Search Demo

” 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 One of the great founding principles of our country is that children will not be pun- ished for the mistakes of their parents, said Eric Cantor, Republican Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives addressing the American Enterprise Institute in 2013. Really? Are you Serious? Exhibit A – TANF in America; Exhibit B CALWORKs in California. Kids are often punished for what their parents do. When we told Ms. Strong, a current welfare mom, of this statement, she asked, What country is he talking about? It can’t be the United States of America. In the USA welfare kids are punished for what their parents do all the time. What bub- ble does he live in? Ms. Strong is right. The CalWORKs\/TANF\/SNAP\/CalFresh program is one big program that regularly punishes children for what their parents do. Children go hungry because their parents are not able to navigate the multitude of barriers es- tablished by the welfare bureaucracy; Children go hungry because their parent did not provide a document that they did not have. Children go hungry because their parent did not turn in a change report when there were no changes to report. Children are punished when their parents are sanctioned for not meeting all of the demands of the TANF\/CalWORKs workfare program. Many times, through no fault of their own, the parent did not have child care and\/or transportation, but the children are still punished. The family’s fixed income level is reduced by 25% at the same level as grants were in1986. There are other types of punishments irrationally imposed on children: (1) If a parent reports cash income received but does not have verification, CalWORKs is stopped. (2) Families often go homeless because the par- ent made the mistake of reporting cash income when s\/he did not have the verification to provide to the welfare department. (3) If a parent does not provide verification of im- munization for her\/his child under six (6) years. This often happens because s\/he does not have money for transportation to go to the doctor, but the result is a 25% reduction in the CalWORKs grant. This is just a partial list of innocent children be- ing punished daily in the United States of America and the State of California for the alleged mis- takes of their parents. …..children will not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. Republican, Eric Cantor February 17, 2013 Issue #2013-03 ”

” 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 The proposed 2013-2014 Budget takes $2,037,913,000 from the federal TANF al- location and the State-required State Main- tenance of Effort (MOE) and use it as con- tribution to the state general fund. Last year (2012-2013) CalWORKs families contributed $1,153,301,000 in the final budget. The 2013- 2014 proposed budget has a 57% increase in CalWORKs funds that would be used as contribution to the State General Funds. This is money taken from California’s impov- erished families living on fixed incomes from 1986. In dollar terms the proposed 2013- 2014 proposed budget takes an additional $885 million from California’s poor to pay for the State Budget surplus. See Table #1 for the exact dollar amounts that impoverished families of California have contributed to the General fund during the past two decades. Governor Brown proudly said that the budget is on its way to be balanced. What he failed to say that it is being balanced on the backs of Califor- nia poor families and poverty stricken children. The budget does provide counties with an ad- ditional $143 million for the county single al- location that is the county block grant for the administration of the CalWORKs pro- gram. Last year, counties failed to spend $185 million of their single allocation and this year they are getting an additional $143 million. This is a 7% increase in county funding. Since 1998, counties have failed to spend over $2.3 billion that was allocated to them as a block grant. During 201-2012 counties failed to spend $185 million. Now the budget will increase this block grant by $143 million in 2013-2014. See Table #2 reveals that since 1998 while funding for the administration of the CalWORKs program has increased by 33%, funding for payments to impoverished families during the same time period has de- creased by 13%. This reveals the priority of the State of California pay more for administra- tion while cutting benefits to California’s Cal- WORKs children. Even welfare administrators have said that low payment levels defeats their CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR BROWN’s 2013-14 BUDGET CONTINUES THE DIVERSION OF CalWORKs FROM FAMILIES & CHILDREN. This time it is over $2 billion dollars is being diverted from CalWORKs as contribu- tion to the state general fund. January 27, 2013 Issue #2013-02 The 2013-2014 proposed budget has a 57% increase in CalWORKs funds that would be used as contri- bution to the State General Funds. This is money taken from Califor- nia’s impoverished families living on fixed incomes from 1986. In dol- lar terms the proposed 2013-2014 proposed budget takes an additional $885 million from California’s poor to pay for the State Budget surplus. CCWRO Welfare News January 27, 2013 #2013-02 efforts to help families achieve self-sufficiency. This same money could be better used to feed and house impoverished California families by giving them a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that was authorized under former Governor Reagan. Table #3 below contains the history of the CalWORKs COLA. How- ever, the budget does have a COLA for Special Education Programs for Exceptional Children Child Nutrition Programs. CalWORKs families did not get a cost- of-living increase this year, which means more children will suffer in 2013-2014. WHERE DOES SOME OF THE $2 BILLION GO? The remaining $169,565,000 goes to: Con’t from Page 1 Program $ Amount Student Aid Commission $942,912,000 Kin-GAP $137,425,000 Child Welfare Services Emergency Assistance (EA) $173,500,000 Child Welfare Services-TANF $14,416,000 EmergencyAssistance- Foster Care TANF $ 44,669,000 CDE Child Care Programs $555,426,000 Minor Parent Services and Investiga- tions; SSP MOE Eligible This covers the state costs of SSI payments for children on SSI CFAP MOE Eligible This covers the California Food Assistance programs for documented lawful alien children Stage 1 Child Care hild Care Trust Line Costs Costs of the $50 Child Support Disre- gard Program Monthly Cost Per Child CalWORK per Child $ 192 Foster Care pre Child $ 2,517 Adopted per Child $ 924 HOW ARE POOR CHILDREN LIV- ING WITH THEIR FAMILIES TREATED IN THE BUDGET? How does the budget treat poor children liv- ing with their natural parents versus those not living with their natural parents but still receiving public assistance? Badly. STATE BUDGET RESOURCES The 2013-2014 Budget Bills AB 73- Blumenfield http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi-bin\/postquery?bill_nu mber=ab_73&sess=CUR&house=B&author=blume nfield SB 65 – Leno http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi-bin\/postquery?bill_nu mber=sb_65&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno Assembly Budget Sub. #1 Holly Mitchell (D), Chair Weslet Chesboro (D) Roger Dickinson (D) Shannon Grove (R) Allan Mansor (R) Senate Budget Sub. #3 Senator Monning (D), Chair Senator DeSaulnier (D) Senator Emerson (R) For hearings check the Daily file at: http:\/\/www.legislature.ca.gov\/port-dayfile.html State Fiscal Year CalWORKs Recipient Contribution to the State General Fund FY 1998-99 $708,502,000 FY 1999-00 $745,249,000 FY 2000-01 $1,021,913,000 FY 2001-02 $1,126,647,000 FY 2002-03 $1,088,940,000 FY 2003-04 $1,163,238,000 FY 2004-05 $1,087,321,000 FY 2005-06 $1,299,448,000 FY 2006-07 $1,184,134,000 FY 2007-08 $1,745,291,000 FY 2008-09 $1,268,997,000 FY 2009-10 $1,262,046,000 FY 2010-11 $1,234,159,808 FY 2011-12 $1,222,447,450 FY 2012-13 $1,153,301,000 FY 2013-14 proposed budget $2,037,913,000 TOTAL TO DATE CalWORKs Recipients Contributions to the State $17.3 Billion If the State is enacted as proposed $19.3 Billion Source: http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/localassistanceest\/ Jan13\/AuxiliaryTables.pdf Page 10 TABLE # 1 – CalWORKs Families Contribute Billions to the State General Fund CalWORKs payments are the same TODAY as in 1986 Annual Appropriations of County Single Allocation (CSA) Compared to Appropriations for CalWORKs & County Use of Appropriated Funds \u25cf The County Single Allocation has INCREASED By 