Search Demo

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 January 15, 2012 Issue # 2012-01 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian A View of Welfare The Budget for 2011-2012 passed by the State Legislature this year recognized the potential risk to the state’s fiscal condition if revenues fell short of the forecast and established cuts that would go into effect in that event. Chapter 41, Statutes of 2011, requires the Director of Finance (Department) to update the estimate of General Fund revenues for 2011-12, compare those revenues to the Legislative Analyst’s No- vember estimate, and determine which estimate is higher. The Department of Finance’s updated revenue estimate for 2011-12 to be $86,247,700,000. This amount is $2,204,800,000 lower than the revenue specified in Section 3.94 of the Budget Act. The Legislative Analyst’s estimate was $84,764,000,000. The Department of Finance estimate is higher and therefore is the operative forecast. Pursuant to Section 3.94 and other sections of law, the Legislature established certain specific spending reductions or revenues that shall occur based on the operative revenue forecast. The IHSS program was supposed to face a 20% cut in hours, but that was blocked in court. The reduction in the so-called anti-fraud $10 mil- lion gift to the county district attorneys also went into on January 1, 2012 and we welcome this cut. The report that these so-called anti-fraud units have been issuing is full of contrived estimates of savings that are not verifiable . Ultimately, IHSS anti-fraud efforts spend more on staff than they save. Today I want to talk about welfare. If there was no welfare I would not have to pay taxes. I know that be- cause I have educated myself – welfare (TANF) costs about $14 billion a year. Yes, I know our federal budget is $3.7 trillion and growing, but all of my tax dollars go to welfare for the poor. You see I have this neighbor. Her husband is wealthy, but does not pay child support. Now she goes on wel- fare and I have to pay for it. She has three kids, 3, 5 and 8. She could get a job and have the 8-year old watch the 3 and 5 year old. That’s what out forefathers did. And why can’t she find a job? There are 14 people looking for every three (3) available jobs. I know there are a lot of jobs. All you have to do is apply and boom you have a job. Her 8 year old goes to school with my 8 year old. He seems to always be hungry. Why I do not understand. He steals food from my kid just because he is hungry. If he has no food he should not eat. He should get a job and earn his food. Ask Gingrich. He’ll tell you. I asked his mom why is her 8-year old hungry sometimes and she says that she runs out of food in the middle of the month. Why can’t she work for food? There are 14 people looking for 3 available jobs and people know that. Last month my kid came home sick because my welfare recipient neighbor sent her sick kid to school. I asked her why and she said that they would reduce her welfare check if the kid does not go to school. I asked her even if your kid is sick? She said yes unless I have medical verification that he was sick. I said why can’t you get that? She said she does not have bus fare to get to the doctor. I had no idea that we had buses in my town. Doesn’t the welfare give you a car I asked? That’s what the Heritage Foundation says. She says not true. Wow. I asked how much she gets on welfare for three people. I know that my tax dollars are used to the benefit of the poor. And I found out that she gets a lot of money from welfare she gets the same amount that a family of three got in 1985 – $608 a month. I had no idea we paid so much for a family of three. Anybody should be able to get by with $7,200 a year. Our forefathers did it why can’t she? http\/\/www\/ccwro.org $10 Million Cut from the Ill Conceived IHSS Anti-Fraud Program Is Welcomed http:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/ CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org January 15, 2012 #2012–01 HR 3765 that contains a two-month extension of the middle class tax cut, unemployment benefits and TANF authorization. H.R.3765 Latest Title: Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Con- tinuation Act of 2011 Sponsor: Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] (introduced 12\/23\/2011) Cosponsors (None) Related Bills: H.R.3630, H.R.3743 Latest Major Action: 12\/23\/2011 Signed by President. MAJOR ACTIONS: 12\/23\/2011 Introduced in House 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Ways and Means discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Transportation discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Natural Resources discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Foreign Affairs discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Financial Services discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on The Budget discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Passed\/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection. 12\/23\/2011 Presented to President. 12\/23\/2011 Signed by President. It all happened in one day. What a way to run a Country. On July 14, 2011 Loel Griffith of Lassen County send an email to DSS posing the following question: Client comes into apply and states that he\/she is a Lassen resident and is currently homeless. This becomes a change- reporting household, once that case is granted and must report any change with 10 days. No contact from client and we look up EBT history or get the Out of County\/State Usage Report , showing that the client has been spending all of their benefits in Washington or Idaho or Montana (not a border state) for mul- tiple months. We discontinue the case, but are those previous months considered an over-issuance? Should we contact the State they where using their card to see there is duplicate aid? Is there an over-issuance, what month would the over-issuance start (example: started using FS in Washington on 4\/6\/11 and we disccontined the case 7\/1\/11)? On August 5, 2011, Eden-Marie Eulingborough responded that: pursuant to MPP 63-801.311(c)(1), an over-issuance be- gins the first month in which the change would have been ef- fective had it been timely reported. Therefore, in your scenar- io, it appears the recipient began using benefits in Washington on 4\/7\/11. It is reasonable to assume that this is the date the recipient established residency in that state. Therefore, the over-issuance would begin May 2011. It has been a long-standing federal policy that a food stamp recipient can use his or her EBT card anywhere in the United States of the America. Title 7 of Code of Federal Regula- tions 274.12(h)(10) provide: Interoperability. State agencies must adopt uniform stan- dards to facilitate interoperability and portablilty nation- wide. The term interoperability means the EBT system must enable a coupon issued in the form of an EBT card to be redeemed in any State. It is very clear food stamp recipient can use their EBT card anywhere. But that does not mean the state and county food stamp officials would not retaliate against food stamp recipi- ents to exercise this right. Many counties in California regularly invade the privacy of food stamp recipients by looking at where they used their food stamp benefits and how they used those benefits. Yes. Big Brother is watching us in the form state and county food stamp officials. They never tell you that when you get food stamps you also give up your food privacy for most part. In this case there was no evidence that this food stamp recipi- ent had established residence in another state. Moreover, in the Unites States of America even food stamp recipients have a right to travel. DSS told the county to establish an over-issuance against this household (HH) without any evidence that the HH had es- tablished residence somewhere else. The prudent suggestion from Lassen County that they should contact the other states to see if the HH was receiving duplicate aid was rejecteded by DSS. That may be because if the county found out that the HH was not receiving aid from the another state then they are still a resident of California and not of another state. The California Food Stamp Agency sacntioned County ter- mination of Food Stamp benefits solely based on the fact that the HH was exercising its federal right to use the food stamps throughout the United States of America places a chilling effect on anybody trying to exercise rights under 7 CFR 273.12(h)(10). How a Bill Becomes Law in U.S. Congress EBT Assults Food Stamp Recipients Food Privacy ______________________________________ The California Food Stamp Agency sacntioned Coun- ty termination of Food Stamp benefits solely based on the fact that the HH was exercising its federal right to use the food stamps throughout the United States of America places a chilling effect on anybody trying to exercise rights under 7 CFR 273.12(h)(10). ________________________________________ ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 28, 2012 Issue # 2012-04 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief u Jessica Bartholow of Western Center on Law and Poverty, a long time anti-hunger fighter, has be rewarded for her work fighting poverty in the U.S. by being presented with the Wheeler\/Well- stone Anti-Hunger Advocacy Leadership Award at the Food Research and Action Center’s National Anti-Hunger Policy Conference in Washington, DC. See picture of Jessica Bartholow and Jim Weill,Director of FRAC State Issues u On November 11, 2011, DSS issued a finding that Sacramento County has an Income and Eli- gibility Verification System (IEVS) report backlog of about 27, 466 cases and 33,466 unprocessed Integrated Fraud Detection (IFD) abstracts. As of March 31, 2011, the county had 13,466 open aid cases. Sacramento County was reminded by DSS that the county has 45-days to process the IEVS reports and 20% of the cases can be delayed be- yond 45 days if the county is waiting for third party verification. MPP 20-006.424. The County was instructed to prepare a corrective action plan and submit it to DSS. u In a August 2011 report, the Civil Rights Divi- sion of DSS informed Sacramento County that it failed to display the Pub 13, which informs appli- cants of social services of their rights and respon- sibilities in all 18 required languages. u In 2011, the Civil Rights Bureau of DSS re- viewed Alameda County and issued a report not- ing multiple civil rights violations. The County failed to make the Pub 13 available to applicants. The County uses client provided interpreters for limited English Persons instead of providing inter- preters for social services applicants and Alam- eda County fails to document this fact in the case files. Case files do not contain mandated docu- mentation when non-county third parties provide the interpretation. Case files often do not include documentation of completed Language Prefer- ence Survey form which identifies the applicant\/ recipient’s ethnic origin and primary language preference. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org u Santa Clara County asked DSS where in the regulations does it say that referral to early fraud prevention and detection program shall not delay the receipt of aid, including the issuance of im- mediate need as provided in California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11055.5(d)(3) [Wel- fare and Institutions Code Section 11055.5(d)(3) provides The referral and investigation shall not delay the receipt of aid, including immediate need payments, for eligible applicants and recipients. ] DSS response was that MPP 20-006 deals with the issue of time frames. It’s not as clear-cut as the W&I Code, but it supports the same principle. 11055.5(d)(3) MPP 20-006 states If the IEVS in- formation is received during the application pe- riod, the CWD shall use it, to the extent possible, in making the eligibility determination. However, the eligibility determination shall not be delayed pending receipt of IEVS information if other infor- mation establishes the individual’s eligibility. There is a major difference between the statute, which clearly states that the issuance of benefits should not be delayed because the case has been CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org Febraury 28, 2012 #2012-04 referred for investigation and the regulation. The regulation only allows the issuance of aid if other information established the individual’s eligibility . On December 19, 2011, DSS informed Merced County that they have a backlog of 5,772 unpro- cessed IEVS abstract reports. This means over- payments pile up while the county is fully aware of the overpayment and does nothing to stop it. Trin- ity County was also cited for the same problem. u DSS convened a workgroup to implement telephonic signatures after San Diego County al- ready started doing it. u Fresno County asked DSS if it’s possible to make translation of forms a higher priority. Fresno County would like forms to be translated before an ACL\/ACIN is released with forms. Advocates have made similar requests to DSS, but DSS is yet to is- sue ACL\/ACINs with translated forms and notices of actions. The Nation u The Obama Food Stamp Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2012 proposes $47,145 million for FY 2012. The budget projects that the costs of food stamps will decline as the economy improves. FY 2013 – $46,908 million; FY 2014- $44,534 million; FY 2015 – $ 42,888 million. Gallup Poll Report on Food Stamps Hart Research Associates Released a poll results entitled Public Opinion on Food Stamps and Hun- ger in America. The results of the poll are: More than four in five voters believe hunger is a serious problem in the United States of America. 72% of the voters believe that SNAP is very or fairly important for the country, and 53% say that the food stamp program is very important . The support for the program cuts across the political spectrum, 86 % of Democrats; 73% of Indepen- dentsm and 53% Republicans see it as important to the country. More than three (3) in four (4) voters say reduc- ing SNAP funding is the wrong way to reduce gov- ernment spending. Voters are less like to vote for a candidate who favors cutting funds for the SNAP, and more likely to vote for a candidate who makes it a top priority to reduce hunger in the United States. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 March 12, 2012 Issue # 2012-05 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org 2011 EBT Fees Paid by CalWORKs Recipients County Client Abuse Report u DSS is working on revising the WtW 25 form. It a DSS is working on revising the WtW 25 form. It appears that DSS has a long list of changes that it would like to make. It is not clear if those changes include what types of transportation are being used and how much transportation and ancillary services are advanced as mandated by state law and regulations. On 12\/20\/11 Alexander Sandoval from a county asked DSS whether or not the county can anticipate that the applicant will no longer be working due to loss of Stage 3 child care and would a sworn statement to this effect be acceptable verification. Jeannie McKendry of DSS responded that the county can reasonably anticipate that the applicant will lose the job if child care is no longer available because the applicant cannot work without child care. Relative to verification, DSS responded that Yes, a sworn statement would be sufficient in this case. Per MPP 40-115.22, when verification does not exist, a sworn statement is sufficient in all situations except for verification of citizenship and pregnancy. C-IV did a demonstration in the Los Angeles El Monte office January 17-19 and 24-26 and January 31 through February 2, 2012. The purpose of the demonstration was to give DPSS C-IV Project Deputy Directors, C-IV Project Business Analysts and the C-IV Accenture team an understanding of the current C-IV system and functionality. There is an eight page agenda for these meetings. During 2011, CalWORKs recipients living on a fixed income of what AFDC\/CalWORKs recipients received in 1985 had to shell out over $20 million just so they could use their meager fixed CalWORKs grant. There are banks that do not impose a surcharge on welfare recipients like U.S. Bank and Citibank. WalMart and Walgreen also do not impose a surcharge upon CalWORKs recipients for using their EBT cards. However, statewide, on the average, every CalWORKs family annually is fleeced by banks out of $35 to access their meager fixed income. Some counties are lower than $35. San Bernardino, Orange, Fresno, Stanislaus, Tulare county banks take less than $25 a year from poor. In San Francisco County, CalWORKs recipients pay about $82 a year to access their benefits. This is the highest large county in the state followed by Alameda at $47, Los Angeles at $45 and Santa Clara at $43. See Chart #1 on page 2. These counties have failed to take steps to insure that CalWORKs recipients know how they can use their EBT card without paying any fees. If counties had done their job and properly informed applicants when they get their EBT card how they can access their money without paying these exuberant fees, most families could access their EBT benefits without paying any fees. County Welfare Department Victim of the Week A Californian Eligible for Emergency Food Stamps Goes to Sleep Hungry – Ms. 1B21834 applied for food stamps on Thursday, February 9, 2012 in Santa Clara County. She has no income. She is eligible for expedited services food stamps that she should have received in three days, that is by Monday, February 13, 2012. Instead, she was given an appointment for the the next Thursday, February 23, 2012. She kept her appointment, completed all of the forms, provided all requested verification and as of Match 9, 2012 she was still going to sleep hungry. Do you know what is feels like to go to sleep hungry? she asked. We are sure most of the people running the Santa Clara County Center Street office have never experienced going to sleep hungry feels like. Had they, this would have never happened to Ms. 1B21834. So what laws has the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency violated? COUNT # 1. Violation of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18914 that states: 18914. (a) To the extent provided by federal law, the county welfare department shall provide CalFresh benefits on an expedited basis to households determined to be in immediate CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org March 12, 2012 #2012-05 need of food assistance. (b) At the time an applicant initially seeks assistance, the county welfare department shall screen all expedited service applications on a priority basis. Applicants who meet the federal criteria for expedited service shall receive either a manual authorization to participate or automated card or the immediate issuance of CalFresh benefits no later than the third day following the date the application was filed. To the maximum extent permitted by federal law, the amount of income to be received from any source shall be deemed to be uncertain and exempt from consideration in the determination of eligibility for expedited service. For purposes of this subdivision, a weekend shall be considered one calendar day. (c) The State Department of Social Services shall develop and implement for expedited issuance a uniform procedure for verifying information required of an applicant. COUNT # 2. – Violation of MPP 63-301. 