Search Demo

” 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS Bulletin # 07-1 February 8, 2007 In This Issue In Brief The 2007-2008 State Budget A Draconian Assault on California’s Poor Kids . Letter to the Editor by Kim Belsh\u00e9 LIFETIME Response to Letter to the Editor by Kim Belsh\u00e9 Statistical Facts in Brief Whereabouts unknown – Discontinuances Unlawful County Welfare Department Victim Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian IIINNN BBBRRRIIIEEEFFF \u2714 California Minimum Wage goes up ABAWDS required to work less hours ACIN-I-99-06 informs county welfare departments that the minimum wage in California has increased from $6.75 an hour to $7.50 an hour. The federal minimum wage is still $5.15. Thus, Food Stamp re- cipients assigned to unpaid FSET work compo- nents who are being required to perform unpaid labor to get food stamps, will now have to toil fewer hours. Their food stamp benefits were divided by $6.75 to decide how many hours of unpaid labor they would have to perform, whereas not their food stamp benefits will now be divided by $7.50 to de- termine the number of hours of unpaid labor. \u2714 Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court wants more money According to the Associated Press, Justice John Roberts issued an eight-page report complaining that the pay scale for federal judges is inadequate and threatens to under- mine the judiciary’s independence. Federal judges get $165,200, Appeals judges get $175,100, Associ- ate Supreme Court Justices get $203,000 and Mr. Roberts gets a \”miserable\” $212,100 a year for serv- ing his country. The median income for 2004 was $44,389. These women and men serving their coun- try are already getting 300-400 percent more than the average American. Judges should know what it is like to be a common person and understand the hardships that the rest of us have to endure in order to make more humane and compassionate decisions. \u2714 CalWIN Tip The CalWIN computer system is now operating in 18 California counties. Every- day, CalWIN creates new challenges for advocates. The latest problem to watch for is CalWIN incor- rectly reducing the CalWORKs grant for allegedly not submitting certain required verification to the welfare department. Two such verification items are proof of child immunization and proof of children’s school attendance. Unfortunately, it seems that CalWIN sometimes assesses penalties for submitting this verification even when the verification has been submitted. The problem may be that the default in CalWIN is the penalties and the penalty must be re- moved when the verification is submitted. A county worker said that in several cases clients had been improperly assessed penalties. Advocates should routinely check notices to make sure that im- proper penalties are not assessed. Look at line 10 on the on the right side of the Notice of Action granting or changing benefits to see if a penalty has been as- sessed against the client. If so and the verification has been submitted, clients should be advised to re- quest a fair hearing to challenge the improper pen- alty. 2 The 2007-2008 Governor’s CalWORKs State Budget — A Draconian Assault on Poor Kids of California The Governor has released his 2007-2008 state budget. As usual, the proposed budged launches another cowardly attack on California’s impov- erished families. The budget proposed no cost- of-living-adjustment (COLA) for CalWORKs families but proposes to terminate benefits to those families who have failed to achieve self- sufficiency due to the Welfare to Work admini- stration. Table #1 below provides more details of the proposed budget and how is compares to the budget enacted last year. In a Letter to the Editor, Schwarzenegger’s Sec- retary of Health and Welfare, KIM BELSH\u00c9, the leader of the California’s failed WtW bu- reaucracy claimed that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s CalWORKs proposal is a responsible approach promoting work, strength- ening incentives for family self-sufficiency, in- creasing recipient accountability and positioning the state to avoid millions of dollars in federal penalties. Only 25 percent of CalWORKs participants meet federal rules regarding work participation. What Ms. Belshe means is that although California taxpayers have poured over $1 billion a year to the California WtW bureauc- racy, WtW has failed to assist 75% of the Cal- WORKs participants. The Schwarzenegger concept is very simple. If the bureaucracy fails, then terminate the impoverished families and their children for his bureaucracy’s failure. Schwarzenegger Draconian HIT #1. Suspend the COLA for 2007-2008- Based on current law, the suspension of the 4.21 percent Maximum Aid Payment (MAP) COLA for CalWORKs grants results in $140.3 million in grant cost avoidance. The current CalWORKs families CalWORKs benefits are at the same level that their benefits were in 1990, using 1990 dollars. Certainly Ms. Belshe’s paycheck reflects 2007 and not 1990 dollars and the failed WtW bureaucracy are being paid 2007 wages and not 1990 wages. Schwarzenegger Draconian HIT #2. Terminate benefits to children after 60 months whose parent is an undocumented non-citizen, a drug felon, or a fleeing felon Current law continues benefits for children whose parent has been on aid for more than 60 months. Schwarzenegger’s Budget proposes to terminate benefits, after 60 months, to those children who are children of undocumented non-citizens, drug felons, or fleeing felons. It appears that these children do not deserve to live. This discontinuance, if approved, will re- sult in savings of $150 million in grants. Schwarzenegger Draconian HIT #3. Terminate benefits to children whose parents happen to be in the 75% of the caseload that is not meeting the federal work participation rates. The Budget assumes the implementation of a full family sanction policy for noncompli- ant cases that have been sanctioned over 90 days beginning November 2007 with a twelve-month phase-in. The discontinuance of cases that do not meet federal work participation require- ments will result in grant savings of $15.4 mil- lion. Many families do not participate because of the failure of the WtW bureaucracy to do their job. 50% of the participants do not get transporta- tion. Many are unlawfully denied childcare. Many studies show that the reason for nonpar- ticipation is the direct result of the WtW bu- reaucracy to comply with the law and provide supportive services. Yet, there are no paycheck terminations for WtW bureaucrats who failed to do their jobs and provide supportive services so that more families become self-sufficient. Schwarzenegger Draconian HIT #4. Terminate all aid to families whose parents do not receive benefits and do not meet the federal participation rates. Implementation of a modified Safety Net Program would provide benefits only for cases that meet federal work 3 participation requirements. This change would result in a grant savings of $159.4 million. This proposed change affects families whose parents exhausted the 60-month time limit, but the assis- tance is needed to insure that the children do not end up in foster care. MORE ABOUT THE BUDGET: FACT: According to the Department of Social Serv- ices (DSS), CalWORKs has contributed $9.4 billion to the General Fund from 1998 to date. The average annual contribution to the General Fund is over $1 billion. Yet, in many of these years, California’s impoverished families with poor children did not even get a COLA, which would have only been maybe 15% of the total CalWORKs contribution to the General Fund. FACT: The 2007-2008 Governor’s proposed budget includes $1.9 billion CalWORKs contribution to the General Fund. The 2007-20008 CalWORKs COLA would be less than 10% of the proposed CalWORKs contribution to the General Fund. Doesn’t the Gov- ernator have any shame? FACT: The 2007-2008 proposes to carry-over $400 million in federal TANF funds while denying a 4.3% COLA for California’s impoverished families living on a fixed income of 1990. FACT: While the Budget envisions eliminating benefits to families who fail to meet the federal par- ticipation rates, it does not reduce spending on the WtW bureaucracy. FACT: The 2007-2008 Budget allocates an addi- tional 6.7% to the WtW bureaucracy and reduces spending on poor families by 6.2%. FACT: The Governator proposes to increase the DSS bureaucracy’s allocation by 10% increase yet proposes to eliminate the 75% of the CalWORKs cases who failed to meet the federal participation rates as well as denying CalWORKs families living on a fixed income of 1990 a meager 4.3% COLA. FACT: What would a COLA means to families? Family of Current 4.21% COLA 2 $555 $578 3 689 718 4 821 856 5 934 973 6 1049 1093 7 1150 1198 TOTAL TANF SPENDING REQUIRED FOR 2007-2008 $6,404,628,000 TOTAL TO BE SPENT ON CalWORKs PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES $3,035,320,000 TOTAL TO BE SPENT ON CONTRIBUTION TO THE GENERAL FUND AND ADMINISTRATION WHICH INCLUDES SOME SERVICES $3,269,308,000 4 STATE BUDGET AT A GLANCE Source: DSS In millions of $$$ 2006-2007 2007-2008 TABLE #1 Appropriation Proposed Budget Total TANF Grant\/Required MOE 6,404,628,000 6,385,869,000 -0.29% CalWORKs Program (Actuals) 4,981,954,999 4,722,861,999 -5.49% Grants 3,035,320,000 2,654,624,000 -14.34% Administration 592,778,793 632,849,170 6.33% Services 768,546,956 820,498,825 6.33% Child Care 474,407,250 506,476,004 6.33% Substance Abuse\/Mental Health Svcs 110,902,000 108,414,000 -2.29% County Share of Admin\/Svcs 27,550,000 23,689,000 -16.30% KinGAP 139,726,000 191,800,000 27.15% Non-CalWORKs MOE in CDSS (195,784,000) (191,505,000) -2.23% Other MOE\/TANF in CDSS 208,204,000 275,034,000 24.30% MOE In Other Department Budgets 478,200,000 1,133,121,000 57.80% State Support 24,886,000 27,511,000 9.54% Total Expenditures 5,637,187,000 6,158,823,000 8.47% Federal TANF 2,966,377,000 3,506,772,000 15.41% General Fund 2,515,283,000 2,480,264,000 -1.41% Other State Funds (ETF) 20,087,000 35,000,000 42.61% County Funds 135,440,000 136,787,000 0.98% Total TANF transfers 794,571,000 622,440,000 -27.65% Non-CalWORKs Transfers 168,273,000 174,499,000 3.57% Transfers to Stage 1 and 2 child care, Tribal TANF & Reserves 626,298,000 447,941,000 -39.82% TANF Grant\/Required MOE 6,404,628,000 6,385,869,000 -0.29% Prior Year TANF Carryforward 422,524,000 395,394,000 -6.86% Total Available Funding 6,827,152,000 6,781,263,000 -0.68% Total TANF\/MOE Expends 6,431,758,000 6,781,263,000 5.15% CalWORKs contribution to the General Fund 1,173,949,000 1,954,000,000 39.92% Excess MOE 470,735,000 203,000,000 -131.89% CDE Child Care Programs 30,400,000 75,000,000 59.47% After School MOE 225,349,000 128,000,000 -76.05% 5 LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY SECRETARY KIM BELSH\u00c9 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY Editor — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s CalWORKs proposal is a responsible ap- proach promoting work, strengthening in- centives for family self-sufficiency, increas- ing recipient accountability and positioning the state to avoid millions of dollars in fed- eral penalties (\”Schwarzenegger’s balanc- ing act of spending and cuts” and \”The State Budget: Governor’s Proposal — Social Services,” Jan. 11). Only 25 percent of CalWORKs participants meet federal rules regarding work participa- tion. For too many, welfare is a source of long-term dependence. Welfare was never intended to be in perpetuity, and self-reliant families in the long run are better for chil- dren. This plan will strengthen work requirements and recipient accountability by giving adults not participating in required activities 90 days to comply; loss of aid will be imposed if they don’t. The plan reinforces work by rewarding families who continue to meet federal work requirement after having reached the 60-month time limit by continu- ing aid through the safety net program. The proposal does nothing to change existing safeguards that protect individuals who are unable to work, such as individuals with disabilities. These individuals will continue to receive benefits. Incentives matter. Data suggests that those states with full family sanctions in place increase work participa- tion rates by more than 10 percent. States with a safety net program have even higher work participation rates when combined with full family sanctions. The budget proposal puts forth policy changes that will increase accountability, encourage personal responsibility and rein- force the emphasis on work. Secretary KIM BELSH\u00c9 of California Health and Human Services Agency Reprinted from the San Francisco Chronicle DIANA SPATZ, LIFETIME, RESPONDS TO THE SECRETARY’S KIM BELSH\u00c9 LETTER TO THE EDITOR I hadn’t even seen this but am not surprised. Since it’s a letter to the editor, my understanding is that you don’t typically respond to those. Al- though I’m thinking that maybe an op-ed from a parent’s perspective might be a better way to respond, although it wouldn’t be a direct re- sponse. But I sure would like to respond to her letter – I’m just so mad about how she misrepre- sented the issue I don’t know where to begin. She talks about parent accountability, but what about the state being accountable to CalWORKs families? What about all the parents that were never offered the services they need to get off welfare, while their clock ran down? Or when they asked for services, their caseworkers ig- nored them or denied their request, in violation of state law? And parents who were sanctioned, includ- ing one of our leaders who was seriously in- jured in a car accident and was wheel-chair bound for a year – during which time they sanctioned her for not showing up for a mandatory welfare to work appointment they scheduled without consulting her – so much for parents being \”protected\” by dis- 6 ability exemptions, as Belshe claimed. Or our former board member, who re- quested mental health services for 8 months and was ignored – and she was only referred her to counseling after she had a breakdown and was committed – and then, during her first four months of mental health exemp- tion, her caseworker threatened to sanction her 3 times – which only made her even more anxious and depressed – to the point that she dropped out of school and resigned from our board. Or several mothers that I know who have disabled children but were never exempted – including one mother whose child was di- agnosed as schizophrenic and \”hears voices\” or another whose 12-year old son is suicidal due to seeing his father physically abuse his mother for years. Because that’s all I see happening to parents in the system – and I haven’t even addressed what is hap- pening to moms who are battered women – the state’s own data shows that less than 1% of CalWORKs moms are in domestic vio- lence counseling and less than 1\/3 of 1% are getting domestic violence waivers. When one of the moms in our organization re- quested a domestic violence waiver her caseworker told her \”only if I see bruises all over your body and you have to be living with him for me to exempt you.\” So Belshe apparently has no idea how things are actually working for families in the system. Or maybe she does, but she just doesn’t care. LIFETIME has been thinking to invite her, Genest and other such folks to actually spend a day with a family who re- ceives CalWORKs and see for themselves how parents are being treated. Also, aren’t there studies that show that full family sanctions don’t increase work participa- tion? If so, does anyone have a cite on any such study? Thank you everyone for letting me vent – it helped me feel less over- whelmed by what they’re trying to do – which will help me channel my anger and stop them from targeting our kids. Diana Spatz, Lifetime. STATISTICAL FACTS IN BRIEF FAMILIES DENIED BENEFITS DUE TO COUNTY ERRECTED BARRIERS TO BENEFITS. Ac- cording to the DSS’ CA 255 October, 2006 Report, over 41% of the CalWORKs applications were de- nied due to procedural requirements. That means the family was fully eligible for CalWORKs, but failed to overcome one of many bureaucratic obstacles counties erect to prevent needy families from receiving benefits that they are entitled to receive. Many of these families are forced to reapply and are eventually approved for cash aid, but they lose benefits for one or more months. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL STATE HEARINS OUTCOMES At the request of a Legal Services pro- gram we obtained information from DSS regarding outcomes of equitable estoppels state hearings. The information reveals that From May 1, 2006 through December of 2006 there were 170 equitable estop- pel cases decided for CalWORKs. 122 cases were granted and 48 were denied. That is a 72% success rate for legal services advocates who are the ones who raise equitable estoppel claims during state hearings. WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN DISCONTINUANCES UNLAWFUL Many counties discontinue cases when the mail is returned to the welfare office. Counties often tell ap- plicants and recipients that they must have a perma- nent address. Many counties issue termination no- 7 tices of action for not having a permanent address. Of course, the county notice of action (NOA) does not say that the discontinuance is for failure to have a permanent address. Rather, the reason is whereabouts unknown. Naturally, the NOA is mailed to the recipient at the address allegedly un- known. When the recipient gets the NOA and calls the welfare office saying here I am the county does not rescind their unlawful act of terminating benefits. Often families end up homeless with children going to foster care homes for alleged neglect. The law is very clear. There is no residency re- quirement that the recipient must live in the county. The family simply must be living in the State of Cali- fornia. Moreover, there is no requirement to have an address as a condition of eligibility for CalWORKs. MPP 42-400 Residence in the state, but not in the county, is a requirement for receipt of aid. However, it is necessary to determine the county in which the applicant lives in order to establish county responsibility for pay- ment of aid. (See Section 40-125.) In fact there is no durational residency requirements in California. 