33% from 1998 to 2012 \u25cf While CalWORKs Grant Allocation Has DECREASED by 13% From 1998 to 2012 State Fiscal Year Total CSA Allocation County Share Total Grant Allocation Total CSA Allocation NOT Used By Counties CSA allocation increase\/ decrease from previous State Fiscal Year CalWORKs Grant allocation increase\/ decrease from previous State Fiscal Year Annual Percentage of Single Allocation Not Used by Counties 1998-1999* $1,403,116,378 $140,540,757 $3,728,895,597 920,257,165 66% 1999-2000 1,466,239,771 140,540,757 3,409,184,226 251,987,081 4% \u20109% 17% 2000-2001 1,534,363,372 140,540,757 3,110,590,925 49,280,893 5% \u20109% 3% 2001-2002 1,703,597,672 140,540,757 3,128,453,615 18,592,263 11% 1% 1% 2002-2003 1,614,776,793 140,540,757 2,998,104,490 73,405,312 \u20105% \u20104% 5% 2003-2004 1,684,758,200 140,540,757 3,058,377,136 147,299,216 4% 2% 9% 2004-2005 1,628,196,518 140,540,757 3,272,331,000 63,978,376 \u20103% 7% 4% 2005-2006 1,647,633,000 140,540,757 3,067,470,861 43,404,293 1% \u20106% 4% 2006-2007 1,708,315,000 140,540,757 2,949,089,178 45,226,331 4% \u20104% 3% 2007-2008 1,860,028,000 140,540,757 3,006,359,917 33,066,917 9% 2% 2% 2008-2009 1,911,003,000 140,540,757 3,275,881,220 15,572,637 3% 9% 1% 2009-2010 1,949,398,000 140,540,757 3,406,732,000 148,444,097 2% 4% 8% 2010-2011 1,946,940,000 140,540,757 3,674,460,000 148,444,097 0% 8% 8% 2011-2012 1,836,073,000 140,540,757 3,261,728,000 155,571,301 \u20106% \u201011% 8% 2011-2012 1,860,073,000 140,540,757 3,157,685,000 181,466,786 1 \u20103% 10% Source: State Department of Social Services Published by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 736-0616 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian Cell (916) 712-0071 kevin.aslanian@ccwro.org Counties failed to spend $2.3 Billion During this Same Period kevinaslanian Typewritten Text kevinaslanian Typewritten Text TABLE # 2 kevinaslanian Typewritten Text kevinaslanian Typewritten Text TABLE #3. California AFDC\/CalWORKs COLA\/Grant Level History at Glance AFDC\/CalWorks Milestone – Senate Bill SB 796 – Tony Beilenson (D) Enacts the AFDC statutory COLA as a part of the 1971 Welfare Reform Act State Budget Year Benefit Level for a Family of 3 The Annual COLA The Governor 1971-1972 $235 0.9% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1972-1973 $237 2.5% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1973-1974 $243 7.8% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1974-1975 $262 11.8% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1975 $293 8.9% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1976 $319 6.0% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1976-1977 $338 6.3% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1977-1978 $356 0.0% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1978-1979 $356 15.2% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1979-1980 $410 15.4% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1980-1981 $473 -2.1% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1981-1982 $463 9.3% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1982-1983 $506 0.0% Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. I 1983-1984 $526 4.0% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1984-1985 $555 5.5% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1985-1986 $587 5.8% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1986-1987 $617 5.1% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1987-1988 $633 3.6% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1988-1989 $663 4.7% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1989-1990 $694 4.6% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1990-1991 $694 0.0% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1991-1992 $663 -4.4% Peter Barton Wilson 1992-1993 $624 -5.8% Peter Barton Wilson 1993-1994 $607 -2.7% Peter Barton Wilson 1994-1995 $607 0.0% Peter Barton Wilson 1996-1997 $538 -8.9% Peter Barton Wilson 1997-1998 $538 0.0% Peter Barton Wilson 1998-1999 $581 2.84% Peter Barton Wilson 1999-2000 $596 2.36% Peter Barton Wilson 2000-2001 $613 2.96% Joseph Graham \”Gray\” Davis Jr. 2001-2002 $ 647- $679 5.31% Joseph Graham \”Gray\” Davis Jr. 2002-2003 $ 671 -$704 3.74% Joseph Graham \”Gray\” Davis Jr. 2003-2004 $ 671- $704 0.0% Joseph Graham \”Gray\” Davis Jr. 2004-2005 $ 704- $723 2.75% Joseph Graham \”Gray\” Davis Jr. 2005-2006 $ 689- $723 0.0% Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger 2006-2007 $ 689- $723 0.0% Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger 2007-2008 $ 689- $723 0.0% Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger 2008-2009 $ 689- $723 0.0% Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger 2009-2010 $ 689- $723 Cola Repealed Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger 2010-2011 $ 638- $608 No COLA Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. II 2011-2012 $ 638- $608 No COLA Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. II 2012-2013 $ 638- $608 No COLA Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. II 2013-2014 $ 638- $608 No COLA Edmund Gerald \”Jerry\” Brown Jr. II ”

” 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 ”

” 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 Ms. 1B45N26 is a WtW participant and at- tends college. She has a signed contract to at- tend school. The Sacramento County worker for Ms. 1B45N26 said that Sacramento County does not pay for ancillary services or transportation. It takes Ms. 1B45N26 more than an hour each way by public transportation from her house to her activity at the college. The worker told her that she should use her PELL grant to cover the transportation. A court order in the Yslas v. An- derson issued on December 20, 1990 said that the county cannot do this. But then why would the county worker care about what a court said? See MPP 50-024.1. The California Welfare Fraud Investigators As- sociation are having their annual three-day con- ference in San Diego from October 8 through 10, 2013 using taxpayer money. Registration for nonmembers is $400 and for members it is $325. The cost of staying at the hotel is $129 a night. All paid with money that comes from the vari- ous welfare programs operated by the State of California funded primarily by federal and state funds. At a November 2012 meeting of Bay Area police chiefs, DSS received a complaint from the police chiefs that they do not get information from the DSS Fraud Bureau. DSS representative stated that they provide this information to California Welfare Fraud Investigators Association who ap- parently do not share that information with the police chiefs. The police chiefs also complained that county welfare directors do not share infor- mation with the police chiefs. DSS was asked to put the police chiefs in the loop. DSS is working on a Policy Interpretation identi- fying mandatory for Intake and RE appointments this information is needed to program the com- puters for implementation of Semi-Annual re- porting 10-1-13. This information will need to be flushed out prior to implementation of semi-an- nual reporting (SAR) as the annual redetermi- nation will take the place of the 2nd SAR 7 each year. DSS has cited Shasta County for their refusal to screen applicant Review Number 502079 for food stamp expedited service on an application filed 1-12-12 at 11:30 am. The applicant complet- ed questions 14 through 18 on the SAWS 1. This applicant needed emergency assistance and was scheduled for a telephone interview on 2-7-12, about 22 days behind the 3-day requirement for persons eligible for expedited services. None of the computer systems schedule food stamp expedited service (FS-ES) appointments. If the applicant answers yes to questions 14-18 on the SAWS1, then the computer should sched- ule an appointment for FS-ES. But then that would mean that applicants suffering from food insecurity would actually be helped. DSS and the three computer consortia refuse to program the computers to assure that California’s poor do not suffer from food insecurity as revealed in Shas- ta County and most other counties in the State of California. It is the position of DSS that foods insecurity is not a big enough concern to necessitate automa- tion. Neither county staff or DSS staff are suffer- ing from food insecurity. March 16, 2013 Issue #2013-05 DSS & COUNTIES CONTRIBUTE TO FOOD INSECURITY IN CALIFORNIA Question for Consortia LEADER CalWIN C-IV What au- tomation is currently programmed into the system gener- ating timely interview appintment letter for Expedited Service time- frame (3-day) if