Search Demo

” 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 #2004-1-January 1, 2004 In This Issue Rita Saenz Leaves DSS. Tameron Mitchell, Acting Director of CDSS CalWORKs Policy Issues Statistical Report – WtW Sanctions CWD Victim of the Week LIFETIME to Protest State Budget Cuts by Schwarzenegger Monday,January 12, 2004 at 10am to 2pm at the State Capital. RITA SAENZ Leaves CDSS Effective 12\/31\/03 Tameron Mitchell, Acting Director of CDSS On December 30, 2003, the following e-mail was sent to all CDSS employees by Rita Saenz. December 30, 2003 TO: ALL STAFF FROM: RITA SAENZ, Director SUBJECT: FAREWELL The new year has arrived and many things change. Among those will be my departure from the Department. My last day is tomor- row. What a wonderful five years it has been! Thank you for everything. In honor of this departure, I have composed a simple, but heartfelt piece for you. I hope you will enjoy. May this year and every subsequent year be filled with only the best for you and your loved ones. Love, Rita This is what I will remember Our community and every member Even those not known by name Have changed my life from being the same Working hard here every day Giving of themselves in every way Generous to every call I will miss them, miss them all Here we’re doing God’s good work From our jobs we do not shirk Each lends in his or her own way To bring the best to every day Millions benefit from what we do Whether they know of it or have no clue What a legacy we leave Good folk, hearts upon our sleeves What will I miss most of all Hat, elevator chats, and lots of calls Extra effort that has really paid Not the clearances that were delayed No so many e-mails will I get It seemed at times they would not quit Still there was some fun in it Staff success stories were quite a hit Thank you for the gifts you’ve given It made the job so much like heaven Thank you, thank you, you’re the BEST May your lives be doubly blest Farewell my friends! Effective January 1, 2004, the respondent\/de- fendant for CDSS will be TAMERON MITCHELL, acting director in lieu of Rita Saenz. Tameron Mitchell previously worked for the De- partment of Health Services with Kim Belshe, Pete Wilson’s Director of Department of Health Services, who is the Schwarzenegger appointed Secretary of Health and Welfare Agency. Happy New Year, Rita. HHHH H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r H H H H H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r H H H H H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r H H H H H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r HHHH H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r H H H H H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r H H H H H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r H H H H H aaaa a pppp p pppp p y y y y y NNNN N eeee e wwww w Y Y Y Y Y eeee e aaaa a rrrr r CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2004-1-January 1, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CalWORKs Policy Issues Conditional Asylees Eligible for CalWORKs On 7\/11\/03, John Bacon of San Francisco County Welfare Department, inquired about a family who had applied for CalWORKs after receiving conditional asylum decision from an Immigration Judge. The reason for asylum was the applicant’s resistance to coercive popula- tion control methods of the country they were fleeing. By law, the United States can only admit 1,000 persons in this category. Thus, while INS can find that the person is eligible for asylum benefits, he\/she cannot receive final asylum until their number comes up. However, a person who has been granted asylum is considered Permanently Residing in the United State of America Under Color of Law , thus, such person or family will be con- sidered PRUCOL. On July 15, 2003, David Wiley of DSS in- formed John Bacon that the San Francisco applicant with conditional asylum is eligible for public assistance benefits as PRUCOL. MFG Waived for Contra Costa County On September 26, 2002, Elaine Grothmann of Contra Costa County asked DSS if the County could waive the MFG rule for a victim of rape, domestic abuse, etc. Elaine told DSS … I’m shopping for better an- swer than what is in the regulations… The victim, Shanta, has an MFG child and is mildly retarded, with Bi-Polar disorder, and a host of other disabilities. Shanta and her baby were placed in foster care to protect her from abuse. However, the government failed to pro- tect her. While in foster care, she was mo- lested again by her foster care parents. Natu- rally, nothing happened to the social worker and the judge that placed her in the molester’s home – it’s just the way it is. When Shanta was 18, she was released from foster care. On her own again with no sup- port, she was raped by a person who hung around the homeless shelter where she was staying, who also beat her up. On July 26, 2002, Cheryl Almquist had some good news for Elaine. Under MPP 42-715.5 and ACL 97-71 the County can waive the MFG rules for victims of domestic abuse when it has been deter- mined that good cause exists. In fact, 42-715.52 provides that the county shall develop criteria for waiving program re- quirements for victims of domestic abuse. It appears that Contra Costa County has not developed a criteria for waiving program re- quirements for victims of domestic abuse. It is possible that many other counties have also failed to do so. If the county does not have a criteria devel- oped, then any program requirement for a vic- tim of domestic abuse should be waived. This can be achieved by filing for a fair hearing. ACL 98-58, dated July 31, 1998, on page three provides that if the county does not …have any specific written policies and procedures entered as evidence in the hearing, the ALJ must reach a decision by applying the facts of the case to the relevant statute or regula- tion, without regard to county policy. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2004-1-January 1, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIPS: 1. Mail a letter to the County asking for a copy of their waiver criteria under MPP 42-715.5. 2. Whenever you get a CalWORKs family that has been denied benefits due to some program requirement that is waivable un- der 42-715.5 – FILE FOR A FAIR HEAR- ING. 3. If the county has a county criteria, then it has to be available to the public in order to be in effect. See MPP 11-501.3 that states: Where statutes or CDSS regulations au- thorize counties to adopt specific standards which affect an applicant\/recipients eligibil- ity or grant amount or welfare-to-work ac- tivities, including supportive services, such standards shall be in writing and shall be made available to the public upon request. (Our emphasis added) 4. In order to prove that the county criteria is not publicly available, simply tell the claim- ant to go to the CWD, walk up to the recep- tionist and ask for a copy of the county pro- gram requirement policy for victims of do- mestic abuse. In most cases the reception- ist will say they do not have it. Thus, even of the county has a criteria, because it is not publicly available, it is not valid and it cannot be used as a county policy in a fair hearing. County Victim of the Week This weeks victim is a resident of Placer County. She was told by the County that she needed to work. In response, she found her- self a job and started working. She needed child care so she asked her worker about it. The worker said the county does not do child care. She was instructed to call the Placer County Education Office. She called many times, but there was no answer. She left five message and still no call back. In November, her child care provider dropped her for not paying her bill. She was going to lose her job, but one of her relatives agreed to watch the kids and hoped that the County would eventually pay. On December 29th, she called Denise from the Placer Ed. Office who agreed to see her and her provider at 9 am on 12\/30\/03 to sign up for child care. When they arrived, the doors were closed and there was no Denise. This County Welfare Department Victim has filed for a State hearing seeking justice. CalWORKs Recipients and Former Welfare Recipients Come to Sacramento – ACTION LIFETIME and The Welfare Made Difference Na- tional Campaign has scheduled a shirt display action at the north