Search Demo

“CCWRO Welfare News Waiting for 2013 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org County Client abuse on page 2 June 28, 2013 Issue #2013-12 For fiscal year 2012-2013 DSS allocated $432,203,000 to California’s 58 counties to pay for Welfare-to-Work (WtW) childcare. The third-quarter allocation-expendi- ture report reveals that only $207,964,462 has been given to Welfare-to-Work participants. Over 51% of the total 2012-2013 Child Care Allocation ($224,275,877) remains available to pay for childcare in the last fiscal quarter. Counties paid an average of $69,321,487 per quarter. Annualizing this number means that approximately $154,964,390 will be returned to DSS even though ap- proximately 50% of the WtW participants do not receive childcare according to the April 2013 CW115 reports. County 2012-2013 Child Care Al- location Amount Spent During 3 Quarters Unspent Amount for last quarter Percent- age of Unspent Amount for last quarter Alameda $21,701,221 16,185,955 5,515,266 25% Fresno 19,226,151 6,787,768 12,438,838 36% Kern 12,959,313 5,230,686 7,728,627 80% Los Angeles 133,557,273 52,117,699 81,439,574 46% San Joaquin 9,014,365 2,325,805 6,688,560 66% Solano 4,704,049 1,527,005 3,177,044 41% It is fascinating to look at the utilization of childcare from county to county. Riverside, Alameda and San Ber- nardino pay for childcare to over 80% of the unduplicated participants. On the other hand only 19 % of the undupli- cated participants received childcare in Sacramento, 22% in Stanislaus, 28% in Tulare, 29% in Contra Costa, 40% in San Diego, 43% in Orange and 46% in Los Angeles. See Chart #1. Why do 80% of the unduplicated participants in River- side, Kern and Alameda need and receive childcare while neighboring Los Angeles and San Diego County only provide 40% of the unduplicated participants childcare? It just does not add up. Could it be that in Los Angeles and San Diego 80% of the participants need childcare, but only 40% receive it? On June 19, 2013, the United State House of Representa- tives presented legislation cutting over $20 billion out of the SNAP program over a 10-year period. The ma- jor cuts included elimination of categorical eligibility and the eat and heat program. Speaker Boehner said the Farm Bill (HR 1947) is one of the priorities of the house. Majority Leader Cantor supported the legislation. Pennsylvania Republican Tom Marino proposed an amendment to HR 1947 to require that FNS estab- lish a Soviet style surveillance plan to snoop and de- termine what soldiers, veterans, underpaid workers and other families purchases with SNAP benefits. Another proposed amendment would limit farm welfare checks (also known as farm subsidies ) to recipients with less than $250,000. 15 members of Congress receive farm subsidies. Congressman Fincher of Tennessee, who between 1999-2013 received $3,483,823 dollars, said on the floor that if you don’t work, you can’t eat , repeat- ing what his comrade Vladimir Lenin said in 1920s. Republican Congressman Richard Hudson of North Carolina proposed that all SNAP recipients be drug test- ed, but forgot to mandate that the 15 members of Con- gress getting farm subsidies also be tested. He also did not require drug testing of the major corporations with income over $250,000 who get welfare checks from the Department of Agriculture under the Farm Bill. Even with a majority in the House, the Republicans could not get it passed. There were several California Democrats who voted for the Farm Bill including Ami Bera, Julie Brownley, Jim Costa, Sam Farr and John Garamendi. 62 Republicans, or 25% of the Republican caucus voted against HR 1947. This is a major embar- rassment for the Speaker and a major victory for the beneficiaries of the SNAP program. With time running out, it looks like there will be no Farm Bill in 2013 be- cause Congress will be working on budgets and immi- gration reform. The farm bill programs will continue through an instrument called continued resolution Chart #1 Counties Fail to Use the Child Care Allocation for CalWORKs Welfare- to-Work Counties Fail to Use the Child Care Allocation for CalWORKs Welfare- to-Work CCWRO Welfare News June 28, 2013 #2013-12 – Page 2 Con’t from Page 1 l Los Angeles DPSS Staff Hang Up on Custom- ers- Ms. B1NG224 conference called the Los Ange- les County DPSS office to talk to her worker with the advocate being on the second line. After ringing over 10 times, a clerk by the name of Vema picked up the phone and informed Ms. B1NG224 that her worker was not available to talk to her. When asked to be con- nected with the supervisor Vema rudely instructed Ms. telephone interview that was scheduled on June 4, 2013 @ 12:15p.m. Your letter to me is incorrect. I did not receive a phone call from you or anyone from the Chatsworth office on June 4, 2013 @ 12:15p.m. In fact, I waited until 1:00p.m. on June 4. You did not attempt to con- tact me otherwise! In fact, the number listed on the notice page (866-613-3777) along with other various corre- spondence, is a voice mailbox that is full during work- ing hours of 8-5 p.m. I have attempted to contact you via phone, mail and through other means of voice con- tact. Unfortunately, I have gotten no response from you! This is completely frustrating on my end. How can I reach a social worker, if their business voice mail- box is full? How is it that the Dept of Social Services allows you to have a voice mailbox that is full for sev- eral months? And how is it that you are employed with the State of