Search Demo

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

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-3- February 13, 2005 – Page 1 In This Issue \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd One strike and out for CalWORKs teens. In a policy interpretation requested by Tuolumne County on 11\/30\/04 the county asked CDSS whether teens 16,17 and 18 years old who are referred to WtW for not attending school and were previously sanc- tioned will be subject to WtW sanctions if such teen returned to school before he\/she was 18. CDSS’s answer was that previously sanctioned teens are subject to sanctions even if they now attending school. \ufffd Los Angeles County ASC GAIN con- tractor employees complain to CDSS. In a 10\/1\/04 letter to CDSS a concerned em- ployee of ACS, a for-profit Los Angeles County GAIN contractor providing WtW ser- vices to Los Angeles WtW recipients, com- plains that they have lost 35 of their GAIN workers since May of 2004, but ACS has re- fused to hire additional staff. It appears that private industry has the same staff hiring problems that government does. The letter states that ACS has failed to process trans- portation and ancillary claims in a timely manner as required by their contract. The ACS staff was later informed that the rea- son the company is not hiring additional staff is to show a profit. The concerned employee states; To workers it has become clear that showing profit is the company’s number one priority and not the participants who are the reason for the contract. \ufffd Bush 2006 budget wants to take 60 billion from Medicaid. George Bush’s new budget calls for 60 billion in cuts from the Medicaid program to pay for the tax cuts for his wealthy contributors. \ufffd CalWIN Computer System Problems. CalWIN is a new computer system that is going to replace the current EDS system in about 15 counties in California. The first county to start CalWIN is Placer County fol- lowed by Sacramento County. Counties are beginning to operate this system although In Brief IIIIIn Briefn Briefn Briefn Briefn Brief Retroaction Curing of WtW Sanctions for StudentsRetroaction Curing of WtW Sanctions for StudentsRetroaction Curing of WtW Sanctions for StudentsRetroaction Curing of WtW Sanctions for StudentsRetroaction Curing of WtW Sanctions for Students TTTTTANF RANF RANF RANF RANF Reauthorization Ueauthorization Ueauthorization Ueauthorization Ueauthorization Updatpdatpdatpdatpdate -e -e -e -e – DemocrDemocrDemocrDemocrDemocracy for acy for acy for acy for acy for TTTTTANF RANF RANF RANF RANF Recipients?ecipients?ecipients?ecipients?ecipients? Statistical Statistical Statistical Statistical Statistical AnalAnalAnalAnalAnalysis, Cysis, Cysis, Cysis, Cysis, CalWalWalWalWalWORKs DiscORKs DiscORKs DiscORKs DiscORKs Discontinuancontinuancontinuancontinuancontinuanceseseseses\ufffd \ufffd many of the system users are not be properly trained to operate the system. Recently, Sacra- mento County tried a mock run of the new CalWIN system. With CCWRO’s participation, it was evident that employees need more time to work out the kinks in the system such as the intake process where, in the mock session, ex- ceeded normal time limits to complete one in- take. RETROACTIVE CURING OF WtW SANCTIONS FOR STUDENTS On 11\/2\/04, Jim Tomasulo of Orange County asked DSS how far back the county could go in reviewing WtW plan for SIPs, and potentially others, who reached their 18-month time limit and were sanctioned in lieu of accepting a com- munity service assignment. We have school advocates here encouraging students to call and ask for reinstatement back to December 1, 2003. DSS RESPONSE : DSS responded that …Counties have discretion in determining the number of months back they go, if at all, when reviewing cases for this category of sanctioned individuals (for example, individuals who were sanctioned because, at the end of the 18 or 24- month time clock, they chose to continue in their self-initiated program (SIP) instead of partici- pating in community service. If the county does choose to contact individuals about ending their sanction, to ensure the uniform treatment, it must develop written policies and procedures, in accordance with MPP 11-501.3 (see ACL 00- 08)… CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-3- February 13 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ADVOCACY NOTE: It appears that the county does have discretion in determin- ing the number of months back they go, which is back to December 1, 2003. Sanctioned stu- dents should request retroactive curing of the sanction as the county has the discretion to do so. If the county refuses to do so, then the student should file for a fair hearing. Persons needing assistance in this matter can contact CCWRO. Copies of this policy interpretation are available from CCWRO’s policy interpre- tation library. TANF Reauthorization Update On day one of the 109th Congress, Re- publican Congress- woman Deborah Pryce, Ohio introduced HR 240, the 2005 TANF reauthorization bill. H.R 240 is similar to H.R. 4, which was the Bush-Republican TANF reauthorization bill for 2004 A statement from Chairman Wally Herger (R- CA) of the Human Resources subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means was posted on the Ways and Means Committee webpage. See: http:\/\/ waysandmeans.house.gov\/ On February 2, 2005 Chairman Herger an- nounced that the Subcommittee will hold hear- ings of people chosen by the Committee chair – autocratic democracy in action in the United States Congress – and it will not be open to the public for testimony. This means that if you drive to Washington D.C. because you want your views on TANF known to Congress, you will not be allowed to speak. In order to get to testify you must have had to fax a request to Allison Giles at 202-225-2610 asking to be allowed to testify. Of course if you are selected to testify, there are some other barriers you would have to overcome. First you must prepare a statement that has to be submitted to the committee be- Why can’t people just appear and testify before Congress like TANF recipients can do in many State Legislatures? fore the hearing. The subcommittee hearing announcement states that persons who are selected to tes- tify are …required to submit 200 copies, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format, of their pre- pared statement for review by Members prior to the hearing. Testimony should arrive at the Subcommittee office, B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 8, 2005. The 200 copies can be delivered to the Sub- committee staff in one of two ways: (1) Gov- ernment agency employees can deliver their copies to B-317 Rayburn House Office Build- ing in an open and searchable box, but must carry with them their respective government issued identification to show the U.S. Capitol Police, or (2) for non-government officials, the copies must be sent to the new Congressional Courier Acceptance Site at the location of 2nd and D Streets, N.E., at least 48 hours prior to the hearing date. Please ensure that you have the address of the Subcommittee, B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, on your pack- age, and contact the staff of the Subcommit- tee at (202) 225-1025 of its impending arrival. Due to new House mailing procedures, please avoid using mail couriers such as the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, and FedEx. When a couriered item arrives at this facility, it will be opened, screened, and then delivered to the Subcommittee office, within one of the fol- lowing two time frames: (1) expected or con- firmed deliveries will be delivered in approxi- mately 2 to 3 hours, and (2) unexpected items, or items not approved by the Subcommittee office, will be delivered the morning of the next business day. The U.S. Capitol Police will refuse all non-governmental courier deliver- ies to all House Office Buildings. Thus, there are many barriers that TANF re- CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-3- February 13, 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 cipients will have to overcome before they can participate in the alleged democracy prac- ticed by the Republican House of Represen- tatives. With the TANF grants being far below the pov- erty levels, TANF participants cannot afford to pay for 200 copies of their testimony. That would mean the kids not eating for several days. Then the copies have to get to the subcom- mittee. If you are going to mail the 200 copies of the testimony, then you will have to have it in the mail by February 6, 2005. The an- nouncement came out on 2\/2\/05 and by time you find out from Allison Giles that you have been a lucky one selected to testify before the committee, you will not be able to testify be- cause you cannot do all of the other things that are required to practice democracy in America. Why can’t people just appear and testify be- fore Congress like TANF recipients can do in many State Legislatures? Senate Republican sources say that they want to move the TANF bill before the 2006 Budget Resolution. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced a welfare reform bill on January 24, 2005 called the Family and Community Protection Act of 2005 (S. 6): http:\/\/thomas.loc.gov\/cgi-bin\/ bdquery\/z?d109:s.00006: This is not necessarily the bill the Finance Committee would consider, but Senator Santorum has been a strong advocate for moving TANF reauthorization as soon as pos- sible and he was standing behind George Bush during the inaugural speech calling for Democracy everywhere else. The authorization for TANF was due to expire in 2002; Congress has extended the program eight times. The most recent extension will expire at the end of March, 2005. The march on the poor by Bush and the Re- publicans in Congress has started. Poor chil- dren are the targets of the 109th Congress. Stay tune for more bad news from Washing- ton D.C. COUNTIES ASK FOR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING SB 1104 On October 26, 2004, the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) mailed a letter to CDSS asking that the implementation of SB 1104 be delayed insofar as it requires that WtW cases have new contracts that reflect the changes in SB 1104. CWDA lobbyists, paid in part with TANF funds, participated in the process when SB 1104 was enacted. When the regulations were promul- gated, they were still not happy with the prod- uct of their involvement. In the letter to DSS CWDA asked DSS to de- lay the statutory implementation of certain pro- visions of SB 1104. It appears that CWDA be- lieves that the Schwarzenegger administra- tion has the authority to overrule duly enacted laws by the State legislature. Finally CWDA alleges that the State Budget did not provide additional funding for implementing the law. It appears CWDA believes that laws that require the expenditure of money do not have to be carried out. On December 30, 2004, DSS responded that the State Budget gave counties an augmen- tation of $50 million and that counties had carry-over funds from 2003-2004 of $140 mil- lion. It appears CWDA be- lieves that laws that require the expendi- ture of money do not have to be carried out. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-3- February 13 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Percentage of Cases DiscontinuedTotal Cases Discontinued 35786 No Eligible Child 3362 9.39% No Deprivation 129 0.36% Excess Resources 153 0.43% Earnings Increased 3922 10.96% Unearned Income Increased 481 1.34% Support from person inside home 113 0.32% Support from person outside home 30 0.08% Whereabouts Unknown 1837 5.13% Disc.Recipients Initiative 9787 27.35% CW 7\/QR 7 13731 38.37% CalWORKs cases Discontinued 9\/04 Statistic of the Week In this issue we look at the CA 253 CW – CalWORKs Report on Reasons for Discon- tinuances of Cash Grant. This monthly report includes data on the number of CalWORKs cases discontinued from the cash grant pro- gram for Two Parent Families, Zero Parent Families, All Other Families, TANF Timed-Out Cases, and Safety Net Cases. The report in- cludes reasons for discontinuance of these cases, and data on the movement of cases within the specific family segments in the CalWORKs program. During September of 2004, 35,786 families were terminated from CalWORKs. All of those families were eligible for Transitional Food Stamp benefits. This report does not show how many of the 35,786 received Transitional Food Stamps (TFS). CCWRO estimates that at least 50% of the families terminated from CalWORKs did not receive the TFS benefits that they were entitled to. CDSS has refused to obtain county reports regarding the compliance with the TFS requirements. Over 65% of CalWORKs ter- minations are a result of nonreceipt of the monthly or quarterly reports and a category called recipient initiative . MPP 26-218.11(6) defines recipi- ent initiative that are terminated due to failure to comply with proce- dural requirements. The next two major reasons are in- creased earnings and no eligible children. The discontinuance due to monthly\/ quarterly reports was the leading reason for discontinuing CalWORKs case at 38%. The top 10 counties discontinuing CalWORKs recipients for failure to submit a CW7\/QR7 were: Napa 59% Santa Clara 59% Santa Cruz 54% Alameda 53% San Jouqiun 51% San Francisco 49% Orange 47% Mendocino 46% Siskiyou 45% Sacramento 45% The other hand there are counties that have show terminations of 22% and less. Plumas 22% Solano 21% San Bern 20% Modoc 19% Mono 12% Riverside 12% Ventura 10% Inyo 6% Alpine 0% Sierra 0% The table on page 5 shows the number of CalWORKs cases discontinued in each county, the number of cases that were discon- tinued due to no CW7\/QR7 and the percent- age of cases discontinued due to no CW7\/ QR7. CCWRO estimates that at least 50% of the families terminated from CalWORKS did not receive the TFS benefits that they were entitled to. CDSS has refused to obtain county reports regarding the compliance with the TFS requirements. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-3- February 13 – Page 5 Total Cases Disc. 9\/04 Percentage of Cases Terminated Due to no CW7\/ QR7 County Percentage of Cases Terminated Due to no CW7\/ QR7 County SOURCE: STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CA 253 REPORTS SEPTEMBER, 2004 Statewide 35,786 13,731 38.37% Nevada 62 19 30.65% Alameda 1,122 600 53.48% Orange 1,684 795 47.21% Alpine 2 0 0.00% Placer 158 36 22.78% Amador 42 15 35.71% Plumas 9 2 22.22% Butte 308 130 42.21% Riverside 813 100 12.30% Calaveras 37 13 35.14% Sacramento 3,155 1,406 44.56% Colusa 31 9 29.03% San Benito 74 31 41.89% Contra Costa 907 379 41.79% San Bern 1,753 354 20.19% Del Norte 59 15 25.42% San Diego 1,840 646 35.11% El Dorado 121 53 43.80% San Fran 499 246 49.30% Fresno 1,880 559 29.73% San Joaquin 1,212 624 51.49% Glenn 60 19 31.67% San Luis 195 62 31.79% Humboldt 160 55 34.38% San Mateo 284 101 35.56% Imperial 264 79 29.92% Santa Barb 404 145 35.89% Inyo 16 1 6.25% Santa Clara 1,379 810 58.74% Kern 1,487 409 27.51% Santa Cruz 172 93 54.07% Kings 182 58 31.87% Shasta 344 144 41.86% Lake 176 56 31.82% Sierra 2 0 0.00% Lassen 49 12 24.49% Siskiyou 92 41 44.57% Los Angeles 9,588 3,908 40.76% Solano 441 94 21.32% Madera 292 98 33.56% Sonoma 276 109 39.49% Marin 85 26 30.59% Stanislaus 544 167 30.70% Mariposa 30 10 33.33% Sutter 108 36 33.33% Mendocino 142 66 46.48% Tehama 129 40 31.01% Merced 380 96 25.26% Trinity 16 4 25.00% Modoc 26 5 19.23% Tulare 1,170 516 44.10% Mono 8 1 12.50% Tuolumne 63 23 36.51% Monterey 460 194 42.17% Ventura 483 49 10.14% Napa 49 29 59.18% Yolo 192 71 36.98% Yuba 270 72 26.67% Total Cases Disc. 9\/04 Number of Cases Terminated Due to no CW7\/ QR7 Number of Cases Terminated Due to no CW7\/ QR7 WHAT TO DO WHEN THE COUNTY PRACTICES UNLAWFUL TERMINATIONS OF CalWORKs DUE TO NO QR-7? Many counties do not follow the regulations re- quiring that the county contact the recipient be- fore they initiate the termination of CalWORKs benefits. See MPP 40-181.22 b. When a CA 7 has not been received at the CWD after the notice of discontinuance has been sent, the CWD shall attempt to make a personal contact with the recipient either by telephone or in a face-to-face meeting. During the personal contact the CWD shall remind the recipient that a complete CA 7 must be received by the CWD no later than the first working day of the payment month. c. The CWD shall document in the case file how and when the contact was attempted or made. In many cases the county never makes a con- tact with the recipient and there is no docu- mentation in the casefile that the worker tried to make a contact with the recipient before proposing to terminate benefits. ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd CWDA Children’s Committee has monthly meeting and monthly pre-meet- ing conference calls with CDSS. Accord- ing to the California Welfare Directors Asso- ciation (CWDA), its Services Committee will be having monthly meeting with Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director for Children Ser- vices and a monthly pre-meeting telephone call with Mr. Wagstaff. While DSS has time to hold two meetings a month with counties, no monthly meetings are being held with the representatives of the consumers of the CDSS programs. Right now consumers have three (3) meeting a year without any pre- meeting conferences. \ufffd Quarterly Reporting (QR) Data Being Collected. Several counties, including Riv- erside and San Bernardino Counties, are in- volved in QR data collection. The list of coun- ties collecting this data should be available from CDSS. \ufffd QR Task Force is back. Counties have been having problems with QR and have asked CDSS to reconstitute the QR task force. The first meeting of the Task force was held on February. The meeting was closed to the public, although it is financed with pub- lic funds. \ufffd Medi-Cal and QR. Department of Health Services is concerned about Medi-Cal ineli- gibility when cash linkage ends but the fam- ily remains on aid due to QR rules. This phe- nomenon occurs generally when a parent working over 100 hours returns home or the youngest child ages out. DHS wants coun- ties to provide them with estimates of how often this occurs. \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN News \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – DemocrDemocrDemocrDemocrDemocracy for acy for acy for acy for acy for TTTTTANF RANF RANF RANF RANF Recipients?ecipients?ecipients?ecipients?ecipients? \ufffd Statistical Analysis, CalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs Discontinuances \ufffd In-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used to meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-4- February 23, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS \ufffd CDSS will be revising BW 2166 (Work Pays) form. This form will be revised in order to be consistent with QR reporting. Counties are asked to provide input for changes they may want when revising the form. Representatives of the participants were not asked for input. \ufffd AB 205 being reviewed by Health & Hu- man Services Agency. AB 205, which took ef- fect January 1, 2005, related to registered do- mestic partners, has not been implemented yet. It is held up by agencies outside of CDSS. Coun- ties have been told by CDSS that they cannot implement AB 205 until told. DSS has also said that AB 205 may be retroactive, but they are not sure. \ufffd IEVS and QR. At a 1\/6\/04 CWDA meeting counties asked DSS how does QR interact with IEVS. A work group was set up on this issue and it has meet once. Advocates were again excluded from this workgroup. For more Maria Hernandez of CDSS of 916-654-1322. IN-KIND INCOME CAN BE USED TO MEET IHSS SHARE OF COST. In the IHSS program if the recipients income requires a share-of-cost (SOC), such cost can be meet through in-kind income. On 1\/7\/02, Alan G. Organ of Fresno County asked DSS: Where the provider and recipient, can a SOC obligation be meet through in-kind payment (e.g. room and board)? CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-4- February 23, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 On 8\/19\/02 Bruce Clark of DSS responded that A SOC payment may be met through in- kind payment. The answer goes on to elabo- rate that Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Order No. 15-2001 provides such a valuation. The IWC requires a written agreement be- tween the provider and recipient in order to credit room and board for wages. CalWIN News CalWIN is a new computer system that will be operating in 18 California County welfare depart- ments. Placer County was the first county to start a new computer system which was tried in Colorado. The system has major problems for the recipient, applicants and welfare workers. Colorado’s system version .3 was a disaster and not- withstanding all of the improvements that EDS has made. In a recent news release the Associated Press re- ported: Welfare application backlog grows since Decem- ber Friday February 11, 2005 DENVER (AP) The number of pending applications for welfare ben- efits has increased since December when a judge ordered the state to re- duce a backlog caused by a new com- puter system. Denver District Judge John Coughlin gave the state until Feb. 28 to reduced its backlog of 29,351 wel- fare cases by 40 percent. The backlog now stands at roughly 29,700. “We still have a way to go, but things are more positive than negative,” said Karen Reinertson, executive direc- tor of Health Care Policy and Financ- ing, one of two state agencies that dis- tribute benefits to the state’s needy. Public-interest lawyers sued the state over the $200 million Colorado Benefits Management System that went on-line in September and slowed payments to the state’s 600,000 people who receive some sort of assistance. Reinertson said the backlog has grown each day but 55 percent of the cases backlogged as of December have been processed. The number of new cases that missed federal deadlines fell from 12,000 in December to 9,000 in January. A call center set up to help those in emergency need of food, shelter or medications benefit emergencies logged 754 calls. Our sources in Placer County tell us that the com- puter was spitting out a bunch of notices and people were lined up at the office trying to find what do these notices mean? One says aid has been approved. The other one says it was denied. And another one says the benefits have been decreased. Yet another notice states that benefits have been increased – and all these no- tices went to one person. Many others had similar prob- lems. The implementation of CalWIN is causing wide- spread violations of state and federal laws. One of the most basic laws being violated will be the laws governing emergency assistance in the form of Food Stamp expedited services and CalWORKs Im- mediate Need. Sacramento will be going live 3\/3\/05. Advocates in Sacramento will be closely monitoring the county compliance with the law. PRACTICE TIP: Welfare advocates should start meeting with their counties to see how the county will implement CalWIN and comply with the law. One major lesson from Sacramento County is the fact that workers who went through the training program were really never trained in that there was no independent certification that the person was trained. All trainees certified that they were train- ing. There were no verification that the individual could operate the system. In February, 2005, Sacramento County did a mock CalWIN and it was a di- saster. Allegedly trained workers had no idea when they were doing. CCWRO has contacted CDSS about this looming problem. We hope somebody stops this disaster. Of course the victims will be the customers of the county wel- fare department. We have been told by county employees that Sacramento wel- fare department has instructed county staff not to talk to the press. One major lesson from Sacramento county is the fact that workers who went through the training program were re- ally never trained in that there was no indepdendent certification that the per- son was trained. CalWIN coming to your county 5\/05 – Santa Cruz\/Yolo 6\/05 Santa Clara 7\/05 Solano 8\/05 Contra Costa 9\/05 Sonoma 10\/05 San Mateo 11\/05 San Francisco 12\/05 Alameda 1\/06 Tulare 2\/06 Orange 3\/06 Santa Barbara 4\/06 San Luis Obispo 5\/06 San Diego 6\/06 Fresno CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-4- February 23, 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 conservative myths about welfare in America. She urged the committee to allow women to choose education and training as a means of becoming elf-sufficient rather than limiting their choices which are decided by the welfare bu- reaucrats as the current law and HR 240 would do. She urged the committee to enact legislation that empowers people rather than punishing them for being poor. The next person appearing was Wade Horn, who is the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families of HHS. He was representing the Bush Administration. His long testimony has nothing but good things to say about the TANF program and sang the praises for the Bush TANF proposal which punishes the poor as eloquently stated by Congresswoman Woolsey. Kevin McGurie. Maryland Department of Hu- man Resources appeared and sang the praises of the TANF program because over 76% of the TANF funds are now available for bureaucrats and only a meager 24% of the TANF grant goes to payments to families. No wonder they have 76% of the TANF funds for the bureaucrats to play with. A family of three only receive less than $500 a month in Mary- land. Mr. McGuire made supported state-flex dem- onstration program that would let States do whatever they want. Next up was the Robert Hector of the Heri- tage Foundation. Robert is one of the ardent supporters of the Terrorist Act on Needy Families also known as the TANF legislation. For years Heritage Foundation has been im- plying that government spends over $200 bil- lion a year on welfare recipients. Of course this is a bold face LIE insofar as the AFDC and TANF program are concerned. We have no idea how much money is given to bureau- crats and businesses under the disguise of helping welfare recipients. Mr. Rector’s testimony primarily supported the proposal of giving State bureaucrats $300 mil- lion to support marriage in the low-income community. The Heritage Foundation has been a longtime proponent of giving govern- TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE House Hearings on HR 240 On February 11, 2005, Congressman Wally Herger of Cali- fornia held hearings on his HR 240. As were reported in our previous Bulletin, in the Republican controlled democracy the people do not participate. Only the chosen ones were allowed to speak in the undemocratic House of Representa- tives. The people testifying were mostly supporters of HR 240. The hearing began with Wally Herger, Re- publican Chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee talking about what a great suc- cess TANF has been. The next speaker was Jim McDermott (D) from the State of Washington, who is the rank- ing member of the subcommittee. Mr. McDermott gave a more honest assess- ment of what is happening in America. He said that 44 million Americans do not have health care. Every 30 seconds in America, the rich- est, most powerful nation on earth, someone declares bankruptcy because they have sim- ply fallen sick. Mr. McDermott suggested that TANF should stand for Towards A New Future . He also said that the CBO has estimated that child care need for TANF is $18 billion and not $1 billion that HR 240 provides. Mr. McDermot announces that he is introduc- ing HR 751, which is the Democratic version of TANF reauthorization. The next speaker was Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey of California. She testified that she was 29 years old when her husband left her with three children ages 1,3, and 5. Although she was working, her employment did not yield enough income to provide for her family, thus, she had to rely on welfare. Her testimony rebutted many of the CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-4- February 23 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ment money to government bureaucrats and not the to the people. Not one penny of the $300 million is required to be spent on poor family trying to get married. How about giving the newly weds some seed money to start their family? Many marriages fall apart due to the economic status of the family. Living with your in-laws can take a toll. What Mr. Rector and his comrades need to do is to support having 75% of all of the money for Marriage Initiatives be provided directly to the families who are getting married and not to their beloved government and private en- terprise bureaucrats. Following Robert Rector was his comrade Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institute. Ron was the staffer for the subcommittee when TANF was enacted. Ron sang the praises of TANF alleging that is has reduced poverty rates in America. It ap- pears that terminating benefits after two years and leaving families only Food Stamps and Medical assistance reduces poverty. In real life it is a sentence to poverty . He also supported increasing the federal man- date on work participation. Next was another supporter to TANF, Jason Turner of the Center for Self-Sufficiency in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Jason use to be in charge of the Office of Family Assistance un- der former President Bush and Director of the New York welfare system. Jason Turner is compassionate person and he wants to make the bill better by adding Full Check Sanctions. This means that if a woman with three kids, 1,3, and 5 does not show up for her workfare duty because she did not have child care, she will be subject to Full Check sanctions. He also suggested that Food Stamp federal eligibility requirements should be consistent with the TANF federal eligibility requirement. This implies that TANF has federal eligibility requirements – it does not for all practical pur- poses. States can establish and do whatever they want to do. He also alleges that TANF recipients ..who are probably able to work are entering the SSI rolls from TANF… The key work is probably . The only way someone can qualify for SSI is by showing that they have a disability and are unable to work for more than 12 months any- where in the United States of America. His testimony also launches an attack on SSI recipients, mimicking George Bush’s attack on SSA recipients. Next to testify was Jeffrey Johnson, Presi- dent of the National Partnership for Commu- nity Leadership. Jeff represents a father- hood organization . They support the TANF program because they are using TANF money to operate a program that serves fathers who are 25 or older. They have served 700 fathers by helping them assume emotional, nurtur- ing, legal and financial responsibility for their children. The next panel started with the testimony of David Hansell, Chief of Staff, Department of Social Services. He also sang the praises of TANF stating that the caseload has decreased by 78 percent since 1995. His testimony did not have any mention of what happened to the 78 percent of families terminated from TANF. How many of the children terminated ended up in foster care? How many ended up homeless? Mr. Hansell stated that the people left on TANF today have ..significant clinical barriers to self-sufficiency. He asked for increased flex- ibility as to how the State can spend the TANF money. In 2003, only 42% TANF money went to payments for families. That means that a whopping 58% is used for the TANF bureau- cracy. Mr. Hansell wants to use more of the TANF money for payments to families for pay- ments to bureaucrats. Next, and finally, Lisalyn Jacobs appeared, representing Legal Momentum, formerly NOW Legal Defend Fund for Education. While TANF proponent Ron Haskins was al- leging that poverty has declined, Ms. Jacobs To use a medical analogy, H.R. 240 proposes a treatment for America’s most impoverished families that has an unacceptable risk benefit profile. The side effects of H.R. 240’s in- creased and unrealistic work require- ments are predictably the exposure of more families and children to man- dated full family sanctions and thus to food insecurity, ill health, and ex- cess hospitalizations. Deborah Frank – a Child Doctor 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-4- February 23 – Page 5 clarified that actually since 2000 to 2004, 4.3 million additional Americans fell into poverty. 56% of these are women. CCWRO NOTE: This increase in the poverty rates is tied to the time limits going into effect after 2 years. TANF took effect in 1998. The 2 year limit kicked in 2000. Since 2000 4.3 mil- lion have entered poverty. If the purpose of the TANF legislation was to dump families into poverty – it has been a great success for those who enjoy seeing people suffer like the pro- ponents of the evil TANF program. Ms. Jacobs also opposed the Marriage ini- tiative by stating that government should stay out of the family formation business. She also opposed increasing work hours for TANF and supported training and education for TANF recipients. Next was Kathleen Curran, Policy Advisor to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bish- ops. Mr. Curran started by stating that The Bishops are guided by consistent Catholic moral principles and traditional values; respect for human life and dignity’ importance of fam- ily and value of work; an option for the poor and the call to participation… Ms. Curran encouraged the committee to ex- pand the definition of work to include train- ing and secondary education. She also encouraged the committee to remove policies by states that deny TANF to 2-parent families. Deborah Frank, M.D., Pediatrician, Boston Medical Center, said that HR 240 has policies that entails unintended but grave risks to the health of TANF children. We are not sure that it is unintended. It is the position of CCWRO that these outcomes were carefully thought out and the supporters of the TANF legisla- tion and HR 240 know exactly what they are doing. She stated that food insecurity has increased among poor children. She is concerned that the TANF sanctions exasperates the food in- security among poor children of America. She also testified that her colleagues are con- cerned about the potential impact of increased work requirements on caregives of chronically ill children of any age. She stated that To use a medical analogy, H.R. 240 proposes a treatment for America’s most impoverished families that has an unac- ceptable risk benefit profile. The side effects of H.R. 240’s increased and unrealistic work requirements are predictably the exposure of more families and children to mandated full family sanctions and thus to food insecurity, ill health, and excess hospitalizations. Deborah Frank – a Child Doctor The final person to testify was Peter Goldberg of the Alliance for Children and Families. In his testimony he pointed out that one of the major barriers to self-sufficiency is the lack of having a car to apply and work at job location that do not have public transportation. Mr. Goldberg also urged the committee to al- low TANF recipients to allowed to use training and education as a means of preparing them- selves for self-sufficiency. CCWRO send an e-mail asking to appear before the committee, but no response was received from the Committee. Of course, given the fact that the 2\/11\/05 hear- ing was announced on 2\/1\/05 and a person would have to first ask may I testify , then get 200 copies of his or her testimony to the com- mittee by 2\/8\/05, it is clear that Democracy does not exist in the United States of America for the common People – only the selected are allowed to participate in Democracy. Thus, what we have in the United States Congress is limited democracy . New Federal Poverty Guidelines Persons Monthly Annual 1 $797.50 $9,570.00 2 $1,069.17 $12,830.00 3 $1,340.83 $16,090.00 4 $1,612.50 $19,350.00 5 $1,884.17 $22,610.00 6 $2,155.83 $25,870.00 7 $2,427.50 $29,130.00 8 $2,699.17 $32,390.00 SOURCE: 2\/18\/05 Federal Register, Vol. 70. No. 33, Page 8373 ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffdABAWDS Waivers End 3\/31\/05 – Waiver Renewals Needed. DSS has informed coun- ties with ABAWDS waivers that the waivers are ending 3\/31\/05. In order to continue the waiver, counties must give DSS a new reso- lution from the county board of supervisors reaffirming their request for the waiver. ACTION: If your county had a waiver, make sure that the county asks for an extension. \ufffdCombat Pay Exempt for Food Stamps. DSS will shortly be issuing an ACL stating that additional combat pay issued to mili- tary members during deployment will be ex- empted as income for food stamp purposes. \ufffdMore Food Stamp Changes Coming. DSS is working on implementing several state options allowed by federal law which include: 1. Count child support payments made by the household as an income exclu- sion instead of a deduction; 2.Allowling income & resources exclu- sions to CalWORKs; exempt restricted accounts; 3. Use optional utility allowance – Lim- ited Utility Allowance for water & sewer, garbage & trash; 4. Doing a statewide waiver for ABAWDS. \ufffdCharLee Metsker appointed Deputy Director – On January 24, 2005, CharLee Metsker was appointed Deputy Director for CDSS’s Welfare to Work Division. She has been acting director for several months. \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN News \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – \ufffd State LegislationState LegislationState LegislationState LegislationState Legislation \ufffd State Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget Update Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian.Aslanian.Aslanian.Aslanian.Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-5- March 7, 2005, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS \ufffdCWDA to Establish Their Own Policy In- terpretation System – The County Welfare Di- rectors Association members, who are county welfare department employees, have decided to set up their own policy interpretation process. Currently, policy interpretations are mailed to CDSS analysts, who then respond to the ques- tions from various counties. The CWDA 2\/3\/05 meeting minutes state: Questions from individual counties would be shared and discussed at regional meetings. If regional representatives cannot arrive at the an- swers, the question will be elevated to the CAT. (CAT is another CWDA committee). Questions will be shared between regions for discussion as well. Counties are encouraged to utilize the regional approach and not contact the State di- rectly with their questions unless they cannot be resolved at that level. CCWRO COMMENT: This is policy being pro- mulgated without going through the APA pro- cess and it is not even available to the general public in any way, shape or form. \ufffdDraft Rand Report Withheld from Advo- cates – A draft Rand report has been made avail- able to counties to review and comment. This draft report has not been made available to advocates for review or comment. Counties were asked to look at the report to make sure the report correctly reports the number of sanc- tions they inflict upon CalWORKs recipients. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 On February 10, 2005, Congressman Jim McDermott and four other democratic mem- bers of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and means committee in- troduced H.R.751 This bill would reauthorize and improve the Tem- porary Assis- tance for Needy Families (TANF) Program by pro- moting work, family, and op- portunity, and for other purposes is how the bill is described by the House Clerk’s Office. This bill represents the Democratic spin on welfare deform, but in essence buys into the same anti-family concept as Republican wel- fare deform. When it comes to poor families, women must work in lieu of parenting because of the incompetency of the government in not being able to collect child support and provide jobs to fathers so they can pay child support. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker. This could mean it will never get a fair hearing by the republican democracy of the House of Representatives. Our sources inform us that the House will move H.R. 240, which is the Republican TANF re- TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE authorization bill, through the House in a typi- cal Republican undemocratic fashion, then wait for the Senate to act. The Republican- controlled House rarely allows for meaningful minority participation in the passage of legis- lation on the House floor. The House Repub- licans completely reject and refuse to prac- tice the type of Democracy Republicans pro- mote in Iraq, give the minority a voice in the government. A recent letter sent by Congresspersons Den- nis Kucinich, George Miller, Fortney ‘Pete’ Stark, Jim McDermott, Donald Payne, Major Owens, Hilda Solis, John Lewis, Gerald Kleczka, Lynn Woolsey and Stephanie Tubbs Jones to Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Chairmen of the Education and Workforce and Ways and Means Commit- tees urges them to hold full hear- ings on legisla- tion to reautho- rize the Tempo- rary Access to Needy Families Act (TANF). The letter states in part: It has been publicly reported that legislation to reauthorize the Temporary Access to Needy Families Act (TANF) will be brought directly to the floor in the next several months, bypassing both the Committees on Ways and Means and Edu- cation and the Workforce. We urge you to reconsider this plan and instead hold hear- ings and markups on TANF legislation in both committees. HR 240 WILL COST STATES BILLIONS On February 9, 2005, The Congressional Bud- get Office issued a report concluding that H.R. 240 by House Republicans would require This bill represents the Democratic spin on welfare deform, but in essence buys into the same anti-family concept as Republican welfare deform. When it comes to poor families, women must work in lieu of parenting because of the incompetentcy of the gov- ernment in not being able to collect child support and provide jobs to fathers so they can pay child support. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 states to engage an increasing proportion of families receiving TANF in work activities. CBO estimates that the potential additional cost to states (including child-care expenses) of a work program that meets the proposed re- quirements would reach $2.9 billion in 2010 and total $8.3 billion over the 2006-2010 pe- riod. A copy of the estimate can be down- loaded from http:\/\/www.cbo.gov\/ showdoc.cfm?index=6095&sequence=0. STATE LEGISLATION ROUND-UP The 2005-2006 Legislative session has kicked off and there are several welfare bills in the hopper this year. There are, of course, good bills and bad bills. The leading bad bill is AB 1071 by Republican Senator Tom McClintock. This bill proposes to eliminate the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1971. There are a whole host of other statutory COLAs in the law, but this bill only singles out of the easy target – welfare moms and children. It is a shameless act. Of course this is not the first time that Republicans have launched attacks on needy children in California. Mr. McClintock has also introduced SB 786, which is a 100% home visit bill. This bill would require the district attorney’s of- fice in the county of residence of an applicant for aid, within 10 days of the applicant’s preliminary approval, to arrange for an authorized investigator to conduct a home call, consisting of a brief inter- view with the applicant and walkthrough of the applicant’s residence. It appears that the Senator has been told that CalWORKs has a preliminary approval process, then a final approval process. There is no preliminary approval of an applica- tion for CalWORKs in the law today. The bill does not establish a preliminary approval and a final approval process. The bill also fails to appropriate money for the district attorney visits to every applicant in the State of California. The SB 786 home visit will be designed to deter- mine: (1) Whether the applicant actually lives at the resi- dence; (2) Whether there are paycheck stubs or other evi- dence of unclaimed income present in the resi- dence. [CCWRO Comment: How does the in- vestigator determine this. They would have to search every inch of the house. They would have to examine all clothing. Do they go through every piece of paper in the house? Do they tear down the walls because the applicant may have hidden $20 in the wall? This search could take hours, if not days.]; (3) Whether there are other assets at the residence; (4) Whether the applicant has any residency or criminal history problems that would prohibit the receipt of aid; (5) Whether a claimed absentee parent is actually living at the residence; (6) Whether there is evidence, such as diapers or other child care items, to confirm the presence of children claimed to reside with the applicant; (7) Whether collateral contacts with landlords, neighbors, and school officials corroborate the in- CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The proposed budget is an 11% reduction from the 2004-2005 CalWORKs budget – or a re- duction of $551 million. In order to qualify for TANF $3.5 billion, Cali- fornia has to match $2.7 billion expenditures for what is called Maintenance of Efforts (MOE). The idea was the States would match the federal money and use it for needy fami- lies. But States have traditionally been huge abus- ers of federal funds by manipulating the law to enhance their coffers. The 2004-2005 state budget TANF money was used for: Child Welfare Services $138 million Foster Care $ 51 million Juvenile Probation $ 67 million Child Care – Stage 2- $315 million Title XX Block Grant $ 63 million _______________________________ TOTAL $634 million The 2005-2006 Budget raids TANF funds again for non-CalWORKs programs. They are: Child Care $ 57.1 million Juvenile Probation $201.4 million Stage 2 Child Care $ 69 million Title XX Block Grant $ 60 million Foster Care $ 55.1 million _________________________________ TOTAL $442.6 million The 2005-2006 COLA will be 4.07%. The State budget assumes that the COLA for 2005- 2006 would have been 4.6%. The Legislative Analyst reports that the actual COLA based on the CNI would be 4.07%. In October 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger refused to issue the October, 2003 COLA mandated by law. When the governor breaks the law you cannot call the police and have him arrested for his unlawful behavior. Rather you have to file a lawsuit, which was done. The attorneys representing CalWORKs recipi- formation provided in the application; (8) Any other relevant criteria established by the district attorney. [CCWRO Comment: This is big loophole that allows the district attorney to do whatever he or she wants to do at their whim] This bill is an attempt to have statewide imple- mentation of the San Diego County home visit pro- gram. FISCAL COST OF SB 786 In California, there are 40,000 applications a month. The way most home visit programs have been operated is that the home visit is done before the application is approved. This means 480,000 home visits a year. Given the extensive search mandated by the law, the home visits can take several hours. It is estimated that the average home visit with administrative costs and personnel will be $500 per visit. This is an underestimate. The annual cost of this bill would be $240 million a year. A more detailed report of welfare legislation will be forth coming. California State Budget UPDATE On February 22, 2005, the California Legisla- tive analyst released its analysis of the State Budget. A complete copy of the report can be found at www.lao.ca.gov. The 2005-2006 CalWORKs budget proposes an appropriation of $5.1 billion. Annually Cali- fornia receives $3.5 billion for CalWORKs. Federal Funds $ 2.9 billion – Annually California receives $3.5 billion for CalWORKs. But not all of that money is used for needy families with children receiv- ing CalWORK. Only $2.9 is used and $.6 billion is used for other purposes. General Fund $1.9 billion County Funds $153 million ETP $40 million- (This is the Employ- ment Training Fund that is used for CalWORKs for some reason.) 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 5 ents prevailed and the Schwarzenegger ad- ministration decided to file an appeal – a frivo- lous lawsuit as it becomes evident looking at Schwarzenegger’s budget. The Schwarzenegger 2005-2006 State bud- get proposes a trailer bill to delete the 2003 October COLA in the event that the state loses it’s appeal – this is a $222 million issue. $407 Million TANF funds Found- The Governor’s budget includes $407 million un- spent TANF funds from previous years. The Budget Overstates Costs by $118.5 million – The Schwarzenegger budget has overstated the cost of CalWORKs by $188.5 million. The budget numbers were based on June, 2004 caseload data while the Analysts review of more recent caseload data through October of 2004 found that the caseload will be lower in 2005-2006. Schwarzenegger’s Major Assaults on Im- poverished Families with Children. The Schwarzenegger Budget for 2005-2006 proposes the following major assaults on CalWORKs recipients, over 50% are working poor: 1. No 4.07% COLA $143 M 2. 6.5% grand reduction 212 M 3. Reduction of Work Incentives 80 M __________________________________ TOTAL $ 435 M WHERE TO FIND THE MONEY FOR PROPOSED CALWORKS CUTS? The total savings from reducing current ben- efits and denying COLA plus reducing work incentives will save $435 million. However, the Governor has found $407 mil- lion unspent TANF money. Why can’t that money be used to pay for the COLA? Schwarzenegger also proposes to take $442 million TANF funds that should be used for impoverished families with needy children and use it for non-impoverished families with needy children of California as MOE. That is not FAIR. RECIPIENT IMPACT OF CUTS The legislative analyst report does a valiant attempt to rationalize the Schwarzenegger attack on impoverished families with needy children. The report alleges that the average AFDC family of 3 receives $303 a month. Most of the family three cases we have seen do not receive $303 of food stamp a month. The maximum amount of food stamps that a fam- ily of three could get with no income is $393 a month. According to the CDSS last report the average family was getting about $200 in food stamps. When one considers that 50% of the households are working, those households get less than $100 a month on the average. The Legislative Analyst report failed to men- tion the cost of housing, food, utilities and transportation costs which are steadily rising. Gas prices have doubled since 2000 and cur- rent CalWORKs benefits are at the same level that families on AFDC received 14 years ago – 1990. The proposed benefit levels will bring back benefit levels below what AFDC families were receiving in 1989. Maybe Governor Schwarzenegger and his Finance Director Campbell have the illusion that expenses for welfare families have been frozen – they have not. Most kids on welfare do not eat properly the last 2 week of the month while Schwarzenegger and Campbell dump food. ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CDSS Staffers Told to Delete PRA Information Requested by CCWRO According to reliable sources it is alleged, that in July of 2003, at a meeting of the CDSS Welfare Eligibility staff, Kevin Campbell, a supervisor at CDSS Eligibility Branch, stated that Public Records Act (PRA) information obtained by Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO had became problematic, and that some policy interpretation could become embarrassing, incorrect, or burdensome for CDSS to pro- duce, Supervisor Kevin Campbell instructed the staff to immediately and regularly delete all email communications from their comput- ers. Campbell told staff that deleting the documents would relieve CDSS of the duty to produce the documents pursuant to the PRA. Some CDSS staffers were shocked at this suggestion and did not comply, while oth- ers did. We talked to Maria Hernandez of CDSS who denied these allegations made by at least three former employees of CDSS, but as- sured us that there will be no withholding of PRA information. IHSS Changes Meetings in Sacramento SB 1104 requires the Department of So- cial Services to review and revise the In Home Supportive Services Program. CCWRO is participating in the Hourly Task Guidelines Workgroup. This Workgroup is charged with the responsibility to establish statewide, uniform hourly task guidelines for each of the 25 tasks for In Home Supportive Services. The group is mostly composed of CWDA representatives, IHSS case workers and county social workers. In addition to CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-6- April 1 , 2005, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS CCWRO, PAI and Sacramento’s Resources for Independent Living are participating. In developing the \”normal\” time for each of the tasks, the Workgroup seeks to involve indi- vidual IHSS clients, providers, family members who help with IHSS tasks and IHSS advocates in rural areas as well as urban areas. CCWRO wants more client\/provider input as to how long activities take to perform and whether there are activities that should be cov- ered but are not currently recognized under the IHSS Program. If you have a client who would be interested in providing input or whose need should be con- sidered, let us know. If you are interested in participating or pro- viding input to establishing the hourly task guide- lines, please contact Grace Galligher at ccwro@aol.com. Bush 2006 Budget Generally, the President’s proposed budget shows the five year impact of all proposed pro- gram reductions and increases. However, the Bush 2006 budget document shows only how the cuts will impact programs in 2006 but does not mention the five (5) year impact. The Bush budget proposed reducing funding for medicaid by $45 billion over a 10 year pe- riod. \ufffd CDSS Staffers told to delete PRACDSS Staffers told to delete PRACDSS Staffers told to delete PRACDSS Staffers told to delete PRACDSS Staffers told to delete PRA information Requested by CCWROinformation Requested by CCWROinformation Requested by CCWROinformation Requested by CCWROinformation Requested by CCWRO \ufffd IHSS Revisions Meeting inIHSS Revisions Meeting inIHSS Revisions Meeting inIHSS Revisions Meeting inIHSS Revisions Meeting in SacramentoSacramentoSacramentoSacramentoSacramento \ufffd Bush 2006 Budget-Bush 2006 Budget-Bush 2006 Budget-Bush 2006 Budget-Bush 2006 Budget- \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – \ufffd CWD officials make false statementsCWD officials make false statementsCWD officials make false statementsCWD officials make false statementsCWD officials make false statements \ufffd December, 2004 WtW ReportDecember, 2004 WtW ReportDecember, 2004 WtW ReportDecember, 2004 WtW ReportDecember, 2004 WtW Report Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin AslanianPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin AslanianPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin AslanianPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin AslanianPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steveand Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steveand Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steveand Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steveand Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane AslanianGoldberg and Diane AslanianGoldberg and Diane AslanianGoldberg and Diane AslanianGoldberg and Diane Aslanian….. In th is issu e CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-6- April 1 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATEThe fifth TANF authorization expires March 31, 2005. There is a Senate Bill and a House bill. Neither the House, or Senate bills address the cruel, irreparable and harmful provisions of the current TANF legislation,such as time limits, full family sanctions, limiting options for fami- lies to become self-sufficient. Both bills allow States to continue to abuse and misuse TANF funds as they have done since the enactment of TANF. The Senate Finance Committee bill reautho- rizing TANF contains $6 billion additional fund- ing for TANF. The Senate Budget Resolution, which sets the mark of how much the Senate can spend on various programs has TANF set to be reauthorized without any increased TANF spending. This means that the TANF bill needs 60 votes to pass with the increased funding. This has change the landscape for Senators working on TANF reauthorization and it will be harder to pass the TANF reauthorization leg- islation through the Senate with more money in it. The House is working on H.R. 4838, which contains provisions that are opposed by states relating to caseload reduction credit. Some States can face an immediate loss of 5% of their TANF funding. The House has an extension bill which con- tains the modified caseload credit provision that States hate. This is the first TANF reau- thorization which is not clean in that it makes changes in the TANF program. Some people expect more policy changes will be attached to TANF extension legislation. Many assume that TANF will be extended again until June 30, 2005. TANF reauthorization will not bring any joy to poor families. It will only bring suffering to poor families and parents who are trying to parent their children. COUNTY WELFARE OFFICIALS MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS Government officials get away with making false statements, while the poor, who make false statements, do jail time, get fined, or lose benefits for months, etc. (See 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8 and 1320b-10) A classic example of false statements by wel- fare officials is when CCWRO mailed a letter seeking forms that applicants complete prior to being interviewed for public assistance ben- efits under the California Public Records Act. On March 22, 2005, Plumas County Deputy County Counsel Brian Morris made a false statement alleging that the county does not have a form that an applicant is required to complete prior to the face to face interview. FALSE. The TRUTH is that applicants are re- quired to complete a Plumas County form Reception Inquiry On March 22, 2005, Calaveras County Pro- gram Manager Nita Reynon made a false statement alleging that the county does not have a form that an applicant is required to complete prior to the face to face interview. FALSE. The TRUTH is that applicants are re- quired to complete a Calaveras County form Worksheet 83-5000 . On March 24, 2005, Inyo County Welfare Di- rector Jean Dickenson made a false statement alleging that the county does not have a form that an applicant is required to complete prior to the face to face interview. FALSE. The TRUTH is that applicants are required to com- CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-6- April 1 , 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 plete a Inyo County form Household Factsheet . Each of these persons making false state- ments have been mailed letters requesting the forms be provided as required by California State law. There are no sanctions for these government officials making false statements – they just get away with it. DECEMBER, 2004 WELFARE TO WORK REPORT The alleged purpose of the welfare to work program, with an appropriation of over $1 bil- lion dollars, is to make families with children self-sufficient. However, the program has been a total failure in making families self-sufficient, but has become a well-greased sanctions ma- chine. During December of 2004, out of 93,767 unduplicated participants, over 47,369 fami- lies were sanctioned by the county welfare departments of California. Of the 93,767 per- sons participating in a welfare to work activity, 49,934 persons, or 57% of the participants were not paid transportation, which is man- datory for those who need transportation. This is premeditated, widespread stealing of money from poor families by sanction-happy coun- ties of California. Statewide, only 4% of the unduplicated par- ticipants obtained employment that made then self-sufficient, compared to the 51% sanc- tioned rate. This is only 3,812 persons in December who found employment that made them ineligible for CalWORKs. The cost of this is an estimated $22,000 for each job and there is not evidence that the county had anything involvement in securing these jobs. The counties often take credit for jobs secured by families and friends of welfare recipients. Some counties do not even bother to report. And why should they file state mandated re- ports? There are no consequences for devi- ant county behavior. Counties always want incentives and bonuses. During December of 2004 Merced, Riverside, San Bernardino and Stanislaus counties simply did not submit a WtW report as required by CDSS duly pro- mulgated regulations. However, Merced, Riverside, San Bernardino and Stanislaus counties showed no holiday compassion to families who failed to turn in their quarterly reports. 1,034 families received zero benefits on January 1, 2005 because the county did not get a report from these fami- lies. December, 2004 WtW Report Participants (unduplicated) 93,767 Sanctions 47,369 Transportation 43,833 Obtained Employment 3,821 (that resulted in termination of CalWORKs Benefits) Taxpayer Cost Per Job $22,322 Los Angeles County, the largest county in the State, is a leader in sanctioning WtW partici- pants at 82%. Los Angeles County was able to sanction 23,389 participants during Decem- ber of 2004, while they could only find 511 persons jobs\u2260 that resulted termination of CalWORKs benefits. In fact there are more than 500 WtW employees in Los Angeles County. FIGURE #1 shows the percentage of sanctions imposed on WtW participants dur- ing December of 2004, a typical Christmas Greetings from California Counties. COUNTY JOB PERFORMANCE – Statewide, the best performing counties are small coun- ties performing below 20% and the highest large counties performing below 10 percent are Sacramento at 8.4%, San Diego at 8.2%, Fresno at 5.5%. The remaining large coun- ties are below 5%. The high sanction county Los Angeles was able to achieve 1.8% and CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-6- April 1 , 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Statewide 50.52% Colusa 102.94% Fresno 93.88% Amador 91.67% Los Angeles 81.97% San Luis Ob 77.41% Sonoma 76.99% Plumas 69.05% Kern 62.60% Napa 61.21% Shasta 59.54% Mendocino 58.44% San Diego 56.65% Monterey 55.42% Humboldt 51.63% Calaveras 50.00% Yolo 49.40% Tehama 48.77% Marin 45.83% Tulare 44.38% Siskiyou 43.05% Glenn 42.86% Santa Barb. 41.25% Contra Costa 38.42% Lake 37.32% San Mateo 36.32% Kings 35.79% Mariposa 35.14% Placer 35.04% Alameda 33.82% San Joaquin 33.54% Santa Cruz 32.15% Inyo 30.56% Nevada 28.00% Madera 27.09% Sutter 24.43% Santa Clara 24.41% Trinity 24.00% El Dorado 22.87% Solano 22.84% Orange 21.39% Lassen 20.89% Ventura 20.22% Alpine 20.00% San Fran 19.30% Butte 17.22% San Benito 15.14% Tuolumne 12.06% Yuba 12.02% Del Norte 7.08% Mono 6.25% Imperial 5.15% Modoc 3.70% Sacramento 3.33% Sierra 0.00% Merced NO REPORTS Riverside NO REPORTS San Bern. NO REPORTS Stanislaus NO REPORTS Orange County came in .58%. Clearly the em- phasis of this program is on sanctions and not jobs, which is why the Schwarzenegger Administration is pushing for more sanctions because they know they have failed to create jobs that welfare recipients need and want. The welfare bureaucracy was never designed to do employment services, rather it was cre- ated to do eligibility, like imposing sanctions – be it often, unlawfully. FIGURE 2 is a county- by-county numbers of WtW unduplicated par- ticipants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits. The final FIGURE #3 reveals the number of WtW participants who are participating in a WtW activity, but are not getting transporta- tion assistance. The law mandates the pay- ments of transportation if the participant needs it in order to participate. It is hard to imagine a worker, student or trainee who does not incur FIGURE #1- PERCENTAGE OF UNDUPLICATED PARTICIPANTS SANCTIONED DURING DECEMBER, 2004 SOURCE: County WTW 25 Reports transportation costs in California. It is harder to imagine somebody participating in a wel- fare to work activity in San Francisco and not incurring transportation costs – 74% of the San Francisco WtW were not paid transportation. Many rural counties have transportation less than 10%. It is clear from Figure #3 that while some coun- ties are paying transportation for 75% of the participants, other counties are paying for less than 10%. There is no logical explanation for this discrepancy except that certain counties are unlawfully and currently stealing money from WtW participants month after month with- out any shame. The ironic part is that many of these counties that are stealing money from WtW participants by not paying for their trans- portation as required by State law are pros- ecuting welfare recipients for overpayments that exceed $400. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-6- April 1 , 2005 – Page 5 Statewide 3,821 4.07% Alameda 103 2.00% Alpine 0 0.00% Amador 3 8.33% Butte 37 3.43% Calaveras 4 3.57% Colusa 0 0.00% Contra Cos 113 4.79% Del Norte 3 0.85% El Dorado 5 1.71% Fresno 307 5.57% Glenn 1 0.71% Humboldt 6 0.93% Imperial 19 1.44% Inyo 2 5.56% Kern 88 1.68% Kings 23 2.36% Lake 7 1.71% Lassen 1 0.63% Los Ang. 511 1.79% Madera 82 8.92% Marin 8 2.56% Mariposa 3 4.05% Mendocino 7 1.33% Merced NO RPRT Modoc 0 0.00% Mono 1 3.13% Monterey 30 3.29% Napa 7 6.03% Nevada 4 2.00% Orange 29 0.58% Placer 45 11.51% Plumas 2 4.76% Riverside NO RPRT Sacra, 717 8.41% San Benito 8 4.32% San Bern. NO RPRT San Diego 274 8.21% San Fran 95 3.37% San Joaq, 95 3.01% San Luis 43 14.29% San Mateo 88 19.26% Santa Barb.155 19.80% Santa Clara186 4.37% Santa Cruz 97 15.59% Shasta 27 2.93% Sierra 0 0.00% Siskiyou 4 2.65% Solano 130 18.11% Sonoma 61 10.10% Stanislaus NO RPRT Sutter 11 2.28% Tehama 14 3.84% Trinity 4 8.00% Tulare 177 9.60% Tuolumne 3 1.51% Ventura 103 5.23% Yolo 58 11.51% Yuba 20 3.34% SOURCE: County WTW 25 Reports FIGURE #2- NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF UNDUPLICATED PARTICIPANTS WHO OB- TAINED EMPLOYMENT THAT RESULTED IN TERMINATION OF CALWORKS BENEFITS DURING DECEMBER, 2004 County % of Part Getting Transp. Plumas 0.00% Siskiyou 1.32% Lassen 5.70% Napa 7.76% Lake 9.51% Imperial 12.05% Ventura 13.06% Butte 14.72% Glenn 15.00% Mendocino 15.37% Mono 15.63% Tehama 16.44% Inyo 16.67% Sutter 18.01% El Dorado 18.43% Del Norte 18.98% Madera 19.04% Tulare 19.21% Shasta 20.39% San Mateo 20.79% Kern 23.40% Santa Barb 24.52% San Luis Ob. 25.25% Humboldt 25.27% San Fran 25.54% Sierra 26.67% Yuba 27.88% Calaveras 30.36% Kings 30.77% County % of Part Getting Transp. Placer 32.23% Trinity 34.00% Mariposa 35.14% San Benito 35.14% Fresno 35.40% Alameda 35.55% Colusa 38.24% Sacramento 38.56% San Joaquin 39.51% Alpine 40.00% Tuolumne 42.71% Santa Cruz 43.09% Nevada 44.50% Orange 46.30% Sonoma 50.83% Yolo c\/ 52.18% Contra Costa 53.69% Amador 55.56% Solano 60.03% Marin 62.82% Los Angeles 66.82% Monterey 71.63% Santa Clara 72.32% San Diego 75.18% Modoc 111.11% Merced NO RPRTS Riverside NO RPRTS San Bern. NO RPRTS Stanislaus NO RPRTS Statewide 46.75% FIGURE #3 PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS RECEIVING TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTIVE SERVICES DURING DECEMBER, 2004 SOURCE: County WTW 25 Reports 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 ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd DSS COVER UP ALLEGED – A former DSS employee alleges in a complaint filed with the State Personnel Board last month that when ACIN#I-56-03 was drafted by staff, it cited W&IC Section 11453 verba- tim. The draft ACIN went to DSS Legal Af- fairs for clearance. Attorney Karlen Harmison, who is now an Administrative Law Judge, revised the ACIN by changing the language of the statute from any to an . When asked by the DSS staff why at- torney Harmison is changing the ACIN, at- torney Harmison retorted We can’t tell them (the advocates) everything . The cover-up did not work and advocates have won a law suit, but CDSS has filed a frivolous appeal to delay obeying the Court’s Decision to pay the COLA that was unlawfully denied to CalWORKs recipients by Arnold Shwarzenegger. \ufffd Quarterly Reporting (QR) Data Be- ing Collected. Several counties, including Riverside and San Bernardino, are involved in QR data collection. The list of counties collecting this data should be available from CDSS. \ufffd QR Task Force is back. Counties have been having problems with QR and have asked CDSS to reconstitute the QR task force. The first meeting of the Task force was held in February. The meeting was closed to the public, although it is financed with public funds. \ufffd Medi-Cal and QR. Department of Health Services is concerned about Medi- Cal ineligibility when cash linkage ends but the family remains on aid due to QR rules. This phenomenon occurs generally when a parent working over 100 hours returns home or the youngest child ages out. DHS wants \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known as CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL) \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – \ufffd IHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS News CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-7- April 12, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS counties to provide them with estimates of how often this occurs. CalWIN Blues (also known as CalHELL) CalHELL, a new computer system now opera- tional in Placer and Sacramento County is a true disaster. Many families have suffered because the sys- tem did not issue their benefits in violation of state law. Of course the computer cannot be prosecuted for persecuting poor families. Wel- fare workers are also suffering. \ufffd The Sacramento Bee reported on March 31, 2005 that welfare workers have been taken out of the welfare department by ambulance due to extreme stress that CalHELL has caused. \ufffd County workers literally have to LIE to the computer to get the benefits issued. The com- puter demands verification that is not required. So the worker states that he or she has received the verification. \ufffd In one case a clerical staff mistakenly punched in an incorrect worker number into the computer. The computer automatically trans- ferred all 250 cases to the new worker. 250 notices were mailed out to inform recipients that they have a new worker. The clerical staff could not correct the worker code, so somebody had to. When the worker code was corrected, an- other 250 notices were mailed out informing the recipients that they have their old worker back. Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanian….. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 7, April 12 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 \ufffd In another case the computer terminated the case for not turning in the quarterly report. The worker has the Q-7 in her hand and has told the computer that she has the QR-7, but the computer continues to keep the case closed. \ufffd One sunny day at the Sacramento down- town office a high level expert from EDS, the authors of this demented system, came to met with the staff and helped welfare workers with CalHELL. A worker, who had been trying to grant a General Assistance case for weeks asked if the expert could fix the case. After going through all of the screens, the EDS employee could not fix teh problem. The GA worker snatched the case from the alleged expert and headed to see the director of the office. Due to CalHELL hundreds of children are be- ing denied emergency assistance. Litigation is being prepared to protect children and fami- lies of Sacramento County. In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) REPORT SB 1104, also known as the 2004-2005 budget trailer bill, contains provi- sions regarding quality assurances in the IHSS program. The goal of the legislation, accord- ing to Legislative staffer Christian Griffith is to assure that a person applying in Yolo County or Alameda County with the same set of facts get the same services. Under the current sys- tem the hours one gets depends upon which county you apply in and what worker you get. The statute, California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12305.7 through .82 provide for the development of policies and procedures to ensure that caseworkers appropriately ap- ply the supportive services uniformity system and other supportive services rules and poli- cies for assessing recipients’ need for services to the end that there are accurate assessments of needs and hours. There is an IHSS Stakeholders group and then there are subgroups, such as the (1) fraud de- tection workgroup; (2) state\/county proce- dures workgroup; (3) regulation workgroup; (4) hourly task guidelines workgroup; (5) forms workgroup; and (6) social worker training workgroup. The workgroups will convine in Sacramento at various locations. CDSS has said they will post the meeting locations on the CDSS web page which has yet to be done. Thus, to find out the location of the meetings, simply call CDSS at 916-229-4583 or contact Kevin Aslanian at CCWRO at 916-712-0071. IHSS SB 2014 WORKGROUP MEETING LIST Fraud detection 4\/7\/05 State\/county procedures 4\/12\/05 Regulation 4\/15\/05 IHSS Stakeholders 4\/22\/05 Hourly task guidelines 4\/26\/05 Forms 4\/29\/05 Fraud detection 5\/6\/05 State\/county procedures 5\/10\/05 Hourly task guidelines 5\/20\/05 Forms 5\/24\/05 State\/county procedures 6\/7\/05 Fraud detection 6\/17\/05 Forms 6\/24\/05 Hourly task guidelines 6\/28\/05 Social worker training 6\/29\/05 The first workgroup to meet was FRAUD. The room was filled with fraud investigators hop- ing to get a lot of money to hire welfare fraud investigators. Alameda County had a district attorney present who gave a 20 minute speech talking about IHSS fraud by recipients, but was totally silent on the widespread and systematic fraud being perpetrated upon IHSS recipients by county welfare workers who au- thorize IHSS recipients less hours than they are entitled to. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-7, April 12 , 2005 – Page 2 CDSS made a presentation about overpay- ment which was very dismissive of the un- derpayment problem. A number of persons in the group spoke up about overpayments and underpayments not getting equal attention. CDSS agreed to consider underpayments. In Butte County window washing is not con- sidered an eligible IHSS activity. If an IHSS provider claims time for washing windows, this could be fraud and the IHSS provider could be prosecuted for IHSS fraud. There was a discussion whether or not an IHSS provider could be paid for accompany- ing an IHSS recipient to the doctor. Most coun- ties pay only transportaton for the person to the doctors office and only for bringing the per- son back. There is no payment for time spent with the IHSS client with translation assistance during the medical appointment, ambulating during the medical appointment or assistance with going to the toilet. CDSS staff stated that time spent with the IHSS client can be paid if the services of the provider is needed while waiting in the doctors office. A Marin County representative urged DSS to promulgate statewide uniform standards. At the end of the meeting the group was in- formed by a legislative staffer, Christian Griffith, that the purpose of this effort is not fraud detection , rather it is to establish a statewide system to assure uniform treatment of IHSS applicants and recipients throughout the State of California. Some of the county welfare fraud staff disagreed and were under the impression that the major purpose of this effort is fraud detection . CCWRO will be reporting on these meeting in our future bulletins TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE It is anticipated that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) reauthorization will be debated on the Senate floor as early as this week. The Senate bill includes $6 billion in additional funding for child care; a transi- tional jobs program; and the replacement of the caseload reduction credit with an employ- ment credit to the states. The House bill has cleared the Ways and Means Committee subcommittee on Human Resources. However, the House of Represen- tatives is Tom DeLay land, where anything can pass the House notwithstanding committees. The TANF legislation has been extended un- til June 30, 2005. Stay tuned for more BAD news. TANF reauthorization will only bring misery to impoverished families with babies and children and happiness for the welfare\/ worker bureaucrats – the darlings of the con- gressional Republicans. 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, In- formational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd COUNTY WtW 25 REPORTS QUES- TIONED BY COUNTIES. At a CWDA meet- ing of March 23, 2005, the subject of coun- ty statistical reporting was discussed again. It appears that data included in the WtW 25 reports depends on the business model that a county uses. The counties blame the State for not clearly defining what has to be re- ported. This is quit outrageous, for the coun- ties were at the table each time the WtW 25 has been modified, often at the request of the counties. The problem is that not all of the stakeholders were at the table when the WtW 25 reporting system was developed or modified. \ufffd SB 786 by Senator McClintock op- posed by counties. Counties and advo- cates alike, have come out in opposition to SB 786, which would mandate that coun- ties have a home visit for all CalWORKs applicants. The bill was defeated in the Sen- ate Human Services by a vote of 5-0. The author asked and was granted reconsider- ation of the bill. That means the bill can be heard again provided the Committee voted to grant reconsideration, which is very un- likely. \ufffd WtW 30 Report to Be Revised. CDSS is planning to revise the WtW 30 form. This form is used for counties to report how many WtW participants are meeting the federal TANF participation rates. Counties have been invited to participate in this endeavor. Advocates have not yet been contacted for participation in this effort. \ufffd CWDA opposes IHSS Wage Rollback. The CWDA Board of Directors have voted to oppose the IHSS wage rollback proposed by the Schwarzenegger Administration. \ufffd Counties Breaking the Law – Accord- ing to ACIN No-1-84-04 dated October 20, \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd StatStatStatStatState Ce Ce Ce Ce Capitl Rapitl Rapitl Rapitl Rapitl Reporeporeporeporeporttttt AssembAssembAssembAssembAssembllllly Budgty Budgty Budgty Budgty Budgte He He He He Hearingearingearingearingearing \ufffd Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth. Is that Lying?Is that Lying?Is that Lying?Is that Lying?Is that Lying? Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-8- April 19, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS 2004, only 11 counties use applications other than in English even though the translated form are available in Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Viet Namese to counties. The counties of Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt , Imperial, Inyo,Lake. Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa, Men- docino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa , Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara,Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Si- erra, Siskiyou, Solano,Sonoma, Sutter, Teha- ma Trinity, only Spanish, Tulare, Ventura only Tagalog, Yolo, Yuba were in violation of Civil Rights of Limited English speaking persons by only using English forms based on the state- ment made by the counties to CDSS. \ufffd Bruce Wagstaff, County Welfare Di- rector of Sacramento County. Bruce Wag- staff, who started with DSS in 1975 as an ana- lyst in the Food Stamp Bureau has been ap- pointed Director of the Department of Human Assistance. He was in charge of the implemen- tation of the GAIN program in California. He was then appointed Deputy Director for welfare to work program. In 2004 he was appointed Dep- uty Director of Children Services and now he a County Welfare Director and a member of the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA). CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 8, April 19 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ASSEMBLY STATE BUDGET HEARINGS On April 13, 2004 the As- sembly Budget Commit- tee’s subcommittee on Health and Human ser- vices held its hearing for CalWORKs. The first issue for the committee is the anticipated im- pact of TANF reauthorization on the Cal- WORKs program. While the administration is proposing to make changes in anticipation of unknown federal changes, most other agreed that making changes in state law before fed- eral law is enacted is premature. RAIDING OF THE CALWORKS BUDGET – The next issue was the raid on CalWORKs funding. Mike Herald of Western Center on Law and Poverty stated that CalWORKs has been a donor to the State budget for the past five (5) years. Previously the State Budget used over $1 billion CalWORKs dollars for non- CalWORKs programs. The 2004-2005 budget partially stopped the raid on the CalWORKs budget . The Schwarzenegger 2005-2006 proposed again to raid the CalWORKs budget by steal- ing $1.2 billion from TANF and using it for non- CalWORKs budget items. The taking of Cal- WORKs funds is made possible in the 2005- 2006 Schwarzenegger budget by cutting Cal- WORKs grants by 6.5%, denying CalWORKs COLA and cutting the earnings disregards. EARNED INCOME DISREGARDS: John Wallace of MDRC, which is a nonprofit orga- nization that is a research firm testified be- fore the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services regarding the Schwarzenegger Administrations proposal to reduce earnings disregards for working Cal- WORKs recipients. The studies show that chil- dren of parents who were receiving earnings disregards had positive effects on school achievement, but when the earnings disre- gards stopped, the positive achievements also stopped. The conclusion is that Schwarzeneg- ger’s proposed budget cuts will have a nega- tive impact on CalWORKs children, but it will not effect the children of Governor Schwarzenegger or his colleagues promoting these anti-family and anti child initiatives. Also testifying against the reduction of the earnings disregards was Liz Schott of the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities. Liz explained that many states have State Earned Income Tax Credit, which California does not have. She also rebutted the assertion of the Schwarzanegger administration that Califor- nia is most generous with the income disre- gards. CALWORKS BENEFIT REDUCTIONS : The Schwarzenegger Administration has singled out CalWORKs families and children for the most severe cuts of the Century – No COLA and 6.5% reduction of current benefits which at this time is what CalWORKs recipients re- ceived in 1989. A number of representatives from LIFETIME testified against being targets for Governor Schwarzenegger and explained how these cuts would effect their families. The Schwarzenegger Administration repre- sentatives argued that California has grants that are higher than most States. Opponents of the cuts argued that the cost of living in California is higher than in most states. As we have noted above, the Schwarzeneg- ger Administration has decided to use $1.2 billion CalWORKs dollars for nonCalWORKs recipients while proposing the following ma- jor cuts aimed at the basic survival needs of CalWORKs families: (millions) CalWORKs 6.5% grant reduction $212.3 CalWORKs COLA Deletion $ 163.8 Decrease of Earned Income disregard $82 PAY FOR PERFORMANCE: The Budget pro- posed to hold back 5% of the county annual administration allocation and give it to coun- ties who meet certain performance goals which are not defined. When the CalWORKS program was initially 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-8, April 19 , 2005 – Page 3 CalWORKs COLA and restore the proposed 6.5% reduction- cuts which the counties did not oppose during the hearing. Phil did not express any problem of budgeting and spend- ing these suggested millions that are at best, iffy. Curt Child testifying for the advocates stated that he agreed with Los Angeles County, but suggested that this issue should be taken up next year. Chairman Hector de La Torre urged the department to work with the county and legislative staff to come up with an agreement for Pay for Performance proposal. It is the view of CCWRO that counties should not be given incentives for doing their job – especially when counties sanction over 50% of the unduplicated WtW participants. If the county does not do their job, they should be sanctioned just like they sanction CalWORKs recipients without mercy. SANCTIONS: The budget last year asked DSS to do a study on sanctions by April 1, 2005. DSS contracted with the Rand Corpo- ration who was supposed to present a study. The Rand Corporation failed to deliver the sanction report. CDSS testified that the Rand Corporation was sanctioned for failure to sub- mit the report on time. However, DSS did not indicate that they will not contract with Rand in the future. California sanctioned over 50% of the undu- plicated participants during December of 2004. A LIFETIME Board Member Tammy Marquez testified that although she has a spe- cial needs child, she works and gets Cal- WORKs. One Monday she was scheduled for participation in the WtW program, but could not attend the WtW assignment because she was working. Well that did not sit well with the WtW sanction machine. She was sanctioned and her benefits were reduced by 25% for daring to go to work and not obeying the com- enacted, the statute provided for county incen- tive payments for counties doing their job – making families self-sufficient. Millions were given to counties who used the money to pay for projects as: WtW Core Services, funding workers to sanction WtW clients – $53 million Child Welfare Services – $57 million Teen services – $47 million Home visits – $24 million Health care – $15 million Child care – $15 million Law enforcement – $14 million Planning and evaluation – $6 million Prop 10 – $1 million Library $570,000 Housing and motel assistance$ $4 million This is a partial list of what the money was used for. We have mailed a Public Records Act request to DSS requesting copies of all documents regarding what happened to the Incentive Monies, but have not received a re- sponse within the statutory 10 day time limit for the response. Most of the money was used for programs that do not meet the basic survival needs of Cal- WORKs