Search Demo

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Bush and Compassion Department of Health and Human Services Of- fice of Community Services has published a re- quest for proposal for compassion capital fund targeted capacity-building program. Federal Register\/Vol.68, No. 132\/Thursday, July 10, 2003. The purpose of this compassion program to fund faith based organizations that address the needs of the youth and homeless. DHHS alleges that this funding is authorized by Section 1110 of the Social Security Act that pro- vides for demonstration programs and research. We believe a good demonstration program would be to show that the Bush policies mutilate the concept of compassion and are a major contribu- tor to the problems with poor youth and home- lessness in America. No COLA in LA County Los Angeles County has decided to wait for Sep- tember to implement the June 1, 2003 COLA. This action is rationalized by the county because certain computer codes have been frozen to start EBT in two of their 50 or more districts. The county can implement the COLA manually, but has decided not to do so. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-21 — July, 2003 Bush and Compassion No COLA in LA County TANF Update DSS News DHS News County Victim of the Week ( Kern County) Off course this is illegal, but then what does Los Angeles County DPSS care about the law. They would have never delayed their own wage-COLA for three (3) months. That would have been unthink- able. But when it comes to CalWORKs families liv- ing on a fixed income at a level they received in 1989 – its perfectly acceptable.. The victims of LA county’s DPSS unlawful and de- viant behavior are not only current recipients. The class of the victims have several subclasses: 1. Current recipients; 2. Applicants whose gross income less $90 is more than the current Maximum Basic Standard of Ad- equate Care (MBSAC), but less than the MBSAC effective June 1,2003 reflected to new COLA; 3. CalWORKs families with earned income whose net countable is more than the current Maximum Aid Payment (MAP), but less than the June 1, 2003 MAP reflected to new COLA; 4. CalWORKs families with earned income whose net countable income is more than the current Maxi- mum Aid Payment (MAP), but less than the June 1, 2003 MAP reflected to new COLA and whose ben- efits where suspended for two months, but on the third month they are totally ineligible. This news was unveiled at a meeting between advo- cates and DPSS on July 9, 2003. A representative of DPSS categorically stated that the COLA could s CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003- 21- 7\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 not be done because certain computer codes are frozen. However in a telephone meeting with DSS and the DPSS representative it was revealed that the county can indeed implement the COLA manu- ally, which was never mentioned during the July 9, 2003 advocates meeting. DPSS is always telling clients that honesty is the best policy. It is time for DPSS to practice what it preaches. TANF Reauthorization Update The United States Senate Finance Committee plans to start considering the TANF reauthorization on July 23, 2003. Meanwhile the Senator Grassley of Idaho and Max Baucus of Montana are meeting to agree on the bill that will be marked-up. This is how the demo- cratic process works in America. It is all behind closed doors, away from the public. Other Senators, who are on the Finance Commit- tee or not on it, may influence this process by con- tacting Senators Grassley and\/or Baucus. The issues that the Committee will consider are: — Increasing the weekly work requirement hours; — Increase work hours for moms with children under six; — Increase child care funding; — Expand education and training opportunities; –Restore benefits to immigrants; — Enhance child support Stay tuned for bad or good news. DSS NEWS — ACIN I-38-03 revises the 15 percent ABAWDs exemption available to counties based on the ad- justment issued by FNS. The prior exemption for the State of California was 68,715 exemption months. The revised number os 567,188 exemption months. This is about a 900% increase. This should mean that counties should be exempting ABAWDs from the three month limit on food stamp eligibility. Unfortunately no one really monitors whether or not the counties are utilizing the exemptions. Many counties are unlawfully not utilizing these exemp- tions and thereby intentionally starving poor women and men who have no children. — ACIN I-39-03 provides that counties can e-mail their IEVS reports and WtW 25 reports to the state via internet. We hope this means that DSS would share this information with the public in a timely fashion. The last homeless assistance and expedited food stamp report available to the public was back in June of 2002. We have heard how slow the bureaucracy works, but this is way to slow. Any one at DSS cares? — ACL 03-32 provides that the Medi-Cal A&D FLP effective January 1, 2003 is #1,332. DHS NEWS — All County Welfare Director letter (ACWDL) 03-40 provides for the implementation of legisla- tion enacted during 2002 to allow food stamp re- CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-21- 7\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 cipients to request determination of eligibility for Medi-Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10618.5 and 18925 provides that each county shall develope their own notices to inform food stamp recipients that they may be eligible for Medi-Cal. The notice is supposed to be written in culturally and linguis- tically appropriate language and appropriate level. Food Stamp recipients who are not receiving Medi- Cal will be mailed this notice with a self-addressed stamped envelope asking whether or not the house- hold wants to apply for Medi-Cal. This legislation was effective January 1, 2003, but it is just being implemented because it helps people. Legislation that screw the poor is implemented right away. — ACWDL 03-41 – Medi-Cal Midyear Status Report. This new require- ment was a part of the so- called midyear budget cuts . Effective August 1, 2003. counties will implement the midyear reporting re- quirement. This change is designed to knock people off Medi-Cal and leave them without medical as- sistance. The midyear report does not effect children get- ting Medi-Cal. Thus, if the parents fail to turn in the midyear report only the mama and papa loose their Medi-Cal benefits, but the kids would still get Medi-Cal. This change also does not include: –Pregnant women whose only eligibility is based on pregnancy; — Persons under the age of 21; — Adults getting Medi-Cal through the Adoption assistance program; (it is OK for adopting parents not to submit a midyear report, but natural parents will be punished – natural parents are considered deviants by this legislation) — All CalWORKs recipients because they actually do monthly reports. If the midyear report reflects a change that may make the beneficiary ineligible for Medi-Cal, the county has to follow the SB 87 process before ter- minating benefits as reflected in ACWDL 01-36 and 02-59. They can be downloaded at: http:\/\/ www.dhs.cahwnet.gov\/mcs\/mcpd\/MEB\/ACLs\/ ACWDLs.htm. County Victim of the Week On March 5, 2003, Gilbert Flores, a longtime ad- vocate for CRLA received a hearing decision in the favor of Kern County vic- tim. Ms. 02323281’s hearing was attended by Kern County representative Deanna Bishop and two Kern County welfare fraud investigators Mrs. BD and EA The victim has two minor children and she is dis- abled receiving SSI benefits. The victim moved from Fresno County to Kern County. On 10\/8\/02 she had a face to face interview with her Kern County eligibility worker for an inter- county transfer. On 11\/1\/02 she received a NOA stating that her application for Medi-Cal was denied because she These are welfare recipient ter- rorists working for the govern- ment and openly breaking the law. Well, thanks to Gill Flores of CRLA and Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Parker of DSS the terror of Kern County against Ms. 02323281 was prevented. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-21- 7\/03-Page 4 failed to provide verification of earned income. This was an ILLEGAL act by Kern County. On 11\/4\/02 Kern County mailed another notice stating that her CalWORKs application was being denied because she did not include all spouses on her application. This was an ILLEGAL act by Kern County. On 11\/4\/02 Kern County issued another notice stopping her food stamp benefits because a person getting SSI cannot get food stamps and her where- abouts was unknown. This was an ILLEGAL act by Kern County. Some may say that we are being outrageous when we accuse Kern County of committing illegal acts. Any idiot with a half a brain knows that intercounty transfers are recipients and not applicants. When a CalWORKs case moves from one county to an- other, they remain recipients for CalWORKs and Medi-Cal purposes, but have to reapply for Food Stamps because they are living in a new county. Off course, the county did not do a SB 87 determi- nation of Medi-Cal before the Medi-Cal benefits were criminally and cruelly stopped for this dis- abled victim . Any idiot with a half a brain knows that SSI re- cipients income does not affect CalWORKs, be it earned or unearned. But that must be news to Kern County. Kern County welfare fraud goons had a conversa- tion with the sister of Ms. 02323281 and recorded the conversation without telling the her that she was being recorded. It appears criminal behavior by kern county welfare bureaucrats is the norm and not the exception. These are welfare recipient terrorists working for the government and openly breaking the law. Well, thanks to Gill Flores of CRLA and Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Parker of DSS the terror of Kern County against Ms. 02323281 was prevented. But how many other victims are being terrorized daily by the Kern County welfare terrorists? 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 ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 A person Fighting for the Poor – Senator John Burton Today, the Sacramento Bee had a nice write up about John Burton, the California State Senate Majority leader, who has been the major force behind stopping the wholesale slaughter of the poor aged, blind, disabled and families with children of California. Year ago, John said, I did not come here to f–k welfare recipients. Many have come to Sacramento for that reason – Democrats and Republicans. And he has kept true to his promise. While the California State Assembly could not wait to f–k he poor aged, blind, disabled and families with children of California, Sena- tor Burton stopped the slaughter in its tracks and today SSI and CalWORKs recipients are getting their June, 2003 COLA – Thanks to John Burton and the Senate Democratic Caucus. TANF Reauthorization Update As we reported last week, the United State Sen- ate Finance Committee plans to mark-up the TANF reauthorization bill. The Republican Senate bill will have the name CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-22 — July, 2003 A person fighting for the poor – Senator John Burton TANF Reauthorization Update DSS News County Victim of the Week Statistic of the Week- May, 2002 WtW sanctions compared to May, 2003 sanctions of PRIDE, which stands for Personal Responsibil- ity and Individual Development for Everyone. This is simply another terrorist attack upon the poor by mean-spirited Republicans who get off on terror- izing poor moms and their babies who cannot fight back. This chairman’s mark, which means the chairman’s proposal, will emulate the Bush proposal and H.R. 4, the Republican controlled House of Representa- tives bill. Chairman Grassley showed pride by not including the following provisions of the chair’s mark: * Restoration of benefits for legal immigrants in TANF and Medicaid\/SCHIP. * Expansion of education and training as activities that count toward the core work requirement. * Improved procedures for assessing and treating barriers to employment that may result in sanctions because families are unable to comply with work rules, or for protecting families from unfair treat- ment. * No less than a $5.5 billion increase in funding for child care. * Transitional Medicaid Assistance (TMA). * A more inclusive provision to allow individuals caring for sick or disabled family members to count that care toward the work participation requirement. These are the provisions that 41 Democratic Sena- tors say needs to be in the bill for them to vote for it. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003- 22- 7\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The 41- Senator letter also opposes the chair’s mark that reflect the mean-spirited George Bush attack on the poor parents and babies of America’s poor. For Senator Grassley to call this vicious attack on poor families – PRIDE – is condescending and de- moralizing. DSS NEWS — ACIN I-42-03 contains questions and answers relative to Immediate Need (IN) expedited Food Stamp (ES) and Homeless Assistance (HA). The first question asks if a persons seeking HA need an eviction notice. DSS responds no , but then continues to say that the county can ask for a copy of the eviction notice. The final sentence states When the applicant is unable to provide documentation of homelessness within three working days, the county may ac- cept a sworn statement by the applicant. As to where DSS got this new policy is a mystery. There is no law or regulations saying that homeless babies and their par- ents have to fry in the hot sun or the cold for three working days before the county may accept the sworn statement. The law is clear. Look at 40-115.22 which states: When such evidence does not exist, the applicant’s sworn statement under penalty of perjury will be considered sufficient, except in the areas of verification of U.S. citizenship or alienage status and\/ or medical verification or pregnancy. See Section 42- 433 for verification of citizenship or eligible alien status and 80-300(m)(2) for verification of pregnancy. In addition MPP 44-211.521(a)(1) provides that the test for eligibility for HA is apparent eligibility where you only have to verify alien status, preg- nancy and meet the conditional eligibility require- ments, such as applying for a social security and unconditionally available income. The true answer is that if the applicant does not have a copy of the eviction notice, then the county shall accept their statement. Some counties who have no respect for the law require homeless recipients to live in a shelter for three (3) days before they are allowed to apply for HA. This is another example of county’s deviant behavior terrorizing poor homeless families. Ques- tion #4 states: Can a county require a family to reside in a shelter for 3 days prior to applying for HA? The DSS answer is no . It also appears that some counties have been erect- ing barriers between homeless families and the application for HA. In answer to question #6 DSS makes it crystal clear – no . Question #10 addresses the issue of, when is a family considered homeless. Many counties have been practicing illegal policies of requiring an evic- tion notice in order to get HA, or showing a letter from the place they stayed last night that they can- not return to that place. Question # 10 states Is a family that is temporarily residing with another The biggest problem with these kinds of ACINs is that they never go to a public hearing and there is no informal review of before they go public, except for allowing county officials to look at them. DSS meets with counties every month. Advocates cannot even get a quarterly meeting with DSS. DSS did agree to allow le- gal services advocates to review the ACL and ACINs before they are published, but that did not happen for this ACIN. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-22- 7\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 family considered homeless? DSS Response: Yes. An otherwise eligible AU or FS household that temporarily resides with another family is considered eligible to receive HA because they lack a fixed and regular nighttime residence (MPP 44-211.511 and MPP 63-102(h)(2) The biggest problem with these kinds of ACINs is that they never go to a public hearing and there is no informal review of before they go public, ex- cept for allowing county officials to look at them. DSS meets with counties every month. Advocates cannot even get a quarterly meeting with DSS. DSS did agree to allow legal services advocates to re- view the ACL and ACINs before they are published, but that did not happen for this ACIN. County Victim of the Week — Ms. 022560134 and her husband have been told that they have to work, work, work by Los Angeles County. To meet this work-work-work thing, Mr. 022560134 got a job as an apartment man- ager getting $500 a month plus free rent at a value of $1.225. He works from 8 to 5 every- day, on call for emergency problems 24 hours a day. If there is a vacancy, he works addi- tional hours to get the vacancies filled. Los Angeles County decided that Mr. 022560134 was not working 35 hours a week and denied Mr. 022560134 request to be ex- empted from WtW because he is working 35 hours a week. Los Angeles County wanted him to stop work- ing and go to orientation, then job club, to find a job. There is nothing in the state law or the federal law that would not count these legiti- mate hours to be counted towards meeting his participation hours. But Los Angeles County decided that he was only earning $500 plus in-kind income of $293. Thus, LA county alleged that his earning are $793. LA County stated that he was working 118 hours a month, which is less than 35 hours a week. In reality, he is earning $ 1,725 a month and if you divide that by the state minimum wage of $6.75 an hour, he would be working 59 hours a week. That would satisfy the federal TANF participation rates, but then DSS and DPSS believe that sanctioning CalWORKs partici- pants is more important than meeting the fed- eral participation rates. Mr. 022560134 was represented by Kathleen Sheffield of Neighborhood Legal Services, which may be the primary reason Mr. 022560134 won his case – the exemption was granted by Administrative Law Judge Casimiro Tolentino, who is a fair ALJ. Statistic of the Week This week DSS published the Welfare to Work sanctions on their web page. WtW 25 and WtW 25A. As complaints about sanctions, most of them unlawful, have increased, we looked at the county sanction rates of May of 2002 and May of 2003. It turns out that there is a 9% sanction rate. During May of 2003, there were 137,282 undupli- cated participants. During that same month 52,831 of those participants were sanctioned. Of the 137,282 participants only 65,849 received trans- portation assistance. A whopping 71,433 partici- pants did not receive transportation assistance. It is estimated by CCWRO that many of these vic- tims were entitled to transportation and were un- lawfully denied such benefits by the county wel- fare department personal. The willful and unlaw- ful failure of the county to provide transportation can easily explain why so many people are being 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-22- 7\/03-Page 4 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 sanctioned for failing to participate – how can they participate without transportation? But the real purpose of the WtW is being met – sanctions are on the rise and this should keep the state and county welfare administrators happy. The counties exceeding the statewide average are: May, 2002 May, 2003 Differences Counties Sanction Sanctions Between 2002 and 2003 Alpine 16.67% 58.33% 41.67% Mono 30.00% 69.23% 39.23% Napa 51.24% 85.34% 34.11% Tulare 30.10% 61.87% 31.77% Sierra 0.00% 30.77% 30.77% Plumas 45.83% 73.17% 27.34% Kern 17.70% 40.58% 22.88% Fresno 75.09% 97.81% 22.72% L.A 36.48% 59.06% 22.58% San Joaquin 51.02% 70.47% 19.45% Shasta 27.47% 46.26% 18.79% Kings 15.16% 33.20% 18.04% Sutter 42.90% 60.56% 17.66% San Diego 33.30% 50.32% 17.01% Siskiyou 39.53% 55.28% 15.74% Butte 27.18% 42.31% 15.13% Colusa 52.24% 65.12% 12.88% Tuolumne 12.44% 25.20% 12.76% Mendocino 30.39% 39.54% 9.15% San Mateo 12.25% 21.00% 8.75% Statewide 29.80% 38.48% 8.68% ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 TANF Reauthorization Update TANF markup did not happen on July 23, 2003. There were several reasons for this. Primarily, the Senate Finance Committee rules require a 48 hour notice before a bill is marked up. The outline of the bill that we reported last week did not have the necessary votes to pass on 7\/23\/03, thus, mark-up was postponed. Mark-up could happen during the week of July 28, 2003. 2003-2004 State Budget Adopted by Legislature Today, July 29, 2003, the State budget was finally adopted by the State Legislature. The budget is composed of the budget bill, AB 1765 and various trailer bills implementing the budget. The welfare trailer bill is AB 1752. You can view the bill at: http:\/\/ www.leginfo.ca.gov\/bilinfo.html. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-23 — July, 2003 TANF Reauthorization Update State Budget News AB 1752 repeals the June 2003 COLA. Thus, the COLA for June will continue. The October 2003 COLA was suspended. Section 32 of AB 1752, the budget trailer bill, implements five months of transitional food stamps, which is a state option under federal law. Thus, any person who becomes ineligible for CalWORKs can continue to receive food stamps at the same level they were receiving when their CalWORKs stopped. If a households income goes down, then they can reapply to have their food stamps read- justed. The Budget bill, AB 1765, contains language requesting enough child support administrative law judges to assure that child support fair hear- ings are conducted in a timely fashion as re- quired by state law. Currently, hearings are backed up for months. Timely hearings still may be a litigation issue for 2003-2004. Similar language was contained in the budget last year, but additional judges were not hired. ”