any? There is no automation in place for generating an appointment for an Expe- dited Service interview Appointm- nent schedul- ing is a couty specific busi- ness practice which is not 100% automated in CalWIN. No automa- tion in C-IV to generate this auto- matically doe to the nature of the short term time- frame. http:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/ http:\/\/www.cwfia.org\/ CCWRO Welfare News March 16 , 2013 #2013-05 When advocates suggested that computers be programmed to assure that households suffering from food insecurity would be assisted timely, Linda Patterson, who is in charge of the California Food Stamp program, stated that automated scheduling of expedited service appointments could do more harm than good by removing the ability of counties to accommodate applicants who can’t make an ap- pointment in three days. According to Jodie Berg- er of LSNC first of all counties generally DO NOT make accommodations-it’s their way or the high- way. Secondly, many ES applications are denied because the hungry household could not attend the 7 am or 7:45 am appointment due to lack of trans- portation. Ms. Berger points out that this alleged concern by Ms. Patterson will be remedied once DSS receives a waiver to postpone the FS-ES interview. According to the latest DSS 296X report from DSS, during the months of July 1, 2012 through Sep- tember 30, 2012, there were 394,825 applications which were identified as potentially eligible for ex- pedited service because they had less than $100 in resources and less than $150 in income. Of those households, counties denied 62% of their request for FS-ES. Whopping 236,637 FS-ES applications were found not entitled to expedited service according to the county reports. Why these households with less than $100 in resources and income less than $150 were denied at such a high rate is unknown. DSS has made no effort to identify the reasons for such a high rate of denial of food assistance to households suffering food insecurity. Ms. Cooper has been on welfare for a couple of years. She is now working and no longer needs wel- fare. She also has $2,000 overpayment because of unreported income. She talked to the county welfare fraud people and admitted that she did not report the income. She also agreed to pay it all back. That was about a year ago or so. The County recouped $500 from her welfare benefits. She has now repaid every penny back from her new job and now owes nothing to the welfare department. Self-sufficiency has been achieved. Welfare-to-work became a real- ity. Recently, she was served with a welfare fraud felony complaint. She was informed that she has to Con’t from Page 1 turn herself in and she was released the next day on her own recognizance. She met with her public defender. She was ad- vised to plead guilty to a felony and would get probation rather than doing jail time. She takes the guilty plea and is sentenced to three years of probation and 100 hours of community ser- vice. When her employer found out that she was a convicted felon, she was laid off. Now she is back on welfare thanks to the work-to-welfare program operated by the county welfare fraud folks. Ms. Cooper is now a felon and cannot find a job because every time she applies for a job and puts down that she has a felony conviction, she does not even get an interview. So what would have happened to Ms. Cooper if she were an American corporation? The Ameri- can Bar Association Criminal Justice Section Newsletter Volume 21, Issue 2 has some prac- tice tips. The Department of Justice’s Principles of Prosecution of Business Organizations set out clearly the factors that are considered by DOJ. There are usually three main preconditions before the DOJ will be willing to enter into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), without the imposition of a monitor: 1. There needs to be evidence that all of the facts are known before the DOJ will access the extent of the wrong-doing; 2. The company needs to show that remedial action is not only planned, but that steps have already been taken to avoid similar case in the future; 3. The company need to be, and be perceived to be, fully cooperative, i.e. to disclose all rel- evant facts through internal investigations. If Ms. Cooper could have only been a multi- national corporation, she would not have been prosecuted and would still be working. Instead, she is living on a fixed income of what welfare families in California received in 1987 and is still looking for a job with a felony conviction, com- pliments of the California’s Work-to-Welfare Program. EQUAL JUSTICE? NOT FOR REGULAR FOLKS http:\/\/lsnc.net\/ http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/criminal_justice_section_newsletter\/newsletter_winter13.authcheckdam.pdf http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/documents\/corp-charging-guidelines.pdf ”

” 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, and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t. on page 2 April 18, 2013 Issue #2013-06 70% of Food Stamp Money for Admin Costs? – At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this March in Washington D.C. former Presidential candidate Michele Bachman asserted that 70% of the Food Stamp money goes to the bureaucracy. This is not true. The actual cost of running the food stamp program (the administrative costs) nationally is 5% when you add the national office costs, state and county administrative costs and educational programs for food stamp recipients. CDE Fails to Spend Allocated Money- CDE did not spend all of their childcare funds for 2011-2012 for CalWORKs education pro- gram. The unspent amount is $188,382. AB 2035-EBT Skimming Victims. Counties cannot claim federal dollars for reimburse- ment. The State proposes to use EPPIC system and bypass the consortia. FAADS wants to use the consortia for better tracking. AB 2035 was effective January 1, 2013. As of February 7, 2013 there were five claims submitted. Four have been resolved and one is pending. We are in the process of finding out the disposition of these skimming events. Counties fear that replacement benefits may be issued by coun- ties and Xerox causing an overpayment. The skim- ming replacement only applies to CalWORKs and not food stamps. Counties are illegally assigning 22\/32 weekly hours to WtW par- ticipants. The State law is clear- 20 hours a week for single parents with children under 6 years of age and 30 hours a week for single parents with children over 6 years of age. It was enacted in SB 1041 in 2012. Counties are fully aware of the law. Moreover ignorance of the law is no excuse – even for counties. It appears that counties have decided to unlawfully force parents to perform two (2) more hours of unpaid labor or other activities, often against their will in many cases, contrary the State Law. USDA Administrative Notice 12- 03 Beginning Fiscal Year 2013, FNS would begin to monitor timeliness of recertification (RC) actions. Per Section 11(e)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (The Act), SNAP\/CalFresh households are entitled to a timely RC and a limited period of eligi- bility. The Act requires state agencies to notify the household that its certification period is ending prior to the last month of the certification period. It also requires state agencies to provide eligible households with benefits no later than one month after the last allotment was received. Counties Penalize Impoverished Families Unnecessarily – There is a California Immunization Registry (CAIR) database that can verify immunization of children. Many counties, rather than using the CAIR database, are imposing penalties upon families who already live on l987 fixed income levels. Counties are reducing their benefits even when many of the children have had all of their immunizations. All the county has to do is look at the CAIR data base. http:\/\/cairweb.org\/ Saturday Termination of Mail De- livery Implications – There is a concern about the business\/services delivery implications with the discontinuance of Saturday U. S. postal deliv- ery to become effective August 1, 2013. It should noted that counties will have larger mail deliveries on Mondays, and that the timely delivery of EBT cards to clients and 10-day client notices may be adversely impacted. CDSS is looking into this issue. Healthy Families Applications Not Being Processed Timely – At the February 2013 Caliornia Welfare Directors Associa- tion (CWDA) Medi-Cal Committee meeting there was a discussion that Healthy Family applications\/ cases may have been held by Mr. MIBB since December and are now being sent to counties without sufficient screening. For some counties these appli- cations go back to October. CCWRO Welfare News April 18, 2013 #2013-04 – Page 2 Con’t from Page 1 ACA Medi-Cal Application – HHS Cen- ter for Medical Services (CMS) released the simpli- fied application that is 21 pages in length for the Af- fordable Care Act effective January 1, 2014. Placer County tested the application with positive results. DHCS has started policy meetings with the CWDA Medi-Cal Committee members. MEDS Computer Out of Commis- sion for One Week. The Department of Health care Services antiquated MEDS system broke down during the last week of January 2013. Counties backed-up for a week and then we received double the following week. Counties have asked the State not to do QC or cite timeliness errors during this period. Federal Government Audits California’s TANF and SNAP Pro- grams – DSS has reported to CWDA that they just had their exit conference with the Bureau of State Audit reviewers (KPMG is the vendor) in which all aspects of the program were reviewed including SNAP and TANF block grants. The finding with TANF pertained to what was deemed inadequate rela- tive to the State’s oversight responsibility specific to their field monitoring of eligibility. They have been asked to submit a corrective action plan. CDSS will take the following two approaches relative to this finding and intends to spend more time in examining a corrective action approach. a. County auditors will be asked to include ad- ditional components in their A-133 reviews (as the State reviewers felt these reviews were lacking) to ensure they are examining certain aspects of TANF eligibility. b. While this is still a work in progress, CDSS will improve oversight in the TANF eligibility area and asked about how to best accomplish this such as electronic sharing of case information and electronic reviews. Given limited resources, actual on-site vis- its were not a favored approach. Cash Aid Reduced, but Food Stamps Stay the Same in Sacramento County – A California CalWORKs assistance unit in Sac- ramento County had their benefits reduced from $725 to $608 effective December 1, 2012. This is what a family of three received in 1987. Now that the income went down effective December 1, 2012 one would assume that the billion-dollar California computer system would increase the food stamps to reflect the reduction of cash aid. The food stamps should be increased by $48 in this case to make sure that the family had food for Christmas. Did that hap- pen? No. The food stamps went up January 1, 2013. The computer system is rigged to make sure that families do not receive the right benefits at the right time in the right amount. The victim in this case is Mr. 1BO6930. There are thousands of other victims in 18 counties that are subject to the CalWIN sys- tem which was built with zero input from the Cal- WORKs and Food Stamp customer community. Contra Costa County Violates MPP 63-508.65 – Ms. R.N. 51004’s QR-7 for the month of 9-12-12 was due by the first day of 11-1- 12. It was received by Contra Costa County on 10- 17-12. According to DSS, The CalWIN system au- tomatically discontinues any uncured or unsupported accounts in the third week of each month. This is a major reason for churning in California. The computer systems are designed to cause churning. Churning is when households are terminated from CalFresh for procedural reasons and not because they are financially ineligible for CalFresh. Most of them reapply before getting back on CalFresh at an unnecessary administrative cost. Inasmuch DSS alleges that it is trying to do away with churn- ing, it has never done an analysis of how LEADER, C-IV and CalWIN cause churning and what to do to reverse churning in California. Contra Costa County agreed with DSS and submitted the following cor- rective action plan: Supervisors reviewed all negative action cases. Address\/Discuss all invalid negative action at the Division meeting, Unit meeting and Department Monthly Bulletin. Assign and take action promptly upon receipt of the QR-7 by the assigned worker. Review and Modify the business operation based on Department and County policies. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT Con’t. on page 3 CCWRO Welfare News April 18, 2013 #2013-04 – Page 3 Supervisors reviewed all negative action cases means that this should never had happened. But it did. The corrective action plan does not guarantee that this wouldn’t happen again and again. The solution is simple. There should be a presumption that all QR-7 will be received. If it is not received by the last day that the QR-7 is legally due, then the worker should inform the computer to take negative action. This may mean that some house- holds will be overpaid, but it would sure reduce the churning. The question is, what is more impor- tant- food security for impoverished families and individuals or avoidance of food stamp overis- suance ? Contra Costa Refuses to Process Food Stamp Application in 30 Days and Issues a Erratic Notice of Missed Appointment – Ms. RN 51005 applied for Food Stamps in Contra Costa County electronically on 9-7-12. DSS states that no record exists that the county screened this application for expedited service (ES). However Contra Costa County did schedule an appointment for 10-26-12. Yes, Food Stamp applications are supposed to be processed within 30 days according the federal law and state regulations, but then why would Contra Costa County care about that? Contra Costa County also mailed a notice of missed ap- pointment (NOMI) dated 10-27-12 informing the client he must reschedule and complete his inter- view by 10-26-12. Is there a way to go back in time in Contra Costa County? The corrective action was identical to the one for RN 51004. It was just copied and pasted. San Joaquin County Stops Food Stamp Benefits Without a 10-day Notice – San Joaquin County issued a notice of action to Ms. RN 510065 dated 10\/24\/12 stating that effective 10\/31\/12, Ms. RN0065’s food stamp benefits will be terminated. DSS notes that be- cause the notice is not a 10-day notice, the termi- nation is invalid. San Joaquin County submitted a corrective action plan alleging that supervisor will discuss error with staff & share type or error, incorrect processing procedure & correct proce- dure that must be adhered to. Would this hap- pen again. Most certainly. Moreover, why would the computer issue a notice of action that is not at least 10 days in advance? Would the computer issue benefits over the Maximum Aid for Cal- WORKs recipients? Siskiyou County Takes an Electronic Appli- cation on the 13th and the Casefile Shows the 14th – Ms. 510071 applied on line for food stamp on 9\/13\/12 in Siskiyou County. The case record shows that the application was filed on 9\/14\/12. Thus, Siskiyou county is systematically fleecing food stamp applications filed on-line out of one-days benefits. The county also miscalculated the households income and incorrectly de- nied the household’s application when the income of the household was $66 below the maximum allowable limit. Siskiyou county did not submit a corrective action plan. Why should they? There are no consequences at all. Sis- kiyou county continues to receive federal and state dollars to administer the food stamp program even in violation of the law. Sonoma County Terminates Food Stamp Benefits for Household that Completed the Recertification – On 9\/21\/12 Sonoma County mailed a notice of action terminating Mr. RN 510072’s food stamp benefits effective 10\/31\/12 because the certifica- tion period ends that day. A recertification interview was conducted on 10\/12\/12. On 10\/13\/12 this victim received a notice of action stating that his food stamps will stop because he did not sign the statement of fact. All recertifi- cation forms, including the signed statement of fact, were received on 10\/17\/12 yet on 11-1-12 there were no food stamps issued by Sonoma County. The Sonoma County Corrective Action Plan is current business process (due to staffing issues) dictates this process. We wonder what Sonoma County would do if a food stamp recipient said that he or she did not have the resources to respond to Sonoma County’s demands for verifications and forms? The household’s benefits would be halted in a New York minute and the household would experience hunger. Fresno County Stops Food Stamp Benefits for Incomplete QR-7 but Does Not Say What Was Incomplete – Fresno County terminated food stamp benefits for household R.N. 510006 because the QR-7 was incomplete. Fresno county violated MPP 63-504.211. DSS asserted that State QC determined that the Agency didn’t inform the client of what they actually needed to submit to render the report complete. The rea- son presented to the client in the NOA was not clear and understandable because the Agency should have required the 09\/01\/12 pay stubs and clarified which questions were not correctly answered The corrective action plan is to educate and train staff. A corrective action plan where, for the next 12 months, all 296Ys will be reviewed by the supervisor who would evaluate the NOA based on a check sheet of what constitutes an adequate NOA, would have been a plan that would actually correct this problem. In most cases like this, benefits are terminated, the house- hold reapplies and is eligible for benefits again. Another reason is churning which is pervasive in California. Con’t from Page 2 ”