steps of the State Capital Build- ing in Sacramento. They will be protesting the Schwarzenegger proposed budget cuts against impoverished families with babies and children. Date: Monday – January 12, 2004 Place: North Steps of the Capital, Sacramento Time: 10 am. to 2 pm. Activities Shirt Display Viewing 10 am- 2 pm Press Conference 11 am-11:30 am Reading of the Shirts 11:30 am-12 noon Come join LIFETIME on January 12, 2003!!! CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2004-1-January 1, 2004 Statewide 41.63% Merced 134.78% Napa 123.91% Fresno 107.61% Colusa 105.41% Trinity 86.84% San Joaquin 80.48% Alpine 75.00% Sonoma 67.28% Plumas 64.86% Los Angeles 62.22% Sutter 61.09% San Luis Obispo 60.76% Siskiyou 60.00% Tehama 58.84% Kern 58.39% Humboldt 57.28% San Diego 57.28% Monterey 54.83% Amador 48.78% Lake 47.78% Calaveras 47.32% Tulare 45.20% Shasta 44.53% Mendocino 43.22% Glenn 43.06% Butte 41.66% Tuolumne 37.68% Kings 37.18% Yolo 37.00% Contra Costa 36.80% Mono 35.29% Nevada 34.46% Lassen 33.56% Mariposa 32.88% Marin 31.37% San Benito 28.90% Madera 27.99% Placer 27.35% San Bernardino 25.16% Stanislaus 24.30% Statistic of the Week Santa Cruz 21.97% Orange 21.45% Santa Barbara 19.74% Santa Clara 19.16% San Francisco 17.95% San Mateo 17.34% Ventura 17.24% El Dorado 16.05% Solano 13.69% Riverside 12.15% Yuba 11.27% Modoc 10.42% Inyo 6.67% Imperial 5.41% Sacramento 4.57% Del Norte 0.00% Sierra 0.00% Alameda Not Reported for the Second Month TABLE 1 This week, we take another look at the County Welfare Department Sanction Rates. Under current law, parents of needy children are sanc- tioned because they allegedly fail to cooperate with the county welfare bureaucrats. It is estimated that 25% of their benefits are taken away from them. Most of the persons sanc- tioned failed to cooperate because of lack of child care or transporta- tion, according to studies done by some county welfare departments and other researchers. Normally, there are good cause reasons for not cooperating, however, many coun- ties continue to impose sanctions . Table #1 below looks at the number of unduplicated participants and the number of persons that were sanc- tioned by the county. Counties can only impose sanctions for persons who do not participate in a Welfare- to-Work (WtW) activity. Some counties sanction more people during a given month than the num- ber of unduplicated participants they had for that month. This is explained by the fact that the sanctions are based upon acts of previous months, while the unduplicated participants count the number of persons that are participating during the report month. Statewide, 42% of the unduplicated participants were sanctioned during October of 2003. There has been a long time effort by the County Welfare Directors Association and DSS to make it easier to impose WtW sanctions. CalWORKs recipients are easy tar- gets for counties and easy to sanc- tion – often unlawfully. The top major counties are Fresno at over 100%; San Joaquin at 80%, Los Angeles at 62%,San Diego at 57%. Alameda County did not even report the number of sanctions because we believe they are embarrassed about their high rate of sanctions. The last sanction report submitted in August 2003 showed a 56% sanction rate. In September and October Alameda has refused to meet their WtW re- porting responsibilities. Even Santa Cruz County, which was opposed to sanctions, is now sanc- tioning 22% of its unduplicated par- ticipants. ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-2-January 21, 2004 In This Issue IN BRIEF 2004-2005 CalWORKS Budget Arrives County Performance Incentive Payments IN BRIEF NEW CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CDSS – On January 6, 2003, Kim Belshe, Secretary of Health and Human Services Agency issued a letter stating that Larry Bolton, the current Deputy Director for Legal Affairs of CDSS has been appointed one of the two Chief Deputy Directors of CDSS. NO MORE COUNTY REHEARINGS – During the November 14, 2003 California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) meeting Larry Bolton, Chief Deputy Director of DSS announced that because of CDSS down staffing rehearings will not granted, according to the CWDA December Board of Directors meeting minutes. Welfare and Institution Code 10960 provides for an opportunity to request a rehearing if welfare recipient or county disagrees with the hearing decision. According to CWDA minutes, Larry Bolton stated, If counties have an issue, they are welcome to take the issue to court . LOOKING FOR NEW STATE WELFARE DIRECTOR. Secretary Belshe’s letter dated January 6, 2004 also states that Appointing a new director of DSS is a high priority for the Governor and me and I am actively engaged in this effort While I cannot share with you specific timeframe for this appointment, I want to underscore the confidence I have in the department’s executive staff to provide responsible and effective leadership individually and collectively during this period of transition. Her memo continues to say that she looks forward to working with DSS staff … to advance the very ambitious agenda the Governor has developed related to CalWORKs, foster care and in-home supportive services. STATE BUDGET IMPOSES TAXES ON THE POOR IN NEED OF CHILD CARE – The 2004-2005 Schwarzanegger proposed budget will increase user fees for child care. User fees have been characterized as taxes by Republicans in past budget debates. The new user fees are 10% of the income of the needy family. There are also proposals to reduce the regional market rate, which would increase family co-payments. You can get more specific information about the child care cuts from the Child Care law Center by e-mailing to info@childcarelaw.org. STATE BUDGET SOLUTIONS: When a state budget is proposed by the Governor, it goes to the State legislature for hearings. There are five subcommittees that consider the budget during the months of March, April and May. During the beginning of May, the Governor issues a revised budget, which is known as the May Revise , which includes most of the dots and crosses that were left out in the January proposed budget. The May revise also includes new revenue assumption. A legislative staffer stated that the First Official Stop for any budgeted deficit solution is the Health and Human Services subcommittee in each house of the State Legislature that appropriate money for the poor. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-2-January 21, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 IHSS Budget: The 2004-2005 budget assumes that 25% us- age of the IHSS program is fraudulent. This assumption is used to reduce the IHSS budget by 25%. The county welfare departments often underauthorize hours of which IHSS recipients are en- titled to by law. According to our sources, the practice of underauthorizing IHSS hours is widespread in Los Angeles County. 2004-2005 CalWORKs Budget Arrives Schwarzanegger 2004-2005 Budget Declares War on the Poor On January 9, 2004, Arnold Schwarzanegger, who during his campaign promised to balance the State Budget by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, released his 2004-2005 proposed bud- get. This promise was not reflected in his pro- posed budget. The proposed budget was sum- marized by Senator John Burton, Democrat, President Pro Tem of the State Senate at a recent press conference as a budget that cuts fixed income benefits, services and health care to the poor to pay for Schwarzanegger’s car tax cut. What does Schwarzanegger propose to do? Reduce benefits by 5% and deny the 3.5% July 2003 and the 2.77% 2004 Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA). The budget plan proposes to make major re- visions in the welfare program: HIT #1. Reduc- ing Maximum Aid Payment (MAP) level by 25% for nonworking Cal- WORKs families whose parents have timed out. Under current law, parents who have been on CalWORKs for more than 60 months are taken off welfare and the children continue to get CalWORKs. This is a significant reduc- tion in benefits. Often, the parents have not become self-sufficient because the county has failed to provide them with legally required services or because most of the American jobs are being outsourced overseas. Schwarzanegger recognized in his State of the State speech that the lack of jobs is a