” 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 ccwro@aol.com. 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 ”

” 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 ccwro@aol.com asking for a copy of these regulations. ”

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE 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 #2003-26 — August 19, 2003 Retroactive Child Care Regulations County Victim Report The 2002-2003 State Budget contained a child care provision. This provision was placed in AB 444, which is commonly known as the Budget Trailer Bill. This child care provision had nothing to do with the budget, but it was a convenient way of circumventing the process to enact legislation. The manipulation of the process was requested by Los Angeles County welfare bureaucrats who wanted to limit retroactive child care to 30 days. Los Angeles County often refuses to accept and process child care requests. When a participant finally files for a hearing and gets retroactive relief, because they were being ripped off by the Los Angeles County DPSS bureaucrats, the bureaucrats are ORDERED to repay all of the child stolen from the CalWORKs recipients. Well, the LA DPSS thieves did not like getting caught. So they lobbied and get a new Section in the Welfare and Institutions Code 11323.3., which is Section 34 of AB 444. This section provides that the Department shall provide CalWORKs applicants and recipients with a written notice at application and when the CalWORKs recipient signs the original or amended Welfare to Work plan. The bill also provides that child care providers shall be paid promptly. Finally the bill requires that retroactive child care Retroactive Child Care Regulations is limited to 30 days from the date of the request, provided that the CalWORKs recipients has received a notice of availability of child care. Subsection (e) provides that DSS shall adopt regulations to implement this section. The proposed regulations will be considered at a public hearing on August 20, 2003. Persons interested may download the proposed regulations from the internet at www.dss.cahnet. gov\/ord. Our review of the regulations discovered that the regulatory package ignores the intent of the Legislature in subsection (a) of Section 11323.2 that states: …child care providers shall be promptly paid for their services to eligible families. There is no proposed regulation that defines promptly . It should be noted that most child care providers are living in poverty. The prompt payment is important for they do not have thousands of dollars in savings to pay for food and housing they need for themselves and their families. Not only that, but they also have child care space and related expenses to pay. There is also no form provided to applicants and recipients to request child care. There is an informing form, but not a child care request CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-26 — August 19, 2003-Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 form. This is not to say that DSS and the counties have not created a form for recipients to request child care. – There is – but it is not readily accessible to the people who need child care. We have been told by CalWORKs participants that this is done intentionally – by not making the form available to participants to ask for child care and other supportive services, participants cannot request child care and with these regulations, counties could only go back 30 days – thus, many poor families will get stick with owing thousands and thousands of dollars of child care to low-income providers, while DSS and counties will be laughing at these people in misery. It is very simple. Ms. Laura Bush is on welfare and working. She needs child care. The county has contracted with the R&Rs to do child care. Thus, the welfare department does not pay child care. The R&R would not process Stage 1 child care unless they get a referral from the worker. Getting hold of the worker is like getting hold of the Pope, who may be more accessible that many welfare workers in California. These regulations completely ignore that problem. Maybe it is done intentionally. It may be the only way to keep the WtW sanctions going up and up. A recent survey done by DSS concluded that the biggest reason for sanctions is lack of child care according to California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA). Section 11323.2(a)(3) provides that A recipients required to inform the county welfare department of his or her need for paid child care as soon as the need arises. And how does DSS implement this section? By informing applicants and recipients that they can get child care. Yes, counties are instructed to accept and process child care payment requests. But the regulations fail miserably of providing a rational and user friendly process for the child care recipient to request child care. When DSS and counties want to know what income the applicants or recipients have, they created a report form (called WR7, CA7,SAWS7 and CW7) that all recipients are required to complete each month. Why the form? So the county will get the information. Why not just let the applicant or recipient call and tell the county that they have income? Now that would save a lot of staff time and paper. Well, DSS and county staff decided that the most effective way to get income information is to have a monthly income report — or soon a quarterly report. But when it comes to recipients getting the child benefits, DSS had decided that this is not important – to warrant a monthly supportive services request form. Support Services Request form would help people, whereas the monthly income report could take benefits away from them. Could that be the reason for having a monthly income report and no monthly supportive services request report? The recipients we talk to believe it is the only reason. We would respectfully suggest that the SAWS 7, or CW 7, be amended to include a space for recipients to request supportive services. We would also proposed that 47-120.12 be amended to read: 47-120.2 is the approval process. The proposed regulations completely ignore the legislative mandate for prompt payment see W&IC 11323.3(a). There is a huge difference between determining eligibility and paid . Determining eligibility means that payment can be made. Thousands of eligible persons wait for weeks and months to get a payment. Many are today unemployed because DSS and the counties did not pay, thus, they lost their child care supportive services and had to quit their job to protect their children – the option was to leave the child home alone – a felony crime in California – endangering the child. Meanwhile millions are wasted on welfare to work, or what we called welfare to nowhere , CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-26 — August 19, 2003-Page 3 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 trying to make the participant employable, only to defeat everything because DSS is afraid to make sure counties obey the law by promulgating regulation that are clear and implement the statute. Subsection (e) of Section 11323.2 states: The department shall develop regulations to implement this section. It does not say that the Department shall pass the buck to the counties by not even defining prompt payment: CCWRO has recommended that DSS add subsection .24 to read: 47-120.24 Prompt Payment Once eligibility is established pursuant to subsection .21, a payment shall be made available to the person eligible for such payment within three (3) working days. This will comply with the law. Obeying the law is a good thing that should be championed by government rather than ignored as it is done here. 11323.3(b) states: An applicant for, or a recipient of, CalWORKs benefits shall be provided written notice, both at the time of application and when he or she signs an original or amended welfare-to-work plan, of the availability of paid child care as provided in Section 11323.2. This is simple English notice is provided at (1) the time of application; and (2) when the participant sign an original amended WtW plan. Proposed regulation 47-120.24, which implements this section, provides that the notice has to be signed by mailing it out to applicants and recipients with the SAWS 7s, mailing it out with welfare checks, and when the client contacts the CWD for any reason. THIS IS ILLEGAL. Only Informing Notices provided notice is provided at (1) the time of application; and (2) when the participant sign an original amended WtW plan meet the statutory definition. It appears that this regulation is adding to the statute in DIRECT CONFLICT with the statute. This is not good. DSS should implement the law and let lawmakers make the law. DSS regulations writers are not lawmakers. We encourage advocate to submit testimony. This can be done via e-mail. Go to www.dss.cahnet. gov\/ord. County Victim of the Week Ms. Jasmine Johnson of Los Angeles County, one of the leaders of unlawfully sanctioning welfare to work participants, got Ms. Johnson in their evil trap . Ms. Johnson was pregnant. Her pregnancy was complicated and she was disabled. Even through she should have been exempt from the WtW program, she was summoned to Orientation. She called and told the county that she was pregnant, but they still sanctioned her – it’s what LA County does. Ms. N. Mc. has been thoroughly terrorized by Los Angeles County. First her benefits were stopped for not having an address. She is homeless and does not have an address. She filed for a fair hearing. Ms. Duran from LA DPSS hearing office called her and told her not to show up for the hearing. Well, that turned out to be a LIE. On 7\/8\/03 she received a letter from DSS dismissing her case because she abandoned her hearing. She was also told by Arroya Sanchez of DPSS that if she is homeless, her children will be taken away by CPS. The District Director confirmed that kids are taken away by CPS for being homeless. Statistic of the Week As we said above, the CWDA Child Care Committee June 4, 2003 minutes state that the 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-26 — August 19, 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, Wel- fare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility State took a survey and biggest reason for sanctions is lack of access to child care . Off course, lack of child care is good cause, thus, it is unlawful to sanction a person for lack of child care. 42-750 SUPPORTIVE SERVICES .1 Supportive Services .11 Necessary supportive services shall be available to every participant in order to participate in the program activity to which he or she is assigned or to accept or retain employment. If necessary supportive services are not available, the individual shall have good cause for not participating under Section 42-713.21. 42-713.2 Conditions that may be considered good cause for not participating in welfare-to-work activities include, but are not limited to, any of the following: .21 Lack of necessary supportive services. But who cares about the law. Counties have uncontrollable need to sanction, it is an addiction, even when they know that what they are doing is illegal. In June of 2002, 31.5% of the unduplicated participants were sanctioned in California. The sanctioned rate for June of 2003 was 40%. This is a 8.5% significant increase in sanctions, and as DSS survey has concluded, the biggest reason for sanctions is lack of access to child care , a reason why sanctions should not be imposed. Transportation Unlawfully Denied Counties continue to unlawfully deny transportation. In June of 2003, there were 19,162 two-parent families who were working in unsubsidized employment, 1,388 were self employed, 3,695 were in job search, 3,390 were in vocational training, 2,661 were in adult education, 683 persons in community service, 1,008 in other services and 1,528 people in self-initiated activities. This all adds up to 33,515 persons participating in a welfare to work activity. Excluding the working persons, there are 14,353 who are not in unsubsidized employment. Only 13,296 participants received transportation during June of 2003. There is something real sick about this fact. Something smells like an intentional deprivation of money from the working poor of California by the California county welfare departments. This is a HIGH CRIME, to steal money from the WORKING POOR getting CalWORKS. ”

” 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 #2003-27 — September 2, 2003 Quarterly Reporting News – p 1 MBSAC Increase Delay – p1 EBT in Los Angeles County – p 1 Child Care ITC Regs – p 1 Exclusion from FS Change Report – p 1 Child Care for Boyfriend’s Kids-p 1 Transportation CAP – p2 Advance Ancillary Payments- p 2 Food Stamp Application Withdrawals – p 2 Travel Time for WtW- p 2 California Welfare Computer System a Mess- p 3 County Standards Page -3 A CCWRO County Standards Checklist and Resources – p 4 Quarterly Reporting News- September 1, 2003 Stanislaus County will be testing quarterly reporting. Tulare County will be testing quarterly reporting effective November 1, 2003. DSS has received over 100 questions on Quarterly reporting from counties and will be issuing periodic All County Information Notices (ACIN) containing the Questions and Answers (Q&As) received from counties. MBSAC Increase Delayed – The Maximum Basic Standard of Adequate Care was not suspended on October 1, 2002. When the June 1, 2003 COLA was put into effect, DSS discovered this fact and has issued an All County Letter instructing counties to restore benefits to those whose benefits were terminated between October 1, 2002 and when the new MbSAC went into effect. DSS states that over 50,000 families were terminated due to excess income, but IN BRIEF that does not mean that their excess income was below the new MBSAC. EBT in Los Angeles County- According Kate Meiss of Los Angeles County Neighborhood Legal Services, Los Angeles County Welfare Department staff providing EBT training to clients stated that EBT card holders cannot carry their funds over from one month to another. Off course, this is untrue. Child Care Inter County Transfer Regulations- DSS has child care intercounty transfer regulations planned to go to public hearings during November of 2003. Exclusion from Food Stamp Change Report Increased- USDA, FNS has approved a federal waiver that would allow California Food Stamp recipients not be mandated to report unearned income below $50 and earned income below $100. Child Care For Working Boyfriend’s Kids- On 2\/3\/03 Lorna Strachan of San Mateo County asked DSS if a CalWORKs participant with one child of her own, but whose working boyfriend living with her has two of his own children, can get child care for all three children. On 2\/11\/03 DSS responded: Yes, the children are eligible to receive child care assistance as long as (1) lack of child care would result in the CalWORKs client not being able to participate in approved CalWORKs activities or employment and (2) the CalWORKs client is responsible for supporting the children. (MPP 47- 201.12). In addition, there is no parent, legal guardian, or adult member of the assistance unit (AU) living in the home who is able to provide the care. MPP 47- 220.22 However, the boyfriend’s income would need to be counted to determine the family fee. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-27 — September 2, 2003-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Transportation CAP- On 5\/23\/03 Brenda Bovers of San Berdardino County asked DSS if the County can impose a $5 a day cap on transportation services for CalWORKs participants. On 7\/15\/03 Deanna Brown informed San Bernardino County that According to MPP 42- 750.112(b)(3), the transportation rate may not include a cap or maximum monthly reimbursement amount beyond which additional miles driven are not reimbursed. Since $5 is a maximum a CalWORKs participant may receive in a day, even if the person drove more than 20 miles in a day, the maximum rate is considered a cap which is prohibited by the regulation cited above… any revisions to how the county plans to operate their CalWORKs program components should be incorporated into the CalWORKs county plan, and the county plan revision must be submitted to CDSS for review, pursuant to MPP 42.780.51.- .53. Advancing Ancillary Payments- dvillarreal@ladpss.org asked DSS about paying for books for childhood development worker classes. On April 22, 2003, Mike Lipkin of DSS responded that the …county is obligated to provide participants with books they need for their courses on a timely basis. MPP Section 42-750.21 provides that payments shall be advanced to the participant when necessary and desired by the participant so that the participant need not use personal funds to pay for services… Application Withdrawal- At a June, 2003 CWDA Food Stamp Committee meeting, counties were informed that counties should not suggest to customers that they should withdraw their food stamp application for any reason. County minutes do not state that counties denied they were doing this, but at the meeting our sources tell us that counties categorically denied they ever suggested to any food stamp applicant to withdraw their application. To say this is untrue is to be kind. The June 2003, DFA 296 reports verify that counties were lying. Below are counties, such as Yolo and Santa Barbara with less than a 1% withdrawal rate and Santa Clara leading with a 17% withdrawal rate, Mariposa at 13%, San Benito at 12%, etc. There is a reason for this discrepancy. The high withdrawal rate requests applicants to withdraw their application because they are not eligible, which is illegal, but they do not care about the law. Alpine 0.00% Sierra 0.00% Yolo 0.21% Santa Barb. 0.71% Lake 1.09% Sonoma 1.35% Kings 1.36% Merced 1.40% Lassen 1.56% Santa Cruz 1.58% Travel Time for CalWORKs from Home to Destination- CalWORKs participants who have to travel more than one hour each way by public transportation, unless they have a car and insurance, and have been provided with advance money for transportation, cannot be sanctioned for failure to participate. Even if the person can take the bus in less than two hours, if the participant was not advanced the cost of taking the bus, then they have good cause for not participating. California counties as a practice do not advance transportation costs to participants who are asked to participate in a welfare to work activity. Lack of Transportation is a good reason. This Policy Interpretation (PI) was done for Juan Perez of the Hotline on 4\/15\/03 by DSS analyst Voltair Ignacio and the PI states: Santa Clara 17.28% Mariposa 13.04% San Benito 12.32% Napa 10.27% El Dorado 8.62% Trinity 8.51% Monterey 8.30% Sutter 8.15% Yuba 7.91% Colusa 7.78% CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-27 — September 2, 2003-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Travel time starts when the participant leaves home and includes the waiting period between transfers. The only time not included in the 2 hours is any time spent transporting family members to school and a place providing care (MPP 42- 721.313(a) California Welfare Program Computer System Mess After spending more than a billion dollars, California still lacks a single computer system for the California welfare programs. California has four (4) different computer systems: 1. Los Angeles County has the LEADER system which does not talk to any other computer system in California. 2. C-IV – This is a four (4) county Merced, Riverside, San Bernardino and Stanislaus County system. 3. ISAWS – This is the system and all counties were supposed to be converted to. But politics and county lobbying the Legislature prevented common sense to prevail and the current chaotic system continues. ISAWS counties are: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, ElDorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Plumas,, San Benito, San Jouquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yuba. 4. Then there are the CDS counties, which are changing to what they call the CalWIN system. The CDS counties include Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Tulare, Ventura and Yolo. Anytime the State makes a change, there are four (4) computer systems that have to be modified, rather than one, which costs millions of wasted dollars than could have been used to help impoverished families, rather than lining up the pockets of computer programmers. County Policy Standard The California 1998 Welfare law confirming with TANF provided counties with a lot of flexibility so they can design their own program that suits their county. Many counties have an impression that this gives them a blank check to do whatever they want to do. The law does not give counties a blank check to do whatever they want to do. First, the county policy has to be consistent with the state law and regulations. If a policy results in persons not being able to participate in a WtW program, then such policy is invalid, void and unlawful. On 6\/10\/03 Monterey County asked DSS if they can change their policy for car repairs. In their response DSS explained when county standards will be effective. In May of 2003, in response from Monterey county regarding car repair county policy DSS explained what county standards must entail: The policies and procedures adopted by the county must be in writing and must be made available to the public upon request. To be effective, policies and procedures must contain sufficient detail so that program participation requirements can be clearly understood. In addition to be legally required, written policies and criteria must ensure that county staff, applicants for recipient of aid, and other interested parties have knowledge of program requirements; promote uniform and equitable treatment of clients; assist in demonstrating that county actions are not arbitrary and capricious; and serve to support county actions in State hearings. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-26 — August 19, 2003-Page 4 To summarize, the county policy can only be valid it meets the following requirements: 1. It is in writing; 2. It is provided to the public upon request; (this means any member of the public can go to the CWD office and ask for a copy of the policy. If the person representing the county at the window states that they do not have such a policy, then the policy is NOT available to the public. The victim who was denied the service can also ask for the copy of the policy from the county.) 3. The policy has to have sufficient details; 4. The policy has to be written in such a way that it is clearly understood by participants; 5. Participants have to be aware of the policy, which means they were told about the policy; 6. The policy shall promote equitable and uniform treatment to participants; 7. The county policy cannot allow for arbitrary and capricious county actions. Generally, county policies do not meet these standards. Thus, if ancillary services has been denied based on county policy that does not meet these standards, the denial is reversed in a fair hearing. A CCWRO County Standards Checklist and Resources RULE: In a fair hearing first determine if the county action was based on county policy or state regulations. If it is a county policy, then determine if the county policy meets these standards. If they don’t, the policy is void. Other Resources: I. DSS All County Letters DSS All County Letter 98-58 NOTE: This ACL is signed by the DSS Deputy Director for State Hearings specifying how the county has to prove that there is a county policy. Failure to do so means that the county policy has no weight. DSS All County Letter 00-08 To download these ACLs go to: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/ AllCountyL_551.htm II. DSS Regulation MPP 11-501.3 III. FH Training Notes To download these FH Notes from the DSS State Hearings Division go to: Division @ http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/shd\/ item.html Item 98-12-01B Item 00-04-02C ”