511 which provides that any household with income of less than $150 and assets of $100 shall be eligible for food stamp expedited services (FS-ES): 63-301.5 Expedited Service .51 Entitlement to Expedited Service The following households, if otherwise eligible, are entitled to expedited service: .511 Households with less than $150 in monthly gross income as defined in Section 63-502.1 provided their liquid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; COUNT # 3. Violation of MPP 63-301.52 -refusal to identify a household eligible for FS-ES. 63-301.52 Identifying Households Needing Expedited Service The CWD’s application procedures shall be designed to identify households eligible for expedited service at the time the household files an application. COUNT # 4. Violation of MPP 63-301. 531- Refusal to issue food stamp benefits within three days of the application for food stamp benefits. 63-301.531 Expedited Service Households (a) For households entitled to expedited service at initial application, the CWD shall make the authorization document, access device or coupons available to the recipient either by mail or for pickup at the household’s request, no later than the third calendar day following the date the application was filed. For purposes of this section, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) shall be considered one calendar day. However, if the third calendar day is a nonworking day when coupons cannot be issued, the CWD shall make coupons available on or before the working day immediately preceding the nonworking day. Statewide $20,234,150 581,556 $34.79 San Francisco $397,368 4,860 $81.76 Siskiyou $22,385 803 $27.88 Sierra $1,785 32 $55.78 Plumas $5,519 200 $27.60 Inyo $7,729 140 $55.21 Sutter $42,279 1,571 $26.91 Alpine $209 4 $52.25 Madera $88,525 3,316 $26.70 Alameda $934,623 19,968 $46.81 Calaveras $16,075 615 $26.14 Los Angeles $8,073,319 180,283 $44.78 San Bernardino $1,238,004 50,488 $24.52 San Mateo $132,994 2,976 $44.69 Orange $569,979 23,553 $24.20 Monterey $216,641 4,959 $43.69 Imperial $110,967 4,644 $23.89 Santa Clara $643,985 14,907 $43.20 Butte $82,146 3,491 $23.53 San Benito $34,740 830 $41.86 San Joaquin $403,939 17,301 $23.35 Solano $247,860 6,361 $38.97 Kings $71,034 3,085 $23.03 Amador $15,536 408 $38.08 Fresno $660,126 28,687 $23.01 Mono $1,304 36 $36.22 Yolo $47,563 2,113 $22.51 Contra Costa $397,887 11,058 $35.98 Humboldt $39,181 1,766 $22.19 Nevada $26,100 728 $35.85 Sonoma $80,151 3,620 $22.14 Sacramento $1,173,769 33,804 $34.72 Merced $181,226 8,215 $22.06 San Diego $1,090,436 31,422 $34.70 Stanislaus $265,967 12,084 $22.01 Marin $41,050 1,204 $34.09 Mariposa $5,028 235 $21.40 Santa Cruz $70,908 2,100 $33.77 Tuolumne $13,446 655 $20.53 Placer $64,574 1,965 $32.86 Tulare $305,278 14,974 $20.39 Kern $683,046 20,908 $32.67 Tehama $28,435 1,413 $20.12 Ventura $235,195 7,502 $31.35 Shasta $67,271 3,343 $20.12 Napa $25,522 832 $30.68 Del Norte $17,382 874 $19.89 Yuba $55,590 1,839 $30.23 Lake $24,522 1,247 $19.66 Mendocino $42,373 1,406 $30.14 Lassen $8,401 448 $18.75 Riverside $987,467 33,593 $29.40 Glenn $8,518 456 $18.68 El Dorado $34,002 1,177 $28.89 Modoc $2,262 127 $17.81 CHART #1 2011 EBT Fees Paid By CalWORKs Recipients count-by county Source: DSS Counties Sept. 2011 CalWORKs Caseload Sept. 2011 CalWORKs Caseload 2011 Total Cost to Use the CalWORKs EBT Card Counties 2011 Total Cost to Use the CalWORKs EBT Card Average Annual Cost Per person to Access Their CalWORKs Fixed Income Average Annual Cost Per person to Access Their CalWORKs Fixed Income ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 April 21, 2012 Issue # 2012-07 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian u DSS is planning to set up a workgroup to plan reengagement strategies if the Legislature approves the Governor’s proposal to have all parents engaged in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity as soon babies are born. Currently a parent with a child under 2 is exempt from participation in WtW. u DSS Review of County Food Stamp Program – The California Food Stamp Division conducts annual Management Evaluations (MEs) for large counties. During April of 2012 there will be a ME review of Stanislaus and Merced Counties. During May of 2012 DSS will do a ME review for San Francisco County. Advocates interested in meeting with the DSS staff conducting the review in these counties should contact Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. u E-Applications for Food Stamps. According to the CWDA CalFresh Committee meeting minutes, CalWIN, which covers 18 counties, requires food stamp e-applicants to sign three different food stamp applications. CCWRO has information that this results in many applications being denied. The applicant, who is still often hungry and in need of emergency food stamps is forced to reapply, clogging up the system. C-IV only requires one signature and one form. Maybe CalWIN can learn from C-IV. u DSS Doing a Questionaire. DSS will be sending out a questionnaire to all the counties inquiring about each county’s application (SAWS and DFA series and e-application) process due to request by FNS. State law requires that the Rights and Responsibilities (R&Rs) be signed separately BUT DSS would like to add the R&Rs and the Statement of Facts to the application and make one form which will only require one signature. At a recent CWDA meeting there was a question raised whether or not an application needs to be re-signed if the customer adds information during the interview. Rosie Avena of DSS has reminded the counties that the only entries required on a CalFresh application are the applicants name, address and signature and once the customer signs the application, he\/she does not need to re-sign if additional information is obtained during the interview. u Fleeing Felon Proposed ACL Held Up By Finance According to CWDA committee minutes CDSS has proposed to incorporate the fleeing felon standard from the Martinez settlement regarding SSI to CalFresh. This would limit fleeing felon discontinuances from CalFresh to only warrants for escape, flight, and avoiding law enforcement. This will draw down more federal funding and create administrative efficiencies. Unfortunately, the state Department of Finance did not accept this premise and has not approved the ACL. This denial is being appealed. An ACL has been drafted and will be sent out for review if the appeal is successful. u Fradulen Letter – CWDA has discovered that a fraudulent letter on what appears to be USDA letterhead has been circulating. The letter is a financial release form asking for financial information. u Child Care IPV Against Providers – CWDA has set up a http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org workgroup on childcare overpayments that is working on policies to impose Intentional Program Violations (IPV) upon childcare providers and then black-balling providers convicted of an IPV. The suggestion for imposing IPV penalties upon providers, many of who are current or former welfare recipients trying to become self- sufficient came from Los Angeles County. The Workgroup is planning to take their recommendations to CDSS and CDE. We would hope that these recommendations would be shared with advocates. The Food Stamp Program is under attack in Washington D.C. The House Budget Resolution provided for a $33.2 billion cuts in programs under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee that include Food Stamps and commodity subsidies that generally go to large corporations. The Budget Resolution assumed that $30 billion would come out of commodity subsidies and $3.2 billion from Food Stamps. The House Agriculture Committee most likely looked at the list of the contributors to their campaigns and could not find anybody getting food stamps, and decided to take all $33.2 billion from the SNAP program. Meanwhile, the Senate Agriculture Committee will cut $4 billion from SNAP by eliminating the heat and eat program that simplifies the administration of the Food Stamp Program. In Brief News From Washington SENATE FOOD STAMP CUT $4 billion Eliminate the heat and eat program that simplifies the administration of the program. Hurts the Poor. HOUSE AGRICULTURE FOOD STAMP CUT $33.2 billion Limit categorical eligibility to cash assistance programs Hurts the Poor Eliminate the heat and eat program that simplifies the administration of the program. Hurts the Poor Limit shared federal financial assistance to states operating food stamp work programs Does not hurt the poor Eliminate state performance bonuses programs – Does not hurt the poor Reduce federal allocation for food stamp work programs to $79,000.000. – Does not hurt the poor CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org April 21, 2012 #2012–07 At the County Welfare Directors Association Food Stamp Committee meetings county human services agencies raise issues and agree upon answers thereto establishing underground rules that have statewide application. The following are some of the underground rules promulgated by CWDA. Stanislaus County Utility Allowance Situation: Intake applicant, no utilities paid, therefore not allowed on case. Household reports a change of address a few months later and is now paying utilities. Question: Is the household allowed a utility allowance? Answer: Yes, if the household reports a change and the change will increase his\/her benefits, the household is allowed a utility allowance. Stanislaus County Situation: Household refuses to allow SIU staff into his\/her home. Question: Can the county deny the case? Answer: Yes CCWRO COMMENT: The correct answer is no . Allowing SIU staff into the home of Food Stamp recipients home is not a condition of eligibility for food stamps. Per MPP 63.-300(h) (3): Home Visits Home visits may be used when documentary evidence is insufficient to make a determination of eligibility or benefits level or cannot be obtained and the visit is scheduled in advance with the household. In this example there is no showing that an appointment was made, that the county had asked for verification that was not provided by the household thus necessitating the home visit. This is clearly a welfare fraud referral and SIU is doing a criminal investigation. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination should mean that refusal to talk to a criminal investigator cannot be a basis for denying benefits. Humboldt County Situation: Applicant for CalFresh completes the SAWS1, question 8 Is anyone applying for: CalFresh is answered No. But the applicant completes questions 14 17 (ES questions). Question: Is this considered an application for CalFresh? Answer: Counties were not in agreement, some said if the CalFresh box was not checked at all, then yes, this is an application for CalFresh, but since the applicant had check the No box, then it shouldn’t be considered an application for CalFresh. Los Angeles County Situation: Minors who commit drug felons, their records are sealed by the court Question: If the county finds about the drug felony, are they eligible to CalFresh? Answer: Technically this not a conviction, the drug felony would not be addressed in CalFresh and the individual would be eligible. Per Riverside County, this question was addressed on an ACIN. Food Stamp Policy Made by County Human Services Departments Statewide Customer Service Centers for 2013 At a recent CWDA Board meeting the Board discussed development of networked systems of county customer service centers to ensure coverage across the state and ensure efficient workload management and coverage for workload overflow. The Board adopted the following motion that would provide that all 58 counties would have Call-Centers that would interact with each other and all call-centers would adhere to statewide standards developed in concert with the State. CWDA would establish a strike force to provide technical assistance to counties that are struggling to meet the established performance standards that would include participation of CDSS and DHCS. The resolution fails to include voice of the consumers in development of this system or as a part of the strike force. We hope will be remedied. The following is the language of the motion adopted by the CWDA Board Directors at the March 9, 2012 meeting: MOTION: The 58 county human service agencies which comprise the County Welfare Directors Association of California are committed to using contemporary technology to create a statewide network of excellent customer service to applicants and recipients for the CalFresh, CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and other health reform programs. To this end, county human service agencies intend to implement a statewide network of customer service centers during 2013. This network will have the following characteristics: All 58 counties will be part of the Customer Service Center Network. The Customer Service Centers will be able to receive phone calls routed by a statewide toll-free number established by the Health Benefits Exchange. As needed, overflow calls in one county will be seamlessly handled by another county with available capacity. To the extent that Customer Service Center services are required outside of regular business hours, this need will be met through the Network. In consultation with CDSS and CDHCS, the counties will establish performance standards for the Network and monitor performance in relation to those standards. In collaboration with CDSS and CDHCS, the counties will establish a state\/county strike force to provide technical assistance to any part of the Network that is struggling to meet the established performance standards. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 May 9, 2012 Issue # 2012-08 CCWRO Welfare News COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT IMPEDE CALWORKS PARTICIPANTS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE SELF-SUFFICIENCY Sacramento County exempted Ms. B. from the WtW program due to a chronic disability. She then volunteered to participate in a WtW activity. This irritated the county WtW officials. Why is she volunteering? Sacramento County decided that it has a right to determine if the activity that Ms. B wants to engage in is \”appropriate\” and does not exacerbate her chronic disability. The County WtW worker denied payment of supportive services because there is no WtW contract. The reason that there is no WtW contract is that the County believes that the activity is injurious to her disability. The County also recommended that she start taking prescription medications. The County is unable to cite any authority to support this position. State law is very clear. Any exempt individual can volunteer to participate. Below are the statutes that cover volunteer participation in a WtW activity. The only restriction imposed by state law is if a volunteer fails to participate in a certain activity, then that volunteer shall not be given priority over another person who wants to participate in the same activity. There is nothing in the law that allows a county to determine whether a particular activity is appropriate for a voluntary participant. WHAT SHOULD FOLKS DO? Any exempt person who wants to volunteer should complete a WtW 2 plan. The fillable WtW 2 form can be found at: http:\/\/www. cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/WTW2.pdf. Make a copy and take the original to the county welfare department. Make sure that the volunteer requests a receipt from the county human services department as mandated by Welfare and Institutions Code 11256. The WtW 2 form should be accompanied with a letter asking the county to respond within 30 days. If the county fails to respond within 30 days, then the CalWORKs recipient should assume that the request is denied and should request a state hearing as provided in Welfare & Institutions Code 11328.2. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Welfare & Institutions Code 11320.3 (c) provides that \”Any individual not required to participate may choose to participate voluntarily under this article, and end that participation at any time without loss of eligibility for aid under this chapter, if his or her status has not changed in a way that would require participation.\” Welfare & Institutions Code 11322.4 provides: \”It is the intent of the Legislature to fund welfare-to-work activities under this article so that all recipients of aid under this chapter for whom participation under this article is required can be served and, in addition, so that recipients voluntarily participating under this article can be served.\” Welfare & Institutions Code 11324.8(c) allows persons who are not required to participate to volunteer to participate in the WtW program. Welfare & Institutions Code 11327.5 provides: \”(a) Sanctions shall be imposed in accordance with subdivision (b) or (c), as appropriate, if an individual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements without good cause and conciliation efforts, as described in Section 11327.4, have failed. (b) The sanctions provided for in subdivisions (c) and (d) shall not apply to an individual who is exempt from the requirements of this article but is voluntarily participating in the program. If that individual engages in conduct that would bring about the actions provided for in subdivisions (c) and (d), except for his or her status as a voluntary program participant, the individual shall not be given priority so long as other individuals are actively seeking to participate.\” CDSS regulation M.P.P. 42-712.5 states that \”Any individual who is not required to participate may volunteer to participate in welfare-to-work activities and may end that participation at any time without loss of eligibility for aid, provided his or her status has not changed in a way that requires participation. .51 For purposes of Section 42-715.5, a volunteer participant is as follows: .511 An individual who is exempt pursuant to Sections 42-712.41 through .49, but who volunteers to participate; or .512 An individual who is not required to participate for reasons other than the exemptions described in Sections 42-712.41 through .49, but who volunteers to participate.\” CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org May 9, 2012 #2012–08 County Client Abuse Report Los Angeles County’s Termination of Food Stamp Benefits Reversed – Mr. 201133269 of Los Angeles County received a notice of action stopping his food stamps for alleged failure to submit a complete quarterly report (QR-7). In fact, he had submitted the QR-7 to the County three times. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of Mr. 201133269. Fresno County Stops Food Stamps Wrongfully – Mr. 2012003614 of Fresno County received a notice of action on May 12, 2011, stating that he was allegedly a fleeing felon. Mr. 2012003614, is not a fleeing felon but Fresno County stopped his benefits. Mr. 2012003614 presented himself at an administrative hearing and nobody was interested in locking him up for being a fleeing felon. The ALJ found that Mr. 2012003614 was not a non-fleeing felon . Fresno County Wrongfully Denies Child Care to a Working Mom – Fresno County Ms. 2012019220 of Fresno County works and needs childcare because she cannot take her child to work. Fresno County refused to pay childcare for the unsubsidized job because she could not take time off to meet with the Welfare-to-Work worker to sign a WtW contract. She filed for a state hearing hoping that she could get her child care paid, but that did not happen. In addition to the injustice meted out by Fresno County, she also failed to get justice from the ALJ. ALJ Vincent Misenti blatantly violated Welfare and Institutions Code 11323.2 and the state regulations and policies and denied the claim for childcare. Ms. 2012003614 does not have to have a signed WtW agreement to be entitled to childcare. She is working. Inadequate Notice Found Adequate and Justice is Denied by DSS – Mr. 2011292396 of Riverside County was sanctioned for allegedly not participating in the WtW program. He has been in witness protection program. On March 18, 2010, Riverside County issued a notice of action imposing a sanction effective April 1, 2010. He did not ask for a state hearing within the 90-day period. The ALJ found no jurisdiction for the hearing because the notice of action met the requirements of the state regulations. The ALJ Joann Sawyer-Knoll ignored MPP 42-721.23 that requires that notices imposing sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with program requirements must be sent at least 30 calendar days from the effective date of the notice of action. In this case the county issued a 12-day notice of action and not a 30-day notice of action. MPP 42-72123 – Upon determination that an individual has failed to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send a notice of action effective no earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of issuance. Telephone Redetermination Interviews In Los Angeles a Nightmare Los Angeles County DPSS mailed Ms. BOQ2265 a notice dated 3-7-12 that she will have a telephone redetermination for her CalWORKs and Food stamp benefits on 4-12-12 at 1:30 p.m. Nobody from DPSS called at the designated time. At 2 p.m. she called her worker’s number and a different worker picked up the phone. Donna Fitzlaff conducted the telephone interview and Ms. BOQ2265 that she must provide DPSS with the following verification: 1. Back Statement; 2. School attendance verification of her children; 3. Immunization verification already in the possession of the county for her five (5) year old child; 4. Car registration already in the possession of the county; and 5. Rent receipt that was the same and had not changed. On 4-17-12 Ms. BOQ2265 personally hand-delivered all of these items to DPSS. On 4-21-12, Ms. BOQ2265 received another notice of action stating that she had a redetermination interview on 4-30-12 at 10:30 a.m. Again, nobody called at 4-30-12 10:30 a.m. She called her worker who acknowledged that Ms. BOQ2265 had completed the redetermination and the county had received all requested verification. On 5-1-12 Ms. BOQ2265 received a notice of action stating that her CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and Food Stamp benefits will be stopped because she had not completed her redetermination. Ms. BOQ2265 is not alone. This is happening to many others in Los Angeles County. Mr. K.B. of Sacramento County received a letter from Revenue and Recovery demanding that he repay food stamps benefits that he has never received. He has always received SSI. He asked if there is a law that says SSI recipients must pay back food stamps that were never received? The answer is no. What a mess. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 12, 2012 Issue # 2012-03 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Continuing education for welfare workers lot of work and no time for retraining or taking refresher courses. They have found a way to offer continuing education to their employees. Like EWs, corporate employees must log on to their computers daily. They turn on the computer, enter their pass code and start working. But, what if after entering the password each worker would have a simple quiz to answer before they were allowed to enter the system? For example: Does a food stamp applicant, eligible for expedited service, have to ask for expedited service before the EW has to issue food stamp benefits? Yes__ No__. Each day there could be a different quiz targeted to Medi-Cal workers, WtW workers or social workers. It would take less than a minute to complete the quiz of the day. If the EW does not answer correctly, the answer would pop up so the EW could start work. If the worker is continuously failing to answer correctly, management should have the person enter a retraining program to upgrade his or her skills. Some may get fired. But that is better than poor people and families ending up homeless, broken and suffering extreme devastation. Statistic of the Month How much would welfare recipients contribute to the State General Fund under the Governor’s proposed 2012-2013 State Budget? 2011-2012 $1.2 billion 2012-2013 $2.7 billion 114% INCREASE over 1 year. Who are the people on the line working as welfare workers, more commonly known as eligibility workers (EWs)? Generally they are high school graduates. Once hired, they go through a rigorous training program, given a caseload and then they are functioning EWs. They issue benefits to a lot of people and do a heroic job under difficult working conditions. They also make mistakes. Such mistakes can mean families end up homeless, families break up due to poverty or working welfare moms lose their jobs. EWs do not get continuing education and are not regularly certified like other professions. This is not the fault of the EW in any way, shape or form. It is the fault of the welfare system that promotes negative incentives in any situation to obtain cooperation from the people they allegedly serve. The welfare system has no positive incentives to obtain cooperation unlike most other regular business practices in our society. If the client does not do x their aid is stopped immediately. If a welfare mom does not go to job club when there are 14 people looking for three (3) available spots or because they did not have child care or transportation, boom their share of the grant is stopped. The welfare system never verifies that supportive services are actually available to the individual before demanding their appearance at job club. If they have a baby while on aid, no aid for the baby you should have had an abortion. And the list goes on and on. Thus, after several years, even good EWs make mistakes that cause devastation to families. Maybe they forgot what they were taught or did not read the memo informing them of a new policy. Private enterprise has faced the same phenomenon – a http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Alternative to regular continuing education for welfare workers Program the computer to require employees to complete a quiz of the day before they are allowed to log on their computer. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 March 21, 2012 Issue # 2012-06 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian u DSS has a system called On-Line Policy Interpretation & Consultation System (PICS) that contains answers to questions posed to DSS dating from 1996. ACIN I-96-08 revealing this system was made public in 2008. The system has been dormant but DSS plans to reactivate this system. Hopefully DSS will be transparent and make this system accessible to all parties and not just the county human service agency officials. u DSS issued ACL 12-03 regarding Senate Bill 43 making the Food Stamp Employment and Training program a positive program. This bill was conceived and shepherded through the legislative process by Jessica Bartholow of WCLP authored by Senator Carol Lui. DSS now plans to do a questions and answers ACIN\/ACL. u DSS plans to issue an implementation letter for AB 402 by July 2012. AB 402 promotes the enrollment of school lunch eligible families into the food stamp program. This bill was conceived by Cathy Senderling of the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA). It was authored by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner. u Effective February 1, 2012, several counties are participating in a pilot project called The Work Number (WN) Express Service Pilot Program operated by Equifax. The web address is http:\/\/www.equifax.com\/ home\/en_us. This 90-day pilot was free to counties. For those counties that participate in the pilot, there will be no limit to the number of users who can have access to the WN or service usage amount. They currently offer a standard service free of charge to County Social Services Agencies, which will be expiring at the end of January 2012. The free standard service offered by the WN consists of verifying only known employment. Participating counties complain that the training was not well publicized and county personal have problems registering with the system. The trainings were scheduled with short notice. The pilot has not been a success and it appears that Equifax may extend the pilot time. Equifax with online social security number (SSN) lookup will be available to all 58 California counties starting February 1, 2012. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org u San Diego County implemented a very limited electronic signatures for certain food stamp applicants who are assisted by the local 211 system. It appears that the little 211 computer system can do telephonic signatures while the billion dollar + CalWIN system is incapable of doing it. u The federal face-to-face interview waiver has been causing a lot of havoc for CalFresh recipients and applicants. Applicant households are being denied benefits because they either do not get the call for the telephonic interview, or for the failure to submit the signed application. In many cases, applications hand delivered to the Los Angeles County DPSS never find a way to the worker. The same is also true for telephonic recertifications. These problems are occurring in most counties doing on-line applications or waivers of face- to-face interviews. u On May 31, 2011, Lupe Garibay of San Diego County asked DSS whether the county must give a WtW client a WtW 2 to be signed if the participant indicates that s\/he will not sign it. DSS responded that the case worker should document that the participant refused to sign the WtW 2. DSS never advised the county to determine why the participant does not want to sing the form. Maybe there is a good reason. Of course if there is a good reason, then the county would not be able to impose a sanction. At the minimum when the worker documents on the WtW 2 that the participant did not sign the form, a copy should be given to the participant. Maybe the participant would then sign it. Finally the proper action is not the sanction, but it is to refer the person to a third-party assessment as required by state law and regulations. u A FNS Memo dated May 27, 2011, states that States are prohibited from requiring an applicant to provide an e-mail address when applying on line. This letter also clarifies that a State agency must provide the client with an opportunity to submit an application at any point after providing their name, address and signature. . . which is the minimum information required to submit an application pursuant to Section 11(e)(2)(B(ii) o the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. County Client Abuse Report – Page 2 In Brief CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org March 21, 2012 #2012–02 SACRAMENTO COUNTY WELFARE FRAUD INVESTIGATOR HARASSES UNDOCUMENTED WELFARE MOM Ms. BC63489 of Sacramento County has three children aged 13, 12 and 4. Ms. BC63489 reported to Sacramento County that the absent parent pays most of the rent directly to the landlord. Because of this, her welfare worker referred her to early welfare fraud. We are not sure what was there to investigate. Could it be the fact that the absent parent helps keep a roof over his children’s head? Most people would think that he should be helping. However, the Sacramento Department of Human Assistance thinks supporting his family is potential fraud . The welfare investigator came to her house, told her that she must cooperate with him in his criminal investigation otherwise she would lose her welfare benefits. In Sacramento County, welfare recipients lose their rights when they start getting welfare. The investigator flashed his badge, but refused to give Ms. BC BC63489 a card or otherwise identify himself. He asked her Are you working? She said I did, but not now. He then proceeded to inform her that she could go to jail for working because she does not have the legal right to work. He asked her if she was looking for work. She responded yes. He then asked her How could you interview for a job if you do not have papers? He then told her that if she does not let him search the house, she would lose her benefits. While searching the house, he went through drawers, clothing and did a thorough search of the house without a search warrant. He then asked her if the car outside is hers? She said no. It belongs to somebody else that she uses to drive her kids to school so they can get an education. After she admitted that she did not have a driver’s license the fraud investigator asked how she drove without a license. He then asked her if she knew what would happen if she got busted for driving without a license. She responded: I have no choice. I have to take my kids to school. She then got a call from her worker saying that the absent parent cannot visit his children at her house. If he does, the children would be ineligible for welfare. She then received two strange notices of action. The first one terminated her benefits because she received $650 unearned income. The county has no verification of the receipt of $650 of unearned income. Rent paid to the landlord is not income – it is in-kind income and the whole $650 is not applied against the CalWORKs assistance unit. Now maybe in Sacramento County there are different rules for undocumented families? In reality this is welfare fraud against BC63489 by her worker – V1R3. She received a second notice of action stated that she has a $0 overpayment. Why the computer system would issue a notice of action informing somebody of a $0 overpayment is unclear. It appears waste is also a Sacramento County practice. KERN COUNTY UNLAWFULLY SHORTENS FOOD STAMP CERTIFICATION PERIOD RN 510013 of Kern County was certified for CalFresh effective March of 2010 for 12 months. Kern County shortened the certification period to November 30, 2010. Kern County terminated Ms. RN 510013 without due process of law and contrary to federal and state regulations. Kern County tried to justify the unlawful behavior by saying that they wanted to align the food stamp certification period with the CalWORKs\/ Medi-Cal certification periods. The regulation governing shortening the CalFresh certification period is 63-504.161 which provides: The CWD shall not shorten a household’s certification period. The CWD must end a certification if the CWD determines the household becomes ineligible. County Client Abuse Report ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 17, 2012 Issue # 2012-10 CCWRO Welfare News Social Engineers Tell The Poor How to Eat Social engineers are at work again. For the past several years some of the so- called think tanks and their confused allies have decided to tell food stamps recipients what kind of food to buy and eat. One would think that these social engineers would have the intellect to know that the food stamp program now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), does not meet all of recipients’ food needs. In fact the average food stamp household gets about $133 a month. That is about $4.50 a day or $1.50 a meal. It is a miracle that poor people in this country manage not to die from starvation with the amount of food stamps they get every month. Rather than applauding food stamp recipients for being inventive fiscal geniuses, groups like the Center of Science and Public Interest are proposing to dictate to receipients how to use their meager benefits. Do not buy sodas. Buy fresh food. They have found allies in some misguided food banks in Oregon who have Senator Wyden doing a press release supporting his amendment to force food stamp recipient to choose what they call healthier diets . The problem is healthier food is more expensive. What happens when this healthy diet results in having nothing to eat the last two weeks of the month? Would the social engineers be willing to give those hungry people a credit card to eat at an organic restaurant? http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org On July 5, 2011, Joyce Fields, program manager for the Solano County Human Services Agency asked: We have a single- parent family applying for CalWORKs, the mother is still under a WtW sanction. The family is over income with the mother excluded. The mother wants to cure her sanction, so her family came be approved for CalWORKs. Can we allow her to cure her sanction during the 45-day period we have to process the CalWORKs application? On April 5, 2012, about nine (9) months later, DSS responded as follows: The Manual of Policies and Procedures is silent on this question. The CWD may give the applicant a chance to cure her sanction during the 45 day application period, and if the applicant fails to cure she would remain in sanction status and the AU would be ineligible. Solano County can now take this timely answer, go back in time and in lieu of denying the application for being over income, allow her to cure the sanction while the application was pending. State law does not preclude any person from curing a sanction at any time. We will admit that MPP 42-721.48 is very poorly drafted and does not say that a person can cure the sanction at any time. The statute provides that the sanction will stop anytime the noncomplying