42-401 – No durational period of residence in the state or county is required. Can a family be terminated for leaving the State? Not according to the regulations. The family must be absent for more than a month. There must be some evidence that the person is living in another state. Without it, the county action to terminate is invalid, void and unlawful. CONCLUSION: Most of the 1,787 cases terminated in California during October 2006 were unlawful. The county could have simply at the recipient’s EBT card usage. The EBT card is used like an ATM card to spend the cash aid and food stamp benefits, and would show where the recipient actually spent the CalWORKs and Food Stamp benefits. See TABLE #2 below. This table reveals county-by- county total cases denied during October of 2006 and the number of cases terminated for alleged whereabouts unknown. Counties Cases termi- nated Case ter- minated due to where- abouts un- known Percentage of cases terminated due to where- abouts un- known Counties Cases terminated Case termi- nated due to where- abouts unknown Percentage of cases terminated due to where- abouts un- known Statewide 39,368 1,787 5% Alpine 1 1 100% Sutter 140 5 4% Sierra 1 1 100% Del Norte 119 4 3% Stanislaus 533 96 18% Santa Clara 1,608 54 3% Riverside 1,281 214 17% San Luis Obispo 220 7 3% San Bernardino 1,597 199 12% Tuolumne 98 3 3% Merced 440 52 12% Monterey 508 14 3% Placer 140 14 10% San Joaquin 1,428 39 3% Inyo 21 2 10% Ventura 598 15 3% Kern 1,638 138 8% Nevada 42 1 2% Mendocino 181 15 8% Glenn 47 1 2% Tehama 134 11 8% Marin 103 2 2% Yuba 218 17 8% Madera 245 4 2% Sacramento 3,306 252 8% Siskiyou 84 1 1% Kings 217 15 7% Los Angeles 11,444 128 1% Yolo 236 16 7% Butte 323 3 1% Solano 598 40 7% Humboldt 280 2 1% San Francisco 467 30 6% Shasta 338 1 0% Imperial 333 21 6% Alameda 1,878 0 0% 8 Santa Barbara 416 26 6% El Dorado 142 0 0% Lassen 48 3 6% Napa 77 0 0% Orange 1,442 84 6% Amador 36 0 0% San Mateo 244 14 6% Calaveras 35 0 0% San Benito 76 4 5% Mariposa 29 0 0% Tulare 1,306 68 5% Colusa 25 0 0% Lake 96 4 4% Trinity 20 0 0% Sonoma 306 12 4% Modoc 19 0 0% Santa Cruz 235 9 4% Plumas 8 0 0% Fresno 2,052 76 4% Mono 0 0 0% San Diego 1,911 69 4% Contra Costa 0 0 NO RE- PORT COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORT Riverside County denies diversion assis- tance because the worker does not like the applicant and requires participation in WtW by applicants. Ms. A.M. applied for CalWORKs in Riverside County on January 22, 2007. She was prescreened by an eligibility worker (EW) and then assigned to a self-sufficiency work- shop . The EW told Ms. A.M. that if she does not attend this self-sufficiency workshop , EW would deny the application for benefits. At the self-sufficiency workshop another Riverside County worker told Ms. A.M. as she was leav- ing the workshop that Ms. A.M. would not get grant diversion because I don’t like you. It appears that the standard for grant diversion in Riverside County is whether or not the welfare bureaucrat likes you. When we called Mr. Jim Wright, the Assistance Director for CalWORKs and inquired about this, they refused to re- spond. It appears that Riverside County views the welfare laws with contempt and welfare re- cipients with total contempt. Mr. Wright’s office not only refused to respond, but they also re- fused to take a message for him. His aide in- formed us that she is the screener and she screens his calls. Our call was not worthy of Mr. Wright’s consideration. Riverside County also required Ms. A.M. to participate in the WtW ori- entation\/appraisal called self-sufficiency work- shop without providing any supportive services and while they were applicants and not recipi- ents. Los Angeles County imposes GAIN sanctions without proper notices. On June 9, 2006, Ms. 2006179216 received a no- tice of action imposing a GAIN sanction effec- tive July 1, 2006. She filed for a State Hearing. The Los Angeles County Appeals representa- tive appeared for the county with a position statement that did not contain the ACL 03-59 notices except for the June 12, 2006 NOA. EXPLAIN WHAT THE ACL -3-59 NOTICES ARE!!!!! THE ALJ pointed out that the county’s position statement lacked the ACL 03-59 re- quired notices. The county, realizing that they fooled the claimant, but were not able to fool the judge backed down and agreed to stipulate to rescind the unlawful sanction. There are thou- sands of similar sanctions in Los Angeles County where the victims have not filed for a state hearing and will not receive relief until some higher power saves them for this LA County Horror. San Bernardino County sanctions a dis- abled person who did not participate for lack of transportation. Mr. 2006181141 filed for a state hearing because San Bernardino County wanted to impose a sanction on him. On April 27, 2006 this victim received an appoint- ment letter asking for May 5, 2006 to discuss cooperation requirement. The victim failed to appear. The county mailed another appointment letter on May 5, 2006 to appear on May 22, 2006. Again the victim did not appear. He filed for a state hearing and a hearing was held on September 13, 2006. At the hearing, the victim 9 testified under oath that the reason he did not appear for the appointments was because he did not have transportation. The county failed to present any evidence that the victim had trans- portation. In fact, the victim was one of the 3,371 of the 11,340 unduplicated participants participating in the WtW program that did not get transportation. According to the San Bernardino County WtW 25 reports, 30% of the participants in San Bernardino County did not receive transportation during May 2006. The fact that the law provides no one should be sanctioned if transportation is not provided did not help this victim. The county’s real purpose of the program sanction at all cost was af- firmed by the ALJ without any evidence that this victim has transportation and when he testified under oath that the reason he did not participate is due to lack of transportation. This victim also presented evidence of disability from a medical doctor. This too was ignored because the county indicated contacting the doctor’s office involved and the doctor denied completing such verification There was no evidence that the victim had authorized the county to contact the doctor, there was no con- sideration of hearsay evidence. Finally what makes this case so outrageous is that the county had imposed the sanction for something other than a WtW activity. The law specifically limits sanctions for not doing a WtW activity. Keeping an appointment to discuss coopera- tion requirement is not a WtW activity. Injustice was done and we wonder who will fix it? CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, Cal- WIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problems CCWRO IS OFFERING FREE TRAINING FOR 2006-2007 1. Administrative Writ Training 2. Introduction into CalWIN and Major Issues 3. Welfare-to-Work Sanction Defense Training 4. California Public Benefits-Cutting Edge issues & New Development 5. Introduction to Public Benefits Advocacy at the local and state level CALL CCWRO TO ARRANGE A TRAINING SESSION! You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 916-387-8341 916-712-0071 (cell) ccwro@aol.com or daslanian@earthlink.net ”

” New Welfare NEWS Bulletin Bulletin # 07-2 March, 2007 In This Issue In Brief Food Stamp Reauthorization Update State Budget Information LAO Report Analysis County Welfare Department Victim Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 County IHSS Cutbacks Tyrone Freeman of the California Homecare Workers made an inquiry about the Im- perial County IHSS program to DSS. In his letter Tyrone asserts that Imperial County is conducting an orchestrated and systematic effort to reduce IHSS hours of IHSS customers. Imperial County Deputy Director Gary Andrews wrote a four (4) page letter denying these assertions. Andrews stated that his dedicated staff is not conducting a sys- tematic and orchestrated hour reduction of hours on IHSS recipients. Sure. \u2714 The Bush New Budget wants to Change the Child Welfare Program The Bush budget proposes to allow states to design their own alternative system for foster care. Just in Califor- nia to date over $9.5 billion of the TANF dollars have been used to contribute to the General Fund. CCWRO is con- cerned that the same thing could happen in Foster Care. \u2714 Bush proposes $150 million for marriage & fatherhood program The 2008 Bush budget proposes to give $150 million for marriage and father- hood programs. This money is used solely to fund the building of the mar- riage and fatherhood bureaucracy. There is no money for poor people to get a headstart upon getting married, like money to start a family. \u2714 Los Angeles County extends their Refugee Contract again and again Los Angeles County in 2001 conducted a competitive procurement of contracts to provide employment services to refu- gees for three years. The contracts ex- pired 2004. Since then Los Angeles County has been extending the contracts without competitive budding by getting DSS to issue waivers. The latest waiver expired October 5, 2006. \u2714 Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) Problems At a De- cember 20, 2006 conference call of SFIS county operators and DSS it was re- vealed that SFIS confidential informa- tion is being sent in unencrypted e-mails and routed via unsecured interoffice en- velope. In addition, over $26,000, a low estimate, worth of equipment (laptop computers) has disappeared. Counties did not report the missing laptops to the State. Less than 28% of the 3,500 SFIS imaging machine operators have at- tended state-led training. Many are or- dered to the SFIS location without rea- sonable training. \u2714 IRS & FTB matches to start again According to Jeanette Rodoni of CDSS for several years CDSS has not been able to run IRS and FTB marches be- cause CDSS did not meet the IRS secu- rity standards. This issue has been re- solved and CDSS is now getting infor- mation from IRS and TFB. \u2714 Placer County out of compliance with IEVS processing standards The CDSS IEVS Review found that Placer County has 4,500 cases with potential overpayments that have not been proc- essed. The report states that Placer County is violating MPP 20-006.424 that provides that reviews cannot be de- layed beyond 45 days. It may take Placer County centuries to catch up with their backlog. During July, August and Sep- tember of 2006 they only processed one IEVS hit. One wonders how many IEVS workers does Placer County employ and what are they doing? \u2714 Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) with expired card is eligible for Cal- WORKs as long as they provide veri- fication that they have applied for a green OR tried to apply for a green card. A county, whose name with un- lawfully withheld from CCWRO, but we have believe it is Riverside based on CWDA meeting minutes, asked DSS on 9\/14\/05, if a person with an expired green card is eligible for CalWORKs. The answer, by some employee of DSS, whose name was also unlawfully with- held by CDSS on 1\/19\/07, 15 months later, but we believe it was Ms. Beverly Thomas based on CWDA meeting min- utes, said: LPRs do not lose their per- manent resident status because their I- 551 card has expired. Even if the I-551 card is expired, it is an acceptable form of documentation, as long as it is ac- companied by an application for an I- 551 card as evidence of alien registra- tion, per (63 FR 41668.) The county must ask the recipient to present proof of his\/her application for renewal and the receipt for the application at the time of initial determination or renewal of eligi- bility. As long as the recipient is at- tempting to renew his or her I-551 he or she shall remain eligible for Cal- WORKs. CCWRO COMMENT: This is a typi- cal underground regulation. Which is it? Does the applicant or recipient have to provide verification that he or she has actually applied for a green card or attempting to apply. These are very different acts. Applying means completing the immigration form for renewal, paying the filing fee of $260 for each assistance unit member too file an I-90 form. Soon this fee will be 350. What if the re- cipient’s fixed income, which is the same amount that similarly situated CalWORKs recipients received in 1990, cannot cover that amount? Moreover, one cannot just walk in to an immigration office and file an I-90 and get a receipt. One must com- plete the forms and mail them U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services P.O. Box 54870\u2028Los Angeles, CA 90054-0870. It takes weeks and months too get an answer back. The policy interpretation also fails to men- tion that the county has to pay the fee for applicants. See MPP 40- 126.332 that states: 40-126.332 Third Party Fees If necessary, the county shall pay a third party fee to obtain existing evidence of eligibility on behalf of the applicant. Under this interpretation one worker can grant the case if the applicant states that he or she has mailed an application to Los Angeles, while the other worker will deny the application for the same family for failure to pro- vide proof that he or she has file an I- 90. \u2714 DSS fails to tell counties to estab- lish county standards to implement a provision of Speaker Nunez’s Home- less Assistance Bill. Some mystery county on 10\/3\/06 submitted a policy interpretation to CDSS asking what the definition of extraordinary circum- stances as provided in ACL 06-25, which states: Eligibility for payment of arrear- ages In order for an AU to be enti- tled to receive Permanent Home- less Arrearage payments, payment of the arrearages must be a rea- sonable condition of preventing eviction. In addition, a family who applies for arrearage payments due to receipt of a notice to pay rent or quit, must demonstrate that the evic- tion is the result of a verified finan- cial hardship that resulted from ex- traordinary circumstances beyond their control, and not due to other lease or rental violations. The family must be experiencing a financial crisis that could result in homeless- ness if preventative assistance is not provided. The CDSS response was that this county standard that the county must de- cide. The county was not informed that they must follow the provisions of MPP 11-501.3 and ACL 00-08 and 98-58. \u2714 CDSS provides wrong information to a mystery county On 10\/6\/06 a mystery county asked CDSS Some of our longer term employees remember a regulation that states we pay the differ- ence in MAP amounts from one state to another. Upon looking through the state letters and regulations I am not able to locate such a regulation. Client and one child move from Oregon where they re- ceived a maximum aid of $400. In Cali- fornia, their maximum aid would be $584. Would we supplement the $184 difference? CDSS Response No, we do not pay a MAP differential to the client. The beginning date of aid requirements as described in MPP Section 44-317.11 and the MPP Section 40-181.1(a) Quar- terly Reporting requirements would ap- ply. CCWRO COMMENT: The old em- ployees are right and the new CDSS employees are wrong. If a family of 2 moves from Oregon on March 2, 2007 and applies for CalWORKs in Santa Clara County on March 4, 2007, they are eligible for Cal- WORKs in California effective 3\/4\/07. The CalWORKs benefits will be based upon the $400 income from Oregon that would be prorated and the AU is eligible for $184 divided by 31 and multiplied by 27 that equal $160. Another wrong underground regulation. RECIPIENT VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS SUGGESTIONS When the state budget is re- leased by the Governor, the Cali- fornia legislative analyst office (LAO) publishes analysis of the budget that are considered dur- ing budget hearings. This report can be downloaded at: www.lao.ca.gov Below are analyses of the LAO recommendation for the 2007- 2008 state budget. Targeting Anti-Poverty Funds. In order to more efficiently utilize General Fund resources for cash assistance program COLAs, we recommend redirecting $124.4 mil- lion of the funds proposed for the Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplementary Program COLA to provide the California Work Oppor- tunity and Responsibility to Kids COLA. The report reveals the SSI grant for one is 104% of the poverty level, and for 2 persons it is 137% of the poverty level, while for CalWORKs it is 73-74% of the poverty level. Thus, the LAO proposes providing a 1.9% COLA for the 2-person SSI cases and using the savings to pay for the CalWORKs COLA. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATE- MENT: This proposal will hurt some and help some. It would logically help many more in greater need than those who will be denied a COLA. This is a much better option that the option of not getting a COLA for another year and years too come. However, when looking at how to appropriate the TANF dollars meant for needy families, one must look at what is are the priorities of the fam- ily, or any family for that matter. The first priority is to house and feed the family. Meeting the basic survival needs of the family should be the first priority of the CalWORKs pro- gram. Living on a fixed income of 1990 does not meet the basic sur- vival needs of impoverished families with needy children. TANF has con- tributed Alternative Approach to Strengthening the CalWORKs Sanction. Recommend enactment of legislation (1) requiring a home visit or other in-person contact with each family who is out of compliance for three months or more, and (2) increasing the sanction to 50 percent of a family’s grant if the adult re- fuses to comply with participation requirements. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATE- MENT: There is no evidence that punitive sanctions engage CalWORKs participants in welfare to work activi- ties. The legislature should consider the best business practices of obtaining desired outcomes from participants positive reinforcements. The legisla- ture has enacted statutes providing counties positive reinforcements to attain desired outcome, such a per- formance pay and other programs. The same business practice should be embraced for CalWORKs recipi- ents. The positive reinforcement would be to encourage CalWORKs clients to cure the sanction and to provide them with a $100 a month incentive for curing the sanction for every month they participate until they draw down the amount of money that the state\/county has taken away from them due to the sanction. Governor’s Time-Limit Pro- posals. In order to increase work participation, the Governor’s budget proposes new time limits on children whose parents cannot or will not comply with CalWORKs participation requirements. We review the impact of these time limits on work partici- pation, families, and the state budget. We recommend rejecting the proposed time limits because they are not needed to meet federal work participation requirements. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATE- MENT: These are punitive proposals that do not work as evidenced by available research and they are not needed too achieve the federal par- ticipation rates. Spending $200 million for Los Angeles County to come up with a new computer system when there are two (2) existing avail- able systems is wrong. The budget proposes to give Los Angeles County $200 million so they can de- velop their own computer system. Los Angeles County can join one of the existing welfare computer sys- tems- C-4 or CalWIN. But Los Ange- les County says that neither of these systems is compatible to Los Ange- les County Business Practices . The Analyst states: Rather than joining one of the other two recently completed auto- mation consortia, the budget proposes $200 million for planning activities for replacing the Los Angeles Eligibility, Automated De- termination, Evaluation and Reporting (LEADER) computer system with an entirely new system. We recommend that the De- partment of Social Services and the Health and Human Services Agency’s Office of Sys- tem Integration report at budget hearings on why joining an existing system is not feasible and the costs and benefits of an entirely new system. We further recommend that the Legislature withhold funding for planning activities until a cost-benefit analy- sis for a new system is provided. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATE- MENT: Spending $200 million for a new computer system when there are two different computer systems to choose from is wasteful and an abuse of taxpayer dollars by the Governor. That money can be used for the CalWORKs COLA. Los Angeles County would simply have to modify their precious business practices to be compatible to one of the existing computer systems that has cost tax- payers millions of dollars. FOOD STAMP REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE 2007 USDA proposal for the Farm bill has some pleasant surprises The Farm Bill has to be reauthorized in 2007. The food stamp program is a part of the Farm Bill. The Bush Administration has published their proposals for the farm bill of 2007. There are some nuggets in the pro- posal that can be found at: http:\/\/www.usda.gov\/wps\/portal\/!ut\/ p\/_s.7_0_A\/7_0_1UH\/.cmd\/ad\/.ar\/sa .retrievecontent\/.c\/6_2_1FB\/.ce\/7_2 _5V2\/.p\/5_2_4VC\/.d\/0\/_th\/J_2_FB\/_ s.7_0_A\/7_0_1UH?PC_7_2_5V2_cont entid=2007_Farm_Bill_Title4.xml – 7_2_5V2 The two major highlights are: 1. Eliminating the cap on the de- pendent care deduction Current policy supports work or participation in work services by providing for lim- ited deductions from the family’s gross income associated with the cost of dependent care when deter- mining food stamp eligibility and benefit amount: a cap of $200 per month for children under 2 and $175 for other dependent children is the current policy. These current caps have not been changed or adjusted for inflation since the provision was implemented in 1993. This proposal would simplify State administration and help working families with chil- dren. The proposal is to eliminate the cap on childcare and allow food stamp recipients to claim actual childcare expenses incurred as a deduction. 