” 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 ”

” 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. ”

” 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: ccwro@aol.com ”

” 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 #2003-30 — October 20, 2003 IN BRIEF NEW COURT DECISION DSS NEWS NEW FEDERAL REGULATION CWD VICTIM REPORT Rush Limbaugh the junkie – Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh has been a strong advocate for drug testing of all wel- fare recipients as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. Now he has admitted to his addiction to narcotics. Maybe there should be a law that all conservative talk show hosts must be drug-tested before being allowed to spew hate on their shows. Eloise Anderson is back in town- Arnold is our new Governor. Hit the internet to view his new transition team which includes Eloise Anderson, who served under Pete Wilson as State Welfare Director, originally from Wisconsin. After losing her job in Sacra- mento, she has been working as Director for Program for the American Family, The Claremont Institute (http:\/\/ www.ashbrook.org\/events\/lecture\/2002\/ anderson.html). She has been an advocate of welfare deform despite her early experi- ence as a former recipient of Section 8 and food stamps benefits. If Anderson does return to DSS, she will find that the top management of DSS has not changed much since she left. IN BRIEF NEW COURT DECISION Sheyko v. Saenz. The new American judiciary attacks the poor again while addressing the is- sue of fingerprinting for CalWORKs and Food Stamp benefits. A recent California Auditor General reports that the program wastes over $20 million a year, however, Gray Davis wants it to continue. In Sheyko, there were two (2) major issues; (1) that state regulations treated refusal as failure; and (2) that finger imaging requirements did not include photographing. A decision rendered by California Third District Appellate Court Justices Morrison, Scotland and Kolkey and written by Justice Morrison held that there was no difference between the words fail- ure and refusal in the Sheyko case. The Department argued that the statute autho- rized the Department to operate a finger imag- ing system. To make the system effective they included a photographing requirement. DSS ar- gued that given the fact that they were autho- rized to developed a system , they do not have to limit the system to fingerprinting. Moreover, DSS stated that the statute did not prohibit DSS from imposing a new eligibility requirement, a requirement to be photographed. This decision is an insult to any reasonable person’s intelligence and is positive proof that there is no justice for the have not’s in America. See court case at http:\/\/www.courtinfo.ca.gov\/ cgi-bin\/opinions.cgi?Courts=C CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 20, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News Quarterly Reporting – DSS has a new quar- terly reporting form called QR7. The first line of the QR 7 is as follows: Request to Stop Benefits (If you fill in this part, sign and date the back of this form. You can reapply at anytime.) There are some addi- tional boxes to check to stop cash aid, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and State CMSP. There is nothing to prevent a dishonest county welfare worker from marking one of the boxes. You can reapply at any time is a statement that can be easily misinterpreted to mean any time you want to get back on aid, just come back and see us and you’ll magically be back on aid. This is misleading and deceitful. To get back on aid you must go to the welfare office and wait – sometimes an entire day – just to get an appointment. Your appointment day could mean another day spent at the county welfare office. Then you have to wait up to 45 days before you get your benefits back. Even if the applicant is homeless and foodless, they still wait 45 days or more. Of- ten, the application is unlawfully denied. If the applicant is working, he\/she may lose their job because they spend more time at the welfare office navigating the bureaucracy than at the job. But welfare to work is all about – keep- ing folks on welfare so welfare workers are guaranteed full employment. Off course, there is no box to check on the QR7 for the person to request child care, trans- portation or ancillary service, because that would result in WtW participants receiving the supportive services they are entitled to – and that does not suit welfare administrators. The mission seems to be to illegally deter people from entitlements such as child care. On September 25, 2003, SSA published new regulations for nonwork social security num- bers. The regulations require that children over the age of 12 years have to personally appear at the local SSA office to apply for and be present for the interview to get a social secu- rity number (SSN). The regulations also allow for the issuance of a nonwork number for persons who verify that they need the SSN to receive federal or local public assistance benefits and are legally in the United States of America. Many SSA of- fices force immigrants, who are eligible for a nonwork SSN, to go to INS, pay $120, get a work permit and then apply for a SSN. NOTE: Immigrants eligible for Cal- WORKs and participating in WtW are eligible for payment of the $120 to get a work permit as an ancillary support service. CWD Victim of the Week GAIN SANCTION FOR FAILING TO COMMIT A FELONY – Ms. G. of Los Angeles County has a four year old child. GAIN wants her to attend the assessment component of the GAIN program. She has told the GAIN office several times that she has no child care. Her case is in the Palmdale office, which is Los Angeles New Federal Regulations CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 20, 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, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS County GAIN Region II. This is a for profit organization known as ACS. The GAIN of- fice has done nothing to help her find child care and has scheduled her for assessment during August of 2003 without ever address- ing her child care needs. Again, she called the GAIN office and told them that she could not find child care. The county has not of- fered her child care. Appropriately, she did not leave her child alone at home and at- tend the assessment because she knew to do so would be a felony – child abandon- ment. Los Angeles County, who was contributing this possible crime, would never have been charged with being an accomplice, rather she would have been prosecuted (more like persecuted) by the county had she left her child alone at home and gone to the assess- ment as demanded by the GAIN office. In October of 2003, DPSS of Los Angeles County proposed to reduce Ms. G’s ben- efits because she did not attend orienta- tion. When she got the notice she called the Palmdale GAIN office. She was informed that she did not have a worker and further- more, it would take two to six weeks before a GAIN worker would be assigned to her case. At that time, she could then discuss her sanction with the new worker. So, even if Ms. G. wanted to agree to par- ticipate, thereby curing the sanction as pro- vided in MPP 42-721.431, she could not do so until her new worker was assigned in 2 to 6 weeks. This is in direct violation of 42- 721.431. To make matters worse, when she called the office during working hours, she got an an- swering machine. All in all it is a total mess – just like GAIN and DPSS expect it to be. Share your VICTIM stories with CCWRO. We’ll publish them in our upcoming issues. ”

” 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: ord@dss.ca.gov 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 ccwro@aol.com. 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! ”

” 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 ”

” 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 #2003-33-December 15, 2003 In This Issue In Brief Schwarzenegger Thumbs His Nose at the Law Los Angeles County Disregards Their Reporting Responsibilities Equal Justice in America? Food Stamp Policy News Statistical Analysis – IHSS Hours Compared County-by County IN BRIEF Solano County asked DSS on 8\/27\/03 whether or not they can modify their Transportation Reimbursement rates to limit reimbursement to an amount that does not exceed the monthly gross earnings for working participants. DSS responded that limiting transportation reimbursement is capping transportation claims in violation of 42-750.112. San Bernardino County asked DSS on 5\/23\/03 whether or not they can limit transportation reimbursement to $5 a day. On 7\/18\/03 DSS responded that according to MPP 42-750.112(b))(3), the transportation rate may not include a cap or maximum monthly reimbursement amount beyond which additional miles driven are not reimbursed. Sacramento County asked DSS on 6\/ 4\/03 whether or not the county has to pay IHSS providers for transportation other than to and from the work place. 71 days later DSS promulgated an unlawful underground rule that transportation reimbursement is limited to and from place of work. CCWRO is preparing litigation. Schwarzenegger Thumbs His Nose at the LAW Schwarzenegger has decided not to implement the law which provides food stamps to welfare recipients who become self-sufficient and are transitioning off of welfare. He wanted to repeal AB 231 as part of his midyear budget reduction proposal which was not enacted by the State Legislature The Democrats refused to repeal AB 231. The Terminator has decided that he is above the law and will not implement the provisions of AB 231 which are effective January 1, 2004. It’s the Schwarzenegger way of wishing Happy New Year to poor families of California. Los Angeles Disregards Their Reporting Responsibilities Under state regulations, counties including Los Angeles County, are supposed to submit certain statistical reports just like welfare recipients who have to file monthly reports. If a welfare recipient in Los Angeles County does not file the report by the end of the month of which the report is due, benefits for the family come to a total halt. Food runs out, children go hungry and families become homeless. When Los Angeles County intentionally and knowingly refuses to submit the reports required by state regulations – nothing happens – zero consequences. (cont’d on next page) CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-33-December 15, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 As of December 15, 2003 Los Angeles County has intentionally refused to submit the following reports: CA 237 HA – Last Report Submitted – June, 2002 This is a monthly CalWORKS Homeless Assistance Report DFA 296X – Last Report Submitted- March, 2002 This is a quarterly Expedited Service Food Stamp Report STAT 40 – Last Report Submitted- October, 2002 – FSET Quarterly report STAT 46 – Last Report Submitted- October, 2002 This is a quarterly report for Food Stamp ABAWDS Last month we called Lisa Nunez, Chief Deputy Director of Los Angeles County DPSS. We informed her that DPSS was failing to meet their reporting requirements. She said she would look into it. It has been a month and Los Angeles County continues on the path of irresponsible behavior- refusing to meet their reporting responsibilities. EQUAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA A welfare mom in small County was overpaid by about $567 due to failing to report three (3)) child support checks. She has repaid the entire amount of the overpayment. The County did not allow the $50 disregard for each of the months, but then County cheating of welfare recipients is standard practice without any criminal repercussions. Because the welfare overpayment was over $400 dollars, the County has filed FELONY charges against this welfare mom. Food Stamp Policy News DSS and Los Angeles County Attack Food Stamp Recipients On August 12, 2003, Los Angeles County DPSS asked DSS whether a person applying for food stamps is eligible, if the car owned jointly with another person is worth over $9,000. The car is not accessible to the household because, as of 7\/12\/03, the police impounded the car and it is not accessible to the household. (cont’d on page 4) Editorial Schwarzenegger follows in the footsteps of his mentor, Pete Wilson. Like Wilson, Schwarzenegger has decided that welfare kids and the disabled are easy targets for his administration. Attacking welfare kids and the disabled has been a long time obsession of Republican politicians in Sacramento. In fact, many of the Sacramento- based Republicans are very willing to take money from the mouths of poor kids to make more money available for welfare bureaucrats. Fortunately, Democrats under the leadership of John Burton, Senate President Pro Tem, are not rolling over for Schwarzenegger and he has failed to enact his punitive midyear cuts so far. The Schwarzenegger attack on the poor will most likely continue and will be reflected in the 2004-2005 budget. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-33-December 15, 2003 (cont’d. from page 2) Los Angeles County’s answer was that until the participant gets the car out of impound, they do not have access to it. This is consistent with state regulation MPP 63-501.21 that states: Resources owned jointly by separate households (including non- food stamp households) shall be considered available in their entirety to each household, unless it can be demonstrated by the appli- cant household that such resources are inac- cessible to that household… This did not sit well with the State Department of Social Services. Rather than accepting the County’s proposed response which is consis- tent with the regulations, the 8\/14\/03 response from DSS stated: …the entire value of the vehicle is considered available to the household because access to the value of the vehicle is not dependent upon any agreement with the joint owner as provided in ACIN 17-02. Another household goes hungry compliments of DSS analyst Frederick Hodges the Third. Drugs from Canada are a Medical Expense Deduction On September 23, 2003, San Joaquin County asked DSS whether drugs prescribed in the USA and purchased in Canada are eligible for medical expense deduction. DSS analyst, Katie Kwiatek responded; Since the medica- tion is being prescribed by a doctor in the United States and only being filled in Canada it would be considered an allowable medical expense and the deduction would be allowed. A car used to transport a disabled household member; even those mem- bers not getting food stamps, are ex- empt. On July 22, 2003, San Mateo County called DSS about CalWORKs recipient who owns a car that could make them ineligible for cash aid and food stamps. The car is used to pro- vide medical transportation to a disabled mem- ber of the family who is not getting food stamps. The proposed answer was to deny food stamps because the disabled member of the family was not getting food stamps. However, Katie Kwiatek of DSS had the right answer. She wrote back to San Mateo County on July 22, 2003 stating that … the disabled member is living in the home, the vehicle can be excluded per MPP 63-501.52(e). The dis- abled person does not have to be a member of the food stamp household; they just need to be a member of the household. 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 Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-33-December 15, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Hours Per Case STATEWIDE 81.18 TUOLUMNE 44.75 TULARE 61.28 MERCED 62.87 SANTA CLARA 63.71 ORANGE 68.40 VENTURA 70.36 PLUMAS 70.76 SISKIYOU 71.86 SAN FRANCISCO 72.18 CALAVERAS 72.36 SAN JOAQUIN 76.28 YOLO 76.31 LOS ANGELES 76.56 TEHAMA 76.82 STANISLAUS 77.01 YUBA 77.15 SAN DIEGO 78.02 SAN LUIS OBISPO 78.68 IMPERIAL 80.27 SAN BERNARDINO 81.61 DEL NORTE 82.25 MADERA 82.90 KERN 83.06 SANTA BARBARA 85.35 INYO 85.44 SUTTER 85.87 LASSEN 85.89 SIERRA 86.60 SANTA CRUZ 86.86 AMADOR 87.18 GLENN 87.47 RIVERSIDE 87.82 MENDOCINO 88.54 SONOMA 90.93 MARIPOSA 91.34 TRINITY 91.82 COLUSA 91.83 CONTRA COSTA 92.40 SACRAMENTO 94.02 HUMBOLDT 94.14 ALAMEDA 94.91 MONTEREY 95.15 SHASTA 95.75 SAN BENITO 97.08 KINGS 98.72 NAPA 98.76 SAN MATEO 99.75 FRESNO 100.25 EL DORADO 100.62 PLACER 101.56 SOLANO 101.89 BUTTE 104.62 MODOC 108.27 LAKE 109.20 MARIN 117.30 NEVADA 123.54 MONO 131.34 ALPINE 137.14 Hours Per Case County-by-County IHSS Hours Per Case April, 2003 This issue looks at the hours provided to IHSS recipients in each county. There are statewide standards for determining the number of hours IHSS recipients should get. The statewide average is 81 hours a month. The 10 top most stingy counties with hours are Tuolumne, Tulare, Merced, Santa Clara, Orange, Ventura, Plumas, Siskiyou, San Francisco and Calaveras Counties. Excluding small counties, counties such as Marin, Butte, Solano, Fresno have assessed a need for over 100 hours a month. What is the difference between these top ten stingy counties and the counties that pay for over 100 hours a month? In many counties, social workers do not do an accurate assessment of the number of hours and services that are needed, thus, the huge discrepancies between counties. Many counties are famous for coming up with unlawful ways to deny hours to which IHSS recipients are entitled to. Advocates should always file for a fair hearing and make sure that the appropriate hours have been granted. CCWRO can provide assistance with IHSS hearings for IOLTA funded legal services programs. Statistic of the Week ”

” 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 ”

” 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: ccwro@aol.com ”