participant complies. (Welf. & Inst. Code 11327.5(d).) Any reasonable person would assume that this means a person should be allowed to cure the sanction. In fact several years ago counties received several hundred million dollars to help sanctioned persons cure sanctions. Despite that, DSS says that the CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Sanction is the Purpose of the WtW Program CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org June 17, 2012 #2012-10 On May 3, 2012, Tracy Donovan of HHS asked DSS whether or not California exempts pregnant women from participation in the WtW program. Tracy also informed California that most states exempt pregnant women in the woman’s third trimester. Joel Reynolds of DSS responded on May 3, 2012 that in California, a pregnant woman in any trimester is required to participate 32 hours per week (or up to 35 hours per week if in a two-parent family) in a welfare-to-work activity as a condition of eligibility for cash aid under CalWORKs. Joel continued saying, However, a woman who is pregnant is exempt from welfare-to-work participation if the pregnancy impairs her ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. An exemption based on a medically- verified pregnancy may also be granted when the CWD determines that participation will not readily lead to employment or that a training activity is not appropriate. Mr. TANF ID# 013CB860405 is working 35 hours a week and meeting the federal work requirements. When reporting it’s federal work particiation, a county did not enter status code 19 for this individual meeting the 35 hours work participation rates because the individual was being sanctioned by the county. It appears that the federal government caught this county\/ state error and entered the right status code and the State of California got credit for this sanctioned individual being punished for not meeting the WtW requirements. Sanctioned Persons Work Hours Counted for Meeting States Federal Work Participation Rates regulations do not require counties to allow applicants to cure a previous sanction while the application is pending. DSS knows very well that many sanctions can be cured by simple actions such as having the participant go to orientation\/appraisal. That could have been done on the date of application in some cases. It is unfortunate that CDSS seems to be encouraging decreasing benefits instead of curing sanctions. SB 1011 is the CalWORKS trailer bill that will be considered by the State Legislature. The sections effecting CalWORKs start at Section 6 that continues the current exemption for families with children under 2 savings of $327 million for 2012-2013. This cut does not hurt any impoverished families or the kids living in the family. The Legislature has the option of exempting families with kids under 6 as they did under Governor Reagan and save two or three times that amount without hurting any impoverished families and their kids. It should be noted that any exempt recipient who wants to participate in the WtW program can still volunteer to participate under current law. SB 1011 also will restore the CalLearn program and require reporting on the program from DSS. With the enactment of AB 6, which provides for semi-annual reporting, California’s federal work participation rate may get a boost. Currently when a person is meeting the work participation in the data month , those participation hours for the data month are projected for the next three months. With semi-annual reporting if the individual meets the federal work participation during the semi-annual data month those hours are projected over the next 6 months. This change will go into effect when California updates its Work Verification Plan for Fiscal Year 2014. SAR Helps State Federal Work Participation Rates Pregnancy in Any Trimester Does Not Exempt from WtW 2012-2013 Budget Trailer Bill SB 1011 CCWRO NUMBER OF THE WEEK In 2010, the child poverty rate for children under 18 years of age in California was 22% ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 January 15, 2012 Issue # 2012-01 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian A View of Welfare The Budget for 2011-2012 passed by the State Legislature this year recognized the potential risk to the state’s fiscal condition if revenues fell short of the forecast and established cuts that would go into effect in that event. Chapter 41, Statutes of 2011, requires the Director of Finance (Department) to update the estimate of General Fund revenues for 2011-12, compare those revenues to the Legislative Analyst’s No- vember estimate, and determine which estimate is higher. The Department of Finance’s updated revenue estimate for 2011-12 to be $86,247,700,000. This amount is $2,204,800,000 lower than the revenue specified in Section 3.94 of the Budget Act. The Legislative Analyst’s estimate was $84,764,000,000. The Department of Finance estimate is higher and therefore is the operative forecast. Pursuant to Section 3.94 and other sections of law, the Legislature established certain specific spending reductions or revenues that shall occur based on the operative revenue forecast. The IHSS program was supposed to face a 20% cut in hours, but that was blocked in court. The reduction in the so-called anti-fraud $10 mil- lion gift to the county district attorneys also went into on January 1, 2012 and we welcome this cut. The report that these so-called anti-fraud units have been issuing is full of contrived estimates of savings that are not verifiable . Ultimately, IHSS anti-fraud efforts spend more on staff than they save. Today I want to talk about welfare. If there was no welfare I would not have to pay taxes. I know that be- cause I have educated myself – welfare (TANF) costs about $14 billion a year. Yes, I know our federal budget is $3.7 trillion and growing, but all of my tax dollars go to welfare for the poor. You see I have this neighbor. Her husband is wealthy, but does not pay child support. Now she goes on wel- fare and I have to pay for it. She has three kids, 3, 5 and 8. She could get a job and have the 8-year old watch the 3 and 5 year old. That’s what out forefathers did. And why can’t she find a job? There are 14 people looking for every three (3) available jobs. I know there are a lot of jobs. All you have to do is apply and boom you have a job. Her 8 year old goes to school with my 8 year old. He seems to always be hungry. Why I do not understand. He steals food from my kid just because he is hungry. If he has no food he should not eat. He should get a job and earn his food. Ask Gingrich. He’ll tell you. I asked his mom why is her 8-year old hungry sometimes and she says that she runs out of food in the middle of the month. Why can’t she work for food? There are 14 people looking for 3 available jobs and people know that. Last month my kid came home sick because my welfare recipient neighbor sent her sick kid to school. I asked her why and she said that they would reduce her welfare check if the kid does not go to school. I asked her even if your kid is sick? She said yes unless I have medical verification that he was sick. I said why can’t you get that? She said she does not have bus fare to get to the doctor. I had no idea that we had buses in my town. Doesn’t the welfare give you a car I asked? That’s what the Heritage Foundation says. She says not true. Wow. I asked how much she gets on welfare for three people. I know that my tax dollars are used to the benefit of the poor. And I found out that she gets a lot of money from welfare she gets the same amount that a family of three got in 1985 – $608 a month. I had no idea we paid so much for a family of three. Anybody should be able to get by with $7,200 a year. Our forefathers did it why can’t she? http\/\/www\/ccwro.org $10 Million Cut from the Ill Conceived IHSS Anti-Fraud Program Is Welcomed http:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/ CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org January 15, 2012 #2012–01 HR 3765 that contains a two-month extension of the middle class tax cut, unemployment benefits and TANF authorization. H.R.3765 Latest Title: Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Con- tinuation Act of 2011 Sponsor: Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] (introduced 12\/23\/2011) Cosponsors (None) Related Bills: H.R.3630, H.R.3743 Latest Major Action: 12\/23\/2011 Signed by President. MAJOR ACTIONS: 12\/23\/2011 Introduced in House 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Ways and Means discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Transportation discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Natural Resources discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Foreign Affairs discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on Financial Services discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Committee on The Budget discharged. 12\/23\/2011 Passed\/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection. 12\/23\/2011 Presented to President. 12\/23\/2011 Signed by President. It all happened in one day. What a way to run a Country. On July 14, 2011 Loel Griffith of Lassen County send an email to DSS posing the following question: Client comes into apply and states that he\/she is a Lassen resident and is currently homeless. This becomes a change- reporting household, once that case is granted and must report any change with 10 days. No contact from client and we look up EBT history or get the Out of County\/State Usage Report , showing that the client has been spending all of their benefits in Washington or Idaho or Montana (not a border state) for mul- tiple months. We discontinue the case, but are those previous months considered an over-issuance? Should we contact the State they where using their card to see there is duplicate aid? Is there an over-issuance, what month would the over-issuance start (example: started using FS in Washington on 4\/6\/11 and we disccontined the case 7\/1\/11)? On August 5, 2011, Eden-Marie Eulingborough responded that: pursuant to MPP 63-801.311(c)(1), an over-issuance be- gins the first month in which the change would have been ef- fective had it been timely reported. Therefore, in your scenar- io, it appears the recipient began using benefits in Washington on 4\/7\/11. It is reasonable to assume that this is the date the recipient established residency in that state. Therefore, the over-issuance would begin May 2011. It has been a long-standing federal policy that a food stamp recipient can use his or her EBT card anywhere in the United States of the America. Title 7 of Code of Federal Regula- tions 274.12(h)(10) provide: Interoperability. State agencies must adopt uniform stan- dards to facilitate interoperability and portablilty nation- wide. The term interoperability means the EBT system must enable a coupon issued in the form of an EBT card to be redeemed in any State. It is very clear food stamp recipient can use their EBT card anywhere. But that does not mean the state and county food stamp officials would not retaliate against food stamp recipi- ents to exercise this right. Many counties in California regularly invade the privacy of food stamp recipients by looking at where they used their food stamp benefits and how they used those benefits. Yes. Big Brother is watching us in the form state and county food stamp officials. They never tell you that when you get food stamps you also give up your food privacy for most part. In this case there was no evidence that this food stamp recipi- ent had established residence in another state. Moreover, in the Unites States of America even food stamp recipients have a right to travel. DSS told the county to establish an over-issuance against this household (HH) without any evidence that the HH had es- tablished residence somewhere else. The prudent suggestion from Lassen County that they should contact the other states to see if the HH was receiving duplicate aid was rejecteded by DSS. That may be because if the county found out that the HH was not receiving aid from the another state then they are still a resident of California and not of another state. The California Food Stamp Agency sacntioned County ter- mination of Food Stamp benefits solely based on the fact that the HH was exercising its federal right to use the food stamps throughout the United States of America places a chilling effect on anybody trying to exercise rights under 7 CFR 273.12(h)(10). How a Bill Becomes Law in U.S. Congress EBT Assults Food Stamp Recipients Food Privacy ______________________________________ The California Food Stamp Agency sacntioned Coun- ty termination of Food Stamp benefits solely based on the fact that the HH was exercising its federal right to use the food stamps throughout the United States of America places a chilling effect on anybody trying to exercise rights under 7 CFR 273.12(h)(10). ________________________________________ ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 1, 2012 Issue # 2012-02 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief uYOLO COUNTY UNAWARE OF IEVS PROCESSING TIMELINES During the DSS review of Yolo County’s IEVS processing system, the county asked DSS for documentation regarding the 45 and 90- day IEVS processing requirements. DSS informed Yolo County in an email that for active cases the processing timelines are 45 days and for closed cases is 90 days. For years Yolo County has been submitting claims to be paid for processing IEVS reports when they have no idea what the processing timelines are. uAB 98 OVERPAYMENTS- On 7\/6\/11 Jenny Hart of San Luis Obispo County asked DSS How are overpayments to be handled for AB 98 subsidies? If the county were to made aware immediately within that month? If the county did not find out until 6 months later? On 11\/23\/11, DSS responded that The incorrect amount paid to the employer and claimed by the county to the state under AB 98 is not an overpayment as defined in MPP because it is not and aid payment to the AU. Ms. A.M. has been participating in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity in Sacramento County during all of 2011. Her brother has been babysitting for her and her welfare worker told her we would pay for child care. I never thought they would lie to me said Ms. A.M. I turn in the forms and then Child Action says my brother had some trouble uCOUNTIES MAY NOT CAP CAR REPAIR SERVICES-Jennie Anglell and Karen Thrilkill of Mendocino County, asked DSS whether counties can impose a monetary ‘cap’ on supportive services, including car repairs. Geoffrey Miller, of CDSS responded on 10\/12\/11 that the Counties cannot impose a monetary ‘cap’ on supportive services, including car repairs. However, the county can establish a process for determining a reasonable limit on such expenditures for each case. This process must be in the county’s written policies. Please review ACL 04-04 (attachment page 1) and ACL 0054 (page 2) for additional guidance on this topic. uCOUNTIES CAUSE OVERPAYMENT CHARGE WELFARE RECIPIENTS WITH FELONY FRAUD -DSS has been working on revising their IEVS regulations for years. The current regulations are left over from the previous century. The last report of statewide IEVS reports known as DPA 482 reveals that statewide, during the quarter of April through June of 2011, counties received 493,695 IEVS hits. During those same three months they only processed 173,960 hits. This means that there were 319,735 potential overpayment cases piling up without county action. When counties get around to dealing with these overpayments, they charge the recipients with felony fraud when in reality many of the overpayments were caused by the counties not doing their job checking out the potential overpayments. uEMPLOYERS OBJECT TO UNFUNDED COUNTY DEMANDS FOR REPORTS Donna Cobb of San Joaquin County informed DSS that an employer called us stating that he wants to be reimbursed by us for the time and his copies of the information we have asked him to provide for us. I explained that this is a preliminary step to the DA investigation for the state. He is a lobbyist and not very happy with anything the state\/all governments are doing right now. My thought is to turn it all over to the DA and let them go talk to him. DSS responded, We agree that handing this issue to the DA is the best way. This could also be one reason why employers are reluctant to hire welfare recipients in some cases. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org CHILDCARE NOT PAID TO WELFARE-TO-WORK PARTICIPANTS The truth is the people who voted for this wanted to deny child care to welfare recipients. How are children protected if the county has no idea who is watching the child when they force welfare recipients to participate in the WtW program? Did the law require that childcare be verified before a welfare recipient is ordered to participate in an WtW activity? No way. with the law, therefore they cannot pay him. He wants his money. He worked hard. I said I would pay him and now I look like a liar in front of my brother. Her brother is a monolingual Armenian speaker but all of the forms he received were in English. He did not CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org Febraury 1, 2012 #2012- understand all of the requirements for a so-called trustline waiver. He went to the police department, but could not get copies of the police reports. He did not understand that he also had to get all of the court reports. The rules are clear a person who was nice enough to provide childcare to a welfare recipient thinking they would be paid but in fact need a trustline waiver gets zero help from the government. The court papers and the police report are in the computers of the police department and the courts. The welfare department simply can have the welfare computer contact the police department computer or the court computer. The welfare departments have dozens of so-called peace officers who can do this anytime. The regulations and the compassionate state law limits retroactive childcare to 120 days. MPP 47-620.32 provides that a welfare recipient living on a fixed income of 1985 is responsible for any childcare costs incurred until such time as the provider becomes Trustline registered. Why does California have a Trustline process? The childcare Trustline process was allegedly enacted to protect children from being cared for by persons who have a criminal record. The propaganda was we care about kids. The truth is the people who voted for this wanted to deny child care to welfare recipients. How are children protected if the county has no idea who is watching the child when they force welfare recipients to participate in the WtW program? Did the law require that childcare be verified before a welfare recipient is ordered to participate in an WtW activity? No way. The recommendation that safe childcare be verified before a WtW participants is forced to participate in a WtW activity has been rejected by those alleging to be concerned with the safety of the child. Now Ms. A.M. has liability of thousands of dollars because she detrimentally relied on the promise of her welfare worker that we will pay for child care and when the worker never said anything about Trustline and never verified that Ms. A.M. has safe and childcare that can be paid for. uSAN MATEO COUNTY REFUSES TO USE REPORTED CHILD CARE TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS – Ms. RN 207089 of San Mateo County reported that she paid $150 for childcare on her QR7. San Mateo County refused to include the $150 childcare expense deduction in computing the food stamp benefits resulting in depriving Ms. RN 207089 of $68 in food stamp benefits. Why did this happen? Because after spending billions on a computer system we still lack a system where the information from the QR-7 is scanned into the system and the computer determines the correct benefits. The reason that the $150 child care was not used is because the worker did not tell the computer that it must use the $150 child care expense that was already in the computer. uLOS ANGELES DPSS TERMINATED ALL BENEFITS FOR REPORTING INCOME ON THE QR-7 – On 7\/19\/11 Los Angeles County District #013 issued a notice of action terminating the benefits of Ms. RN 508035 for failure to submit a QR-7. In reality the QR-7 was submitted to the county and the county received the completed QR-7. The QR-7 showed her IHSS income and all necessary paystubs. The report was rejected by DPSS and returned to the working welfare mom. It appears that if somebody reports income in Los Angeles with paystubs the odds are your benefits will be terminated for turning in a QR7 that has information on it. Is the lesson don’t report? uLOS ANGELES DPSS FAILS TO PROVIDE TRANSITIONAL FOOD STAMPS Ms. RN 508038 is a Public Assistance Food Stamp household. Her and her four (4) children’s CalWORKs ended on 7\/31\/11 because she did not keep the telephone Cash Aid\/ CalFresh Redetermination interview appointment scheduled for 6\/24\/11. It does not appear that Ms. RN 508038 was ever provided with an in-person redetermination appointment. Often DPSS clients are given phone numbers to call that are not answered. After the questionable termination of her and her four (4) children’s benefits, the DPSS also improperly refused to issue transitional food stamps. County Client Abuse Report ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 28, 2012 Issue # 2012-04 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief u Jessica Bartholow of Western Center on Law and Poverty, a long time anti-hunger fighter, has be rewarded for her work fighting poverty in the U.S. by being presented with the Wheeler\/Well- stone Anti-Hunger Advocacy Leadership Award at the Food Research and Action Center’s National Anti-Hunger Policy Conference in Washington, DC. See picture of Jessica Bartholow and Jim Weill,Director of FRAC State Issues u On November 11, 2011, DSS issued a finding that Sacramento County has an Income and Eli- gibility Verification System (IEVS) report backlog of about 27, 466 cases and 33,466 unprocessed Integrated Fraud Detection (IFD) abstracts. As of March 31, 2011, the county had 13,466 open aid cases. Sacramento County was reminded by DSS that the county has 45-days to process the IEVS reports and 20% of the cases can be delayed be- yond 45 days if the county is waiting for third party verification. MPP 20-006.424. The County was instructed to prepare a corrective action plan and submit it to DSS. u In a August 2011 report, the Civil Rights Divi- sion of DSS informed Sacramento County that it failed to display the Pub 13, which informs appli- cants of social services of their rights and respon- sibilities in all 18 required languages. u In 2011, the Civil Rights Bureau of DSS re- viewed Alameda County and issued a report not- ing multiple civil rights violations. The County failed to make the Pub 13 available to applicants. The County uses client provided interpreters for limited English Persons instead of providing inter- preters for social services applicants and Alam- eda County fails to document this fact in the case files. Case files do not contain mandated docu- mentation when non-county third parties provide the interpretation. Case files often do not include documentation of completed Language Prefer- ence Survey form which identifies the applicant\/ recipient’s ethnic origin and primary language preference. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org u Santa Clara County asked DSS where in the regulations does it say that referral to early fraud prevention and detection program shall not delay the receipt of aid, including the issuance of im- mediate need as provided in California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11055.5(d)(3) [Wel- fare and Institutions Code Section 11055.5(d)(3) provides The referral and investigation shall not delay the receipt of aid, including immediate need payments, for eligible applicants and recipients. ] DSS response was that MPP 20-006 deals with the issue of time frames. It’s not as clear-cut as the W&I Code, but it supports the same principle. 11055.5(d)(3) MPP 20-006 states If the IEVS in- formation is received during the application pe- riod, the CWD shall use it, to the extent possible, in making the eligibility determination. However, the eligibility determination shall not be delayed pending receipt of IEVS information if other infor- mation establishes the individual’s eligibility. There is a major difference between the statute, which clearly states that the issuance of benefits should not be delayed because the case has been CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org Febraury 28, 2012 #2012-04 referred for investigation and the regulation. The regulation only allows the issuance of aid if other information established the individual’s eligibility . On December 19, 2011, DSS informed Merced County that they have a backlog of 5,772 unpro- cessed IEVS abstract reports. This means over- payments pile up while the county is fully aware of the overpayment and does nothing to stop it. Trin- ity County was also cited for the same problem. u DSS convened a workgroup to implement telephonic signatures after San Diego County al- ready started doing it. u Fresno County asked DSS if it’s possible to make translation of forms a higher priority. Fresno County would like forms to be translated before an ACL\/ACIN is released with forms. Advocates have made similar requests to DSS, but DSS is yet to is- sue ACL\/ACINs with translated forms and notices of actions. The Nation u The Obama Food Stamp Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2012 proposes $47,145 million for FY 2012. The budget projects that the costs of food stamps will decline as the economy improves. FY 2013 – $46,908 million; FY 2014- $44,534 million; FY 2015 – $ 42,888 million. Gallup Poll Report on Food Stamps Hart Research Associates Released a poll results entitled Public Opinion on Food Stamps and Hun- ger in America. The results of the poll are: More than four in five voters believe hunger is a serious problem in the United States of America. 72% of the voters believe that SNAP is very or fairly important for the country, and 53% say that the food stamp program is very important . The support for the program cuts across the political spectrum, 86 % of Democrats; 73% of Indepen- dentsm and 53% Republicans see it as important to the country. More than three (3) in four (4) voters say reduc- ing SNAP funding is the wrong way to reduce gov- ernment spending. Voters are less like to vote for a candidate who favors cutting funds for the SNAP, and more likely to vote for a candidate who makes it a top priority to reduce hunger in the United States. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 28, 2012 Issue # 2012-04 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief u Jessica Bartholow of Western Center on Law and Poverty, a long time anti-hunger fighter, has be rewarded for her work fighting poverty in the U.S. by being presented with the Wheeler\/Well- stone Anti-Hunger Advocacy Leadership Award at the Food Research and Action Center’s National Anti-Hunger Policy Conference in Washington, DC. See picture of Jessica Bartholow and Jim Weill,Director of FRAC State Issues u On November 11, 2011, DSS issued a finding that Sacramento County has an Income and Eli- gibility Verification System (IEVS) report backlog of about 27, 466 cases and 33,466 unprocessed Integrated Fraud Detection (IFD) abstracts. As of March 31, 2011, the county had 13,466 open aid cases. Sacramento County was reminded by DSS that the county has 45-days to process the IEVS reports and 20% of the cases can be delayed be- yond 45 days if the county is waiting for third party verification. MPP 20-006.424. The County was instructed to prepare a corrective action plan and submit it to DSS. u In a August 2011 report, the Civil Rights Divi- sion of DSS informed Sacramento County that it failed to display the Pub 13, which informs appli- cants of social services of their rights and respon- sibilities in all 18 required languages. u In 2011, the Civil Rights Bureau of DSS re- viewed Alameda County and issued a report not- ing multiple civil rights violations. The County failed to make the Pub 13 available to applicants. The County uses client provided interpreters for limited English Persons instead of providing inter- preters for social services applicants and Alam- eda County fails to document this fact in the case files. Case files do not contain mandated docu- mentation when non-county third parties provide the interpretation. Case files often do not include documentation of completed Language Prefer- ence Survey form which identifies the applicant\/ recipient’s ethnic origin and primary language preference. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org u Santa Clara County asked DSS where in the regulations does it say that referral to early fraud prevention and detection program shall not delay the receipt of aid, including the issuance of im- mediate need as provided in California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11055.5(d)(3) [Wel- fare and Institutions Code Section 11055.5(d)(3) provides The referral and investigation shall not delay the receipt of aid, including immediate need payments, for eligible applicants and recipients. ] DSS response was that MPP 20-006 deals with the issue of time frames. It’s not as clear-cut as the W&I Code, but it supports the same principle. 11055.5(d)(3) MPP 20-006 states If the IEVS in- formation is received during the application pe- riod, the CWD shall use it, to the extent possible, in making the eligibility determination. However, the eligibility determination shall not be delayed pending receipt of IEVS information if other infor- mation establishes the individual’s eligibility. There is a major difference between the statute, which clearly states that the issuance of benefits should not be delayed because the case has been CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org Febraury 28, 2012 #2012-04 referred for investigation and the regulation. The regulation only allows the issuance of aid if other information established the individual’s eligibility . On December 19, 2011, DSS informed Merced County that they have a backlog of 5,772 unpro- cessed IEVS abstract reports. This means over- payments pile up while the county is fully aware of the overpayment and does nothing to stop it. Trin- ity County was also cited for the same problem. u DSS convened a workgroup to implement telephonic signatures after San Diego County al- ready started doing it. u Fresno County asked DSS if it’s possible to make translation of forms a higher priority. Fresno County would like forms to be translated before an ACL\/ACIN is released with forms. Advocates have made similar requests to DSS, but DSS is yet to is- sue ACL\/ACINs with translated forms and notices of actions. The Nation u The Obama Food Stamp Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2012 proposes $47,145 million for FY 2012. The budget projects that the costs of food stamps will decline as the economy improves. FY 2013 – $46,908 million; FY 2014- $44,534 million; FY 2015 – $ 42,888 million. Gallup Poll Report on Food Stamps Hart Research Associates Released a poll results entitled Public Opinion on Food Stamps and Hun- ger in America. The results of the poll are: More than four in five voters believe hunger is a serious problem in the United States of America. 72% of the voters believe that SNAP is very or fairly important for the country, and 53% say that the food stamp program is very important . The support for the program cuts across the political spectrum, 86 % of Democrats; 73% of Indepen- dentsm and 53% Republicans see it as important to the country. More than three (3) in four (4) voters say reduc- ing SNAP funding is the wrong way to reduce gov- ernment spending. Voters are less like to vote for a candidate who favors cutting funds for the SNAP, and more likely to vote for a candidate who makes it a top priority to reduce hunger in the United States. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 March 12, 2012 Issue # 2012-05 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org 2011 EBT Fees Paid by CalWORKs Recipients County Client Abuse Report u DSS is working on revising the WtW 25 form. It a DSS is working on revising the WtW 25 form. It appears that DSS has a long list of changes that it would like to make. It is not clear if those changes include what types of transportation are being used and how much transportation and ancillary services are advanced as mandated by state law and regulations. On 12\/20\/11 Alexander Sandoval from a county asked DSS whether or not the county can anticipate that the applicant will no longer be working due to loss of Stage 3 child care and would a sworn statement to this effect be acceptable verification. Jeannie McKendry of DSS responded that the county can reasonably anticipate that the applicant will lose the job if child care is no longer available because the applicant cannot work without child care. Relative to verification, DSS responded that Yes, a sworn statement would be sufficient in this case. Per MPP 40-115.22, when verification does not exist, a sworn statement is sufficient in all situations except for verification of citizenship and pregnancy. C-IV did a demonstration in the Los Angeles El Monte office January 17-19 and 24-26 and January 31 through February 2, 2012. The purpose of the demonstration was to give DPSS C-IV Project Deputy Directors, C-IV Project Business Analysts and the C-IV Accenture team an understanding of the current C-IV system and functionality. There is an eight page agenda for these meetings. During 2011, CalWORKs recipients living on a fixed income of what AFDC\/CalWORKs recipients received in 1985 had to shell out over $20 million just so they could use their meager fixed CalWORKs grant. There are banks that do not impose a surcharge on welfare recipients like U.S. Bank and Citibank. WalMart and Walgreen also do not impose a surcharge upon CalWORKs recipients for using their EBT cards. However, statewide, on the average, every CalWORKs family annually is fleeced by banks out of $35 to access their meager fixed income. Some counties are lower than $35. San Bernardino, Orange, Fresno, Stanislaus, Tulare county banks take less than $25 a year from poor. In San Francisco County, CalWORKs recipients pay about $82 a year to access their benefits. This is the highest large county in the state followed by Alameda at $47, Los Angeles at $45 and Santa Clara at $43. See Chart #1 on page 2. These counties have failed to take steps to insure that CalWORKs recipients know how they can use their EBT card without paying any fees. If counties had done their job and properly informed applicants when they get their EBT card how they can access their money without paying these exuberant fees, most families could access their EBT benefits without paying any fees. County Welfare Department Victim of the Week A Californian Eligible for Emergency Food Stamps Goes to Sleep Hungry – Ms. 1B21834 applied for food stamps on Thursday, February 9, 2012 in Santa Clara County. She has no income. She is eligible for expedited services food stamps that she should have received in three days, that is by Monday, February 13, 2012. Instead, she was given an appointment for the the next Thursday, February 23, 2012. She kept her appointment, completed all of the forms, provided all requested verification and as of Match 9, 2012 she was still going to sleep hungry. Do you know what is feels like to go to sleep hungry? she asked. We are sure most of the people running the Santa Clara County Center Street office have never experienced going to sleep hungry feels like. Had they, this would have never happened to Ms. 1B21834. So what laws has the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency violated? COUNT # 1. Violation of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18914 that states: 18914. (a) To the extent provided by federal law, the county welfare department shall provide CalFresh benefits on an expedited basis to households determined to be in immediate CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org March 12, 2012 #2012-05 need of food assistance. (b) At the time an applicant initially seeks assistance, the county welfare department shall screen all expedited service applications on a priority basis. Applicants who meet the federal criteria for expedited service shall receive either a manual authorization to participate or automated card or the immediate issuance of CalFresh benefits no later than the third day following the date the application was filed. To the maximum extent permitted by federal law, the amount of income to be received from any source shall be deemed to be uncertain and exempt from consideration in the determination of eligibility for expedited service. For purposes of this subdivision, a weekend shall be considered one calendar day. (c) The State Department of Social Services shall develop and implement for expedited issuance a uniform procedure for verifying information required of an applicant. COUNT # 2. – Violation of MPP 63-301. 511 which provides that any household with income of less than $150 and assets of $100 shall be eligible for food stamp expedited services (FS-ES): 63-301.5 Expedited Service .51 Entitlement to Expedited Service The following households, if otherwise eligible, are entitled to expedited service: .511 Households with less than $150 in monthly gross income as defined in Section 63-502.1 provided their liquid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; COUNT # 3. Violation of MPP 63-301.52 -refusal to identify a household eligible for FS-ES. 63-301.52 Identifying Households Needing Expedited Service The CWD’s application procedures shall be designed to identify households eligible for expedited service at the time the household files an application. COUNT # 4. Violation of MPP 63-301. 531- Refusal to issue food stamp benefits within three days of the application for food stamp benefits. 63-301.531 Expedited Service Households (a) For households entitled to expedited service at initial application, the CWD shall make the authorization document, access device or coupons available to the recipient either by mail or for pickup at the household’s request, no later than the third calendar day following the date the application was filed. For purposes of this section, a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) shall be considered one calendar day. However, if the third calendar day is a nonworking day when coupons cannot be issued, the CWD shall make coupons available on or before the working day immediately preceding the nonworking day. Statewide $20,234,150 581,556 $34.79 San Francisco $397,368 4,860 $81.76 Siskiyou $22,385 803 $27.88 Sierra $1,785 32 $55.78 Plumas $5,519 200 $27.60 Inyo $7,729 140 $55.21 Sutter $42,279 1,571 $26.91 Alpine $209 4 $52.25 Madera $88,525 3,316 $26.70 Alameda $934,623 19,968 $46.81 Calaveras $16,075 615 $26.14 Los Angeles $8,073,319 180,283 $44.78 San Bernardino $1,238,004 50,488 $24.52 San Mateo $132,994 2,976 $44.69 Orange $569,979 23,553 $24.20 Monterey $216,641 4,959 $43.69 Imperial $110,967 4,644 $23.89 Santa Clara $643,985 14,907 $43.20 Butte $82,146 3,491 $23.53 San Benito $34,740 830 $41.86 San Joaquin $403,939 17,301 $23.35 Solano $247,860 6,361 $38.97 Kings $71,034 3,085 $23.03 Amador $15,536 408 $38.08 Fresno $660,126 28,687 $23.01 Mono $1,304 36 $36.22 Yolo $47,563 2,113 $22.51 Contra Costa $397,887 11,058 $35.98 Humboldt $39,181 1,766 $22.19 Nevada $26,100 728 $35.85 Sonoma $80,151 3,620 $22.14 Sacramento $1,173,769 33,804 $34.72 Merced $181,226 8,215 $22.06 San Diego $1,090,436 31,422 $34.70 Stanislaus $265,967 12,084 $22.01 Marin $41,050 1,204 $34.09 Mariposa $5,028 235 $21.40 Santa Cruz $70,908 2,100 $33.77 Tuolumne $13,446 655 $20.53 Placer $64,574 1,965 $32.86 Tulare $305,278 14,974 $20.39 Kern $683,046 20,908 $32.67 Tehama $28,435 1,413 $20.12 Ventura $235,195 7,502 $31.35 Shasta $67,271 3,343 $20.12 Napa $25,522 832 $30.68 Del Norte $17,382 874 $19.89 Yuba $55,590 1,839 $30.23 Lake $24,522 1,247 $19.66 Mendocino $42,373 1,406 $30.14 Lassen $8,401 448 $18.75 Riverside $987,467 33,593 $29.40 Glenn $8,518 456 $18.68 El Dorado $34,002 1,177 $28.89 Modoc $2,262 127 $17.81 CHART #1 2011 EBT Fees Paid By CalWORKs Recipients count-by county Source: DSS Counties Sept. 2011 CalWORKs Caseload Sept. 2011 CalWORKs Caseload 2011 Total Cost to Use the CalWORKs EBT Card Counties 2011 Total Cost to Use the CalWORKs EBT Card Average Annual Cost Per person to Access Their CalWORKs Fixed Income Average Annual Cost Per person to Access Their CalWORKs Fixed Income ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 March 21, 2012 Issue # 2012-06 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian u DSS has a system called On-Line Policy Interpretation & Consultation System (PICS) that contains answers to questions posed to DSS dating from 1996. ACIN I-96-08 revealing this system was made public in 2008. The system has been dormant but DSS plans to reactivate this system. Hopefully DSS will be transparent and make this system accessible to all parties and not just the county human service agency officials. u DSS issued ACL 12-03 regarding Senate Bill 43 making the Food Stamp Employment and Training program a positive program. This bill was conceived and shepherded through the legislative process by Jessica Bartholow of WCLP authored by Senator Carol Lui. DSS now plans to do a questions and answers ACIN\/ACL. u DSS plans to issue an implementation letter for AB 402 by July 2012. AB 402 promotes the enrollment of school lunch eligible families into the food stamp program. This bill was conceived by Cathy Senderling of the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA). It was authored by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner. u Effective February 1, 2012, several counties are participating in a pilot project called The Work Number (WN) Express Service Pilot Program operated by Equifax. The web address is http:\/\/www.equifax.com\/ home\/en_us. This 90-day pilot was free to counties. For those counties that participate in the pilot, there will be no limit to the number of users who can have access to the WN or service usage amount. They currently offer a standard service free of charge to County Social Services Agencies, which will be expiring at the end of January 2012. The free standard service offered by the WN consists of verifying only known employment. Participating counties complain that the training was not well publicized and county personal have problems registering with the system. The trainings were scheduled with short notice. The pilot has not been a success and it appears that Equifax may extend the pilot time. Equifax with online social security number (SSN) lookup will be available to all 58 California counties starting February 1, 2012. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org u San Diego County implemented a very limited electronic signatures for certain food stamp applicants who are assisted by the local 211 system. It appears that the little 211 computer system can do telephonic signatures while the billion dollar + CalWIN system is incapable of doing it. u The federal face-to-face interview waiver has been causing a lot of havoc for CalFresh recipients and applicants. Applicant households are being denied benefits because they either do not get the call for the telephonic interview, or for the failure to submit the signed application. In many cases, applications hand delivered to the Los Angeles County DPSS never find a way to the worker. The same is also true for telephonic recertifications. These problems are occurring in most counties doing on-line applications or waivers of face- to-face interviews. u On May 31, 2011, Lupe Garibay of San Diego County asked DSS whether the county must give a WtW client a WtW 2 to be signed if the participant indicates that s\/he will not sign it. DSS responded that the case worker should document that the participant refused to sign the WtW 2. DSS never advised the county to determine why the participant does not want to sing the form. Maybe there is a good reason. Of course if there is a good reason, then the county would not be able to impose a sanction. At the minimum when the worker documents on the WtW 2 that the participant did not sign the form, a copy should be given to the participant. Maybe the participant would then sign it. Finally the proper action is not the sanction, but it is to refer the person to a third-party assessment as required by state law and regulations. u A FNS Memo dated May 27, 2011, states that States are prohibited from requiring an applicant to provide an e-mail address when applying on line. This letter also clarifies that a State agency must provide the client with an opportunity to submit an application at any point after providing their name, address and signature. . . which is the minimum information required to submit an application pursuant to Section 11(e)(2)(B(ii) o the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. County Client Abuse Report – Page 2 In Brief CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org March 21, 2012 #2012–02 SACRAMENTO COUNTY WELFARE FRAUD INVESTIGATOR HARASSES UNDOCUMENTED WELFARE MOM Ms. BC63489 of Sacramento County has three children aged 13, 12 and 4. Ms. BC63489 reported to Sacramento County that the absent parent pays most of the rent directly to the landlord. Because of this, her welfare worker referred her to early welfare fraud. We are not sure what was there to investigate. Could it be the fact that the absent parent helps keep a roof over his children’s head? Most people would think that he should be helping. However, the Sacramento Department of Human Assistance thinks supporting his family is potential fraud . The welfare investigator came to her house, told her that she must cooperate with him in his criminal investigation otherwise she would lose her welfare benefits. In Sacramento County, welfare recipients lose their rights when they start getting welfare. The investigator flashed his badge, but refused to give Ms. BC BC63489 a card or otherwise identify himself. He asked her Are you working? She said I did, but not now. He then proceeded to inform her that she could go to jail for working because she does not have the legal right to work. He asked her if she was looking for work. She responded yes. He then asked her How could you interview for a job if you do not have papers? He then told her that if she does not let him search the house, she would lose her benefits. While searching the house, he went through drawers, clothing and did a thorough search of the house without a search warrant. He then asked her if the car outside is hers? She said no. It belongs to somebody else that she uses to drive her kids to school so they can get an education. After she admitted that she did not have a driver’s license the fraud investigator asked how she drove without a license. He then asked her if she knew what would happen if she got busted for driving without a license. She responded: I have no choice. I have to take my kids to school. She then got a call from her worker saying that the absent parent cannot visit his children at her house. If he does, the children would be ineligible for welfare. She then received two strange notices of action. The first one terminated her benefits because she received $650 unearned income. The county has no verification of the receipt of $650 of unearned income. Rent paid to the landlord is not income – it is in-kind income and the whole $650 is not applied against the CalWORKs assistance unit. Now maybe in Sacramento County there are different rules for undocumented families? In reality this is welfare fraud against BC63489 by her worker – V1R3. She received a second notice of action stated that she has a $0 overpayment. Why the computer system would issue a notice of action informing somebody of a $0 overpayment is unclear. It appears waste is also a Sacramento County practice. KERN COUNTY UNLAWFULLY SHORTENS FOOD STAMP CERTIFICATION PERIOD RN 510013 of Kern County was certified for CalFresh effective March of 2010 for 12 months. Kern County shortened the certification period to November 30, 2010. Kern County terminated Ms. RN 510013 without due process of law and contrary to federal and state regulations. Kern County tried to justify the unlawful behavior by saying that they wanted to align the food stamp certification period with the CalWORKs\/ Medi-Cal certification periods. The regulation governing shortening the CalFresh certification period is 63-504.161 which provides: The CWD shall not shorten a household’s certification period. The CWD must end a certification if the CWD determines the household becomes ineligible. County Client Abuse Report ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 April 21, 2012 Issue # 2012-07 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian u DSS is planning to set up a workgroup to plan reengagement strategies if the Legislature approves the Governor’s proposal to have all parents engaged in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity as soon babies are born. Currently a parent with a child under 2 is exempt from participation in WtW. u DSS Review of County Food Stamp Program – The California Food Stamp Division conducts annual Management Evaluations (MEs) for large counties. During April of 2012 there will be a ME review of Stanislaus and Merced Counties. During May of 2012 DSS will do a ME review for San Francisco County. Advocates interested in meeting with the DSS staff conducting the review in these counties should contact Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. u E-Applications for Food Stamps. According to the CWDA CalFresh Committee meeting minutes, CalWIN, which covers 18 counties, requires food stamp e-applicants to sign three different food stamp applications. CCWRO has information that this results in many applications being denied. The applicant, who is still often hungry and in need of emergency food stamps is forced to reapply, clogging up the system. C-IV only requires one signature and one form. Maybe CalWIN can learn from C-IV. u DSS Doing a Questionaire. DSS will be sending out a questionnaire to all the counties inquiring about each county’s application (SAWS and DFA series and e-application) process due to request by FNS. State law requires that the Rights and Responsibilities (R&Rs) be signed separately BUT DSS would like to add the R&Rs and the Statement of Facts to the application and make one form which will only require one signature. At a recent CWDA meeting there was a question raised whether or not an application needs to be re-signed if the customer adds information during the interview. Rosie Avena of DSS has reminded the counties that the only entries required on a CalFresh application are the applicants name, address and signature and once the customer signs the application, he\/she does not need to re-sign if additional information is obtained during the interview. u Fleeing Felon Proposed ACL Held Up By Finance According to CWDA committee minutes CDSS has proposed to incorporate the fleeing felon standard from the Martinez settlement regarding SSI to CalFresh. This would limit fleeing felon discontinuances from CalFresh to only warrants for escape, flight, and avoiding law enforcement. This will draw down more federal funding and create administrative efficiencies. Unfortunately, the state Department of Finance did not accept this premise and has not approved the ACL. This denial is being appealed. An ACL has been drafted and will be sent out for review if the appeal is successful. u Fradulen Letter – CWDA has discovered that a fraudulent letter on what appears to be USDA letterhead has been circulating. The letter is a financial release form asking for financial information. u Child Care IPV Against Providers – CWDA has set up a http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org workgroup on childcare overpayments that is working on policies to impose Intentional Program Violations (IPV) upon childcare providers and then black-balling providers convicted of an IPV. The suggestion for imposing IPV penalties upon providers, many of who are current or former welfare recipients trying to become self- sufficient came from Los Angeles County. The Workgroup is planning to take their recommendations to CDSS and CDE. We would hope that these recommendations would be shared with advocates. The Food Stamp Program is under attack in Washington D.C. The House Budget Resolution provided for a $33.2 billion cuts in programs under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee that include Food Stamps and commodity subsidies that generally go to large corporations. The Budget Resolution assumed that $30 billion would come out of commodity subsidies and $3.2 billion from Food Stamps. The House Agriculture Committee most likely looked at the list of the contributors to their campaigns and could not find anybody getting food stamps, and decided to take all $33.2 billion from the SNAP program. Meanwhile, the Senate Agriculture Committee will cut $4 billion from SNAP by eliminating the heat and eat program that simplifies the administration of the Food Stamp Program. In Brief News From Washington SENATE FOOD STAMP CUT $4 billion Eliminate the heat and eat program that simplifies the administration of the program. Hurts the Poor. HOUSE AGRICULTURE FOOD STAMP CUT $33.2 billion Limit categorical eligibility to cash assistance programs Hurts the Poor Eliminate the heat and eat program that simplifies the administration of the program. Hurts the Poor Limit shared federal financial assistance to states operating food stamp work programs Does not hurt the poor Eliminate state performance bonuses programs – Does not hurt the poor Reduce federal allocation for food stamp work programs to $79,000.000. – Does not hurt the poor CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org April 21, 2012 #2012–07 At the County Welfare Directors Association Food Stamp Committee meetings county human services agencies raise issues and agree upon answers thereto establishing underground rules that have statewide application. The following are some of the underground rules promulgated by CWDA. Stanislaus County Utility Allowance Situation: Intake applicant, no utilities paid, therefore not allowed on case. Household reports a change of address a few months later and is now paying utilities. Question: Is the household allowed a utility allowance? Answer: Yes, if the household reports a change and the change will increase his\/her benefits, the household is allowed a utility allowance. Stanislaus County Situation: Household refuses to allow SIU staff into his\/her home. Question: Can the county deny the case? Answer: Yes CCWRO COMMENT: The correct answer is no . Allowing SIU staff into the home of Food Stamp recipients home is not a condition of eligibility for food stamps. Per MPP 63.-300(h) (3): Home Visits Home visits may be used when documentary evidence is insufficient to make a determination of eligibility or benefits level or cannot be obtained and the visit is scheduled in advance with the household. In this example there is no showing that an appointment was made, that the county had asked for verification that was not provided by the household thus necessitating the home visit. This is clearly a welfare fraud referral and SIU is doing a criminal investigation. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination should mean that refusal to talk to a criminal investigator cannot be a basis for denying benefits. Humboldt County Situation: Applicant for CalFresh completes the SAWS1, question 8 Is anyone applying for: CalFresh is answered No. But the applicant completes questions 14 17 (ES questions). Question: Is this considered an application for CalFresh? Answer: Counties were not in agreement, some said if the CalFresh box was not checked at all, then yes, this is an application for CalFresh, but since the applicant had check the No box, then it shouldn’t be considered an application for CalFresh. Los Angeles County Situation: Minors who commit drug felons, their records are sealed by the court Question: If the county finds about the drug felony, are they eligible to CalFresh? Answer: Technically this not a conviction, the drug felony would not be addressed in CalFresh and the individual would be eligible. Per Riverside County, this question was addressed on an ACIN. Food Stamp Policy Made by County Human Services Departments Statewide Customer Service Centers for 2013 At a recent CWDA Board meeting the Board discussed development of networked systems of county customer service centers to ensure coverage across the state and ensure efficient workload management and coverage for workload overflow. The Board adopted the following motion that would provide that all 58 counties would have Call-Centers that would interact with each other and all call-centers would adhere to statewide standards developed in concert with the State. CWDA would establish a strike force to provide technical assistance to counties that are struggling to meet the established performance standards that would include participation of CDSS and DHCS. The resolution fails to include voice of the consumers in development of this system or as a part of the strike force. We hope will be remedied. The following is the language of the motion adopted by the CWDA Board Directors at the March 9, 2012 meeting: MOTION: The 58 county human service agencies which comprise the County Welfare Directors Association of California are committed to using contemporary technology to create a statewide network of excellent customer service to applicants and recipients for the CalFresh, CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and other health reform programs. To this end, county human service agencies intend to implement a statewide network of customer service centers during 2013. This network will have the following characteristics: All 58 counties will be part of the Customer Service Center Network. The Customer Service Centers will be able to receive phone calls routed by a statewide toll-free number established by the Health Benefits Exchange. As needed, overflow calls in one county will be seamlessly handled by another county with available capacity. To the extent that Customer Service Center services are required outside of regular business hours, this need will be met through the Network. In consultation with CDSS and CDHCS, the counties will establish performance standards for the Network and monitor performance in relation to those standards. In collaboration with CDSS and CDHCS, the counties will establish a state\/county strike force to provide technical assistance to any part of the Network that is struggling to meet the established performance standards. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 May 9, 2012 Issue # 2012-08 CCWRO Welfare News COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT IMPEDE CALWORKS PARTICIPANTS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE SELF-SUFFICIENCY Sacramento County exempted Ms. B. from the WtW program due to a chronic disability. She then volunteered to participate in a WtW activity. This irritated the county WtW officials. Why is she volunteering? Sacramento County decided that it has a right to determine if the activity that Ms. B wants to engage in is \”appropriate\” and does not exacerbate her chronic disability. The County WtW worker denied payment of supportive services because there is no WtW contract. The reason that there is no WtW contract is that the County believes that the activity is injurious to her disability. The County also recommended that she start taking prescription medications. The County is unable to cite any authority to support this position. State law is very clear. Any exempt individual can volunteer to participate. Below are the statutes that cover volunteer participation in a WtW activity. The only restriction imposed by state law is if a volunteer fails to participate in a certain activity, then that volunteer shall not be given priority over another person who wants to participate in the same activity. There is nothing in the law that allows a county to determine whether a particular activity is appropriate for a voluntary participant. WHAT SHOULD FOLKS DO? Any exempt person who wants to volunteer should complete a WtW 2 plan. The fillable WtW 2 form can be found at: http:\/\/www. cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/WTW2.pdf. Make a copy and take the original to the county welfare department. Make sure that the volunteer requests a receipt from the county human services department as mandated by Welfare and Institutions Code 11256. The WtW 2 form should be accompanied with a letter asking the county to respond within 30 days. If the county fails to respond within 30 days, then the CalWORKs recipient should assume that the request is denied and should request a state hearing as provided in Welfare & Institutions Code 11328.2. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Welfare & Institutions Code 11320.3 (c) provides that \”Any individual not required to participate may choose to participate voluntarily under this article, and end that participation at any time without loss of eligibility for aid under this chapter, if his or her status has not changed in a way that would require participation.\” Welfare & Institutions Code 11322.4 provides: \”It is the intent of the Legislature to fund welfare-to-work activities under this article so that all recipients of aid under this chapter for whom participation under this article is required can be served and, in addition, so that recipients voluntarily participating under this article can be served.\” Welfare & Institutions Code 11324.8(c) allows persons who are not required to participate to volunteer to participate in the WtW program. Welfare & Institutions Code 11327.5 provides: \”(a) Sanctions shall be imposed in accordance with subdivision (b) or (c), as appropriate, if an individual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements without good cause and conciliation efforts, as described in Section 11327.4, have failed. (b) The sanctions provided for in subdivisions (c) and (d) shall not apply to an individual who is exempt from the requirements of this article but is voluntarily participating in the program. If that individual engages in conduct that would bring about the actions provided for in subdivisions (c) and (d), except for his or her status as a voluntary program participant, the individual shall not be given priority so long as other individuals are actively seeking to participate.\” CDSS regulation M.P.P. 42-712.5 states that \”Any individual who is not required to participate may volunteer to participate in welfare-to-work activities and may end that participation at any time without loss of eligibility for aid, provided his or her status has not changed in a way that requires participation. .51 For purposes of Section 42-715.5, a volunteer participant is as follows: .511 An individual who is exempt pursuant to Sections 42-712.41 through .49, but who volunteers to participate; or .512 An individual who is not required to participate for reasons other than the exemptions described in Sections 42-712.41 through .49, but who volunteers to participate.\” CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org May 9, 2012 #2012–08 County Client Abuse Report Los Angeles County’s Termination of Food Stamp Benefits Reversed – Mr. 201133269 of Los Angeles County received a notice of action stopping his food stamps for alleged failure to submit a complete quarterly report (QR-7). In fact, he had submitted the QR-7 to the County three times. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of Mr. 201133269. Fresno County Stops Food Stamps Wrongfully – Mr. 2012003614 of Fresno County received a notice of action on May 12, 2011, stating that he was allegedly a fleeing felon. Mr. 2012003614, is not a fleeing felon but Fresno County stopped his benefits. Mr. 2012003614 presented himself at an administrative hearing and nobody was interested in locking him up for being a fleeing felon. The ALJ found that Mr. 2012003614 was not a non-fleeing felon . Fresno County Wrongfully Denies Child Care to a Working Mom – Fresno County Ms. 2012019220 of Fresno County works and needs childcare because she cannot take her child to work. Fresno County refused to pay childcare for the unsubsidized job because she could not take time off to meet with the Welfare-to-Work worker to sign a WtW contract. She filed for a state hearing hoping that she could get her child care paid, but that did not happen. In addition to the injustice meted out by Fresno County, she also failed to get justice from the ALJ. ALJ Vincent Misenti blatantly violated Welfare and Institutions Code 11323.2 and the state regulations and policies and denied the claim for childcare. Ms. 2012003614 does not have to have a signed WtW agreement to be entitled to childcare. She is working. Inadequate Notice Found Adequate and Justice is Denied by DSS – Mr. 2011292396 of Riverside County was sanctioned for allegedly not participating in the WtW program. He has been in witness protection program. On March 18, 2010, Riverside County issued a notice of action imposing a sanction effective April 1, 2010. He did not ask for a state hearing within the 90-day period. The ALJ found no jurisdiction for the hearing because the notice of action met the requirements of the state regulations. The ALJ Joann Sawyer-Knoll ignored MPP 42-721.23 that requires that notices imposing sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with program requirements must be sent at least 30 calendar days from the effective date of the notice of action. In this case the county issued a 12-day notice of action and not a 30-day notice of action. MPP 42-72123 – Upon determination that an individual has failed to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send a notice of action effective no earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of issuance. Telephone Redetermination Interviews In Los Angeles a Nightmare Los Angeles County DPSS mailed Ms. BOQ2265 a notice dated 3-7-12 that she will have a telephone redetermination for her CalWORKs and Food stamp benefits on 4-12-12 at 1:30 p.m. Nobody from DPSS called at the designated time. At 2 p.m. she called her worker’s number and a different worker picked up the phone. Donna Fitzlaff conducted the telephone interview and Ms. BOQ2265 that she must provide DPSS with the following verification: 1. Back Statement; 2. School attendance verification of her children; 3. Immunization verification already in the possession of the county for her five (5) year old child; 4. Car registration already in the possession of the county; and 5. Rent receipt that was the same and had not changed. On 4-17-12 Ms. BOQ2265 personally hand-delivered all of these items to DPSS. On 4-21-12, Ms. BOQ2265 received another notice of action stating that she had a redetermination interview on 4-30-12 at 10:30 a.m. Again, nobody called at 4-30-12 10:30 a.m. She called her worker who acknowledged that Ms. BOQ2265 had completed the redetermination and the county had received all requested verification. On 5-1-12 Ms. BOQ2265 received a notice of action stating that her CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and Food Stamp benefits will be stopped because she had not completed her redetermination. Ms. BOQ2265 is not alone. This is happening to many others in Los Angeles County. Mr. K.B. of Sacramento County received a letter from Revenue and Recovery demanding that he repay food stamps benefits that he has never received. He has always received SSI. He asked if there is a law that says SSI recipients must pay back food stamps that were never received? The answer is no. What a mess. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 2, 2012 Issue # 2012-09 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On April 25, 2012, DSS Fraud Bureau released a Report of Findings and Recommendations of Placer County’s IEVS system to Richard Burton, Director of Placer County Health and Human Services Administration. The report reveals that Placer County has a backlog of 8,237 IEVS reports. Placer County processes about 350 IEVS reports a month but receives 700 IEVS reports a month. The DSS report cleverly fails to state the number of IEVS reports that are processed each month in the report. However, that information is available on the Internet in the DPA 482 reports. It would take Placer County 23 months just to catch up on the backlog, without considering the new IEVS reports. The County is required to process the IEVS report within 45 days according MPP 20-006.424. All the report said is that the county has to prepare a corrective action plan. DSS reviewed 20 cases for New Hire Match (NHR Match) that revealed in five cases the county had no evidence that the NHR reports were reviewed and processed. Strangely, DSS recommended that the county should use the NHR report to trigger an automatic recalculation of benefits if the income was not reported or the benefits should be reduced to terminated. It should be noted that the process for reporting income is the QR7. This may have been a valid recommendation if CalWORKs and Food stamp were still in the monthly reporting era of the previous century. In addition, only if the income exceeds the IRT are recipients required to immediately report a new hire. This could have also been a one time earnings and not a recurring earnings. Finally the regulations require that when the county receives an IEVS report they must contact the recipient to receive clarification and not to institute an unlawful automatic recalculation as recommended by DSS. See MPP 20-006.543. The report also reveals that Placer County also utilizes an appeals representative who works on the case prior to it going to the hearings unit. This practice violates MPP 22-073.13. Ms. Jones receives a 296X notice of action (NOA) stating that her CalWORKs and Food Stamp benefits will terminate at the end of the month because the county has not received a complete income report. The notice fails to mention what was missing. Ms. Jones turned her income report in and assumed that she will get her benefits the next month. Ms. Jones did not ask for a state hearing. On the third day of the next month the day she receives benefits – she received no benefits on her EBT card. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Placer County Causes Overpayments and Violates Federal and State law Families Lose Benefits for Alleged Incomplete Reports She calls the county the next day and is not able to talk to anybody. Nobody calls her back even when she leaves a message for her worker. She finally goes to the welfare office and is informed that the income report was incomplete. She looks at the NOA she received and it does not explain what was incomplete. Had Ms. Jones asked for a state hearing she would have received benefits the next month. Now she has to reapply. She will lose about 5-6 days of aid for that month, which is about a 17% reduction in benefits. CalWORKs and food stamp recipients who receive a NOA terminating their benefits for no CA7 or QR7, should always immediately ask for a hearing so they can get aid paid pending after which they can submit the income report and get a receipt. Asking for a $3000 state hearing is the only way to assure that the benefits will not be reduced for allegedly not turning in a complete report. The federal law – 7 CFR 273.12(a)(4)(iii) allows the state agency to terminate SNAP benefits if the monthly\/quarterly\/semi-annual report is: (a) not received or (b) incomplete. The federal law does not authorize the state to terminate benefits for both. DSS needs to change this process to assure the integrity of the program telling people that the report is incomplete when the county has not even seen the report is dishonest and an insult the intelligence of recipients of public assistance. It also makes a mockery of program integrity when the administrators of the program disrespect program integrity by issuing dishonest statements in the 298X NOA. 7 CFR 273.12(a)(4)(iii) Failure to file a complete form by the specified filing date. If a household fails to file a complete report by the specified filing date, the State agency will send a notice to the household advising it of the missing or incomplete report no later than 10 days from the date the report should have been submitted. If the household does not respond to the notice, the household’s participation shall be terminated. The State agency may combine the notice of a missing or incomplete report with the adequate notice of termination described in paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. 