2. Excluding combat-related military pay Enhanced pay from military deployment can sometimes cause families receiving food stamps to no longer be eligible for this assistance. Military personnel receive supple- ments to their basic pay when they serve in combat. Such special pay includes combat or hazardous duty pay, which could reduce a family’s benefits or make them ineligible. This policy change recognizes this problem and would ensure that mili- tary families are not penalized for doing their civic duty. It supports the families of servicemen and service- women fighting overseas by ensuring that their families do not lose food stamps as a result of the additional deployment income. This proposal has been a part of the President’s budget for several years and was first enacted in the 2005 Appropria- tions Act; this farm bill proposal would make this annual policy fix permanent. 3. Prohibiting States from establish- ing and collecting claims from recipi- ents for State agency caused overis- suances resulting from widespread systemic errors. Require states to repay the Federal government for overissued benefits. As States have moved to replace outdated computer systems, there have been situations where time and budget have driven implementation of systems before they have been thoroughly tested. As a result, computer systems have generated overissuances because of design flaws; in some cases, the courts have become involved (e.g. Colorado) and judges have ordered States not to collect overissuances from recipients when the overissu- ance was an agency error (computer generated) and not a client error. However, current Federal law re- quires States to establish and collect claims from recipients. This proposal would recognize the unique situation of systemic errors caused by State agencies in the establishment and collection of over-issuances while still holding States responsible for the error. SUGGESTIONS FOR STATE LEGIISLATION OR BUDGET CHANGES The California State legislature should enact legislation that would (1) eliminate overpay- ments caused the local welfare office and its ill-conceived com- puter systems and (2) disregard of combat pay for the military pay. These changes can be done for the CalWORKs program without waiting for federal leg- islation. WtW Participant Sanctioned with bad NOA in Contra Costa County. On June 17, 2005, Contra Costa County CalWORKs mom received a letter that effective July 1, 2005 she will be sanc- tioned for failure to participate in the WtW program. She has been a victim of domestic abuse and suffered from se- vere skin problems and gynecological problems. She filed for a state hearing during August of 2006. Her claim was denied and the unlawful sanction was sustained. The notice of action dated 6\/17\/05 was a bad Notice of Action because it was not a 30-day notice as required by state law and regulations. Judge Alison Mackenzie should have found the NOA to be in- adequate and granted this victim a fair hearing. It also appears that in Contra Costa County it is common for sanctioning WtW participants without a 30-day no- tice as evidenced by the fact that the county took this bad notice to a state. WtW Participant Sanction reversed and ordered third-party assess- ment by San Diego County. San Di- ego County CalWORKs mom met with her worker and did not agree with the county WtW plan. She wanted to work and go to school. The San Diego welfare workers said that she could either go to school for 32 hours a week or work 32 hours a week. Because she did not comply with the county WtW plan she was sanctioned. At the hearing she explained that she did not agree the county WtW plan and county just ig- nored her disagreement and provided no remedy to address her concerns. ALJ Allan Lenefsky ruled that the county sanction cannot be sustained because the county had failed to refer her to a third party assessment as required by MPP 42-711.522( c ) (5) . San Bernardino Imposing sanctions without a 30-day notice of action . A San Bernardino CalWORKs mom was mailed a notice of action on September 7, 2006 imposing a WtW sanction effec- tive October 1, 2006. The sanction was imposed for allegedly failing to partici- pate in the WtW program. The Cal- WORKs mom filed for a state hearing. At the hearing the CalWORKs mom stated that she did not have transporta- tion and the county admitted that they know she lived in a remote area. The county greed to rescind the sanction due to lack of transportation, but there was nothing in the hearing decision about the bad notice in that it was not a 30 day notice. There are no sanctions against San Bernardino for imposing sanctions against impoverished families with needy children in violation of state laws and regulations. Judge Gregory Martin December 1, 2004 with a April 11, 2006 NOA upholds Fresno County’s imposition of a WtW sanction effective. A Fresno CalWORKs mom received a no- tice of action dated April 11, 2006 stat- ing that Fresno County would be sanc- tioning her effective December 1, 2004. The victim states that she never got the noncompliance notice and that she had medical problems that prevented her from participating in the WtW program. There was no evidence that Fresno County had given her advance transpor- tation to participate in the WtW pro- gram. The county action to impose the sanction effective December 1, 2004 with a notice of action dated April 11, 2006 was upheld by Judge Martin. Merced County Imposes Sanction for Failure to submit a CA61. A Merced CalWORKs mom has been sanc- tioned since March of 2001. The poorly written decision does not reveal when the sanction NOA was mailed to the vic- tim. It appears that the sanction was imposed because the victim failed to provide the county with a CW 61, which is a state form to verify that she has a medical problem. In fact the decision states that during July and August of 2005 she tried to cure her sanction, but the county refuse to cure the sanction until she gave the county a CW 61. Judge Jose Banuelos ruled that It is concluded that the claimant has failed to provide verification of her medical ex- emption status to the county on the re- quired CW 61 form and that she did not have a good cause excuse for her fail- ure to provide such verification until March 7, 2006 First of all the CW 61 is not a required form. There is nothing in the laws and regulations governing the WtW program that states the WtW participant has to provide a CW 61 or be sanctioned. The decision cited MPP 42- 713.1 and denied an exemption. 42-713.1 A recipient shall be excused from participation in welfare-to-work activities for good cause in accordance with Section 42-713.2, when the CWD determines there is a condition or other circumstance that temporarily prevents, or significantly impairs, the individual’s ability to be regularly employed or to participate in welfare-to-work activities. If a participant cannot verify his or her disability, then they shall be scheduled for participation. If the participant does not participate in the assigned activity, then he or she can be sanctioned. Pro- viding a CW 61 is not an WtW activity and by itself should not be grounds for imposing a sanction. Kings County imposes sanction without a 30-day notice of action. A Kings County CalWORKs mom was mailed a notice of action dated May 2, 2006 imposing a second instance sanc- tion effective June 1, 2006. Judge Greg- ory Martin reviewed the notice and sus- tained Kings County’s unlawful action. Sacramento County Sanctions Ex- empt AU when single mom with a child under 1 is working 25 hours a week. This person was sanctioned in July of 2006 because she was working for COSTCO only 25 hours a day. At the time she had two kids. Shamar was born on 4\/3\/2000 and Daniel was born 3\/1\/06. She was not on welfare when Shamar was born. Three months after Daniel was born she was told by her welfare worker that she needs to work 32 hours a week. She got a job at COSTCO working 25 hours a week, but the CWD refused to give her childcare and transportation because she was working less than 32 hours. Although she was meeting the federal participation rates, she was sanctioned. She had to stop working at COSTCO be- cause the county refused to pay for her childcare and transportation. On 12-4-06 she signed another WtW agreement saying that she is working. Her worker Carmen Frey – S177, has failed to stop the sanction. The sanction was in place January 1, 2007, February 1, 2007 and March 1, 2007. When Ms. Frey was asked why did not sanction has not been stopped she said it was a CalWIN problem. She was asked when will it be fixed? She responded \”How many more months needed to get it back on CalWIN.\” We asked her if she had done a \”trouble ticket\” and she said \”no\”. ”

” New Welfare NEWS Bulletin Bulletin # 07-3 March, 25, 2007 In This Issue In Brief California Reporting System State Budget Information LAO Report Analysis County Welfare Department Victim Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 Child Care Best Practices Survey While talking about Child Care Fraud the County Welfare Directors Associa- tion has done a county survey of Best County Practices during October of 2006. To date the results of this survey has not been made available to DSS or the public. \u2714 AP-19 Citizenship Verification form DHS is working on a new form to implement the federal citizenship verification regulations called AP-19. This form has been shared with county representative, but the advocacy com- munity has been left out of the loop. \u2714 Los Angeles Sanction Study and Child Care A Los Angeles County Sanction study shows that most sanc- tions were caused due to lack of child care. This confirms CCWRO concerns that many parents are forced to partici- pate in the WtW activity without any proof of having lawful child care ar- rangements. A welfare mom told us that the welfare workers refuse to verify that the participant have child care before they are required to participate for fear of reduced sanction rate or not caring about child safety. She may very well be right. \u2714 Child Care Best Practices Stanis- laus County Stanislaus County gives parents who are being sanctioned for failure to participate due to lack of child care 30 days to find child care or be sanctioned. What happens if they don’t find child care? It seems like the county meets it’s primary goal sanction. \u2714 Child Care Best Practices Contra Costa County Contra Costa County would not sanction a person for lack of child care It would be considered a good cause exemption. What a County following the law. \u2714 San Bernardino County Giving In- centives to Reengage San Bernardino County has launched a new program that would give WtW sanctioned participants and safety net families Arch Card, the Target cards, the Stater Bros. Card if the reengage in the WtW program. It is good that they are using positive reinforcement in lieu of negative reinforcements. \u2714 Sharon’s Blog Reveals News about the San Bernardino County Welfare Director Linda Haugan, Vice Presi- dent for Program of CWDA was men- tioned in the blog on September 22, 2006. Sharon works for the San Bernardino County Welfare Office and her blog criticizes the CWD. On 9\/22\/06 she said Some of you have asked if I fear retaliation from the county. I know the county is going too retaliate. Our Di- rector brags that was hired because she is good at firing people. But as I said they don’t own me 7-24. I will do what I want inside of my own home. For those wanting more news about San Bernardino county visit Sharon’s log at: http:\/\/www.crittercollectibles.com\/ \u2714 LEADER BLUES The Los Ange- les County LEADER computer system that has been around for a long time still suffers and deprives clients of their basic human rights. Some of crazy things that LEADER does is: Mail a notice for recertification when recertification was just completed; Persons who never applied for food stamps are told that their food stamps will stop; Notice of actions (NOA) that say your welfare benefits will change because you income changed. The NOA does not say what the change will be. It’s a mystery that the recipient must figure out. Benefits are stopped without a NOA Newborns who happen not to be MFG are not added to the assistance unit (AU); In some cases Medi-Cal is stopped be- cause of a new born baby. LEADER does not like newborns for some reason. Multiple Medi-Cal NOAs People are told that they are 65 years old when they are not; People are told that they are 19 when they are not; Maybe LEADER can’t count? Deceased persons and deceased unborn are listed on the NOAs; LEADER opens more than one case with more than one number. Computer trying to issue multiple benefits when the clients have not filed multiple appli- cations. The LA Fraud folks refuse to prosecute LEADER for attempted fraud . \u2714 Mileage Reimbursement up to 48.5\u00a2 a mile IRS has increased the mileage reimbursement rate effective January 1, 2007 from 45\u00a2 a mile to 48.5\u00a2 a mile. \u2714 WtW Transportation Out of Con- trol The law requires that counties establish mileage reimbursement based upon regional market rates . That is the law. In 2006 Yuba county used 45.5\u00a2 a mile as the regional market rate for Yuba County and the neighboring Sutter County came up with 20\u00a2 a mile. Why? It’s call equal protection if you live on one side of the same street you get 45.5\u00a2 a mile and if you live on the other side of the street it is 20\u00a2. RECIPIENT VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS SUGGESTIONS The California Legislative Analysts Office have made several suggestions which we now analyze from the Recipient’s Per- spective. These suggestions may be found in the LAO Report. Use Some Of The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Colas To Fund Calworks COLA. In order to more efficiently utilize General Fund resources for cash assis- tance program COLAs, we recommend redirecting $124.4 million of the funds proposed for the Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplementary Program COLA to provide the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids COLA. LAO Report RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This is just plain wrong. This is a \”divide and conquer\” scheme which encourages the advocates of poor children to fight to the advocates of the elderly and disabled. Instead, the advocates for both groups should unite and fight the Governor. Alternative Approach to Strengthening the CalWORKs Sanction. LAO recommends the \”enactment of legislation (1) requiring a home visit or other in-person contact with each family who is out of compliance for three months or more, and (2) increasing the sanction to 50 percent of a family’s grant if the adult refuses to comply with participation requirements. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: There is no evidence that punitive sanctions encourages compliance by CalWORKs participants in welfare to work activities. The Legislature should consider the best business practices of obtaining desired outcomes from participants positive re- inforcements. The Legislature has enacted statutes provid- ing counties positive reinforcements to attain desired out- come, such a performance pay and other programs. The same business practice should be embraced for CalWORKs recipi- ents. The positive reinforcement would be to encourage CalWORKs clients to cure the sanction and to provide them with a $100 a month in food stamp incentive for curing the sanction for every month they participate until they draw down the Recipient’s View of the Legislative Analysts Suggestions amount of money that the state\/county has taken away from them due to the sanction. Spending $200 Million For Los Angeles County To Come Up With A New Computer System. The budget proposes to give Los Angeles County $200 million so they can develop their own computer system. Los Angeles County can join one of the existing welfare computer systems- C-4 or CalWIN. But Los Angeles County says that neither of these systems is compatible to Los Angeles County Business Practices . The Analyst states: Rather than joining one of the other two recently completed automation consortia, the budget proposes $200 million for planning activities for replacing the Los Angeles Eligibility, Automated Determination, Evaluation and Reporting (LEADER) computer system with an entirely new system. We recommend that the Department of Social Services and the Health and Human Services Agency’s Office of System Integration report at budget hearings on why joining an existing system is not feasible and the costs and benefits of an entirely new system. We further recommend that the Legislature withhold funding for planning activities until a cost-benefit analysis for a new system is provided. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Los Angeles County should be required to adopt either the C-IV system or the CalWIN system. The Legislature would then be able to real- locate the $200 million from the new computer system to the CalWORKs COLA for FFY 2007 with money left over to partially pay for the FFY2008 CalWORKs COLA. Los Angeles County would have to modify their business practices to be compatible to one of the existing computer systems Spend $200 Million for Los Ange- les County to develop a new computer system Semi-Annual Reporting for CalWORKs & Food Stamps SUMMARY: There are two (2) bills on this subject in the Legislature: (1) SB 179 by Senator Ashburn and (2) AB 1060 by Assemblyman Laird. The quarterly reporting federal waiver will expire on September 30, 2007 and the state needs to either do semi-annual reporting or go back to the old monthly change reporting system. The most effective and efficient way to resolve this problem is to move to semi- annual reporting. SB 179 – SB 179 would make numerous changes in the reporting system. AB179 re- quires the overburdened welfare workers who need to focus on meeting the new on- erous federal participation rates, to review all kinds of changes, including dealing with a change in income of $100 or more during a six (6) month period which would not even effect amounts in most cases. Currently, changes exceeding the so-called IRT, which an amount that would make families ineligible for cash aid, is the primary mandatory reporting category. This gives workers more time to concentrate on their primary mission assist Cal- WORKs participants in achieving self- sufficiency in lieu of shuffling paper. AB 179 requires welfare workers to be trained to operate a new reporting sys- tem after barely getting the hang of the current one. It would also mean that CalWORKs customers would have to adjust to a new more complex re- porting system. This would be the third re- porting system that the public assistance commu- nity would have to adjust to within a five year period. Finally there is the issue of computers. It can take a year or more before the four (4) different computer systems of California will be reprogrammed to operate the new re- porting system with all of the changes pro- posed in AB 179. AB 1060 Laird. This bill would change quarterly reporting to semi-annual reporting. It maintains the current rules that are in the quarterly reporting system to assure easy compliance with the federal law. The bill needs to amended make changes in other statutes referring to quarterly to semi- annually. CCWRO RECOMMENDATION: Fix the Simplified Food Stamp reporting system by keeping the current system and changing from a three (3) month to a six (6) month reporting period. This would: Reduce the food stamp error rate; Increase the TANF federal participation rate; Reduce administrative costs by only proc- essing two reports a year rather than four (4); Save money by not having to train workers again; Give workers more time to assist Cal- WORKs recipients with self-sufficiency. Simplify the need for comprehensive com- puter reprogramming by simply changing from three (3) months to six (6) months re- porting period CalWIN @ http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/CalWIN CalWIN, the CalWORKs Information Network, is an automated informa- tion system to automate eligibility determination and case maintenance func- tions for specific county-administered social services programs in the state of California, including CalWORKs, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, CAPI (Cash Assistant Program for Immigrants), General Assistance, and Foster Care. CalWIN was developed by Electronic Data Systems (EDS), which also built, owns, and operates other major health and benefits information systems in the state. Under the CalWIN contract, state and county consortium pay EDS more than $800 million for the system. EDS is promoting the same technol- ogy in several states for proportionally equivalent fees; the Colorado Benefits Management System, now in operation, is one such variation. CalWIN is a Windows-based software package radically evolved from its predecessor, the mainframe, ‘green screen’ style Welfare Case Data System (WCDS), also developed and maintained by EDS. Much WCDS core technol- ogy, including legacy COBOL code, was ported into CalWIN, but the latter system is far more complex. While WCDS had about 100 data collection and display screens, CalWIN has over 1,000. Transition from WCDS to CalWIN is complete, having taken place in phases throughout 2005 and 2006 in 18 counties representing 40% of the state’s caseload. Other automated systems used by the 40 non-CalWIN counties are: ISAWS (35 counties representing 13% of the state caseload); C-IV (Consortium IV — four counties representing 13% of the state caseload); and LEADER Los An- geles County, managing 34% of the state welfare caseload. CalWIN has been a spectacular failure as has the Colorado Benefits Manage- ment System (CBMS) project. The latter has been the subject of extensive in- vestigation by the Colorado Legislature. It still has substantial problems as of March 2007. An extensive discussion of these two projects may be found at http:\/\/briefcase.yahoo.com\/mrappeal in the Daily Recorder folder in the two series \”How Not To Buy Software\” and \”Public Officials and Taxpayer Dollars.