” 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: ccwro@aol.com ` ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-9 March 18,2003 IN THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF EDITORIAL – Counties Ignore Overpayments DSS NEWS TANF UPDATE by Evelyn Dortch – Direct Action Welfare Group (DAWG) COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT ________________________________________________ IN BRIEF- Welfare Policy Issues — On 4\/2\/02 Karol Hamman of Riverside County asked DSS: Could a sanctioned client get child care when she is trying to cure her sanction by participating in WtW activity? This is her first sanction and she has been sanctioned for 36 months. She has to complete a 2-3 week job club\/job search activities before she is eligible to receive cash aid again. However, she needs child care in order to participate. Hilva Chan of DSS answered : Yes, it is the intent of the legislature to provide supportive services, including child care, for clients to participate. This client would not be able to participate and cure her sanction without child care. She may claim good cause if a lack of supportive services is preventing her from participation. CCWRO COMMENT: This means that if a person is sanctioned and agrees to participate, but supportive services are not actually available, then the county should give them good cause and stop the sanction. — SB 429, which allowed parents, whose kids are taken away from them by child protective services, to continue to receive WtW services, but not CalWORKs. Now Department of Health Services has announced that the parents may not be eligible for Medi-Cal. — NEW CalWORKs Lobbyist – Western Center n Law and Poverty have hired a new lobbyist for CalWORKs. LUPE DIAZ, who worked for MALDEF for 2 and a half years, and the Children Roundtable for two and a half years will start on April 1, 2003. Welcome aboard. ________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL – COUNTIES IGNORE OVERPAYMENT Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) is designed to identify persons being overpaid and to stop the continuation of overpayments. This is done by matching the CalWORKs recipients social security number with the income reported to IRS by employers. When the income reported to the welfare department does not match the income reported to IRS by the employer, it is called a hit . A hit produces an abstract , which includes the name of the person who did not report income and the amount of the income not reported. While counties rant and rave about welfare recipients not reporting income, they rarely talk about their own deviant behavior- refusing to process these abstracts with the 45 days mandated by federal law. Some counties, are so arrogant, they don’t even file state required reports – and DSS does nothing about the counties not reporting. The counties not reporting for the second and third quarter of 2002 are: Contra Costa, Monterey, Nevada and Sacramento. Ventura County did not file a report for the third quarter. During the third quarter of 2002 the following activity was reported; Abstracts Received – 173,075 Abstracts Processed – 123,949 Abstract Unprocessed – 515,414 It looks like many cases are lingering on and accumulating more and more overpayments. When the county finally gets to on overpayment, its grown to thousands of dollars. The recipient is then accused of being a criminal, while the county, who actually caused the overpayment by refusing to do its job, becomes the persecuter. There is nothing action by DSS to assure that these counties do their job and stop setting poor parents into being a felons. ___________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE by Evelyn Dortch Direct Action Welfare Group (DAWG) Senate Committee Tackles Welfare Reform Continuing the dialogue on the reauthorization of the 1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193), the Senate Finance Committee held a March 12 hearing to discuss improvements needed in the current law. Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) noted that the welfare law \”is largely acknowledged to be one of the most successful reforms in decades.\” He added that, in this next phase, \”we should consider how states are serving those families who are not getting assistance, but who remain poor.\” Ranking Member Max Baucus (D-MT) agreed. \”In 1996, the welfare program was broken, and major surgery was required,\” he said. \”That surgery has been pretty successful,\” he stated and added, \”We need to keep going along that path, not force states into making major strategy shifts.\” Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson also began his testimony by noting the success of the 1996 welfare law. \”Employment among single mothers has grown to unprecedented levels, child poverty rates are at or near historic lows, the rate of births to unwed mothers has stabilized, and the share of unmarried women with a young child stopped growing and began to decline in mid decade,\” he said. The administration’s proposal \”builds a foundation to help families find jobs,\” continued Secretary Thompson. \”We would require states to engage every family in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to work 40 hours a week,\” he said. Recipients must spend 24 hours per week \”in direct work,\” and states would have the flexibility to decide which activities, such as education or substance abuse treatment, should be included in the remaining 16 hours, he explained. According to Secretary Thompson, the plan would provide $200 million in annual grants \”to support healthy families and healthy marriages,\” an additional $1 billion for child care, and states would be given an incentive to pass on more child support payments directly. \”One last component would allow families to continue on Medicaid for up to a year after they get off of welfare,\” he said. \”The plan would authorize $2.4 billion to extend Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) through FY2008,\” he added. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) expressed concern that a Maine program allowing welfare mothers to attend college while continuing to receive cash assistance and child care would be curtailed under the administration’s plan. \”The idea of allowing individuals to achieve a higher education is something we all should strive for,\” she stated. \”Ninety percent of those who participated in the program in Maine have successfully moved off of welfare and increased their income by more than 15 percent,\” she said. \”Our basic premise is that you have to have a work requirement,\” responded Secretary Thompson. \”If you completely exempt the work requirement and just allow school, I don’t think you ever really get to the accomplishments originally in the law,\” he added. \”If we’re just driven to look at the numbers, to reduce the numbers, and we don’t look at the individuals behind those numbers, that’s going to be a real travesty because we’re not going to be successful,\” replied Sen. Snowe. \”The current law is number-driven. The administration’s proposal is not number-driven. It allows for much more flexibility for the states,\” said Secretary Thompson. \”If we could work out a proposal for work and school, that’s the best of both worlds, but I still think you have to have the work component,\” he emphasized. Sen. Baucus said he had big concerns regarding the resources that states \”may or may not have for child care. If dollars are going to those additional work requirements for those on welfare, where is the money coming from for child care?\” he asked. \”The House-proposed bill, which we are supporting, increases child care funding by 22 percent,\” responded Secretary Thompson. Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) noted that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $8 billion to $11 billion would be needed for states to meet the new work requirements and child care needs. \”I don’t think the administration has made their case to mandate 40 hours with no additional funding,\” he said. On the second panel, Howard Hendrick of Oklahoma Human Services told the committee that he was asked to share some of the successes of the Oklahoma welfare program with particular emphasis on family forming initiatives as they relate to marriage promotion. \”Our strategy has been to develop a network of trained workshop leaders to deliver a twelve-hour curriculum called PREP, the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program,\” he said. To date, 550 workshop leaders have been trained to provide this service throughout Oklahoma communities, he explained. Marilyn Smith of the Child Support and Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue said that her agency has made extensive use of automation to collect child support. \”In the last ten years, collections in Massachusetts have increased by 97 percent, from $207 million in 1993 to $408 million in 2002,\” she said. Although the numbers are impressive, \”the real impact is in the difference that these collections have made for individual families, when a child support check appears out of the blue in the mailbox of a custodial parent who has not received a payment in years,\” she added. Ms. Smith urged the committee to expand support for a responsible fatherhood initiative. \”Eighty percent of fathers are romantically involved with mothers at the time of birth,\” she contended. \”Three years later, only 20 percent are involved,\” she stated, advocating for a program that would provide job support services for noncustodial parents. \”A job and the ability to provide financial support are critical to keeping these connections,\” she added. Margy Waller of the Brookings Institution testified that states now spend more than 60 percent of their funds on services like child care, much of it on working families not on welfare. \”That’s because the 1996 law guaranteed funding levels for block grants and caseloads dropped by more than half,\” she explained. The drop in caseloads also allowed states \”to design individualized programs for parents to prepare for work,\” she added. \”There are two things that I have concluded about this proposal to increase work requirements,\” she assessed. \”First, despite what we heard this morning, I believe that flexibility will disappear. The only way that states can try to meet the proposed elements of the new participation rates will be to create one-size-fits-all, unpaid work programs,\” she said. \”Secondly, services to poor working families will be wiped out as states spend their block grants creating and administering these work programs,\” she stated. \”The administration’s proposal makes it seem like the states have done something wrong and now need more help from the federal government,\” she added. While it’s true that the administration is more than doubling the money for welfare, \”the great truth is that we don’t need to spend as much money under the current, flexible system,\” she asserted. \”Instead, states are spending much of the money on supports like child care and transportation for working families who don’t get welfare,\” she pointed out. \”If states have to create expensive welfare programs, these supports will collapse,\” she cautioned. Bills Introduced Welfare S. 574 —-Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) \/ Finance (03\/07\/03)—A bill to toll the five-year limit for assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for recipients who live in a state that is experiencing significant increases in unemployment. S. 605 —-Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) \/ Finance (03\/12\/03)—A bill to extend waivers under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program through the end of fiscal year 2008. S. 603 —-Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) \/ Finance (03\/12\/03)—A bill to give states the option to create a program that allows individuals receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to obtain post-secondary or longer duration vocational education. ____________________________________________________________________ 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: ccwro@aol.com ”