prob- lem and promised to deal with this issue. However, when it comes to CalWORKs par- ents, he will reduce the childrens’ benefits by 25% because their parents have not found the jobs that he promised to bring back. How would this work in real life? For example: Ms. Jones, a mother of a six (6) year old, has a learning disability and has been a victim of domestic abuse. She has held numerous jobs, but cannot find a job that pays a family wage. Because she has been on CalWORKs for sixty (60) months, her benefits are reduced from $540 to $331. In addition, because she is not working in that she is in between her intermittent jobs, her benefits would be re- duced to $248 a month. NUMBER OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IMPACTED: 23,624 families will have their benefits reduced by $135 a month. This 2004-2005 SCHWARZANEGGER Proposed Budget CalWORKs Child Payment $191 a month per child Foster Care Child Payment $1,804 a month per child Adoption Assistance Program Payments $711 a month per child Poor Children with Families Get Less (monthly average) CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-2-January 21, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 means about 50,000 children will be im- pacted by this proposed SCHWARZANEG- GER cut. HIT #2. Under current law, when a family is sanctioned, the benefits of the noncooperative parent(s) is deleted. Under this proposal, if the parent(s) fail to participate after two months of being sanc- tioned, an additional 25% cut will be im- posed upon the already once reduced ben- efits. For example: Ms. Smith, a mother of a two (2) year old, is sanctioned for alleged fail- ure to participate. Her benefits are reduced from $540 to $331. After two months she still cannot participate due to lack of child care. Under this proposal, her benefits would be reduced to $248 a month. Published studies reveal that in many cases, sanctions are imposed on families who failed to cooperate because of lack of child care and\/or transportation, which is unlaw- ful, because the law states that persons who have a lack of child care or transportation cannot be sanctioned. This proposal is predicated on the assump- tion that sanctioned families do not want to cure the sanction. This is not true. There is no objective process in California to trigger the sanction cure process. The first sanction can be stopped once the sanctioned person informs the county that he or she is willing to cooperate and per- forms the act that caused the sanction. This sounds simple, but it can be complicated. A participant would attempt to contact the worker, who rarely answer the phones and rarely return phone calls. Then they would have to make an appointment and be sched- uled to perform the act that caused the sanc- tion. This could take weeks or often months. It is not unusual in California for the eligibility worker to pass the buck to the welfare- to- work worker, and the welfare- to -work worker passes the buck to the eligibility worker. NUMBER OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IMPACTED: 26,219 families including 52,438 children will have their benefits reduced by $154 a month. HIT #3. Requires nonexempt adults to partici- pate in 20 plus hours of direct work activity per week. At this time the details of this hit are not available. Those parents not doing direct work for 20 hours a week will be sanctioned. NUMBER OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IMPACTED: 18,496 families, including 37,000 children, will be impacted by having their fixed income at meager 1990 levels, reduced by an- other $154 a month. County Performance Incentives Part of the 1997 Welfare Deform Act was to provide county welfare departments with posi- tive reinforcements, such as performance in- centives while providing no positive reinforce- ment to welfare families. The incentives were paid to counties regard- less of how the reason the recipient obtained employment. Counties have received millions of perfor- mance incentive dollars, but not one penny was given to welfare families living on fixed incomes at the 1990 level or below. The Schwarzanegger budget proposes to stop these performance incentives for 2004- 2005. The budget assumes that $135.1 million dol- lars of unused County Incentive monies for 2002-2003 would be reappropriated to coun- ties in 2003-2004 . ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-12- June 1, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd DSS is setting up a workgroup to dis- cuss recoupment of child care overpay- ments. Gary Grayson of the Fraud Bu- reau of DSS has asked counties for vol- unteers to participate in the workgroup. DSS has not asked for any volunteers from other stakeholders, such as advo- cates and child care providers. \ufffd On June 27, 2004, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administra- tion is planning deep cuts in social ser- vices program after the election. The plans for Children and Family Service Programs in millions are: President’s Proposal for FY 2004 = $8,762 President’s Proposal for FY 2005 = $9,055 President’s Proposal for FY 2006 = $8,824 \ufffd On 7\/19\/2004, the National Alliance to End Homelessness is having a confer- ence in Washington D.C. entitled: Count- down to Success: Implementing Plans to End Homelessness. \ufffd Below are some web sites dealing with research in welfare for those who may be interested in such research. \ufffd www.appam.org\/index.shtml \ufffd www.brook.edu\/dybdocroot\/wrb \ufffd www.ssc.wisc.edu\/irp \ufffd www.jcpr.org \ufffd www.mdrc.org \ufffd www.mathematica-mpr.com\/welfare.htm \ufffd www.rockinst.org \ufffd www.utexas.edu\/research\/cshr\/index.html \ufffdwww.urban .org \/Content \/Research \/ NewFederalism\/AboutANF\/AboutANF.htm \ufffd http:\/\/aspe.hhs.gov\/hsp\/hspwelfare.htm \ufffd www.doleta.gov\/wtw\/ In This Issue IN BRIEF WtW Statistics County Welfare Dept. Victims of the Week \ufffd The Field Poll published on 5\/27\/04 found that 62% of the voters think that taxes will need to be raised to resolve the budget problem. \ufffd The same Field poll found that 51% of Californians believe that the overall di- rection that California is heading is in the wrong direction. CALIFORNIA WtW PROGRAM This week we look at the WtW program and how it is performing. Recent data pulled from the internet report WtW activities for March 2004 which are reflected in the data on Table #1 above. Table #1 shows that in 3\/04 there were 16,380 less unduplicated participants compared to 3\/03. This is a caseload reduction of 9%. This would lead a reasonable person to conclude that sanctions would also go down by 9%. Actually, sanctioned increased by 11%. There were 4727 more persons sanctioned in 2004 compared to 2003. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-12- June 1, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Now maybe the counties were real busy help- ing WtW participants to become self-sufficient. The WtW 25 reports reveal self-sufficiency by showing how many WtW participants went off welfare due to employment. This is a gross figure, not a net figure. The net figure would back-out those who found employment on their own. FACT: During March of 2004 934, less WtW participants obtained employment that re- sulted in termination of CalWORKs. That is a 7% reduction from 2003 to 2004. So what is WtW about in California? SANC- TIONS – 11% increase. While in March of 2004 there were 124,750 unduplicated participants involved in a WtW activity, 69,965 of them were not given trans- portation by California counties. Lack of trans- portation is considered good cause. A partici- pant cannot be sanctioned if s\/he does not have transportation. In a recent case in Los Angeles, Ms. S.H. failed to go to orientation. The county was informed that the reason she did not attend the orienta- tion was that she was working, additionally, she did not have money for transportation. DPSS District Deputy Director, Frank Mora, in charge of the office that handles Ms. S.H. case, stated that he did not believe that lack of transportation was good cause for failing to attending orientation. We reimburse par- ticipants who attend orientation. he said. Unduplicated WtW Entered Participants Sanctions Employment that Year\/Month Terminated CalWORKs March, 2003 141130 53212 6257 March, 