recipients, i.e. housing, food, utilities and clothing. The counties were represented by Phil Ansel of Los Angeles County. Phil testified that the counties oppose holding back money from their regular CalWORKs allocation because they cannot plan an operation without know- ing exactly how much funds will be forthcom- ing. However, Phil turned around and suggested that the county would support giving counties performance incentive money beyond the reg- ular county annual allocation. He suggested that $300 million be set aside for this purpose. Of course $300 would be enough to fund the CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-8- April 19 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 have a county form that applicants have to complete. The fact is they do. It is known as county form Stangen-108.B. CCWRO has mailed a letter to Stanislaus stat- ing: We have information from reliable sources that Stanislaus County uses a forms known as Stangen108.B , which solicits prescreen- ing information. Your transmission of this form would be ap- preciated. Failure to comply promptly would force us to file litigation to assure that the county of Stanislaus is obeying the laws of California. Below is the actual text of W&IC 11052.5 11052.5. No applicant shall be grant- ed public assistance under Chapters 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and 5 (commencing with Section 13000) of this part until he or she is first person- ally interviewed by the office of the county department or state staff for pa- tients in state hospitals. The personal interview shall be conducted promptly following the application for assistance. If an applicant is incapable of acting in his or her own behalf, the county de- partment shall verify this fact by per- sonal contact with the applicant before aid is authorized. As used in this sec- tion, the term public assistance does not include health care as provided by Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000). The interview conducted pur- suant to this section shall oc- cur within seven days after the time of application unless there are extenuating circumstances that justify further delay. (Our emphasis added) mands and demands of the county WtW Gods. Many of these issues will be discussed again during early May when the Schwarzenegger Administration releases it’s May Revised Bud- get, also known as the May Revise . STANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOT TELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTH On March 14, 2005 CCWRO mailed a Public Act Records request to all California counties asking for copies of county forms that appli- cants for CalWORKs and food stamps are required complete prior to their face-to-face interview. For CalWORKs this interview is re- quired to be conducted within 7 working days of the date of application pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11052.5 State law requires that the county respond within 10 days from receipt of the letter. See California Government Code Section 6253 (c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determina- tion and the reasons therefor. In unusual cir- cumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dis- patched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. Stanislaus County responded on April 1, 2005, admitting that they received our letter on 4\/ 17\/05. The letter then goes on to assert that Stanis- laus County does not have any county forms that applicants for CalWORKs and Food Stamps are required to complete. We questioned the truthfulness of their letter. Our suspicion had merit. We discovered that Stanislaus County has made a false statement in their 4\/1\/05 letter alleging that they do not ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd CalWIN Update. On April 18th, an eligibility worker did a face to face inter- view with a CalWORKs applicant and found the family to be eligible for benefits. The computer issued benefits for the month of April, 2005 but refused to authorize the is- suance of benefits for May because accord- ing to the computer, the applicant had failed to keep a scheduled appointment. There had been no appointment scheduled. \ufffd IHSS Protective Supervision News. At a DSS sponsored workshop re- garding IHSS it was revealed that 23 coun- ties require the providers of protective su- pervision to complete a 24 hour form. The providers, who provide services 24 hours a day while being paid for less than 10 hours a day, are being asked by the counties to prove how they pro- vide protective super- vision for the 14 hours a day that they are not compensated. Coun- ties say it is voluntary, but in reality they threaten to terminate protective supervision. NOTE: The regula- tions only require that the IHSS recipient have a need for 24 hours. There is no reg- ulation that states the IHSS recipient shall have 24 hour care. Why? Because the state\/ county does not pay for 24 hour care. CalWIN UPDATE \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CCCCCalWIN UalWIN UalWIN UalWIN UalWIN Updatpdatpdatpdatpdateeeee \ufffd County Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse Report \ufffd State Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget Update Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 9, May 16, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS Sacramento County’s CalWIN com- puter system \”went live\” on March 1, 2005. After two months of living with CalWIN, there are a few pointers that we advocates in Sacramento County can provide to the other 17 CalWIN counties. One of our most useful tools to get through CalWIN implementation is to have a county contact person; a specific county intermediary whom we can email problem cases in order to remedy. Advocates are used to dealing with the work- er or the worker’s supervisor. After CalWIN, all bets are off. Most of our clients have talked to their workers, supervisors, bureau chiefs, etc. At each level the worker knew there was a prob- lem with the case. But none of these people knew how to get CalWIN to work. The CalWIN IHSS PLUS INFORMATION If you want to come to the IHSS Plus Workshop to participate in the formu- lation of state policy to implement the federal medicaid waiver for the IHSS Plus Program, just go to http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/dapd\/SB1104- IHS_2097.htm. This web page has dates and times for all of the meetings, including minutes of previous meetings. The meetings are open and acces- sible. For more information on the waiver you can go to a federal web page http:\/ \/www.cms.hhs.gov\/medicaid\/1115\/ihss.asp and read all about the waiver and the conditions of this waiver. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 9 – May 16, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 technical people had to either correct the ac- tion or find a way around the system by a pa- per process or \”work around\”. Some GA\/GR clients did not receive their March and April food stamps until mid-April. Workers told folks to be patient because its a computer problem, and they were right. When LSNC and CCWRO went to Loaves and Fish- es, a nonprofit which provides shelter, free meals, showers, and counseling, we were asked if we could help get their benefits. When we emailed the clients names to the welfare department, they got their benefits within 2-3 days. Food Stamp aid paid pending has also been a problem, primarily for GA\/GR clients. Some clients did not get their March aid pending until mid-April. Sacramento County admitted to us that there are some CalWIN system problems with aid paid pending and the vendor is trying to solve the problems. Again, contacting the interme- diary with specific cases is the most effective means of getting the clients aid. Pre CalWIN, an application interview took about one hour. Now, it can take as long as five hours to complete, with most interviews being between three and four hours long. As such, expedited food stamps were not being process within three days, because there were insufficient staff to conduct the interviews. We have almost sued them twice within the last three months and are closely monitoring the County now. CCWRO is now beginning to see the Cal- WIN forms. CalWIN is printing obsolete forms for Quarterly Reporting and the Food Stamp Repayment Notice for Admin Errors (after 3\/ 1\/00). The Food Stamp Repayment Notice for Admin Errors form was made obsolete as a result of Lomeli v. Saenz for which there is a mandatory, no substitute permitted form. The next headache, I mean problem, is the translation of forms. CalWIN can print up to nine languages. Advocates would assume that the 18 CalWIN counties will be able to print all of the DSS mandated languages. Not true. San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Cruz (which went live 5\/2) and Sonoma Counties opted to print forms in English and Spanish. Yolo County (which went live on 5\/2) will print forms in English, Spanish and Russian. Orange County will print forms in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. San Francisco County will print the forms in English, Spanish, Chi- nese, Vietnamese and Russian. Contra Costa will print the forms in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian, Farsi and Laotian. Placer County (which went live January) said it can print the forms in all of the mandated languages. Assuming arguendo that counties could opt out of providing forms which have been trans- lated by CDSS, one would assume that coun- ties would use the translated paper forms that CDSS provides to the counties. Not neces- sarily true. In Yolo County’s case if a person whose pri- mary language is Chinese enters the welfare department, the County will not use a paper form. Instead, they will issue all forms and notices in English and \”will make a translator available\” to the Chinese speaker. For ex- ample, after completing a four hour applica- tion interview for CalWorks and Food Stamps, Yolo County would have us believe that the translator will fully and completely translate the 24 page Statement of Facts verbatim to the Chinese client who will then sign an En- glish form under penalty of perjury. The counties that I did not mention did not respond to my request for information. You should contact your county to find out what it plans to do. CCWRO is talking to Civil Rights about this problem. Hopefully this particular problem will be corrected before many more counties come on line. For Sacramento, a CalWIN translated form is not necessarily what you think. The Rus- sian translated forms are bi-lingual with both Russian and English. Unfortunately, the En- 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 9 – May 16, 2005 – Page 3 State Budget UPDATE On May 9, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger released his May Revise State Budget. This is the May revision to his January 10, 2005 pro- posed budget. The revised budget continues the unprece- dented attack on the poor by proposing to re- peal the CalWORKs COLA and reduce bene- fits by 6.5%. The Budget also includes the pro- posal to reduce the wages of IHSS providers down to minimum wage – a Schwarzenegger attack on the working poor. The Governor did delete his proposal to re- duce the earned income disregards for work- ing CalWORKS recipients. The Governor’s January budget assumed that the State Legislature would change the law to impose full family sanctions and save $12 mil- lion a year. The Governor now states that he will restore that money and wait for the Ad- ministration to …work with advocates, coun- ties, and the Legislature to develop a revised policy that better promotes personal respon- sibility and self-sufficiency. The Governor’s budget proposes to hold back 5% of the county allocations then give it back to those counties that meet certain outcomes in their employment programs. This was op- posed by counties. The Governor’s May re- vise also proposes to set aside $30 million for counties in the form of so-called Pay-for-Per- formance . Counties are sanctioning about 50% of the unduplicated participants in the Welfare to Work program, and often not pay- ing 50% of the participants transportation ser- vices. 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 glish part of the form contains important infor- mation to the client that is not repeated in Rus- sian. Sacramento County had a primary-Spanish speaking applicant for food stamps sign and receive a copy of the English language SAWS1 even though CalWIN showed his ap- plication on the computer to be in Spanish. Subsequently, he received English notices. Sacramento County had assured us that once Spanish or some other mandated language had been identified as the primary language of the client, notices would be issued only in that primary language. If you have questions or need assistance concerning CalWIN, let us know. Call Grace Galligher at CCWRO. County Client Abuse Report Ms. O.T of Sacramento County is dis- abled. On 5\/6\/05 she applied for CAPI, the State program for the elderly, blind and disabled. She is not client over 65 years old, thus, she applied as a dis- abled person. On the application she did clearly state that she was DISABLED. On her application she clearly stated that she did not speak English and re- quested forms in the Russian language. On May 11, 2005, she received a letter in English from her CAPI worker stat- ing, You are not age 65 or older, blind, or disabled. Needless to say, Ms. O.T. could not read the notice. Ms. O.T has filed for a state hearing to find out why the CAPI application was denied without even making a disability evaluation. ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 1 In This Issue In Brief Capital Report 2005-2006 State Budget News A Look at CAPI CWD Victim Report \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd recipient to pay in cash. \ufffd School Attendance Penalty and Inter County Transfer. On 11\/4\/04 Riverside County asked CDSS whether or not the school atten- dance penalty crosses county lines when the family transfers from one county to another. Charlotte Doisy of CDSS responded the next day that The school penalty is not transferred. School attendance at the new school must be verified in accordance with MPP 40-105.5. \ufffd Negative Actions During Annual Redeter- mination v. QR. On 10\/28\/04 a county asked whether or not the county can take negative action as a result of a annual redetermination (RD) that has negative consequences? CDSS responded that CWDs are encouraged to align the RD process with the FS recertification and the QR 7 data month. However, if the RD pro- cess date is established outside the QR data month, the county shall act mid-quarter on all information to increase, decrease, or discon- tinue cash aid as appropriate (MPP 40- 181.217) \ufffd CalWIN implementation. A number of coun- ties are planning to implement the new com- puter system known as CalWIN. Some of the counties have been planning to have a morato- rium on complying with the CalWORKs Imme- diate Need and Food Stamp Expedited Service statutes and regulation. Watch and see what your county is doing. \ufffd Stage 1 Child Care Cannot be Stopped for Failure to Pay Family Fees – Ventura County asked DSS if they could terminate Stage 1 child care to a family for failure to pay the family fees , which is a fee the fam- ily pays the child care provider. DSS re- sponded on 10\/22\/04 that Ventura County cannot terminated Stage 1 child care for failure to pay the family fee . See MPP 47.220. \ufffd CDSS States that Alcoholic Parent in the House Has to Watch Child – On No- vember 24, 2004, Imperial County asked DSS whether or not they could pay child care for a participant whose husband is an alcoholic and not able and available to pro- vide child care for her children. On 12\/2\/04 CDSS responded that as long as there is a husband in the house, then the spouse is not eligible for child care. \ufffd Rand Corporation to Study WtW Sanc- tions – One of the trailer bills last year re- quires DSS to examine its sanction policies and report to the budget committee on April 1, 2005. CDSS has contracted with RAND to do a survey. RAND has been talking to county staff of Los Angeles, Orange, Sac- ramento, San Diego, San Jouquin and Santa Clara. RAND has mailed out a ques- tionnaire to all 58 counties to gather infor- mation for this survey. The final report should be available 4\/1\/05. \ufffd Riverside County Not Able to Collect Overpayments Legally. On October 10, 2004 Riverside Country posed the follow- ing question to CDSS: Client has an overpayment. Riverside is on C4 system and cannot adjust her grant be- cause of computer glitches. Since her grant cannot be adjusted to accommodate the overpayment, Riverside wants her to pay back overpayment in cash. CDSS re- sponded that the … County cannot force In Brief \ufffd \ufffd CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 State Capital News The State Legislature is in full session. As the new legislative session starts, new committee assignments are un- veiled. Membership for Committees having ju- risdiction over welfare matters have been pub- lished. Senate Human Services Committee D-Simitian (Chair), (916) 445-6747 R-Maldonado (Vice-Chair) (916) 445-5843 R-Aanestad, (916) 445-3353 D-Alarcon, (916) 445-7928 D-Alquist, (916) 445-9740 D-Chesbro (916) 445-3375 D-Florez. (916) 445-4641 Consultants: Jack Hailey and Sue North. Assistant: Joy Traylor. Phone: (916)445-8741. Room 2195 Health and Human Services Subcommit- tee of the Assembly Budget Committee D-Hector De La Torre, Chair(916) 319-2050 R-Dave Cogdil (916) 319-2025 D-Loni Hancock (916) 319-2014 R- Rick Keene (916) 319-2003 D-Gene Mullin (916) 319-201 Staff: Christian Griffith (916) 319-2099 Room 6026 – christian.griffith@asm.ca.gov Assembly Human Services Committee D- Noreen Evans, Chair (916) 319-2007 R- Ray Haynes, Vice Chair(916) 319-2066 D- Joe Nation (916) 319-2006 D- Juan Arambula (916) 319-2031 D- Joe Coto (916) 319-2023 R-Todd SpitzerRep-71 (916) 319-2071 D- Karen Bass (916) 319-2047 Staff – Casey McKeever (916) 319-2089 2005-2006 State Budget News The 2005-2006 State budget launched an- other attack on California’s poor women with children. On January 12, 2005, the State leg- islative analyst released her preliminary analy- sis of the Governor’s budget. A more compre- hensive analysis will be forthcoming in Feb- ruary. While the budget denies COLA to CalWORKs families with children and proposes to reduce the benefits by 6.5%, the proposed budget includes a 3.39% COLA for education at the cost of $1.65 billion. The Governor has always supported educa- tion, however, his budget discriminates against poor kids by singling out CalWORKs for the biggest slash. See Figure #1 for more details. General Fund Spending by Major Program Area (Dollars in Millions) 2004-2005 Proposed for 2005-2006 Estimated Amount % of Change Education K-12 Prop- 98 $30,992 $33,117 6.9% CCC Prop. 98 3,036 3,321 9.4 UC\/CSU 5,212 5,413 3.9 Health & Welfare Medi-Cal $11,965 $12,948 8.2% CalWORKs 2,146 1,940 -9.6 SSI\/SSP 3,444 3,523 2.3 Other 7,988 8,297 3.9 Corrections $5,389 $7,014 1.2% BUDGET ACTIONS: At this time the Califor- nia Legislative leaders are planning to have budget hearings throughout the state. It is important that welfare recipients and their ad- vocates appear at these hearings and ques- tion the morality of denying COLA and cutting benefits for welfare parents and their kids who are now barely surviving on fixed incomes at 1990 levels. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2 – January 24 , 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 A Look At CAPI California Cash Assistance for Immigrants (CAPI) In 1998, led by then House Speaker Anto- nio Villaraigosa, the State Legislature enacted AB 2779. This bill contained Welfare and Insti- tution Code Section 18937, et.seq. which estab- lished the CAPI program. This section was enacted over the objections of the state welfare bureaucracy, thus, statisti- cal information is kept by the Department of Social Services to keep on eye on the program. This week we are looking at the CA 1037 reports which can be viewed at the CDSS web page: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/ CA1037-Cas_433.htm We looked at the latest report – November, 2004. The data shows that at the beginning of November 1, 2004, counties had 2,817 applica- tions that had not been acted upon. STATEWIDE 2,817 781 788 22% 4.6 218 28% 511 65% 2,844 Alameda 159 41 62 31% 3.2 12 19% 45 73% 140 Butte 2 0 2 100% 0 0% 2 100% 1 Contra Costa 28 17 14 31% 3.2 3 21% 9 64% 31 Fresno 24 12 18 50% 2.0 8 44% 9 50% 18 Imperial 3 2 4 80% 1.3 0 0% 4 100% 1 Kern 2 0 1 50% 2.0 0 0% 1 100% 1 Kings 0 1 0 0% 0 0 1 Lake 1 0 0 0% 0 0 1 Los Angeles 1,747 383 317 15% 6.7 94 30% 221 70% 1,813 Marin 4 1 1 20% 5.0 0 0% 1 100% 4 Merced 4 0 1 25% 4.0 0 0% 1 100% 3 Mono 0 1 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 Napa 5 0 0 0% 0 0 5 Orange 181 78 85 33% 3.0 12 14% 61 72% 178 Placer 4 1 1 20% 5.0 0 0% 1 100% 5 Riverside 11 1 9 75% 1.3 3 33% 5 56% 3 Sacramento 185 55 63 26% 3.8 22 35% 37 59% 186 San Benito 1 0 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 San Bernar. San Diego 49 13 17 27% 3.6 6 35% 9 53% 45 San Fran. 37 33 35 50% 2.0 12 34% 16 46% 35 San Joaquin 33 9 9 21% 4.7 2 22% 3 33% 41 San Luis Ob. 1 0 0 0% 0 0 1 San Mateo 62 20 25 30% 3.3 3 12% 19 76% 57 Santa Clara 210 69 91 33% 3.1 27 30% 53 58% 193 Solano 17 7 9 38% 2.7 3 33% 5 56% 15 Sonoma 3 1 2 50% 2.0 0 0% 1 50% 2 Stanislaus 13 5 6 33% 3.0 2 33% 3 50% 12 Sutter 2 1 0 0% 0 0 3 Tulare 0 5 5 100% 3 60% 1 20% 0 Ventura 9 21 4 13% 7.5 3 75% 0 0% 26 Yolo 11 4 5 33% 3.0 1 20% 4 80% 14 Yuba 1 0 0 0% 0 0 1 Apps from 10\/04 Apps Received in11\/04 November 2004 Data Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 This county simply refused to submit a state required report CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Ms. C.W. had an infant four (4) months old when she applied for CalWORKs and Immediate Need (IN) in Ventura County on Monday, November 1, 2004. During the screening process she was told that she needed to apply for a so- cial security number for the baby and she needed to produce the birth certifi- cate for the baby before anything could be done on her case. She told the county worker that the child was born in Orange County and she did not have the resources to get there. The worker was adamant – no birth certificate – no welfare. The county told her to come back on November 4, 2004. Ventura County refused to schedule her for an IN interview on November 2, 2004 as required by law. This is a violation of MPP 40-129.41 which states: If the applicant indicates on the initial application or the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) that the family has an emergency situation as defined in MPP 40- 129.13, the county shall conduct an Immediate Need interview no later than the next working day following the date the Immediate Need request is received. She was not given a notice of action denying her IN on November 1, 2004. Another violation of MPP 40-129.531 which states: The Immediate Need payment re- quest shall be denied and the appli- cant notified in writing in accordance with MPP 22-001a.(1). Where noti- During the month of November only 788 ap- plications were acted upon statewide. During the same month counties received 815 applications. Clearly counties are getting more applica- tions each month than they are able to process. At the end of the month counties had 2,844 cases that had not been acted upon. One of the reasons that counties can get away with only processing 22% of the cases dur- ing the month needing processing is that there are no deadlines for processing CAPI applica- tions. Those who oppose regulations and sup- port county flexibility should understand that there are human consequences when giving counties flexibility – people suffer due to county abuse of discretion. At the end of November, 2004 there were 2844 applications remaining to be processed. Counties are processing about 700-800 cases a month. At this rate is takes over four (4) months to process an application statewide. Meanwhile the elderly, disabled and blind suffer because of the State of California’s refusal to do their job- provide CAPI benefits to those entitled to such benefits. During November, 2004, about 28% of the applications for CAPI were approved, while a whopping 65% were denied. This is a high de- nial rate. The highest caseload is in Los Angeles County. This county approved 30 of the appli- cation while denying 70%. The five (5) major counties with CAPI cases are Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Orange, Sacra- mento and Alameda Counties. The Table on page 3 provides more details based upon the 11\/ 04 CA 1037 published by CDSS SENIORS, THE BLIND AND DIS- ABLED NEED LEGISLATION: There is a need for legislation that provides CAPI applications be pro- cessed in 30 days and 60 days for disability cases. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 5 fication is hand-delivered, a new Im- mediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) shall also be given to the applicant. Ms. C.W. rescheduled the 11\/4\/04 ap- pointment for 11\/9\/04 because she did not have the birth certificate demanded by Ventura County. She was able to get a ride to Orange County from a relative to wanted money for the ride and had to borrow $18 to pay for the birth certifi- cate. The county never told her that they would have paid for her third party fees in accordance with MPP 40-126.32. On November 9th Ms. C.W gave the county the birth certificate and proof of application for a social security number for her newborn. On November 9, 2004 she received a $200 IN payment. She told the county she broke up with the father of the child in October, 2004. She also told them that she was look- ing for work, however, the only time she could look for work was when the fa- ther could babysit. Father spending time with baby–fire- works erupted. How dare the father visit the baby. So a welfare fraud investiga- tion was launched. The case was re- ferred to the Ventura County District Attorney’s (DA) office. Father visiting and watching baby, something has got to be fishy here. The DA investigator came to her house and found no clothing belonging to the absent parent and no absent parent liv- ing there. The DA investigator then went to the absent parent’s workplace to in- terview him. The absent parent told the DA investigator that he does not live with Ms. C.W. The DA investigator also visited Ms. C.W. pastor to find out if the pastor re- ally loaned money to Ms. C.W. to pay for the rent. The absent parent attends the same church that Ms. C.W. does. Now that looks real fishy. How can two people who are separated be going to the same church? Finally, the pastor told the investigator that the absent parent and C.W. had talked to him about marital counseling during July and August. The DA investi- gator recommended that the case be denied because it was an intact family. The county admits that he does not live with her, but they do go to the same church and they have talked about rec- onciliation, thus it must be an intact fam- ily. During middle of December Ms. C.W. received a denial because the absent parent was not absent. This was a nice Christmas present from Ventura County – application denied. Ventura County, broke another welfare law in this case. MPP 40-129.91 pro- vides: When an Immediate Need payment has been issued, the county shall verify the applicant’s eligibility for aid within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the Immediate Need payment request. The IN was requested on 11\/1\/04 and by law the county was supposed to act on the application no later than Novem- ber 22, 2004, not mid December of 2004. This victim has filed for a fair hearing. Stay tune. ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd Kelly Blue Book and DMV Val- ues – On March 17, 2005, Kris Wallace of Solano County asked the following ques- tion of DSS: If we have a Blue Book and DMV value are we permitted to use DMV values instead of Blue book? DMV values are usually less & can make a difference sometimes in whether a family is eligible or not. Rosie Avena of DSS responded as follows: If your county had made the decision to use that specific resource to determine the value of vehicles, then the county must con- tinue to use that specific resource on all de- terminations for the value of vehicles. CCWRO COMMENT: There is no state reg- ulation supporting the DSS rule that once the county elects to use Kelly Blue Book, it cannot switch to DMV valuation. MPP 63- 501.511 states that the county shall make the value determination based upon the value listed in publications written for this purpose. Publications is plural. MPP 63- 501.511 states: 63-501.511 The fair market value of automobiles, trucks and vans shall be determined by the value of those vehicles as listed in publications written for the purpose of providing guidance to automobile dealers and loan companies. Publications listing the value of vehicles are usually referred to as blue books . The CWD shall insure that the blue book used to determine the value of vehicles has been updated within the last six months. The CWD shall assign the wholesale value to vehicles. \ufffd Family Illegally Denied Home- less Assistance – On March 7, 2005, Lin- da Shoutz of Tehema County asked DSS whether or not a family who became home- less because of domestic abuse is eligible for Homeless Assistance if the mother is homeless and still staying with the abuser? \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CCCCCalWIN UalWIN UalWIN UalWIN UalWIN Updatpdatpdatpdatpdateeeee \ufffd County Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse Report \ufffd Statute of Limitations forStatute of Limitations forStatute of Limitations forStatute of Limitations forStatute of Limitations for CalWORKs OverpaymentsCalWORKs OverpaymentsCalWORKs OverpaymentsCalWORKs OverpaymentsCalWORKs Overpayments Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 10, June 1, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS CDSS answered that the family is not eligible for Homeless Assistance Exception because the mother is living with the abuser. CCWRO COMMENT: This is another un- derground rule by DSS. There is nothing in 44- 211.54 that provides homeless exception shall be denied if the victim of domestic abuse is re- mains with the abuser. The regulations define the exception to be families who become home- less due to domestic abuse. If the family be- comes homeless due to domestic abuse, they are eligible for homeless assistance, even if they are or are not living with the abuser. \ufffd Treatment of Welfare Benefits from Other States – On March 4, 2005, Scott Dilard of San Francisco County Welfare Department asked DSS how to treat welfare benefits re- ceived by an applicant from another state. DSS responded that MPP 44-101(a) provides that the welfare benefits shall be counted as unearned income for the month of application. CCWRO COMMENT: The practice for years has been to prorate welfare benefits from the other state, then pay the difference. For exam- ple: If a person received $300 in aid from Ala- bama in May and then applies for aid in Califor- nia on 5\/15\/05, where she is eligible for $900 a month, the new county will divide the $300 Ala- bama aid by 30 and multiply it by 15, which is $150. The family will be eligible for $450 in ben- efits from California. Thus, the May grant would be $450 minus $140, which is $300. Under the DSS underground rule scenario the family would receive $150. mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 10 – June 1, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 1234567890123456789012345678 \ufffd Los Angeles County IEVS Report – On March 15, 2005, Teena Arneson of the DSS Fraud Bureau mailed a letter to LADPSS regarding the results of DSS’s monitoring of the County’s Integrated Earning Verification System (IEVS). The report reveals that as of July, 2004, there were 33,630 CalWORKs claims and 25,009 Food Stamp claim back- loged in Los Angeles County. The report also revealed that Los Angeles County is mailing out unlawful repayment no- tices to active food stamp cases in violation of MPP 63-801.431A. The notices fail to explain what caused the overpayments and how they were computed. OVERPAYMENT FILE RETRIEVAL PROB- LEM – The report also notes that L.A. County often loses fair hearings on overpayments be- cause they do not have the case file. L.A. case files are kept by File Keeper Incorporated . The county is not able to retrieve the cases because retrieving cases costs money. The IEVS reports are done by consultants. DPSS is training employees to also complete these reports. The report also states that (checks and) ..balances are done on the data for accuracy by launching the data using a program called Cool Ice into an access da- tabase. FNS SUPPORTS STATE COUNTY TRAVEL CLAIMS According to letter from U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Nutrition Services (FNS), af- ter all of the federal money that the state and counties get for administering the Food Stamp program, they are able to get more money from FNS under the State Exchange Program (SEP) designed to give state and county food stamp bureaucrats money to travel. Accord- ing to the documents secuted by CCWRO fif- teen large counties applied for travel money. CDSS asked for $63,075 for a statewide Food Stamp Program conference in Monterey. California DSS asked for $213,000 for 2004- 2005, but FNS in a 3\/28\/05 letter informed DSS that this request was half of the entire allocation for the FNS Western Region. FNS approved funding for government meetings, such as: \ufffdBig 10 States Meeting in New York City – $1,255; \ufffdNPMC meeting in Monterey, California- $7,110; \ufffdBig 10 States Meeting in Washington D.C. City -$3,000; \ufffdStatewide Food Stamp Conference for Counties in August-September of 2005 – $25,000; \ufffdFresno County welfare worker travel to Olympia, Washington regarding waivers and on-line FSP application process – $2,000; \ufffdSacramento County welfare worker travel to Riverside to review quality assurance – $750; \ufffdSanta Clara welfare worker travel to San Bernardino County – $590; \ufffdSan Bernardino County welfare worker trav- el to Orange County – $80; \ufffdSan Diego County welfare worker travel to Orange County – $80. All travel for state and county welfare work- ers funded by FNS added up to $61,471. County Client Abuse Report \u232b George was in a hit and run accident in 1987. As a result, he was forced to rely on SSDI and SSI for income. George is now 68 and tries to aid his wife, Martha, who suffered a stroke and is paralyzed. In 2004, SSA be- came convinced that George had resources beyond the SSI limit since his family owns a vineyard in Placer County. SSA can’t prove 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 25 – June 1, 2005 – Page 3 excess resources since George’s name is no- where on the property records or business records. Still, SSA terminated the SSI bene- fits and George filed for reconsideration. Fast forward to April 15, 2005. Sacramento County has a super duper computer that does everything except issue benefits or meaning- ful and adequate notices of action. You see, on April 15, 2005, while George was in the hospital for a serious illness, and his wife need- ed supportive services and medication to keep her alive, CalWIN issued a notice discontinu- ing George and Martha’s Medi-Cal benefits effective May 1, 2005. One might think the discontinuance was because of the alleged ex- cess resources that SSA believes to exist. Nope. CalWIN’s reason for discontinuance \”undetermined reasons.\” CalWIN strikes again. \u232b In Sacramento County Mr. A.A. applied for CalWORKs and had a face-to-face interview on 5\/17\/05 @ 8:30. Mr. and Mrs. A.A. kept their appointment and turned in all required documents. On 5\/18\/05 the A.A. family received a notice of action al- leging that they failed to keep their appoint- ment and suggested they reschedule the ap- pointment they had already kept. \u232b Ms. Z.N ‘s baby was born on 3\/3\/05 in Sac- ramento County. She reported the birth to her welfare worker on 3\/16\/05. She was hoping to get a Medi-Cal card to get the necessary health care for her baby such as vaccinations, etc. She called her worker two to three times a week, but no answer. She even called his su- pervisor, who also failed to return her call. Af- ter 63 days of waiting for a Medi-Cal card she finally requested a fair hearing. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CALWORKS OVERPAYMENTS by Grace Galligher & Steve Godlberg It is not unusual to have a person ap- pear at a local legal services office with a demand for overpayment or a tax in- tercept for an overpayment that hap- pened years ago. This article examines the propriety of the county’s attempt to recoup overpayments or initiate tax intercepts for overpayments that are barred by the three-year statute of limita- tions of California Code of Civil Procedure 338(a) and (d). Code Civ. Proc. 338(a) creates a three-year statute of limitations for an action upon a li- ability created by statute . . . California courts have consistently held that actions to recoup welfare benefits are created by statute and governed by the three-year limitations period in Code Civ. Proc. 338(a). (County of Santa Cruz v. McLeod (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 222, 229; Amie v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 421, 421- 427 [holding that action for recoupment of AFDC benefits from child support is governed by 3 year statute of limi- tations of Code Civ. Proc. 338(a)]; County of San Mateo v. Booth (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 388, 398-401 [same as Amie]; City and County of San Francisco v. Thompson (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 652, 658 [same as Amie].) In Amie, id., the court made clear that all at- tempts to recover welfare benefits are gov- erned by the 3 year limitations period. The court stated that The Legislature has decided that a limitations period of three years . . . is a reasonable length of time to allow for an ac- tion by a county to recover the cost of various welfare benefits, where such recovery is au- thorized by statute. (Amie, id. at 427.) mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-10 – June 1, 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Recovery of AFDC benefits is authorized by Welf. & Inst. Code 11004. State Depart- ment of Social Services Eligibility Assistance Standards (EAS) Section 44-350.16 states that The county shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct and collect any overpayments that are known to the county including recovery of overpayments due to either applicant\/recipient and\/or county admin- istrative errors EAS 44-350.2(i) defines the month of dis- covery of the overpayment, which is when the three-year clock start: 44-350.2(i) Month of Discovery – The month of discovery is the month in which the county obtained, or could have obtained by taking prompt action, information sufficient to support a de- termination both that an overpayment occurred and the amount of such over- payment. Most overpayment are a result of unreported income. Each quarter the county receives re- ports under EAS 20-006 setting forth unre- ported income from various data basis. EAS 20-206.121 provides: The databases used in the ongoing IEVS match include, but are not lim- ited to: (a) Wage information from the State Wage Information Collection Agency; (b) Unemployment\/disability compen- sation benefits from the agencies ad- ministering those programs; (c) Benefits\/pensions\/wage informa- tion from the Social Security Adminis- tration (SSA); (d) Internal Revenue Service (IRS)\/ Franchise Tax Board (FTB) unearned income data; (e) Social Security number (SSN) veri- fication information from SSA; and (f) Inter\/intra-county duplicate benefit matches. When the county receives information indicat- ing an overpayment, the county has the min- isterial duty to act upon this information. EAS 20-206.42 and .424 provide that the county has 45 days from the date that they are noti- fied of the discreptancy to take action to re- cover the overpayment. 20-206.42 The CWD shall, within the time frames prescribed by federal rule (See Handbook Section 20-006.424), complete a case action or document in the case record that no case action is necessary. 20-206.424 Current federal rules pre- scribe that action may be delayed be- yond the 45-day time frame on no more than 20 percent of the IEVS case matches. This statutory authorization and the fact that the county has a ministerial duty to make an overpayment determination as soon as pos- sible mandates the imposition of the three-year statute of limitations in Code Civ. Proc. 338(a) from the date that the county had or could have had all of the information to make a determination of the overpayment. FRAUD OR COUNTY MISTAKE IS SUBJECT TO CC 338 PROVISIONS County may contend that this action involves fraud or mistake and therefore the three-year statute of limitations of Code Civ. Proc. 338(a) does not apply. However, even in the case of fraud or mistake, a three-year limita- tions period applies. Code Civ. Proc. 338(d) creates a three-year statute of limitations for 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-10- June 1 – Page 5 actions involving fraud or mistake. Code Civ. Proc. 338(d) is an alternative reason for applying a three-year statute of limitations to attempts to recoup welfare benefits. (McLeod, supra at pp. 229-235.) That limitations period begins running upon discovery of the fraud or mistake. (Id.) EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF LATCHES The other bar to collecting an overpayment or imposing a tax intercept is the equitable doc- trine of latches. The equitable doctrine of latches requires ad- ministrative agencies to diligently pursue ac- tions. (Brown v. State Personnel Board (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1158-1162; accord Rob- ert F.Kennedy Medical Center v. Belshe (1996) 13 Cal.4th 748,760 n.9.; Steen v. City of Los Angeles (1948) 31 Cal.2d 542, 546-547; Gates v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 921, 924-926.) The latches doctrine is designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. (Lam v. Bureau of Security and Investigation Services (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 29,35.) The doctrine applies to actions taken by adminis- trative agencies. (Brown, id., Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center, supra., Steen, id., Gates, id.) The latches defense can be raised in administrative proceedings. (See Lentz v. McMahon (1989) 49 Cal.3d 393 [holding that Department of Social Services Administrative Law Judges must rule on equitable defenses]; McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Contro Board (1989) 49 Cal.3d 348 [holding that adminis- trative law judges can decide equitable is- sues].) Whether a delay in prosecuting an action constitutes latches is determined by prejudice suffered by the target of the action. Due to the lengthy passage of time, witnesses will be difficult to locate, memories will have faded and relevant records may have been lost or destroyed. These problems in defending a claim that deals with a period that extends to at a mini- mum three or more years certainly constitute prejudice. This prejudice mandates the dis- missal of the tax intercept or overpayment collection action under the doctrine of latches. 