” 1 CCWRO #2003-1 January 6, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES EDITORIAL Simplify CalWORKs to Save Money CalWORKs Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS DSS Doles Out Money to Counties Whatever the County Wants the County Gets. 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 The Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; Advocacy Tips for Retroactive Transportation and Transportation Statistical Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL CHANGE CALWORKS TO EMPOWER PARTICIPANTS AND SAVE MONEY 2002 was a very bad year for impoverished families with children in California. The California Executive and Legislative branches denied their statutory cost-of-living increase. In 2003, California’s poor families with children on public assistance are living on grant levels they received in 1989. The Republicans continue to tout leave no child behind . What they actually mean is, leave no middle and upper class child behind. Meanwhile the Welfare to Work sanction machine has been busy. During September 2002, the WtW bureaucrats sanctioned 58,554 families. Merry Christmas to families with children who must face another 30% reduction of their benefits. What is WtW all about? It’s about getting families off of welfare. Well how did counties get families off of welfare in September of 2002? They sanctioned 58,554 families but only found jobs for 7,664 families that resulted in termination of welfare. This means while the counties found one family a job to become self-sufficient, they were able to sanction about 8 families a month. According to statistics published by the State Department of Services (DSS), which each county proudly provides each month to DSS, it is clear that sanction is the primary purpose of the WtW program. It is further clear that DSS and its agents, the county welfare departments, have revealed their enormous success in imposing sanctions. At the same time they reveal their dismal failure to do what WtW was intended to do- make impoverished families with children self-sufficient. Counties have tripled their budgets to run this WtW program and the 2 evidence is that they have succeeded in the sanction department and failed in the self- sufficiency department. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE: The current WtW system forces the parents to be completely dependent on the WtW workers to find their way to self-sufficiency. It has not worked. Why? Because many of these WtW workers have no idea what they are doing. They are welfare workers who impose sanctions. They are not employment specialists even though they are given that title. SUGGESTED REFORM: The system should be changed to empower impoverished families with children to find their own path towards self-sufficiency by offering maximum flexibility to the parents as allowed by federal law. Changing State law to allow participants to design their own plan to self-sufficiency as long as it is not contrary to federal law can do this. When California’s Executive and Legislative branches learn to trust the participants and not the bureaucrats, the current Welfare to Work Program will be a success. ______________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP Ancillary Supportive Services & Car Repairs Ancillary Supportive Services pays for car repairs, college books, and other expenses. The most common problems occur when the county refuses to pay for car repair. Let’s assume a WtW participant is happily participating in a WtW activity but needs her car repaired in order to continue. Most county rules provide that the participant must first request that his or her worker approve the Ancillary Supportive Services request. The participant has to submit an estimate in many cases. The WtW worker takes that estimate to his or her supervisor. If the estimated cost is over $500, it has to be approved by the District Director. This can take weeks and sometimes months. By the time the county makes a decision, the WtW participant may have already lost her job or has been dropped from the activity. Without authorization, some counties will not reimburse the participant for repair expenses. All of these county policies are authorized pursuant to MPP 11.500 which provides: MPP 11-501.3 County Standards Where statutes or CDSS regulations authorize counties to adopt specific standards which affect an applicant’s\/recipient’s or grant amount or welfare-to-work activities, including supportive services, such standards shall be in writing and shall be made available to the public upon request. The regulation clearly mandates that the county policies shall be in writing. Although, often they are not in writing, they also shall be available to the public. 3 PRACTICE TIP: Have your client go the local welfare office and ask for the county policy on the issue that you are having a hearing on. Generally the county receptionist says, we don’t have county policies . Actually all the policies are in the computer, but the computers are not available to WtW participants. An All County Letter (ACL) was issued on January 3, 2000 known as ACL 00-08 which explains that the county must adopt a policy that is consistent with the state law and regulations. This ACL contains a copy of the state regulations and ACL 98-58. ACL 98-58 sets forth the county responsibilities at fair hearings. It also states: Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) are granted authority under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10950 to review any county action relating to an applicant’s application for or recipient’s receipt of public social services. This includes actions taken by the county in regard to welfare-to-work participation by CalWORKs recipients. At hearing, the ALJ will review the facts of the case that are in dispute and also determine if the county’s action is consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, CDSS policy guidelines, and\/or county policies. Therefore, in developing any local policies, counties must ensure that local policies, criteria, and procedures are consistent with existing statutes, regulations, and CDSS guidelines transmitted via All County Letter (ACL), All County Information Notice (ACIN), or any similar instrument. Additionally, counties should take appropriate steps to ensure that local policies and procedures are documented, communicated to staff, and applied in a uniform manner. Many veteran ALJs have no idea that they can overrule a county policy which is in conflict with the statute and duly promulgated regulations of DSS. The ACL goes on to say that the county appeals representative has to cite the appropriate state law or regulations that applied to the particular case. IS A COUNTY POLICY CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW IF IT PROVIDES FOR WEEKS OR MONTHS TO GET ANCILLARY SERVICES PAID? Such polices are in violation of the state law. The purpose of supportive services is to assist individuals while participating in a WtW activity or work. When a participant is in danger of losing his\/her job because the car needs repair and he\/she is unable to get to work, the delaying of the provision of ancillary supportive services is completely in conflict with the purpose of the welfare to work law. Thus, any county policy that prevents a person from working or participating on a WtW work activity, which includes employment, is a violation of the state law. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS 4 During July 2002, DSS gave Alameda, Butte, Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Diego counties funding to designate a full-time staff person as the CalWORKs Statewide Evaluation County Coordinator… It appears that each county will have an employee acting as a coordinator. What is strange is the inconsistent amount of money requested by each county for the position of CalWORKs Statewide Evaluation County Coordinator. The salary amounts are: (1) Alameda – $49,359; (2) Butte – $71,790; (3) Fresno – $39,870; (4) Los Angeles – $84,677; (5) Sacramento – $72,087; (6) San Diego – $55,803 A coordinator in Fresno County gets 46% of the salary paid to the coordinator in Los Angeles County for doing the same job. There is a difference of $44,807 between the highest and lowest paid county employee doing the same job for DSS. This is statistically mindboggling. We called DSS to find out why one county gets $84,677, while another county gets $39,870, and another gets $55,803 for the same position. A representative of the State Department of Social Services stated These are the costs that the counties gave us and we just approve it it is a very small program. Meanwhile, a mother with children in a Northern California County may be doing jail time for getting an overpayment of less than $800. Now that is justice. _______________________________________________________________________ _ STATE BUDGET NEWS As we reported in our last bulletin, Governor Davis has proposed to deny COLA for CalWORKs recipients it was Gray Davis’s way of saying Merry Christmas to impoverished families with needy children of California. The Legislative Analyst has done an analysis of the Davis Mid-Year Budget Proposal and it can be viewed at http:\/\/www.lao.ca.gov\/. This analysis reveals that taking away $235 million dollars from the impoverished families with needy children of California will save the general fund $80 million. The state still must use $155 million of that money to meet the federal welfare spending requirements. The analyst proposed : Alternatively, the Legislature could provide the COLAs and hold CalWORKs spending at the MOE floor by making other CalWORKs program reductions. See Page 13, second column of the report. What the analyst fails to point out that, giving the money to the poor will stimulate the economy and help California get out of its current economic crisis. ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK 5 IHSS Victim Ms. V.M. is an IHSS client who moved from Placer County to Sacramento County. In Placer County she was getting 231.3 hours. She moved to Sacramento County during September of 2002 and promptly notified Placer County that she had moved to Sacramento County. On December 16, 2002, Ms. V.M. received a notice of action (NOA) from Sacramento County stating that her application for IHSS, dated 9\/20\/02, had been approved effective 11\/1\/2002. The NOA also stated that she would be getting only 91.6 hours because you are the only person counted in your household. MPP 30.763. Sacramento County does not understand what an intercounty transfer is. An intercounty transfer is not an application. The intercounty procedures are set forth in MPP 30-701(I), which provides that the receiving county shall accept the case, and that an IHSS recipient does not have to become an applicant. Moreover, the county can only change the hours if there has been substantive change in the living arrangements. MPP 30-759.941. Sacramento unlawfully reduced her hours from 231 to 93 in total disregard of the law. Los Angeles County Imposes an Illegal Sanction A DPSS Christmas Present Ms. K.N. had her baby in December. She received a letter on 11\/23\/02 stating that effective 1\/1\/03 her benefits will be reduced because she had a participation problem . The notice did not say what the participation problem was. We assume that WtW participants are now required to be telepathic. A pregnant woman is not required to participate in WtW. But that does not stop the lean-mean-sanction machine of Los Angeles County from meeting their primary objective sanction. Another LADPSS Victim Sanctioned Ms. A.U. provided the county with medical verification of her disability, but that did not stop Los Angeles County from ramming through another unlawful sanction and this one without a notice of action. It’s LA County’s way of saying Merry Christmas without sending a card or a notice of action. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 6 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: ccwro@aol.com ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-10 March 23, 2003 IN THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF DSS NEWS TANF UPDATE by Evelyn Dortch – Direct Action Welfare Group (DAWG) COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT CCWRO Analysis of the CalWORKs 2003-2004 Proposed State Budget- See attached Adobe Acrobat Document ________________________________________________ IN BRIEF- Food Stamp Policy Issues DSS recently released the following Question and Answer: QUESTION: Can the CWD allow an homeless household the standard telephone allowance? ANSWER: If a household is entitled to the Standard Utility Allowance (SUA), the standard telephone allowance would not be allowed because the telephone is considered a component of the SUA. However, if the household had a telephone but was not entitled to the SUA, the household would be allowed the standard telephone allowance in accordance with Section 63-502.363(b). In an instance where a homeless household elects to use the homeless shelter deduction, as specified Section 63-502.371(d)(8)- utility allowance decision chart, the household is not entitled to the SUA. Therefore, since the homeless households are not entitled to the SUA when it elects to the homeless shelter deduction, the household would be allowed the standard telephone allowance. This is also identified as the October 2002 Consultation Question that was CDSS initiated. ___________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Emergency Regulations Regarding Senior Parent Deeming – The 2002-2003 state budget trailer bill imposed an anti-family provision. Under this provision, known as the senior parent deeming , senior parents income will be deemed to be available to the minor parent, if the minor parent is unfortunate enough to live with his or her parents. Off course the child should be supported by the absent parent, but given the inept child support system, the government, rather than doing their job and going after the absent parent, deems the senior parents income available to the minor parent, thus making them ineligible for CalWORKs. It is just another compassionate policy that got through the California State Legislature last year. And now, rather than going through the regular process to promulgate regulations, DSS is proposing emergency regulations, because the law passed last year authorized the department to subvert the California Administrative Procedures Act in implementing this provision. EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OAL ON: 3\/20\/03 OAL FILE NO. 03-0320-01E AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TOPIC:CalWORKs Senior Parent \/Minor Parent Cases- Income Availability Change SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies & Procedures MPP, SECTIONS: 44-315 & 89- 201 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the Regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is : 03\/25\/03 OAL DECISION DUE:03\/31\/03 AGENCY CONTACT:Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 654-3286 Source: http:\/\/www.oal.ca.gov\/emergency_now.htm ___________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE by Evelyn Dortch Direct Action Welfare Group (DAWG) From the Center for Community Change: WELFARE REAUTHORIZATION HEARING HELD; OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY BACKGROUND: The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on TANF reauthorization on Wednesday, March 12th. Although the witnesses were clearly there to promote the President’s proposal, the Committee made clear that there is no support — from either side of the aisle — for the proposal. The Bush plan would require states to put more welfare recipients to work, and it require that each person work more hours. It would tighten the definition of what counts as work; for instance, it would be harder to enroll in vocational education, and job search would not count at all. The president’s proposal would also provide hundreds of millions of dollars to promote marriage and sexual abstinence. It did not offer any new child care money, though the administration now supports a modest increase in spending provided by the House. Because the Senate failed to renew the program last year, and the 1996 law has been extended several times to keep the program operating, and is currently extended through June 30, 2003. Even though Democrats no longer control the Senate, the makeup of the Finance Committee has not changed much since last year, and moderates in both parties are again voicing concerns. Senator Olympia Snowe, (R-ME), argued at the hearing that her state’s program allowing welfare recipients to go to college has produced results that are \”beyond astonishing\” and said that everyone on welfare should be given the same opportunity. Education, she said, is the only way to break the multigeneration cycle of poverty. Snowe said it would be \”impossible\” for states to put 70 percent of their welfare recipients into \”work\” for 40 hours per week, as the Bush plan directs, without \”tremendous cost.\” Senator John Breaux (D-LA) expressed opposition to the increase hours, saying that there is no reason to increase the work requirements now in law, arguing that the overall welfare program is not broken and does not need fixing. Current law requires each person to work 30 hours. The committee chairman, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) expressed reservations about significant new requirements on the states, which have quietly complained about the stricter requirements. ACTION NEEDED: The Senate Finance committee is accepting public comment on TANF reauthorization. Individuals and groups are encouraged to submit written statements on TANF reauthorization. Statements must be received by March 26th (two weeks after the hearing). Written Statements for the Record: Any individuals or organizations wanting to present their views on these hearings to the Committee are urged to submit a single-spaced statement, not exceeding 10 pages in length, for inclusion in the hearing record. The date and subject of the hearing must appear on the first page of the statement. Statements must be received no later than two weeks following the conclusion of the hearing. Written statement must be submitted in a format that can be read by personal computers (Word Perfect text is preferred. PDF Files are not acceptable.) Submit statements for the record to Editorial@finance-rep.senate.gov. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Gragg, CCC, 202-339-9332 or rgragg@communitychange.org. ___________________________________________________ WELFARE STATISTIC OF THE WEEK This week we look at sanctions again. Sanctions means that the family looses 25%to 35% of their fixed income. That is traumatic for families. Most of these sanctions are unlawfully imposed upon the victims of the county welfare department, but they get away with their unlawful behavior, because our system of checks and balances are out of whack. We again look at the data published by the State Department of Social Services based on the WtW 25 and 25A reports theta DSS receives from counties. They can be located on the DSS web page. Statewide 36% of the welfare to work participants were sanctioned in December of 2002. This was a Christmas Present for the children of these families from the compassionate county welfare department of California. Given the fact that we are located in Sacramento, we would like to proudly announce that Sacramento County only sanctioned 4.72% of its participants. Santa Cruz, who used to have zero sanctions, are at 15%. San Francisco, a city that works very hard not to sanction, was 13%. And now the Top 26 Counties who sanctioned over the state average: 1 Merced 98.83% 2 Plumas 96.15% 3 Fresno 94.36% 4 Calaveras 89.42% 5 Trinity 70.00% 6 Napa 58.88% 7 Siskiyou 56.99% 8 Amador 52.63% 9 San Joaquin 52.13% 10 Colusa 51.02% 11 Alameda a\/ 51.00% 12 Tehama 50.81% 13 Los Angeles 49.89% 14 Imperial 49.49% 15 Contra Costa 48.09% 16 Tulare 48.04% 17 San Luis Obispo 46.46% 18 Monterey 45.71% 19 Mendocino 45.45% 20 Sutter 38.84% 21 Lake 38.70% 22 San Diego b\/ 38.27% 23 Shasta 38.21% 24 Humboldt 38.14% 25 Sonoma 36.56% 26 Mariposa 36.49% ___________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT — San Diego County attempted to sanction Ms. 2002120165 for allegedly failing to participate in the California Workfare program. She is taking care of her grandchildren. San Diego County is after grandma – they want to ratchet up another sanction in their trophy display. Ms. 2002120165 is taking care of a disabled grandchild and should be exempt, but the county would have nothing to do with it. Sanction is the primary goal. Ms. 2002120165 filed for a fair hearing. She presented medical evidence of her grandchild’s disability and the sanction was reversed. She is now exempt. — Ms. 200136039, of Santa Clara County, was sent a notice on December 21 proposing to impose a sanction on January 1. – It was Santa Clara County’s way of saying Merry Christmas – an illegal sanction, because the notice was not a 30 day notice as required by law – see Section 42-721.23. She was also a victim of domestic abuse. She was attending therapeutic services, thus she had good cause for not participating. She had Judge Betty Bubcat, who rarely grants a claim. In this case the claim was granted. Not because the county violated Section 42-721.23, but because she had a good reason for not participating. ____________________________________________________________________ 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: ccwro@aol.com ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-11 April 7, 2003 IN THIS ISSUE IN MEMORIAL – ELISA JAMES 1950-2003- President of CCWRO NEW FEDERAL REGULATION PROPOSED DSS NEWS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT NEW Public Assistance Tables Effective 4\/1\/03 attached in adobe acrobat format. ________________________________________________ IN MEMORIAL – ELISA JAMES, President of CCWRO – 1950-2003 On Saturday, April 5, 2003, Elisa James, the President of CCWRO’s Board of Directors, passed away unexpectedly. Elisa first joined the welfare rights movement in the 70s, when she and I worked together with the Welfare Recipients League in San Jose, California. She then moved to Modesto and started the Stanislaus County Welfare Rights Organization.There, again she provided tireless, passionate advocacy, representing recipients at fair hearings and advocating on their behalf on many issues. She was also a member of the National Welfare Rights and Reform Organization. Elisa was a passionate, volatile fighter for the rights of the poor and disabled in Stanislaus County. As years went on, she worked as a rural postal carrier in Modesto and continued to advocate against injustice in the postal system. Being an advocate assures that controversy follows you wherever you go. It is a way of life for advocates of the poor and advocates for justice. Elisa was strong enough to handle anything that came her way. Elisa will be sorely missed by me, her community and by CCWRO. Elisa is survived by her husband Rusty, son Damascus and three grandchildren, Rimy, Tanesia, Nevin. She really enjoyed being a grandma. -Kevin Aslanian- ________________________________________________ NEW FEDERAL REGULATION PROPOSED On March 26, 2003, a new proposed rule was published in the federal register (see: http:\/\/www.access.gpo.gov\/su_docs\/fedreg\/a030326c.html) regarding social security numbers. Under this new policy, persons who apply for a social security number (SSN) will have to provide evidence of identity. Yes, the Bush Administration states Evidence of identity is required for all SSN applicant, regardless of age. A birth record is not sufficient evidence to establish identity. Why the need for this new rule? The notice of proposed rule explains the rationale. The NPR explains, In a 2000 audit, SSA’s Inspector General indicated that SSA assigned SSNs to individuals whose U.S. birth certificates were counterfeit. Individuals typically posed as the mothers of nonexistent children and presented counterfeit birth certificates as evidence. Requiring an identity document other than a birth certificate will make it harder for fraudulent applicants to obtain SSNs under a fictitious identity because they must obtain additional evidence. This requirement should not unduly burden legitimate applicants because sufficient proof of identity, such as a medical record or school record, will normally exist, even for the very young. Now that Bush Administration really knows what’s happening in the real world. How can a newborn baby provide a school record or a doctor record? The proposed regulation would read: (c) Evidence of identity. An applicant for an original social security number or a duplicate or corrected social security number card is required to submit convincing documentary evidence of identity. Documentary evidence of identity may consist of a driver’s license, identity card, school record, medical record, marriage record, passport, Immigration and Naturalization Service document, or other similar document serving to identify the individual. The document must contain sufficient information to identify the applicant, including the applicant’s name and the applicant’s age, date of birth, or parents’ names; and\/or a photograph or physical description of the individual. A birth record is not sufficient evidence to establish identity for these purposes. We urge you to comment on these proposed regulations no later than May 27, 2003. You can transmit you comments to: 1. SSA’s Internet facility (i.e., Social Security Online) at http:\/\/ www.socialsecurity.gov\/regulations; or 2. email to regulations@ssa.gov; telefax to (410) 966 2830; or 3. letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, PO Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235 7703. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur La Veck or Karen Cool, Social Insurance Specialists, Office of Income Security Programs, 3 R 1 Operations Building, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235 6401, ((410) 966 5665, arthur.laveck@ssa.gov or (410) 966 7094, karen.r.cool@ssa.gov). They would love to hear from you and explain how they came up with these crazy ideas. There are a lot of welfare recipients who can’t even find a doctor who will take medicaid. And even if they are lucky enough to have a doctor, then the doctors will charge for completing an identification document. There is nothing in this NPR that prohibits doctors from charging welfare recipients to complete forms. The SSA should have a form that can be completed by the school or any other third party to identify the new born baby. Neighbors and landlords should be allowed to complete identification verification forms. ___________________________________________________ DSS NEWS — The Governor’s 2003-2004 budged proposed 6.2% reduction in CalWORKs benefits will mean 7,500 working poor will be denied supplemental income. — ACIN I – March 28, 2003- This is a question and answer regarding face-to-face interviews. This ACIN makes it clear that the county cannot require the parents to bring their kids to the welfare office at application or to add the child to the assistance unit. This was a practice in Los Angeles County. They even forced parents to bring their Maximum Family Grant children to the welfare office who would get no cash aid. Failure to bring your child often meant termination of aid for the entire family. ACIN I-15-03 Question # 3 states: Question: Can a county require a family to bring their children to the interview? Response: No. Children, who are not caretakers or heads of households, are not required to attend a face-to-face interview. .. ___________________________________________________ MAXIMUM FAMILY GRANT (MFG) In 1998, a bill by State Senator James Brulte, a southern California Republican, enacted the most anti-child legislation ever. The idiots supporting this mean spirited legislation believed that women would not have babies if they knew they would not get cash aid for them. As a result, there are families with more than one child who receive aid for only one child. Their mommies decided to have the babies rather than have abortions. States like Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Main, Michigan, New York, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, ,New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia do not deny cash aid to MFG kids. They have more compassion for kids than California. ___________________________________________________ WELFARE STATISTIC OF THE WEEK State law and regulations require that food stamps be issued to households whose monthly gross income is less than $150, have less than $100 in liquid resources or their rent and utilities are more than their gross income. These households are called expedited service (ES) households (HH). Under MPP 63-301.531 ES HH shall be issued benefits ..no later than the third calendar day following the date the application was filed. For purposes of this section, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) shall be considered one calendar day. However, if the third calendar day is a nonworking day when coupons cannot be issued, the CWD shall make coupons available on or before the working day immediately preceding the nonworking day. During the months of January, February and March of 2002, 52,195 HH were found eligible for ES. Of those 12,920 HH were not issued ES benefits during the three days as required by state law. That means thousands of babies and children went hungry because the county welfare departments failed to do their job. Did the fact that babies and children went hungry due to the unlawful actions of the county have any consequences to the county welfare department? No. It is business as usual. Abusing children is what some counties do without consequences. Below are the rankings of the most punitive counties who forced many children and babies to go hungry. #1. Humboldt 44.22% #2. Tehama 42.48% #3. Los Angeles 40.02% #4. Stanislaus 34.44% #5. San Joaquin 32.61% #6. Ventura 31.44% #7. Nevada 27.50% #8. Mono 25.00% #9. Sutter 23.40% #10. Merced 22.64% #11. Fresno 21.16% #12. Santa Clara 20.54% ___________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT SANTA CLARA COUNTY VICTIM – Ms. S.D. is a resident of Santa Clara County. She is totally disabled according to doctor Jean Luong. She is suffering from autoimmune thyroiditis, severe anxiety and DJD spine. She also has depression and is taking Paxil. The doctor prohibits any additional stress. The verification of her disability was submitted to Santa Clara County and she was exempted from the WtW program due to disability. The disability verification did not impose any time limits on how long she would be totally disabled. The same doctor completed the CW 61 on 10\/11\/02 stating that the victim was unable to work. This must have angered Santa Clara County. Here is a person who is disabled and they cannot sanction her. What to do? Well, the law is clear. 42-212.44 states: ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-12 April 15, 2003 IN THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF EDITORIAL – TANF Reauthorization DSS NEWS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT NEW Public Assistance Tables Effective 4\/1\/03 attached in adobe acrobat format. ________________________________________________ IN BRIEF It appears that counties have a hard time keeping track of what they spend. Counties overspent their CalWORKs single allocation by $68 million during the last fiscal year. The 2002 Food Stamp program federal government sanction for the State’s high error rate is expected to be $80, according to DSS, which is greater than the $45 million originally expected by DSS. DSS is formulating a new withdrawal form that will be known as the CW 89. This form is designed to be used to withdraw the CalWORKs, Food stamp and Medi-Cal application. The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) would like retroactive Medi-Cal to be added to the withdrawal form. DSS is working on an ACL that wold allow newborns to receive Medi-Cal based on a phone call from the caretaker relative. Counties now require a CW 8A before the newborn can get Medi-Cal. Counties have been unlawfully using the minimum wage divided by the self-employment wages to determine the number of WtW participation hours. It seems like DSS does not want to meet the federal participation rates, thus, they do not count the actual hours of participation, rather they count a lesser number of hours. Adding insult to injury, many counties are using the state minimum wage to come up with the number of hours, rather than the $5.15 federal minimum wage. DSS informed the counties that they should be using the federal minimum wage, rather than the State minimum wage, as required by state law. Counties have a real problem with English comprehension. Meanwhile, Legal Services of Northern California has filed litigation to halt this unlawful practice of DSS. LITIGATION NOTICE: If you have a self-employed client, contact CCWRO; and\/or. if you have clients who are getting SSI and living with a CalWORKs family, odds are, they are being cheated on their food stamps. CCWRO is looking such families. Please contact Grace Galligher or Kevin Aslanian. _____________________________________ EDITORIAL-TANF Reauthorization TANF has passed the House and is waiting for action on the Senate side. Those fighting in Iraq, many of whom are from poor families who depend on TANF or have relatives that depend on TANF, have a big present waiting for them back in the homeland – the Bush TANF Reauthorization Bill which is a barbaric attack on the poor families of America. Sure, we can afford to spend billions and billions to rebuild Iraq, but what about American children? The Bush model, Leave No Child Behind–reads more like, Leave Poor Children Behind. ___________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Public Hearing Regulations – We encourage people to comment on the proposed regulations. Hearing Date: April 16, 2003 Place: State Office Building #9, 744 P Street, Auditorium, Sacramento, California Item #1 Definition of Entry Date for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants ORD# 1202-29 Hearing Date:May 21, 2003 Place: State Office Building #9, 744 P Street, Auditorium, Sacramento, California Item #1 CalWORKs Senior Parent\/Minor Parent Cases – Income Availability Change ORD# 1202-31 Item #2 Food Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2002 ORD# 1202-26 Item #3 Minor Parent Regulations ORD# 0103-02 To look at the proposed regulations, go to: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/PublicHear_675.htm New All County Information Notice: ACIN I-18-03 (April 8, 2003) Summary Of Program\/Policy Changes In The Food Stamp Program Since 1997 – You can download this item at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2003AllCou_1227.htm DSS STATISTICAL REPORTS LATE- DSS statistical reports late in many cases. Even though the law requires that counties submit these reports, many counties simply ignore the law. And why not ignore the law? Nothing will happen. DPA-266- The last DPA 266, which is the welfare fraud report, is for October, 2002. There is silence for November, December, January, February and March – five months. Maybe the welfare fraud activities have stopped in California. Could that be true. We can only hope. CA 237HA-The Homeless Assistance reports have stopped since June of 2002. Has the Homeless Assistance program been repealed? We have heard many complaints from poor families who are not allowed to apply for Homeless Assistance. Maybe counties really think the program no longer exists. State regulations require that a CA 237HA be submitted to DSS within 20 days of the end of the month. DFA 296X- Food Stamp expedited services report has not been available for a year. The last report available was for the first quarter of 2002. STAT 46- This is a quarterly report regarding Able Bodied Adults Without Dependent (ABAWDS). This report shows the amount of money spent on ABAWDS and the ABAWDS caseload activities. The last report was filed for the third quarter of 2002. It is indeed hard to get timely reports from DSS. In most cases, the late reporting is a result of the inadequate reporting or nonreporting by counties. __________________________________________________________________ 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 Road Phone (also known as cell phone or mobile phone) – 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: ccwro@aol.com ”