2004 124750 57939 5323 Mr. Mora was informed of MPP 42-750.112 which states: Transportation. Transportation costs shall be governed by regional market rates as deter- mined below: (a) The least costly form of public transpor- tation, including CWD provided transporta- tion, that would not preclude participation in welfare-to-work activities pursuant to Sec- tion 42-721.313. (b) If there is no public transportation avail- able which meets these requirements, par- ticipants may use their own vehicles. Par- ticipants shall be reimbursed at one of the following rates: (1) The county shall select an existing reimbursement rate used in the county, or (2) The county shall develop a rate that covers necessary costs. (3) The reimbursement rate may not include a cap, or maximum monthly r e i m – b u r s e – m e n t a m o u n t , b e y o n d which ad- d i t i o n a l m i l e s driven are not reim- bursed. (c) Parking for welfare-to-work participants shall be re- imbursed at actual cost. Participants shall submit receipts for this purpose, except in cases where parking meters are used. (d) Participants who choose to use their own vehicles when public transportation is avail- able will be reimbursed at the least expen- sive reimbursement rate of available trans- portation pursuant to Sections 42-750.112(a) and (b). and MPP 42-750.21 Payments for supportive services, except child care as described in Chapter 47-100, shall be advanced to the participant when neces- sary and desired by the participant so that TABLE #1 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-12- June 1, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 the participant need not use personal funds to pay for these services. (Empha- sis added) By Mr. Mora’s own admission, Los Angeles County is violating the law by limiting pay- ments for transportation to reimbursements . They sanction participants who do not par- ticipate because they had a lack of transpor- tation. HOHOHOHOHOWWWWW TO TO TO TO TO ADADADADADVVVVVOCAOCAOCAOCAOCATE FTE FTE FTE FTE FOROROROROR VICTIMSVICTIMSVICTIMSVICTIMSVICTIMS OF OF OF OF OF WTWWTWWTWWTWWTW First question: Did you get an advance for transportation? If the answer is no then ask: Would you have used your personal funds to pay for the transportation? If the answer is yes , then the sanction is illegal. ALALALALALWWWWWAAAAAYS FILE FYS FILE FYS FILE FYS FILE FYS FILE FOROROROROR AAAAA F F F F FAIRAIRAIRAIRAIR HEAR HEAR HEAR HEAR HEAR—– INGINGINGINGING….. CCWRO would be glad to assist you with representation no matter which county you live in. OTHEROTHEROTHEROTHEROTHER DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSES:S:S:S:S: Lack of child care is always good cause. Rarely do people have child care. The counties state that they will pay for child care even if the participant states they have no child care. Howver, just because the county says they will pay for child care, it does not mean that child care is available. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIMS OF THE WEEK COUNTY DOUBLE- DIPS: Ms. V.S. of Sacramento County was charged with a $4,152 food stamp overpayment. Her son was working after finishing school and the family did not know that his income counted for food stamp purposes. It does not count for Cal- WORKs purposes. On May 26, 2004, she received a letter stating that she owed $4,152 and they noted a particular account number. That same day, her son received a letter stating that he owed $4,152 referring to a different account num- ber. Is this county double -dipping?. WORKING MOM LEAVES CHILD ALONE- CHILD TAKEN BY THE STATE – During July of 2002, Jennifer, a single work- ing mom, left her two children alone in a mo- tel room and went to work because she could not afford child care. CPS was called and they remove her two (2) children for leaving the kids home alone. Although the law provides that the county shall exhaust all reasonable efforts before remov- ing the children from the parents, Orange County broke up the famuly whose only need was child care. On the average, taxpayers pay $2,500 a month for each child in foster care. The children stayed in foster care for 12 months. At the 12 month hearing, the county stipulated that there was substantial probabil- ity the children would be returned to the Mother’s physical custody in six (6) months. The California Appeals Court in Jennifer A. v. Super. Ct. 4\/27\/04 CA4\/3 held: The county then moved to permanently terminate Jennifer’s parental rights because Jennifer had smoked a marijuana. The Court found that Jennifer …was never subject to clinical evaluation and was never diagnosed as having a substance abuse prob- lem. No medical professional testified at the 18-month review hearing. The social worker testified Mother did not have a substance abuse problem affecting her parenting skills. The social worker confirmed Mother has good parenting skills and testified she pretty much does those things that we normally associate with good parenting. However, this did not deter the county from achieving their primary goal – to destroy the family. It is indeed sad, that Orange County failed to do their job, which was to secure child care for Jennifer and allow her to parent her chil- dren as the law mandates. Ultimately the Appeals Court returned the children to Jennifer because there was no evi- dence that Jennifer was a danger to her chil- dren. ”

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

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

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

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-17- September 7, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd Are Both Parents Required to Work 55 Hours to be Eligible for Child Care? On 4\/19\/04 Imperial County asked DSS Do we have to apply the 55-hour rule or not? If so, when? Federal law provides that in or- der to get child care for both parents, then they have to work more than 55 hours a week. However, California is using state child care money to cover 2-parent child care pay- ments. DSS responded that Two parent families shall receive CalWORKs child care if they are otherwise eligible, even if they do not meet the 55-hour rule (MPP 47-220.4 \ufffd Parental Choice of Child Care. On 1\/ 12\/04 Tulare County asked DSS whether or not the county can pay a provider for provid- ing child care to participants at a site office. DSS responded that Parental choice may be an issue if the county requires their use. MPP 47-301.2 allows clients to choose li- censed or license-exempt child care. \ufffd SAWS 1 to be completed by applicant. At the August 5, 2004 California Welfare Di- rectors Association (CWDA) meeting there was a discussion of who can complete the SAWS 1 Immediate Need portion of the SAWS 1. The minutes of the meeting cor- rectly state The immediate need portion of the SAWS 1 must be completed by the ap- plicant. The county cannot complete the form and have the applicant initial the response to those question. We believe that many counties are completing the form and not allowing the applicant to complete the form. This practice has to stop. In This Issue In Brief Bush Administration Misleads Again Statistical Analysis -Homeless Assistance CWD Victim of the Week Governor Proposes Changing the Bureaucracy \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd The Bush Administration Misleads Again The Bush Administration stated on August 23, 2004 that caseloads in the TANF program fell in 2003. In the press release the Administration alleges that this means that American families are leaving welfare and getting jobs, thus im- proving the lives of families. Copy of the release can be obtained at: http:\/\/www.hhs.gov\/news\/ press\/2004.html. The Center on Budget Policies and Priorities (CBPP) published a report showing that based upon the U.S. Census reports this is incorrect. FACTS: The employment rate among single mothers fell from 73 percent in 2000 to 69.8 percent in 2003 \u2014 a larger decline than among other par- ents or the population overall. The unemployment rate among single moth- ers rose from 9.5 percent to 10.2 percent. Source: CBPP Report. Actually the reduction of the TANF caseloads show that more families in need are being de- nied. \ufffd \ufffd mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-17- September 7, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In 2000 52% of eligible families received TANF were receiving TANF benefits. In 2001 only 48% of the families eligible for TANF. This decline is primarily cased by Full Family Sanctions and Time-Limits enacted by Re- publicans and Democrats during 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton. Full family sanction means the entire family- babies and newborns, are terminated from aid for months and months. Often there food stamps are also taken away from them. Most sanctions are a result of lack of child care and transportation, thus, most of the sanctions are unlawful. Statistic of the Week We have been complaining that DSS has not published CalWORKs Homeless Assistance reports since June of 2002. This month reports from June of 2002 to June of 2004 were fi- nally published. The rules for homeless assistance program (HAP) are very straight forward. If a family is homeless and qualifies for home- less assistance, then they can get temporary assistance on the date of the application. It would be unlawful to say come back tomor- row. The other piece of HAP is permanent home- less assistance (PHA). When a family a per- manent place, they must apply for permanent HA. This application for PHA has to be acted on the date of application, but no later than the next working day. The new reports shows how many cases were carried forward from the previous month. The report reveals some fascinating trends. State- wide at the end of May 31, 2004, there were 3,048 cases that were not acted upon. Dur- ing the month of June 2004, the counties received 5,975 cases. During the month of May, 2004, the counties accepted 5,759 cases. That means that 52% of the cases statewide filed in May of 2004 were not acted upon by the end of month of May, 2004. Table #1 reveals the top 15 counties not processing HA applications timely. Los Angeles County received 2,448 HA application during May and carried over 2,515 applications. In other words they carried over 63 more application to June than they received in May. Marin County received 7 applications in May, carried over 120 applications and only received 15 applications in June. It appears that families are waiting for months and months in Marin County. Glen County received 3 applications in May, carried over 106 applications to June. Poor Glen County homeless families. These numbers show that there is something wrong with the homeless assistance administration in California and it is crying for a solution. CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK Ms. L.S.’s daughter of Sacramento County was working while in school. She was 17 and her income was excluded. She stopped working in July. The county was informed that her daughter is no longer work- ing. On August 3, 2004, a notice of action (NOA) was mailed stating that the family would receive $555 food stamps for a family of 7. On August 12, 2004, Mr. L.K received another NOA stating that the family’s food stamps will be $398 for September. This NOA reflected CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-17- September 7, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 TABLE #1 HAP HAP HAP Requests Requests Requests During Not Acted During May, 2004 Upon During June, 2004 May, 2004 Statewide 5,759 3,048 5,975 Los Angeles 2,448 2,515 2,573 Marin 7 120 15 Glenn 3 106 17 Siskiyou 6 78 14 Mendocino 27 54 36 Sacramento 170 38 181 Inyo 2 37 0 Sutter 10 26 10 Stanislaus 50 21 70 Solano 82 18 54 Alameda 63 10 67 San Fran. 4 8 14 Lake 21 5 9 Santa Barb. 17 3 18 Ventura 23 3 31 alleged income of the daughter who became 18 in August, but was not working in August. In August she had no income, yet the county counted the July income for September, but she was 17 in July and the July income was excluded. Another county error. The regulation regarding treatment of income for children under and above 18 are below: MPP 63-502 (i) The earned income (as defined in Section 63-502.13) of chil- dren who are members of the household, who are elemen- tary or secondary school students at least half time, and who have not attained their 18th birthday. Income of a student who attains their 18th birthday during the certification pe- riod, shall be excluded until the month following the month in which the student turned 18. If the student becomes 18 during an application month, the income is excluded in the month of application and counted in the following month except as specified in Section 63-507(a)(4)(A). Governor Proposes Changing the Bureaucracy Last month Governor Schwarzenegger re- leased a thick document proposing a host of changes in running the State Government that would save $6 billion of five years. On August 20, 2004, The California Perfor- mance Review Commission held a public hearing in San Diego to address the health and welfare proposals. CCWRO was invited to testify on the advo- cates panel which included Mike Herald of Western Center on Law and Poverty, Marilyn Holle of Protection and Advocacy; Peter Mendoza of Council on Developmental Dis- abilities; Carole Shauffer of the Youth Law Center and Lucien Wulsin of Insure the Unin- sured Project. There were many subjects to cover and each person on the panel had five (5) minutes. The highlights of the proposal relative to wel- fare were the following proposals: Transform Eligibility Process. The re- port correctly states Medi-Cal, CalWORKs and Food Stamp eligibility processing per- formed by California counties is inefficient, costly, does not give good service and is in- accurate. Medi-Cal, CalWORKs, and Food Stamp eligibility processing should be central- ized and consolidated at the state level to im- prove services and sane a total of $4 billion, including $1.5 billion in State General Funds over the next five years. The proposal suggests using public and pri- mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-17- September 7, 2004 – Page 4 vate entities to provide eligibility processing. This can be dangerous if the private entity is not accountable. CCWRO testified in support of State Adminis- tration in lieu of the current wasteful 58 county system with 18 different computer systems, 58 different manuals and memo, 58 different accounting systems, 58 different union con- tracts, etc. The proposal suggests that applications for aid can be done by the computer, which would eliminate lot of the procedural barriers that current applicants experience. Elimination of the $50 disregard. Another proposal is to eliminate the $50 child support disregard. CCWRO opposed this mean-spir- ited proposal. CalWORKs parents are cur- rently receiving a fixed income at 1989 level. The $50 child support disregard does not do much to bring these families into the 21st cen- tury. The noncustodial parents who are paying child support that goes entirely to the government except for the $50 are also taxpayers. They pay taxes which is used to pay for CalWORKs. After paying taxes that pays for CalWORKs they are asked to pay child support to cover the CalWORKs received by their children that they have already paid for in the form of taxes. This is double taxation. At least the children whose parents are paying the taxes to cover CalWORKs and then child support should re- alize some benefit from the child support pay- ments. Child support payments for CalWORKs children should benefit the children and not the government. Maybe the program of col- lecting money from noncustodial parents whose children are on CalWORKs should be called government support payments , which is honestly reflects what is happening with the money collected from the noncustodial par- ents. Government Reshuffling- The proposal would eliminate the State Department of Child Support and place it back in DSS. In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) would be placed in the Department of Health Services. The State would also take over the Medically Indigent Program IHSS while counties would be responsible for Child Welfare Services and Mental Health. The report provides that there would be a workgroup set up to work out the realignment proposal. For more information about this report go to: http:\/\/report.cpr.ca.gov\/cprrpt\/issrec\/hhs\/ index.htm 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 Consulta- tion. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immi- gration Problems mailto:info@childcarelaw.org ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-18- October 18, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd Senate Bill 2830 – Santorun and Bayh: Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2004 includes the continu- ation of the TANF program. This is a Repub- lican initiative that gives welfare bureaucrats and social workers about $600 million dol- lars to run programs promoting marriage and fatherhood. However, not one penny of this money is mandated to help newly formed low income families remain intact. \ufffd CDSS fails to request waiver for 10,000 ABAWDS recipients: ABAWDS (able bodied adults without dependents) re- cipients are eligible for food stamps only 3 months out of a 36 month period. During 2004, all ABAWDS were eligible for a waiver which would have lifted that requirement. However, CDSS refused to ask for a state- wide waiver of the ABAWDS rule. As a re- sult, CDSS staff will have plenty of food on their Thanksgiving tables, while over 2,500 poor persons this quarter will have nothing to eat. \ufffd SSI Representative Payee New Regulations: On October 7, 2004, the So- cial Security Administration published final regulations regarding representative pay- ments under Title II,VIII and XVI of the So- cial Security Act. See: http:\/\/ www.access.gpo.gov\/su_docs\/fedreg\/ a041007c.html. The revised regulations codified changes required by a long list of Public Laws 101- 508;- 5105(a)(1) and (2) and (c); 103-296 – 201; 104-121- 105; 105-33 – 5525(b); 106-169 – 251; 106-170 – 401; and 108- 203 – 101. In This Issue In Brief Dennis Boyle – New CDSS Director Charr Lee Metsker – Acting Deputy Director for Welfare to Work Division Bob Sertich, CDSS Chief Deputy Director Los Angeles GAIN 79% of CalWORKs Recipient have no car \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd These regulations set forth the process for de- termining the need for a representative payee; the process for selecting the payee; the respon- sibilities of the selected payee and restitution of misused benefits. Dennis Boyle Appointed Director CDSS On October 13, 2004, the Governor appointed Dennis Boyle as Director of DSS. Dennis Boyle served as Chief of the CDSS AFDC Bureau during the eighties. He provided key leadership to do away with the 100 rule for two-parent fami- lies. He was then appointed Deputy Director for DSS. His next step was to be Director of River- side County Department of Public Social Ser- vices. Dennis is the first director since the early seventies who has moved from being a CWD director to State Welfare Director. Dennis will start in his official capacity on December 1, 2004. Legal Services now has a new repondent – DENNIS BOYLE. BOB SERTICH, CDSS Chief Deputy Director Robert Sertich, who used to work for DSS as Deputy Director for Administration has returned to CDSS as Chief Deputy Director. He has worked in a number of other state human ser- vices departments. \ufffd mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-18- October 18, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Charr Lee Metsker Appointed Acting Deputy Director for Welfare to Work Division In September of 2004, a new Acting Deputy Director was appointed for the CDSS Welfare to Work Division. For the past eight (8) months Bruce Wagstaff has had the title of Deputy Di- rector for the Welfare to Work Division and the Family and Children’s Services Division. Charr Lee has been doing a lot of the division work. Charr Lee began in the Department as a clerk. She soon moved up to the CDSS Business Services. She then worked for Foster Care Rate settings. From Foster Care Rate settings she joined the Wagstaff group implementing the GAIN program. Charr Lee is a pioneer at CDSS in that she is the first female deputy director for welfare pro- grams that many can recall. She is proceeded by Dennis Flatt, Gary McComber, Kyle McKinsey, Bob Horel, Mike Genest and Bruce Wagstaff. Dennis Flatt was in charge welfare programs under the Reagan Administration. Los Angeles County Boasts a WtW Success The Los Angeles County September 2004 DPSS Newsletter presents a GAIN success story – Mr. A completed Westwood College and got a real job that paid a real wage and got off welfare. The article boasts about this one individual getting a job saying, Hope, help, and hard work pay off many times over in GAIN . One would think that going to college through GAIN and getting a real job that got you off of welfare was the real face of the Los Angeles County GAIN program. We did some research and bumped into Los Angeles County’s own monthly WtW 25 reports. They are part of the statewide reports posted on the internet. The address is: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/re- search\/CalWORKsDa_388.htm. We figured we would examine the latest re- port – July, 2004. The report reveals that only 12% of the GAIN participants were lucky enough to go to college and get real jobs like Mr. A . The reports also show that in July of 2004, less than 3% of the DPSS unduplicated par- ticipants found employment that got them off of welfare. This means that for 97% of the caseload, DPSS failed to meet the goal of the GAIN program – self-sufficiency and indepen- dence. Thus, Mr. A who was presented in the news- letter represents less than 3% of the DPSS caseload. The newsletter failed to boast about the fact that Los Angeles County sanctioned 23,567 persons during July of 2004, while only 700 individuals stopped receiving CalWORKs due to employment during the same month. 79% of CalWORKs Recipients Do Not Own A Car The Federal Fiscal Year 2002 Food Stamp Characteristics report by DSS reveals that only 21.3% of PAFS (public assistance food stamps) recipients own a car. This is bad news, since public transportation in California is in- efficient to say the least and creates the big- gest obstacle to self-sufficiency. ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-19- November 1, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd SB 1104 WORKGROUP: California Department of Social Services recently is- sued All County Letter (ACL) implementing the 2005 Budget Trailer bill, SB 1104. DSS convened a workgroup to receive input for the ACL as instructed by the SB 1104. The members of the workgroup members were Kate Meiss of Neighborhood Legal Assis- tance of Los Angeles, Jodie Berger of Legal Services of Northern California, Nu Usaha of WCL&P, Susan Nobles, Director of Yuba County Welfare Department, formerly work- ing for CDSS; Jo Weber of Riverside County, formerly working for CDSS, Cathy Sunderling of CWDA; C. Nunez of Kings County, Peter Ansell of Los Angeles County, Alette Lundberg of Santa Clara County, Gail Gronert of the State Assembly and Nicole Vazquez from the State Senate. The ACL have been published and it is now known as ACL 04-41. ACIN I-73-04 Food Stamps This all county information notice outlines several food stamp policy statements regard- ing treatment of CalWORKs benefits for household members sanctioned for failing to cooperate with the CalWORKs WtW pro- gram; treatment of child support payments; excluded income; homeless shelter deduc- tions; treatment of loans; vendor payments; timely notice of action; self-employment and student eligibility. Some of the highlights are: In This Issue In Brief ACIN I-73-04 Food Stamps California Welfare to Work Un;lawful Sanctions Blossom Many Counties Refuse to File IEVS Re- ports \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffdAre child support payments received directly by a Public Assistance Food Stamp recipient considered income? Answer: NO. The ACL states: In accordance with MPP 63-502-122, child support payments that are received by a CalWORKs household directly from a nonhousehold member and which must be turned over to the District Attorney are exempt as income regardless of whether the payments are actually turned over to the District Attor- ney. See page 3 of the ACL. \ufffdIs Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) income excluded for food stamp purposes? Answer: YES. See page 4. \ufffdIf a person is being billed for shelter cost, but not paying it, can the shelter cost be used to compute the food stamps? Answer: Yes. It is an obligation; the client is billed for shelter costs, therefore, the expense is an allowable shelter cost deduction. See page 7. mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-19- November 1, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 California Welfare to Work Unlawful Sanctions Blossom During July 2004 there were 108,889 unduplicated participants; 46,414 of them were sanctioned. This represents more than a 50% sanction rate. We were hoping the counties were doing their jobs by making WtW participants self-sufficient by helping them get off welfare. We discov- ered that only 4,431 participants were termi- nated from CalWORKs because they found employment. This data does not include jobs that WtW participants found on their own, which is often. This is a 99.7% failure rate by counties and CDSS whose WtW mission is to make families self-sufficient. Meanwhile, of the 108,889 participants, only 51,504 received transportation assistance. Counties continue to deny transportation money from WtW participants. 