\” Following links included in these newpaper articles will permit you to view county employees complaining at length about CalWIN. Riverside County VIOLATES Aid Paid Pending Regulations According to Jean Eiselein, supervisor of Riverside County appeals section and appeals specialist Mr. Koe Riverside County does not issue APP unless the claimant asks for APP. State Law requires aid paid pending be issued within 5 working days if eligible for aid paid ppending. Ms. Eiselein stated that Riverside County does not issue aid paid pending because it may be an overpayment. Thus, they only issue aid paid pending if the claimant requests aid paid pending. What do DSS regulations say: 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 .5 Except as provided in Sections 22-054.1 and 22-072.7, when the claimant files a request for a state hearing prior to the effective date of the Notice of Action, which is subject to Sec- tion 22-072.1, aid shall be continued in the amount that the claimant would have been paid if the proposed action were not to be taken, provided the claimant does not voluntarily and knowingly waive aid. This section shall not apply to CalWORKs (Welfare to Work) supportive services payments (see Section 42-750.7). In the Food Stamp Program, benefits shall be con- tinued on the basis authorized immediately prior to the notice of adverse action. 22-073 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE 22-073 STATE HEARING .1 Upon receipt of a request for hearing or notice from the Department that a recipient has filed a request for a state hearing, the county shall provide aid pending the state hearing in accordance with Section 22-072, when entitlement exists. .11 Such payment shall be either placed in the U.S. Mail or available for hand-delivery to the recipient (if agreed to by the county and recipient) within five working days of the receipt of the hearing request by the appropriate agency as specified in Section 22-004, or the date the regular scheduled aid payment would otherwise have been paid to the recipient, whichever is later. WtW Participant Sanctioned with bad NOA in Contra Costa County. On June 17, 2005, Contra Costa County CalWORKs mom received a letter that effective July 1, 2005 she will be sanc- tioned for failure to participate in the WtW program. She has been a victim of domestic abuse and suffered from se- vere skin problems and gynecological problems. She filed for a state hearing during August of 2006. Her claim was denied and the unlawful sanction was sustained. The notice of action dated 6\/17\/05 was a bad Notice of Action because it was not a 30-day notice as required by state law and regulations. Judge Alison Mackenzie should have found the NOA to be in- adequate and granted this victim a fair hearing. It also appears that in Contra Costa County it is common for sanctioning WtW participants without a 30-day no- tice as evidenced by the fact that the county took this bad notice to a state. WtW Participant Sanction reversed and ordered third-party assess- ment by San Diego County. San Di- ego County CalWORKs mom met with her worker and did not agree with the county WtW plan. She wanted to work and go to school. The San Diego welfare workers said that she could either go to school for 32 hours a week or work 32 hours a week. Because she did not comply with the county WtW plan she was sanctioned. At the hearing she explained that she did not agree the county WtW plan and county just ig- nored her disagreement and provided no remedy to address her concerns. ALJ Allan Lenefsky ruled that the county sanction cannot be sustained because the county had failed to refer her to a third party assessment as required by MPP 42-711.522( c ) (5) . San Bernardino Imposing sanctions without a 30-day notice of action . A San Bernardino CalWORKs mom was mailed a notice of action on September 7, 2006 imposing a WtW sanction effec- tive October 1, 2006. The sanction was imposed for allegedly failing to partici- pate in the WtW program. The Cal- WORKs mom filed for a state hearing. At the hearing the CalWORKs mom stated that she did not have transporta- tion and the county admitted that they know she lived in a remote area. The county greed to rescind the sanction due to lack of transportation, but there was nothing in the hearing decision about the bad notice in that it was not a 30 day notice. There are no sanctions against San Bernardino for imposing sanctions against impoverished families with needy children in violation of state laws and regulations. Judge Gregory Martin December 1, 2004 with a April 11, 2006 NOA upholds Fresno County’s imposition of a WtW sanction effective. A Fresno CalWORKs mom received a no- tice of action dated April 11, 2006 stat- ing that Fresno County would be sanc- tioning her effective December 1, 2004. The victim states that she never got the noncompliance notice and that she had medical problems that prevented her from participating in the WtW program. There was no evidence that Fresno County had given her advance transpor- tation to participate in the WtW pro- gram. The county action to impose the sanction effective December 1, 2004 with a notice of action dated April 11, 2006 was upheld by Judge Martin. Merced County Imposes Sanction for Failure to submit a CA61. A Merced CalWORKs mom has been sanc- tioned since March of 2001. The poorly written decision does not reveal when the sanction NOA was mailed to the vic- tim. It appears that the sanction was imposed because the victim failed to provide the county with a CW 61, which is a state form to verify that she has a medical problem. In fact the decision states that during July and August of 2005 she tried to cure her sanction, but the county refuse to cure the sanction until she gave the county a CW 61. Judge Jose Banuelos ruled that It is concluded that the claimant has failed to provide verification of her medical ex- emption status to the county on the re- quired CW 61 form and that she did not have a good cause excuse for her fail- ure to provide such verification until March 7, 2006 First of all the CW 61 is not a required form. There is nothing in the laws and regulations governing the WtW program that states the WtW participant has to provide a CW 61 or be sanctioned. The decision cited MPP 42- 713.1 and denied an exemption. 42-713.1 A recipient shall be excused from participation in welfare-to-work activities for good cause in accordance with Section 42-713.2, when the CWD determines there is a condition or other circumstance that temporarily prevents, or significantly impairs, the individual’s ability to be regularly employed or to participate in welfare-to-work activities. If a participant cannot verify his or her disability, then they shall be scheduled for participation. If the participant does not participate in the assigned activity, then he or she can be sanctioned. Pro- viding a CW 61 is not an WtW activity and by itself should not be grounds for imposing a sanction. Kings County imposes sanction without a 30-day notice of action. A Kings County CalWORKs mom was mailed a notice of action dated May 2, 2006 imposing a second instance sanc- tion effective June 1, 2006. Judge Greg- ory Martin reviewed the notice and sus- tained Kings County’s unlawful action. Sacramento County Sanctions Ex- empt AU when single mom with a child under 1 is working 25 hours a week. This person was sanctioned in July of 2006 because she was working for COSTCO only 25 hours a day. At the time she had two kids. Shamar was born on 4\/3\/2000 and Daniel was born 3\/1\/06. She was not on welfare when Shamar was born. Three months after Daniel was born she was told by her welfare worker that she needs to work 32 hours a week. She got a job at COSTCO working 25 hours a week, but the CWD refused to give her childcare and transportation because she was working less than 32 hours. Although she was meeting the federal participation rates, she was sanctioned. She had to stop working at COSTCO be- cause the county refused to pay for her childcare and transportation. On 12-4-06 she signed another WtW agreement saying that she is working. Her worker Carmen Frey – S177, has failed to stop the sanction. The sanction was in place January 1, 2007, February 1, 2007 and March 1, 2007. When Ms. Frey was asked why did not sanction has not been stopped she said it was a CalWIN problem. She was asked when will it be fixed? She responded \”How many more months needed to get it back on CalWIN.\” We asked her if she had done a \”trouble ticket\” and she said \”no\”. ”

” 1 New Welfare NEWS Bulletin Bulletin # 07-4 April, 25, 2007 In This Issue In Brief California has a new state welfare director John A. Wagner New Plaintiff for lawsuits Counties Unlawfully Denies IHSS Services to disabled adults & Children Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 12 Counties have less than 80% of cases reassessments done on time DSS has held back mailing letters to the 12 counties who have failed to do reassessments in less than 80% of their cases according to our reliable sources. The reason that DSS is refus- ing to hold counties accountable in an unknown and strange. \u2714 HHS region IX officials visiting counties HHS region IX officials are visiting two (2) counties to audit their IV-E (foster care) claiming. \u2714 State of California Does not want to pay overpayments to the federal government The state of California owes millions of dollars to the federal government for overpayments that oc- curred before 2003. DSS is negotiat- ing with HHS to get out of paying the money they owe to the federal gov- ernment. We wonder how DSS feels about working families who may owe DSS for overpayments that occurred before 2003? Will DSS even consider negotiation with welfare moms? \u2714 AB 22 – Bill to repeal the Maxi- mum Family Grant (MFG) rule supported by CWDA AB 22, spon- sored by the East Bay Community Law Center that would repeal the law refusing to pay cash aid for children conceived while on welfare. This law has increased abortions and been a cause of great hardship to thousands of innocent babies and children of California. The bill passed the Assem- bly Human Services Committee, The amended bill would only repeal the provisions of MFG rule to any child born upon the enactment of AB 22. \u2714 CWDA is concerned that IHSS time sheets are not signed under penalty of perjury CWDA members 2 have expressed concern that IHSS providers and recipients are not sign- ing their time sheets under penalty of perjury, thus, it is hard to pursue fraud. It should be noted that county welfare officials do not sign many of their time cards, time study documents and a host of other documents under penalty of perjury. Does that mean counties are getting away with fraud? \u2714 Santa Clara County Violates the Law for Transitional Food Stamps Under current law whenever Cal- WORKs is stopped food stamps are supposed to continue for five (5) months. Food Stamps are supposed to be received uninterrupted. This is not true in Santa Clara County. In Santa Clara County when aid is terminated for households whose food stamps are scheduled for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th day of the month do not get their food stamps on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th day of the month. \u2714 States can issue Domestic Vio- lence (DV) Waivers. Some states have issued more child support co- operation DV waivers compared to the number of work waivers USCA Title 42, Section 602(a)(7) and 45 CFR 260.50 et.seq. provide that states can issue Family Violence Op- tion (FVO) waivers for any of the TANF program requirements. The Congressional Research Office re- ported that some states provided more Child Support cooperation FVOs compared to work waivers. Thus, while giving the family a waiver from the child support penalty, the states still will sanction the domestic vio- lence victim by imposing a work pen- alty. \u2714 How is TANF money used? According to HHS during 2003 states used $19 billion dollars from the fed- eral government. Only $5.8 billion was used for what is called basic as- sistance . That means a check to the family to pay for food, housing, en- ergy and clothing. That means that only 30% of the money was used for the poor. Now the name of TANF should be changed to permanent assis- tance to needy states (PANS) rather than temporary assistance to needy families (TANF). \u2714 32 States refuse Transitional Food Stamps to the poor Transi- tional Food Stamps is a program that continues food stamp benefits for per- sons whose TANF has been termi- nated for whatever reason, often due to employment. States have an option to continue such food stamp benefits for a five (5) month period with no cost to the state and a huge economic benefit to the state and the poor peo- ple. 32 states have decided that they would forego the economic benefits to their states just so they can deny poor people assistance evidence of how uncaring many state welfare officials are towards the poor that give them huge paychecks and millions to floun- der. 3 John A. Wagner, New Director of DSS Presidential candidate Romney’s state welfare director has found a home in California. John A. Wagner is 44 year old Harvard graduate who worked for Wisconsin Tommy Thompson, the proponent of the changing welfare that has resulted in increased infant mortality rate among African- American babies. From Wisconsin he headed the Massachusetts State welfare department. He is a proponent of full family sanctions and requiring the physically challenged to participate in welfare to work activities or face full family sanctions. He will be paid $165,000 a year for being the Director of the State Department of Social Services that pays the average family about 6,000 a year to the average welfare family. That is a $159,000 difference. Massachusetts state welfare advocates do send us their condolences to California welfare advocates. A the beat goes on. Counties Unlawfully Deprive IHSS Services to Disabled Adults and Children During 2006 there was legislation to combat alleged fraud in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program. The fraud programs enacted by the Legislature include severe penalties for the disabled and the aged, while contain no compatible penalties for the welfare employees who unlawfully deprive persons in need of IHSS serv- ices from those services. Counties have employed some shady policies to reduce hours that are authorized to IHSS recipients. One of the most blatant county unlawful poli- cies is to prorate related services by assuming that the need is being met in common with other housemates. The county obtains no verification that the related needs are met with the other housemates, but assumes it is being met. The state regulations state: MPP 30-763.321 When the need is being met in common with those of other housemates, the need shall be pro- rated to all the housemates involved, and the recipient’s need is his\/her pro- rated share. During the past several years the IHSS program has been running as a federal waiver program to allow the state to 4 download more money. There is a PCBS and Medi-Cal Plus Waivers. In essence what these waivers provide is that IHSS is now just another one of the Medi-Cal Services that Medi- Cal recipient may qualify for. Just like a Medi-Cal recipient may qualify for cer- tain drugs and services depending on what the Medi-Cal program authorizes, IHSS services are now another similar service. Riverside County has refused to author- ize IHSS services to a child receiving Medi-Cal because the child is not receiv- ing SSI. The Medi-Cal Waiver did not provide that IHSS would be limited to SSI recipients. This something that Riv- erside County IHSS officials made up to deny IHSS services to several children getting Foster Care Medi-Cal. Adminis- trative Law Judges have upheld these unlawful county activities. The Admin- istrative Law Judges are Rufina Diaz who upheld the county’s denial of IHSS to a Medi-Cal recipient until SSI is re- ceived and Enaj Leotaud upheld River- side County’s unlawful action of deny- ing IHSS because the child was not eligi- ble for SSI. In Orange County a disabled adult re- ceiving Medi-Cal and SSI was denied IHSS services by an Administrative Law Judge Barbara Smuelders upheld Orange County’s denial of IHSS for failure to provide the county with verification of income and resources. It appears that Orange County has decided that IHSS program has different standards than those in the law. And DSS has supported this unlawful action. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Welfare Problems CCWRO IS OFFERING FREE TRAINING FOR 2007 MCLE Approved 1. Administrative Writ Training 2. State Hearing Training 2 hours 2. Introduction into CalWIN and Major Issues 2 hours 3. Welfare-to-Work Sanction Defense Training 2 hours 4. California Public Benefits-Cutting Edge issues & New Development 2 hours 5. Introduction to Public Benefits Advocacy at the local and state level 2 hours 6. Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants CAPI program training 2 hours CALL CCWRO TO ARRANGE A TRAINING SESSION! You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 916-387-8341 916-712-0071 (cell) ccwro@aol.com or daslanian@earthlink.net ”