” FFFFNNNNSSSS PPPPoooolllliiiiccccyyyy oooonnnn FFFFoooooooodddd SSSSttttaaaammmmpppp AAAApppppppplllliiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnn WWWWiiiitttthhhhddddrrrraaaawwwwaaaallllssss DSS has issued ACIN I-08-03 dated February 4, 2003. This ACIN contains a recommended form CW89. Basically, counties do not have to use this form. They could simply ignore it, however, if the county chooses to use the form, the form asks the applicant Did you decide to drop this application? and Did any- one from the County tell you to drop this application? The problem is, the forms instructions do not tell the county what to do if the client states that he\/she did not decide to drop the application or that the County told him\/her to drop the application. Thus, many clients in California are un- lawfully being instructed by the law- breaking counties to withdraw their ap- plication. In fact, it is not uncommon for applicants to be told if you drop your food stamp application, we will give you Medi-Cal. To see how counties are handling with- drawals of applications we looked at DSS’s statistical reports December 2002 CA 237 that show how many people ap- plied and how many applicants withdrew their applications. Statewide, according to the DSS DFA 296 reports for February 2003, about 5% of the food stamp cases are withdrawing their applications in California. They top ten counties are: 1 Plumas 14.29% 2 Santa Clara 14.01% 3 Napa 13.73% 4 Mono 12.82% 5 San Benito 12.68% 6 Calaveras 11.69% 7 Yuba 10.71% 8 Sutter 10.33% 9 Glenn 10.26% 10 Mariposa 9.68% These are the top ten best counties with the least number of withdrawals. They are: Riverside 1.83% Santa Cruz 1.77% San Francisco 1.64% Santa Barbara 1.28% Kings 1.01% Lake 0.88% Yolo 0.43% Fresno 0.17% Sierra 0.00% Alpine 0.00% It is hard to understand why Fresno CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-14 MAY 16, 2003- 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO , CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 County had a .17% withdrawal rate, while Santa Clara County had a 14% withdrawal rate. What is difference be- tween the applicants in Santa Clara County versus Fresno? Imperial County had a 9% withdrawal rate, while neighboring Riverside Count had a 2% withdrawal rate. (Never thought I would say something nice about Riverside County.) We then looked at the December 2002 DSS statistical report for CalWORKs. The figures were more devastating. Most CalWORKs applicants are also applying for Food Stamps. Leading the pack are Sutter and Butte Counties with over 20 percent of the ap- plications withdrawn. Sutter 21.08% Butte 20.49% Sacramento 19.73% Imperial 19.53% Humboldt 18.79% Glenn 15.94% El Dorado 15.38% Mendocino 15.08% Santa Clara 14.59% Orange 14.33% The only logical answer is that the counties with rates above 5% are telling people to withdraw their applications. In fact, this is being too kind. It is our be- lief that about 95% of the applications withdrawn were done in gross violation of the FNS rules as presented in AN 03- 021. If you want to know how your county rated, just drop us a line via e-mail and we will answer. TTTTAAAANNNNFFFF UUUUPPPPDDDDAAAATTTTEEEE TANF will expire June 31, 2003. Congress has to pass a bill by this date or enact another temporary exten- sion of the current law. As you know, the House has passed the sadistic H.R. 4, launching a vicious attack on poor fami- lies of America as reflected in the poli- cies of the Bush Administration. The next step is the Senate Finance Committee, where it is anticipated that the Senate Finance Committee may take up the TANF matter during late May. Senator Grassley of Idaho, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee has indi- cated that he hopes to introduce a bipar- tisan bill to move the bill quickly. Senator Grassly has indicated that he would like to keep the TANF program like it is today and not make major changes in the program. However, the hours of participation, child care fund- ing, and types of services are still open issues in the Senate. Also issues to be resolved in the Senate Finance Committee are marriage incentives, and TANF and medicaid benefits to immigrants similar to the changes made in the Food Stamp pro- gram. SSSSttttaaaatttteeee BBBBuuuuddddggggeeeetttt NNNNeeeewwwwssss Governor Davis today released his revised budget for 2003-2004 known as the May Revise . The budget has abandoned the concept of transferring many of the programs to the counties under the concept known as realignment, but has proposed to in- crease the county’s share for Foster Care, child welfare services, and Cal- WORKs. The CalWORKs grants are currently 97.5 percent state and federal funding and 2.5% county match. The Governor proposes that the counties put up a 30% match. The counties will also have to put up a 30% match for Cal- WORKs services and administration. The CalWORKs caseload is antici- pated to decline by 9% in 2003-2004. The May revise reduces total spending for CalWORKs benefits by 6%, in- creases county administration by 17%. The budget continues to use Cal- WORKs money for county juvenile halls – $ 201.4 million; Child Welfare Serv- ices – $ 137.3 million; Foster Care grants and administration- $ 69.3 million; and a $ 270 million reserve for TANF. There is also another $ 350 million available because DSS overestimated the size of the caseload. The budget continues to propose the elimination of June, 2003 COLA, elimi- nation of 2003-2004 COLA, but on a positive note abandons the 6.16% reduc- tion in CalWORKs benefits during 2003-2004. CCCCoooouuuunnnnttttyyyy WWWWeeeellllffffaaaarrrreeee DDDDeeeeppppaaaarrrrttttmmmmeeeennnntttt VVVViiiiccccttttiiiimmmmssss RRRREEEEPPPPOOOORRRRTTTT Stanislaus County charged Ms. 2002032040 with a $3,250 CalWORKs overpayment and a $1,029 food stamp overpayment. The overpayment was dis- covered by Quality Control. When she applied for welfare; she showed Stanis- laus County that her daughter’s immi- gration status was 201(b). The county found the daughter to be eligible and granted cash aid and food stamps. On December 27, 2001, Ms. 2002032040 received Holiday Greetings from Stanislaus County – a demand for $3,288. Ms. 2002032040 filed for a hearing and a decision was issued stating that the county could not recoup the CalWORKs overpayment. Justice re- quires equitable estoppel be applied to preclude the county from recouping the overpayment caused by the incompe- tence and total negligence of the county. The food stamp overpayment has to be repaid because the federal law does not provide for justice . Riverside County charged Ms. 2002277089 with a $292 dollar over- payment because the county committed an administrative error. This is a bureau- cratic way of saying the overpayment was caused because the welfare depart- ment screwed up. In this case, the AL J ordered the reduction of the county- caused overpayment by the additional amount of food stamps that Ms. 2002032040 would have received with the lower amount of CalWORKs bene- fits. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS RE- FERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, State Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Wel- fare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal, General Assistance and Refugee & Immigration Problems. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO , CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ”