53% of the WtW participants did not receive transporta- tion assistance. Studies done by counties have revealed that many are sanctioned due to lack of support- ive services. In July 2004, there were 46,680 persons sanctioned and 57,385 persons did not get transportation assistance. It seems that the denial of transportation services are a contributing factor in the high sanction rate of California. One of the leaders in sanctioning poor fami- lies is Los Angeles County. In July, they had 29,566 unduplicated participants. Participation in the WtW program means traveling from home to the location where the WtW activity is. They were able to sanction 23, 563 partici- pants and were only able to provide transpor- tation to 19,756 participants. This means that 9,810 participants were unlawfully denied transportation by Los Angeles County for the most part. Los Angeles Unduplicated Participants 108,889 Sanctioned 46.414 Received Transportation 51,504 Other counties that deserve a mention are: Siskiyou Unduplicated Participants 154 Sanctioned 70 Received Transportation 1 Napa Unduplicated Participants 90 Sanctioned 67 Received Transportation 3 Lake Unduplicated Participants 456 Sanctioned 130 Received Transportation 24 Sutter Unduplicated Participants 460 Sanctioned 135 Received Transportation 39 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-19- November 1, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 1st Quater 2nd Quater 2004 2004 Amador Amador Calaveras Calaveras Del Norte Del Norte Imperial Inyo Inyo Kern Kern Modoc Marin Monterey Modoc Placer Mono Sacramento Monterey San Joaquin Placer Tehama Sacramento Tulare San Joaquin Glenn Tehama Nevada Tulare Orange San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Many Counties Refuse to File IEVS Reports Under state law, counties are required to make quarterly reports to the state regarding the In- come and Eligibility Verification System Man- a g e m e n t (IEVS), also known as the DPA 482 re- ports. Just like counties re- quire welfare recipients to submit quarterly reports, counties are also required to submit quarterly reports. There is a major difference on how welfare recipients and counties are held accountable. If a welfare recipient fails to submit the report, his or her family’s benefits are halted. If the county fails to submit a report, nothing happens. It appears that the State holds no county welfare bureaucrats accountable. To determine the level of accountability by the counties we submitted a Public Records Act Request for copies of all DPA 482 filed with CDSS by the counties during the first and sec- ond quarter of 2004. On or about October 20, 2004, CDSS re- sponded. During the first quarter of 2004, 26% of the counties did not file a quarterly report. During Chart #1 During the first quarter of 2004, 26% of the coun- ties did not file a quarterly report. During the sec- ond quarter of 2004, 31% of the counties did not file a quarterly report. the second quarter of 2004 31% of the coun- ties did not file a quarterly report. The specific counties who failed to file the state mandated reports and continue to receive IEVS funding from CDSS are set forth in Chart #1. mailto:info@childcarelaw.org ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-20- December 1, 2004 – Page 1 IN BRIEF \ufffd IHSS Plus Waiver: Part of the 2004- 2005 budget bill provides for a federal waiver being developed by CDSS, known as IHSS Plus. This waiver will save the state money and will bring in more federal dollars. There will be many issues to resolve regard- ing the IHSS Plus Waiver, for example; IHSS providers must enroll as Medi-Cal providers and Medi-Cal eligibility worker’s must make an eligibility determination of all IHSS recipi- ents within 12 months of the effective date of IHSS Plus Waiver. There are other issues that we will address in future publications. \ufffd Welfare fraud allegations result in loss of employment: During July of 2004, county eligibility workers in California referred 30,666 cases to welfare fraud units for investigation. This resulted in welfare fraud investigators going to work places, talk- ing to supervisors and exposing employees as current or former welfare recipients. Dur- ing that time period only 443 people were actually convicted of welfare fraud. More than 99% of the people referred to welfare fraud were not convicted. The waste of taxpayer money and the loss of former recipient’s jobs due to investigators who cross the line, are ways in which the welfare system keeps re- cipients in a never ending cycle of depen- dency. \ufffd CWDA on CPR: California Perfor- mance Review has made recommendations to streamline the eligibility process, which has the California Welfare Director’s Asso- ciation (CWDA) up in arms. The proposals are trying to make it easier for applicants to get on aid by simplifying the application pro- In This Issue In Brief Statistic of the Month-WtW Sanctions WtW Sanction Legality Check Sheet \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd cess. In October of 2004, CWDA briefed the Legislative Analyst’s office on how CWDA sees the CPR recommendations. \ufffd Child care fraud: Last year in the bud- get process, county welfare fraud bureaucrats made allegations of alleged child care fraud by working moms. Currently, the State Department of Education is conducting an error rate study which is due by 4\/1\/05; a best practices study is due by 3\/1\/05. \ufffd Child care for inherited child for a former welfare recipient: Tulare County asked CDSS about a former welfare recipient who, in her own words, …’inherited’ her grand- child and is requesting child care for the child. As a former recipient and working, and respon- sible for the child would she not be eligible for the childcare for the grandchild? DSS re- sponded that the grandmother would be eligible for childcare for the child. CCWRO COMMENT: This is correct, however, we were amused by the word inherited as used by grandma. \ufffd Self-Employment for ABAWDS – ACIN I-76-00 question #3 provides that hours worked in a self-employment activity count for ABAWDS, even if the work failed to yield in- come. \ufffd ABAWDS working for court-or- dered projects count as ABAWDS hours: Los Angeles County asked DPSS whether a ABAWDS assigned to court-ordered work release program, which consists of com- mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-20- December 1, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 munity services satisfy the ABAWDS work re- quirements. CDSS responded that pursuant to MPP 63-410.212 ABAWDS work require- ments can be met through participation in a comparable workfare program. The work re- lease program is comparable to the food stamp workfare requirements in that both pro- grams require participation in community ser- vice. \ufffd Sacramento gets partial ABAWDS waiver: Effective June 1, 2004, Sacramento County received an ABAWDS waiver for zip codes 95639,95655, 95690 95742, 95814, 95824 and 95832. Because of the efforts of Sacramento County Welfare Director Jane Rasmussen and Juan Valdez, who prepared and submitted the waiver request which was approved, many single persons and childless couples will have something to be thankful for this holiday season. Statistic of the MONTH September WtW Sanctions Last year DSS issued ACL 03-59 which was designed to bring down sanction rates. The ACL requires