California? I just don’t understand how you can get away with your unprofessional conduct! This re- ally needs to be brought to management’s attention. You should not be working with individuals that need assis- tance. You should not be work for the State of California! I am requesting that Dept of Social Services change my so- cial worker immediately to someone that can be contacted, has a working telephone number and someone who is pro- fessional. Again, it is impossible to contact you otherwise. With this said, I am requesting a hearing to the Ap- peals and State Hearing Section. I will also in- dicate that you are unprofessional, unreason- able and with a doubt, the worse social worker! A copy of this letter will be accompanied the Ap- peals & State Hearing Section, State Welfare Rights Organization and the Local Legal Aid Office. NOTE THAT YOU PURPOSELY HAVE NOT CORRECTED MY NAME ON EACH CORRE- SPONDENCE. YOU HAVE MY LAST NAME LISTED AS ITEEG . AGAIN, FOR THE 100TH TIME, MY LAST NAME IS STEEG . UP- DATE YOUR RECORDS ACCORDINGLY!!! l Contra Costa County Denies Emergency Food Stamps Wrogfully and More. Contra Costa County de- nied Ms. R.N 502017’s CalFresh expedited service on 12\/27\/12 without any reasons cited. That was ERROR # 1. On 1\/16\/13 the worker requested verification that Ms. R.N 502017 is no longer a student when the county already had this verification. ERROR # 2. Finally Contra Costa County denied the application by sending out a notice of action on 1\/28\/13, which is over 30 days. ERROR #3. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT B1NG224 that she cannot talk to the supervisor and hung up. How dare a DPSS customer want to talk to the supervisor. That must certainly be against DPSS policy of customer service. l Los Angeles DPSS Cancels Two Interviews and Cal- Fresh Applicant Gives up on Getting Food Stamps. Ms. R.N. 501016’s case record shows she applied for CalFresh on 12\/27\/12 and was given an appointment for 1\/7\/13. On 1-25-13 the application was denied based on reason code withdrawal at the client’s request. There was no signed withdrawal form on file. Ms. R.N. 501016 states that the 1-7-13 interview was canceled at the request of the DPSS worker. The interview was rescheduled, but that interview was also cancelled by the DPSS worker. Ms. R.N. 501016 stated that she was never given any notices regarding missed appointments, or the status of the application. Ms. R.N 501016 decided not to pursue the application after the second cancellation due to the inconvenience of having to take time off from her employment to attend a face-to-face interview that is cancelled by DPSS. Mission accomplished. One less CalFresh recipient. The DPSS corrective action plan was more training and telling caseworkers to document – docu- ment even if the documentation is a lie for the ultimate goal is to discourage applicants from receiving food stamp benefits. l Los Angeles DPSS Denies CalFresh for Failure to Pro- vide Verification that DPSS Already Had. Ms. R.N. 501019 applied for CalFresh in Los Angeles County on 12-26-12. The applicant was screened for expedited service, but the interview was scheduled for 1\/7\/13. On 1\/25\/13 the application was de- nied for failure to verify identity. DSS states that the appli- cant was already known to the system since she was receiving CalFresh benefits for several months until August, 2012, and had been J-verified in the MEDS system which lists her name, DOB and SSN as verified. Per ACIN-I-45-11 if identity has been verified via MEDs, then the verification of identity re- quirement in the CalFresh is considered to be met. DPSS’ corrective action plan was to continue to deny food stamp applications for failure to verify identity even if the county is able to verify the identity as provided in ACIN I-45-11. l Los Angeles DPSS Customer Disservice Exposed. B1BZC57 received a notice for a missed telephone in- terview. B1BZC57 wrote a letter to Los Angeles County I have received your letter indicating that I have missed the ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 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, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t. on page 2 We have just received numbers from the Depart- ment of Social Services showing how counties are using single allocation dollars for 2012-2013. TABLE #1 below reveals counties under utiliza- tion of currently appropriated dollars, notwith- standing the immense need for services in our community, such a child care, mental health, substance abuse and other supportive services including transportation for WtW participants. During 2011-2012 counties failed to use $185 million of the single allocation. Of that, $125 mil- lion was designated for childcare. $45 million of the used funds appropriated was NOT used for food stamp administration. It appears that this trend continues while the Governor proposes to give counties an additional $143 million for 2013-2014, knowing that at the end of the year it will come back to the state gen- eral fund just as the $185 million of the single al- location in 2011-2012. Meanwhile, CalWORKs families live on the same fixed income levels as in 1986 with no COLA. On 2\/5\/13, Ms. 1B47K97 received a notice of ac- tion (NOA) stating, Your benefits under Section 1931(b) program will be discontinued effective 02\/28\/2013. Here’s why: Your income is over the limit. She also received a NOA stating, Effec- tive 02\/28\/2013 your Food Stamp benefits have been stopped. Here’s why: Your gross