” CCWRO #2003-16-June 1, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin NO COLA IN THE JUNE 1, 2003 CHECKS The law (W&IC 11453) provides that on June 1, 2003, CalWORKs families shall receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). On May 30, 2003, DSS decided to ignore the law because the Governor’s budget had proposed to suspend the COLA. Thus, DSS has decided to suspend the law, because the Governor proposes to suspend the law, the law has been suspended. Who needs the Legislature. It’s just a joke. No COLA June 1, 2003. Off course this is not the first time that the Department of Social Services has put themselves above the law. The California Supreme Court is familiar with the deviant acts of DSS as follows: .. the department has ignored this fundamental principle of administrative law, and has arrogated to itself the authority to reject explicit legislative determinations, an authority which is completely incompatible with the basic premise on which our democratic system of government rests. Cooper v. Swoap, Cal., 115 Cal.Rptr. 1, 524 P.2d 97. This was the case in 1971 and it continues to be the case in 2003. The department of social services continues to put itself above the law without shame. And why should welfare recipients obey the law? DSS NEWS The 4\/22\/03 Notes from the State Hearings Division Item 03-04-02E provides that if an applicant sign a withdrawal form of his or her application, he or she can still file for a hearing to show that the withdrawal was not voluntary or not in accord with regulations. Client Abuse Ms. E.Willis of Los Angeles is a single mom being terrorized by Los Angeles County. She has been working at Goodwil on and off. Her welfare worker told her that the county does not pay for child care. She believed her lying welfare worker. She has not received transportation for a long time. She is also being sanctioned by Los Angeles County Department of Social Services (DPSS) because she failed to comply with the child support division. She did keep her appointment, but they did not like her answers. She did not know where the absent parent was. And not knowing something in Los Angeles County is a sanctionable offense. That is because the Los Angeles Child Support Department must have a policy that all welfare recipients are liars, thus, if they say they do not know any answer to any question, they must be lying, and therefore are sanctioned.. [ Run by State of California?] She is also being sanctioned for allegedly failing to cooperate with the GAIN program. She was scheduled for a 4\/8\/03 orientation appointment. She did not come to the appointment because she was pregnant and was having a baby. DPSS is a mecca of efficiency. The GAIN worker informed us that they have no idea what information the DPSS welfare worker has or does not have. Moreover, they never tell the welfare worker what information they have. They both may work for the same department, but one might as well be in China and the other one in Chili. They blame this on Leader and Gears. Leader is the eligibility computer system, while Gears is the Los Angeles Welfare to Work computer system. For example, if Ms. Willis had found a job and informed the GAIN worker, the eligibility worker would never be aware of this information until informed by the recipient or by IEVS. Ms. Willis, who has to take three buses each way to get to work and back was paid transporation for three months during 2002. On June, 2002, DPSS, unlawfully, without a Notice of Action, stopped her transportation, because she did not tell the GAIN worker that she was still working. Her monthly income report reflected her income. Her benefits were reduced due to her income. But her transportation benefits were stopped, without Due Process, because the GAIN worker had no idea whether or not she was still working. And it is because of these kinds of devious and evil policies that over 46% of the GAIN participants in Los Angeles County are unlawfully being denied their transportation supportive services. Actually, Los Angeles County is stealing money from GAIN participants blind. County Performance Incentive Funds Still Unspent On May 5, 2003, County Fiscal Letter 02\/03-51 informed counties that for the FY 2002-2003, they had $422,1 million of Performance Incentives. The performance incentives of over $400 million is given to counties because welfrare recipients found jobs. There is no direct links between county actions and the job.. The law assumes that the county had something to do with the CalWORKs recipient finding the job. Often, the welfare department can be a barrier to getting a job, but still, they take credit for what welfare recipients do and get a over $400 million bonus to play with. This money is used to fund pet projects of county welfare officials and county board of supervisors. Meanwhile, there is not enough money to pay for the annual cvost of living increases for welfare recipients, but there is over $400 million for county burueacrats to have fun with. According to our sources at DSS less than 18% of the $422 million was spend during the first two quarter of Fiscal Year 2002-2003. A county–by-county report will be available in our next Bulletin for your information. ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17 June 9, 2003 – California Judges Legislate and Ignore the Law – County Performance Incentive Funds Still Unspent – A Terrorized Single Mom in Sacramento County In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Analysis Smith v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2002. This is a case challenging Los Angeles County’s unlawful practice of forcing all welfare recipients applying for CalWORKs to submit to home visits by welfare fraud detection workers. The California Second Appellate Court ruled that home visits with- out cause were legal. The ruling was issued by the Epstein, Hastings and Curry trio. Los Angeles County, not knowing what to do with all of it’s TANF money, decided to institute a home visit program for all Cal- WORKs applicants. Applicants viewed this as pure harassment. They would have to wait all day at home, sometime for days, to make sure they were home when the home visit worker showed up to search their house. Even though the regulations limit when home visits can be made, and there was no authority for home visits without cause, that did not stop the Los Angeles County from implementing this unlawful program to ha- rass poor families with babies and children. A court case was filed by the victims of this unlawful program. The conservative judges, who are supposed to follow the law, have decided to take a time out especially when it does not achieve their conservative politi- cal objectives. All of a sudden judicial activ- ism becomes the norm for conservative judges. In this case, although the state regula- tions limit home visits, the court, relying on the State Department of Social Services (DSS) spin, called the home visits a verification process . The DSS policy, according to Bruce Wagstaff, was that counties have the authority to verify eligibility, and that can be done any way the county chooses to do so, including through home visits. Well, that is a statewide policy, but it has never been promulgated under the Ad- ministrative Procedures Act as mandated by State law. It is an underground rule. Do Judges Epstein, Hastings and Curry of the California Appellate Court care about the law? How did these guys get on the Appellate court? They did it the old fashion way. They were a part of the club , appointed by Repub- licans. Judge Norman Epstein was selected by conservative Governor Deukmejian in 1990 to become a conservative judicial activist and pun- ish the poor. Justice J. Gary Hastings was crowned by Pete Wilson in 1993. Pete Wilson hated welfare recipients and never missed a chance to beat up on poor women trying to parent their children. Then in 1998, he selected Justice Daniel Curry to be a member of the Ap- pellate court. In 1992, Pete Wilson appointed Justice Curry to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The appellate decision states that the process of verifying eligibility of applicants is delegated to the counties. This is partially true and par- tially a blatant lie. It is true that the county per- forms the verification process, but it has to be done pursuant to statute and regulations pro- California Judges Legislate and Ignore the Law CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17- 6\/9\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 mulgated thereunder. There is no statute that states counties can verify eligibility any way they want to. The state legislature enacted the Paper Work Reduction Act (See Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11275 et.seq.) which provides specific guidelines as to how coun- ties will verify eligibility for applicants. But off course the Epstein-Hastings-Curry trio would rather ignore the law than respect the Legislative process. The Epstein-Hastings- Curry trio decided that they would make law by ignoring the law. And that was a Christ- mas present from Southern California Second Appellate District to impoverished parents with babies and children – the decision was released on December 26, 2002. County Performance Incentive Funds Still Unspent 84% of the County Incentive Funds Unspent Enough to Fund the CalWORKs COLA At the beginning of 2002-2003, counties had $422,143,861 dollars available to play with in the form of TANF incentive payments . Counties are awarded incentive payments by state law when CalWORKs recipients get jobs, etc. There is no evidence that any of the jobs were se- cured as a direct result of some county action. Maybe child care was the reason that the partici- pant is now able to work. But that is not some- thing that the county does, it is something that the county pays for with federal and state money. During the first two (2) quarters of 2002-2003, counties had only spent 16% of their total alloca- tions. The county-by-county breakdown of money avail- able after December 31, 2002, according to DSS, are as follows: County $ Amount Left Percentage FY 02-03 of total left FY02-03 Alameda $ 9,412,988.00 87.27% Alpine $ 18,723.00 100.00% Amador $ 226,836.00 77.09% Butte $ 2,984,728.00 99.81% Calaveras $ 367,914.00 100.00% Colusa $ 94,037.00 85.42% Contra Costa $ 5,110,932.00 87.03% Del Norte $ 591,151.00 100.00% El Dorado $ 750,423.00 98.42% Fresno $ 19,809,130.00 82.25% Glenn $ 295,124.00 99.04% Humboldt $ 1,163,398.00 92.73% Imperial $ 2,392,214.00 68.05% Inyo $ 269,515.00 100.00% Kern $ 9,775,375.00 99.19% Kings $ 2,033,513.00 99.05% Lake $ 646,568.00 87.51% Lassen $ 309,313.00 82.06% Los Angeles $124,956,146.00 80.31% Madera $ 1,442,581.00 73.77% Marin $ 216,575.00 100.00% Mariposa $ 225,863.00 100.00% Mendocino $ 1,410,062.00 88.13% Merced $ 4,913,301.00 87.70% Modoc $ 1.00 0.00% Mono $ 451.00 1.27% Monterey $ 3,153,539.00 90.10% Napa $ 276,106.00 79.49% Nevada $ 48,846.00 90.58% Orange $12,845,861.00 62.46% Placer $ 1,145,455.00 100.00% Plumas $ 63,933.00 100.00% Riverside $24,693,538.00 100.00% Sacramento $24,462,046.00 89.02% San Benito $ 472,514.00 97.83% San Bernardino $30,056,040.00 95.17% San Diego $24,066,908.00 93.53% San Francisco $ 1,911,249.00 63.14% San Joaquin $ 5,842,412.00 64.69% San Luis Obispo $ 1,216,763.00 91.50% San Mateo $ 730,630.00 91.49% Santa Barbara $ 2,031,006.00 84.45% Santa Clara $10,357,406.00 77.98% Santa Cruz $ 591,805.00 79.19% Shasta $ 1,506,507.00 90.15% CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17- 6\/9\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Sierra $ 24,362.00 98.74% Siskiyou $ 423,385.00 83.11% Solano $ 3,320,949.00 86.63% Sonoma $ 1,047,590.00 61.80% Stanislaus $ 0.00 0.00% Sutter $ 562,706.00 78.58% Tehama -$ 5,271.00 -0.50% Trinity $ 89,378.00 98.03% Tulare $ 5,026,631.00 67.26% Tuolumne $ 590,554.00 91.02% Ventura $ 4,576,939.00 77.88% Yolo $ 1,725,973.00 97.78% Yuba $ 489,388.00 55.59% The 2003-2004 CalWORKs COLA could easily be funded with this unspent money that counties really did not earn. It is money earned by welfare recipients and it should be given to welfare recipi- ents to meet their basis survival needs. CalWORKs recipient’s are living on fixed income at 1989 lev- els. They need a COLA now! The counties want to use this money in 2003-2004 for reasons other than meeting the basic survival needs of CalWORKs recipients. CWD Victim of the Week Ms. J. Garcia and her two children, 8 and 2 were homeless and without any money. On 6\/5\/03 she applied for cash aid, food stamps and homeless assistance. She arrived at Sacramento County wel- fare department located on 24th and Florin before 8 a.m. She told her worker that in 2002 she re- ceived aid in North Carolina. The worker called North Carolina to verify if she was still receiving welfare benefits. A little after 5 p.m. she was in- formed by her worker that she was being denied homeless assistance because she could not verify her North Carolina welfare status. The worker had no verification that Ms. Garcia received any wel- fare from North Carolina during 2003. Still the worker unlawfully denied Ms. Garcia and her two children homeless assistance. The worker told Ms. Garcia to come back Monday because she did not work on Friday. The worker did not give Ms. Garcia a notice of action denying her homeless assistance or imme- diate need as required by State law. Ms. Garcia called her North Carolina worker and asked the worker to fax a statement to Sacramento County stating that she was not receiving cash aid. The North Carolina worker faxed the infor- mation and Sacramento County received the fax on 6\/6\/03. On Friday Ms. Garcia went to the welfare office again to see if she could get homeless assistance now that North Carolina had verified that she was not getting cash aid. The back- up worker, Ms. Chin, told her she was too busy to see her and to come back on Monday. Someone told Ms. Garcia to call welfare rights. A welfare rights advocate visited the welfare office. A new worker, Ms. Chin, first suggested that she would only issue immediate need, but not home- less assistance. After the welfare rights advocate informed her that denying homeless assistance would be illegal, the worker went back into the office and discussed the matter with other welfare officials. After 20 minutes, she returned and agreed to issue homeless assistance if Ms. Garcia would sign the 6\/5\/03 homeless application using 6\/6\/03 date. The welfare rights advocate informed the The 2003-2004 CalWORKs COLA could easily be funded with this unspent money that counties really did not earn. It is money earned by welfare recipients and it should be given to welfare recipi- ents to meet their basis survival needs. CalWORKs recipient’s are living on fixed income at 1989 levels. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17- 6\/9\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The Senate and Assembly have drafted their budgets that now go to the confer- ence committee. The Conference Com- mittee and the Big Five, which is com- posed of Governor Davis, Senators Bur- ton (D) and Brulte (R), Assemblymen Wesson(D) and Cox(R) will decide the fate of the budget behind closed doors in a room that is not smoke filled for a change. NEWS FROM THE STATE CAPITOL LEGAL ANALYSIS: Is Ms. Garcia ineligible if she received cash aid from North Carolina during June of 2003? No. North Carolina pays a family of 3 less than $250 a month. Califor- nia pays $647. Thus, Ms. Garcia would be eli- gible for 50% of the difference between $647 and $250, if she applied for aid on the 15th of June. Thus, Ms. Garcia was eligible for home- less assistance even if she had received cash aid from North Carolina. Some workers just don’t know what they are doing and their gross negligence results in families being homeless and foodless. The Assembly does away with the SSI and CalWORKs COLA. This means that CalWORKs families will live on the same amount of fixed income they re- ceived in 1989. The Senate provides for a COLA thanks to Senators Burton, Chesboro, Ortiz, Cedillo and the rest of the Democratic Senators. ACTION NEEDED: Write letters sup- porting the SSI and CalWORKs COLA today and mail it to your As- semblyman and State Senator. worker that such action would be welfare fraud because Ms. Garcia applied for homeless assistance on 6\/5\/03 and not 6\/6\/03. Ms. Garcia finally signed the 6\/5\/03 application again and put down the 6\/6\/ 03 date. Thus, the application contained two ap- plication dates; 6\/5\/03 and 6\/6\/03. The county worker committed FRAUD by stating on the ap- plication that the application was received on 6\/6\/ 03. Of course there are no Intentional program Violation Penalties for such workers as Ms. Chin who intentionally and knowingly falsify govern- ment documents. If it was not for the welfare right intervention, Ms. Garcia and her two children would have spent the weekend in the hot streets of Sacramento with- out food or money. 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, In- formational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. Gen- eral Assistance and Refugee Immigration ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-18 June 16, 2003 – In Brief – Capital Report- Sacramento – ABAWDS Denied Food Stamps Illegally DSS News CWD Victim Report In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Dion Aroner, former Assemblywoman from Berkeley, California, who was the chair of the Assembly Human Services Commit- tee, and receptive to the California Welfare Di- rectors Association (CWDA), conducted train- ing program for the County Welfare Directors teaching them how to influence the State Leg- islators. The influence can very likely result in more and more victims of county welfare depart- ments as we have printed in this Bulletin in the past and will continue to do so. Inter-County transfer cases with over- payments have been causing problems. A case is transferred from County A to County B . The case has an overpayment. County B starts collecting the overpayment, but never lets County A know how much is being collected. Thus, often overpayments collected by County B show up as uncollected by County A . Sometimes there are tax intercepts to recoup over- payments that have already been recouped. This seems like county money stealing , but there are no laws against this kind of theft. The vic- tims do not even get an apology letter from the money stealing county. Department of Health Services wants to do quarterly reporting for Medi-Cal, but it would be different from the CalWORKs and Food Stamps quarterly reporting; anything to confuse people. DSS’s AB 429 30-day temporary ab- sence payment opposed by CWDA. This proposal would provide a 30 day temporary Cal- In Brief WORKs benefits to parent(s) whose children have been removed from their homes. But giving 30 days of aid to parents whose kids have been taken away by the county, generally because they are poor, did not sit well with CWDA. Helping the poor parents for 30 days? No way. Mean-spirited Riverside County was nominated to craft an Issue Paper to Op- pose helping these impoverished parents. This mean- spirited Issue Paper was presented to the CWDA Cal- WORKs committee and supported. And who says that CWDA does not have a heart? They have a heart of stone. Homeless Assistance When the HA month has been unticked. What happens when child support has fully paid back the cash aid and home- less assistance for a particular month? The Cal- WORKs recipient should be eligible for homeless assistance again. This issue was raised at the 5\/1\/03 CWDA CalWORKs Committee meeting. DSS rep- resentative Linda Latimore said she is working on this issue. Stay tuned for more. Capital Report – Sacramento It is June 15th and still no budget. The bud- get conference committee shut down without reach- ing the major decisions relative to the budget. Now it will be up to the so-called Big Five , which is Governor Davis, President Pro-Tem John Burton, Speaker Wesson, Senate Minority Leader Brulte and Assembly Minority leader Cox. This is democracy in action – behind closed doors – a budget will sur- face and pass. When, no one knows. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-18- 6\/16\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The biggest issue for the poor is the CalWORKs COLA. There are also some other minor issues, such as the repeal of fingerprinting, transitional food stamps, changing the auto resource rules, etc. There is a good chance that the SSI and CalWORKs June 1, 2003 COLA will make it through, notwith- standing the opposition to the COLA of the As- sembly Democrats and Republicans of both houses together with Governor Davis, who want to take money out of the mouths of poor babies and kids and give use it for a bigger bureaucracy. Thanks to Senate Democrats the COLA still lives. CALL TO ACTION – Letters to Assemblyman Wesson and Assembly members supporting the CalWORKs COLA as a priority over funding the bureaucracy would be welcome. ABAWDS Denied Food Stamps Unlawfully Federal law changed in 1996 during the malicious attack launched by Republican lawmakers in Con- gress and supported by then President Clinton. The law limits Food Stamps for single persons and childless couples to three months unless such per- son is working 20 hours a week or performing in- voluntary servitude duties for the government in return for the food he or she eats. These victims are known as ABAWDS, which stands for Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents. The food stamp law provides for an exception to this mean-spirited 3-month rule. If a county has an unemployment rate over 10% or if the county, city or particular zip is designated as a labor surplus area by the federal government, then the 3 month rules do not apply. In California, today, 27 counties meet one of these definitions, but only 8 counties are obeying the law. The counties of Alpine, Calaveras, Colusa, Impe- rial, Kern, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Plumas, San Benito, Shasta, Sutter, Tehema, Trin- ity and Yuba are unlawfully refusing to waive the ABAWDS requirements, thus literally, blindly, stealing money from the poor people of their county. And these immoral thieves have the gall to talk about welfare fraud when they are commit- ting the crimes of theft from the poor on a daily basis without any shame or remorse. Los Angeles County should also be exempting ABAWDS individuals from the cities of Compton, El Monte, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Puente, Los Angeles, Lynnwood, Maywood, Paramount, River, Pomona, Rosemead and South Gate. But Los Angeles County that has millions to waste on home visits activities to harass the poor refuse to pro- vide food stamps to the needy of Los Angeles just to show how mean they are. CCWRO is looking for persons who cannot get food stamps in these counties and cities. If you have a victim, let us know. We must fightback. DSS News Charlotte Rutkowska of Orange County e-mailed the following message to DSS on February 3, 2003 to May Otow: We would like to request a waiver of the Pro- gram requirements for domestic abuse victims who were unable to enroll in a SIP prior to Appraisal due to the domestic abuse environment the lived in at the time; including isolation threats. With approval of this waiver of Program require- ments, any recipient with evidence of domestic abuse could become a SIP after Appraisal. We see this waiver as a very positive tool in assisting the recipient with a domestic abuse history in taking control of their lives. We would be opening oppor- tunities to them when they may not have had the chance to safely enroll in a SIP prior to Appraisal. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-18- 6\/16\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 References: 42-711.52 Appraisal 42-711.54 SIPs 42-715.121 Evidence of domestic abuse 42-715.5 Waiver of program Requirements On February 4, 2003, Mary Otow responded as follows Charlotte, domestic abuse is covered in our regulations in MPP 42-715 and is typically handled by Work Support Services… CCWRO OBSERVATION: Charlotte was not asking about domestic abuse policy, she was ask- ing for a waiver. A call to Orange county re- vealed that to date this waiver has not been ap- proved and victims of domestic abuse continue to suffer by DSS’s refusal to grant the waiver. CWD Victim of the Week In Los Angeles County, a disabled person was asked to participate in the WtW program. She did not participate because he was disabled. Moreover, she never received the notices for participation or the notices for good cause determination, because she had moved and the mail went to the wrong address. Los Angeles County Welfare Department were aware of the change of address, but given the complete incompetence of the DPSS administra- tion the CalWORKs program, the notices went to the wrong address. On December 31, 2002, Hasan Karwa of LA DPSS asked DSS whether an over one year long sanction imposed upon someone who was disabled and is still disabled can be rescinded? Audrey King of DSS asked for some additional information. Hasan responded that the victim was in the hospital when she was scheduled for good cause determination. Of course, that did not stop Los Angeles County from meeting their primary objective- sanction at all costs. On January 10, 2003, DSS issued the follow- ing e-mail: Okay, I’ve talked to Legal. We rec- ommend that LA give the individual their portion of the grant back to the time that aid was reduced. She notified Eligibility of her new address before the NOA was sent and was in the hospital at the time of her good cause appointment. Given that the county sent the NOA to the wrong address and she had good cause to not attend the compliance appointment (even though the evidence was pro- vided extremely late), we think the county will lose at a hearing. LA County informed CCWRO that this victim and her kids received all of the money back that was withheld from them WtW Disability Exemption News – At the May 1, 2003 meeting of CWDA DSS again state that it is DSS policy that any person who is par- tially exempted, is totally exempted. Thus, if a person has verification that he or she cannot work more than the 23 or 35 hours that they are required to work, then such person is exempt. A simple state- ment from the doctor that the person cannot work more that 32\/35 hours shall meet the DSS regula- tory requirements that the disability be verified. Some counties have been unlawfully forcing Cal- WORKs participants to get a CW 61 completed by a physician. This is ILLEGAL. State regula- tions do not require a CW61 to very disability ex- emption. Moreover, the CW 61 violates confiden- tiality, in that it reveals that the person is a welfare recipient, and not just a Medi-Cal patient. DSS DELAYS CalWORKs COLA CCWRO received a letter from DSS on June 5, 2003 stating that if the Legislature does not suspend the Cal- WORKs COLA during the week of June 5, 2003, that DSS will be instructing counties to issue the COLA. We contacted DSS on Friday, June 13 to find out if they will be issuing instructions to counties. DSS re- sponded that during the week of 6\/16\/03 they will is- sue instructions to counties to issue the COLA. Stay tuned. ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 State Budget Update The State budget has yet to be adopted. There are two budget bills: (1) the Assembly bill, which suspends CalWORKs and SSI COLAs to make more money available for the bureaucracy, and the Senate Bill, which provides full COLA for CalWORKs and SSI. There is also a so-called bipartisan budget pro- posed by Democrat Joe Canciamilla and Repub- lican Keith RIchman. This proposed budget is another severe and needless attack on the poor of California who are living on l989 fixed in- come levels. The proposal would change the sanction process so as to increase the number of sanctions which will save $10 million dollars an- nually. The proposal would also suspend the CalWORKs COLA for three years; reduce SSI benefits to the MOE floor and eliminate the CAPI and CFAP programs. Many of these changes do not save any general fund monies. California leg- islators have proven their cowardice. When given the choice to support or hurt poor the poor fami- lies California they chose to hurt them. Bush Ignores Poor Children and Gives to the Rich On May 28th the President signed a massive tax- cut bill that gave millionaires an average of $93,500 in tax cuts this year. The children of hard working families, one million of which are mili- tary families, received nothing from the tax bill. That is because they did not contribute to the Bush campaign for President. The other rational touted by Republicans is the LIE that poor families do not pay taxes. After this shameful act of excluding working and military families, the Senate and House passed new tax bills that included some of these families. According to the Children’s Defense Fund, the House plan departs from the Senate plan in three key ways, all of them bad for families: FIRST, the House attached its help for low-income families to an 82 billion dollar package of unnecessary new tax cuts, providing six times as much help for fami- lies making over $110,000 compared to low-in- come families. Unlike the Senate bill, about 200,000 military families will not qualify for the full child tax credit in the House version, since combat pay will not count as income for tax pur- poses. SECOND, the House version delays its help for lower-income families until next year, while providing tax rebate checks for upper-income fami- lies right away. THIRD, because the House bill fails to find offsets to pay for its massive new tax cuts, it represents yet another cynical attempt to saddle the government with billions in added debt and drain resources away from badly needed public services. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-19 June 30, 2003 Statistic of the Week – (1) 37% WtW Sanction Rate in California ; (2) Food Stamp Withdrawals Gone Array in California State Budget Update Bush Ignores Poor Children and Gives to the Rich TANF Update CWDA Targets IHSS Providers ABAWDS Unlawfully Denied Food Stamps CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-19- 6\/30\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 TANF UPDATE The Children’s Defense Fund reports that the Senate Finance Committee still hopes to take up TANF (welfare) reauthorization legislation when they return from the July recess, with markup in the committee perhaps as early as the week of July 14th. The House-passed bill (H.R. 2350) to extend the TANF block grant funds through Sep- tember 30th (pending reauthorization) is now be- fore the Senate, which should pass the extension by the end of June until September 30, 2003 to keep program money flowing to the states. Many issues in the bill still have not been resolved – such as whether the work requirements will be intensified as they are in H.R. 4, the House-passed welfare bill (requiring parents to work even more hours per week but limiting what activities can count as work) and how much child care funding states should receive. We will keep you posted on important developments, including opportunities to contact your members of Congress to make sure they support key provisions. In addition, there’s a proposal afoot to toughen the existing TANF work requirements for single par- ents with young children under age 6. Under cur- rent law, these parents (most often mothers) are only required to work 20 hours per week instead of 30, so they can spend more time with their in- fants and toddlers. The proposal would increase their hours to equal those of other families. It is based upon flawed TANF statistics showing that in states’ TANF records, moms with younger chil- dren work just as many hours as other parents. However a recent CDF report finds that mothers DO work less when they have young children. Imposing more stringent work requirements on these parents would create hardships for these fami- lies, including making it even more difficult to find appropriate child care to cover additional hours of required work. The Senate Finance Committee still hopes to take up TANF (welfare) reauthorization legislation when they return from the July recess, with markup in the committee perhaps as early as the week of July 14th. The House-passed bill (H.R. 2350) to extend the TANF block grant funds through Sep- tember 30th (pending reauthorization) is now be- fore the Senate, which should pass the extension by the end of June to keep program money flow- ing to the states. CWDA Targets IHSS Providers A California Welfare Directors Associa- tion (CWDA) committee, has decided to in- vestigate welfare fraud in the IHSS program. At a May CWDA FAADS Committee meeting Santa Clara County stated that they can produce a report that reveals some providers are claiming too many service hours per month. Sacramento County’s policy of unlawfully denying service hours to eligible clients, is hiring more fraud in- vestigators to terrorize the providers while the county crimes against the IHSS recipients goes un- checked. It is the counties that are intentionally and un- lawfully denying IHSS hours to which IHSS ap- plicants and recipients are eligible for because the county has a closed end allocation of IHSS dol- lars said a representative of the IHSS providers union. At this May meeting San Francisco County pro- posed to have a workshop on techniques for suc- cessful fraud prevention, which really means a workshop to terrorize IHSS recipients and their low paid providers. ABAWDS Denied Food Stamps Unlawfully After our last article about ABAWDS waivers, DSS was kind enough to fax us some information about the current status of waivers. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-19- 6\/30\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 There are nine counties who have 10% unemploy- ment waivers. They are Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Sierra and Tulare. Eight counties have a Labor Surplus Area Waiv- ers. They are Alpine, Calaveras, Del Norte, Mendocino, Modoc, San Joaquin, Siskiyou and Trinity counties. Two (2) counties have received a so-called 20% waivers. They are Mono and Tuolumne. As we have said before, there are many counties and areas of California where the ABAWDS rules should be waived to maximize participation in the food stamp program. CCWRO is working to maxi- mize the participation in the Food Stamp program. A New USDA Food Stamp Prescreening Tool On June 5, USDA released a Food Stamp Program (FSP) prescreening tool that is designed to deter- mine if a household is potentially eligible for Food Stamp benefits. The tool, called \”Step 1,\” is avail- able via the internet to help individuals, or assis- tance organizations working with clients, determine their FSP eligibility and get an estimate of monthly benefits in as little as 15 minutes. The tool can be found on the internet at www.FoodStamps- Step1.usda.gov or www.govbenefits.gov. Accord- ing to USDA, the number one reason eligible people do not participate [in FSP] is that they do not know they are eligible. This is an easy way to determine if a household is eligible for food stamp benefits. Statistic of the Week 37% Sanction Rate in California This week DSS finally released the Welfare to Work sanction data for March of 2003. It is bad. Statewide there is a 38% sanction rate of undupli- cated participants. This means that one out of three participants are sanctioned. Some of the leading counties with sanctions are Fresno at 95%; San Joaquin at 64%, Los Angeles at 55%, Tulare at 54%, Alameda at 51%, San Diego at 48%. The sanction propagandists claim that vigorous sanctions means better participation and better re- sults from the WtW program. This not untrue. It is old Soviet-Nazi propaganda. The truth is while 55% of the Los Angeles County participations were sanctioned, only 3.68% of the participants found employment that resulted in ter- mination of benefits. Alameda County sanctioned 51% and less than 3% of the participants found employment that re- sulted in termination of benefits. San Joaquin County sanctioned 64% of the undu- plicated participants and only 2% of the partici- pants found employment that resulted in termina- tion of benefits. And who said that WtW does not work. It works insofar as sanctions are concerned, but it is dis- mal failure what it comes to self-sufficiency, which was never the purpose of WtW anyhow. Food Stamp Withdrawals Gone Array in California Statewide over 7% of the Food Stamp applications are withdrawn by Food Stamp applicants. The 7% average reflects Napa County, the highest at 29% to Yolo County’s low at 0.29%. Why would so many people withdraw their applications in Napa County and so few in Yolo County? Could it be that Napa County tells applicants that they are not eligible, thus they should withdraw their applica- tion in blatant violation of the Food Stamp laws? And what is DSS doing about this obvious law breaking that is going on Napa County and other counties, such as Santa Clara County at 20%; El Dorado County at 17%; Nevada County at 16%; Yuba County at 16%. Any investigations being con- ducted by the so-called program integrity folks. Nay. Who cares that the county breaks the law. So what? No big deal. That’s what counties do. Integ- rity refers to recipient integrity not County In- tegrity . As far as counties are concerned, the ends justify the means. Below are the percentages of applicants who with- drew their applications during April of 2003, ac- cording to the DSS Food Stamp application monthly report. Statewide 7.44% 1 Napa 28.88% 2 Santa Clara 20.69% 3 Plumas 20.00% 4 San Benito 18.38% 5 El Dorado 17.03% 6 Nevada 16.25% 7 Yuba 16.12% 8 Mariposa 15.38% 9 Lassen 13.86% 10 Calaveras 13.64% 11 Modoc 13.16% 12 Monterey 12.95% 13 Mendocino 12.07% 14 Amador 11.96% 15 Sutter 11.96% 16 Madera 11.64% 17 Placer 11.32% 18 Butte 11.30% 19 Glenn 11.21% 20 Mono 11.11% 21 Tulare 10.88% 22 Humboldt 10.19% 23 San Joaquin 10.02% 24 Imperial 9.15% 25 Orange 9.05% 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 CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS 26 Shasta 8.83% 27 Del Norte 8.60% 28 Los Angeles 8.52% 29 Trinity 8.33% 30 Tehama 8.10% 31 San Luis Obispo 7.89% 32 Siskiyou 7.85% 33 Tuolumne 7.74% 34 Kern 7.17% 35 Alameda 6.93% 36 Inyo 6.67% 37 San Bernardino 6.14% 38 Contra Costa 5.13% 39 San Diego 4.92% 40 Stanislaus 4.83% 41 Lake 4.65% 42 Kings 4.19% 43 Ventura 4.11% 44 Merced 4.05% 45 Marin 3.62% 46 Santa Cruz 3.50% 47 Colusa 3.17% 48 Solano 3.07% 49 Sacramento 2.95% 50 San Francisco 2.86% 51 Riverside 2.42% 52 Santa Barbara 2.12% 53 Sonoma 1.01% 54 Fresno 0.40% 55 Yolo 0.29% 56 Alpine 0.00% 57 Sierra 0.00% 58 San Mateo a\/ no report 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-19- 6\/30\/03-Page 4 ”

