” 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 ”