” 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 On May 5, 2013 the U.S. House of Represen- tatives passed H.R. 1947 that made significant cuts in the SNAP program. Limiting categorical eligibility to households receiving cash assistance through other low-in- come means tested assistance programs;. Medical marijuana will not be considered as a medical expense; Receipt of LIHEAP benefits must be over $20 to be used as a standard utility deduction; Limit the employment and training program to students who are enrolled in specific career or technical education courses or basic education, remedial, and literacy courses; Prohibits Government funded recruitment ac- tivities such as outreach in the USA or in foreign counties. Eliminate performance bonuses provided to state agencies for effectively administering the SNAP program; and Reduces funding of Food Stamp Employment and Training program from $90 mil-lion to $79 million. This is similar to the bill passed by this same committee last year. The bill would most likely pass the House and then await for Senate action. On May 14, 2013, Jerry Brown released his May Revised State Budget. The revised budget takes $2,029,000 from the mouths of CalWORKs ba- bies and children living on a fixed income FRO- ZEN at just $6 above the 1985 level so he can proudly announce that the budget has a surplus. This represents 30% of the CalWORKs money being involuntary taken from CalWORKs im- poverished families and used as an involuntary contribution to the Jerry Brown 2013-2014 State Budget. See TABLE #1. It is estimated COLA under the California Ne- cessities Index (CNI) for 2013-2014 would have been a little more than 2% or 3%. On the other hand counties single allocation received a whop- ping 7% increase – $191 million. Because of these actions, Jerry Brown has achieved another milestone California leads the Nation in supple- mental poverty ratings by the U.S. census bureau and his budget says who cares . Meanwhile the counties continue to fleece welfare recipients participating in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity out of transportation supportive services. About 50% of the WtW participants are not re- ceiving transportation. Counties have OPPOSED the suggestion that WtW participants be allowed to submit on-line transportation travel claims. While welfare administrators and DSS officials can readily reach and get a travel claim, coun- ties intentionally do not make the travel claims for transportation accessible to CalWORKs WtW participants. This has been on-going since 1999 and the Legislature does not care. CCWRO has asked the Legislature for supplemental report language on this issue and this request has been rejected every time. May 24, 2013 Issue #2013-07 U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Passes Bad Food Stamp Bill The Jerry Brown 2013- 2014 May Revise Proposal Fails to Address Child Poverty Ravishing California CCWRO Welfare News May 24 , 2013 #2013-07 The following TABLE provides details of the Cal- WORKs state budget for 2013-2014. The proposed budget transfers $924,216 million dollars to the Cal- Grants program for persons who do not meet the CalWORKs eligibility requirements. Another no- table line item is the $220,173 million taken from Con’t from Page 1 Budget Item (in millions) TOTAL Federal State County CalWORKs Program 6,347,150 5,075,886 1,118,961 82,303 TANF – AF\/TP Cash Payments 3,109,250 2,466,121 577,351 65,778 CalWORKs Services Expenditures (16.30) 1,177,326 1,025,440 151,886 0 CalWORKs Administration (16.30) 561,543 269,257 292,286 0 CalWORKs Child Care (16.30) 405,267 372,530 32,737 0 Tribal TANF 80,133 0 80,133 0 TANF Pass-Through for State Agencies 18,322 18,322 0 0 TANF Transfer to Student Aid Commission 924,216 924,216 0 0 CalWORKs SB 1041 0 0 0 0 Kin-GAP Program (16.30) 71,093 0 54,568 16,525 Additional TANF\/MOE Expenditures in CDSS 317,653 297,571 19,017 1065 Automation Projects – TANF\/MOE 56,213 56,213 0 0 CWS-Emergency Assistance 173,500 173,500 0 0 Minor Parent Services and Investigations 7,097 3,549 2,483 1,065 CWS – TANF 17,636 17,636 0 0 SSP MOE Eligible 812 0 812 0 CFAP MOE Eligible 9080 0 9,080 0 EA – Foster Care TANF 46,673 46,673 0 0 Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement 6,642 0 6,642 0 Non-TANF\/MOE Eligible Expenditures -621,959 -162,530 -446,731 -12,698 Stage One Child Care Transfer to Title XX -162,530 -162,530 0 0 Trustline -135 0 -135 0 CalWORKs Non-MOE -459,294 0 +446,596 -12,698 MOE Eligible Expenditures 524,255 0 524,255 0 Community College – Expansion of Services 26,695 0 26,695 0 CDE Child Care Programs 484,363 0 484,363 0 State Disregard Payment to Families 13,197 0 13,197 0 State Support Costs 30,156 29,512 644 0 TOTAL TANF BLOCK GRANT EXPEND. 6,597,255 5,240,439 1,286,146 70,670 State and County Expenditures 1,356,816 0 1,286,146 70,670 State and County Maintenance of Effort 2,908,684 Work Participation Rate MOE Adjustment 0 State\/County MOE Reduction – Tribal TANF -67,061 Adjusted State and County MOE 2,841,623 Expenditures Below the MOE 1,484,807 Excess MOE Needed to Fund Programs 323,780 GF MOE Adjustment 0 -1,808,587 -1,808,587 0 CalWORKs MOE Subaccount Funds (AB X1 16) 0 0 -1,120,551 0 Funding After Adjustments 6,597,255 3,431,852 1,974,182 0 Net General Fund Applied to MOE 1,974,182 General Fund Appropriation for CalWORKs 1,449,927 0 TANF Block Grant Available 0 3,882,710 TANF Block Grant to the State 3,733,818 TANF Block Grant Transfer\/Carry Forward 148,892 Single Allocation Reappropriation (AB 1477) 0 TANF Block Grant Before Transfer 450,858 Total TANF Transfers 450,858 Tribal TANF – Transfer 86,085 Transfer to Title XX 364,773 Total TANF Reserve 0 Net TANF Block Grant 0 CalWORKs children and given to the child welfare service and foster care emergency assistance program. We do admit that the nonstop poverty caused by California’s con- tinuous fleecing of the Cal-WORKs program has resulted in increased child neglect abuse. TABLE #1 CCWRO Welfare News May 24, 2013 #2013-07 CalWORKs Involuntarily Contributions of to the State General Fund State Fiscal Year CalWORKs Recipient Contribution to the State General Fund FY 1998-99 $708,502,000 FY 1999-00 $745,249,000 FY 2000-01 $1,021,913,000 FY 2001-02 $1,126,647,000 FY 2002-03 $1,088,940,000 FY 2003-04 $1,163,238,000 FY 2004-05 $1,087,321,000 FY 2005-06 $1,299,448,000 FY 2006-07 $1,184,134,000 FY 2007-08 $1,745,291,000 FY 2008-09 $1,268,997,000 FY 2009-10 $1,262,046,000 FY 2010-11 $1,234,159,808 FY 2011-12 $1,222,447,450 FY 2012-13 $1,153,301,000 FY 2013-14 proposed May Revised $2,037,913,000 CalWORKs Recipients Contributions to the State General Fund from FY 98-99 through 12-13 – $17.3 Billion Source: DSS Estimates Binder Auxiliary Tables Page 10 and 11 CHART #1 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/localassistanceest\/May13\/AuxiliaryTables.pdf ”