income exceeds the Food Stamp gross income limit. These are some of NOAs generated by CalWIN in 18 counties. These two notices came from Sacra- mento County. Neither notice specifies what the recipient’s income was, or what the gross income limits are. A Fresno County Yvonne Lombera official com- plained to DSS about losing state hearings when Fresno county denied payment for childcare that was incurred while the participant participated in an assigned activity, but submitted the child care claim forms after 90 days. This has been a long time Fresno County policy. Ms. Lombera felt that payment for childcare incurred should not be re- imbursed because the CalWORKs recipients did March 5, 2013 Issue #2013-04 TABLE #1 Source DSS Program Quarterly Allocation NOT Used Percentage of Quarterly Allocation NOT Used CalWORKs Eligibility $21,570,024 14% Child Care $50,943,225 47% Employment Services $ 42,643,793 22% Mental Health Services $15,332,866 80% Substance Abuse Services $9,122,526 72% CalFresh Administration $35,199,826 26% TOTAL COUNTY SINGLE ALLOCATION $109,437,508 24% The 2013-2014 state budget provides for a $143 million increase in the county single allocation. Bad CalWin Notices of Action keep coming. FRESNO COUNTY DENIES CHILD CARE PAYMENTS FOR LATE CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT WHILE FAIL- ING TO SPEND 47% OF THE CHILD CARE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE STATE DURING 2011-2012. CCWRO Welfare News March 5 , 2013 #2013-04 not submit a timely request for reimbursement for childcare. During 2011-2012 Fresno County was allocated $19,226,151 for childcare but returned $9,041,423 back to the State because Fresno County could not find persons eligible for childcare. Meanwhile, Fresno County would deny payments to a childcare worker who works for less than mini- mum wage on a technicality that is not supported by state regulations. On 12\/6\/12 DSS informed Fresno County that the state regulation does not support a county policy that allow denial of child care pay- ments based upon submission of late attendance sheets. After receiving an answer that Fresno County Policy is unlawful, Yvone Lombera asked DSS to recon- sider the DSS policy because it conflicted with the policy of the Department of Education Management Bulletin 12-18. We wonder how many workers in Fresno County being paid less than minimum wage were denied child care payments because of this illegal policy. During a meeting of advocates and Los Angeles County DPSS it was revealed that 48% of the on- line applications submitted to Los Angeles County are denied. At that meeting DPSS tried to comfort Los Angeles area advocates by pointing out that Benefits CalWIN denies 68% of the applications and C4yourself denies 76% of the cases. During December, 2012, 37.5% of the total applications for CalWORKs and Food Stamps were denied. DPSS asserted that 23% of the applications were denied for failure to verify identity. This is for cases where DPSS had the applicants’ social security number and could have easily verified identity through data- bases available to the county. But that would mean approving an application. The lesson is on-line ap- plications denials are higher because the county welfare department culture continues to be to deny applications rather than trying to find a way to ap- prove the applications. See Table #2 below. Con’t from Page 1 DPSS has released a new policy issuance known as Administrative Memorandum (AM)13-01. This AM was issued in response to a 2011 DSS Management Evaluation that found DPSS asking applicants to complete two (2) food stamp appli- cations. The county was asked to take corrective action. The AM 13-01 was cleared through five (5) dif- ferent sections of DPSS, including the Bureau of Administrative Services, Bureau of Program and Policy, Bureau of Special Operations, Bureau of Workforce Services and the Bureau of Contract of Technical Services. It was signed by Anjetta Venter-Bowles, Director of the Bureau of Work- force Services. The AM 13-01 mandates that the Customer Ser- vice Representative in the district office lob- bies must not provide the DFA285A1 Application for Food Stamp Benefits, the SAWS1 .The Re- ceptionist must provide the LEADER generated SAW1 only for the applicant to sign it. Once the SAWS1 is signed, the Receptionist must provide the CF applicant with the PA 6091 Household Member Information Form, the DFA 285A2 The DFA 285A1 must not be provided to the ap- plicant. There are two major messages here: #1. Never give an applicant a DFA285A1 or a SAWS1 to complete. (VIOLATION OF MPP 63-300.34.) #2. The SAWS1 has to be completed by the Re- ceptionist and the applicant must sign it or leave the office. (VIOLATION OF MPP 40-129.33.) On-line public assistance applications more likely to be denied than in-person applications. Los Angeles County instructs DPSS staff to violate state food stamps and CalWORKS regulations Application Processors Percentage of application Denial LEADER-YBN 48% BenefitsCalWIN 68% C4yourself 76% Statewide application denial rate not applying on line 37% T A B L E # 2 The State Regulations MPP 63-300.34 The CWD shall make ap- plication forms readily accessible to potential- ly eligible households. The application form shall be provided to anyone who requests the form. MPP 40-129.33 The county shall not com- plete the Immediate Need section of the ap- plication or the Immediate Need Payment Re- quest (CA 4, 9\/90), except at the applicant’s specific request. Source: DPSS ”