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, In- formational 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 916-712-0071 mailto:info@childcarelaw.org ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd State Hearings Digest News – State law requires that DSS publish a state hear- ing digest. Our sources inform us that DSS is working on a process to publish all hear- ing decisions on the DSS internet web page. It is hoped that this information will be available to the public sometime in Septem- ber, 2005. \ufffd L.A. County finds high rent equals fraud – On March 21, 2005, Frances Godoy of LADPPS asked DSS What state regula- tion can be quoted that limits participant’s rent\/mortgage payments to less than 80% of MAP on a regular CalWORKs case and if it is over that amount, where does it state that the case warrants a fraud referral. On 3\/23\/05 Rosie Avena of DSS respond- ed that There is no regulation which states that if the rent amount is over 80% of the MAP level that it warrants a fraud refer- ral… CCWRO Comment: Revise the MAP . \ufffd Treatment of Paid Family Leave In- come On January 3, 2005, Sylvia Valencia of Los Angeles County DPSS asked how is Paid Family Leave payments treated and suggested that it should be treated as non- earned income that is deducted from the MAP dollar for dollar. DSS Response: On 1\/6\/05 DSS responded that the Paid Family Leave is administered by the State Disability section of EDD, thus, pursuant to MPP 44-111.23 the $225 disre- gard applies as it is considered disability in- come. 4 Treatment of Child Income under 18 attending college- On 1\/12\/05, Lori Lady of Tulare County asked DSS, We have a child that graduated school at 16 and is now attending college full time. He works for IHSS for 102 hours a month. There might be a period of time where he wasn’t a full time student. If he wasn’t a full time stu- \ufffd In Brief \ufffd Washington Report \ufffd State Capital Update \ufffd SB 539-BADBADBADBADBAD Child Care Bill \ufffd County Client Abuse Report \ufffd Statistical Analysis- WtW Sanctions Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 11, June 20, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS dent, would his income be non exempt during this time frame? What if a child isn’t going to school full time but working 102 hours, is it exempt? DSS Response: School attendance is defined as attendance in a school, college, university, or in a course of vocational or technical train- ing designed to fit the child for gainful employ- ment. MPP 44-111.222. An individual who is 16, 17 or 18 years of age and is enrolled or plan- ning to enrol in a postsecondary education, vo- cational, or technical school training program, it is exempt from welfare-to-work participation MPP 42-712.422. \ufffd In-Kind Income-Homeowner’s Associa- tion Fee (HOA fee) – Charlotte Rutkowska of Orange County asked DSS if the CalWORKs re- cipient is paying the HOA fee and somebody not a member of the assistance unit is paying the mortgage payment, is HOA fees considered housing costs for the purposes of in-kind in- come. DSS Response: HOA fees are not part of the housing need. The CalWORKs regulations do not give an allowance for rent, mortgage ( un- less it is partial item of need) or HOA fee. The free housing is in-kind income based on the amount listed in MPP 44-115.311(a) CCWRO COMMENT: This is an underground regulation. Failure to pay the HOA fee can re- sult in foreclosure, thus, it is a housing cost. \ufffd SSA and Children – The latest data avail- able from 2002 U.S. Census Bureau show that 5.3 million children live with families receiving SSA benefits. The data also reveals that over one million children under 18 years of age overcame poverty by receiving social security benefits. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 11 – June 20, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 \ufffd May revised budget proposed a new Pay for Performance program to give counties another $30 million on top of what they are already getting. The Senate and the Assembly also adopted the county welfare directors’ language requiring that the state work with counties to develop standards for getting the money and allowing counties to spend 25% of the money on families up to 200% of the poverty level. It is unclear as to how the 75% can be spent. But if history is a lesson, in the past, county welfare directors used this windfall money to fund their pet projects that had nothing to do with meeting the basic survival needs of poor families. Another $30 million handed to welfare bureaucrats while CalWORKs families with children live on the same benefits levels of 1990. \ufffd The Governor ‘s child care reforms, including the proposal to time limit Stage 3 was rejected. Stage 3 is child care progam for low-income families with children and former CalWORKs recipients who are no longer on CalWORKs; \ufffd The Governors proposal to roll back state participation in IHSS wages to the minimum wage was rejected; A conference committee was appointed. Senate Budget Conferees are: Senators Wesley Chesbro (Senate Budget Committee Chair), Denise Ducheny (Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 3 Chair), and Dennis Hollingsworth (Senate Budget Committee Vice-Chair). The Assembly Budget Conferees are: Assembly Members John Laird (Assembly Budget Committee Chair), Judy Chu (Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair), and Rick Keene (Assembly Budget Committee Vice-Chair). The only major issue for the conference was the SSP and CalWORKs COLA. The senate fully funded the COLAs, but the Assembly did not. The handwriting was on the wall when Speaker Fabian Nunez revealed an alternative budget that did not fund the SSP or CalWORKs COLAs. On June 10 the 2005-2006 budget conference WASHINGTON REPORT \ufffd The House and Senate Republicans conferees have reached an agreement on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 spending plan. The plan, over a five (5) peri- od, will increase the deficit by $168 billion tak- ing $173 billion away from entitlements for the poor and domestic discretionary programs and increasing spending for defense and in- ternational aid by $198.7 billion and $106.2 bil- lion in tax cuts mostly for the rich. \ufffd At an April 29, 2005 press conference House Ways and Means Committee chairman announced that he would propose social se- curity benefit reductions and tax cuts in the same bill. In a 5\/6\/05 publication Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Poli- cy Priorities wondered if the House Social Se- curity bill become a vehicle for budget-bust- ing tax cuts. \ufffd Congress is busy with judges and fund- raising. TANF has not been scheduled for con- sideration yet. State Capitol Update The Governor ‘s revised budget was considered by the Assembly Health and Human Services Subcommittee and the Senate Health and Human Services Subcommittee during May of 2005. \ufffd Counties did not spend $50 million in 2004-2005. Counties proposed that this money be carried forward to spend in 2005-2006. Counties could have proposed to use this money to give CalWORKs families with needy children a COLA, but failed to do so. Both the Senate and the Assembly rolled forward into the budget year 2005-2006 $50 million unspent money of 2004-2005. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 11 – June 20, 2005 – Page 3 committee voted to suspend the CalWORKs COLA for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This is a devastating blow to poor families of California. SB 539- Asburn (R) Bad bill moved to the Assembly. SB 539, is another vicious attack on welfare families, this time coming from the child care industry. SB 539 would require all child care providers to be trustlined, which means that the poten- tial child care provider must have their past criminal record checked out. The child care industry gets paid every time they do a trust- line. The process takes from one to two months. SB 538 proposes that child care pay- ments will begin from the date that the pro- vider’s trustline was cleared. Currently, many exempt providers are not trustlined. If SB 539 becomes law, many families will not be able to secure child care in order to accept employ- ment because the process of clearing their pro- viders would take too long. For example; a mother has accepted a job which begins to- morrow. Her sister has agreed to provide child care for her four year old. Because this pro- vider must wait up to two months to be trus- lined, the mother has to turn down the job of- fer due to no chidl care. This bill is sponsored by the education and child care industry and it is so far opposed only by the Child Care Center and CCWRO. ACTION NEEDED: We need letters of OP- POSITION to this ill conceived bill. Please complete the information below and e-mail or mail or fax to 916-736-2645 it to us. I\/we OPPOSE SB 539 Name_____________________________ Organization_______________________ Address___________________________ City__________________ZIP________ 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 County Client Abuse Report \ufffd – VICTIM #1 – Ms. S.V. and her two chil- dren, ages 3 and 6, were receiving CalWORKs from Siskiyou County. On 5\/6\/05, due to a trag- edy in her family, her family moved to Yolo County. On 5\/9\/05 she made a long distance phone call to Siskiyou County informing them that she had moved to Yolo County. She gave her worker, Roger Conroy, her Yolo County ad- dress. She also asked Mr. Conroy if she could have Medi-Cal cards for her family. On 5\/18\/ 05 Mr. Conroy mailed the Medi-Cal cards to her Yolo County address. On 5\/23\/05, she appeared at the Yolo County welfare office to report that she was now liv- ing in Yolo County. Yolo County scheduled her for an intercounty appointment in June of 2005. On 5\/27\/05 she received a notice of action from Siskiyou County Welfare Worker Roger Conroy alleging that because he did not know were she was living, he was terminating the benefits for the S.V. family – whereabouts un- known. Since getting this notice Ms. S.V. has left four messages for Mr. Conroy, but Mr. Conroy has not returned her repeated calls. On 6\/2\/05 she talked to Ms. Jennings, anoth- er county welfare worker, who stated that Ms. S.V. was lying in that she never told the coun- ty that she had moved to Yolo County. It appears the county is lying because the no- tice of action she received in late May was addressed to the Yolo County address that Ms. S.V. gave to Mr. Conroy. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-11 – June 20, 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 \ufffd – VICTIM #2 – Ms. M. of Los Angeles County received a notice of action on May 26, 2005 stating that effective July 1, 2005, she would be sanctioned because she failed to keep her May 14, 2005 appointment with the GAIN office. Los Angeles County call their Welfare to Work pro- gram GAIN. Los An- geles County is a very efficient GAIN sanc- tion machine. Accord- ing to county statisti- cal reports during February of 2005, Los Angeles County had 27,886 unduplicated participants and they sanctioned 22,190 – an eighty percent sanction rate. How are they able to achieve this high sanction rate? Just look at what happened to Ms. M. who was scheduled for a GAIN appointment on May 14, 2005 – a Saturday. When she went there the county was closed. She told the county that she was scheduled for the wrong day but they still initiated the sanction which is the primary purpose of the GAIN program. \ufffd – VICTIM #3 – Mr. A. of Sacramento ap- plied for welfare and had a face-to-face inter- view on 5\/16\/05. On 6\/6\/05 Mr. A. received a notice of action stating that his family’s appli- cation had been denied because he and his wife failed to keep their 5\/16\/05 face-to-face appointment. Statistic of the week February 2005 WtW Sanction Report The WtW sanction machine continues to per- form at it’s usual rate – 48% of the unduplicat- ed WtW participants were sanctioned in Feb- ruary of 2005, while a meager 3% found jobs that resulted in termination of CalWORKs ben- efits. Los Angeles County had 27.889 persons who participated in the WtW program during February of 2005. According to the WtW 25 and WtW 25A reports published on the inter- net, Los Angeles County was successful in sanctioning 22,193 unduplicated participants. The purpose of the WtW program is to assist participants to become self-sufficient. Los An- geles County reported that during February of 2005 they were able to get 171 participants a job that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits. Los Angeles County has about 1,000 GAIN workers. This means it took about 6 workers to find on GAIN participant a job that yielded enough income to terminate Cal- WORKs. On the other hand each worker was bale to sanction 22 participant. Another high sanction county is Fresno, leading the way with a whopping 95% sanc- tion rate. The data show that during February of 2005 Fresno County had 5,635 unduplicat- ed participants and during the same month they sanctioned 5,345 participants. Several counties failed to meet their reporting requirements. Counties continuously talk about responsibility , but many do not prac- Los Angeles County has about 1,000 GAIN workers. This means it took about 6 work- ers to find on GAIN participant a job that yielded enough income to terminate Cal- WORKs. On the other hand each worker was bale to sanction 22 participant. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-11- June 20 – Page 5 Alameda 32.87% Alpine 0.00% Amador 97.62% Butte 17.27% Calaveras 50.00% Colusa 80.00% Contra Costa34.26% Del Norte 12.97% El Dorado 20.86% Fresno 94.85% Glenn 48.94% Humboldt 47.72% Imperial 2.56% Inyo 37.84% Kern 37.73% Kings 37.79% Lake 31.59% Lassen 35.51% Los Angeles 79.58% Madera 30.99% Marin 49.35% Mariposa 28.99% Mendocino 34.96% Merced 44.18% Modoc 2.33% Mono 11.11% Monterey 52.80% Napa 60.68% Nevada 28.28% Orange 21.90% Placer No Rprt Plumas 73.91% Riverside 40.32% Sacramento 3.24% San Benito No Rprt San Bern. No Rprt San Diego 62.39% San Fran. 21.97% San Joaquin 32.29% San Luis Ob. 73.35% San Mateo 37.98% Santa Barbara 42.00% Santa Clara 25.33% Santa Cruz 33.28% Shasta 62.82% Sierra 5.26% Siskiyou 33.51% Solano 20.38% Sonoma 71.54% Stanislaus 44.79% Sutter 25.43% Tehama 50.13% Trinity 15.00% Tulare 46.62% Tuolumne 12.04% Ventura 19.28% Yolo 44.05% Yuba 13.46% Statewide 48.19% Statewide 48.19% 1 Amador 97.62% 2 Fresno 94.85% 3 Colusa 80.00% 4 Los Angeles 79.58% 5 Plumas 73.91% 6 San Luis Obispo73.35% 7 Sonoma 71.54% 8 Shasta 62.82% 9 San Diego 62.39% 10 Napa 60.68% Monterey 52.80% Tehama 50.13% Calaveras 50.00% Marin 49.35% Glenn 48.94% Humboldt 47.72% Tulare 46.62% Stanislaus 44.79% Merced 44.18% Yolo 44.05% Santa Barbara 42.00% Riverside 40.32% San Mateo 37.98% Inyo 37.84% Kings 37.79% Kern 37.73% Lassen 35.51% Mendocino 34.96% Contra Costa 34.26% Siskiyou 33.51% Santa Cruz 33.28% Alameda 32.87% San Joaquin 32.29% Lake 31.59% Madera 30.99% Mariposa 28.99% Nevada 28.28% Sutter 25.43% Santa Clara 25.33% San Francisco 21.97% Orange 21.90% El Dorado 20.86% Solano 20.38% Ventura 19.28% Butte 17.27% Trinity 15.00% Yuba 13.46% Del Norte 12.97% Tuolumne 12.04% Mono 11.11% Sierra 5.26% Sacramento 3.24% Imperial 2.56% Modoc 2.33% Alpine 0.00% Placer No Rprt San Benito No Rprt San Bernardino No Rprt February, 2005 Percentage of Sanctions County-By- County February, 2005 Percentage of Sanctions Sorted County-By- County tice what they preach. During December of 2004, 15,015 families lost their benefits and had a horrible Christmas because they alleg- edly did not submit their income reports. Placer County terminated 54 families, San Benito County terminated 21 families and San Ber- nardino County terminated 808 families. Yet these same counties refused to submit man- dated WtW25 and WtW25A reports to the State of California. These counties continued to get money from the State of California even though they failed to file a state mandated re- ports. Table A below show the percentage of un- duplicated participants who were sanctioned in each county based on the DSS reports WtW 25 and WtW 25 A during February of 2005. Table A Table b These reports are based upon individual re- ports received by the State Department of Social Services every month. Table B reveals the highest sanction rates in California. ADVOCACY TIPS: Whenever you see a person whose grant has been reduced due to a sanction, no matter how long, always file for a fair hearing. There is a good chance that the notice of action imposing the sanction is defective, thus, the 90 day limit for a fair hear- ing does not apply. Often the county will settle the case. If the case cannot be resolved in a fair hearing, then it can be litigated. CCWRO is working on sanction litigation. ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd Non-citizen Eligibility – On 3\/9\/05, Cindy Uetz of Kern County submitted a request for regulation interpretation. Mother and child are applying for Cal- WORKs. They are both noncitizens. The mother refuses to provide spon- sorship information. Is the whole case ineligible? Is the child eligible? DSS Answer: The entire case would be ineligible because the sponsor in- come and resources are needed to determine eli- gibility and payment amount. CCWRO COMMENT: This response assumes that all noncitizens have a sponsor, which is false. MPP 43-119.12 lists a host of noncitizens to whom deeming of sponsored income does not apply. \ufffd 17 year-old child can receive WtW supportive services – On 3\/24\/05 Nevada County asked DSS whether a 17 year- old child who finished high school and is attending trade school can get supportive services. Leydis Church answered that the minor child can volun- teer and participate in WtW and will have to sign a WtW contract, which will yield supportive service payments that are nec- essary to attend the traded school. \ufffd In Brief \ufffd TANF Update \ufffd SB 539-BADBADBADBADBAD Child Care Bill \ufffd County Client Abuse Report \ufffd Statistic of the Week-Food Stamp Expedited Service Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 12, July 5, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS \ufffd Alleged 1993 overpayment discovered in 2001. County wants to collect in 2005 – On 4\/5\/05, San Francisco County welfare offi- cial, Joyce Bosc asked DSS whether an SSI lump sum income, received in 8\/93, not reported then discovered on 5\/10\/05, can be an overpayment based on a 12\/21\/04 NOA? On 4\/8\/05 Dorothy Sand- ers informed San Francisco that MPP 44-133.21 and 82-832.1(e) excludes SSI re- cipients from CalWORKs AU and therefore not counted for the AU. \ufffdBob Campbell Leaves the State for Santa Clara County – More and more state employees are now working for the counties because counties pay more than the State. Bob Camp- bell, who worked for Legal Affairs at DSS for many years and then started working for Department of Finance has left for Santa Clara County as Deputy County Counsel with a big raise in pay. A number of DSS employees like have become county welfare di- rectors and have doubled their salaries. Balderas Reminder – QR 7 – On 3\/29\/05, Bonnie Campbell of River- side County asked DSS: QUESTION: Are counties required to send Balderas reminders when QR 7s are received incomplete and sub- sequently sent back on 960Y letter? ANSWER: When an incomplete QR 7 is received by the CWD, the client is sent the discontinuance NOA (NOA 960Y QR) in accordance with MPP 40-181.221(a). The CWD shall attempt a personal contact if the QR 7 is not returned. If a personal con- tact is not made, the Balderas re- minder is sent no later than 5 days prior to the last day of the report month (MPP 40-181.221(b). CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 12 – July 5, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 6. S.321 – Child Support Distribution Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) 7. S.141- To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to allow up to 24 months of vocational educational training to be count- ed as a work activity under the temporary as- sistance to… (Introduced in Senate) 8. S.1161 – To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to exempt preparation for high-skill, high-demand jobs from participation and time limits under the temporary assistance for needy… (Introduced in Senate) 9. H.R.2349 – Creating Access to Rides Act (Introduced in House) 10. S.667 – PRIDE Act (Placed on Calendar in Senate) 11. S.458 – Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) 12 . S.6- MORE Act (Introduced in Senate) 13. H.R.1704 – Second Chance Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) 14. H.R.2071 – FamilyCare Act of 2005 (In- troduced in House) 16. H.R.3010 – Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Re- lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (En- grossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) 17. S.1225 – Access to Affordable Health Care Act (Introduced in Senate) TANF UPDATE This week both the House and Senate passed a three-month extension of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This is the ninth exten- sion of the TANF authorization. In addition to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the legislation (H.R. 3021) extends the authorization for the 10 percent transfer to Social Services Block Grant, supplemental grants to states, the TANF con- tingency fund, the Child Care and Develop- ment Block Grant, Transitional Medical Assis- tance (TMA), Abstinence Education Grants, Grants to the territories, and child welfare waiver authority through September 30, 2005. And now with an opening or maybe two open- ings on the Supreme Court, it looks like ex- tensions will continue. 2005 TANF-RELATED BILLS IN CONGRESS 1. S.923- TANF Financial Education Promo- tion Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) 2. H.R.751 – Work, Family, and Opportunity Promotion Act (Introduced in House) 3. H.R.3021 – TANF Extension Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) 4. H.R.240- Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) 5. S.105. – Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 11 – July 5, 2005 – Page 3 tion of State, County and Municipal Employ- ees (AFSCME)l Child Care Law Center; Coa- lition of California Welfare Rights Organiza- tions; National Center for Youth Law; Service Employees International Union; Sonoma County Child Care Association and Western Center on Law and Poverty. Supporters of SB 539 alleged that the bill would protect children by denying child care providers their $2-$3\/ hour for their child care services until they were trustlined by the gov- ernment. Supporters of SB 539 refused to entertain amendments that would require the county to verify that the WtW participant has trustlined child care before being forced to participate in the WtW which would certainly protect chil- dren, but they were not really interested in pro- tecting children. The supporters of SB 539 were only interested in not paying child care providers for their hard work up until they were trustlined, which according to witnesses could take days, months or up to a year. The testimony at the hearing re- vealed that 83% of trustline checks found no criminal records. Of the 17% where criminal records were found, only 1 percent were crimes related to children. The Ashburn Bill would punish 99% of provid- ers to insure that the 1% with criminal back- grounds are not paid for their work. After ex- tensive testimony the committee decided to hold the bill in Committee. Later, Assembly- man Spitzer requested reconsideration and moved the bill. The bill had two yea votes and SB 539 was defeated. G o o d N e w s SB 539 Ashburn DEAD SB 539, authored by Republican Senator Roy Ashburn of Kern County, died in the Assembly Human Services Committee. This was one of the worst bills of 2005. Trustline is a process whereby government does crimina background checks on child care providers. Those with child-related crime records are denied trustline and cannot receive child care payments. This bill was spon- sored by the Kern County Superin- tendent of Schools. It was supported by As- sociation of Cali- fornia School Administrators (ACSA); Califor- nia Alternative Payment Program Association; California Child Development Program Admin- istrators; California Federation of Teachers; Child Development Policy Institute; Kern County Board of Supervisors; Los Angeles Unified School District; Professional Associa- tion for Childhood Education; Riverside County Schools Advocacy Association; San Francisco Unified School District; Santa Clara County Of- fice of Education (SCCOE). The bill was opposed by American Federa- The Ashburn Bill would punish 99% of providers to insure that the 1% with criminal backgrounds are not paid for their work. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-12 – July 5, 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In June of 2005, she received a letter from Los Angeles County (the leader in sanction- ing many innocent participants ) effective 8\/1\/ 05, because she did not attend her scheduled orientation appointment for 6\/13\/05. The rea- son she did not attend, among other reasons, was that she was WORKING that day. We called the agency that mailed this letter to Ms. T.,it was a contract agency known as ACS. We wanted to know why a CalWORKs recip- ient working 50-60 hours a week was being asked to attend orientation that conflicted with her job. We talked to Rosie who informed us that ACS had eleven (11) directors and she had no idea who we could talk to. We did talk to David Dilger at 661-575-8910, who is the complaints manager for ACS. He refused to answer our question as to why a CalWORKs recipient working 50-60 hours a week was being asked to attend orientation. Ms. T. has not received transportation and child care from ACS for several months. She filed for a fair hearing. What regulations has Los Angeles County vi- olated in this case? State Law Welfare and Institutions Code 11323.4 provides: 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive servic- es, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever neces- sary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Some counties believe that desired means the participant must request advance pay- ment. This is not true. If the Legislature want- ed to precondition the issuance of advance payments to the request of the participant, then they would have said so just like in the Home- less Assistance program one must request 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 CWD Client Abuse Report \ufffd – CWD VICTIM #1 – Ms. E.P. of Ventura County who was pregnant and due on 9\/16\/ 05, received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to do job search for the Ventura County Welfare to Work Pro- gram. She had never received a pregnancy exemption. As we stated above, Ms. E.P. was pregnant and should have been exempted from partic- ipation in the WtW program. We called her worker, Mr. Colbert at 805-955-2247 and asked him why he sanctioned a participant who should have been exempt under MPP 42- 712.48. He responded that he did not know that she was pregnant. When we informed Ms. E.P. what Mr. Colbert had said, she informed us that she had been telling Mr. Colbert for months that she was pregnant and her pregnancy prevents her from working. MPP 42-112.48 Exemption Based on Pregnancy .481 A woman who is pregnant is exempt from welfare- to-work participation if the pregnancy impairs her ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to work activities. (a) The exemption based on pregnancy is supported by medical verification that the pregnancy impairs the woman’s ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. .482 An exemption based on a medically-verified pregnancy may also be granted when the CWD determines that participation will not readily lead to employment or that a training activity is not appropriate. \ufffd – CWD VICTIM #2 – Ms. T. is working 50- 60 hours a week. She has three (3) children. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-12- July 5 – Page 5 homeless assistance before he or she can get it. In this statute, the Legislature mandated the issuance of advance payment when the par- ticipant desired because the Legislature did not want welfare recipients spending their basic survival money on supportive services. That is why they put the word desire in lieu of request in the statute. In Ms. T.’s case she has been forced to use money needed to feed and clothe her children to cover transportation costs for her minimum wage job. Statistic of the week Food Stamp Expedited Service – First Quarter of 2005 The DFA 296 quarterly report for expedited service food stamps was finally available on the DSS web page – http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/DFA296X- Fo_424.htm. The report reveals widespread violations of Expedited Service Food Stamp regulations 63- 301.5 which provides: MPP 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 provided 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 Section 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 utilities. .52 Identifying Households Needing Expedited Service The CWD’s application procedures shall be designed to identify households eligible for expedited 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 responsible for screening applications as they are filed. The CWD also shall advise individuals who inquire about the Food Stamp Program by telephone of the expedited service processing standards for eligible households. The CWD shall assist an applicant, upon request, in filling out forms and completing 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 immediately forward the application for processing when it is determined that the applicant is entitled to expedited 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, except those receiving expedited services during months in which allotments are suspended or cancelled 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 authorization document, access device or coupons available to the recipient either by mail or for pickup at the household’s request, no later than the third calendar day following the date the application was filed. For purposes of this section, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) shall be considered one calendar day. However, if the third calendar day is a nonworking day when coupons cannot be issued, the CWD shall make coupons available on or before the working day immediately preceding the nonworking day. Whatever system a CWD uses to ensure meeting this delivery standard shall be CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-12- July 5 , 2005 – Page 6 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 designed to allow a reasonable opportunity for redemption 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 Thursday, coupons must be made available to the households on Monday. However, if Monday is a holiday, coupons must be made available on Friday or Saturday if coupons are issued on that day. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE The leading violator of MPP 63-301.5 was Placer County – leading the violator pack at 89%. This means 89% of the persons who were eligible for FS ES received their FS after the 3-day limit. Plac- er County was the first county to implement the CalWIN program, more commonly known as CalHELL . Other leading violators of MPP 63-301.5 were Santa Cruz at 42%; Ventura at 36% El Dorado at 32%, Tulare at 29%, Santa Clara at 27%, Los An- geles at 24% and Sacramento at 20% Table #1 in column 2 reveals the percentage of food stamp recipients who were eligible for expe- dited service FS, but received their benefits be- yond the timelines provided in law. Merced, Modoc, San Bernardino and Stanislaus county simply refused to report, notwithstanding the clear reporting requirement that all counties have. Placer 89% Mendocino 8% Santa Cruz 42% Calaveras 7% Ventura 36% Fresno 6% El Dorado 32% Inyo 6% Tulare 29% Marin 5% Santa Clara 27% Del Norte 5% Mono 25% Madera 4% Los Angeles 24% San Luis Obispo 4% Napa 22% San Diego 4% Sacramento 20% Yolo 4% Tehama 19% Contra Costa 4% Statewide 18% Siskiyou 3% Lake 18% Tuolumne 3% Humboldt 15% Kern 3% San Mateo 13% San Benito 3% Alameda 13% Trinity 3% Riverside 11% Monterey 2% Lassen 11% Sonoma 2% Santa Barbara 10% Glenn 2% Sierra 10% Amador 2% Nevada 9% San Francisco 1% Yuba 9% Orange 0% Solano 9% Alpine 0% Kings 8% Colusa 0% Shasta 8% Imperial 0% Butte 8% Mariposa 0% San Joaquin 8% Plumas 0% Sutter 8% STATEWIDE 18% Table #1- During the first quarter of 2005 the number of FS eligible households not issued emergency food stamp benefits on time. 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, Infor- mational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 916-712-0071 ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd Waiving Time Limits for Domestic Abuse- On 8\/30\/04 San Jouquin County told DSS that they …have a client who is a victim of domestic abuse (stalking). She has a new identity and a new social securi- ty number. The county wants to know if they can count the months she was on aid for the 60-month purposes prior to getting a new identity. DSS responded, In the sit- uation you present, the client is a victim of domestic abuse. The regulations provide counties with the discretion to waive Cal- WORKs program requirements, including the 60-month time limit, for victims of do- mestic abuse. ACL 99-09;ACL 01-57, W&IC 11495.1(a) and MPP 42.713.221 and 42.715.5. \ufffd Permanent Homeless for Transitional Housing Client – On 12\/14\/04, Faye Tab- in of Santa Barbara County asked DSS whether the client who received temporary homeless and has found transitional hous- ing for 18 months is eligible for permanent homeless assistance. The county had decid- ed to deny permanent homeless assistance to this family, but Rosie Avena responded: Yes. The client is eligible for permanent housing payments even though she is in a transitional homeless program. The transi- tional homeless program is suppose to be temporary, but still falls under the perma- nent housing criteria when a client requests for homeless assistance. \ufffd Orange County Unlawfully Forces Students to Sign a WtW 2 Each Semester – David O’Meara informed CDSS that Or- ange County was requiring SIP participants to sign a WtW 2 ( Welfare to Work Plan-Ac- tivity Assignment) every semester. This is wrong. A participant does not have to sign a WtW 2 every semester. In fact, according \ufffd In Brief \ufffd TANF Update \ufffd Budget Passes-Welfare Kids Lose \ufffd Statistic of the Week-Santion Rate 45% \ufffd Client Abuse Report \ufffd WtW Sanction & Jobs Reports Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 13, July 18, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS CDSS analyst, Audrey King, ACL 97-72 pro- vides that a new plan can be signed if the par- ticipant changes the activity, but that would not be a WtW 2, rather it would be the WtW 3. Thus, Orange County has been wasting a lot of tax- payer dollars by having students come into their office every semester to sign a form that is contrary to law. \ufffd Working 45 Hours a Week and Still Being Sanctioned- Rebecca DelaVega of Lake Coun- ty asked DSS the following: A WtW partici- pant who was assigned to 15 hours of behav- ioral health treatment (BHT) did not cooperate and a second instance (3 month) sanction was imposed. During the three-month sanction pe- riod she obtained full-time employment. Do we lift the sanction after the three-month minimum sanction period is up or must she still partici- pate in the assigned activity of BHT? Some in- dividuals in the county believe she should par- ticipate in BHT and others think that employ- ment should be her WtW activity. DSS response: The county should not require the individual to reduce her hours of employment. DSS sug- gested that Lake County change her activity to that of employment. \ufffd Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) Does not Count for CalWORKs 60-month Clock- Sus- an West of Monterey County suggested that RCA would tick the CalWORKs 60-month clock. DSS response: Cash aid received under the RCA program ticks neither the TANF or the CalWORKs 60-month time clocks, because it is a separately funded, federal pro- gram. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 13 – July 18, 2005 – Page 2 TANFTANFTANFTANFTANF UPDATEUPDATEUPDATEUPDATEUPDATE A recent federal HHS report shows that in 2002 $14.6 billion was spent on TANF. Only 30% or $4.5 billion was used for payments to families. The remainder of the money, a whopping 60% was used for non-assistance expenditures in the amount of $8.8 billion. States were so swimming in TANF funds that they gave $1 billion to the social service block grant, $1.9 billion to child care development fund, $2.3 billion was used for other non-assistance uses, which could be anything, including tax cuts. In 1991, before welfare deforms were enacted, 12% of the AFDC funds were used for admin- istration. To be spe- cific, in 1991, the to- tal amount spent on payments to families was $20 billion while the administration costs were a meager $2.6 billion. Repub- licans started to cam- paign against welfare in the 80’s and 90’s. Now they have achieved their goal with 60% of the welfare money going to welfare bureaucrats rather than needy families of America This is up from mere 12% going to bureaucrats in the 90’s. The Bush TANF proposal continues this trend. State Budget PassesState Budget PassesState Budget PassesState Budget PassesState Budget Passes Welfare Kids LoseWelfare Kids LoseWelfare Kids LoseWelfare Kids LoseWelfare Kids Lose The 2005-2006 State Budget passed and to no ones surprise, welfare kids were the big los- ers. In fact, Assembly Democrats agreed to freeze CalWORKs grants for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This cut saves $210 million each year while CalWORKs families live on grant levels of the early 90’s. So if kids lost, who won– welfare bureaucrats, of course. There is $5.9 billion dollars available for the TANF program, which is the federal name for CalWORKs, formerly known as AFDC. Before TANF, 80% of the total welfare expen- ditures were used for payments to families. In the ’05-’06 budget, passed and signed, $3.1 billion was used for payment to families, which 52% of the total CalWORKs budget. This is a significant decline of 32% in money for payments to families – 50% of whom are working families according to State Depart- ment of Social Services. The budget gives child welfare services over $2,500 a month for each child while Cal- WORKs spends less than $200 for each child. Child Care received $1.4 billion of TANF money even though CalWORKs kids often starve the last two weeks of each month. $192 million was transferred to Title XX, which funds social workers. The budget also sets aside $30 million dol- lars to reward counties for doing a good job in running the welfare to work program, also known as the welfare to nowhere program Republicans start- ed to campaign against welfare in the 80’s and 90’s. Now they have achieved their goal with 60% of the welfare money going to welfare bureaucrats rath- er than needy families of America. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 13 – July 18, 2005 – Page 3 or the welfare to sanction program. DSS’s WtW 25 reports reveal that while 40 to 50% of the unduplicated participants are sanctioned every month, less than 4% of the unduplicat- ed participants find employment that termi- nated public assistance. As to the 4%, there is no evidence that the county actually found those jobs for the participants. Often partici- pants find their own jobs and the county WtW bureaucrats take credit for it. Finally, while families are suffering, the bud- get has a rich reserve of $105 million, which could have funded half of the 2005-2006 COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment). The bill that stops the CalWORKs COLA for two years is SB 68, which is known as a trailer bill. There are many other COLA’s that re- ceived funding in the Budget bill, but not Cal- WORKs. 