counties to issue a revised No- tice of Action and a Good Cause Determina- tion Notice. Many counties have refused to implement the provisions of this ACL, which were effective November, 2003 based on our review of notices from several counties throughout California. In September of 2004, there were only 111,008 unduplicated participants participating in the Welfare to Work program and the counties were able to sanction 51,177 of them. That is a monstrous 46% sanction rate in the State of California. As we have done before, we will list the top ten sanction-imposing counties. These sanc- tions have been generally unlawful. Amador County 97% Fresno County 92% Colusa County 84% Los Angeles County 80% San Luis Obispo County 80% Sonoma County 79% Plumas County 69% Stanislaus County 64% Napa County 61% Shasta County 59% Sanctions seem to be the norm for counties that allege compassion for families and chil- dren. Sanctions take 30% of parents fixed in- comes which are still only at 1990 levels. When a person fails to participate, the county must issue a Notice of Action known as the NA 840. ACL 03-53 provides that a WtW 27, Requests for Good Cause Determination, ..must be mailed to the recipient along with the NA 840. The WtW 27 asks whether any of the good cause provisions have been applied to the re- cipients case. If good cause, such as being ill applies, then the recipient can complete the WtW 27, mark the box ill and mail it to the worker. Most counties do not include the WtW 27 with the NA 840. In such cases, the sanc- tion cannot stand because the county has failed to follow the conciliation process cor- rectly. It should also be noted that while coun- ties sanctioned 51,177 persons, they refused to issue transportation to 61,070 persons. Most of the persons who were sanctioned were very likely sanctioned because they were not paid transportation in advance as required by State law and regulations. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-20- December 1, 2004 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Sanctions Participants SanctionedSanctionedSanctionedSanctionedSanctioned Sanctions Participants SanctionedSanctionedSanctionedSanctionedSanctioned StatStatStatStatStateeeeewidewidewidewidewide 51,17751,17751,17751,17751,177 111,008111,008111,008111,008111,008 4646464646.10%.10%.10%.10%.10% 2828282828 Nevada 67 202 33.17%33.17%33.17%33.17%33.17% 2929292929 San Bern. 3,998 12,719 31.43%31.43%31.43%31.43%31.43% 11111 Amador 29 30 9696969696.67%.67%.67%.67%.67% 3030303030 San Joaquin 1,022 3,301 3030303030.96%.96%.96%.96%.96% 22222 Fresno 5,059 5,495 92.07%92.07%92.07%92.07%92.07% 3131313131 Trinity 16 52 3030303030…..77%77%77%77%77% 33333 Colusa 38 45 888884.44%4.44%4.44%4.44%4.44% 3232323232 Santa Cruz 187 613 3030303030.51%.51%.51%.51%.51% 44444 Los Angeles 23,226 28,932 8080808080.28%.28%.28%.28%.28% 3333333333 Lake 137 455 3030303030.11%.11%.11%.11%.11% 55555 San Luis Ob. 230 288 79.86%79.86%79.86%79.86%79.86% 3434343434 Calaveras 38 129 29.46%29.46%29.46%29.46%29.46% 66666 Sonoma 507 644 78.78.78.78.78.73%73%73%73%73% 3535353535 Inyo 12 41 29.27%29.27%29.27%29.27%29.27% 77777 Plumas 27 39 69.23%69.23%69.23%69.23%69.23% 3636363636 Madera 251 946 2626262626.53%.53%.53%.53%.53% 88888 Stanislaus 785 1,234 63.61%63.61%63.61%63.61%63.61% 3737373737 Sutter 128 491 2626262626.07%.07%.07%.07%.07% 99999 Napa 66 108 61.11%61.11%61.11%61.11%61.11% 3838383838 Mariposa 22 85 2525252525.88%.88%.88%.88%.88% 1010101010 Shasta 539 911 59.17%59.17%59.17%59.17%59.17% 3939393939 Lassen 42 167 2525252525.15%.15%.15%.15%.15% 1111111111 Mendocino 281 480 58.54%58.54%58.54%58.54%58.54% 4444400000 Santa Barbara 202 804 2525252525.12%.12%.12%.12%.12% 1212121212 San Diego 1,915 3,350 5757575757.16%.16%.16%.16%.16% 4141414141 Santa Clara 1,054 4,405 23.93%23.93%23.93%23.93%23.93% 1313131313 Monterey 504 916 5555555555.02%.02%.02%.02%.02% 4242424242 Solano 181 791 22.88%22.88%22.88%22.88%22.88% 1414141414 Yolo c\/ 265 497 53.32%53.32%53.32%53.32%53.32% 4343434343 Orange 1,134 5,092 22.27%22.27%22.27%22.27%22.27% 1515151515 Marin 141 292 48.29%48.29%48.29%48.29%48.29% 4444444444 Ventura 408 1,964 2020202020…..77%77%77%77%77% 1616161616 Humboldt 319 670 4747474747.61%.61%.61%.61%.61% 4545454545 El Dorado 58 305 19.02%19.02%19.02%19.02%19.02% 1717171717 Tehama 179 378 4747474747.35%.35%.35%.35%.35% 4646464646 Butte 193 1,093 1717171717.66%.66%.66%.66%.66% 1818181818 Merced 742 1,645 4545454545.11%.11%.11%.11%.11% 4747474747 San Francisco 521 3,044 1717171717.12%.12%.12%.12%.12% 1919191919 Siskiyou 70 159 44.03%44.03%44.03%44.03%44.03% 4848484848 San Benito 33 194 1717171717.01%.01%.01%.01%.01% 2020202020 Tulare 786 1,885 41.41.41.41.41.70%70%70%70%70% 4444499999 Sierra 1 8 12.50%12.50%12.50%12.50%12.50% 2121212121 Contra Costa 899 2,400 3737373737.46%.46%.46%.46%.46% 5151515151 Yuba 64 558 11.47%11.47%11.47%11.47%11.47% 2222222222 Glenn 50 135 3737373737.0.0.0.0.04%4%4%4%4% 5252525252 Del Norte 30 271 11.07%11.07%11.07%11.07%11.07% 2323232323 Kings 366 994 3636363636.82%.82%.82%.82%.82% 5353535353 Tuolumne 23 245 9.39%9.39%9.39%9.39%9.39% 2424242424 Kern 1,829 5,007 3636363636.53%.53%.53%.53%.53% 5454545454 Mono 2 28 77777.14%.14%.14%.14%.14% 2525252525 San Mateo 161 446 3636363636.10%.10%.10%.10%.10% 5555555555 Modoc 2 44 4.54.54.54.54.55%5%5%5%5% 2626262626 Alameda 1,861 5,188 3535353535.87%.87%.87%.87%.87% 5656565656 Sacramento 305 9,027 3.38%3.38%3.38%3.38%3.38% 2727272727 Placer 134 374 3535353535.83%.83%.83%.83%.83% 5757575757 Imperial 38 1,389 2.2.2.2.2.777774%4%4%4%4% 5858585858 Alpine 0 3 00000.00%.00%.00%.00%.00% TABLE 1 PPPPPererererercccccentage ofentage ofentage ofentage ofentage of PPPPParararararticipantsticipantsticipantsticipantsticipants PPPPPererererercccccentage ofentage ofentage ofentage ofentage of PPPPParararararticipantsticipantsticipantsticipantsticipants The N840, the notice that starts the sanction process, must be issued 30 days prior to the effective date of the action. See MPP 42- 721.23 which states: Upon determination that an individual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the in- dividual a notice of action effective no ear- lier than 30 calendar days from the date of issuance. It is not unusual to have a sanction process that is inconsistent with the regulations. On the next page there is a check sheet to analyze whether or not a county proposed sanction is legal. mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-20- December 1, 2004 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 4. Was the participant provided with ad- vance money for transportation? Yes__ No__ If the answer is no , call the worker and\/or leave a message stating that the participant did not have transportation and make a note of the call. 5. Did the participant have child care? Yes__ No__ If the answer is no , lack of child care is good cause. 6. Was the participant sick that day? Yes__ No__ If the answer is yes , then the has a good cause. PRACTICE NOTE: At a hearing the bur- den of proof is on the county to prove that the participant had child care, ad- vance transportation or was not sick. AS ALWAYS, REQUEST A FAIR HEAR- ING. 1. Is the N840, the notice imposing the sanction, effective after 30 days from the date on the N840? Yes__ No__ If the answer is no , then the N840 vio- lates the regulations and the county has to issue another N840. 2. Did the participant receive a WtW 27, the Good Cause form? Yes__ No__ If the answer is no , then the N840 vio- lates the regulations and the county has to issue another N840 with a WtW 27. 3. Does the N840 state exactly what the participant failed to do that caused the issuance of the N840? Yes__ No__ If the answer is no , then the N840 vio- lates the regulations in that the notice is inadequate and the county will have to issue another notice that specifically states the reason for the sanction. A statement such as, you failed to par- ticipate is not adequate. The question is; failed to participate in what part of the WtW program; job club, orienta- tion or workfare? A WtW Sanction Legality Check Sheet If you have a sanctioned individual seeking assistance, call us for immediate assistance. You can reach Kevin Aslanian @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 716-712-0071 mailto:info@childcarelaw.org ”

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