is a clear cut assault on poor families with children. CalWORKs children not only get the least amount of assistance from the budget, but they are the only ones who receive less benefits in ’05-’06 than they received in ’04-’05. The average child in CalWORKs received $214 a month in ’04-’05, while in ’05-’06 the same child is scheduled to receive $197 a month. On the other hand, if that same child was in a foster care home, that child would receive $1,819 in ’05-’06, while receiving $1,805 in ’04- ’05. What is the difference? The CalWORKs child is living in a poor household, while the foster care child is generally in a middle class home. And if a middle class family decides to adopt a child will receive $765 for each adopted child in what is called adoption assistance in 2005- 2006, while the same adopted child received $744 in 2004-2005. Yes, CalWORKs children getting 10-25% of what foster and adopted children get will have their benefits reduced even further. 2004-2005 2005-2006 CalWORKs Child $214 $197- \ufffd Foster Care Child $1805 $1819 Adoption Child $744 $765 CWD Victim Report Ms. C.M. is a Sacramento mother of four chil- dren who received a vocational certificate with the help of the WtW program. In October she finally found a job but needed child care. She was referred to Child Action, the local child care dispensing agency, which is the only 2004-2005 2005-2006 Benefits Statutory Levels Benefit Levels $359 $331 $376 $346 $584 $540 $611 $565 $723 $671 $756 $702 $862 $799 $902 $836 $980 $909 $1,025 $951 $1,101 $1,021 $1,152 $1,068 $1,210 $1,119 $1,266 $1,170 $1,318 $1,221 $1,379 $1,277 $1,424 $1,230 $1,490 $1,287 $1,530 $1,417 $1,600 $1,482 Table #3 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 1 REGION 2 place WtW participants can receive child care services in Sacramento. Child Action de- mands that working moms come to the Child Action offices during regular working hours to attend an orientation class. Many working moms cannot take off from work. Ms. C.M. found a service provider, however, in December Ms. C.M. had yet to receive any child care assistance, thus, her hard to find child care provider quit. The county also failed to provide her with the transportation assis- tance that she was entitled to. Once her child care stopped, she had to stop working and stay home to take care of her children. Had she continued to work without child care, she would have been committing a FELONY – abandoning her children by leaving them home alone. Finally, Ms. C.M. received a letter in Decem- ber stating that her benefits would be lowered because she failed to keep an appointment with the WtW job club during November of 2004. She did not attend job club in Novem- ber of 2004, because she was working. In fact the county was aware that she was working and still scheduled a job club appointment. Ms. C.M. has now contacted a welfare advo- cate and has filed for a fair hearing to assure that her benefits are not being terminated. Average Monthly Aid to Children \ufffd \ufffd ”