4.23% of COLA was given for edu- cation – per-pupil growth; vocational training and job placement for special education pu- pils; regional occupancy centers; for children placed in licensed children’s institutions; in- fant program growth; SELPA’s COLA pursu- ant to Chapter 331 of Statutes of 2001, com- munity day schools and certain child care pro- grams. This trailer bill provides for a process of dis- tributing the $30 million dollar county incen- tive money – a process that would be devel- oped by DSS and counties, with some partici- pation of other stakeholders. This proposal was opposed by CCWRO. Our opposition was based on the theory that no money should be spent on these kinds of things until payments to families are fully funded. Section 34 of SB 68 outlines the conditions for counties to get a piece of the $30 million: SEC. 34. Section 15204.6 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read: 15204.6. (a) Contingent upon a Budget Act appropriation, for the 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008- 09 fiscal years, a Pay for Performance Program shall provide additional funding for counties that meet the standards developed according to subdivision (c) in their welfare-to-work programs under Article 3.2 (commencing with Section 11320) of Chapter 2. The state shall have no obligation to pay incentives earned that exceed the funds appropriated for the year in which the incentives were earned. (b) To the extent that funds are appropriated, the maximum total funds available to each county each year under the Pay for Performance Program shall be 5 percent of the funds the county receives that year, less the amount for child care, from the single allocation under Section 15204.2. If funds appropriated for this 96 section are less than the incentives earned under this subdivision, each county’s allocation under this section shall be prorated based on the amount of funds appropriated for that year. (c) The funds available to each county under the Pay for Performance Program shall be divided each year into as many equal parts as there are measures established for the year under this subdivision. A county shall earn payment of one equal par for each improvement standard that it achieves for the year or by ranking in the top 20 percent of all counties in a measure identified in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4). The department shall consult with the County Welfare Directors Association, legislative staff, and other stakeholders, when developing improvement standards and the methodology for earning and distributing incentives for each of the following measures: (1) The employment rate of county CalWORKs cases. (2) The federal participation rates of county CalWORKs cases, calculated in accordance with Section 607 of Title 42 of the United States Code, but excluding individuals who are exempt in accordance with Section 11320.3 and including sanctioned cases and cases participating in activities described in subdivision (q) of Section 11322.6. If valid data does not exist to measure this outcome, the funds for this measure shall be made available for the Pay for Performance Program in the following fiscal year. (3) The percentage of county CalWORKs cases that have earned income three months after ceasing to receive assistance under Section 11450. (4) Any additional measures that the department may establish in consultation with the County 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-13- July 18 – Page 4 Welfare Directors Association, legislative staff, and other stakeholders. (d) Performance measures, standards, outcomes, and payments to counties under subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall be based on the following schedule: (1) For the performance measure described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), payments in fiscal year 2006-07 shall be based on outcomes for the period of July 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, compared to outcomes for the period of January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2006, and payments in fiscal year 2007-08 and 2008-09 shall be based on outcomes for the fiscal year prior to payment, compared to outcomes for the fiscal year two years prior to payment. (2) For all other performance measures, payments shall be based on outcomes for the fiscal year prior to payment, compared to outcomes for the fiscal year two years prior to payment. (e) The department may make further adjustments to any of the performance measures listed under subdivision (c), in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association, legislative staff, and other stakeholders. (f) The funds paid in accordance with this section may only be used in accordance with subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 10544.1 and only for the purpose of enhancing family self-sufficiency. Funds earned by a county in accordance with this section shall be available for expenditure in the fiscal year that they are received and the following two fiscal years. Following the period of availability, and notwithstanding any provisions of subdivision (f) of Section 10544.1 to the contrary, any unspent balance shall revert to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. (g) Any funds appropriated by the Legislature for the Pay for Performance Program, but not earned by a county, shall revert to the TANF block grant at the end of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated. (h) Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, the department may implement this section through all-county letters throughout the duration of the Pay for Performance Program. The other major provision in SB 68, primarily lobbied and secured by the California Food Policy Advocates (www.cfpa.net) provides that DSS shall apply for counties eligible for ABAWDS waivers unless the County Board of Supervisors decline such waiver. Single adults and childless couples who are not elderly or disabled can only receive food stamps for 3 months, unless they are working 20 hours a week or working off their food stamp benefits in a local workfare program. The federal law exempts certain states, coun- ties and cities from this rule if they have cer- tain unemployment rate. In California there were many counties that refused to apply for this waiver, thus, thousands of Californians went hungry. This bill would change the dynamics of forc- ing the county to refuse the apply. It is a step in the right direction. Many of the people not getting food stamps are veterans who served their country unlike many in power current- ly. The statute provides as follows: SEC. 37. Section 18926 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read: 18926. (a) To the extent permitted by federal law, the department shall annually seek a federal waiver of the existing Food Stamp Program limitation that stipulates that an able- bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) participant is limited to three months of food stamps in a three-year period unless that participant has met the work participation requirement. (b) All eligible counties shall be included in and bound by this waiver unless a county declines to participate in the waiver request. If a county declines, the county shall submit documentation from the board of supervisors of that county to that effect. (c) Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Government Code) the CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-13- July 18 – Page 5 department may implement this section by all county letters or similar instructions. Of all the groups fighting against the Swarzenegger cuts, the only big losers were the poor families of California. They took the biggest hit so that more money would be avail- able to the welfare bureaucracy for the next two years. Statistic of the Week Sanction Rate- about 45% CalWORKs Statistics for the period of 12\/03 through 11\/04. In a DSS document to justify giving counties pay-for-performance money, reveals that the sanction rate is about 45%. Total CalWORKS cases 485,887 Child only cases – Timed out families 196,369 Total Adult cases 289,518 Cases with WtW Exemptions 58,180 Total nonexempt cases 231,338 Cases participating in WtW 118,302 Sanctioned cases 53,561 Noncompliant (not yet sanctioned) 22,317 Unaccounted for cases 37,158 More Statistical information on page 6. 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 1234567890123456789012345678901212345 CWD Client Abuse Report Ms. A.S. was required to participate in a work- fare project for Stanislaus County. She was assigned to the workfare program after she completed her job search activity. Ms. A.S. had never had an assessment, which is a precon- dition before a WtW activity agreement is signed. She was assigned to a local church and was asked to work in their food pantry. Ms. A.S. was fired from the church food pantry because they did not like her political views and the way she dressed did not please them. The county issues a notice of action imposing a sanction for failing to make good progress in her workfare activity. When we contacted Ms. Toledo, the Deputy Director of Stanislaus County regarding sanc- tioning a workfare participant, she assured us that Ms. A.S. was not being sanctioned. We believed Ms. Toledo and had no reason to doubt her creditability. At the hearing, a Stanislaus County hearing specialist testified under oath that indeed the county was proposing to sanction Ms. A.S. for failing to make good progress at the workfare site. The county admitted under oath that they knew of no regulation that authorized the county to sanction a workfare participant for failing to make good progress in a Workfare activity, but they still wanted to sanction her. The Stanislaus County representative also tes- tified that the purpose of the WtW program was to make Ms. A.S. self-sufficient. The Stani- slaus County representative was informed that during February of 2005, Stanislaus Coun- ty had 1,808 unduplicated participants, of which 808 were sanctioned and only 1 partic- ipant was able to find employment based upon Stanislaus County WtW 25 and WtW 25A reports. The County Welfare to Work su- pervisor responded that the county reports are incorrect. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-13- July 18 , 2005 – Page 6 WELFARE TO WORKWELFARE TO WORKWELFARE TO WORKWELFARE TO WORKWELFARE TO WORK NEW DATANEW DATANEW DATANEW DATANEW DATA A lot of Sanction andA lot of Sanction andA lot of Sanction andA lot of Sanction andA lot of Sanction and a few jobsa few jobsa few jobsa few jobsa few jobs We just reviewed the April, 2005 data for the WtW program in California. The new report shows that counties have been busy sanctioning WtW participants for alleg- edly not participating in the WtW program. During April of 2005 counties successfully sanctioned 53% of the unduplicated partici- pants while they only found jobs for 3% of the participants. Some counties did not even submit reports. Merced, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento and San Bernardino simply refused to report. The leading counties in the sanction column are: Counties Sanction Job Rate Rate Fresno 93.06% 44.63% Inyo 88.46% 19.23% Colusa 88.37% 9.30% Los Angeles 82.21% 0.80% Sonoma 76.53% 12.00% Plumas 75.61% 93.06% San Luis Obispo 74.34% 93.06% Stanislaus 71.35% 0.00% Shasta 68.09% 1.53% San Diego 62.13% 7.62% Monterey 56.08% 5.76% If you want to know how your county is do- ing, look at Table A on this page. Table #1 April, 2005 Sanctions Job Und. Part. Statewide 45,724 2,765 86,643 Alameda 1,692 113 5,654 Alpine 1 0 5 Amador 31 1 56 Butte 210 32 1,138 Calaveras 51 3 116 Colusa 38 4 43 Contra Costa 874 125 2,306 Del Norte 47 2 284 El Dorado 63 10 321 Fresno 5,565 277 5,980 Glenn 80 4 161 Humboldt 325 13 692 Imperial 54 33 1,322 Inyo 23 5 26 Kern 1,517 88 5,267 Kings 352 25 975 Lake 141 24 373 Lassen 66 9 153 Los Angeles 22,313 217 27,143 Madera 243 10 954 Marin 151 8 339 Mariposa 18 0 70 Mendocino 186 8 586 Merced 0 0 0 Modoc 8 0 75 Mono 4 1 18 Monterey 526 54 938 Napa 72 5 149 Nevada 55 3 214 Orange 955 25 4,900 Placer 0 0 0 Plumas 31 3 41 Riverside 0 0 0 Sacramento 0 0 0 San Benito 36 3 181 San Bern, 0 0 0 San Diego 1,957 240 3,150 San Fran. 592 152 2,419 San Joaquin 1,190 105 3,343 San Luis Ob. 252 38 339 San Mateo 182 155 386 Santa Bar. 307 147 896 Santa Clara 1,033 166 4,183 Santa Cruz 193 54 664 Shasta 623 14 915 Sierra 1 0 19 Siskiyou 74 3 226 Solano 172 120 710 Sonoma 476 75 622 Stanislaus 939 0 1,316 Sutter 151 8 578 Tehama 182 7 402 Trinity 20 4 67 Tulare 828 220 2,416 Tuolumne 22 10 196 Ventura 417 87 2,057 Yolo 221 35 557 Yuba 164 20 702 ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 14, August 1, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief \ufffd Child Care Error Rate Study- State Department of Education has released a child care error rate study. This was not an audit. The department has concluded that the error rate in child care is about the same as the error rates for welfare. \ufffd WtW Sanction Study Due 4\/1\/05 still in hiding- The State Department of Social Services had a contract with the RAND company to do a sanction study. The study was not released on 4\/1\/05 as planned and the preliminary findings were shared in secret with CDSS. The taxpayers who paid for the study still wait for the re- sults. \ufffd Sacramento County has 400 vacancies- According to the Sacramento Bee, the Sac- ramento County welfare department has 400 vacancies. Many people have left the welfare department frustrated over the nu- merous problems with CalWIN, the new computer system also known as CalHELL. News from Abroad Financial boost for student parents – The Guardian, 27 July 2005 Full-time students in England with young children will be entitled to more financial help with childcare from September, the higher education minister, Bill Rammell, announced. Mr Rammell said that from next term the maximum weekly amount of childcare grant available to higher education students will increase for a student with one child from $114.75 per week to $148.75 per week and for a student with two or more children from $170 to $255. Students will be able to make use of a broader range of childcare and there would be more flex- ible arrangements tailored to individual needs under the government’s childcare approval scheme, said Mr Rammell. In particular, par- ents using carers in their own homes will be relieved of the burdens and costs of travel to childcare. The minister said: \”I am committed to making sure that any person with the ability to go to university has the opportunity to do so. En- hancement of the higher education childcare grant is an important part of the government’s initiative to increase participation in higher education, develop a better-trained work-force, promote social inclusion and raise the number of student parents in higher education.\” The announcement was welcomed by Uni- versities UK, the body representing university heads, which said that the measures would en- hance the already significant package of finan- cial support available to students in 2006 when higher fees are due to be introduced. \”This increase in financial support for student parents in higher education brings the sector another step closer to achieving total social in- clusion and increased participation,\” said a spokesperson. In Brief News from Abroad-Student Parent Aid CalWIN Blues Child Care Issues Statistics of the Week CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 14, August 1, 2005 – Page 2 CalWIN News CalWIN New Santa Clause in Town In Sacramento county our sources inform us that a GA client was due a $60 check, but the computer issued a $6,000 check. The check was promptly cashed because as CalWIN comput- ers knew, the client really needed the money. CalWIN also approved persons applying for GA and expedited food stamps without an additional GA application interview. To the computer it does not make sense to have two separate interviews, so it takes action – ap- proves both the GA and Food Stamps. Well done CalWIN. Our sources in Santa Clara County inform us that CalWIN, the new welfare computer sys- tem held up thousands of checks on July 1, 2005. The San Jose Mercury had an article re- garding this problem. More CalWIN – CalWIN has been issuing confusing contradictory notices thereby ren- dering them inadequate. We have seen many cases where the CalWIN issued NOA’s stat- ing that benefits had been both granted and denied; and reduced or modified. These con- stitute inadequate notices, therefore the pro- posed adverse action would have to be re- scinded until a proper NOA was mailed. More CalWIN Problems: A Sacramento single mom whose ex husband (absent par- ent) was living in Mexico was sent several no- tices of action, containing both her name and the name of her ex-husband. She then received a letter from the child support office asking why she had not informed child support that her husband had returned. CalWIN has also been mailing overpayment notices to absent parents who have nothing to do with the overpayment. Many former minor children are also getting copies of these notices, violating the confidentiality section of the public assistance laws. Another CalWIN Incident – Ms. M.A. received a Notice of Action terminating Food Stamp and General Assistance benefits effec- tive June 30, 2005 on July 27, 2005 from the CalWIN computer. She called her welfare advocate in tears on Sunday, July 31, 2005, wondering what this is all about. CHILD CARE ISSUES \ufffd Can Stage 2 terminated person go back to Stage 1 Child Care? – On 4\/8\/05 Los Angeles County DPSS Child Care Section has a CalWORKs family who was getting Stage 1 child care, then was transferred to Stage 2. In Stage 2 the family was terminated because they failed to comply with the Stage 2 rules, such as allegedly being abusive to county- contracted child care agency staff. The coun- ty had decided to deny child care to the Cal- WORKs families who were terminated from Stage 2, but were still on CalWORKs and par- ticipating in WtW. Tom Grant of DSS in- formed DPSS that current CalWORKs re- cipients terminated from Stage 2 by APPs in LA County in accordance with California De- partment of Education’s guidance must be accommodated in Stage 1 as long as they meet the requirements of MPP 47-220. \ufffd Stage 1 Child Care can be used for YMCA summer camp – On 4\/7\/05 Alame- da County asked DSS: Can a parent use subsidized child care funds for a summer camp that the YMCA conducts? 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 New Welfare News #2005- 14, August 1, 2005 – Page 3 ANSWER: Yes. Please see All County Letter 01-22 dated March 14, 2001 regarding public recreation programs for providing CalWORks Child Care. \ufffd Stage 2 Not Available to CalWORKs re- cipients in drug rehab- Stage 1 has to be available. – Fresno County informed CDSS that a CalWORKs participants whose activity is drug rehab has been terminated from Stage 2 child care, because Stage 2 child care does not serve children whose parents are in drug rehab. ANSWER: According to Stage 1 regulations (MPP 47-230) this client will be eligible for Stage 1 care because services are not available in Stage 2 and drug rehab would be on the county list of approved welfare-to-work ac- tivities. \ufffd Tax Intercepts for Child Care Overpay- ments – Glenn County asked CDSS whether or not Glenn County can use tax intercepts to collect child care overpayments. ANSWER: The Child Care program does not have specific regulations allowing involuntary collection of overpayments including tax in- tercepts. CDSS is not currently developing overpayment collection procedures; therefore, counties have the option to develop their own procedures for correcting childcare overpay- ment, underpayments and erroneous pay- ments. A CWD may impose a tax intercept if that is a part of their policy and procedures for correcting child care overpayments and if the recipient agrees. CCWRO Comment: There is no statute that allows for recoupment of child care over- payments. Thus, under Oliva v. Swoap (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 130, 136, 130 Cal.Rptr. 411 it is unlawful to recoup public assistance overpay- ments unless there is a specific statute that au- thorizes such recoupment. This policy interpretation allows counties to have a mandatory recoupment process for child care despite the lack of statutory author- ity to do so. What happens to the 100% state and federal funded child care overpayment? Do the counties return it to the State and fed- eral governments or do the counties KEEP the money and not return it to its rightful owners – the state and federal government. It is our suspicion that the latter is true. \ufffd San Diego County Refuses to Pay two providers – On 4\/21\/05 Deborah Smaller, a DSS Administrative Law Judge asked the CDSS Child Care Bureau whether or not a WtW participant can have 2 providers. San Diego County had a client who was working and going to school 11 hours a days and need- ed two providers to accomplish this rigorous schedule. San Diego County told the partici- pant that she could only have one provider and that they would not pay for 11 hours, be- cause she had another provider doing part of the 11 hour care. The victim filed for a fair hearing. The Child Care Bureau responded that under Education Code 18076.3 the coun- ty may pay for two providers. CCWRO Comment: The proper answer is that the participant should be transferred to Stage One where there is no prohibition of paying more than one provider. Statistic of the week In this issue we look at the California Assis- tance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) pro- gram participation in the State of California. CAPI provides assistance to lawfully admit- ted immigrants who are lawful alien residents. Most of the rules governing the CAPI pro- gram are similar to the SSI program except that persons who were sponsored with an I- 134 after 8\/22\/96 are not eligible for 10 years. Table #1 below shows which counties have the most CAPI concentrations. As of May of 2005 there were 8,901 cases in California; 33% of those cases are in Los An- geles County; 11% are in Alameda and Santa Clara County; 8% of the cases are in San Fran- cisco County. Some refugee-heavy counties, such as Fresno 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-14, August 1, – Page 4 have only 1% of the caseload. Fres- no has a large refugee population. San Jouquin County also has less than 1% of the caseload, yet it also has a large refugee population. It ap- pears that Fresno and San Jouquin counties are keeping eligible CAPI individuals out of the program. During May of 2005, Fresno Coun- ty started the month with 29 appli- cations pending from the previous month. During May, 2005, Fresno County accepted 15 applications. Thus, during May, 2005, Fresno County had a total of 44 application to process. During the month of May, 2005, Fresno County only pro- cessed 11 applications; 9 of those ap- plications were denied or with- drawn. Only one (1) application was approved; 33 of the May, 2005 ap- plication were carried over to June 2005. During May 2005, San Jouquin County received no applications, but had 36 applications pending from April, 2005. During May, 2005, San Jouquin County found time to approve one case and carried over 35 cases for June of 2005. Statewide, counties started with 2,229 cases brought forward from April, 2005; during May there were 827 applications. Counties acted upon 921 of the applications; 227 were approved, while 667 were de- nied; 27 applications were placed in the other categories, whatever that may mean. Yes, 81% of the cases were denied. May, 2005 Statewide 8,091 Alameda 928 Orange 409 Alpine 0 Placer 6 Amador 0 Plumas 0 Butte 1 Riverside 131 Calaveras 0 Sacramento 452 Colusa 0 San Benito 10 Contra Costa 275 San Bernardino 89 Del Norte 0 San Diego 326 El Dorado 2 San Francisco 729 Fresno 116 San Joaquin 66 Glenn 0 San Luis Obispo 9 Humboldt 0 San Mateo 322 Imperial 11 Santa Barbara 2 Inyo 0 Santa Clara 958 Kern 9 Santa Cruz 2 Kings 2 Shasta 0 Lake 1 Sierra 0 Lassen 0 Siskiyou 0 Los Angeles 2,709 Solano 118 Madera 3 Sonoma 46 Marin 18 Stanislaus 75 Mariposa 0 Sutter 7 Mendocino 0 Tehama 0 Merced 21 Trinity 0 Modoc 0 Tulare 10 Mono 1 Tuolumne 0 Monterey 27 Ventura 150 Napa 6 Yolo 44 Nevada 0 Yuba 0 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, Infor- mational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 916-712-0071 ”

” 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 16, September 6, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief 4 On 8\/22\/05, CalWIN Issues $700,000 in overpayments to Yolo County welfare recipients – Yolo County, the third county to implement CalWIN’s lemon system, has triggered the issuance of $700,000 in overpayments in one day. The reason for this action is that the developers of the CalWIN program transmitted bad information to Yolo County to program the system for CalWORKs cost- of-living implementation. Yolo County has a rather small caseload compared to some of the larger counties. Just imagine if this would have happened in a county as large as Los Angeles. 4 DSS Revises Forms in Secret – DSS has made changes to QR-7; WtW 1, 2, 15,16,17 and CW 2186B and has shared these changes with the County Welfare Directors Association. CWDA will also be sharing these forms with regions who will then submit their comments for consideration by DSS through Charibel Nunez of Kings County. DSS asked counties to share input about WtW 3, which is a form to change the activity. There is no public input into this process and representatives of the customers are excluded from the process. CWDA recommended that WtW 3 be abolished. 4 DSS to present draft ACIN re- garding IEVS and Overpayments – DSS has informed CWDA that in September, DSS will share a draft ACIN with counties regarding overpayment and IEVS. This un- derground information will be discussed in secret and not shared with the public. 4 TANF Reauthorization – The TANF reauthorization will end September 30, 2005. Many believe that TANF will be reau- thorized in a budget reconciliation bill. This means that all of the Republican proposals will become law without any public debate or discussion. in this issue In Brief Advocates Meet With DSS Client Abuse Report SIPS Down 52% – Correction Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. 4 Los Angeles Making an Effort to Re- duce Sanctions – In a 8\/18\/05 memo to Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Director Bruce Yokomizo stated that DPSS has developed an action plan in response to a report entitled Study of Sanctions Among CalWORKs Participants in the Los Angeles County: Who, When and Why? The key finding of the report, according to the Yokomizo memo is that Almost two-thirds of sanctioned GAIN participants are sanctioned before participat- ing in any welfare-to-work activity, primarily for failure to attend orientation. The most prevalent reasons identified for this failure to participate are lack of adequate transportation and child care and failure to receive notification in a timely manner. 4 Sacramento County IHSS Staff Denies File Access- On 9\/2\/05, three Sac- ramento advocates asked the county welfare department to examine a IHSS casefile with a release of information signed by the client. The social worker, Ker Vu, talked to his supervisor, David Radix, who advised him to consult with County Counsel Michele Bach. The advocates met with Bert Bettis, the IHSS program manager who also said that they had to follow directions from county counsel. At 4 p.m., Michele Bach informed us that she had informed the IHSS program staff that advocates could view the case file and a release of infor- mation form. When we contacted the county IHSS worker, David Radix denied telling us that Michele Bach had advised them not to release the file. He said they were simply waiting for CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 16, September 6, 2005 – Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ment. 2. Pay for Performance: focus on employment outcomes\/$30 mill. WCLP, LSNC and NCYL (Curt Child) have been selected by the State Legislature to represent advocates accord- ing to Char Lee Metsker on a workgroup composed of advocates, counties, DSS and Legislative representatives. ; 3 factors are used to determine how much bonus a county receives; (1) employment rate (2) modified federal work participation and leavers w\/ income; and (3) any other factors that this group decides. At a Monday meeting the group discussed interest in child well-being and good jobs for leavers. Will be looking at earnings after leaving. C. Budget augmentation to pay back counties for savings to state from quarterly reporting saving ($50 mil) was vetoed by the Governor and it turned out to be $25 million. The Gov- ernor has indicated his willingness to restore the $25 million if demonstrated need for it is shown by counties just for administrative costs related to quarterly reporting. QR Problems: Quarterly reporting issues of variable income and constantly having to report changes; misunderstanding of an- ticipated income; late processing of timely reports; computer programs as barrier to pro- cessing (LEADER issue); Steady income\/IRT keeps changing. DSS stated that they will set up separate subgroup to address quarterly reporting problems with advocate participa- tion. Kate encouraged using $ on training, both workers and participants not where they should be on learning curve. D. Statewide ABAWD waivers Section II A. below. E. Child Care to centralize eligibility wait- ing lists in each county. $ for this. Believes designated agency (Research & Referral un- less more than one, or if previously has list managed by another agency.) II. Richton Yee\/Food Stamps direction from county counsel. Access to the file was eventually granted. One wonders how many nonrepresented clients have been similarly denied access to their IHSS files in Sacramento County. Advocates meet with DSS on August 16, 2005 Meeting attendants : Charr Lee Metsker, Deputy Director for Welfare to Work Pro- grams, Karen Caigle, Employment & Eligi- bility Branch Chief, Steve Weiss, Bay Area Legal Aid, Teri Ellen, Chief, Employment Section, Kate Meiss, Neighborhood Legal Services; Yvonne Lee, Program Technology Bureau Chief, Deborah Rose, Program Integ- rity Branch Chief, Richton Yee, Food Stamp Branch Chief; Grace Galligher, CCWRO; Dora Lopez and Usuha Nu, Western Center on Law & Poverty; Michelle Morrow, CRLA; Yolanda Aria, LAFLA; Maria Hernandez, CalWORKs Eligibility Bureau Chief ; Kevin Aslanian, CCWRO; Gail Sullivan, Manager, Work Support Services; Jennifer Walker (San Diego Legal Aid); Mark Gagnon; Manager, Fraud Detection of the Fraud Bureau; Teena Arneson, Manager, Overpayment Collection and Review of the Fraud Bureau; Jessica Lee (CDSS, meeting coordinator); Mike Herald, Western Center on law & Poverty; Audrey King; Analyst, Employment Bureau, Marilyn McCloskey, ATtorney for DSS Legal Affairs; Eve Herschkopf, Child Care Law Center; I. Char Lee Metsker Update Information A. New Director Dennis Bolton. His two pri- mary goals are keeping kids safe and putting people to work. Has asked Charr Lee to report on number of new jobs each month, etc. B. Budget\/trailer bill: 1. Suspension of COLA for 2 years; budget not passed in time for entire year, so 1 month of year (7\/05) has COLA. Will issue as supple- 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 16, September 6, 2005 – Page 3 A. SB 68, section 37 requires DSS to seek an- nual federal waiver of ABAWD. Handout of timeline (LSA = Labor surplus area); 30 days to opt out (Board of Supervisors action). Feds give all areas eligible in Jan\/Feb of year. Kevin raised issue that statute is in place now, but this process won’t be finished until 4\/06. He also pointed out that the State of California already has a statewide waiver and every county can go into effect immediately. DSS argued that counties are not using their 15% exemptions, thus the waiver is not necessary. Kevin pointed out that today food ABAWDS are loosing food stamps because their 3 months has expired. Complaint that there are currently counties that are NOT using waivers. Charr Lee says since this is immediate, they will need to opt out or immediately submit request. She said that DSS will take another look at their pro- posal of starting April of 2006. B. Prescreening forms, are CalWORKs\/Food Stamp issues, but, applicants in Yolo, need to fill out a YC 9 (in person) then go to computer room to enter SAWS1 info the computer to get FS application. Maria says CDSS was waiting for advocates to tell them which forms we thought were bad. Explained that WE thought THEY were to give us a definition of what is prescreening (prohibited) vs. expediting processing 2 issues: prescreening form ask- ing for info that they shouldn’t ask; 2) delays\/ denies right to get to application. 3) duplicate questions . Charr Lee: need to engage us and counties to develop standards. Can we stop Yolo now? Yes, Richton will check it out. Grace raised other issue of requiring demographic info as a part of the application prescreening process. Steve Weiss of BALA raised issue of wanting FS only and not being given the DFA application, but being required to do longer combined application forms. III. CalWIN\/LEADER\/C-4 (George Christi and other OSI folks) were there. A. Felt got a lot more detail yesterday that will help work out. (A group of advocates meet with DSS regarding computer problems on 8\/15\/05) LEADER: heard today re: QR 7 issues. What else? Kate: What are counties telling CDSS about systems? They are aware of all these problems. When the county does a fix in LEADER, causes other problems (ex: Phantom income). Bad: Lesson clients learn is ignore the NOAs. Often Los Angeles clients get multiple contradictory notices of actions. When they contact the worker, the worker tells them to ignore the notice. It is a LEADER error they are told by the worker. LEADER is also issuing multiple contradictory NOAs. Causes them to ignore messages that are real. Need to provide remedy of giving extension of 90 days hearing when workers have told them this message. Problem w\/ interface between LEADER and Child Support and GEARS ( the Los Angeles Welfare-to-Work computer system) and LEADER not interfac- ing. Fair hearing case file issue: all on screen. Only English\/Spanish in LEADER, so state mandated translated forms are not being used as required by law. Also not getting NOAs in county translated languages. Has to be state oversight. LEADER work around if no SSN doesn’t work. B. C-4 ISAWs goes through 2008 w\/ exten- sions, and want to move them off earlier. Raised ISAWs programming problems leads to workarounds that are bad for clients and not consistent, sometimes, with law. Need more state leadership role, can’t just defer to counties. Charr Lee says oversees design and implementation, and ongoing basis. Look at these on an ongoing basis, formed subgroup, etc. Explained clients are suffering, they’ve been told about these problems for last 2 meet- ings, and now are just forming subgroup, or, w\/ ISAWs not doing anything. Kate Meiss asked DSS why can’t they tell workers that if computer doesn’t work, to revert to paper? CharLee said it is the 21st century, with au- tomation, need to move on. Yes, but not at clients’ expense. Grace mentioned that need to stop rolling out the system. Charr Lee says all she can do is tell them to follow the rules, and she’ll come down and tell them to fix the 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-16, September 6, 2005 – Page 4 processes if they can’t. Kate: please give us answer on request for ALJ across the board giving extension on time to request when have been told to ignore notices. Charr Lee said she will respond, but not yet. Also noted that she will get back to us re: fair hearing and automation issues. IV. FRED: DSS contacted San Francisco County and got FRED protocol. In process of studying proto- cols throughout state. Debbie Rhodes: as they get a full set, CDSS will talk about a statewide standard and involved advocates in the pro- cess? Need to see what’s effective\/working. Timeframe? Underway now, existing policies should all be in by 1st week of September. Not limited: CW\/FS. V. 482 form to show IEVs matching. Many counties are not filing their monthly IEVS activity reports as required by State Regulations. DSS stated that counties have 30 days after end of month to get form in. After one week DSS will call the county if late. If DSS does not get a report after the third call a call each week a letter will go to the county welfare director informing of issue and assist to get reports in and to develop Corrective Action Plan. Haven’t needed to get to that letter yet. Mostly a smaller county issue with staffing. About 5 are small, plus Fresno and San Mateo. Alameda is still missing reports, though have been on time in last 2 months. DSS said that if the number of hits each month exceed the number of hits processed, then it is obvious that they have processing backlog. This issue triggers review, and Alameda is working with them. Charr Lee asked how long they will work with them\/ till fixed they are working on it, but no specific CAP. Discussed unfairness to clients when there is backlog in processing, that this leads to loss of witnesses\/defense in criminal cases. Charr Lee says they will get on it, and should just keep everyone current. VI. SAWs2 w\/ SAWs1: Some counties are requiring applicants to complete a SAWS2 before they are allowed to apply for CW or Food Stamps. DSS said counties should take SAWs1 w\/o requiring SAWs2. Requested an email to ISAWs con- sortium to STOP doing this, and not wait till the computer is reprogrammed. A. CalWORKs penalties–Minimize, avoid, cure sanctions\/penalties. Separate issue of working on attendance and immunization NOA’s. Maria asked Kevin to give examples of NOA language to give to Turner commit- tee. VIII. RAND Sanction Study DSS exercised penalty and RAND is getting no additional funding; talked to CEO re: jeopardizing reputation and work in future. They are monitoring principle investigation and hope to get it to CDSS soon . Gave con- fidential preliminary findings. Still looking at administrative data, etc. so may change. Also getting other info, ex Welfare Policy Research project, LA research, Riverside and San Diego county’s research. Charr Lee interested in pulling group together to sort through re- search. Group of counties involved, talked to CWDA. Hesitant to use old group, since a lot of county changes. So, we can change our folks too. Meet w\/in next month? [Michelle Morrow said she could come; Yolanda asked that Vanessa Lee come.] IX. Discussion of whether NOAs required by ACL 03-59 changed, substantively, the process? (ACL 03-59 is the ACL changing the sanction goof cause determination process.) ALJ’s were finding that it was acceptable if the original requirements were met and the county did not comply with all of the provisions of ACL 03-59. Regulation cleanup packet has been back burnered. DSS agreed they need to train the ALJ’s on the ACL. They will talk to State CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-16- September 6, 2005 – Page 5 Hearings Decision and will get back to us. In hindsight, they think the problem is that they didn’t say it was immediate. They will survey all 58 counties re: compliance. Also issue of what the automation systems have. X. Agreed that if exempt @ or before apprais- al, then you are exempt, and as if appraisal didn’t occur. Will do in Q & A. Jodie to develop the Q & A’s on this. Raised issue of SIPs and exemptions (exempt SIPs and returning to SIP-dom after exemption ends.) XI. Have started working on a ACL on DV issues. Send list to Gail Sullivan. Drafting waiver form. Discontinued issue of difference be- tween DV program requirements and WtW waiver. They know and are going to clarify. Notices of denial; when can request (ALJ in LA said must be w\/in 90 days of being told of waiver.) XII. Exceptions: how inform of extender, how to apply, when to inform. Natural times for reminders (redetermina- tion). Think there’s readability room for im- provement of difference between exceptions and exemptions. Agree issue of automatic ones. Asked us to look at WtW 2106 (?) form. Kate suggested using LSNC form; Kevin sug- gested using QR 7 form. Nu asked: if turn 60, should auto add? Yes, counties SHOULD. When modify forms, will go out with ACL that will explain process. Retros? They need to look into it. Also need to survey, since front line staff don’t know can get back on after 60 months. Question re: resources of timed out individuals (for food stamps). XIII. Combined notices re: OP on separate reasons: Consortium said programmed so each OP is County Client Abuse Reporta separate notice of action, no way to process combo NOA. LA said it was a result of agree- ment. Discontinued that they may be looking at the wrong thing. The problem is when there is more than one basis in one month (and then that continues): Deprives people of FS waiver; Fraud prosecution; XIV. Students taking sanction instead of stopping education. SB 1104 encouraged them to look at the sanc- tioned folks, but not required. Give examples of SIPs that are not allowed to cure to Teri Ellen. XV. UIB\/DIB anticipated income: Only with specific award letter with amount and start date. This went out in QR imple- mentation letter. Raised issue w\/ UIB\/DIB and anticipated income. Maria asked for top 10 issues. Look back period for historical earnings. Next meeting will be in Monday, December 5, 2005 ffrom 10 AM to 2 PM. -=-=- County Client Abuse Report Ms. S.H. is a victim of spousal abuse. She is not a U.S. citizen but she is eligible for Cal- WORKs under the Violence Against Woman Act (Violence Against Woman Act (VAWA)) program. Sometime in March of 2005, she reported to San Diego County that she had child support money that was being collected in her country that exceeded $5,500. The only way she could get that money was to person- ally appear in Mexico where the money was being held. San Diego County issued a notice of action terminating her benefits because she refused to retrieve the money. She filed for a state hearing. She was told at the hearing that according to administrative law, if she left the country she could not reenter the United 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-16- September 6 , 2005 – Page 6 States of America unless she had advance parole status. The regulations state: MPP 42-201 PROPERTY .1 Real and personal property shall be considered for purposes of this chapter when it is actually available. Property shall also be considered when the applicant or recipient has a legal interest in a liquidated sum and has the legal ability to make that sum available for support and maintenance. .2 Limits on property holdings have been set high enough that a person need not be completely destitute to qualify for aid. On the other hand, these limits insure that persons who own property sufficient to provide themselves with the necessities of life do not receive aid intended for those in greater need. Limits on property which he\/she can retain and remain eligible for aid are set forth in this chapter. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .3 Objectives In determining eligibility with respect to property, it is necessary to ascertain the purposes for which property is held. A person is eligible if the property he owns is held for any one of the following purposes (within certain limits): (1) To provide him with a home; (2) to provide him with income to help meet his needs; (3) to provide him with a reserve to meet a future need. Emphasis is placed on the purpose for which property is allowed to be held. The specific limits with respect to use or total value on some types of property constitute a part of the definition of a needy person; but the more important consideration is that property may be held within those limits, because it meets a present or future need of the recipient. Regulations in this chapter are designed to express a general test: does the property meet a current need or is it to be held for some future need? This test should be the basis of decision in situations not specifically or exactly covered by the regulations. Policies governing eligibility with respect to property shall be administered with consideration to the ability and circumstances of the person in order that undue hardship not be imposed upon him in making his plans to comply with property provisions. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE In order for this welfare mom to retrieve the $5,500 child support, she would have to pre- pare an application for advance parole, also known as I-131. She would have to file that with the USCIS Vermont Service Center and pay a $165 filing fee. It takes at least four to five months to receive an approval or denial. Applicants for an I-131 do not have a right to advance parole – it is a USCIS discretionary benefit they bestow on some and not others. Assuming that she is receiving her advance parole, she would have to have money to trav- el to the location where the $5,5000 is being held. She would also have to find child care for her children. San Diego County never offered to pay any of these expenses. The ALJ held that the argument that she could not reenter with advance parole is less than persuasive . Gilford Eastham, ALJ, ruled that $5,500 was actually available to this victim of domestic abuse without showing that the claimant had resources available to travel to Mexico; that the claimant’s children would not be left home alone while she was in a foreign county; and that the claimant had an approved I-131 in her possession to travel and return to her family in the US. SIPs Down 52% – Correction Due to a computing problem, we reported in our last issue that statewide, SIPs were down 52%. This was incorrect. There was actually a 23% increase statewide. We also reported that from 2002 to 2005, Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties had their SIPs re- duced. In fact, Los Angeles County had a 30% increase and Santa Clara County had 26% increase. This does not mean that counties have become receptive to SIPs. Getting a SIP approved in California is still a fight and many persons who should have their SIPs approved often lose. 