” 1 New Welfare NEWS Bulletin Bulletin # 07-05 May 10, 2007 In This Issue In Brief What did $230 million to counties get? More sanctions AB 674 a Good Bill CCWRO Litigation Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 DSS is seeking a FNS waiver of face-to-face recertification interview On April 2, 2007, DSS submitted a request for a federal waiver of the face-to- face interview for food stamp annual recertification. In lieu of a face-to-face interview, the annual recertification will be done by tele- phone for households who have to submit periodic reports. Federal law allows telephone recertification for cases where face-to-face to interviews would cause a hardship to the household. The waiver is from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009. CCWRO COMMENT: Does the DSS have a similar policy for Cal- WORKs? Will this policy apply to CalWORKs? Why hasn’t DSS imple- mented this policy for CalWORKs where a waiver is not necessary? \u2714 Are Excluded household member’s income and deductions counted? On March 13, 2007, Sharon Papin of ISAWS Customer Support asked the Food Stamp Bureau whether the dependent care of an alien noncitizens excluded member of a Food Stamp Assistance Unit used to compute the food stamp bene- fits of the household. Joyce Brewer, Associate Governmental program Analyst of DSS answered that the income and expenses of ineligible noncitizens excluded household members are counted in computing the food stamp benefits. \u2714 ISAWS counties mail out food stamp recertification appointment letters 36 ISAWS counties mail out recertification interview appointment let- ters to Food Stamp households. The packet mailed out includes an appointment letter, SAWS 2, SAWS 2A. Some counties also include a Notice Ending Certifica- tion (NEC). CalWIN counties do not do this. They tell food stamp recipient to call and make an appointment. Does this violates the statewide requirement of the food stamp program? CalWIN counties 2 \u2714 LEADER (Los Angeles) and C-4 counties also mail out an appoint- ment letter According to Selja Begic, a C-IV policy lead, the four (4) counties also mail out a letter that includes case specific information, date and time for the interview, office, worker name and the list of verification. \u2714 IHSS News 24 hour protective supervision form not mandatory In a letter dated April 26, 2007, DSS Adult Programs Operations Bureau Chief Eilen Carolls stated that Once the need for protective supervision is established, services cannot be denied merely because the recipient is not receiving IHSS 24- hour each day. Some county workers have implied that the person has to re- ceive 24-hour care in order to be eligible for protective supervision. This is un- true. Counties are also forcing IHSS providers to complete a 24-hour protective supervision plan form also known as SOC 825. We asked if this was mandatory. Eilen responded a recipient iis not ineligible for protective supervision simply because their provider refuses too complete or sign the SOC 825. She stated that it is an optional tool to be utilized by county worker to identify how the 24- Hours-A-Day Coverage Plan will be attained in order for the recipient too remain safely in his\/her home. A copy of this letter is available from CCWRO upon re- quest. \u2714 San Bernardino County cannot use the SFIS information for non- welfare purposes San Bernardino County officials have asked if they can use the Statewide Finger Imaging System (SFIS) for reasons other than public assistance. Department of Social Services Fraud Bureau informed them that it would be a violation of W&IC 10830. \u2714 Counties want paper and not electronic reports from DSS On or about January 24, 2007, DSS informed counties that effective March 1, 2007, counties will be receiving electronic copies of PVSO30 and PVSO40 reports. This is a payment verification system where the state lets the counties know the names of persons who had income and did not report it. Elimination of paper and efficiency did not go well with many counties. On January 24, 2007 Jeffrey Lin- back of San Diego County told DSS to continue to send paper reports. Sacra- mento County also insisted on getting paper PVS reports. On February 8 San Francisco asked for paper too. 3 \u2714 Tulare County complains on January 29, 2007 that they have not re- ceived the earnings clearance abstract due in December, 2006 On January 29, 20077, Linda Alcorn of Tulare County informed DSS that they had not received the New Hires abstracts that were due in December. This means overpayments of October or November are still not received by Tulare County and overpayments continue to accrue that could have been stopped had the state done their job. \u2714 During 2nd and 3rd quarters of Federal Fiscal Year 2006 LEADER of Los Angeles did not establish overpayments Los Angeles County LEADER computer system, which has been flawed since its inception, reported programming flaws resulting in the system being unable to establish any new overpayment and overissuance claims during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of FFY 2006. Los Angeles County claims that most of these OP\/OIs were agency errors. \u2714 OP\/OI claims decline due to quarterly reporting Due to quarterly reporting there has been an annual 3% reduction in OP\/OI claims. \u2714 DSS estimates that it would cost $7.1 million to translate forms for the Vu v. Saenz settlement The Vu settlement could cost $7.1 million for automation reprogramming costs in 2007-2008. For more information about Vu v. Saenz see CCWRO Litigation Report below. \u2714 RAND has a contract with DSS The RAND corporation, which never provided a sanction report that they were funded to provide in 2005 still have a data sharing agreement with DSS to do a CalWORKs Statewide Evaluation until 12\/31\/07. \u2714 Gas prices rise. Counties Refuse to increase mileage reimbursement and DSS is silent The law states that counties shall pay regional market rates for mileage reimbursement. After the election gas prices in California have gone up from $2.30 to $3.50 a going up. DSS has been silent. DSS have refused to tell counties that they need to adjust their mileage reimbursement rates to make sure that WtW participants are not using money from their 1989 level fixed income to pay for transportation. 4 Impoverished families and children rate low in the priorities of the Governor and budget writers. And meanwhile poor chil- dren suffer in California living on a fixed income of 1989 without a COLA in the cards for 2007-2008. But the budget does propose to give Los Angeles County $200 million to build their own personal com- puter system. TABLE #1 Sanctions Compliance October, 2006 38645 21.69% November, 2006 39339 22.11% Dececmber, 2006 42282 23.64% January, 2007 42804 22.35% February, 2007 50137 22.79% WHAT DID $230 MILLION TO COUNTIES GET? MORE SANCTIONS Last year while denying a COLA to CalWORKs recipients the Democratic State Legislature gave county bureaucrats $230 million dollars to get more people to participate in Welfare-to-Work (WtW) activities and to reduce sanctions. In the same year the California Democratic Legislature DENIED the annual COLA for CalWORKs impoverished families who are living on a fixed income of 1989 without any adjustment for inflation. What have counties done with this newfound money? Good times are here again. The purpose was allegedly to reduce the sanction rate and get more people engaged in WtW activities. We looked at data from October of 2006 through February of 2007 and found that counties are doing business the old way sanction sanctions sanction. Table #1 reveals that the number of participants placed in sanction is climbing. Moreover, the rate of unduplicated participants who were found to be out of compliance, which generally leads to sanctions, is also increasing. The $230 million given to counties could have been used for the COLA of 2006- 2007 and had a left over to cover the COLA for 2007-2008. Impoverished fami- lies and children rate low in the priorities of the Governor and budget writers. And meanwhile poor children suffer in California living on a fixed income of 1989 without a COLA in the cards for 2007-2008. But the budget does propose to give Los Angeles County $200 million to build their own personal computer system. 5 AB 674 – A Good Bill AB 674 a bill by Charles Calderon, Democrat of the 58th district covering Montebello, Whittier and Hacienda Heights. This bill would require an increase in the maximum aid payment for an assistance unit that includes a child who is en- rolled as a pupil in elementary or secondary school, in the amount of $50 annu- ally for each enrolled child, if the parent or guardian satisfies specified parental involvement requirements. The requirements are: (1) Back-to-school night; (2) Open house and (3) Parent-teacher conferences. In order to receive increased aid as provided by this section, the recipient shall confirm compliance with these activities in their regular reports. The bill would exempt the amount paid pursuant to the bill from consideration as income for purposes of determining CalWORKs eligibility or grant amount. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to adopt regulations to implement the bill by July 1, 2008. Finally a bill that would use positive incentives, rather than negative means to achieve desired actions. We urge people to send a letter supporting AB 674 a positive bill. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assis- tance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem 6 ”

” 1 New Welfare NEWS Bulletin Bulletin # 07-06 May 25, 2007 In This Issue In Brief County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian —— IIInnn BBBrrriiieeefff — \u2714 Fabian Nunez, Speaker of the Assembly, promises to stop the Gov- ernor’s CalWORKs COLA cut On March 9, 2007, a group of organizations concerned with the plight of impoverished families meet with Fabian Nunez re- garding the plight of welfare families in California. During that meeting the Speaker expressly stated that the Democratic Caucus voted to reject the Gover- nor’s CalWORKs cuts, and the COLA cut was one of the cuts that they voted too reject. Present at the meeting were Cynthia Anderson of the Lawyers Guild, Nancy Berlin of California partnership, Saira Soto of SEIU, Frank Tam- borello of Los Angeles Hunger Action, Ms. Villela of CHIRLA and Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. \u2714 Senate and Assembly approve no COLA for CalWORKs On May 21, 2007, the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees accepted the Governor’s proposed trailer bill language suspending the CalWORKs COLA for the third straight year. The Democrats refuse to give a COLA for poor CalWORKs families living on a fixed income of 1989 that would only cost $124 million. On May 21, 2007, they approved $40 million for county performance bonuses, $200 million of PORK for Los Angeles County to build their own computer system rather than using a perfectly good computer system already in use and $140 million as a re- serve . Finally the budget makes a $1.9 billion CalWORKS money contribution to 2 the General Fund. Yes, money for computers and no money for CalWORKs COLA is the actions of the California State Legislature \u2714 Counties have more people in sanctions and non-compliance after getting $230 million to reduce these numbers Counties just can’t help themselves. They are punitive and there is no two ways about it. Last year while Democrats in the State legislature denied the statutory COLA to welfare families that would have cost little over $100 million and gave $230 million to counties to increase Welfare-to-Work participation rates and reduce the number of families in sanctions and non-compliance. The new money started t flow in late 2006. With welfare families suffering and counties swimming in new money one would assume that the number of sanc- tions and non-compliance is going down. The facts show that sanction rates and noncompliance rates are on the rise. October, 2006 March, 2007 Sanction Rate 35% 37% Noncompliance Rate 22% 24% Has the increased funding has yielded desired results? The result is more people in sanctions and more people being sanctioned. Did the Democrats do anything about this? No. The 2007-2008 budget rewards counties by giving them another $40 million on top of the $230 million entitled Pay for Performance . That is money that could have given CalWORKs recipients a COLA. But no children go hungry so welfare bureaucrats can flourish in pork. \u2714 Of 112,748 WtW participants 57,075 persons did not get transporta- tion in March of 2007 The gross violation of welfare recipients basic rights are clearly illustrated in the number of persons not getting transportation assis- tance for participating in welfare-to-work activities. The law is clear the county shall issue advance transportation money to participants in need thereof to assure that they do not use their welfare check money to cover welfare-to-work related transportation expenses. Who does not have transportation expenses in California? With the gasoline prices getting close for $4 a gallon one would assume that this would be a big cost item. Yes, theo- retically it would be. But then that would mean money that the county could use for their own salaries, benefits, travel to Sacramento and Washington would 3 have to be given to welfare recipients. That is not fair as far as county welfare departments are concerned. Thus, about 50% of the welfare-to-work partici- pants do not get transportation. Some ignorant people say that welfare recipi- ents living on a fixed income of 1989 level simply do not need the money. That is not true reveals how out of touch some may be from reality. The fact is that the state and county welfare bureaucrats have created a system where WtW partici- pants do not even have a form to ask for transportation. On the other hand the state and county welfare bureaucrats have a travel claim form for their Sacra- mento\/Washington escapades and they get much more than welfare recipients. \u2714 Orange CWD unhappy that WtW participants have a support system On March 13, 2007, Nancy McBride of Orange County Welfare Department (CWD) e-mailed a request for policy interpretation to DSS. A welfare-to-work (WtW) participant has a friend who is accompanying her when she has appoint- ment with the CWD WtW workers. Orange County is requiring the WtW partici- pant to complete a release form before every meeting. This person also happens to be working for an agency that provides educational services to WtW partici- pants. This provider employee is disrupting the day to day operations, consults with the Western Center on Law & Poverty on every issues and gets involved in issues not related to the services being provided. This provider has consulted the legal department and states that the AR form is good for one year and it shouldn’t have to be signed prior to every meeting, in addition, the provider employee is stating that since the client and AR are both at the meeting, a verbal consent is all that is required for the provider to attend the meeting. The proposed answer of Orange CWD to this question was: Restrict the ART to information related to the services that are provided by the provider On March 29, 2007 this issue was referred from the CalWORKs eligibility bureau to the DSS Employment Bureau. As to what the answer was is unclear. The an- swer is in the state regulations. An authorized representative form is good for one year. .2 Authorizations For purposes of this section, an authorized representative is a person or group who has authorization from the applicant\/recipient to act for him\/her. .21 Written Authorizations Except, as otherwise provided, all authorizations are to be written. Written authorizations shall be dated and shall expire one year from the date on which they are given unless they 4 are expressly limited to a shorter period or revoked Moreover, this is still a free country and any resident of the United States of America, even those involuntarily participating in the WtW program have not given up their minimal basic human rights afforded to them by the U.S. constitu- tion to the chagrin of county welfare bureaucrats in Orange County. \u2714 Maximum Family Grant (MFG) Child Defined On March 6, 2007, FIna Perez of Orange County asked DSS what circumstances does MFG rul,e apply. The March 20, 2007 e-mail answer from DSS was: Legal has concurred that we need the CW 2102 signed at application and the most recent rede- termination that is at least 11 months prior to the birth of the child. The CW 2101 is the MFG notification notice. County Welfare Department County Welfare Department ClCl iient Abuse Reportent Abuse Report A parent living in Riverside County applied for IHSS benefits in early 2007. She has three severely disabled children. Initially the applications was denied because they did not have evidence that there were disabled even though they had Medi-Cal, which made them eligible for the IHSS-Plus program. The second time applications were denied by Riverside County because accord- ing to the notice of action mailed by Riverside County You have not provided sufficient information to establish eligibility or need for services. The notice fails to show what information the applicant was asked to provide. The applicant provided all of the county requested verification. This notice is ei- ther a fraudulent statement or an intentional county denial of benefits to an eli- 5 gible person. It is not a crime for the county to fraudulently deny benefits to an eligible person, but it is a crime if the person fraudulently receive IHSS benefits a felony if the benefits received exceeds $400, but nothing if the benefits denied exceeded $400, $4,000 or $40,000. Conspiracy to fraudulently deny aid is com- mon behavior in many of the California County welfare departments. It appears that Riverside County does not want to authorize IHSS, thus, has decided to em- ploy unlawful means to deny benefits that applicants are eligible for. The appli- cant does plead guilty for not reading the minds of Riverside County bureaucrats who maybe needed information from her than she did not provide to them be- cause they never asked for such information. Mr. L. from San Bernardino County called to say that he wants to apply for CAPI on March 1, 2007. The county mailed out an application packet and gave him until March 12 to turn in the application packet. On March 16, 2007 San Bernardino County issued a notice of action denying Mr. L. CAPI application that they never received. On March 19, 2009, San Bernardino County receives the application but refuses to process it because it was denied. The notice of ac- tion was mailed to a wrong address. As of May 25, 2007, San Bernardino County has unlawfully been sitting on Mr. L. application and refusing to process the application. San Bernardino County a place where applications are denied even if not received. And poor people suffer immensely given the County’s indifference to human being in need. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem ”

” IIInnn BBBrrriiieeefff New Welfare NEWS Bulletin # 07-07 July 2007 In This Issue In Brief Contract Dispute May Be Prelude to County Department Budget CalWORKS Is A Goldmine For The Counties County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 CalWIN Does It Again According to our advocate friends in Alameda County, a corrective action notice is being drafted by the county to inform 3,612 CalWORKs participants, who were impacted by six erroneous notices in the mail, that the notices will not impact eligibility for CalWORKs, Food Stamps or Medi-Cal. The corrective action notices to participants will be identified in a letter by NOA title and number. We are targeting June 6, 2007 as the mailing date for the corrective action NOA. \u2714 Free Medi-Cal for SSI? Participants living in County Organized Health System (COHS) Counties Napa, Orange, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Solano, are forcibly enrolled in the local HMO program. If they move to a neighboring county, they will be able to receive free Medi-Cal which means they can see a doctor or a service provider of their choice. So far, there is no law against moving, but you never know what tomorrow will bring. \u2714 Solano County Won’t Let Applicant Complete the SAWS 1 In Full The regulations are very clear, applicants shall be given an opportunity to complete the SAWS 1. An applicant was required to go through what is called an interactive process. This means the welfare worker asks questions and completes the SAWS-1. After the county worker completes the SAWS-1, the applicant is instructed to sign it. If the applicant does not sign the SAWS-1, the application is denied. 40-129 states: CCWRO .32 At the time of application, every applicant shall be given the opportunity to request an Immediate Need payment by completing the Immediate Need section of the application. .321 The county shall encourage applicants who indicate that they are in an emergency situation to complete the Immediate Need section of the application. .322 If an applicant indicates verbally or in writing that he\/she has an emergency situation, after the application has been submitted, the county shall provide the applicant with the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90). Additionally, subsection 321 provides that the county shall encourage the applicant to complete the Immediate Need section of the SAWS-1. In this case, the applicant was not allowed to complete the form. Completing the Immediate Need section of the SAWS-1 was never an option for this applicant – a violation of 40-129.321. \u2714 San Bernardino County Violates CFR Title 7, Section 274.12(g)(6)(i) On 2\/28\/07 San Bernardino County mailed a notice of action to Mr. T.A., terminating his food stamp benefits because he used his EBT card in neighboring Nevada, which he is entitled to do under 7 CFR 274.12(g))(6)(i). San Bernardino County, as a practice, monitors San Bernardino County food stamp recipients’ usage of their EBT cards. If anyone uses the EBT card outside of San Bernardino, while living in San Bernardino County, swift action is taken food stamp benefits are terminated. The county alleges that the person who uses the EBT card in another state must be living outside of San Bernardino County. Prior to terminating benefits, there is no inquiry to find out why the food stamp program participant is using his\/her food stamps in another county or state. In fact, San Bernardino County mails the terminating benefits letter to the recipient’s San Bernardino address and not an address in another county or state. 