” 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 On May 5, 2013 the U.S. House of Represen- tatives passed H.R. 1947 that made significant cuts in the SNAP program. Limiting categorical eligibility to households receiving cash assistance through other low-in- come means tested assistance programs;. Medical marijuana will not be considered as a medical expense; Receipt of LIHEAP benefits must be over $20 to be used as a standard utility deduction; Limit the employment and training program to students who are enrolled in specific career or technical education courses or basic education, remedial, and literacy courses; Prohibits Government funded recruitment ac- tivities such as outreach in the USA or in foreign counties. Eliminate performance bonuses provided to state agencies for effectively administering the SNAP program; and Reduces funding of Food Stamp Employment and Training program from $90 mil-lion to $79 million. This is similar to the bill passed by this same committee last year. The bill would most likely pass the House and then await for Senate action. On May 14, 2013, Jerry Brown released his May Revised State Budget. The revised budget takes $2,029,000 from the mouths of CalWORKs ba- bies and children living on a fixed income FRO- ZEN at just $6 above the 1985 level so he can proudly announce that the budget has a surplus. This represents 30% of the CalWORKs money being involuntary taken from CalWORKs im- poverished families and used as an involuntary contribution to the Jerry Brown 2013-2014 State Budget. See TABLE #1. It is estimated COLA under the California Ne- cessities Index (CNI) for 2013-2014 would have been a little more than 2% or 3%. On the other hand counties single allocation received a whop- ping 7% increase – $191 million. Because of these actions, Jerry Brown has achieved another milestone California leads the Nation in supple- mental poverty ratings by the U.S. census bureau and his budget says who cares . Meanwhile the counties continue to fleece welfare recipients participating in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity out of transportation supportive services. About 50% of the WtW participants are not re- ceiving transportation. Counties have OPPOSED the suggestion that WtW participants be allowed to submit on-line transportation travel claims. While welfare administrators and DSS officials can readily reach and get a travel claim, coun- ties intentionally do not make the travel claims for transportation accessible to CalWORKs WtW participants. This has been on-going since 1999 and the Legislature does not care. CCWRO has asked the Legislature for supplemental report language on this issue and this request has been rejected every time. May 24, 2013 Issue #2013-07 U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Passes Bad Food Stamp Bill The Jerry Brown 2013- 2014 May Revise Proposal Fails to Address Child Poverty Ravishing California CCWRO Welfare News May 24 , 2013 #2013-07 The following TABLE provides details of the Cal- WORKs state budget for 2013-2014. The proposed budget transfers $924,216 million dollars to the Cal- Grants program for persons who do not meet the CalWORKs eligibility requirements. Another no- table line item is the $220,173 million taken from Con’t from Page 1 Budget Item (in millions) TOTAL Federal State County CalWORKs Program 6,347,150 5,075,886 1,118,961 82,303 TANF – AF\/TP Cash Payments 3,109,250 2,466,121 577,351 65,778 CalWORKs Services Expenditures (16.30) 1,177,326 1,025,440 151,886 0 CalWORKs Administration (16.30) 561,543 269,257 292,286 0 CalWORKs Child Care (16.30) 405,267 372,530 32,737 0 Tribal TANF 80,133 0 80,133 0 TANF Pass-Through for State Agencies 18,322 18,322 0 0 TANF Transfer to Student Aid Commission 924,216 924,216 0 0 CalWORKs SB 1041 0 0 0 0 Kin-GAP Program (16.30) 71,093 0 54,568 16,525 Additional TANF\/MOE Expenditures in CDSS 317,653 297,571 19,017 1065 Automation Projects – TANF\/MOE 56,213 56,213 0 0 CWS-Emergency Assistance 173,500 173,500 0 0 Minor Parent Services and Investigations 7,097 3,549 2,483 1,065 CWS – TANF 17,636 17,636 0 0 SSP MOE Eligible 812 0 812 0 CFAP MOE Eligible 9080 0 9,080 0 EA – Foster Care TANF 46,673 46,673 0 0 Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement 6,642 0 6,642 0 Non-TANF\/MOE Eligible Expenditures -621,959 -162,530 -446,731 -12,698 Stage One Child Care Transfer to Title XX -162,530 -162,530 0 0 Trustline -135 0 -135 0 CalWORKs Non-MOE -459,294 0 +446,596 -12,698 MOE Eligible Expenditures 524,255 0 524,255 0 Community College – Expansion of Services 26,695 0 26,695 0 CDE Child Care Programs 484,363 0 484,363 0 State Disregard Payment to Families 13,197 0 13,197 0 State Support Costs 30,156 29,512 644 0 TOTAL TANF BLOCK GRANT EXPEND. 6,597,255 5,240,439 1,286,146 70,670 State and County Expenditures 1,356,816 0 1,286,146 70,670 State and County Maintenance of Effort 2,908,684 Work Participation Rate MOE Adjustment 0 State\/County MOE Reduction – Tribal TANF -67,061 Adjusted State and County MOE 2,841,623 Expenditures Below the MOE 1,484,807 Excess MOE Needed to Fund Programs 323,780 GF MOE Adjustment 0 -1,808,587 -1,808,587 0 CalWORKs MOE Subaccount Funds (AB X1 16) 0 0 -1,120,551 0 Funding After Adjustments 6,597,255 3,431,852 1,974,182 0 Net General Fund Applied to MOE 1,974,182 General Fund Appropriation for CalWORKs 1,449,927 0 TANF Block Grant Available 0 3,882,710 TANF Block Grant to the State 3,733,818 TANF Block Grant Transfer\/Carry Forward 148,892 Single Allocation Reappropriation (AB 1477) 0 TANF Block Grant Before Transfer 450,858 Total TANF Transfers 450,858 Tribal TANF – Transfer 86,085 Transfer to Title XX 364,773 Total TANF Reserve 0 Net TANF Block Grant 0 CalWORKs children and given to the child welfare service and foster care emergency assistance program. We do admit that the nonstop poverty caused by California’s con- tinuous fleecing of the Cal-WORKs program has resulted in increased child neglect abuse. TABLE #1 CCWRO Welfare News May 24, 2013 #2013-07 CalWORKs Involuntarily Contributions of to the State General Fund State Fiscal Year CalWORKs Recipient Contribution to the State General Fund FY 1998-99 $708,502,000 FY 1999-00 $745,249,000 FY 2000-01 $1,021,913,000 FY 2001-02 $1,126,647,000 FY 2002-03 $1,088,940,000 FY 2003-04 $1,163,238,000 FY 2004-05 $1,087,321,000 FY 2005-06 $1,299,448,000 FY 2006-07 $1,184,134,000 FY 2007-08 $1,745,291,000 FY 2008-09 $1,268,997,000 FY 2009-10 $1,262,046,000 FY 2010-11 $1,234,159,808 FY 2011-12 $1,222,447,450 FY 2012-13 $1,153,301,000 FY 2013-14 proposed May Revised $2,037,913,000 CalWORKs Recipients Contributions to the State General Fund from FY 98-99 through 12-13 – $17.3 Billion Source: DSS Estimates Binder Auxiliary Tables Page 10 and 11 CHART #1 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/localassistanceest\/May13\/AuxiliaryTables.pdf ”

” 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 n On April 26, 2013 FNS denied DSS’s request for a waiver to require food stamp recipients to report a change of address within 10-days. This was great news for advocates opposing the waiv- er. In a letter to DSS, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) denied the State’s request . . .because of the increased burden it would place on Cali- fornia SNAP households. Semi-annual reporting (SR) was established to simplify requirements for both SNAP recipients and the State agency by requiring households to report less frequently and reducing the number of reports state agen- cies must process. Changes in the SR system that add additional requirements may reduce its effectiveness in simplifying program administra- tion, reducing errors, and maintaining consistent benefits for SNAP households. n On 3-25-13, the IHSS supervising Program specialist for San Bernardino County asked DSS Is a chiropractor considered a licensed health care professional who may sign the SOC 873-Health Certification Form? On 3-26-13, DSS responded: Chiropractors are considered LHCP or Health Care certificate purposes. n El Dorado County asked DSS whether a 14 year-old child who does not live with his biologi- cal parents is eligible for IHSS and does the age appropriate guidelines apply in this situation. On 3-21-13 DSS, citing MPP 30-701(o)(2), stated that age appropriate guidelines (AAG) apply to all minors, regardless of who the provider is and the living arrangement. The test is whether the minor lives in his own home not whether the mi- nor lives with his parents. n The state’s federal waiver for the face-to-face interview expired 5-20-13. DSS will seek an ex- tension of the waiver. n DSS plans to make food stamp policy inter- pretations available to counties via shared files by the end of May. The question is how about the public? n On May 23, 2013 DSS hosted the second SAR Q&A conference call regarding the SAR process. Advocates representing the beneficiaries of the program have not been included in these calls. n Santa Clara County revealed that 60% of the WtW participants doing 32 hours have opted for the new 20\/30 hours. CWDA worries that if this trend continues, the federal work participa- tion rates may fall. CWDA wants the CalWORK committee review the 20\/30-hour option. Many counties unlawfully force CalWORKs recipients to participate more hours than