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 \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 15, August 18, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief \ufffd Sacramento County Denies Problems with CalWin computer- After concerns about the new CalWin computer system, Greg Saxton of Food and Nutrition Service contacted Sacramento County re- garding the implementation of the new sys- tem. There were concerns about how the new system has resulted in many food stamp applicants and recipients not receiv- ing timely benefits during March and April of 2005. The County has denied any such problems. If FNS does a review of the March and April 2005 applications, it will find that many food stamp recipients and applicants did not receive their benefits in a timely fashion. Sacramento County also denied that they did not issue aid paid pending in accordance with state regulations. \ufffd DSS to allow Food Stamp recip- ients to use EBT cards for approved res- taurants in LA County- On June 8, 2005, LA County DPSS was informed by DSS that L A County’s proposal to implement a food stamp restaurant meals program for home- less, elderly and disabled food stamp recip- ients had been approved. \ufffd Is a Child Care Tax Credit con- sidered CalWORKs income? In a policy interpretation done by DSS for another sec- tion of DSS, it was held that the special child tax credit of $1,000 paid to a family is treat- ed as an income tax credit refund and it is exempt income pursuant to MPP 44.111.3L. \ufffd Welfare-to-Work or Welfare- to Sanction? As CCWRO anticipated in 1996 when the program was enacted, the prima- ry goal of the program was to sanction and still is. During May of 2005, 53% of the un- duplicated participants were sanctioned, while only 3% found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. Welcome to the Welfare-to-Sanction Pro- gram. \ufffd Los Angeles County told they have to pay transportation for self-employed per- sons- On June 8, 2005, Sylvia Romero of LA County DPSS asked CDSS if the county had to pay transportation to CalWORKs participants who are self-employed. Sylvia Moreno informed DSS that Los Angeles County’s research of the law has lead them to conclude that being … self employed and hav- ing expressed a need for transportation bene- fits, the participant would have an option of re- ceiving transportation but would not have an option of claiming transportation expenses as a part of her operational expenses. Would you agree with this statement? Karen Vinson of CDSS issued a Policy Interpre- tation that states: Yes, self-employed CalWORKs participants are eligible to receive transportation support- ive services. MPP 42-750.11 states that necessary support- ive services shall be available to every partici- pants in order to participate in the program ac- tivity to which he or she is assigned or retain employment. MPP 42- 716.11 lists the welfare-to-work ac- tivities, which includes self-employment. If a person has signed a welfare-to-work plan that approves self-employment as their welfare- In Brief CCWRO Litigation Report CalWIN Client Abuse SIPS Down 52% Sanctions Up 110% CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 15, August 18, 2005 – Page 2 to-work activity and the plan indicates that transportation payments are a needed sup- portive service, they are entitled to transpor- tation payments to get to and from their place of business. The transportation that is a part of the operation of a business, such as purchas- ing supplies or making deliveries, would not be a supportive service. These are part of the cost of doing their self-employment business and can be taken into account in calculating benefits under MPP 44-113.2 and 63-503.413. CCWRO COMMENT: This does not make sense. If the WtW activity is self-employment, then any transportation expenses related to the activity is a needed transportation cost. There is nothing in the statute or duly promul- gated regulations that state supportive ser- vices is limited to and from the activity. As Karen Vinson pointed out in her Policy In- terpretation, 42-750.11 defines supportive ser- vices and it states: 42-75011 Necessary supportive services shall be available to every participant in order to participate in the program activity to which he or she is assigned or to accept or retain employment. If necessary supportive services are not available, the individual shall have good cause for not participating under Section 42-713.21. ADVOCATES NOTE: There is nothing in this language that limits supportive services to trav- el to and from the place of employment. This is clearly a new regulation duly promulgated by Karen Vinson of DSS without going through the California Administrative Procedures Act. It is also an illegal policy right now in effect in Los Angeles County, that affects at least 32% of the states unduplicated participants. WtW participants who are participating in any activity have a RIGHT to supportive services for any type of transportation need said activity generates. To limit a need sup- portive service because the participant can obtain the services from another source is an intentional violation of MPP 42-750.11 and a violation of Yslas v. Anderson. CCWRO Litigation Report ROBLES v. SAENZ Sacramento County Case No. 03CSO0996 This writ of administrative mandate and petition for writ of mandate (filed with the Asian Law Alliance) pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 challenges the validity of the policy of the California Department of Social Services ( DSS ) that the indigent exception which exempts the income and resources of the immigrant’s sponsor for purposes of establishing eligibility for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants ( CAPI ) does not apply before August 29, 2002, the date that DSS issued All-County Letter No. 02-63. This policy is inconsistent with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b) which requires that federal deeming rules and exemptions governing the Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) Program, including all federal and state laws and regulations designed to protect SSI recipients and their resources, shall govern CAPI. CASE STATUS- Began draft of opening brief, research amendment of petition and amended petition. VU, et. al. v. BOLTON (San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF 04-504362) Bay Area Legal Aid requested that CCWRO co-counsel on this case. CCWRO has a Russian client being affected. BALA wanted to bring this action. Legal Services of Northern California requested that we co- 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 New Welfare News #2005- 15, August 18, 2005 – Page 3 represent CCWRO’s Russian client in this litigation. Co-counsel Welfare Law Center in New York. This case was filed on July 15, 2004. This is a writ of mandate action brought pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code\u00a3 1085 and is brought by limited-English proficient (LEP) individuals applying for and receiving Food Stamps in California. Petitioners challenge Respondent’s failure to translate into appropriate languages all Food Stamp program and certification materials, in violation of the bilingual requirements of the federal Food Stamp Act and its implementing regulations. Plaintiffs are represented by Bay Area Legal Aid, Center on Welfare Law and Policy, CCWRO, LSNC and Western Center on Law and Poverty. CASE STATUS: Respondents want to settle case. There have been regular settlement conference calls with Attorney General and DSS staff for the past several months. Settlement negotiations are continuing. GAVRILENKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 00CS01547) CCWRO working with LSNC, is amending the petition for writ of administrative mandamus to a class action petition for writ of mandate; complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief along with the writ of administrative mandate. This action challenges the validity of the practice and policy of the California Department of Social Services ( CDSS ) that allows counties to impose the Maximum Family Grant limitation when the English language notice of action is issued to non- English speaking recipients when the CDSS has translated the notice of action into the recipient’s primary language. This policy and practice is inconsistent with state laws and regulations. CASE STATUS: Worked on opening brief. HOWARD, et.al., v. BOYLE Legal Services of Northern California requested that CCWRO and Western Center on Law and Poverty co-counsel. CCWRO has one of the two named clients in this lawsuit. The amount of food stamps a family receives is based on the household’s income. In computing the food stamp allotment, the household’s income is reduced by the amount of the household’s shelter costs. For the purpose of determining the amount of food stamps that the Claimant’s household is entitled to receive counties must compute the income deductions for the amount of shelter costs. Counties prorate the amount of shelter costs between family members not receiving food stamps because of ineligibility and the eligible food stamp members. The proration is done pursuant to the Department of Social Services regulation sections 63-502.36 and 63- 502.372. The proration of standard utility costs violates federal regulation 7 C.F.R. 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(F). The United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service issued Administrative Notice 02-23. This notice specifically provides that DSS . . may not prorate the SUA if all the individuals who share utility expenses but are not in the food stamp household are excluded from the household only because they are ineligible. . . CASE STATUS. We are waiting for the administrative record. Discussed timing of case and met with client. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-15, August 18, – Page 4 SIPS Down 52% Statistical Analysis In May 2002 there were 11,008 WtW participants in a self initiated activi- ty according to the 5\/02 WtW 25 re- ports. DSS and most counties have nev- er supported such independent actions by welfare recipients and have erect- ed many barriers between the Cal- WORKs student and the SIP activity. These barriers have proven to be ef- fective resulting in 52% less SIPs in 5\/ 05 than there were in 5\/02. The primary barrier is that the student must be enrolled in college before ap- plying for CalWORKs. A CalWORKs re- cipient who applies for welfare before being asked to participate in any WtW activity then starts attending college will be severely punished by the coun- Counties May, 2005 May, 2002 Diff. % of Diff. Statewide 5,234 11,008 -5,774 -52% Orange 80 508 -428 -84% Los Angeles 1,148 5,050 -3,902 -77% Ventura 90 225 -135 -60% Contra Costa 34 77 -43 -56% San Benito 6 13 -7 -54% Sonoma 18 38 -20 -53% Mendocino 36 73 -37 -51% Santa Clara 223 399 -176 -44% ty workfare bureaucrats in three counts. COUNT ONE: COUNT ONE: COUNT ONE: COUNT ONE: COUNT ONE: Drop out of college. You can’t go to college if you are on wel- fare, is what many CalWORKs -receiv- ing college student are told. COUNTY TWO:COUNTY TWO:COUNTY TWO:COUNTY TWO:COUNTY TWO: Student sanctioned by reducing the meager CalWORKs bene- fit (which is at the same level as in 1990) by 25%. COUNT THREE: COUNT THREE: COUNT THREE: COUNT THREE: COUNT THREE: Stu- dent receives a notice stating that the student has to attend job club during the same hours that he or she is in school. Failure to do so would result in at least 25% reduction in Cal- WORKs benefits. Table #1 reveals some of the more ag- gressive counties fighting the war on making sure that CalWORKs recipients do not end up in school and having a much better chance of escaping pov- erty. Orange county has reduced their SIPs by 84%. Los Angeles County by 77%. Contra Costa County by 56% and San- ta Clara County by 44%. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-15- August 18 – Page 5 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 1234567890123456789012345678901 CalWIN Client Abuse Report \ufffd A Sacramento Vietnamese client received, as a condition of eligibility for public assis- tance, a CalWIN verification checklist print- ed in batch for Vietnamese language. The words were overlapping and correct charac- ters were not used in translation. \ufffd A Food Stamp recipient received a notice of action stating that she was overpaid. Cal- WIN also mailed a notice of action to the ab- sent parent. (CalWIN has been programmed to believe that absent parents are responsible for overpayments of the custodial parents and that Welfare and Institutions Code 10850 does not exist for CalWIN.) It appears that the people who built the flawed CalWIN system were not aware that violation of confidential- ity is a crime in California. This problem was noticed by the CalWIN system operators on or about April 19, 2005 and has yet to be fixed as of July 12, 2005. \ufffd A General Assistance (GA) recipient re- ceived a notice of action (NOA) that contained the State Fair Hearing Information on the front of the notice and the GA fair hearing infor- mation on the back. A Sacramento county of- ficial stated that ..this STATE information on the front could easily confuse someone into thinking that open call to request a hearing on a Food Stamp issue would also count as a GA filing. \ufffd Another client completed the annual re- determination for 5\/10\/05. The determination resulted in changes in benefits, which took effect by CalWIN, but CalWIN did not issue the due process required NOAs to let the client know about the new amounts and the renewal\/recertification period. \ufffd Another client who applied for Medi-Cal in June of 2005 did not get a verification check- list because the CalWIN computer simply re- fuses to print out of verification checklist. These CalWIN problems are coming to your county soon. For more informationFor more informationFor more informationFor more informationFor more information about CalWIN and whatabout CalWIN and whatabout CalWIN and whatabout CalWIN and whatabout CalWIN and what you can do in youryou can do in youryou can do in youryou can do in youryou can do in your county callcounty callcounty callcounty callcounty call Grace Galligher ofGrace Galligher ofGrace Galligher ofGrace Galligher ofGrace Galligher of CCWROCCWROCCWROCCWROCCWRO at 916-736-0616 or e-at 916-736-0616 or e-at 916-736-0616 or e-at 916-736-0616 or e-at 916-736-0616 or e- mail @ ccwro@aol.com.mail @ ccwro@aol.com.mail @ ccwro@aol.com.mail @ ccwro@aol.com.mail @ ccwro@aol.com. CalWIN Start Date COUNTY 9\/05 Sonoma 10\/05 San Mateo 11\/05 San Francisco 12\/05 Alameda 1\/06 Tulare 2\/06 Orange 3\/06 Santa Barbara 4\/06 San Luis Obispo 5\/06 San Diego 6\/06 Fresno CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-15- August 18 , 2005 – Page 6 Counties 2002 2005 Diff. % of MAY total total Diff Counties 2002 2005 Diff. % of total total Diff Statewide 5,234 11,008 5,774 110% Alameda 310 103 -207 -67% Alpine 0 0 0 0% Amador 3 1 -2 -67% Butte 103 122 19 18% Calaveras 4 7 3 75% Colusa 0 1 1 0% Contra Costa 34 77 43 126% Del Norte 36 8 -28 -78% El Dorado 15 11 -4 -27% Fresno 865 365 -500 -58% Glenn 1 0 -1 -100% Humboldt 40 66 26 65% Imperial 61 97 36 59% Inyo 0 0 0 0% Kern 383 445 62 16% Kings 57 47 -10 -18% Lake 10 5 -5 -50% Lassen 17 9 -8 -47% Los Angeles 1,148 5,050 3,902 340% Madera 70 61 -9 -13% Marin 9 6 -3 -33% Mariposa 4 2 -2 -50% Mendocino 36 73 37 103% Merced 219 194 -25 -11% Modoc 0 1 1 100% Mono 0 1 1 100% Monterey 97 138 41 42% Napa 10 10 0 0% Nevada 6 3 -3 -50% Orange 80 508 428 535% Placer 0 22 22 100% Plumas 1 1 0 0% Riverside NR 294 NR NR Sacramento NR 563 NR NR San Benito 6 13 7 117% San Bernardino NR 1,005 NR NR San Diego 187 236 49 26% San Francisco 75 0 -75 -100% San Joaquin 284 127 -157 -55% San Luis Obispo 50 52 2 4% San Mateo 0 17 17 100% Santa Barbara 68 50 -18 -26% Santa Clara 223 399 176 79% Santa Cruz 38 50 12 32% Shasta 84 65 -19 -23% Sierra 0 0 0 0% Siskiyou 28 15 -13 -46% Solano 59 36 -23 -39% Sonoma 18 38 20 111% Stanislaus 143 146 3 2% Sutter 47 22 -25 -53% Tehama 23 25 2 9% Trinity 5 0 -5 -100% Tulare 109 133 24 22% Tuolumne 13 18 5 38% Ventura 90 225 135 150% Yolo 41 37 -4 -10% Yuba 24 8 -16 -67% Table #1 Sanctions Up 110% Statistical Analysis This week, DSS published the May, 2005 WtW 25 reports. We decided to compare the May 2002 sanction rates to the May, 2005 sanction rates. As we have suggested in this publica- tion before, the WtW program is really a wel- fare to sanction program. The grease is the growing amount of funds that counties get to hire WtW workers who can operate the Wel- fare to Sanction program of California while benefit payments to needy families go down or do not keep up with inflation. Table #1 shows county-by-county number of sanctions during May of 2002 and 2005, the number and percentage of increased sanctions Several counties did not submit the WtW 25 as required by state regulations. The counties refusing to submit reports without any con- sequences are Riverside, Sacramento and San Bernardino counties. Southern California counties, such as Orange and Los Angeles are leaders in running a wel- fare to sanction program. In three years Or- ange county has increased its sanction rate by 535%. During May of 2002, Orange County sanctioned 80 families. During May of 2005 they sanctioned 508 families. Orange county found 104 families jobs that resulted in termi- nation of employment during May of 002. In May of 2005 there were only 10 families who found a job that made them ineligible for wel- fare. Los Angeles county is second in California at 340%. Meanwhile during May of 2002 1,568 persons found jobs that resulted in termina- tion of welfare benefits, but in May of 2005 it was down to 500 families finding jobs. This is a 318% reduction in finding em- ployment and a 340% increase in sanc- tion – a true welfare to sanction pro- gram. ”

” 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 17, October 1, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief 4 Child Care Workers to be Union- ized – Minimum Wage lawsuits may be coming – At a recent County Wel- fare Directors Association (CWDA) meeting there was a great deal of discussion of unionization and the threat of lawsuits related to child care providers. CDSS is seeking in- formation about unionizing child care workers who get less than minimum wage for providing in-home care to children of WtW participants. 4 CDSS Issues Katrina ACINs- CDSS has issued three All County Information Notices dealing with Ka- trina, Food Stamps and CalWORKs. ACIN I-51-05 states that San Diego is prepared to accept 600 evacuees. San Francisco will accept 300 and San Jose will accept 100. ACIN 52-05 provides that the county should be making homeless assistance available to families applying for CalWORKs. The ACIN does not mention the improbability of finding affordable housing in California markets such as San Diego, San Francisco or San Jose on meager CalWORKs benefits levels. A family of three would have to find an apartment for less than $578 a month to qualify for homeless as- sistance in California. Remember, the State Legislature and the Governor suspended the COLA for two years and kept CalWORKs benefits at 1990 levels. ACIN 52-05 also states: In This Issue In Brief Advocates Meet With DSS Client Abuse Report SIPS Down 52% – Correction Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. When an individual or family dis- placed by Hurricane Katrina applies for CalWORKs, counties shall do the following: Establish that the evacuee was living in an area affected by Hurricane Katrina when the hurricane struck (a listing of the affected areas is attached);… Show that they have not been on TANF for 60 months. The ACIN also states that Louisiana has a 24 month time limit for TANF. How does one who lost everything PROVE they are from Louisiana? F o r Food Stamps ACIN 05-53 also suggests that counties contact Alabama, Missis- sippi or Louisiana to verify whether or not the applicant was getting food stamps for the month of September, 2005. 4 Poverty Up In America 12.7% – Pov- erty has increased under Bush. In 2003, the poverty level was 12.5%. In 2004 it climbed to 12.7%. This is evidence that welfare reform (also known as welfare deform) is not helping America’s poor. Bush’s TANF proposal will further in- crease poverty in America. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 17, October 1, 2005 – Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ADVOCATES MEET WITH DSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION TO TALK ABOUT STATE HEARING ISSUES The meeting was attended by Lonnie Carlson, Presiding Judge for Northern California, Tom Wilcock, Presiding Judge of Bay Area, Bruce Barber, Presiding Judge of Child Support and Rosalie Morefield, DSS super-analyst. The advocates present were Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher of CCWRO, Jodie Berger of LSNC, Dora Lopez of Western Center on Law & Poverty, Michelle Morrow of CRLA, Steve Weiss of BALA and Yolanda Arias of LAFLA. Lonnie Carlson said that the Department is mov- ing towards telephone hearings provided that it is OK with the claimant because of the severe shortages of ALJs in California. One of the major reasons for this shortage is that DSS is only given the federal share of the medicaid dollars for fair hearings, while the general fund matching dol- lars are not spent for state hearings. This is called constructive budgeting and it is outright fraud in CCWRO’s view. 1. SUBPOENA: Advocates suggested that infor- mation regarding how to get a subpoena be placed in both the acknowledgement and the notice with the hearing date. DSS agreed to put this infor- mation in the acknowledgement letter since that gives more time to issue a subpoena and it should be no cost on subpoena duces tecum. 2. TELEPHONE HEARINGS. 45 CFR 205.10 allows all state hearings to be done by phone at SHD discretion provided that the claimant agrees. 205.10(1)(2) Hearing procedures shall be issued and publicized by the State agency. Such proce- dures shall provide for a face-to-face hearing or, at State option, a hearing by telephone when the applicant or recipient also agrees. DSS is doing more and more telephone hearings by necessity to get decisions out in time and it is not a DSS preferred method for hearings. DSS County Client Abuse Report Ms. N. of Sacramento County received several notices of action from Sacra- mento County’s infamous CalWIN pro- gram computer on the same day. The first notice of action (NOA) dated 8\/24\/05 stated that Ms. N.’s Medi-Cal benefits had been approved effective April 1, 2005 with a $412 a month share of cost. The next NOA ,also dated 8\/24\/05, stated that the share of cost had been changed to $428. The notice did not state what the previous share of cost was. Yet another 8\/24\/05 NOA stated that food stamps for Ms. N. did not change. The next page was a DFA 377.7E1 that wanted Ms. N. to sign an agreement to pay a food stamp overissuance of $1,585. Another 8\/24\/05 NOA stated that Ms. N.’s 1931(b) Medi-Cal benefits will be stopped effective 9\/30\/05. A final NOA dated 8\/24\/05 stated that Ms. N.’s food stamps are changed from $70 to $70 each month. Of course, Ms. N. being totally confused with all the NOAs, requested a hear- ing to see if a administrative law judge could figure out the mess created by a computer system that cost taxpayers several hundred million dollars. There are thousands of such notices polluting the homes of welfare recipi- ents in California who unfortunately live in counties that have opted for this lemon CalWIN system, also known as CalHELL. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 17, October 1, 2005 – Page 3 agreed to consider putting a single state-wide num- ber to access all legal services in the state especially with ADH fraud hearings. Presiding judges are putting together a phone hear- ing process, will review at next judge’s meeting, Will share with advocates for review on comment before implementing. If person insisted on face-to- face hearing, we have to give it to them. DSS will be piloting something soon linking Los Angeles, Sacramento, Orange via video-conference. Doing this in Mendicino County at this time as a pilot. Claimants would have option of video CD as part of the record. DIVISION 22 regulation changes will have public hearing in November, 2005. 3. CONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL (CW) LANGUAGE. DSS won’t implement anything before Div 22 regulations are implemented. DSS agreed that it will include language about asking for reopening the CW if county doesn’t act within 30 days. New NOA resurrects whatever county was going to do. Advocates raised the issue of county failure to comply with hearings decisions. CDSS stated that Taylor v. McKay, requires county to comply im- mediately. What sanction power does state have? Only sanction that is known is under W&IC 10605. No compliance mechanism with CWs but if we enter into stipulated decision, SHD does monitor compliance. It was agreed by the meeting participants that it would make sense to enter into stipulated decision in front of judge rather than CW since that way SHD can monitor if we think may be compliance issues. [ A stipulated decision can be entered into by appearing before the ALJ and stating that the parties have agreed to following stipulated decision. The ALJ will take the informa- tion and within a week you have a final decision. 4. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. Note: Carlson says no statute of limitation on underpayments, (can go back more than 90 days). Look to adequacy of notice before addressing jurisdiction problem, even if hasn’t been raised by claimant. Put these issues in Q&A’s and we’ll run it up the flagpole. Los Angeles advocates asks that Q&A specify that county can’t intentionally delay the hearing because they are not prepared. But county can rescind and renotice later. 5. COUNTY UNPREPARED. As general rule, county has to be ready to go forward at hearing but there are exceptions. Note, if county doesn’t present prima facie case, does judge take further testimony or end it at that point. That’s a training issue. The only remedy for no position statement is postponement or go ahead. Regional office presid- ing judge should maintain good relation with each CWD. Use Tom Wilcock( The presiding Judge of the Bay Area Office) for things like this. Very successful in most cases to get counties to move on things or change tactics. Kevin proposes that county just lose if no position statement prepared. DSS said it would require statutory change. 6. DEFECTIVE TAPES. It’s a training issue. As far as process issue, it’s a judge responsibil- ity. Willing to put info in benchbook, reminding judges of importance of these issues. Parties can ask that judge listen to tape, agree that this is what judges should be doing, reiterate importance to that. Unaware that we’re using any county equip- ment. We have equipment housed with the county but it’s state equipment. If not there, judge brings equipment. There are no standards for recording equipment. It’s not high cost which is generally bulky, so it’s small, light. Microphone is most important feature, so get powered microphones. Wilcock: tape recorder in SF is same as rest of state. They’re old, purchased a while ago. Try- ing to get better equipment. Do a check of quality at beginning of hearing. Will put at next judges meeting, possibly standards for recording equip- ment, along with training equipment. Can suggest make and model. 7. REHEARINGS. Legal has insisted on being in charge of entire rehearing process. Lonnie Carlson said that DSS would be willing to look into grant- ing rehearings in cases of defective recordings 8. WEB-BASED HEARING REQUESTS: DSS is planning to have web based hearing requests. The program is being developed at this time and it may be on the DSS State hearing Division web page at the end of the year. The next meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2005. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-16, September 6, 2005 – Page 4 ”

” 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 18, October 18, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief 4 Notice of Proposed Rule-making for SSI Ticket to Work – In the Septem- ber 30, 2006 Federal Register, page number 57222, the Social Security Administration has published new proposed regulations making changes in the SSI Ticket to Work program. 4 HHS to Survey State Improper Child Care Payment Policy- The federal department of Health and Human Services is asking states to voluntarily provide HHS information on how they define improper child care payments in their states. This information will later be available on the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF). 4 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops receives $194,000 in addition to the $1,000,000,000 they received in 2003 – Catholic Bish- ops received $1,000,000,000 from HHS dur- ing September of 2003, according the Fed- eral Register dated September 21, 2005, page 55403. On 9\/21\/05 HHS announced that they have handed over another $194,000 to the Catholic bishops for Refugee Family Enrichment program. 4 TANF extended to 12\/31\/05- Pub- lic Law 109-68, extends the current TANF program until 12\/31\/05, but it also includes some positive provisions making additional TANF funds available to states to help vic- tims of the hurricane Katrina. 4 Make Poverty History- This year in Yerevan, Armenia, one of the poorest cit- ies on the planet, a banner stating MAKE POVERTY HISTORY was displayed in the center of town. Everyday, 30,000 children die on this planet because of poverty. For more information check out www.make- povertyhistory.com. In This Issue In Brief CA Welfare Computer System – A billion Dollar Lemon Client Abuse Report 10\/6\/05 Sanction Workgroup Meeting Report Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. 4 Some U.S. poverty facts- There are 300,000 homeless persons in the United States of America, the richest country on earth (for the rich). Every 44 seconds a baby is born in poverty; every minute a baby is born without health insurance. (Source: Children’s Defense Fund) 4 No Child Care to Cure Sanction- In a 7\/1\/05 policy interpretation, DSS analyst Caroline Prod informed Imperial County that they could not pay child care for a WtW participant who had been in sanction for over 24 months and was willing to sign a WtW 32 and participate in a WtW activity. This policy interpretation was approved by Dorette Pierce of the DSS employment bureau. The policy interp states .. if the client complies with the activity plan and the sanction is lifted, then the client would be eligible for Stage One Child Care services as a current recipient of CalWORKs cash aid. Of course, without child care the participant cannot cure the sanction, thus the sanction remains forever. 4 Congress to cut pooor programs to increase cuts for the rich- This month the Senate is considering legislation that would cut $35 billion from medicaid, food stamps and other social services program and to reduce taxes for the rich by $60. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 18, October 18, 2005 – Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 California Welfare Computer Systems Billion Dollar Lemons Since 1970’s, over 1 billion dollars has been used to computerize the California welfare system and the system is in disarray. Every new system is built from scratch rather than taking an existing platform that performs well and converting it to a welfare system, like Turbo Tax or Quicken. Using an existing platform would mean that computer compa- nies would make less money. Most of the state and county welfare staffers who must work with these faulty computer systems are basi- cally illiterate when it comes to programming problems. Counties do not retain independent consultants who know the computer language and lingo. LEADER and CalWIN are just two of the lemon computer programs populating the welfare system in California. There are now four computer systems in operation in California. In addition, there is a separate system for child support called CASES and a Medi-Cal system called MEDS. None of these systems are capable of talking to each other. The four welfare systems are: 1. ISAWS 2. Los Angeles LEADER 3. C-4 4. CalWIN ISAWS ISAWS, (Integrated Statewide Automated Welfare System) which was supposed to be California’s flagship welfare computer system, is being phased out after spending millions of dollars. ISAWS-using counties will have to either convert to the C-4 system or to the CalWIN system. A this time there are 35 counties who are in ISAWS, they are; Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin, Mari- posa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Plumas, San Benito, San Jouquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Te- hema, Trinity and Yuba. These 35 counties have about 6500 workstations\/computers and cover 13% of the California caseload. The ISAWS computers are 6 years old and are becoming very hard to maintain. Re- placement parts are hard to find. This is a Windows NT system and maintenance support ended 12\/31\/04. The state was able to get one more year of maintenance support for this antiquated system. Thirty six counties have decided to use the C-IV system and have rejected the CalWIN system. The State plans to migrate from ISAWS to C-IV November, 2008. LEADER This system is only used by one county– Los Angeles. This system has been and continues to be a nightmare for both beneficiaries and welfare workers. When a problem is fixed on LEADER, the fix creates another problem. This is another lemon that was sold to the county and state welfare officials. LEADER provides services to 39% of the California caseload and it has 11,000 work stations. LEADER is now outdated and Los Angeles County is working on getting an updated system. The options for Los Angeles County is to upgrade the LEADER, replace it with a C-4 system or CalWIN. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 17, October 18, 2005 – Page 3 C-IV C-IV is another computer system that was built from scratch. We have no information about this system, other than it is also problematic. C-IV covers 12% of the California caseload and has 6,407 workstations\/computers. C-IV is currently operating in Riverside, San Ber- nardino, Merced and Stanislaus counties. As of now, C-IV is not able to create federal and state required reports that a competent computer system should be able to produce. CalWIN — aka CalHELL CalWIN is a lemon that many legal services providers have been struggling with since the beginning of 2005. While legal services advocates struggle with CalWIN it does not effect their basic survival, however, CalWIN has been devastating for thousands of families who suffer from hunger, homelessness and destitution. CalWIN is currently implemented in 18 counties and covers 39% of California’s welfare caseload. CalWIN, when operational in all 18 counties will have 28,000 workstations. The counties that are going to be operating CalWIN are Alameda, Contra Cost, Fresno, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Tulare, Ventura and Yolo. To date, Contra Costa, Placer, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo have implemented CalWIN. The next counties on line are: November, 2005 – San Francsico December, 2005- Alameda January, 2006 Tulare February, 2006 Orange March, 2006 Santa Barbara April, 2006 Ventura May, 2006 San Luis Obispo June, 2006 San Diego July, 2006 Fresno Sanctions Workgroup Meeting 9\/22\/05 DSS-Invited Attendees: Albright, Kelly, Program Analyst DSS, Employment Bureau Allen, Teri, Section Chief DSS, Employment Bureau Ansell, Phil – Los Angeles CWD Arias, Yolanda – LAFLA Aslanian, Kevin – CCWRO Berger, Jodie – LSNC Bill DeVore, Bill, Manager I, DSS, Employment Bureau Bono, Michael Los Angeles CWD Buchanen, Nick, Department of Finance Caigle, Karen, Branch Chief Employment & Eligibility de la Ossa-Ramirez, Jennifer Riverside CWD Dodson, Anastasia, Consultant, Senate Appropriations Com- mittee Eubanks, Matt, DSS Estimates Branch Francis, Diana – San Diego CWD; Garcia, Gabriel, Program Analyst DSS, Employment Bu- reau Herald, Mike – WCL&P Hinckley, Cynthia – Riversiede CWD, Hornbeck, Julie – Fresno CWD, Huerta, Julianna, Principal Consultant Assembly Republican Fiscal Office King, Audrey, Program Analyst DSS Employment Bureau McCarty, Sara, Principal Consultant, Senate Health & Human Services Committee McCloskely, Marilyn – Attorney, DSS Legal Affairs McKeever, Casey – Principal Consultant, Assembly Human Services Committee, Meiss, Kate, NLS Merk, Gloria, Deputy Director, DSS Administrative Division Metsker, Charr Lee, Deputy Director DSS WtW Division Price, Susan, Fresno CWD Salley-Gray, Julie , Analyst – LAO Senderling Cathy, CWDA Usaha, Nu, WCL&P Webb-Curtis, Chris, Bureau Chief DSS, Employment Bureau Weiss, Steven, BALA DSS explained that the RAND study, which was due April 1, 2005, has yet to be pro- duced. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-18, October 18, 2005 – Page 4 DSS provided a list of 12 recommendations reflecting the recommendations made by the preliminary sanction report of RAND. The advocates stated that they would like to add some issues to the list. There were over 10 issues added to the DSS list of issues. 1. RequiRe oRientation\/appRaisal as condi- tion of eligibility to ensuRe individuals aRe infoRmed of theiR Rights and Responsibilities. (Rand pRoposal) This proposal would terminate benefits to the whole family for failure to attend orientation. There was no support for this proposal from the attendants of the meeting. 2. pRovide infoRmation about woRk, pRo- gRam RequiRements, and suppoRtive seRvices when individuals fiRst become eligible oR befoRe oRientation. (los angeles dpss sug- gestion). The group agreed that this is a current statu- tory and regulatory requirement. 3. Program comPuters to automatically send the na 840 when an individual non Partici- Pates. this will helP address workers giving multiPle second chances. (rand ProPosal) This proposal assumes that workers give a person a second chance when the CWD finds that a person had good cause for failure to participate and reschedules participation. Otherwise the participant is sanctioned. Computers are already programmed to issue a NA 840. Advocates pointed out that many counties are not adhering to the sanction procedures set forth in ACL 03-59. 4. fosteR betteR cooRdination between eligibility and employment divisions. (los angeles); The problem here is that the eligibility staff and WtW staff are separated and this causes major problems for the participant commu- nity. There are some counties, such as Sacra- mento County that does not have a separate staff, and it works well for participants. Los Angeles County did a pilot program where WtW staff co-located with eligibility staff and this enhanced participation rates and increased curing of sanctions. However, Los Angeles County found it expensive to co-locate staff in the same building. A suggestion was made by advocates that eli- gibility staff be designated as the persons who can process the sanction-curing procedure. This will increase participation and remove a major barrier that participants have in curing their sanctions. 5. RequiRe moRe staff tRaining in sanction pRoceduRes. (wpRp) This proposal was supported by attendants. It was also agreed that this proposal should be part of the Los Angeles County proposal for DSS evaluation of county sanction pro- cesses. Short-term Barriers (good cause) 6. assess need foR child caRe\/tRanspoRtation foR single paRents with small childRen at oRientation. (los angeles). County is required to do this, but it is not done correctly. About 50% of the WtW participants do not get transportation. Advocates sug- gested that counties be required to verify that the individual has supportive services before being required to participate. 7. identify baRRieRs to compliance among individuals who aRe able to complete oRien- tation but not able to paRticipate in pRogRam activities. (los angeles) The group supported the idea of assessing the individual for exemptions, including in- dividual barriers and structural assessment. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-18- October 18, 2005 – Page 5 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Long-term Barriers (exemption) 8. RequiRe wtw casewoRkeRs to meet with sanctioned individuals at the annual in-peR- son RedeteRmination meeting. (Rand) This recommendation basically means that during annual redetermination the eligibility worker shall offer to cure the sanction. Los Angeles County stated that they mail out a monthly letter to persons in sanction inform- ing them that they can cure their sanction. Counties admitted that the biggest problem with curing sanctions is the fact that the eli- gibility and WtW staff are in separate parts of the county and are not co-located. Advocates suggested that the Quarter Report be revised to include a question whether or not the CalWORKs recipient wishes to cure the sanction. A affirmative response should trigger the curing process from the date that the QR 7 is signed. 9. RequiRe home visits foR sanctioned indi- viduals who don’t cuRe afteR the minimum sanction peRiod has passed. (Rand) This was determined to be a costly proposal and advocates do not support home visits un- less the recipient agrees to the homie visit. Willfull Non-Complinace 10. eliminate noncompliance plan foR individ- uals who do not have good cause. (Rand) There was no support for this suggestion. This suggestion would increase sanctions and not enhance participation. 11. Replace cuRRent 20\/30 day noa with a 10-day noa. (Rand) There was no support for shortening the sanction period. Advocates proposed that the sanction process be broken into two (2) parts: (1) good cause determination; and (2) imposition of a sanction to be done in a 30 day period. 12. allow evidence of second chances to sub- stitute foR a compliance plan. (Rand) This proposal had no support and it was simi- lar to the proposal of #3. 13. incRease the amount of sanction. (Rand\/san diego) The group felt that there is no evidence that increasing the sanction would enhance par- ticipation. 14. Click the 60-month time clock while sanctioned. (RAND) The group agreed that stopping the clock would not be the factor that triggers par- ticipation. It would also deny persons the opportunities that WtW has to offer once the participant agrees to participate. 15. moRe stRictly enfoRce cuRRent sanctions [impute the tRue value of housing, woRk with subsidized housing pRogRams, and\/oR moRe stRictly implement vendoR\/voucheR payments afteR second instance of sanction]. (Rand\/ san diego). The group discussed this issue and agreed that food stamp and Section 8 benefits are not increased when a sanction is imposed and welfare benefits are decreased. 16. vendoR\/voucheR poRtion of the sanction system is not being utilized. (Rand) The participants concluded that vendor pay- ments are being used in accordance with the law. Counties have discussed the viability of sanctions and have concluded that it is not ef- fective means of encouraging participation. In fact some like the vendor payments, because it relieves the individual of paying her\/his bills and makes the county do that work. It is also expensive. 17. counties not complying with acl 03-59. dss should incoRpoRate this acl in Regula- tions and also issue an acl stating that a CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-18- October 18 , 2005 – Page 6 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 sanction can only be imposed of the county has complied with each and eveRy pRovision of acl 03-59. (advocates) The RAND study found that many coun- ties, including Los Angeles County, are not complying with ACL 03-59. Counties did not oppose this recommendation. 