7 CFR 274.12(g))(6)(i) states: 274.12 Electronic Benefit Transfer issuance system approval standards. * * * * * (g) * * * (6) * * * (i) * * * States must provide a means for a client to be able to use their benefits upon relocation. A State agency may convert electronic benefits to paper coupons if a household is relocating to a State that is not interoperable and where electronic benefits are not portable from the household’s current State of residence, or assist clients in finding an authorized retail location where out-of-State electronic benefits can be used. This requirement is in accordance with the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interope ability and Portability Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106 171, (hereinafter ”Pub. L. 106 171”) which amended Section 7(k) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2016(k), to mandate nationwide interoperability of FSP EBT systems and portability of electronically issued benefits and directs the Secretary to establish standards to accomplish this. In accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Department will pay one hundred percent of the costs incurred by a State agency for switching and settling transactions. On June 25, 2003, the final rule implementing legislation requiring interoperability of Food Stamp Program EBT systems and portability of electronically-issued benefits nationwide was published in the Federal Register (vol. 69; no. 122; pp. 37693-37697). \u2714 EBT Card Users Losing Food Stamp Benefits While Unlawfully Being Charged With Overpayments A food stamp recipient in San Bernardino County informs us that the county regularly monitors the usage of food stamp recipients’ EBT cards. Recipients who use their EBT cards out of the county or out of state are terminated from the program and charged with an over issuance. People living in Red Rock or Porona would rather shop in Rich Crest or Kern County, but San Bernardino County tells recipients they cannot do that. The City of Baker in San Bernardino County, has two stores that do not have a Quest machine, thus, food stamp recipients in Baker cannot use their EBT cards. They must travel 60 miles to Barstow and pay over $3 for gasoline in order to use their EBT card. People in Needles are not allowed to shop in Bull Head, Arizona, even though it is cheaper in Arizona. EBT has been a terror to some people living in rural America. Quest\u00aeMark – The Quest\u00aeMark is the sign seen on store doors, check-out lanes, and POS machines that tells recipients that EBT Cards can be used at that store. _________________________________________________________________ Contract Dispute May Be Prelude To County Department Budget Battle By ROGER H. AYLWORTH – Staff Writer Article Launched: 06\/13\/2007 12:14:19 AM PDT OROVILLE — In what may be a prelude to a heated budget session, Butte County’s District Attorney and the director of the Department of Employment and Social Services squared off Tuesday in a battle over office security. Cathi Grams, director of DESS, went before the Board of Supervisors seeking approval for $212,000 contract with Elite Universal Security of Marysville to provide unarmed, uniformed guards at the department’s offices in Chico and Oroville. Previously, security in the two facilities was provided by District Attorney’s Office investigators who are sworn peace officers and armed. Grams told the board unarmed private security guards are the norm in the vast majority of facilities like hers. However, District Attorney Mike Ramsey said security guards weren’t the real issue at Tuesday’s meeting. He said the key point was whether Butte County was going to be fighting welfare fraud or not. In the hard-to-explain logic of government funding, while welfare fraud investigators answer to Ramsey, their positions are funded through the DESS budget. Up until a few years ago, there were 12 people in the welfare fraud unit. Currently there are seven. Ramsey said, besides investigating fraud, the officers also provided an armed, law-enforcement presence in the offices. Ramsey said investigators are scheduled so there is always one in each building. However, Grams’ budget calls for cutting those seven positions to 2.5 in the 2007-2008 budget, and moving all of the remaining investigators to Oroville. She explained having the private guards in place would increase security because there would always be three guards at each facility. Ramsey scoffed at the suggestion private guards could provide better security than his investigators. While saying he didn’t want to show any disrespect to anybody, Ramsey said, \”The people on this contract are rent-a-cops. They are hired. They are $7.50-a-hour people.\” He said there are genuine law enforcement problems that crop up every week at the welfare facilities. Ramsey said guns and knives had been brought into the buildings, and recently one of his investigators had been stabbed with a sharpened pencil before the problem subject was subdued. Bad guys don’t respect private security, claimed Ramsey. \”It is a matter of safety for your employees and that is personal for all of us. We have friends in all of the departments,\” he said. Then he asked the supervisors to delay any action on the contract until the panel’s June 26 meeting when the whole county budget will be up for review. Michael Hahn, operations manager for Elite Universal, clearly took umbrage at Ramsey’s suggestion his firm couldn’t do the job. \”My people are not minimum wage,\” he said. He explained, under state law, security guards have to undergo a minimum of 40 hours of training and must have continuing training. He also told the board his staff are uniformed and wear badges, and they are currently providing this same sort of security for the Yuba City welfare office. Grams said her plan will relieve the investigators from guard duty. She also said she had been in contact with the Chico and Oroville police departments and both agencies assured her, if there was a serious problem, they could respond expeditiously. Ramsey said both departments are understaffed and speedy responses are not going to happen. County Chief Administrative Officer Paul McIntosh said safety is not an issue. \”If we had any concern about employee safety we wouldn’t have brought this issue to you,\” he said. Ramsey said the vote on the guard contract was about more than building security. \”What we see in this situation is the first step to saying there will be no further welfare fraud investigations in Butte County,\” he said. He told the board Grams’s request was actually a policy decision that should be put off for the full budget consideration. Gram said if the security contract was approved Tuesday it could take a month after the June 26 meeting to get things back in line. That could cost the county more than $100,000 out of the general fund. Chico Supervisor Maureen Kirk moved to approve the contract. It passed 4-1, with Oroville Supervisor Bill Connelly saying he was uncomfortable voting for the contract in the absence of more detail about the budget. Staff writer Roger H. Aylworth can be reached at 896-7762 or raylworth@chicoer.com. REPRINTED FROM THE CHICO ENTERPRIZE RECORD Editor’s Note: In a subsequent Board meeting the Butte County Board of Supervisors voted in favor of the County8 Welfare Department. CalWORKs is a Goldmine for Counties and the State The poor are the means for counties to get money from the state and federal government that can be used for operating expenses, salaries and other county employee needs. County needs includes using state and federal welfare funds to pay for county costs. For example, when state and federal dollars are used to set up a computer system for the federal and state programs, that same system is often used to run the county general assistance program, which is solely a county funded program. Counties do not contribute their fair share for the development and operation of the system. They also often use food stamp administrative dollars to pay for General Assistance administrative costs. It’s just a regular county business practice, using state and federal money to cover county costs . County employees who master the art of using state and federal funds to cover county costs are often promoted. Counties have never promoted the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the poor because it will mean less money for counties. They understand the hardship that families and kids suffer as a result of no COLA, it causes irreversible harm to children (it may very well be child abuse) and reduces their plight to self- sufficiency, but COLA means less money for counties, thus, no COLA for 2005- 2006, 2006-2007 and now 2007-2008. The State has been using TANF federal dollars as a contribution to the General Fund since 1989. To date, CalWORKs has contributed $9.5 billion to the General Fund. In 2007-2008, CalWORKs will contribute $1.9 billion, according to the Schwarzenegger Administration; yet, they can’t spare a mere $124 million for the 07-08 COLA for the poor. Flexibility for Counties-Zero Flexibility for Customers – County welfare officials want to do their job in a way that suits their needs, which are often at odds with the needs of our clients. County welfare officials insist that they shall have flexibility in operating the welfare program because one size does not fit all, but they offer little flexibility to welfare recipients. Little flexibility is one of the reasons for the high sanction rates in the Welfare-to-Work program. During March of 2007, out of 112,748 unduplicated participants, 41,985 individuals were being sanctioned and 27,378 were being considered for sanction. CalWORKs Violating Recipient Rights By Taking Money Away From the Poor to Pay for the Bureaucracy – The gross violation of welfare recipients’ basic human rights are clearly illustrated in the number of persons not getting transportation assistance for participating in welfare-to-work activities. The law is clear, the county shall issue advance transportation money to participants in need thereof to assure that they do not use their welfare check money to cover welfare-to-work related transportation expenses. Yet, 50% of recipients do not receive transportation money. With the gasoline prices rising up to $4 a gallon, one would assume that this would be a big cost item for families. Yes, theoretically there could a few families getting free transportation from neighbors or friends, but 50%? Paying regional transportation rates to those who need it would mean less money for county salaries, benefits, and travel to Sacramento, Washington, DC, etc. State and county welfare bureaucrats have created a system where WtW participants do not even have a form to ask for transportation. According to one county welfare official from San Joaquin County, It would cost us over a million dollars to increase the payment to 44.5\u00a2 per mile . Participants are paid 17.5\u00a2\/mile while counties pay 44.5\u00a2\/mile to themselves. Poor families want to be self-sufficient and the law requires that counties use the regional market rates for setting travel reimbursements. County Welfare Department ClCounty Welfare Department Cl iient Abuse Reportent Abuse Report A parent living in Riverside County applied for IHSS benefits in early 2007. She has three severely disabled children. Initially, the applications were denied because the county did not have evidence that the children were disabled even though they received Medi-Cal, which made them automatically eligible for the IHSS-Plus program. The second round of applications were denied by Riverside County because, according to the county You have not provided sufficient information to establish eligibility or need for services. The notice of action fails to identify the information that the applicant needed to provide. The applicant provided all of the county requested verification. This notice is either a fraudulent statement or an intentional county denial of benefits to an eligible person. It is not a crime for the county to fraudulently deny benefits to an eligible person, but it is a crime if the person fraudulently receive IHSS benefits, a felony if the benefits received exceeds $400. It appears that Riverside County does not want to authorize IHSS, thus, has decided to employ unlawful means to deny benefits to applicants who are eligible. Mr. L. from San Bernardino County called San Bernardino welfare department to apply for CAPI on March 1, 2007. The county mailed him an application packet and gave him until March 12 to turn it in. On March 16, 2007, before the application was received, San Bernardino County issued a notice of action denying Mr. L.’s CAPI application. On March 19, 2007, after San Bernardino County received the application, they refused to process it because it was denied. The notice of action was mailed to a wrong address. As of May 25, 2007, San Bernardino County still sits on Mr. L’s application and refuses to process it. It seems San Bernardino County is a place where applications are denied even when they are not received. Notice of Action from Sacramento County. Mr. A.C. received a notice of action (NOA) from Sacramento County on July 13, 2007 stating that her CAPI benefits were changed from $741 to $375. Here’s why: Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor changed. Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor changed. This is a NA 692 (9\/98) Benefit Change-CAPI-Various reasons Rules: Welfare and Institutions Code: 18937- 18944. Why does the NOA have the same sentence twice? Whose income is it? How much was the income? What kind of income? Earned income? In-kind income? Unearned income? This notice may meet the due process standards in the year 1599 but not in 2007. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem TRANING PROVIDED FOR 1. WTW Sanction Defense 2. Welfare State Hearings 3. Administrative Writ 4. CalWIN 5. CalWORKS Cutting Edge Issues 6. CalWORKS Basics 7. County and State Advocacy 8. Citizenship Verification ”

” 1 IIInnn BBBrrriiieeefff Yes, 7% of the money is used for payments to families and 93% of the money is used for anything but payments to CalWORKs families liv- ing on a fixed income of what they were getting in 1989. New Welfare NEWS Bulletin # 07-08 August 2007 In This Issue In Brief California Last in Food Stamp Participation A Look at Expedited Service Food Stamp AB 1808 County Plans Often Untimely and not Approved by County Board of Supervisors County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 Cost of Average Monthly Assis- tance per case for CalWORKs Ac- cording to DSS’s ACF-202 TANF Caseload Reduction Report to the fed- eral government, the average Monthly Assistance per Case is $7,397. How much of that money goes to the poor and how much goes to everybody else? Good question. We looked at the Governor’s proposed State Budget and lo and be- hold $526 a month goes to poor fami- lies. Yes, 7% of the money is used for payments to families and 93% of the money is used for anything but pay- ments to CalWORKs families living on a fixed income of what they were getting in 1989. To say that this program is to help the poor is an absolute and bold face LIE! \u2714 Child Care Transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2 According to county welfare officials during January March of 2007 40% of the Stage 1 cases re- ferred to the Riverside County Stage 2 agency funded with State Department of Education funds were rejected. The stage 2 agencies are known as Alterna- tive Payment Program (APP). Some APPs refuse to issue a notice of action rejecting the Stage 1 case. Other APPs are requesting verification in excess of the required verification. All APP’s have their own appeal process that are rather weak and provide minimal due process compared to the excellent due process provided for Stage 1 participants (Stage 1 ap- peals are conducted by DSS, while Stage 2 and 3 appeals are conducted by the APPs under Department of Educa- tion weak due process regulations). EAS 47-310.21 governs Stage 1 due proc- ess and provides: 47-310.2 Second County The second county shall: .21 Establish a Child Care Case Establish a child care case as soon as the CCWRO 2 client applies for and meets the child care eligibility requirements as specified in Sec- tion 47-220, regardless of the status of the cash aid transfer. It appears that some counties are still violating regulations that have been around for three years. \u2714 Yuba County Mails Letters to Employers Without Contacting Cli- ents DSS requires that when a county discovers through the IEVS system that an overpayment has occurred the county must contact the client to get information about the overpayment be- fore contacting the employer. In fact, federal law requires that counties con- tact the client within 45 days. Yuba County does not contact the client ac- cording to a recent report done by DSS. Not only that, but the letter to the em- ployer also contains a law enforcement seal on the county’s first contact letter to the employer. CCWRO and other ad- vocates have informed DSS that current or former welfare recipients can lose their employment when an employer gets a letter like this. Finally this county has a 400 case backlog. \u2714 Orange County Causing Over- payments by Violating Federal Regulations In a May 9, 2007 report DSS found that Orange County fails to contact clients who has overpayments within 45 days as required by state and federal law. The county waits 90 to 100 days before contacting the client. Meanwhile, the overpayments pile up. An estimated 39,300 cases may have overpayments that are not reviewed timely as provided by federal and state law. Orange County failure to timely re- view potential overpayments result in more overpayments accumulating. The county welfare officials responsible for reviewing for potential overpayments are never prosecuted for causing the increased accumulation of overpay- ments due to their refusal to carry out the regulations. However they are al- ways excited to prosecute welfare par- ents for alleged fraud. \u2714 Los Angeles County Told to Stop Imposing Overpayments Without a Adequate Notice of Action (NOA) On June 13, 2007, Charr Lee Metsker of CDSDS wrote a letter to Los Angeles County regarding the imposition of overpayments and overissuances with- out an adequate NOA. CDSS gave Los Angeles County a list of cases where OP\/OI have been imposed without an adequate NOA. The letter asks Los An- geles DPSS to provide DSS with a county plan to identify these cases and rectify the problem. \u2714 California Stopping Food Stamps Without Proper Notice California Food Stamp Participation rates are the last in the country and for a good rea- son. Procedural protections in federal law are not obeyed by California. For example while federal law provides that when a household (HH) misses a recer- tification appointment, they must mail the Notice of Missed Interview (NOMI). California does not do that. California Last in Food Stamp Participation A Look at Expedited Service Food Stamp According to a recent report by FNS and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. California leads the United States for the fewest number of eligible people receiving food stamp benefits. There are a number of reasons for this accom- plishment in California. The biggest problem is county administration of the 3 Food Stamp program – a 19th century system being used in the 21st century. The other problem is that coun- ties are allowed to do whatever they want to do without any meaningful oversight by the State Agency responsi- ble for the statewide uniform admini- stration of the Food Stamp Program. We recently reviewed the data on Expedited Service Food Stamp (ESFS) quarterly report for the first three months of 2007. The law man- dates that those in need of emergency food stamps shall receive the food stamps within three days. The report reveals that in 24% of the cases the county violated this law. The human consequences are immeasurable and devastating. The counties violate the law and face zero consequences. But that is how