the 20\/30 hours. CCWRO obtained information from DSS that in 2013 banks will fleece CalWORKs recipients out of over $24 million by charging CalWORKs recipients fees for accessing their benefits. The fleecing of CalWORKs recipients started when the Legislature passed leg- islation agreeing to force welfare moms to pay the banks to access their meager fixed income in lieu of getting a paper check. DSS provided CCWRO with information that details the amount of fees that CalWORKs recipients paid to access the CalWORKs benefits. Chart # 1 shows that from January through April 2013 banks fleeced CalWORKs families out of $6,180,530. Month Amount Banks Fleeced From CalWORKs Families January $1,551,700 February $1,535,300 March $1,545,200 April $1,548,100 Source: DSS DSS established several workgroups composed of DSS staff, advocates and county staff to find ways to reduce bank fees and identify alternative ways for Banks Fleece CalWORKs Families Chart #1 kevinaslanian Typewritten Text May 30, 2013 Issue #2013-08 CCWRO Welfare News May 30 , 2013 #2013-09 CalWORKs families to access their meager fixed ben- efits without such high fees. San Francisco County leads the State with a monthly av- erage fee of about $6 a month. In 2011, the average fee in San Francisco was $7. The county has taken some positive steps to address this problem. Many of the banks that obtained loans from the federal government for less than 1% interest are the biggest fleeces of the poor. Bank Surcharge for each use Bank of America $3.00 Golden 1 Credit Union $2.50 HSBC $3.00 Wells Fargo $3.00 On the other hand, Citibank, Bank of the West and 31 other banks do not charge CalWORKs recipients for ac- cessing their meager benefits. In addition to MoneyPass ATM, there are a host of Sur- charge-Free EBT retailers, such as Albertson’s, Raleys\/ Bel Air, Kmart, Luckys (SuperValu), Nob Hill, Safeway, Walmart and Winco. Banks and stores that provide free access to benefits can be found at the website: http:\/\/www.ebtproject.ca.gov\/Library\/Cash_Access.pdf identifies It is interesting to note that most of the large counties have high fees while small counties have lower fees. It is notable that Tulare and Stanislaus Counties fees are below $1.75. One wonders what Tulare and Stainslaus Counties are doing that Alameda ($3.99) Los Angeles ($3.55) and Santa Clara ($3.30) are not doing. What Can Be Done? Counties should distribute the CalWQORKs benefi- ciaries a county-specific pamphlet explaining how to access CalWORKs benefits for free. Counties should also review of fee usage of CalWORKs at redeterminations, and explain how recipient can ac- cess their benefits for free. Chart #2 is a county-by-county average surcharge paid by CalWORKs recipients in each county. Con’t from Page 1 County March 2013 Cost of Accessing Benefits March 2013 County Average Cost Per Case to Access Benefits San Francisco $26,125.67 $5.95 Alameda $74,898.46 $3.99 Los Angeles $621,162.73 $3.55 Mono $112.50 $3.31 Santa Clara $41,843.81 $3.30 San Mateo $8,480.32 $3.29 Inyo $390.35 $3.20 Amador $1,065.42 $3.14 San Benito $2,280.25 $3.06 Solano $17,794.26 $2.99 Sacramento $93,097.00 $2.90 Contra Costa $29,492.74 $2.83 Placer $4,809.42 $2.75 San Diego $79,912.37 $2.70 Monterey $18,277.44 $2.66 Nevada $1,926.93 $2.58 Ventura $17,099.73 $2.55 Kern $51,465.38 $2.52 Napa $1,576.97 $2.49 Yuba $4,230.20 $2.48 San Luis Obispo $4,910.05 $2.47 Tuolumne $1,689.90 $2.47 Humboldt $3,961.44 $2.46 Marin $2,640.74 $2.46 El Dorado $2,723.95 $2.45 Sutter $3,802.17 $2.44 Sierra $55.90 $2.43 Mendocino $3,141.46 $2.37 Santa Cruz $4,938.97 $2.26 Siskiyou $1,785.18 $2.26 Riverside $70,806.78 $2.16 Merced $17,143.60 $2.05 Tehama $2,702.97 $2.04 Calaveras $1,486.78 $2.00 Orange $44,142.47 $2.00 San Bernardino $96,950.82 $1.95 San Joaquin $32,719.64 $1.94 Fresno $54,098.79 $1.92 Madera $6,682.71 $1.90 Glenn $794.80 $1.88 Yolo $3,496.18 $1.88 Santa Barbara $8,715.04 $1.85 Kings $5,169.25 $1.75 Stanislaus $20,853.92 $1.74 Butte $6,035.34 $1.73 Lake $1,948.95 $1.73 Shasta $5,238.92 $1.71 Alpine $6.75 $1.69 Imperial $7,238.42 $1.68 Tulare $25,242.52 $1.65 Sonoma $5,231.98 $1.63 Mariposa $327.19 $1.46 Lassen $667.54 $1.44 Trinity $207.39 $1.44 Colusa $247.73 $1.37 Modoc $181.70 $1.26 Plumas $243.45 $1.24 Del Norte $980.68 $1.22 Grand Total $1,545,254.02 $2.75 Source: DSS Chart #2 ”

” 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 n On April 26, 2013 FNS denied DSS’s request for a waiver to require food stamp recipients to report a change of address within 10-days. This was great news for advocates opposing the waiv- er. In a letter to DSS, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) denied the State’s request . . .because of the increased burden it would place on Cali- fornia SNAP households. Semi-annual reporting (SR) was established to simplify requirements for both SNAP recipients and the State agency by requiring households to report less frequently and reducing the number of reports state agen- cies must process. Changes in the SR system that add additional requirements may reduce its effectiveness in simplifying program administra- tion, reducing errors, and maintaining consistent benefits for SNAP households. n On 3-25-13, the IHSS supervising Program specialist for San Bernardino County asked DSS Is a chiropractor considered a licensed health care professional who may sign the SOC 873-Health Certification Form? On 3-26-13, DSS responded: Chiropractors are considered LHCP or Health Care certificate purposes. n El Dorado County asked DSS whether a 14 year-old child who does not live with his biologi- cal parents is eligible for IHSS and does the age appropriate guidelines apply in this situation. On 3-21-13 DSS, citing MPP 30-701(o)(2), stated that age appropriate guidelines (AAG) apply to all minors, regardless of who the provider is and the living arrangement. The test is whether the minor lives in his own home not whether the mi- nor lives with his parents. n The state’s federal waiver for the face-to-face interview expired 5-20-13. DSS will seek an ex- tension of the waiver. n DSS plans to make food stamp policy inter- pretations available to counties via shared files by the end of May. The question is how about the public? n On May 23, 2013 DSS hosted the second SAR Q&A conference call regarding the SAR process. Advocates representing the beneficiaries of the program have not been included in these calls. n Santa Clara County revealed that 60% of the WtW participants doing 32 hours have opted for the new 20\/30 hours. CWDA worries that if this trend continues, the federal work participa- tion rates may fall. CWDA wants the CalWORK committee review the 20\/30-hour option. Many counties unlawfully force CalWORKs recipients to participate more hours than the 20\/30 hours. CCWRO obtained information from DSS that in 2013 banks will fleece CalWORKs recipients out of over $24 million by charging CalWORKs recipients fees for accessing their benefits. The fleecing of CalWORKs recipients started when the Legislature passed leg- islation agreeing to force welfare moms to pay the banks to access their meager fixed income in lieu of getting a paper check. DSS provided CCWRO with information that details the amount of fees that CalWORKs recipients paid to access the CalWORKs benefits. Chart # 1 shows that from January through April 2013 banks fleeced CalWORKs families out of $6,180,530. Month Amount Banks Fleeced From CalWORKs Families January $1,551,700 February $1,535,300 March $1,545,200 April $1,548,100 Source: DSS DSS established several workgroups composed of DSS staff, advocates and county staff to find ways to reduce bank fees and identify alternative ways for May 30, 2013 Issue #2013-09 Banks Fleece CalWORKs Families Chart #1 CCWRO Welfare News May 30 , 2013 #2013-09 CalWORKs families to access their meager fixed ben- efits without such high fees. San Francisco County leads the State with a monthly av- erage fee of about $6 a month. In 2011, the average fee in San Francisco was $7. The county has taken some positive steps to address this problem. Many of the banks that obtained loans from the federal government for less than 1% interest are the biggest fleeces of the poor. Bank Surcharge for each use Bank of America $3.00 Golden 1 Credit Union $2.50 HSBC $3.00 Wells Fargo $3.00 On the other hand, Citibank, Bank of the West and 31 other banks do not charge CalWORKs recipients for ac- cessing their meager benefits. In addition to MoneyPass ATM, there are a host of Sur- charge-Free EBT retailers, such as Albertson’s, Raleys\/ Bel