273.12(a)(4)(v) Reduction or termination of benefits. If the household files a complete report resulting in reduction or termination of benefits, the State agency shall send an adequate notice, as defined in 271.2 of this chapter. The notice must be issued so that it will be received by the household no later than the time that its benefits are normally received. If the household fails to provide sufficient information or verification regarding a deductible expense, the State agency will not terminate the household, but will instead determine the household’s benefits without regard to the deduction. CCWRO Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org June 2, 2012 #2012–09 On April 25, 2012 the Department of Health and Human Services published a Request for Public Comment relative to the response to 4004 of P.L. 112-96. April 2, 2012, Pages 24667 – 24669 [FR DOC # 2012-9260]. Comments are due June 11, 2012. Section 602(a)(1)(viii) provides as follows: Ensure that recipients of assistance provided under the State program funded under this part have access to using or withdrawing assistance with minimal fees or charges, including an opportunity to access assistance with no fee or charges, and are provided information on applicable fees and surcharges that apply to electronic fund transactions involving the assistance, and that such information is made publicly available. This is a significant step of getting rid of the millions of dollars that banks fleece from TANF recipients to access their very limited fixed income. This guidance will allow HHS to require states to come up with a plan to show how they would assist EBT cardholders to access their benefits free of fees and surcharges. States could be required to provide EBT cardholders with the locations of banks and other businesses, like WalMart, where they can access their benefits without paying hefty fees and surcharges at application and recertifications. The primary question becomes what constitutes an opportunity ? For example: A EBT cardholder lives in East Los Angeles may have an opportunity to use the EBT card free of fees if he or she could travel to the West Los Angeles and access a bank that provides free access to the EBT card. The fact that the person does not have the resources to travel from East Los Angeles to West Los Angeles may not mean that they do not have an opportunity to access their EBT benefits without paying hefty fees and surcharges. Advocates are encouraged to submit comments by June 11, 2012 to HHS at TANFEBTTransaction@acf.hhs.gov. Your should include Comments on EBT Federal Register Notice in the subject line of the message. How much did banks fleece from CalWORKs recipients in March and April of 2012. See Chart #1. County Client Abuse Report Madera County Does Not Issue 10-Day Notices of Action — Madera County on 12-27-11 terminated CalFresh benefits of Ms. 512007 effective 12-31-11. It appears that after spending millions on C-IV computer system, the computer system is programmed to allow an untimely NOA to go out. Madera County Terminates CalFresh For Failure To Complete Annual Redetermination When The Recipient Completed The Redetermination –Ms. R.N. 511032 received a notice of action (NOA) on 11-10-11 terminating CalFresh benefits as of 11-30-11 for failing to complete the annual redetermination. The case was actually terminated on 11-30-11. The record shows that the recipient completed the annual redetermination on 11-21-11, but the computer (C-IV) failed to rescind the termination. Even if the recipient had filed for a state hearing, the recipient would not have been able to receive timely benefits. This could have been prevented if the C-IV computer was programmed to automatically lift the termination once the computer knows that the redetermination has been completed. After the information regarding the redetermination has been entered, the worker must take another step and rescind the termination which often does not happen, and thus, the unlawful termination of food stamp benefits. San Mateo County Terminates Benefits To A Household For Failure To Submit A QR 7 When The County Already Had A Completed QR 7 — On 11-15-11 San Mateo County issued a NOA to Ms. 511074 alleging that the HH had not submitted a completed QR7. The termination went into effect on December 1, 2011. On 11-18-12 the county received a complete QR7, but somehow it did not register with CalWIN and the termination went into effect unlawfully. San Mateo County asserts that San Mateo County is currently working on incorporating a rescind process for QR7 that are received timely. It is our intent to minimize a gap in assistance for our CalFresh participants assert San Mateo County. This does not mean that the same is not happening right now. The correct remedy should be that when a QR7 comes in, it should be entered into CalWIN and CalWIN should automatically rescind the termination. Los Angeles County Terminates CalFresh For A Household Entitled To Transitional CalFresh –On 8-3-11 Los Angeles County issued a NOA to Ms. 511028 indicating that the HH is eligible for five (5) months of transitional CalFresh (TFS). On November 4, 2011 the same HH was terminated from CalFresh for failure to complete the annual redetermination that is not a requirement for HH receiving TFS. Los Angeles County has not agreed to take any corrective action. Thus, this may be happening all the time. Fresno County Denies The Application For Failure To Show Up For An Interview, When The Record Shows That The Interview Was Conducted Mr. 501009 was scheduled for an interview on 12-20-11. He kept his appointment and was approved for CalFresh. He was even handed a NOA approving CalFresh. On 12-20-11 he received another notice in the mail saying that he missed his appointment. Who says the left hand knows what the right hand in doing in Fresno County. EBT Fee and Surcharge HHS Request for Public Comment CHART #1 – EBT Fees Banks Fleece from Welfare Recipients Month\/Year EBT ATM Surchagre EBT ATM Transaction Fee EBT Balance Inquiry EBT Pur- chase Transaction Surcharge Total Welfare Money Banks Fleece from EBT clients March 2012 $1,347,326.00 $42,087.00 $32,638.00 $528.00 $1,442.579.00 April 2012 $1,329,925.00 $40,349.00 $32,144.00 $675.00 $1,403,093.00 Estimate Annual 16,063,506.00 $494.,616.00 $388,692.00 $7,218.00 $16,954,032.00 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 17, 2012 Issue # 2012-10 CCWRO Welfare News Social Engineers want to Tell The Poor How to Eat The social engineers are at work again. For the past several years some of the so-called think tanks and their confused allies have decided to tell food stamps recipients what kind of food to buy and eat. One would think that these social engineers would have the intellect to know that the food stamp program now called supplemental nutrition assistance program does not meet all of recipients’ food needs. In fact the average food stamp household gets about $133 a month. That is about $4.50 a day or $1.50 a meal. It is a miracle that people in this country are able to manage not to die from starvation with amount of food stamps they get every month. Rather than applauding food stamp recipients for being so inventive and fiscal geniuses, groups like the Center of Science and Public Interest are proposing to dictate to receipients how to use their meager benefits. Do not buy sodas. Buy fresh food. They have also found allies in some misguided food banks in Oregon who have Senator Wyden doing a press release supporting his amendment to force food stamp recipient to choose what they call healthier diets. The problem is healthier food is more expensive. What happens when this healthy diet results in having nothing to eat the last two weeks of the month? Would these social engineers be willing to give those hungry people a credit card to eat at an organic restaurant? http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org On July 5, 2011, Joyce Fields, program Manager for the Solano County Human Services Agency asked: We have a single- parent family applying for CalWORKs, The mother is still under a WtW sanction. The family is over income with the mother excluded. The mother want to cure her sanction, so her family came be approved for CalWORKs. Can we allow her to cure her sanction during the 45-day period we have to process the CalWORKs application? On April 5, 2012, about nine (9) months later, DSS responded as follows: The Manual of Policies and Procedures is silent on this question. The CWD may give the applicant a chance to cure her sanction during the 45 day application period, and if the applicant fails to cure she would remain in sanction status and the AU would be ineligible. This is a real timely answer. Solano County can now take this answer, go back in time and in lieu of denying the application for being over income, allow her to cure the sanction while the application was pending.. State law does not preclude any person from curing a sanction at any time . We will admit that MPP 42-721.48 is very poorly drafted and does not say that a person can cure the sanction at any time. The statute provides that the sanction will stop anytime the noncomplying participant complies. (Welf. & Inst. Code 11327.5(d).) Any reasonable person would assume that this means a person should be allowed to cure the sanction. In fact several years ago counties received several hundred million dollars to help sanctioned person cure CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Sanction is the Purpose of the WtW Program CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org June 17, 2012 #2012-10 On May 3, 2012, Tracy Donovan of HHS asked DSS whether or not California exempts pregnant women from participation in the WtW program. Tracy also informed California that most states exempt pregnant women in the woman’s third trimester. Joel Reynolds of DSS responded on May 3, 2012 that in California, a pregnant woman in any trimester is required to participate 32 hours per week (or up to 35 hours per week if in a two- parent family) in a welfare-to-work activity as a condition of eligibility for cash aid under CalWORKs. Joel continued saying However, a woman who is pregnant is exempt from welfare-to-work participation if the pregnancy impairs her ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. An exemption based on a medically-verified pregnancy may also be granted when the CWD determines that participation will not readily lead to employment or that a training activity is not appropriate. Mr. TANF ID. 013CB860405 is working 35 hours a week and meeting the federal work requirements. When reporting their feeral work particiation a county did not enter status code 19 for this individual meeting the 35 hours work participation rates because the individual was being sanctioned by the county while meeting the federal work participation rates. It appears that the federal government caught this county\/ state error and entered the right status code and the State of California got credit for this sanctioned individual being punished for not meeting the WtW requirements. Sanctioned Persons Work Hours Counted for Meeting States Federal Work Participation Rates sanctions. Despite that, DSS says that the regulation do not require counties to allow applicants to cure a previous sanction while the application is pending. DSS knows very well that many sanctions can be cured by simply actions such as having the participant go to orientation\/appraisal. That could have been done on the date of application in some cases. It is unfortunate that CDSS seems to be encouraging decreasing benefits instead of curing sanctions. SB 1011 is the CalWORKS trailer bill that will be considered by the State Legislature. The sections effecting CalWORKs start at Section 6 that continues the current exemption for families with children under 2 savings of $327 million for 2012-2013. This cut does not hurt any impoverished families or the kids living in the family. The Legislature has the option of exempting families with kids under 6 as they did under Governor Reagan and save two or three times that amount without hurting any impoverished families and their kids. It should be noted that any exempt recipient who wants to participate in the WtW program can still volunteer to participate under current law. SB 1011 also will restore the CalLearn program and require reporting on the program from DSS. ]With the enactment of AB 6, which provides for semi-annual reporting, California’s federal work participation rate may get a boost. Currently when a person is meeting the work participation in the data month , those participation hours for the data month are projected for the next three months. With semi-annual reporting if the individual meets the federal work participation during the semi-annual data month those hours are projected over the next 6 months. This change will go into effect when California updates its Work Verification Plan for Fiscal Year 2014. SAR Helps State Federal Work Participation rates Pregnancy in Ant Trimester Does not exempt from WtW 2012-2013 Budget Trailer Bill SB 1011 CCWRO NUMBER OF THE WEEK Child Poverty Rate Under 18 Years of Age 2010 In California 22% ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 July 4, 2012 Issue # 2012-11 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CalWORKs Cuts This year, CalWORKs endured cuts totaling $467 million while contributing over $1 billion dollars to balance the state budget. How do CalWORKs recipients contribute to the State Budget? The CalWORKs budget is funded with $3.6 billion from the federal government. The state had to spend $2.9 billion to access that $3.6 billion ($2.9 billion + $3.7 billion= $6.5 billion total CalWORKs budget). California budget-writers and the Governor were able to manipulate the budget to take over $1 billion of the $6.5 billion and use it for nonCalWORKs items such as foster care and CalGrants. This year the time limit on CalWORKs was reduced from 48 months to 24 months. We wonder if any of the writers of this budget would be willing to limit their pensions or social security benefits to 24 months? Doubt it. There are certain exceptions to the 24-month time limit. DSS will be inviting advocates to participate in the formulation of the policies to implement these exceptions that may ameliorate the immense negative impact that the 24-month limit would have upon CalWORKS families in California. There will be more information coming soon. The Governor’s web page, touting Governor Brown signs 2012-2013 Budget , explains that the budget reforms welfare by building a reserve of nearly $1 billion. The web page goes on to explain that the budget has a reserve of $948 million to protect the state against unforeseen costs that, unfortunately, come out of the mouths of California’s impoverished families. CHILD CARE CUTS The Governor’s budget proposed to transfer childcare Stage 2 and 3 to Department Social Services (DSS). The State Legislature rejected this proposal. CalWORKs recipients will continue to get their childcare from a fractured system that has a hundred and one different rules depending on what county one lives in, and in many cases, what part of the county one lives in. Stage 1 is administered by DSS. California Department of Education (CDE) administers stage 2 and 3. DSS has regulations that provide a meaningful process and real due process for Stage 1 recipients. By contrast, Stage 2 and 3 do not have specific rules to guarantee due process. CDE has had a couple of meetings with providers and advocates to address these issues, but the process is very slow, meanwhile stage 2 and 3 CalWORKs recipients are losing their child care often without a fair process to challenge the allegations made against them. Once they lose their child care, they may also lose their job and will not be able to meet the federal work participation rates. The budget cuts about $160 million from child care. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org 2012-2013 Budget for CalWORKs and Child Care in Brief Ms. UADCBF6 has a child who was born at home. The child, a son whose name is Jamuary, is now 12-years old. For some reason, a computer changed his name to January. The county is trying to pursue child support. The child has been on CalWORKs for several years. He is in school and the county has been verifying his school attendance for several years. Now, the Exposition Park Office is DEMANDING that she provide a copy of January’s birth certificate. Her son’s name is Jamaury, not January. She does not have a copy of Jamaury’s birth certificate. On June 2, 2012, Ms. UADCBF6 received a notice of action terminating her benefits for failing to provide proof of age for January. The notice of action fails to provide the regulation MPP Section 42-411 that outlines what is acceptable verification. Moreover, the county insisted that she apply for a birth certificate and never offered to pay the $20 fee. She is only receiving aid for one person as she has timed out. This family is living on a fixed income equal to 25% of the poverty level. Her advocate contacted Ms. Andrea Flowers, a CalWORKs deputy for DPSS’s Exposition Park office. Ms. Flower’s promised that this victim’s aid would be on the card on the first of the month. This was another promise that was not kept by DPSS. On July 1, 2012, her benefits were not on the card. Now her only means of communication her cell phone will be disconnected for failure to make payment on the 1st of the month. DPSS has also asked her to bring her 12-year old child to the welfare office on July 9, 2012 so they can eyeball the child. Why? Because the social security office has erroneously stated that Jamaury is a female and not a male. This has been labeled as an inconsistency. Who committed the inconsistency? The Social Security Office. Program violations by DPSS in this case: COUNT 1. Failure to issue a notice of action that contains the correct regulation outlining the various options this victim has in verifying her child’s age. MPP 22-001(a)(1): Adequate Notice- A written notice informing the claimant of the action the county intends to take, the reasons for the intended action, the specific regulations supporting such action COUNT 2. Failure to inform the victim of her options Los Angeles County Client Abuse Report CCWRO Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org July 4, 2012 #2012-11 for verifying her child’s identity as mandated by MPP 40-126.32 Notice of Required Evidence -Within ten calendar days of application, the county shall provide written notice to the applicant of the required evidence and examples of alternative evidence, if any, to determine eligibility. COUNT 3. Refusal to pay third party fees as mandatory fees as mandated by MPP 40-126.332 when the county requested the birth certificate. MPP 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. COUNT 4. Requesting additional verification that is already in the county’s possession. The county has had school verification of the child’s age for several years. MPP 40- 126.35 Retrieve Case File – The county shall retrieve and examine those existing case files which are in the possession of the county or its agents, in a timely manner, to determine if needed evidence of eligibility is already in the possession of the county when: (b) There is a cost associated with obtaining the evidence. COUNT 5. Soliciting verification when the county already had in their possession. MPP 40-126.31. Require Only Evidence of Eligibility – The county shall require only evidence necessary to determine past or present eligibility for the amount or delivery of aid. COMMENT: This could have Number of Unduplicated Participants During April 2012 120,078 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned During April 2012 48,227 Number of Participants Sanctioned During April 2012 22.567 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants Sanctioned During April 2012 51% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanc- tions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During April 2012 $7.6 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of Cal- WORKs During April 2012 3,249 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During April 2012 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During April 2012 $51,675.98 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transpor- tation by the County During April 2012 56,100 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During April 2012 46% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation at an Estimated $100 Per Participant During April 2012 $6.5 million April 2012 California Welfare-to-Work Program OutcomesReport How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $943,381 million 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Child Appropriation $1,071,362.569 million Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG276.htm very likely been avoided had the county used the CW 2200 form that was designed by counties and advocates in 2008. To date counties refuse to use the form they helped developed, thus, counties are willfully and grossly violating state laws and regulations on verification daily in full acquiescence of the Staet Department of Social Services. ”