18. simplification of wtw sanction pRocess foRms. (advocates) Advocates pointed out that because all is- sues have been boxed into one notice, it has become confusing and individuals getting this notice are often sanctioned as a result of this confusion. 19. befoRe sanctioning foR failuRe to sign a contRact, the paRticipant should be RefeRRed to thiRd paRty assessment. (advocates) Los Angeles County said that if the county proceeds with an individual assessment it should be able to identify these issues. 20. paRtial sanction foR paRtial paRticipation. this pRoposal pRovides that if the paRticipant is meeting 50% of the paRticipation houRs, then they should have a 50% sanction RatheR than a 100%. (advocates) Julie Sally-Gray of the Legislative Analyst Office suggested that earnings in itself is an incentive. Advocates pointed out that earn- ings reduce CalWORKs, Food Stamp and Section 8 benefits. San Diego county said that this would raise workload issues. Computers were supposed to make things easier, but it has resulted in making it difficult to imple- ment simple changes. Any change requires a computer reprogramming, which costs money and time. 20. RewaRds foR paRticipation in lieu of pun- ishment. positive incentives in lieu of negative incentives. the cuRRent system Relies totally on negative sanctions. in the business and most institutions employ positive means to get employees and peRsons to peRfoRm. (advocates) DSS asked if that doesn’t erase the punish- ment. CWDA representative Cathy Sander- ling She has been thinking of the proposal as earning the sanction money back; didn’t get their full portion; not getting more than what would have gotten if participated. Karen Gagle of DSS said that the participating and non participating person get equal amount of money over period of time, but other persons didn’t participate the full time. Los Angeles County representative Phil Ansel pointed out that the sanctioned persons don’t get as many services. Another suggestion was that if a sanctioned person gets a job, then the money withheld due to the sanction could be used as a bonus and given to the participant. 21. failuRe to make satisfactoRy pRogRess is not now a sanctionable action. advocates pRoposed that in lieu of sanctioning the peR- son who is tRying to paRticipate, simply Reas- sign the peRson to a moRe suitable activity. (advocates) There were no objections to this proposal. 22. eliminate duRational sanctions. Sanctioned persons are counted as a partici- pant when the federal government computes the participation rates. Thus, it is advanta- geous for the state to have a person participat- ing rather than being sanctioned. If a person is in his or her second or third sanction, which are three months and six month durational sanctions, the person is told to wait until the sixth month is up before he or she can par- ticipate. County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Ms. S.H. of Los Angeles County, is home- less. On October 3, 2005, she secured an offer of permanent housing and submits the verifi- cation to the Los Angeles Southwest Family district office. The worker who accepted the verification is worker Young. On October 5, 2005, she was informed that the county could not issue her homeless assistance because the county had lost the verification. She was told to obtain another verification. Meanwhile, her and her child spent another night on the streets of Los Angeles County. On 10\/7\/05 Ms.S.H. again provided DPSS with proof of an offer of housing. However, the county refused to act on her information and sent her back to the streets of Los Angeles. But Los Angeles County had more tricks up their sleeve. On October 12, 2005, Los Angeles County informed Ms. S.H. that her application for permanent homeless assistance was denied because, according to the county computer, the address she had provided the county was a vacant lot. Ms. S.H. had the manager of a 200 apartment complex fax a letter to the CWD informing them that she had a valid offer of permanent housing. Los Angeles County, then called the manager, without a release of infor- mation, in violation of the California confiden- tiality law and asked the landlord how much was the monthly rent. The landlord stated that the monthly rent was $800 a month, but Ms. S.H. would be paying $450 a month. Los Angeles County had discovered an inconsis- tency, however, the county staff never asked the manager why Ms. S.H. was paying $450 a month rather than $800 a month which would have clarified the discrepancy. The homeless assistance worker never bothered to see that Ms. S.H. was previously living with her grand- mother who paid part of the rent. Sacramento County client, Ms. L.S. received 23 pages of notices from the county. 9\/29\/05 NOA- Cash aid is increasing from $403 to $516; 9\/27\/05 County has approved underpayment of $677; 9\/27\/05 Cash aid is increasing from $403 to $516; QR-2 form in Russian with English language stating that her IRT is $3,076; 9\/27\/05 Cash aid is increasing from $403 to $516; 9\/27\/05 Cash aid is increasing from $403 to $516; 9\/27\/05 – Effective 11\/1\/05, your Food Stamp benefits are changed from $552 to $522 each month. The notice contains no budget and no explanation of why the food stamps went down. 9\/27\/05 Cash aid is increasing from $403 to $516; DFA 377.7E in Russian with the blanks com- pleted in English. This is a violation of MPP 21-115.2 which states: Forms and other written materials required for the provision of aid and serve ices shall be available to the applicant\/recipient in the individual’s primary language when such forms and other written material are provided by CDSS. When such forms and other written material contain spaces (other than for agency use only ) in which the CWD is to insert information, this inserted information shall also be in the individual’s primary language. This notice tells Ms. L.S. in English that she had a $157 overissuance and could agree to pay it back. She received: DFA 377.7E for another $157; DFA 377.7E for another $216; DFA 377.7E for another $216; All of these DFA 377.7E were in Russian with English insertions in blatant violation of MPP 21-115.2. Sacramento County client Ms. N.V. was on SSI and after 7 years her SSI was stopped and she applied for CAPI. On 9\/24\/05 she received a notice of action stating You are not eligible for full Medi-Cal benefits; however, effective 03\/01\/2005, you will be eligible for RESTRICTED Medi-Cal ben- efits that will allow you to receive emergency medical and pregnancy-related services. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 18, October 18, 2005 – Page 7 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 On 9\/24\/05 Ms. L.V received another notice of action stating As of 08\/01\/2005, you are eligible to receive all the services covered by the Medi-Cal Program rather than the services restricted to treatment of an emergency medi- cal condition of pregnancy related care. On 9\/24\/05 she also received a NOA stating: Your application for Medi-Cal benefits has been approved. As of 09\/01\/2005, you are entitled too receive Medi-Cal benefits. On 9\/15\/05 Ms. L.V received another NOA stating: We have determined that you are not eligible for the SLMB program. On 9\/15\/05 she received a notice of action stating You are not eligible for full Medi-Cal benefits; however, effective 03\/01\/2005, you will be eligible for RESTRICTED Medi- Cal benefits that will allow you to receive emergency medical and pregnancy-related services. Both of these clients have no idea what is in store for October 1, 2005. These kinds of contradictory notices are common in CalWIN counties. Since the start of CalWIN, fair hearings have increased in Sacramento given all of these confusing and conflicting notices of action. Many clients call their workers. Generally it is hard to find a worker to talk to, but when one does, generally the workers tell clients too ig- nore the NOA – it’s just a computer mistake . Soon clients in CalWIN counties think that all notices are computer errors . For example, a letter asking a person to par- ticipate in the WtW program can actually be a computer error, so why go to the appoint- ment? Sacramento County, client Ms. F.P. has an infant and is receiving food stamps. Her food stamps were due on 10\/6\/05. 10\/6\/05 came and there were no food stamps on her EBT card. She called her worker five times that day and no return call. She called five to ten times each day and no return call. Finally on 10\/12\/05 her worker, Ed Vasques, called back and promised to look into it and get back to her the same day. At the end of 10\/12\/05 she never heard from her worker, her baby is still hungry compliments of the county welfare system. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 18, October 18, 2005 – Page 8 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Represen- tation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Im- migration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 916-712-0071 ”

” 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 19, October 24, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief 4 Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to provide report on under- ground regulations – The 2005-2006 State budget Supplemental Report provides in Item 8910-001-0001, that OAL shall report to the Legislature for the next two years, … an accounting of the number and nature of any underground regulations detected… The state budget provides: Underground Regulation Workload. The Office of Ad- ministrative Law (OAL) shall provide to the Chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the chairs of the fiscal committees of the Legislature by April 1, in each of the years of 2006 and 2007, a report that provides an ac- counting of the number and nature of any underground regulations detected, the course of actions taken by OAL to address the issue, and a brief explanation of any fiscal disposition of the situa-tion. The report shall also include the benefit to the state of truncating each practice. 4 Heritage Foundation distorts the truth about poverty in America Some 2.9 million fewer children live in pov- erty today than in 1995 reports the Heritage Foundation, a Republican propaganda ma- chine. Meanwhile, the United States govern- ment reported that the official poverty rate in 2003 rose from 12.5 % to 12.7 % in 2004. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2004, 37.0 million people were in poverty, up 1.1 million from 2003. 4 Main changes sanction process to be more family friendly – This year Maine’s Legislature passed legislation ad- dressing TANF sanctions. The bill puts into place some procedural protections against sanctions for people in the ASPIRE Program, which is Maine’s TANF program. Typically, people in the Program have been sanctioned for missing meetings or not be- ing able to comply with other requirements. Under the new bill, caseworkers must take some extra steps before they can impose a sanction. Now, caseworkers must: In This Issue In Brief 10\/6\/05 – Advocates Meet with DSS State Hearings Division – Meeting Report Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. 1. Review the file to look for possible good cause to explain why the ASPIRE participant did not comply with a requirement; 2. Notify the participant in writing and in detail about good cause; 3. Give the participant a chance to respond to the caseworker; and 4. Get supervisory approval before imposing a sanction. 4 Australia also attacks the poor – Proposals to cut welfare payments for 135,000 parents and their 200,000 children and 75,000 people with disabilities and to place people on income support payments that are riddled with workforce disincentives will impede the fight against poverty in Australia’ said the Na- tional Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) today. NWRN Vice President, Mark Leahy, said: It is appropriate to reflect on the potential negative consequences of the Federal Government’s wel- fare reforms and industrial relations changes during anti-poverty week. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 19, October 24, 2005 – Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS State Hearings Meeting Report October 6, 2005 meeting with State Hearings Di- vision. Meeting Attendants : DSS Representatives John Castello, Deputy Director, DSS State Hear- ings Division, Lonnie Carlson, Presiding Judge, DSS State Hear- ings Division, Rosie Morefield, Analist , DSS State Hearings Division, Advocates Steve Bingham, BALA Tara Davis, CRLA Grace Gallagher, CCWRO Steve Goldberg, LSNC Dora Lopez, WCL&P Marjorie Shelvy, LAFLA John Castello, Chief ALJ, gave presentation as follows: The fiscal situation dictates what services and pro- grams can continue and what must be eliminated. This year’s fiscal situation is very challenging because incurring a $1.5 million deficit in the divi- sion. There is a $630,000 salary savings require- ment. SHD was funded at 100% employee salaries less 5% (salary savings), so must keep vacancies open with the greatest number of vacancies in LA County. There are 8 judges for LA and Orange Counties. Calendars were cut from 6 to 3 in Orange. In Los Angeles there are 4 judges 3 days\/week, but still have the same number of cases. SHD is also implementing new projects be more efficient and provide better customer services. SHD just implemented electronic transferring of decisions, instead of doing it by hard copy. SHD looking at on-line requests for hearings, elec- tronic transfer of decisions and telephonic hearings. Texas holds 99% of their hearings via telephone. SHD utilizes interpreters which costs $300,000, but cannot do anything about reducing this number. SHD is experimenting with video conferenc- ing, and has already purchased equipment for Sacramento and Los Angeles (pilot for dis- ability cases). Video conferencing will begin with disability hearings, only. SHD will save money on travel. The ALJ will be in Sacto, the claimant and rep will be at the Hearing office in Los Angeles. SHD meeting with Clear 2, who are the record- ing tape folks, on November 2nd for a briefing to insure that tapes of state hearings won’t be blank. This company has provided services in Unemployment Insurance cases in Texas. The California Association of Counties (CSAC) purchased 54 audio video sets for counties. SHD hopes that the counties will allow them to use the equipment for the hearing. For example, San Diego has the hearing responsibility for Imperial County and San Bernardino. So an ALJ may be able to use San Diego’s and Imperial’s video equipment, and not travel to Imperial County for a hearing. At least 5 counties up north are interested in video conferencing. Rene Quintanilla is acting head for disability, and will be setting up a group to discuss issues related to video conferencing, and how to implement. Discussed problems with audio-video taping and SHD said that they would be willing for advocates to have input into development of the procedures. SHD also willing to made an introductory video tape about the audio-visual taped hearing. There are many issues to consider, including cultural and mental disability issues. We stressed that ALJs will need training on how to handle disabled clients who may panic with the use of video. ALJs will also need training on credibility assessment in a video medium. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 19, October 24, 2005 – Page 3 Video hearing is optional, and claimants can always request in-person hearings. There was a discussion on ways to reduce the 70,000 hearing requests per year in order to get the budget under control. There is a delay in scheduling hearings for up to 45 days to give time to the counties to resolve the issues. Cases not negotiated go to hearing. This eliminates about _ of all cases. Advocates suggested that there should be an ef- fort at avoidance of hearing by 1) more training of DAPD so they get it right the first time; and 2) training appeals specialists and their supervisors better so thy catch more county errors. Precedent Hearing Decisions Steve mentioned that hearing decisions ought to have precedential value if adopted by the director. John said that decisions have not been utilized by SHD, but there is a process to establish precedent decisions. Per the APA, every agency can establish a precedent decision process. The APA defines a precedent decision as pertaining to a matter of general application and be recurring. Both condi- tions must exist. If advocates believe they have a case that should be a precedent decision, submit it to the presiding judge for the region for review by counsel. Using the guidelines, explain why the decision should be a precedent decision, and why it could resolve further conflict. If Counsel agree, the decision will be given to the Director for review. Once the Director approves the decision as being precedential, the ALJs will receive notice. Lon- nie knows that there is one precedent decision but can’t remember what it is or when it was issued. DSS handed out a copy of the precedent decision procedures. This information is available from CCWRO upon request. SHD wants to give access to advocates and coun- ties to all decisions. DSS is planning to place all hearings decisions on the internet without the names of the claimants. Also want to develop web based requests for hear- ings. SHD conducts trainings throughout the year. In December will be training Los Angeles Department of Children Services appeals staff in Los Angeles. Larry Geller, who retired last year, may be doing this training. In August, SHD trained 1200 Social workers on IHSS. SHD provides training every 2 months to supervisory staff. SHD can provide training to legal services staff. The group then started dealing with the agenda items. The first issue for discussion was the pro- posed questions and answers as a proposed ACL. 1. Discussion of proposed Q&As. Advocates presented a list of proposed Q&As for SHD for consideration. Q&A # 1 and Q&A #2. #1. Q: Can a hearing decision dismiss an overpayment(s)\/overissuance(s) claim if the county has deducted from the claimant’s benefits but has never sent a Notice of Action and has no documents to support the overpayment(s)\/overissuance(s) at the time of the hearing? A: Yes, if the claimant states s\/he is willing to waive notice. The deduction itself is an adverse action and the county must be prepared to support its action at the hearing. #2. Q: Is the answer to #1 above different if the county has not deducted from the claimant’s benefits? A: If no notice was issued and the claimant’s ben- efits have not been reduced, there is no adverse action on which to base a hearing decision. DSS RESPONSE: DSS okay with it. Q&A #3. Other than the instance of an overpay- ment claim, if the county does not send a notice, is there an adverse action? A: Claimants are permitted to challenge any action with which they are not satisfied. MPP 22-003.1. This includes a county’s failure to act, e.g. failure to accept or to process an application for benefits. Individuals may also challenge any program re- quirement or Welfare-to-Work assignment. MPP 42-721.5. DSS RESPONSE: The first part of the example is clearly hearable issue. Failure to act, failure to accept or process an application may not be a triable issue, it depends upon the individual facts. SHD wants to avoid a declaratory deci- 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-19, October 24, 2005 – Page 4 sion. If no viable action, it won’t issue a deci- sion. Per the section for challenge any program requirement or WtW assignment, Lonnie didn’t know what it meant. If the facts of the case does not present a hearable issue, it is not ripe for adjudication and SHD won’t issue a decision. Okay to include examples to clarify. Q&A #4. Q: If it is determined that the county has reduced the claimant’s benefits in error, is there a limit on the time period for reimbursement of those deductions? A: There is no time limit on the county’s obliga- tion to reimburse the claimant for all deductions taken without adequate notice or otherwise found to be taken in error. DSS RESPONSE: Generally true but Notes from the Training Bureau instructs judged to look back to the last adequate notice, even though the last adequate notice of action is unrelated to the deductions, and compute 90 days from that day. Lonnie said that there is some litigation re this issue in SF, and have to mindful of that (advocates don’t know about this litigation). Q&A #5. Q: Can an ALJ render a hearing deci- sion based solely on hearsay evidence? A: No. Since the county has the burden of proof, it cannot take any adverse action, including a denial, reduction, reduction or termination of benefits, etc. without substantial evidence, i.e. without the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious af- fairs. MPP 22-050.2. Unsubstantiated hearsay evidence, on its own, is not sufficient to meet the county’s burden. DSS RESPONSE: The answer is yes. Govern- ment Code 11513(d). Q&A # 6. Q: Are computer system printouts (i.e. LEADER and\/or CalWIN) admissible as evidence? A: Such computer printouts are, at best, hearsay evidence. They are insufficient by themselves to prove issuance of a notice, an overpayment\/ overissuance, an admission by the claimant, or otherwise form the basis to infer non-compliance by the claimant. So, for example, the county must at least be able to produce the notice of adverse action. (See #4 above.) DSS RESPONSE: The ALJ must weigh the evidence. SHD won’t tell the ALJs make pre- sumptions. Must look at the probative value. We will change language to reflect that ALJs may not make evidentiary presumptions about these printouts. Steve suggested that ALJ’s be instructed not to make presumptions of CalWIN accuracy just because it is an official system. Lonnie opines that computer printouts, in ab- sence of other probative evidence, is not very useful. Lonnie will talk to Barry about training judges re probative value of computer print- outs. SHD has requested that the legal division deal with some questions on these broad based issues. Steve Goldberg volunteered to research these issues. We had discussion of whether advocates could gather data showing CalWIN defects and submit at hearings if CalWIN accuracy is an issue. Q&A #7-Q&A #8. Q# 7: What is the process if the Appeals Offi- cer\/Hearing Specialist (AHS) has not prepared a Statement of Position, often claiming s\/he antici- pated a Conditional Withdrawal? The claimant may believe she did not agree to a Conditional Withdrawal, or has decided to go ahead with the hearing. Should the hearing proceed? A: Unless there is a Conditional Withdrawal (or Withdrawal) signed by both parties, the county must be prepared to present its prima facie case on the day of the hearing. It is also required to have the position statement available 48 hours prior to the hearing. The hearing will proceed on the scheduled date, unless the claimant agrees to postpone the hearing. ALJs are instructed not to keep the record open for additional evidence that the county could have presented at the hearing, absent compelling good cause. Q#8. Q: What if the Appeals Officer\/Hearing Specialist (AHS) does not appear for the #hearing, then later states s\/he thought the case was settled? Should the ALJ postpone the hearing? A: As with question #6 above, unless the county appeals worker has a signed Conditional With- drawal (or Withdrawal), the county must be pre- pared to present its prima facie case at the hearing. The regulation protecting a claimant’s right to a hearing should be read as protecting his\/her right to CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-19- October 24, 2005 – Page 5 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 a timely hearing on the merits. MPP 22-000.12. Counties are presumed to have all the information and evidence supporting the action at the time the county acts and thus, absent unanticipated exigent circumstances, there is no reason why the county would not be prepared to proceed. If the county believes the default was taken improperly, it can request reconsideration. DSS RESPONSE: The problem with these Qs and As is that they require judgment calls on the part of the ALJ concerning the facts, behavior, etc. One must trust the judgment of the ALJs without hard and fast rules. Lonnie will put this on agenda to bring up to the presiding judges’ meeting coming up. Q&A #9. Q: To qualify as adequate, a Notice of Action must cite the specific regulations sup- porting the action. MPP 22-001a.(1). Some- times the Notice cites an entire section, without specifying an applicable sub-section, e.g. MPP 45-202 (14 pages, subsections .1 to .62). How specific must the regulatory cite be? A: The Notice must cite the specific section and\/or sub-section on which the county relied in making its decision. The purpose of the Notice is to inform the applicant\/recipient of the precise reason for the adverse action, so that individual can make an informed decision as to whether or not to appeal the action. DSS RESPONSE: An adequate notice should focus on the specific area of the regulations which pertain to the action being taken. There is a presumption that if a NoA was issued by the department, it is adequate. SDH will take a look at our revised language. Lonnie said NoA must cite to authority specifically enough to give client notice of specific basis of the county action. He cited Wheeler v. Montgomery. Q&A #10. Q: Is a notice in English adequate and timely if provided to an applicant or recipient who is Limited English Proficient (LEP)? A: Counties are required to have applicants or re- cipients self-identify their preferred their primary language for written materials. If the claimant has indicated a non-English language, the coun- ties must provide the notices in this language, if translated by the state or county, whether or not the language meets the 5% threshold of the caseload. If neither state nor county has translated the notice, the county has an obligation to effectively orally communicate with applicants and recipients. At a minimum, the county must inform LEP applicants\/ recipients how to obtain an interpreter when they get written communications they cannot read. If a county does not send a NOA in the proper lan- guage, or has failed to provide an opportunity for the applicant\/recipient to self-select the language for written materials, the ALJs are instructed to find that the 90-days to request a hearing is tolled and jurisdiction exists for the hearing. Further, if the notice was sent in the wrong language or the county did not provide access to an interpreter, the NOA will be deemed inadequate. DSS RESPONSE: Generally speaking its ok. Look at ACL 03-56. If the LEP client gets an English language notice and files untimely, the ALJ generally grants jurisdiction. Lonnie said that a NoA in the wrong language is adequate but ineffective SDH has asked the legal division for the depart- ment’s position, since the last ACL was issued in 2003. There is a new ACIN coming out on the subject. We mentioned that Jodie clears all these ACLs and ACINs and is the expert re LEP issues. Q&A #11. Q: Is a Conditional Withdrawal valid if it merely agrees to suspend collection of an overpayment or overissuance? A: No. A Conditional Withdrawal must substan- tively resolve the issue for the hearing. Suspension of collection merely suspends the adverse action without resolving the issue of whether the validity of the county’s claim. A suspension may be ap- propriate if, e.g., the claimant is merely questioning the calculation of the amount due. In that case, the dispute must be resolved within 30 days of the signed the Conditional Withdrawal, with a proper notice of action. DSS RESPONSE: Generally True. Q&A #12. Q: When a claimant has listed an Authorized Representative (A.R.) on the hearing request, or an A.R. form is subsequently submitted to the state or the county, does the county have the option of discussing settlement with the either the A.R. or the claimant? A: No. Once the county is made aware of the claimant’s appointment of an A.R., the county must immediately cease contact with the claimant, including negotiation of a Conditional Withdrawal, unless the A.R. is present or otherwise included in the discussion. This is true whether the A.R. is a CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-19- October 24 , 2005 – Page 6 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 legal advocate or layperson. DSS RESPONSE: Don’t have a problems with it. 2. Conditional Withdrawal language – DSS won’t do anything until Division 22 regu- lations are implemented. SHD agreed that Taylor v. McKay requires county compliance within 30 days. SHD will include language about asking for rescheduling hearing if county doesn’t comply with terms of conditional withdrawal (CW) within 30 days. A new NOA should issue reflecting terms of CW and starting a new jurisdictional time period. Asked about sanction power, SHD said the only known sanction is WIC 10605. However, if the two sides agree to a stipulated decision rather than CW, SHD does monitor compliance. Those at meeting agreed it makes sense to enter into stipu- lated decision in front of judge rather than do CW if compliance is expected to be an issue. DSS RESPONSE: County must comply with the conditional withdrawal (CW) within 30 days. Will deal with this issue by Division 22 regs. These are still in the review process so it will be another 6 months. Will also deal with the adequacy of notice issue. 3. Subpoena – Advocates proposed at an earlier meeting that both the letter acknowledging receipt of hearing request and the notice of hearing date include information regarding how to obtain a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. SHD agreed to put this information only in the acknowledge- ment letter since the hearing notice issuance date often provides insufficient time to respond to a subpoena duces tecum. SHD agreed there should be no cost for documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. SHD is to provide an update on implementation. DSS RESPONSE: SHD is still working on the language. SHD handed out draft language. Will mention subpoenas in acknowledgement of receipt of hearing requests. 5. Telephone hearings – 45 CFR 205.10 allows a state hearing by phone, but only if the claimant agrees. SHD is doing more telephone hearings to save ALJ travel time so that decisions can be issued on time. It is not SHD’s preferred method for hearings. SHD said that the presiding judges are developing a phone hearing process that will be reviewed at the next judges meeting, Advo- cates will be invited to comment on the draft before implementation. It was also mentioned at last meeting that SHD currently has a video-conference pilot in Mendocino and plans a similar pilot soon to link Los Angeles, Sacramento and Orange via video-conference. Claimant will have the option of receiving a video CD as part of the record. DSS RESPONSE: This is not the preferred way of doing hearings. But because of reduced staff, will do telephone hearings. Telephone hearings are at the department’s discretion, not as a mat- ter of right (this is a big budget issue). Judge Garola is focusing on when to do phone hear- ings. Will review the proposals at a meeting on November 2nd. Steve suggested a settlement conference to re- solve common issues that don’t have to go to hearing. Advocates will discuss this more before giving a proposal to SHD. Lonnie said there is such a process in regs, involving ALJ, ap- peals specialist, and claimant\/AR. Steve found MPP 22-074 et seq., dealing with preliminary hearings that are conducted by the appeals specialist. 6. Fines for late hearing decisions – One advocate reports a favorable decision adopted 7\/2505 for a hearing begun on 2\/01\/05 and contin- ued to 3\/15\/05. She is still waiting for a decision from a 5\/31\/05 hearing. The Presiding Judge told her it takes six months to process payment of the Ball fine. SHD is requested to provide a status report on compliance with Ball decision deadlines and payment of fines. DSS RESPONSE: Penalties should not take long to process. If have a late decision call Esther Smithstan, supervisor of State Hearing Support, at (916) 229-4147. Lonnie mentioned that Ed Barnes was counsel on King and Ball cases. 7. Rehearings – CDSS Legal has insisted on being in charge of entire rehearing process. Judge Carlson said that CDSS would look into granting rehearings in cases of defective recordings. SHD is to report back. DSS RESPONSE: SHD is looking at rehearings. SHD is meeting with Programming and Adult Services next week. The driving force behind now rehearings is fiscal. SHD was asked to develop a database to see if SHD can pick up rehearings. John’s position is that there are no resources, even if the data- base cuts the work. Both legal and SHD have a resource issue. Currently, state’s position is to deny by opera- tion of law because of the resource issue. 8. Legal Service Programs 800 Numbers On NOAs – SHD agreed to con- sider including on its notices a single state-wide 800 number to call for access to any legal services program in the state. This is especially important for those with ADH fraud hearings. SHD is to report back. DSS RESPONSE: If legal services arranged to have a single 800 number so that client could call for assistance, DSS would consider adding the number to the NoA. 9. Division 22 Changes UPDATE – DSS RESPONSE: Began revisions 4 years ago but stopped until about 6 months ago. Now in the review process. Lonnie doesn’t know when the package will be available to advocates but it will be at least six months from now. 10. Defective Tapes- At last meeting, SHD said it’s a training issue. It’s judge’s responsi- bility. SHD willing to put info in Benchbook, reminding judges of importance of preserving a record. Parties can ask that judge listen to tape. Advocates said judges should do a check of record- ing quality at beginning of hearing. SHD agrees that judges should be doing this anyway, will reiterate importance of doing it. SHD unaware of judges using any county equipment. SHD has its own equipment housed with the county or judge brings equipment. There are no quality standards for recording equipment, which is not high cost. Powered microphone is most important feature. Judge Wilcock said tape recorders are old; SHD is trying to get better equipment. SHD agreed to put this issue on agenda of next judges meeting, including possibly developing specifications for recording equipment and training issues. DSS RESPONSE: This is being addressed by Clear2There . See above discussion. Steve mentioned that maybe it is as simple as getting extra power mike so that there are 2 moveable mikes picking up voices. 11. Ex Parte Communication – Ad- vocates in one county were informed by an ALJ that some judges sometimes meet with County Appeals Reps to discuss general hearing issues and law. The judge thought that advocates should be attending these meetings or scheduling their or own meetings. Division 22 is explicit about ex parte communications with ALJ. ALJ’s should be forcefully reminded of these regulations. DSS RESPONSE: This is a training issue for judges. Conversations with county staff have an appearance of impropriety and violates due process even though the discussion does not pertain to a case. Maybe all that is needed is a sentence at the be- ginning of a hearing, where the ALJ explains to the claimant that the county representative does not work for the ALJs, but do have an office at the same location. 10. Web-Based Hearing Requests – DSS is planning to have web-based hearing requests. The program is being developed at this time and it may be on the SHD web page at the end of the year. DSS RESPONSE: SHD met October 5 and DSS wants to have this on the internet by November 1. Should be on line in about two months. SHD will update us at the next meeting. Next Meeting December 8, 2005 @ 10:00 A.M. Sacramento, CA ( Dora Lopez of WCL&p ContributeD to this artiCLe) CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 19, October 24, 2005 – Page 7 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Ms. S.H. of Los Angeles County, is home- less.9\/27\/05 Cash aid is increasing from $403 to $516; CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 18, October 18, 2005 – Page 8 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Represen- tation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Im- migration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 916-712-0071 ”

” 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-20, November 8, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief 4 California Food Stamp Error Rate Down — Thanks to Quarterly Reporting – The California error rate is down from 17% to 5.7%. So what really hap- pened? Previously, food stamp recipients had to submit a monthly income report. If the recipient failed to report, then each monthly non-reporting counted as an error- 12 errors a year. With quarterly reporting, recipients only submit 4 reports a year, so rather than having 12 errors a year, now there are only four. Thus, the magical reduc- tion of the error rate from 17% to 5.7%. 4 CalWIN Consultants may be getting $1,200 a hour- Our sources tell us that CalWIN computer consultants who are funded with welfare money, may be receiving as much as $1,200 an hour to fix the lemon CalWIN computer system in counties who unfortunately signed up for the CalWIN system. Sacramento County officials acknowledged that there are Cal- WIN computer consultants, but could not say how much they get a hour. 4 Non-Assistance Food Stamp Caseload up- CharLee Metsker, Deputy Director for DSS Welfare to Work Division informed the 7th Annual Food Stamp forum that since 2003, the California NAFS casel- oad has gone up by 20,000. 4 UCLA Reports that only 18% of those needing food stamp get it- A recent report from UCLA revealed 82% of the families who experience hunger and could benefit from the food stamp program are not getting food stamp benefits. The reasons are multiple, but in a nutshell there are many dangerous land mines between households trying to get food stamps and the foods stamps themselves such as appli- cation barriers and participation obstacles. In This Issue In Brief Dennis Boyle, DSS Director Retires California Refugee Programs Tid-Bids Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. 4 Oregon has SS managers- Oregon, which has a very harsh work program has an unfortunate nickname for their self-sufficiency workers and self sufficiency managers . They are called SS workers which was a term used during WWII referring to the dreaded secret service. 4 Flow Chart Secret to Success- Michelle Wallace of the Oregon welfare de- partment told the 7th Annual Food Stamp Forum sponsored by DSS and the California Food Advocacy Project that they eliminated 23 steps in their medicaid application process by simply doing a flow chart of what happens with the application as it leaves the hands of the applicant and the approval or denial of the application. By asking why is each step was necessary, they reduced the entire application process down to 5 steps. Before it took 28 days to process the application. After doing the flow chart and analyzing the reasons for each step, applications are processed within less than five days. THE LESSON LEARNED – Make a flowchart of the process before you try to reform the process. 4 Faith Based Child Care Centers – Imperial County asked DSS on 8\/31\/05 wheth- er or not a parent can select a faith based day care center and use Stage 1,2 or 3 funds. The answer came on 9\/16\/05 from Tonia Williams stating that …Stage One Child Care regula- tions allow CalWORKs recipients to choose faith based providers for services. According CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-20, November 8, 2005 – Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 to MPP Section 47-260.2, clients have a choice in selecting child care. The regulations do not prohibit clients from choosing child care that may be faith based, even if the faith based child care organization includes religious worship and\/or instructions. 4 Child Care for Child in Common, but not in the Assistance Unit (AU)- Imperial County asked whether the county can pay child care for a child in common who is not receiving CalWORK (CW). The CW recipient is being asked to participate in the WtW activity. The county has not been able to sanction her yet. She has two (2) children; a seven (7) year old receiving CW and a two (2) year old with her unmarried spouse who is working full time, thus, the 2-year is not eligible for CW. DSS response by Caroline Prod on 9\/7\/05 was that the county has to pay for both children as MPP 47-201.121 and 123 provide that child care services shall be paid for a child not in the AU and in need of child care. 4 Why Doesn’t DSS Food Stamp Website have all CWD Phone Num- bers?- Susan Pennell of the California Nu- trition Network is trying to decrease hunger in California. The Network receives federal funds to do this. In their outreach work they are trying to collect the telephone numbers for the counties. Counties work for the State, so any rational person would figure that the State would have those numbers. So Susan asked the State for some numbers missing on the DSS Food Stamp webpage. Contra Costa, Mono, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Tulare and Ventura. DSS, who is supposed to be interested in increasing participation in the food stamp program should eagerly provide the num- bers to Susan. Well, don’t hold your breath. On August 4, 2005, Susan received an e-mail from Rosie Avena of DSS stating that County telephone numbers will only be posted and made available on the FS website if the county elects to have it posted. If the county’s phone number is listed in the telephone directory, but the county elects not to have their phone number listed on the FS website, then the individual inquiring about the county’s phone number should be referred to the telephone directory for the specific coun- ty’s phone number. I know this sounds a little silly not to be able to post the county’s phone number on the website if their phone number is already listed in the telephone directory which is available to the public, but we have agreed to only post those county phone numbers if we have obtained the county’s permission to do so. CCWRO COMMENT: Although this sounds comical, it really is not. County welfare departments have dif- ferent names in different counties. In Los Angeles it is DPSS, in Sacramento it is DHA, in Santa Clara County SSA, easily confused with the Social Secu- rity Administration, also known as SSA. Moreover, it costs $1.99 in Sacramento to get information from 411 per call. CCWRO has a complete list of phone numbers of county welfare departments and needs no permission from a county bureaucrat to release phone numbers paid for by taxpayers for taxpayers. CDSS Newly Appointed Director Retires Dennis Boyle, formerly at CDSS, and then hired by Riverside County as county welfare director, has announced after less than a year as State Welfare Director that he will retire. Dennis will leave effective November 30, 20005. Effective December 1, 2005, Bob Sertich, will be the acting director. Bob is the current Chief Deputy Director. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-20, November 8, 2005 – Page 3 Effective January 2, 2005, Cliff Allenby, who was a high ranking official of the Depart- ment of Finance, and is not the Director of the Department of Developmental Services, will move to 744 P Street and become the next state welfare director. Below is a copy of the statement that Denise released to CDSS staff. November 4, 2005 TO: ALL CDSS STAFF SUBJECT: NEWS AND VIEWS This is a News and Views that is really tough for me to write. I joined you here in Sacramento almost a year ago and I intended this to be the last assignment in a career of public ser- vice that began at 8:30, on Tuesday morning, March 4, 1969. It is an assignment that I have cherished. My home was and is in Redlands, in Southern California. Each Monday since I began as your Director I kiss my wife goodbye at about 5:00 a.m. at the Ontario Airport and fly up here to Sacramento for the week. I see my wife again around 6:00 p.m. Friday, back at that same Ontario airport. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time with you, but I long for the time when I spend my days, all my days, with my wife. That time has come. It is with very mixed emotion that I tell you that I have decided to retire from public service at the end of November and rejoin my wife, my bird, and my cat at home. I will miss you and I hope that you will remember me. Always remember that the work we do here makes a difference. Be proud of your service in the public interest. America and California are better places to live because of what you and I do and what you will continue to do. I will be active as your Director until my re- tirement date. I wanted you to hear from me right away so you did not learn of this through rumor. Your Chief Deputy Director, Bob Ser- tich will serve as the acting Director of CDSS during the month of December. Cliff Allenby, currently the Director of the Department of Developmental Services, will report for duty as the Director of CDSS on January 2, 2006. I have known Cliff for many years and I have a high level of respect for his intellect, integrity, and talent. I am sure you will be happy with him as your Director! You know all those stories you read where a public official says they are leaving their job to spend more time with their family? This time it’s true! God bless you. God bless America! Dennis J. Boyle, Director CCWRO NOTE: We have also been informed that Dennis will receive a much higher pension thanks to his one (1) year work at DSS. Have a nice retire- ment Dennis. California Refugee Programs Tid-Bits FRESNO COUNTY REPORTS NO EMPLOY- MENT SERVICES TO REFUGEES – We recently reviewed the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY 04-05) third quarter report for California, dated September 6, 2005 covering the months of April, May and June of 2005. The report reveals that Fresno County provides refugee employment services (RESS) to refugees, but has provided no such services to new applicants during the months of April, May and June, 2005. Most of the major counties receiving refugee money for employment services report persons in the columns dedicated to new RCA enrollees during this quarter . Fresno County reported zero new enrollees. RCA benefits is limited to 8 months and refugees have to enroll in the county refugee employment programs as a condition of eligibility. English-as-a second language (ESL) is part of the RESS services. Fresno County reported that did they provide cash assistance to 116 cases during the months of April, May and June, but no services. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-20, November 8, 2005 – Page 4 DSS has recently reviewed Fresno County and found that they are in full compliance with the requirements of RCA. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OPERATES CON- TRACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW – Like the White House, Los Angeles County is distribut- ing money to contractors without going through the lawful contracting process. RCA funds come to DSS from the federal government (100% fed- eral funding), who then distributes the money to various counties. Counties contract with various organizations to provide services to refugees. The contracts can be extended for three (3) times then it has to go out to bid again. Los Angeles County went out for bids in 2001 and has been extending their contracts year after year. Many of the providers have been operating in violation of state law by unlawfully refusing to issue supportive services to refugee families for several years. The money that these families were defrauded out of by these contractors has not been returned to the families. We are talking about mil- lions of dollars. In fact, according to a September 26, 2005 letter from CDSS to Maria Rodriguez of Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, (DPSS) has asked for a six (6) month extension for submission of the FFY 2005-2006 Refugee Em- ployment Services plan. The DSS letter signed by Ms. Nguen informs Los Angeles County that they have yet to submit their 2004-2005 employment services plan, which was due back in June of 2004. Now Los Angeles County wants an extension for their 2005-2006 plan. The letter declares that Los Angeles County is currently without a valid Request For Proposal (RFP) for contracts to provide services. The last RFP was issued in 2001 and contracts authorized under that RFP should not have been extended beyond the State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2003-2004, despite the fact that the County Board of Supervi- sors allowed these contracts to continue into SFY 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. It is clear that millions of dollars have been expended without a valid RFP by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and it is also very possible that CDSS has been submitting false claims to the federal govern- ment being reimbursed for unlawful expenditures of federal funds. UNACCOMPANIED MINORS PROGRAM Serves One Special Kid – During April, May and June of 2005 California had only one (1) refugee unaccompanied minor. The entity receiv- ing funding for providing services to the refugee unaccompanied minors program is San Jose Catholic Charities who, according to their quar- terly progress report, serve the only one refugee unaccompanied minor in the State. When we called them and asked whether they served only one refu- gee-unaccompanied minor, the person answering the phone was totally unaware of the refugee- unaccompanied minor program. In essence, there are six paid staffers who receive funding for one refugee unaccompanied minor. This must be the most important kid on the planet. Catholic Charities reports their staff for the refu- gee-unaccompanied minors program consist of: 1. Theresa Samuel-Boko 2. Azra Macek 3. Colleen Gulbraa 4. Sister Marilyn Lacey 5. Archana Sharma, and 6. Terry Waters PROGRaMS COVEREd: CalWORKs, WelfaRe tO WORK (WtW), fOOd stamps, medi- Cal. GeneRal assistanCe and RefuGee immiGRatiOn pROblems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 916-712-0071 CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS TYPES OF SERVICES OFFEREd: litiGatiOn, faiR HeaRinGs RepResentatiOn, faiR HeaRinG COnsultatiOn, infORmatiOnal seRviCes, ReseaRCH seRviCes, and in deptH COnsultatiOn. ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 21, November 30, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS \ufffd Counties Not Complying with ACIN- I-77-04 – Transitional Food Stamps – ACIN I-77-04 provides that counties use aid code 0F for transitional food stamp (TFS) cas- es. Some counties refuse to assign an aid code to TFS, making it impossible to deter- mine whether TFS is being issued in these counties. Instead of instructing counties to obey the lawful directives of CDSS, as pro- vided in the California Welfare and Institu- tions Code, CDSS has instructed its Esti- mates Section to extrapolate the TFS ca- seload. Although the extrapolation will pro- vide CDSS with an estimate of the TFS ca- seload, it does nothing to confirm that all counties are issuing TFS. Source: CWDA. \ufffd Inter-County-Transfers (ITC) – CDSS is working on new regulations which would provide that a case is transferred from one county to another county at the end of the quarter rather than at the end of a month. Since California benefit levels are set at two (2) different levels, there are concerns about what benefit level a person gets when they move between regions. CCWRO ADVOCACY POINTER: When a family moves from Region 2 (the lower benefits Region) to Region 1, their benefits should increase effective the date that the family began living in Region 1. \ufffdCDSS encourages counties to meet with advocates – At a September 1, 2005 meeting with counties, CDSS encouraged counties to network with county advocacy groups. Sacramento advocates have been meeting every other month with the local welfare director and staff for some time. in this issue In Brief California Welfare System For Claiming Administrative Costs Seems Fradulent Client Abuse Report Statistical Report – Expedited Food Stamp Service State Hearings Quarterly data TANF Update – H.R. 4241 Passed the House. Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO ADVOCACY POINTER: If your program wants to start meeting with your coun- ty welfare department, you can contact CCWRO for assistance in arranging the meeting. \ufffd SB 1104 (Ch. 229, Stats. of 2004) and SB 68 (Ch. 78, Stats. of 2005) proposed regula- tion – CDSS has scheduled a public hearing on regulations implementing trailer bills for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2005 state budgets. The bills can be found at http:\/\/ www.leginfo.ca.gov\/bilinfo.html. The pro- posed regulations can be downloaded at http:\/ \/ w w w . d s s . c a h w n e t . g o v \/ o r d \/ PublicHear_2217.htm. The proposed regula- tions and the public hearing were not on CDSS’s web page as of 11\/28\/05. We assume it is com- ing soon . For copies of the regulations, if not on the internet, e-mail ord@dss.ca.gov and ask for a copy of the proposed regulations. \ufffd Upcoming SSA COLA reduces other benefits – CDSS has released ACIN I-72-05 dated November 14, 2005, announcing that ef- fective 1\/1\/06 there will be a 4.1% SSA COLA. The ACIN instructs counties to anticipate the COLA for those CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and Food Stamp recipients receiving SSA benefits and reduce benefits based on this anticipation – a Christmas gift from the Schwarzenegger Admin- istration. In the past, DSS mailed out ACLs\/ ACINs instructing counties not to implement the statutory AFDC\/CalWORKs COLA because the In Brief mailto:info@childcarelaw.org CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 21, November 30, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Governor had proposed to eliminate the COLA. DSS then issued retroactive checks be- cause the COLA was not abolished. SSA COLA reduces benefits while the AFDC COLA increases benefits, thus the 46 day advance ACIN ordering counties to implement provi- sions that reduce benefits, and the earlier in- struction not to implement the AFDC\/Cal- WORKs COLA. California’s Welfare System Claiming Administrative Costs California counties claim administrative fund- ing through a process called time-study. Each quarter, welfare workers complete a form that shows how they spend their time so the county and the state can claim federal and state funding for administration. Authors note: I learned about Time-Study in the 1970s from Santa Clara County. The Coun- ty had a vocational services unit that required general assistance recipients to do workfare and other work activities as a condition of re- ceiving County-funded General Assistance. I requested a copy of the Time Study forms com- pleted by the workers. Although their activi- ties were solely related to General Assistance, and so, designated county funds, all of their time was attributed to Title XX, federal fund- ing for social services. Things have not changed through the years. I noted in the County Welfare Directors Associ- ation (CWDA) meeting minutes that CWDA wants CDSS to give advance notice of the counties chosen to participate in the time study. This is the same CWDA who supported legis- lation that provided for unannounced home vis- its by welfare fraud workers as a condition of eligibility. Why would the counties want to know in ad- vance about time studies? Could it be they have something to hide? Most workers we interviewed know that time-study is a sham. Some counties issue memos instructing staff on how to complete the time-study forms to maximize state and federal funds for the counties. Statistical Report Expedited Food Stamps Expedited Food Stamps was designed to as- sist hungry households nationwide. Specif- ic rules apply to expedited services. Anyone applying for Food Stamps may be eligible to receive their Food Stamps within three (3) days if they meet any of the following crite- ria: Households with less than $150 in gross monthly income AND whose liquid resources do not exceed $100; Households whose combined gross monthly income and liq- uid resources are less than the household’s monthly rent\/ mortgage and utilities; Destitute migrant or seasonal farm worker households whose liquid resources are $100 or less. For the quarter of April 1 through June 31, 2005, there were 321,000 households who applied for food stamps in California. Coun- ties report that only 42% of the applicants requested Expedited Food Stamps. 55% of the requests for Expedited Food Stamps were denied by the county. Of those who were lucky to break the barriers between the food stamps and the hungry household mem- bers, 20% were not provided the food stamps within three (3) days as required by federal and state law. The TOP TEN counties failing to issue Ex- pedited Food Stamps within three days, thus sentencing poor parents and children to hun- ger are set forth below TABLE 1: 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 21, November 30, 2005 – Page 3 Statewide 20% 1. El Dorado 37.21% 2. Yolo 35.29% 3. Ventura 33.04% 4. Los Angeles 28.43% 5. Santa Clara 26.67% 6. Sacramento 24.84% 7. Tehama 20.86% 8. Lake 20.79% 9. Humboldt 20.41% 10. Napa 20.00% County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Ms. A.P. of Sacramento County received $3,400 on her EBT card and another $1,350 in food stamps from the CalWIN computer sys- tem. CalWIN was getting into the holiday spirit and was sending welfare recipients extra mon- ey to have a merry Christmas and maybe a happy new year. But Ms A.P’s joy was short- lived. She received a call from her welfare worker, Valentina, ordering\” Ms. A.P. to return the erroneously- issued CalWORKs and Food Stamp benefits immediately. You see, Valen- tina didn’t do her job by stopping the benefits before the computer issued them. Ms. A.P. informed her worker that her husband works (welfare to work) and could not come to the welfare office the next day as demanded by Valentina. A welfare advocate contacted Val- entina and informed Valentina that Ms. A.P. would be glad to return the overpaid funds, but first, Valentina must issue a notice of ac- tion stating how much was overpaid and how Ms. A.P. could return the money. Valentina agreed to do so. Valentina informed the advo- cate that some clients were afraid of being re- ferred to collections and will return the money rather than being referred to collections. Val- entina also reminded the advocate that a re- ferral to collections can damage a credit rat- ing. TABLE #1 Within 20 minutes of talking to Valentina, the advocate received a call from Ms. A.P.’s fam- ily stating that Valentina had just called and asked why she contacted a welfare advocate. Valentina also told Ms. A.P. that if the money was not returned immediately, Valentina would send it to collections. The advocate told Ms. A.P. that an alleged overpayment could be re- ferred to collections, Ms. A.P. must get a NOA, which is subject a fair hearing and a claim of equitable estoppel. Only after all of these avenues have been exhausted, can the case be referred to collections. What Valentina was doing was intentionally making false state- ments and terrorizing Ms. A.P.. State Regu- lation Section 44-352.45 states: If the recipient or individual no long- er receiving aid refuses or is unable to repay the amount demanded, the county shall refer the case to the ap- propriate county official for action on a civil judgment, unless specifically ex- empted under MPP 44-352.2. MPP 44-352.2 refers to nonfraudulent over- payments less than $35. Quarterly State Hearing Report CDSS recently published its State Hearing quarterly activity report for the months of April 1 through June 30, 2005. The activities are as follows: State Hearings (SH) filed 16,919 SH Withdrawn 2,084 SH Verbal Withdrawals 4,568 SH Conditionally Withdrawn (CW) 3,574 SH Verbal CW 2,586 SH Non-appearances 2,433 SH Decisions Granted 1,034 SH Decisions Granted in part 383 SH Decisions Denied 1,121 SH Decisions Dismissals 430 mailto:info@childcarelaw.org 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-21, November 30, 2005 – Page 4 House Passes Welfare Deform Legislation Again On November 17, 2005, the United States House of Representatives, by a 217 to 214 vote, passed H.R. 4241 which slashes many programs for the poor. 14 Republicans voted against this mean-spir- ited legislation under a closed rule by the House Rules committee – H.Res. 560. In a Democracy, these kinds of actions are debat- ed before they are voted upon. However, in the Republican House of Representatives, everything is decided before the vote. In the United States House of Representatives the people are not even allowed to object to legislation. The House Rules Committee, run by Republicans, passed a rule al- lowing a one hour debate for each side followed by a vote; no amendments allowed. The decision was made by the White House and the Republican House of Representatives and could not be altered. When House Resolution No. 560 came to the floor from the Rules Committee setting forth the rules for consideration of H.R. 4241, Congressman Dc- Dermott (Democrat) said: It is the Republican season of giving, and here is what it means: we take from the sock of the poor children in this country 330,000 child-care dollars and put it in the rich sock. It is Christmas time. Take $700 million from Social Secu- rity and put it in the rich stocking. Take child support, $21 billion from Child Support Enforcement and put it in the rich stocking. Take Medicaid from the poor, $10 billion, and put it in the rich stocking. Student loans, $14 million. I take $14 billion from student loans and give that to the rich stocking. And food stamps from 300,000 tables we take and put it in the rich stocking. Finally, foster children, $600 million from foster children in this country goes into the sock, later to- morrow, of the rich because we have taken it from the poor and we have given it to the rich. That is what this bill before us is all about. Tonight in the dead of night you are going to give to the rich who do not need it and take from the needy who cannot afford to lose it. You will disguise this as a Christmas stocking with presents, just in time for the holidays. But it is a heavy-handed club used on the American people. The heartland is not heart- less. Not even the dead of the night will hide what you in- tend to do to the American people tonight. Even the rich will be ashamed. I wonder if the Republicans will. They should be. H. Res. 560 passed by 228 votes. Then the house passed H.R. 4241, which would now go to a Sen- ate-House Conference Committee. The Senate Version does not contain the House barbaric cuts against the poor of America. SUMMARY OF H.R. 4241 H.R. 4241 would force women with newborn ba- bies to work 40 hours a week with no guarantee of child care; H.R. 4241 would increase the participation rates to 70% by 2010; H.R. 4241 will change the way participation rates are calculated that make it harder for States to meet these participation rates; H.R. 4241 will require 24 hours of actual work and allows a maximum 16 hours of education and training. This means that a person who needs edu- cation and training to get a job will not get the tools to get a job. H.R. 4241 provides for specific sanctions for al- leged nonparticipating in this Republican Work Program (remember what Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said whoever works shall eat ). This allows the States to terminate benefits to newborn babies and children if the parents fail to participate in the work program. If the nonparticipation occurs for at least 2 months, terminate benefits of the whole family for at least one month an as long as the person is not participating. This is known as the Republican Pro-Family Full Family sanction policy. The bill does not care that the parent is not able to partici- pate because the State welfare agency will not ac- commodate them as it often happens in Califor- nia. H.R. 4241 provides that a millions of dollars will be given to organizations that promote father- hood . This is another way of funneling federal money to right wing organizations. H.R. 4241 lacks any provisions that provides pos- itive reinforcements for fatherhood – just gives money to fatherhood bureaucrats. H.R. 4241 would prohibit using TANF funds di- rectly or through contract to an entity that is based offshore. ”

” 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-22, December 31, 25, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS In Brief 4 California CalWORKs Vehicle Exemption Hurts Self-Sufficiency – In California, one needs a car in order to get a job and be self-sufficient, which is the alleged goal of WtW. While CDSS promotes self-sufficiency it opposes excluding one car for a CalWORKs family. Does this make sense? Not according other states, such as; Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Ken- tucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michi- gan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia. All of these States exempt the value of the entire car. The welfare officials of these states believe one needs a car to be self-sufficient and they are right. 4 CalWORKs Time Limits Not Nec- essarily Mandatory – California has a 60-month time limit for parents with children. After 60 months, the parents’ benefits are stopped and only the children receive Cal- WORKs benefits. There are some states that do not have time-limits, such as; Mas- sachusetts, Michigan, New York and Ver- mont. Time limits is a state option embraced by those who proposed and voted for the CalWORKs program. 4 Inter-County-Transfers (ITC) – – CDSS is working on new regulations which would provide that a case is transferred from one county to another county at the end of the quarter rather than at the end of a month. Since California benefit levels are set at two (2) different levels, there are concerns about what benefit level a person gets when they move between Regions. CCWRO ADVOCACY POINTER: When a family moves from Region 2 (the lower benefits Region) to Region 1, their benefits should increase effective the date that the family started living in Region 1. In This Issue In Brief CWD Responses to CDSS Food Stamp Survey Statistical Report-IEVS CWD Client Abuse Report Advocates Meet With DSS Advocates Meet With State Hearings Division-Discuss Fair Hearings Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. 4 Kern County Accepts On-line Food Stamp Applications – According to Diane Blankenship, Assistant Program Manager of Kern County Department of Human Services, they accept on-line food stamp applications and workers have been informed of this fact. 4 Medicare Part D – Drug Program Mess – Effective January 1, 2006, Medi-Cal and Medicare recipients will be forced to partici- pate in this new Bush Drug program. This new Drug program forces eligible persons to sign up with a Drug Plan or be assigned to a Drug Plan. Even though the Bush Secretary of HHS says that each drug plan provides all eligible drugs, in reality not all plans provide all drugs. In order to find out which plan provides drugs that a recipient needs, HHS has a Drug Calculator which finds a plan that will cover your drugs. This so-called prescription drug finder tool does not contain correct information according to National Senior Law Center. The calculator address is : www.Medicare.gov. 4 CalHELL Blues- Closed Cases In- clude Medi-Cal- Open Cases Do Not – Effective December 1, 2005, CalWIN, also known as CalHELL, stopped Medi-Cal benefits for active cases and activated Medi-Cal for closed cases. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-22, December 31, 2005 – Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CWD Responses to CDSS Food Stamp Survey MPP 63-104.21(h) and 63-205.1 require that counties complete an Annual County Food Stamp Program Survey of Operations and Access to assure that the needs of recipients are adequately met. This reminds us of the Quarterly Reporting requirements for food stamp recipients and the consequences for violating these require- ments. If the QR-7 is not received by the end of the month that it is due, benefits are stopped and the household goes hungry for days or weeks before they can get their food stamps back. While food stamp recipients have to com- plete a QR-7 and return it by mail, which sometimes gets lost by the county, DSS provided counties with forms that can be completed on line and returned to DSS via the internet. The ACIN requesting this information was mailed to counties on July 6 and gave coun- ties until August 15 to respond. That is 39 days. When a recipient’s Q&-7 is received incom- plete, the food stamps are proposed to be terminated. When the counties’ survey re- sponses arrived, many were incomplete. Del Norte County failed to provide the ad- dress of the One-Stop center that in their sur- vey, the county stated provided services; Placer County submitted a report which State officials could not understand. Brenda Green of Placer County was not able to complete the survey. As of August 17, 2005, Tulare County had failed to turn in their report. When DSS staff received the survey from Solano County it was incomplete. DSS at- tempted to call Toni Cellucci, the contact person who completed the survey, but got an answering machine instead. Moreover, Toni’s phone recording did not provide an option to reach a live person. Sadly, this is a common situation for recipients who try to reach their workers. Statistical Report IEVS Reports CDSS has finally put the IEVS reports on the internet. (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/re- search\/DPA482-Inc_2241.htm) Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) takes the reported income of a CalWORKs\/Food Stamp recipient and matches that up with the income that employers report to IRS. If they do not match, it is called a hit . The list of hits are transmitted to the county. The county is requires to act on these hits within 45 days. Some counties do not act on the overpay- ment within 45 days as required by state and federal law. This causes the overpayments to grow then the county prosecutes the family for a big overpayment. Advocates have been working with CDSS to reduce the backlog. Some counties, such as Alameda have made progress, but others are still way behind. The April-May-June, 2005 report reveals that some counties don’t even bother to report. The nonreporting counties were Fresno, Inyo, Modoc, Placer, San Jouquin, Tehama, and Trinity. During the first quarter of 2005 these nonre- porting counties terminated benefits of 4,592 impoverished families for not submitting a QR-7. These nonreporting counties represent 11% of the statewide terminations for failure to submit a completed QR-7. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-22, December 31, 2005 – Page 3 Fresno County 2,270 Inyo County 6 Modoc County 16 Placer 0 San Joaquin 2,115 Tehama 157 Trinity 28 At least Placer County did not terminate ben- efits for failure to submit a QR-7, which is com- mendable. On the other hand, maybe CalWIN prevented them from terminating benefits for no QR-7. Many counties file felony charges against wel- fare moms for an overpayment over $400 and less than $500. Several counties have IEVS backlogs that would take years and years to clear up at the rate that these counties are operating now. County Hits Pending Years to process Calaveras 354 44 years Del Norte 1066 Infinite Mariposa 307 Infinite Merced 3457 Infinite County Hits Processed During the First Quarter of 2005 Calaveras 2 Del Norte 0 Mariposa 0 Merced 0 County Welfare Department (CWD) Client Abuse Report Los Angeles County Robs Vic- tim of Thousands of Dollars- IIn December of 2004 Ms. T.H. was homeless in Los Angeles. She could not find housing in Los Angeles County, so she moved to San Bernardino where she found housing. Los Angeles paid homeless assistance for her to obtain permanent housing in San Bernardino County. She applied for intercounty transfer with San Bernardino County, but never received a penny from San Bernardino County because Los Angeles County never transferred the case to San Bernardino County. During April of 2005 she received a notice of action from Los Angeles County terminating her benefits for failure to complete an annual redetermination. Ms. T.H called her Los Angeles worker and informed the worker that she did not have any papers to complete. The worker mailed her forms which Ms. T.H. completed and returned to Los Angeles County. On May of 2005 her benefits were stopped for failure to do a redetermination. As a result Ms. T.H was unlawfully denied benefits for May, June, July, August of 2005. She started working September of 2005. Meanwhile, Los Angeles County has im- posed an overpayment against her for an unrelated matter. Her advocate contacted Los Angeles County appeals representative, Bill Yakomovich and asked why couldn’t the underpayment be adjusted against the over- payment. He responded that she did not file for a fair hearing timely. The county did not have to offset the obvious underpayment against the alleged overpayment because 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-22, December 31, 2005 – Page 4 she did not file for a hearing within 90 days. State law provides that if a welfare recipient has an overpayment over $400 it is a felony. In this case the underpayment is over $3,000. She is hoping to get justice, but she is very pessimistic given the inequitable application of the law in California for welfare overpayments and underpayments. ADVOCATES MEET WITH DSS On December 7, 2005, advocates held their regular meeting with CDSS’s Welfare to Work Division. Present were: ADVOCATES Arias, Yolanda, LAFLA Aslanian, Kevin Berger, Jodie, LSNC Bingham, Steve, BALA Galligher, Grace Herald, Mike, WCL&P Lopez, Dora, WCL&P Meiss, Kate, Neighborhood Legal Services Morrow, Michelle, CRLA Reese, Anita, LIFETime Weiss, Steve, BALA CDSS Albrecht, Kelly, WtW Analyst Allen, Terri, Support Services Cagle, Karen, Employment & Eligibility Branch Chief DeVore, Bill, WtW Grayson, Gary, Fraud Bureau Chief Hernandez, Maria, CalWORKs Eligibility Bureau Chief Hightower, Lisa, Assistant General Counsel Lacy, Lisa, Food Stamp Branch working on ABAWDS Lee, Jessica, DSS Chief Meeting Coordinator with Advocates McCloskey, Marilyn, CDSS Welfare Attorney Metsker, CharLee, Deputy Director of Welfare to Work Division Papin, Mike, Supervisor of Food Stamp Sec- tion Sullivan, Gail, WtW Bureau Webb-Curtis, Christine, Welfare to Work Bu- reau Chief Yee, Richton, Food Stamp Branch Chief (This is a partial list from memory) Issues: 1. Prescreening forms- CDSS was supposed to do an ACL explaining what is AN acceptable prescreening form and what is not. Advocates did a Public Records Act request and trans- mitted a stack of county prescreening forms that sought unneeded information in addition to information needed to identify the appli- cants. Kevin talked to Maria Hernandez who asked for a list of counties that seek unneeded information and the type of information. This will be available at the meeting. CDSS RESPONSE: CDSS is drafting a ACIN and a draft ACIN will be shared with us within 2 weeks explaining what is allowable in a prescreening form and what is not. In addition the ACIN shall state that the SAWS- 1 shall be made available to the client at the same time they get a prescreening form. 2. CalWIN\/Leader\/C-IV update about prob- lems and what is being done to remedy them. INFORMATION NEEDED: A list of Trouble tickets for the first two quarters of 2005 and discussion as to what is being done to address these problems. CDSS RESPONSE: 12\/14\/05 LADPSS is meet- ing with advocates monthly on LEADER. LEADER is causing many OP according to Yolanda Arias. Kevin will transmit an e-mail to Yvonne asking for trouble tickets. The ACIN is in the process and it is being done by Civil Rights Bureau regarding county usage of translated forms. This will be dis- cussed at the 12\/16\/05 meeting regarding computers. CharLee said that DSS has instructed coun- CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-22- December 31, 2005 – Page 5 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 NAOs to Jodie and we will be getting back to her. CDSS will entertain Q&A on this issue. 6. Implementation of Sanctions ACL 03-54 – Many counties have failed to implement ACL 03-59. Thousands of sanctions have been imposed in direct violation of ACL 03-59. This is true such high sanction counties as Los Angeles. CDSS will be setting up a Sanction WORK- GROUP. Survey to determine whether or not and when they started to implement ACL 03- 59 will be finished next week. Kate Meiss said that LEADER does not do GAIN sanctions. 7. Exemptions before WTW assignment- At time of application (42-711.11) to be provided WtW 6 on exemptions. Also at appraisal. Supposed to be entire list. DSS agreed to tell counties that if found exempt at application, it’s as if appraisal didn’t exist (if exempt back to date of application.) Also a good time to remind can’t mandate appraisal for applicants. CDSS RESPONSE: This issue will be included in a future Q&A. 8. Domestic Violence – DSS stated counties were only required to report what they are doing as a stop-gap until state protocols. Discussed problem was that some seem to never have done anything. Others do things that are not complete or not consistent. Re- quested ACL to remind counties must have protocols, can’t be more restrictive. Suggested having a form, like exemption, to request DV and remind must issue NOA of denial. DSS has agreed to do a ACL and will clear it with advocates before it goes out. CDSS RESPONSE: An ACL is in progress. CDSS is looking at request forms and NOAs that will be shared with advocates. ACIN should come out in December. The second ACIN should be out for com- ment in January regarding NOAs and request forms. ties to use manual issuance of NOAs if the computer does not do it. CharLee said that DSS is formulating a policy so that there is a statewide policy to assure that files are available to claimants. CharLee agreed to do an ACIN telling counties that the case file has to be available to claimants – period. 3. San Francisco Early Welfare Fraud Detection Program also known as FRED Protocol Ac- tion by DSS – Steve Bingham’s provided DSS with a copy of the FRED protocol developed by San Francisco County and Advocates. CDSS agreed to examine the document and share it with others. CDSS RESPONSE: CDSS said that they are not doing an ACL, rather they are doing a best practices and review county operations of FRED. CDSS will have a survey questions for counties that they are monitoring. FRED reviews will capture employment verification to assure that it is not job-un- friendly . 4. IEVS Problems – Letter going out to coun- ties with problems on doing form 482 reports. CDSS to send us copy of (redacted without county ID) letter, so we can see what they are going to do. CDSS RESPONSE: Gary Grayson will get back to us within 2 weeks regarding counties not submitting DPA 482 and the backlog. We will look at this again next meeting. Jodie sug- gested that there be a standard for when CAP kicks in, like 30\/60 days behind. 5. CalWORKs Penalties – Discussion of why people get penalties and how to avoid. Work with Maria on minimizing and curing penal- ties, after discussion of issue. Discussion re: problem with Truancy NOA and Immuniza- tion notice (failure to list personal\/religious opposition, as option. CDSS RESPONSE: CDSS will look at a revised language to these notices. Maria will e-mail CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-22- December 31 , 2005 – Page 6 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 9. Separate Overpayment NOA for different causes (Admin error to be separate from HH error): People said NOA’s issued by com- puter. But then LA said, they may be the problem, because thought they had an agreement w\/ advocates to combine all issues on one NOA. They were told they couldn’t do this (?) List to CDSS as follow up item. CDSS RESPONSE: CDSS will get back to us by determining what the issue is and what the proposed resolution to the issue is. Kevin and Jodie should work with Maria on this. This may be an automation problem. DSS will consider doing an ACIN\/ACL on this issue. What is collected first? 5% or 10%? This is a policy issue that has to be decided for an ACL\/ACIN. 10. Student Sanctions Problem: Many students who are SIP and whose 18 months expired are still being sanctioned when they should be participating in WtW. Current clients are also being limited to 18\/24 months. CDSS RESPONSE: OLD SIPs and current SIPs and treatment of such SIPs. DSS will look into these issues and work on a ACL on this. Bill DeVore DSS will do a Q&A on SB 1104, which will include these issues. 11. QR Implement ion Problem: Many counties are still anticipating UIB income when they have no idea when the applicant\/recipient will get the money. Proposed Solution to the Problem: Issue an ACL informing counties that UIB can only be anticipated if they have verification of the exact date that the appli- cant\/recipient will receive the UIB check. This also applies to DIB. CDSS RESPONSE: Advocates should send Maria Hernandez with our top 10 Q&As for an ACIN. Advocates will have this done by 1\/10\/06. NEXT MEETING: First or second week of March, 2006. Date to be determined. Advocates Meet with State Hearings Division to Discuss Fair Hearings Issues Present were: Aslanian, Kevin, CCWRO Carlson, Lonnie, Presiding Juge,DSS Galligher, Grace, CCWRO Harmison, Karlen, Presiding Judge, DSS Lopez, Dora, WCL&P Morefiled, Rosie, Analyst, DSS Shelvy, Marjorie, LAFLA Issues: 1. Status of Proposed Q&A. Advocates have drafted a list of Q&A as a means of addressing issues that need resolution. State Hearing DiviSion (SHD) reSponSe: SHD iS working on tHe propoSeD Q&a anD will give uS an upDate next meeting. 2. Division 22 Package Status. A number of issues raised were referred to the regulations for resolution. This includ- ed the issue of conditional withdrawals. SHD reSponSe: SHD SaiD tHat ConDitional- witHDrawalS will be in tHe SeConD paCkage of regulationS tHat iS being DevelopeD by tom wilCoCk, preSiDing JuDge for bay area. 3. Status of mentioning how to get sub- poenas in the acknowledgment of hearing receipt SHD reSponSe: SHD paSSeD out a Draft revi- Sion of tHe aCknowleDgment of Hearing notiCe. tHe upDate iS in tHe proCeSS. 4. Telephone hearings Advocates wanted to know the number of telephone hearings being conducted in California. SHD reSponSe: SHD eStimateS tHat 10% of tHe HearingS are ConDuCteD telepHoniCally. 5. Placing SHD statistical information in the web. SHD publiSHeS variouS StatiStiCal reportS for management anD it iS a publiC DoCument. aDvo- CateS are SuggeSting tHat tHiS information be plaCeD on tHe net, JuSt like afDC anD fooD Stamp information iS plaCeD on tHe net. SHD reSponSe: SHD woulD look at tHiS re- QueSt anD proviDe aDDitional information at tHe next meeting. 6. Rehearings Currently SHD only grants rehearings for cases where the claimants abandoned the hearing and still wish to have a hearing. Previously rehearings wee granted for any reason that SHD deems appropriate. Generally 80% of the rehearings granted were for the counties in the past if the rehearings granted for reopening of hear- ings were excluded from the calculation. Thus, county requested rehearings were more likely to be granted than a rehearing filed by a claimant. Counties also had the additional advantage of lobbying for the rehearing by phone or at meetings with CDSS. Advocates have asked that rehear- ings be expanded to cover defective tapes and where the Administrative Law Judge fails to address the issues raised at the hearing as required by state law. SHD reSponSe: SHD will get baCk to aDvo- CateS at tHe next meeting. 7. Advocates have proposed that DSS use a statewide legal services 800 number on the back of the notice of action. SHD reSponSe: SHD woulD give uS an upDate at tHe next meeting on tHiS iSSue. 8. Defective Tapes. Advocates assert that at times, the tape of the hearing is defective, thus, there is no record of the hearing for a CCP 1094.5 action. SHD reSponSe: SHD agreeD to aSk barry bern Stein to iSSue a training note about How to teSt tHe tape before anD after tHe Hearing to aSSure tHat tHe Hearing iS being reCorDeD properly. 9. County Ex-Parte communication with ALJs. Advocates assert that judges are communi- cating with county appeals representatives prior to the hearing prior to the hearing without the presence of the claimant or the claimant’s representative, if represented. SHD stated that it is the policy of the De- partment that judges are prohibited from conducting ex-parte communications with county staff and must conduct themselves in such a way as to insure that there is not even an appearance of relationship between ALJs and county appeals staff. SHD reSponSe: SHD woulD be Doing training on tHiS iSSue. a training note anD a paragrapH in tHe benCH book SHoulD inCluDe information about ex-parte CommuniCationS witH County Staff. 10. Internet Fair Hearings Request Sys- tem SHD shared a copy of the webpage for fil- ing fair hearings. SHD reSponSe: SHD woulD aCCept CommentS from aDvoCateS by 12\/31\/05. 11. Parking in Los Angeles State Hearings CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 22, December 31, 2005 – Page 7 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 location on Wilshire . State hearings for the County of Los An- geles is held on Wilshire. Parking next to the Wilshire office building is $25 or more per hearing. Advocates are looking for solutions to this problem. One idea is to have DSS validate the parking ticket. Another option is to inform claimants of where cheaper parking is located. There is also a major problem whether or not this location is accessible . SHD reSponSe: it waS agreeD tHat at tHe next meeting aDvoCateS will proviDe alternative solutions to this problem for shD’s consiD- eration. SHD SaiD tHey want to aDDreSS tHiS CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 22, December 31, 2005 – Page 8 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Represen- tation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Im- migration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or 916-387-8341 or 916-712-0071 iSSue NEW ISSUES FOR NEXT MEETING 1. Presentation by SHD of state policy for alternating ALJ decisions. 2. SHD agreed to do training on treatment of hearsay evidence for the next training that the division does and open the training up to advocates. 2006 Meeting Schedule February 9, 2006 April 13, 2006 June 8, 2006 August 10, 2006 October 12, 2006 December 14, 2006 Happy New Year ”