” 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: ccwro@aol.com ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief Ellen Judith Tabachnick of Bay Area Legal Ser- vices has informed us that HUD has released a new Spanish webpage. For more information go to http:\/\/www.hud.gov:80\/news\/release\/ cmf?content=pr03-074.cfm. Bush cuts housing programs to the bone and then establishes a Span- ish web page. Now that is the Bush version of compassion. How many poor have access to the web anyhow? ANOTHER HOMELESS FAMILY SCREWED BY DSS. On 3\/20\/03 @ 4.21 P.M.., DSS was asked by Tuolumne County whether the county had to pay a deposit that was more than twice the amount of the rent. The rent was less than 80% of the grant, thus the family was eligible to have a home in America, but the land- lord was charging a large deposit. The CWD asked DSS for guidance. While homeless, the family also waited for guidance . On 3\/24\/03 @ 3:09 P.M.., DSS responded that the security deposit cannot exceed twice the amount of the obligated rent in order for the AU to be eligible to receive the permanent housing payment. This is not correct. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-20 July, 2003 In Brief DSS News Statistic of the Week Recipient Impact Statement 2003-2004 Canciamilla- Richman & Republican Budget Cuts MPP 44-211.532 does not state in any way, shape or form that if the deposit exceeds twice the amount of the rent, the family is not eligible for permanent homeless assistance. 44-211.532 merely states, the deposit and the rent that’s paid out cannot exceed twice the amount of the rent. Often, homeless families use their own money to make up the difference just to get their kids off the streets and into a safe place so they can live like human beings. 44-211.531 defines who is eligible for permanent homeless assistance and it states: A nonrecurring special need payment for permanent housing assistance shall be made only to AUs presenting evidence that the AU has found permanent housing which does not rent for more than 80 percent of the AU’s MAP, without special needs, for an AU of that size. To determine how much permanent homeless assis- tance is available, 44.211.532 states: An amount not to exceed two months of an AU’s rent, as de- scribed in MPP Section 44-211.531, is available to pay for the reasonable costs of security deposits when the deposits are a condition of securing a permanent residence. What is sad about this case is that a homeless family had to be homeless Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sun- day and then on Monday they got the incorrect sen- tence of continued homelessness in America. DSS News CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003- 20- 7\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Child Support Referral for A Woman with a Child Conceived with a Donor Insemination – Sac- ramento County asked DSS on 3\/5\/ 03 .. whether a child was conceived through donor insemination and the father is unknown and the birth cer- tificate is blank for the father, does the case have to be referred to child support enforcement? On 3\/5\/03, DSS responded .. that in accordance with Family Code Sec- tion 7613 such cases do not have to be referred to child support for en- forcement. The purpose of the Welfare to Work program is to make families self-suf- ficient. That being the case, we re- viewed the DSS statistical informa- tion on how many families became ineligible for CalWORKs due to em- ployment. We also compared that statistic with the number of families that were sanctioned because they al- legedly failed to cooperate with the county’s efforts to make them self- sufficient. Well, the facts show that for the month of March 2003 the counties were very successful in achieving the real goal of the Cal- WORKs WtW program – sanction poor families. During March 2003, 38% of the unduplicated participants were punished by the county welfare bureaucrats for allegedly failing to participate in the welfare to no- where program, also known as WtW. During the same month, a measly 4% of the participants had their benefits terminated due to em- Statistic of the Week ployment. Some of the classics are in the south, Los Angeles County, with a 55% sanction rate and a 3.6% getting jobs that resulted in termination of employment rate. Up north, Alameda County has a 51% sanction rate while only 3% of its partici- pants found employment that resulted in termination of Cal- WORKs. Below is a county-by-county listing of the percentage of fami- lies whose benefits were terminated due to employment. Statewide 4.43% Alameda 2.96% Alpine 0.00% Amador 18.92% Butte 2.24% Calaveras 3.33% Colusa 0.00% Contra Costa 4.86% Del Norte 4.31% El Dorado 6.09% Fresno 6.14% Glenn 2.94% Humboldt 0.14% Imperial 1.24% Inyo 2.94% Kern 1.53% Kings 2.35% Lake 1.20% Lassen 1.51% Los Angeles 3.68% Madera 0.81% Marin 4.58% Mariposa 1.27% Mendocino 1.64% Merced 2.23% Modoc 6.12% Mono 0.00% Monterey 1.71% Napa 3.70% Nevada 2.25% Orange 1.95% Placer 13.52% Plumas 2.17% Riverside 5.74% Sacramento 11.42% San Benito 1.03% San Bernardino 0.00% San Diego 10.08% San Francisco 3.67% San Joaquin 2.44% San Luis Obispo 11.01% San Mateo 5.23% Santa Barbara 19.39% Santa Clara 3.59% Santa Cruz 12.37% Shasta 1.65% Sierra 0.00% Siskiyou 7.58% Solano 15.38% Sonoma 11.35% Stanislaus 1.49% Sutter 1.61% Tehama 1.35% Trinity 3.85% Tulare 13.41% Tuolumne 0.36% Ventura 12.28% Yolo 10.35% Yuba 1.50% CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-20- 7\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 We recognize that the 2003-2004 budget crisis is severe and calls for drastic action, however, drastic action does not have to result in cutting programs for California’s impoverished families with children to make more money available to the welfare bureaucracy. The proposed cuts do not save general fund money and are mean-spirited. Often in these political fights, some feel obligated to launch an assault on the most vulnerable groups who have the greatest need for government assistance, even when those assaults are not necessary. The 2003 Canciamilla-Richman\/Republican proposed budget cuts threaten to make several changes that will impact impoverished families living in deep poverty. Most of these proposed cuts will not save the general fund money; they are: 1. Increase CalWORKs Sanctions. 2. Suspend the CalWORKs COLA for three years. 3. Eliminate the CAPI program. 4. Eliminate the CFAP program. The CalWORKs program is funded with federal TANF funds. The State must match those funds in order to be eligible for the TANF money. The total amount of TANF money available to serve impoverished CalWORKs families is about $6.7 billion for 2003- 2004. About one billion is being used for other bureaucratic purposes having nothing to do with providing aid to families and children. Before the 1996 alleged welfare reform, about 80% of the CalWORKs money was used to provide payments to impoverished families. Today these families receive about 50% of CalWORKs money. The remaining amount is used for administration and funding the welfare bureaucracy. Taking from the poor and giving to the bureaucrats should be OPPOSED by all reasonable and compassionate persons. 1. INCREASE CalWORKs SANCTIONS PROPOSAL: This proposal is designed to save $20 million annually by enhancing the negative sanctions imposed by the CalWORKs programs. Full sanctions will be imposed on entire families, babies and innocent children. CURRENT PROGRAM: Currently, over 37% of the unduplicated participants in the CalWORKs Welfare to Work (WtW) program are being sanctioned by stopping the benefits of the participant who, allegedly has not cooperated with the WtW program. Most sanctioned persons are sanctioned because of lack of child care and\/or transportation. ANALYSIS: Former republican Governor, Pete Wilson rejected, as inhumane, the issue of sanctioning the whole family. Imposing negative consequences generally produces negative results. There was a time when society thought positive results could be achieved through negative reinforcement, however, this type of antiquated thinking has been proven unsuccessful. Businesses give bonuses to achieve better performances from their employees in lieu of wage reductions. The Legislature gives counties bonuses and incentives to do what the Legislature pays the county welfare departments to do in the first place. Positive reinforcements work and they should apply to the impoverished families with children of California. For example families that meet the federal hours of participation rates should receive a cash benefit at the same level that is given to disabled families. Most of these budget cuts would make more money available to the welfare bureaucracy by taking away from California’s impoverished families. Recipient Impact Statement 2003-2004 Canciamilla-Richman & Republican Budget Cuts 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-20- 7\/03-Page 4 FISCAL ANALYSIS: Although this change will save millions annually, the savings will be used to fund a larger bureaucracy. California must spend $6.7 billion on CalWORKs. The issue is, does Canciamilla-Richman and the Republicans want to use that money for impoverished families of California or to fund a larger bureaucracy? 2. SUSPENDING THE CalWORKs COLA FOR THREE YEARS PROPOSAL: This provision suspends the CalWORKs COLA for three years. There is no suspension of any other COLAs in the budget except for the COLA to protect the impoverished families of California. CURRENT PROGRAM: The annual cost- of- living statute was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1971 as a part of the 1971 Welfare Reform Act. While Governor, he honored his commitment to pay decent benefits to impoverished families. Since Reagan’s departure, the AFDC COLA has been a vulnerable target for politicians of both parties. ANALYSIS: Since 1970, the CalWORKs\/AFDC COLA has been attacked. Amazingly, California’s poor families are still living on the same fixed incomes levels as they were in 1989. FISCAL ANALYSIS: Although this change will save millions annually, the savings will be used to fund a larger bureaucracy. California must spend $6.7 billion on CalWORKs. The issue is, does Canciamilla-Richman and the Republicans want to use that money for impoverished families of California or to fund a larger bureaucracy? 3. ELIMINATION OF THE CFAP PROGRAM PROPOSAL: This proposal would eliminate the California Food Assistance Program. CURRENT PROGRAM: This program is designed to provide food for legal aliens who are not eligible for Food Stamp benefits because of 1996 Welfare Reform Act passed by Congress. The program is funded with TANF dollars for most part. ANALYSIS: The recent changes in federal law has reversed most of the food stamp cuts for legal aliens. The cost of this program is minimal for 2003-2004 and on going. Most costs are picked up by the TANF program. FISCAL ANALYSIS: Although this change will save millions annually, the savings will be used to fund a larger bureaucracy.. California must spend $6.7 billion on CalWORKs. The issue is, does Canciamilla-Richman and the Republicans want to use that money for impoverished families of California or to fund a larger bureaucracy? 4. ELIMINATION OF THE CAPI PROGRAM PROPOSAL: This proposal would eliminate the Californian Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI). CURRENT PROGRAM: This program is designed to provide cash aid to legal aliens who are aged, blind and disabled, and are not eligible for federal SSI benefits because of 1996 Welfare Reform Act passed by Congress. ANALYSIS: This change would transfer the burden of assisting the legal alien aged, blind and disabled cases from the State to the counties. This was a federal anti-immigrant cut. When this program was enacted, the State legislature decided to assist disabled legal aliens to provide some fiscal relief to the counties, but mostly to be compassionate towards the aged, blind and disabled, who are legally in the United States and were able not pass their naturalization tests to become citizens. Any civilized society is judged upon the amount of compassion they show to their fellow human beings. This proposal is simply inhumane. FISCAL ANALYSIS: This cut would save general fund money, but it would transfer some of the cost to the county budgets and would have an enormous negative impact upon the impoverished aged, blind and disabled legal aliens. ”