California operates. Food Stamp recipients violate a law they may go to jail. The county breaks the law-nobody cares. So what if some poor child is hungry what’s the big deal? The way ESFS works is that when a household (HH) makes an appli- cation the county shall determine if the HH is eligible for ESFS. We looked at how many people applied for FS during January, February and March of 2007 and how many HH were considered for FS by counties. Statewide 37% of the HH were considered for ESFS. Tulare County considered 71% of the appli- cants for ESFS while neighboring Kern County only considered 5% for ESFS. Any rational person would be asking why. But not DSS. What’s the big deal is their attitude. TABLE #1 shows the percentage of applicants considered for ESFS. Statewide 37% Tuolumne 78% Tulare 71% Sonoma 68% Placer 64% Napa 61% Contra Costa 57% Yuba 54% San Diego 52% Los Ange- les 52% Ventura 49% Solano 45% Sacramento 44% Riverside 43% Kern 43% San Mateo 43% San Bernardino 37% Mono 36% Monterey 36% Lassen 32% Merced 32% Santa Clara 32% Humboldt 30% Del Norte 29% Tehama 29% Santa Cruz 27% Trinity 27% Amador 26% Sutter 26% Siskiyou 26% Colusa 24% Inyo 24% Mendocino 23% Kings 21% Butte 21% Plumas 21% Sierra 21% Nevada 21% San Luis Obispo 21% Calaveras 20% San Benito 20% Shasta 20% Yolo 18% Santa Bar- bara 17% Lake 15% Mariposa 14% El Dorado 14% Glenn 13% Marin 11% Madera 11% San Joaquin 5% Stanislaus 4% Orange 3% Imperial 2% San Fran- cisco 1% Alpine 0% Modoc 0% Alameda No Report Fresno No Report 4 A careful review of the data reveals that many counties only consider HHs for ESFS if they are actually eligible for ESFS. Statewide 42% of ESFS applications are approved. For example Amador County considered 86 ap- plications for ESFS and 78 were granted. That is a 91% approval rate. Calaveras County also has 91% approval rate. Mari- posa County has a 95% approval rate. Men- docino County has a 93% approval rate. San Bernardino County only 12% of the HHs considered for ESFS are granted. Merced is 16%. As we stated above, 24% of the HHs eligible for ESFS received their benefits after the 3- day issuance timeline. The top five of- fenders of this law are Santa Cruz County at 70%; Sonoma at 63%; So- lano at 58%; Santa Clara at 55% and Imperial at 52%. Table #2 sets forth the percentage of cases not receiving their ESFS benefits within the 3-day timelines. Statewide 24% Santa Cruz 70% Sonoma 63% Solano 58% Santa Clara 55% Imperial 52% Contra Costa 42% Placer 37% Sacramento 36% San Mateo 28% Los Ange- les 26% Tulare 24% Napa 24% Ventura 21% Santa Bar- bara 21% Nevada 18% San Fran- cisco 17% Lake 16% San Luis Obispo 14% Orange 14% Yolo 14% Sutter 13% San Joaquin 12% Inyo 11% San Diego 11% Kings 10% Calaveras 9% Riverside 9% Lassen 9% Marin 9% Trinity 9% Butte 8% Tuolumne 8% Humboldt 7% Shasta 7% Madera 7% El Dorado 6% Mariposa 5% Plumas 5% Siskiyou 5% Tehama 5% Merced 5% Kern 5% Mendocino 3% Yuba 3% Amador 3% San Benito 2% Del Norte 2% San Bernardino 2% Monterey 2% Alpine 0% Colusa 0% Fresno 0% Glenn 0% Modoc 0% Mono 0% Sierra 0% Stanislaus 0% Alameda No Report ing A B 1808 County Plans Often Untimely and Not Approved by the Board of Supervisors. During 2006-2007, AB 1808 denied wel- fare parents an annual cost of living in- crease and used that money to give counties an additional $2230 million to increase WtW participation and reduce sanctions. The first step was for coun- ties to submit a county plan showing how they would spend money taken away from impoverished families; fami- lies who currently live on fixed income amounts from 1989. CDSS issued All County Letter 06-46 in- structing counties to submit a county plan by January 5, 2006. The plans were supposed to be approved by the 5 County Board of Supervisors and the county welfare director was required to certify thereto. All of the plans have been placed on the internet according CDSS. They can be found at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/cdssweb\/C ountyPlan_283.htm As of August 26, 2007 the counties of El Dorado, Glenn, Imperial, Lake, Mari- posa, Mono and San Mateo refused to submit a county plan. San Bernardino County, who preaches personal responsibility to their clients submitted a plan on December 20, 2006, but the Board of Supervisors ap- proved the plan on April 19, 2007. That is about 95 days late. No funding was withheld from San Bernardino County during this period no sanctions like San Bernardino County imposes on poor families during the months of January, February and March of 2007. Madera County, also with a high sanc- tion rate, was 14 days late and 31 days late without obtaining approval from their Board of Supervisors. All in all, eight (8) counties, Alameda, Del Norte, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Plumas, San Diego, and Yuba were late in submitting their plans without any consequence. Three (3) of the counties submitted their plans prior to the Board of Supervisors approval. They were the counties of Madera, San Bernardino and Yuba. All of these counties received their in- creased funding even though they failed to meet 90-day datelines established by DSS. The county plan standards were designed with input from counties. The plan was a series of questions that the counties simply had to answer. Moreo- ver, most of the plans contain no objec- tive measurable performance standards- they are simply a group of words that have no real meaning and no account- ability. It is indeed socialism for coun- ties. County WelfaCounty Welfare Department Clre Department Cl iient Abuse Reportent Abuse Report San Diego County Imposes a Sanction While Refusing to Pro- vide Transportation and Ignor- ing Good Cause. Mr. 2007031338 received a notice of action imposing a sanction that did not include the specific regulations that the county used to impose the sanction and it did not have any information about state hearings. The decision provides Despite the inadequacy of the no- tice, the claimant nor his legal coun- sel raised the issue. Instead, they went forward with the hearing. The claimant needed transportation and the decision states: When queried as to whether she offered to assist the claimant with transportation the EMC stated no . The decision goes on to state In addition, the claimant testified that V.R., the County WtW worker, called him a liar and treated him disrespectfully, The ECM ada- mantly denied calling the claimant a 6 liar; however, a review of the county narrative prepared by V.R. stated the claimant lies . When confronted with her narrative, V.R. testified that there is a difference between liar and lies . The ALJ granted the claim. This County Victim was saved because he asked for a state hearing and found a judge who was fair . Imperial County Unlawfully Imposes a Sanction Without a 30-day Notice and It Is Upheld by DSS. Ms. 2007089204 was is- sued a notice of action on March 19, 2007 imposing a sanction effective April 1, 2007. MPP 42-721.23 states: Upon determination that an individ- ual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the individual a no- tice of action effective no earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of issuance. The notice was unlaw- ful but the county unlawful sanction was upheld by the state hearing process. Riverside County Unlawfully imposes a sanction without a 30-day Notice and it is Upheld by DSS. Ms. 2007016367 was is- sued a notice of action imposing sanction, the ultimate purpose of the WtW program, effective February 1, 2007. This expressly violates MPP 42-721.22. The sanction was im- posed on this victim because among other things, she was not properly dressed . The decision states that Riverside County determined that she was inappropriately dressed in that she was wearing a mini top which left approximately 4 inches of midriff exposed, tight black jeans, and ballet flats. Because the county did not like what she was wearing, her benefits for a family of three, have been reduced from $689 to $555 without a proper notice. De- spite the wrong notice Administrative Law Judge Rufino Diaz of DSS up- held the unlawful sanction. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem TRANING PROVIDED FOR 1. WTW Sanction Defense 2. Welfare State Hearings 3. Administrative Writ 4. CalWIN 5. CalWORKs Cutting Edge Issues 6. CalWORKs Basics 7. County and State Advocacy 8. Citizenship Verification ”

” 1 New Welfare NEWS Bulletin # 07-09 September 2007 In This Issue \u2714 CalWORKs Moms And Kids Living On A Fixed Income Of 1989 Contribute $1.9 Bil- lion To The State General Fund \u2714 The Senate Food Stamp Bill Does Not Support The Bush Administration Proposal To Prohibit The Collection Of Claims Due To Computer Errors \u2714 Telephone Chaos In Santa Clara County and People Cannot Use An Address Of Their Choice \u2714 San Bernardino County Forces CalWORKs Applicants To Do Orientation and Ap- praisal Before Being Approved For Aid And Calls It Voluntary \u2714 Counties Violate 30-day Notice Requirement for Imposing a WtW sanction. Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher CalWORKs Moms And Kids Living On A Fixed Income Of 1989 Contribute $1.9 Billion To The State General Fund The 2007-2008 Democratic state budget signed by the Governator resulted in welfare moms and kids, who currently live on 1989 benefit levels, \”donating\” $1,926,237,000 to the General Fund according to the Schwarzenegger Administration. This is a 29% increase over last year’s donation of $1,381,107,000. The Democrats and the Governator were so appreciative of this contribution that they callously suspended the 3.9% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increase for the needy children of California that would have only cost $124 million for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. This is the third year in the row that impov- erished families are being slammed by this Governator and the Democratic Legislators. The COLA would have only been .0006% of the amount poor CalWORKs families donated to the General Fund during 2007-2008. The Senate Food Stamp Bill Does Not Support The Bush Administration Proposal To Prohibit The Collection Of Claims Due To Computer Errors The Bush Administration’s Food Stamp Bill proposal and the House Farm Bill HR 2419 contain a provision that would prohibit the collection of claims from households as a result of a systematic computer error. There have been many overissuances due to the ineffective state and county computer sys- tems coupled with poorly trained food stamp workers. Yet, the Democratic Senate Bill S 1529 by Harkin and Senate Bill S 591 by Chambliss (Republican) do not authorized a waiver of a food stamp overissuance if it is caused by computer error. CCWRO 2 On August 17, 2007, the American Public Human Services Association, a national or- ganization composed of county welfare di- rectors who are responsible for securing computer systems in their states, wrote a letter to Senator Harkin. In that letter, the welfare directors argue that states should not be held liable for widespread systematic food stamp errors. They further assert that implementation of a new computer system is never completely fool-proof. If a bank CEO argued that they are losing millions of dollars because a computer sys- tem \”is not foolproof\” and the customers have to reimburse the bank that CEO would be out of the door in a minute. But what do our welfare bureaucrats want? Technical support from USDA, positive financial incen- tives and more money. Yes, life is beautiful for the bureaucrats. They screw up and poor people pay. There is no suggestion of per- sonal responsibility, just give us more money without responsible accountability. Telephone Chaos In Santa Clara County and People Cannot Use An Address Of Their Choice Mr. R.M. a homeless GA recipient of Santa Clara County reports that he needed to con- tact his worker. A welfare department worker verbally told him that his Food Stamp and General Assistance benefits will be stopped, but he has not received a notice of action. He left message after message on the worker’s voice mail. Alas, the worker refused to return his call. An advocate called his worker, but, once again, the worker did not answer the phone. The message said that if you need to talk to someone now, push \”zero\”. The advocate pushed zero and got a busy signal. The advocate then contacted the Director of Department of the Employment & Benefits Service. Sara an- swered and advised the advocate to call the main number. When the advocate called that number, it was the number for some supervisor, who did not answer her phone. Once again, the advocate pushed zero and, once again, got a busy signal. The advocate redialed the Director of the Department of Employment & Benefits Serv- ice but there was no answer. Pushing zero resulted in a busy signal. Finally, Sara from the Director of the Department of Employ- ment & Benefits Service answered the tele- phone. Sara said that Santa Clara County was holding an all staff meeting and was too busy to answer recipient calls. Obviously, the welfare office shuts down when during an all office meeting to avoid being \”dis- tracted\” by recipients and applicants who desperately need to contact a worker. Finally, at 3:00 P.M., a worker answered the main line. However, the recipient’s worker was not available and worker refused to page the worker even though Sara from the Director of the Department of Employment & Benefits Service had assured the advocate that the recipient’s worker would be paged for the telephone call. R.M. is homeless and had received his mail at Catholic Charities until Santa Clara County told him that he could only get his mail at the county. Only the Santa Clara County GODS can direct where the homeless re- ceive their mail. Santa Clara GA Manual Section 17.1.5 pro- vides: All recipients must have a specific mailing address in the county. A General Delivery address is NOT acceptable. Mailing addresses (other than the actual residence address), are only allowable under CERTAIN cir- cumstances. [Refer to Common-Place Handbook, Social Services Mail Re- quest\/Agreement (SC 1483) Proce- dures, page 29-1, for specific proce- dures.] Post office boxes (P.O. Box) will ONLY be acceptable for rehabili- tation houses and specific areas of Alviso and South County, which are NOT provided with home delivery by the Postal Service. This information MUST be verified PRIOR to using a P.O.Box mailing address. 3 General Assistance homeless ap- plicants\/recipients MUST use the GA Office address as their mailing ad- dress. For some, it is hard to get to the welfare office once a week without money for trans- portation and given the meager amount that GA pays. But Santa Clara County does not care. Poor folks are second-class human in Santa Clara County. San Bernardino County Forces CalWORKs Applicants To Do Orientation and Appraisal Before Being Approved For Aid And Calls It Voluntary In 2006, the State Legislature gave counties $230 million additional dollars to increase WtW engagement participation rates to avoid federal fiscal penalties. Counties were asked to submit a county plan showing what they would be doing with this newfound money. DSS released All County Letter 06- 46 informed counties that they would get incentives for doing their job and asked counties to submit addendums to their WtW plans. The December 19, 2007 San Bernardino County Plan Addendum (page 3) provides: \”Customers will have the option to at- tend early orientation and appraisal meetings on a voluntary basis, which will move them more quickly into their next appropriate activity. The County anticipates an increase in customers that volunteer. Approximately 100% of CalWORKs applicant families will be affected monthly. However, the devil is in the details. Is this a voluntary program? We look at Interim In- struction Notice #07-045, page 5, which describes how this voluntary process works: Step 1. The Eligibility Worker (EW) meets the applicant; Step 2. Do the interview. Step 3. Explain why all verification has to be returned in five (5) days. Step 4. Give the customer Employment Services Program Brochure. Step 5. Explain about childcare and trans- portation. Step 6. Escort the customer to the Orienta- tion Room. Step 7. Explain to the customer: They are to wait in the Orientation Room for the next orientation session Each orientation session is approximately 45 minutes Time permitting, he\/she will be asked to complete remaining items of the application process, if required, such as: Meet with Health Care Options (HCO) Issuance of an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card Statewide Finger Imaging System (SFIS) Step 8. Finally on page 10 of IIN#07-045 staff is ordered to: Flag in C-IV The ESS sets a flag (flag titled: WTW Early Engagement Volun- teer) in C-IV to identify customers who have volunteered to sign the WTW 2 and participate prior to CalWORKs approval. It is pretty clear that the county policy of San Bernardino County is allegedly volun- tary insofar as attending orientation and appraisal is concerned, and they even mark it in their computer that it was voluntary. But there is no policy whereby the EW gives the customer a choice of volunteering to do this orientation\/appraisal before their aid is approved as required by state law and regu- lations. 4 ACL 07-34 Counties Finally Notified That July And August Of 2007 There Will Be An Increase in the MAP And Then No More COLA The 2007-2008 CalWORKs Maximum Aid Payment (MAP) increase for CalWORKs re- cipients was effective July 1, 2007. This year, like many years before, the Depart- ment of Social Services made a conscious decision to break the law and not timely implement the increase. DSS has a history of intentionally breaking the law and getting away with it. They are simply above the law. It is called equal justice . ACL 07-34 provides counties shall issue ret- roactive COLA benefits for two months. It also instructs counties to review all Cal- WORKs cases that were discontinued during July and August 2007 due to excess income and restore benefits, if eligible under the new MAP amount as soon as administra- tively possible. CDSS did not order the counties to report the number of cases that were terminated due to excess income or how many were restored. The best DSS could do is to trust counties to do the right thing whenever they get around to it. Counties Violate 30-day Notice Requirements for Imposing WtW Sanctions Counties Violate the 30-day Notice Re- quirement for Issuance of Welfare-to- Work Sanctions- When a Welfare-to- Work (WtW) participant fails to par- ticipate in a WtW activity, the county must give the participate a 30-day no- tice of action. The purpose of the 30- day notice, instead of the regular 10- day notice, is to allow the participant an opportunity to cure the sanction. On July 12, 2006, the Governor signed AB 1808 that took effect immediately as pro- vided in Section 46 of Chapter 75, statutes of 2006. Moreover, on July 25, 2006 DSS issued an All County Letter 06-27 stating: AB 1808 amended Section 11327.5 of the Welf. &Inst. Code pertaining to minimum WtW sanction periods for first, second, third, and subsequent financial sanctions for CalWORKs recipients who do not comply with program requirements. These provi- sions have been repealed On January 12, 2007 DSS issued another ACL to emphasize the changes in the sanc- tion policy. Finally on September 14, 2006, DSS State hearings Division issued a Train- ing Notes Item 06-09-01A that states: \” Please also note that there are changes in the welfare-to-work sec- tion (100-108) including reference to ACL 06-27 and Welfare and Institu- tions Code (W&IC) 11327.5 because effective July 12, 2006, a sanc- tioned individual may end a sanc- tion without having a minimum sanction period imposed if the indi- vidual cooperate with welfare-to- work. State regulation MPP 42-721.23 states: Upon determination that an individual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the indi- vidual a notice of action effective no earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of issu- ance. Instead of sending 30-day notices, counties continue to send WtW participants untimely notices. Many times, the ALJ upholds the illegal sanction. Some examples follow: 5 \u2714 San Diego County Ms. 2007121050 received a 20-day notice of action on April 10 stating that effective May 1 her benefits would be reduced for alleg- edly failing to comply with the Welfare-to- Work requirements. The ALJ Vincent Misenti upheld this unlawful sanction. \u2714 San Bernardino County – Ms. 2007138199 received a notice of action im- posing a sanction because she failed to par- ticipate in the WtW program. The decision contains uncontradicted testimony that the victim must stay with her children (ages 6,9, and 12) until they go to school, takes them to school, works from 10:00 am to 9:pm and also take a GED program to satisfy the vera- cious appetites of San Bernardino WtW bu- reaucrats. There was no finding that safe and adequate childcare was available just a decision upholding the county sanction. \u2714 Fresno County- Ms. 2007151909 received a 10-day notice of action dated May 21, 2007 imposing a sanction effective June 1, 2007 for allegedly refusing to com- ply with the WtW program because she did not show up for a 2\/12\/07 appointment with her Job Specialist. At the hearing, she testi- fied that she never received the letter regard- ing the 2\/12\/07 appointment. She also testi- fied that she did not understand the differ- ence between her welfare worker and job specialist. The ALJ Elizabeth Parker up- held the Fresno County unlawful sanction. This victim was also mailed a letter on May 10, 2007 imposing a child support penalty for allegedly not cooperating with the child support bureaucrats. When the victim re- ceived these notices imposing these unlaw- ful sanctions she filed for a state hearing seeking justice. At the hearing Fresno County agreed that it erroneously imposed the child support penalty and agreed to re- scind the unlawfully imposed penalty. \u2714 Fresno County – On April 20, 2007, Fresno County notified Mr. 2007163921 that he would be deleted from the CalWORKs grant for three months effective May 1, 2007 because he failed to comply with the Welfare-to-Work require- ments. The ALJ Vincent Misenti upheld the sanction a year after duration sanctions had been repealed by state law and two ACLs. Moreover, two days short of one-year Fresno County ap- pears at a state hearing and insist that California still have durational WtW sanctions notwith- standing the change in law. \u2714 Los Angeles County – Ms. 2007110034 received a 10-day notice of action dated March 21, 2007 imposing a sanction effective April 1, 2007. This notice of action was issued through a computer system called LEADER. Millions of tax- payer dollars have been spent on this com- puter system, yet it still issues notice of ac- tion less than 30 days in violation of state law. \u2714 Merced County – Mr. 2007177387 received a notice of action dated June 6, 2007 imposing a sanction effective July 1, 2007. The victim filed for a state hearing. A hearing was held July 31, 2007. At the hear- ing Merced County defended their MPP 42-721.21 noncompliant sanction. The vic- tim testified that he did not participate in part due to a lack of childcare. The hearing decision makes no finding that the victim had childcare but upheld the unlawful sanc- tion. We wonder how many other victims in the State of California are being sanctions un- lawfully. Unlike recipients, counties such as Merced received increased funding in 2006- 2007 through AB 1808 to reduce sanctions. Merced received $31 million dollars and operates a program in violation of the law. Will Merced County be asked to return the money? No way. Counties get millions, break the law and impose unlawful sanc- tions. When the counties against impover- ished families living on a fixed income of 1898 level. ”

” 1 New Welfare NEWS Bulletin # 07-10 October 2007 In This Issue \u2714 In Brief \u2714 Terror in Los Angeles County district #83 \u2714 County Welfare Department Victim Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher In Brief \u2714 A Rand Corporation study enti- tled Sanctions in the CalWORKs Program that was due several years ago is being kicked around. This ob- jective study is shared with the DSS before being published. DSS makes comments. Then they get another draft. DSS sees that their comments have not bee incorporated in the re- vised draft. So DSS says let’s have a conference call to see why our com- ments have not been made part of the draft. This will be touted an objective study paid for by taxpayers to give the taxpayers the govern- ment’s spin and not the real story of Sanctions in California. Arie Kap- teyn of the Rand Corporation re- ferred DSS to David Longhran so DSS and David can talk to fix the draft. \u2714 According to C-IV, which is a computer system for Riverside, San Bernardino, San Jauquin and Stanis- laus County, the computer system does not allow for the notice of ac- tion denying benefits to failure to provide verification to state on the notice what verification was not pro- vided. This means that thousands of cases are discontinued and applica- tions denied with unlawful notices of action. \u2714 Recently counties have informed the Department of Health Care Serv- ices that the state should have man- datory language for notices of action rather than the long standing state position of giving counties sug- gested language . \u2714 On February 23, 2007, some un- known person of DSS, whose name was deleted from a Policy Interpreta- tion (PI) by DSS and DSS failed to inform the requester of the PI under the Public Records Act why the CCWRO 2 name was withheld in violation of the California Public Records Act, stated that ..when an individual has been in WtW sanction status for at least three consecutive months, it is ap- propriate for a county to begin issu- ing vouchers or vendor payments This undergroung unlawful rule of DSS is in direct conflict with DSS’s own duly promulgated regulations that state: 44-303.3 Vendor payments, i.e., payments made directly to a person or agency supplying goods or serv- ices to the recipient or family. Ven- dor payments are applicable: .34 In CalWORKs cases in which a parent or caretaker relative is subject to sanction for a period of time known in advance to be at least three consecutive months (see Sec- tion 44-307.12). 44-307.12 Sanction Any parent or caretaker relative is subject to sanc- tion for a period of time known in ad- vance to be at least three consecu- tive months. The vouchers or ven- dor payments shall continue until the parent or caretaker relative is no longer subject to sanction. Los Angeles County AD #4633 Designed to Overlook Erro- neous sanctions and to Get Unlawfully Sanctioned Families Back into WtW In- efficiently On March 1, 2007 Los Angeles County released Administrative Directive (AD) 4633 entitled Sanction Outreach and En- gagement program. The AD informs staff that the new TANF rules require 50% work participation rate. It also al- leges that the state may be at risk of los- ing $185 million, which is very unlikely. The AD is designed to get sanctioned persons back into the system. The AD is limited to getting this sanctioned to cure their sanction when they come in for an- nual redeterminaiton visit (RV). After the RV the welfare worker is instructed to tell the recipient to meet with a WtW worker. During this meeting the WtW worker shall: 1. Provide an overview of the GAIN program; 2. Markets the GAIN Program by ex- plaining the benefits and services avail- able to GAIN participants. 3. Reviews for supportive services (SS) and Learning Disabilities and explains that SS will be available if he or she agrees to a WtW plan. 4. Determines the causes\/s why the par- ticipant has not been responding to the Monthly Notice to Sanctioned Partici- pants, PA 125, which prpovide3s GAIN sanctioned individuals with an opportu- nity to cure their sanction. 5. The worker is instructed to determine how the participant is making ends meet without his\/her portion of the grant con- sidering family needs (rent and utilities) and any other expenses. Obtain docu- mentation or have the participant com- plete an affidavit (PA 853). This is an affidavit under penalty of perjury. 6. Assist the participant to determine if s\/he qualifies for an exemption or meets any criteria for good cause using the Good Cause Determination Guidelines (WTW 26). The worker at this point is 3 told to provide the participant a WTW 26 and 27 so he or she can claim good cause. 7. If the participant declares homeless- ness as the good cause, the participant may be referred to a Homeless Case Manager. On the other if the individual is homeless and does utter the magic works I claim good cause because of being homeless then no referral has to be made under AD 4633. 8. If the participant agrees to cure the sanction anytime during these seven (7) steps, then the WtW worker refers the participant to another office for yet an- other appointment before the sanction can be cured. 9. On page 7 of the AD the WtW worker is allowed to cancel the sanction if it was erroneously imposed. However for this to be done, the worker has to get the ap- proval of Regional Administrator that is like getting an Act of Congress. The in- tent is very clear. Los Angeles County knows very well that there are many sanctions that have been unlawfully im- posed. It is common to see sanctions im- posed in Los Angeles County without a 30-day notice of action in violation of state laws and regulations. There is no inkling of an effort to correct these injus- tices. Los Angeles County does not be- lieve in correcting their errors and mis- takes. They want to sweep it under the rug and hope that they would go away. And to make sure that a consciences worker does not do the right thing, they have created an enormous barrier to cor- recting erroneous sanction getting the approval of the regional manager. This is an old welfare department trick. When they don’t want workers to do the right thing, they make it harder to so, like re- quiring supervisory approval . This time they have gone all the way to the regional manager . SUMMARY THOUGHTS OF THE PROCESS – The process is set up to avoid spotting unlawful sanctions and allow unlawful sanctions to stand as long as they can employ propaganda and intimidation. It is propaganda by telling people what a great program the GAIN is when they cannot guarantee the cus- tomer a living wage job if he or she does everything that the GAIN program demands. It is intimidation in that the process inquires how does a welfare mom live on a fixed income of 1989 and forces them to sign a statement under penalty of perjury of how bad they live. Even though the process has all of the elements of orientation, and most of the sanctions are failure to complete the ori- entation, AD 4633 requires the person to go to the GAIN office to participate in another orientation session to cure the sanction and to sign the WtW plan. Why can’t that be done the same day. Maybe the author’s of AD 4633 don’t want par- ticipants to cure the sanction. Terror in Los Ange- les. Ms. C.S. a homeless mom with two kids, 10 and 13 applied for permanent home- less assistance (PHA) on October 9, 2007. She provided DPSS with a copy of the DPSS Housing Verification Form DPA 956 that has to be completed by the landlord as instructed by her homeless assistance worker Athlene Roberts. When she submitted the landlord com- pleted DPA 956 to her worker Athelene Roberts, HPO5 on 10\/9\/07, she was ex- pressly informed by Ms. Roberts that she would be notified within three working days whether or not the request for PHA would be approved or denied. On 10-12-07, Ms. C.S went down to the DPSS Southwest Family District 83 of- fices to find out if she could move into her permanent housing. She had a 2 pm appointment to turn in her hotel verifica- tion to Ms. Roberts. She arrived at 2 pm 4 and had to wait until 4 pm she was seen by Ms. Roberts. She was told by Ms. Roberts that her PHA has not been ap- proved yet and her temporary homeless assistance has expired and was advised to call supervisors Felicia Turner at 310- 419-5520. Mr. Turner never answered her phone, as usual as she does not pick up he phone even when she is at her desk. This was confirmed by the welfare advocate who called her fellow worker who confirmed that DPSS makes people wait three working days before PHA is approved. She transferred the call by Ms. Turner, it rang and rang and rang, but Ms. Turner would not touch that phone. After 20 rings the welfare advocate hung up the phone. Saturday and Sunday the C,S. family was homeless in Los Angeles county. Monday she went down to District #83 again looking for PHA. She arrived at district #83 also known as Southwest Family around 8 am in the morning and waited until 4 in the afternoon. Around 4 p.m. her worker Ms. Roberts came out to tell her that she needs to call Ms. Turner who is allergic to the telephone. We then called Mr. Ruben Mejia, who is the district Director, for comment. We were on hold for 15 minutes he refused to talk us. We talked to Denitta Mallet, Eligibility Supervisor for Homeless Assistance in- formed us that according to DPSS poli- cies and procedures all HA applicants have to sign a release of information form ABCD228. This form is used so DPSS can call the landlord to verify that the owner knows that he or she has agreed to rent a place to a welfare re- cipient . Often landlords change their minds and say they never agreed to rent to the welfare mom. There are many prejudice people in the world. This sen- tences the family for weeks and months of homelessness again compliments of DPSS. DPA 956 is another county form that DPSS forces welfare moms to have the landlord complete to show that the land- lord is agreeable to rent to a welfare re- cipient. The DPA 956 is then transmitted to LA property who have to verify the DPA before PHA is authorized. Delays of this verification means families just linger on homeless in Los Angeles. This is what the program is all about said Ms. C.S., force people to suffer and be terrorized. It is surprising that DPSS does not have a CIA and FBI check done on homeless welfare parents. Of course this is against the law. But then did Los Angeles County really care about the law. What laws you may ask? LAW VIOLATION COUNT ONE: Forcing CalWORKs recipients to sign a release of information as a con- dition of getting homeless assistance- LAW BROKEN: MPP 19-007 .11 Permission If the applicant or recipient does not wish the county to contact a private or public source in order to determine eli- gibility, the applicant or recipient shall have the opportunity to obtain the de- sired information or verification himself or herself. LAW VIOLAITON COUNTY TWO Forcing welfare recipients to use a county form to prove that they have secured permanent housing. LAW BROKEN: MPP 19-007 .11 Permission If the applicant or recipient does not wish the county to contact a private or public source in order to determine eli- gibility, the applicant or recipient shall have the opportunity to obtain the de- sired information or verification himself or herself. 5 LAW VIOLATION COUNT THREE Not issuing PHA with 24 hours. LAW BROKEN: MPP 44-211.534 The county has one working day from the time the recipient provides the following information to issue or deny a payment for permanent hous- ing assistance: (a) A written rental agreement which demonstrates the landlord’s intent to rent to the AU at a cost which does not ex- ceed 80 percent of the AU’s MAP. (1) If the county questions the validity of the rental agreement, or a rental agree- ment cannot be provided, the county shall verify that a rental agreement has been made by directly contacting the landlord or by some other means. (2) If the county cannot directly contact the landlord, or verify by some other means that a rental agreement has been made, then the recipient must complete and sign a statement under penalty of perjury which includes the following information: (A) A statement of liability for providing false information. (B) Name and phone number of land- lord. (C) Location of rental. (D) Terms of rental. (E) Dollar amount of deposits and rent. LAW VIOLATION COUNT FOUR Requiring the completion of a DPA 956 in lieu of the written rental agreement which demonstrates the land- lord’s intent to rent to the AU. LAW BROKEN: MPP 44-211.534 44-211.534 – The county has one working day from the time the recipient provides the following information to issue or deny a payment for permanent housing assistance: (a) A written rental agreement which demonstrates the land- lord’s intent to rent to the AU at a cost which does not exceed 80 percent of the AU’s MAP. LAW VIOLATION COUNT FIVE Not taking a statement under penalty of perjury as provided in the regulations when the county has a prob- lem contacting the landlord or verifying the agreement in other ways. LAW BROKEN: MPP 44- 211.534(a)(2) (2) If the county cannot directly contact the landlord, or verify by some other means that a rental agreement has been made, then the recipient must complete and sign a statement under penalty of perjury which includes the following information: (A) A statement of liability for providing false information. (B) Name and phone number of land- lord. (C) Location of rental. (D) Terms of rental. (E) Dollar amount of deposits and rent. FINAL REPORT: The intervention of a welfare advocate assured that Ms. C.S. PHA payment was issued on the 16th of October, the day she contacted a welfare advocate. But just imagine how many other poor children are homeless in Los Angeles because they were not able to contact a welfare advocate to get them the benefits that was unlawfully being withheld from them. \u2714 Tuolumne County – Mr. 2006276054 filed for a state on a date un- lawfully withheld by DSS. We would esti- mate that the hearing was held during the last two (2) months of 2006. A hearing deci- sion was issued on August 29, 2007. The claim was denied. If the claim was granted, then DSS would have to pay penalties for 6 issuing a late hearing decision. In this case the claimant refused to sign a revised WtW agreement. Tuolumne county refused to re- fer the matter to third-party assessment as required by state law and regulations. ALJ Pierson upheld the county action and denied the claim – no penalties were paid for hav- ing a hearing issued over an estimated six (6) months late. \u2714 Fresno County – Mr. 2007150903 received a notice of action imposing a sanc- tion because he failed to participate in the WtW program. This victim had an appoint- ment of 2\/7\/07 with the county of Fresno. The victim did not come to the meeting. During the hearing he testified that he did not come to the meeting because he did not have child care. He even told the county that he did not have child care, but the pri- mary purpose of the WtW is to sanction. ALJ Elizabeth Parker held that this victim should be sanctioned because he did not keep his March 19 and March 28 good cause determination appointments. Counties can- not sanction families for failure to keep good cause determination appointments, but try to tell that to sanction happy Fresno County and ALJ Parker of DSS. The decision contains uncontradicted testi- mony that the victim must stay with her children (ages 6,9, and 12) until they go to school, takes them to school, works from 10:00 am to 9:pm and also take a GED pro- gram to satisfy the veracious appetites of San Bernardino WtW bureaucrats. There was no finding that safe and adequate child- care was available just a decision uphold- ing the county sanction. \u2714 Fresno County- Ms. 2007144925 received a notice of action dated November 21, 2005 imposing a sanction effective De- cember 1, 2005. This victim was living in a remote location and Fresno County was fully cognizant of this fact for they verified her residence. Notwithstanding the fact that she was remote, sanction happy Fresno county unlawfully sanctioned this victim. During 2007 she was informed by a Fresno County employee that the sanction was un- lawful because she was remote. She filed for a state hearing and appeared before ALJ Turner. ALJ Turner dismissed the claim for not filing timely and upheld the Fresno County stealing of thousands of dollars from this victim. ALJ Turter should have known that the Notice of Action was invalid in that it was not a 30 day notice as required by state law and regulations. \u2714 San Mateo County Ms. 2007136188 receiving a notice of action dated October 20, 2006, imposing a sanction for not working 32 hours a week effective November 1,2006. She is going to school and trying to become self-sufficient. But San Mateo County insisted that she work 32 hours a week. ALJ Brandon upheld this unlawful sanc- tion that was imposed without a 30-day notice of action. ”