Air, Kmart, Luckys (SuperValu), Nob Hill, Safeway, Walmart and Winco. Banks and stores that provide free access to benefits can be found at the website: http:\/\/www.ebtproject.ca.gov\/Library\/Cash_Access.pdf identifies It is interesting to note that most of the large counties have high fees while small counties have lower fees. It is notable that Tulare and Stanislaus Counties fees are below $1.75. One wonders what Tulare and Stainslaus Counties are doing that Alameda ($3.99) Los Angeles ($3.55) and Santa Clara ($3.30) are not doing. What Can Be Done? Counties should distribute the CalWQORKs benefi- ciaries a county-specific pamphlet explaining how to access CalWORKs benefits for free. Counties should also review of fee usage of CalWORKs at redeterminations, and explain how recipient can ac- cess their benefits for free. Chart #2 is a county-by-county average surcharge paid by CalWORKs recipients in each county. Con’t from Page 1 County March 2013 Cost of Accessing Benefits March 2013 County Average Cost Per Case to Access Benefits San Francisco $26,125.67 $5.95 Alameda $74,898.46 $3.99 Los Angeles $621,162.73 $3.55 Mono $112.50 $3.31 Santa Clara $41,843.81 $3.30 San Mateo $8,480.32 $3.29 Inyo $390.35 $3.20 Amador $1,065.42 $3.14 San Benito $2,280.25 $3.06 Solano $17,794.26 $2.99 Sacramento $93,097.00 $2.90 Contra Costa $29,492.74 $2.83 Placer $4,809.42 $2.75 San Diego $79,912.37 $2.70 Monterey $18,277.44 $2.66 Nevada $1,926.93 $2.58 Ventura $17,099.73 $2.55 Kern $51,465.38 $2.52 Napa $1,576.97 $2.49 Yuba $4,230.20 $2.48 San Luis Obispo $4,910.05 $2.47 Tuolumne $1,689.90 $2.47 Humboldt $3,961.44 $2.46 Marin $2,640.74 $2.46 El Dorado $2,723.95 $2.45 Sutter $3,802.17 $2.44 Sierra $55.90 $2.43 Mendocino $3,141.46 $2.37 Santa Cruz $4,938.97 $2.26 Siskiyou $1,785.18 $2.26 Riverside $70,806.78 $2.16 Merced $17,143.60 $2.05 Tehama $2,702.97 $2.04 Calaveras $1,486.78 $2.00 Orange $44,142.47 $2.00 San Bernardino $96,950.82 $1.95 San Joaquin $32,719.64 $1.94 Fresno $54,098.79 $1.92 Madera $6,682.71 $1.90 Glenn $794.80 $1.88 Yolo $3,496.18 $1.88 Santa Barbara $8,715.04 $1.85 Kings $5,169.25 $1.75 Stanislaus $20,853.92 $1.74 Butte $6,035.34 $1.73 Lake $1,948.95 $1.73 Shasta $5,238.92 $1.71 Alpine $6.75 $1.69 Imperial $7,238.42 $1.68 Tulare $25,242.52 $1.65 Sonoma $5,231.98 $1.63 Mariposa $327.19 $1.46 Lassen $667.54 $1.44 Trinity $207.39 $1.44 Colusa $247.73 $1.37 Modoc $181.70 $1.26 Plumas $243.45 $1.24 Del Norte $980.68 $1.22 Grand Total $1,545,254.02 $2.75 Source: DSS Chart #2 ”

” 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 n On April 26, 2013 FNS denied DSS’s request for a waiver to require food stamp recipients to report a change of address within 10-days. This was great news for advocates opposing the waiv- er. In a letter to DSS, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) denied the State’s request . . .because of the increased burden it would place on Cali- fornia SNAP households. Semi-annual reporting (SR) was established to simplify requirements for both SNAP recipients and the State agency by requiring households to report less frequently and reducing the number of reports state agen- cies must process. Changes in the SR system that add additional requirements may reduce its effectiveness in simplifying program administra- tion, reducing errors, and maintaining consistent benefits for SNAP households. n On 3-25-13, the IHSS supervising Program specialist for San Bernardino County asked DSS Is a chiropractor considered a licensed health care professional who may sign the SOC 873-Health Certification Form? On 3-26-13, DSS responded: Chiropractors are considered LHCP or Health Care certificate purposes. n El Dorado County asked DSS whether a 14 year-old child who does not live with his biologi- cal parents is eligible for IHSS and does the age appropriate guidelines apply in this situation. On 3-21-13 DSS, citing MPP 30-701(o)(2), stated that age appropriate guidelines (AAG) apply to all minors, regardless of who the provider is and the living arrangement. The test is whether the minor lives in his own home not whether the mi- nor lives with his parents. n The state’s federal waiver for the face-to-face interview expired 5-20-13. DSS will seek an ex- tension of the waiver. n DSS plans to make food stamp policy inter- pretations available to counties via shared files by the end of May. The question is how about the public? n On May 23, 2013 DSS hosted the second SAR Q&A conference call regarding the SAR process. Advocates representing the beneficiaries of the program have not been included in these calls. n Santa Clara County revealed that 60% of the WtW participants doing 32 hours have opted for the new 20\/30 hours. CWDA worries that if this trend continues, the federal work participa- tion rates may fall. CWDA wants the CalWORK committee review the 20\/30-hour option. Many counties unlawfully force CalWORKs recipients to participate more hours than the 20\/30 hours. CCWRO obtained information from DSS that in 2013 banks will fleece CalWORKs recipients out of over $24 million by charging CalWORKs recipients fees for accessing their benefits. The fleecing of CalWORKs recipients started when the Legislature passed leg- islation agreeing to force welfare moms to pay the banks to access their meager fixed income in lieu of getting a paper check. DSS provided CCWRO with information that details the amount of fees that CalWORKs recipients paid to access the CalWORKs benefits. Chart # 1 shows that from January through April 2013 banks fleeced CalWORKs families out of $6,180,530. Month Amount Banks Fleeced From CalWORKs Families January $1,551,700 February $1,535,300 March $1,545,200 April $1,548,100 Source: DSS DSS established several workgroups composed of DSS staff, advocates and county staff to find ways to reduce bank fees and identify alternative ways for May 30, 2013 Issue #2013-09 Banks Fleece CalWORKs Families Chart #1 CCWRO Welfare News May 30 , 2013 #2013-09 CalWORKs families to access their meager fixed ben- efits without such high fees. San Francisco County leads the State with a monthly av- erage fee of about $6 a month. In 2011, the average fee in San Francisco was $7. The county has taken some positive steps to address this problem. Many of the banks that obtained loans from the federal government for less than 1% interest are the biggest fleeces of the poor. Bank Surcharge for each use Bank of America $3.00 Golden 1 Credit Union $2.50 HSBC $3.00 Wells Fargo $3.00 On the other hand, Citibank, Bank of the West and 31 other banks do not charge CalWORKs recipients for ac- cessing their meager benefits. In addition to MoneyPass ATM, there are a host of Sur- charge-Free EBT retailers, such as Albertson’s, Raleys\/ Bel Air, Kmart, Luckys (SuperValu), Nob Hill, Safeway, Walmart and Winco. Banks and stores that provide free access to benefits can be found at the website: http:\/\/www.ebtproject.ca.gov\/Library\/Cash_Access.pdf identifies It is interesting to note that most of the large counties have high fees while small counties have lower fees. It is notable that Tulare and Stanislaus Counties fees are below $1.75. One wonders what Tulare and Stainslaus Counties are doing that Alameda ($3.99) Los Angeles ($3.55) and Santa Clara ($3.30) are not doing. What Can Be Done? Counties should distribute the CalWQORKs benefi- ciaries a county-specific pamphlet explaining how to access CalWORKs benefits for free. Counties should also review of fee usage of CalWORKs at redeterminations, and explain how recipient can ac- cess their benefits for free. Chart #2 is a county-by-county average surcharge paid by CalWORKs recipients in each county. Con’t from Page 1 County March 2013 Cost of Accessing Benefits March 2013 County Average Cost Per Case to Access Benefits San Francisco $26,125.67 $5.95 Alameda $74,898.46 $3.99 Los Angeles $621,162.73 $3.55 Mono $112.50 $3.31 Santa Clara $41,843.81 $3.30 San Mateo $8,480.32 $3.29 Inyo $390.35 $3.20 Amador $1,065.42 $3.14 San Benito $2,280.25 $3.06 Solano $17,794.26 $2.99 Sacramento $93,097.00 $2.90 Contra Costa $29,492.74 $2.83 Placer $4,809.42 $2.75 San Diego $79,912.37 $2.70 Monterey $18,277.44 $2.66 Nevada $1,926.93 $2.58 Ventura $17,099.73 $2.55 Kern $51,465.38 $2.52 Napa $1,576.97 $2.49 Yuba $4,230.20 $2.48 San Luis Obispo $4,910.05 $2.47 Tuolumne $1,689.90 $2.47 Humboldt $3,961.44 $2.46 Marin $2,640.74 $2.46 El Dorado $2,723.95 $2.45 Sutter $3,802.17 $2.44 Sierra $55.90 $2.43 Mendocino $3,141.46 $2.37 Santa Cruz $4,938.97 $2.26 Siskiyou $1,785.18 $2.26 Riverside $70,806.78 $2.16 Merced $17,143.60 $2.05 Tehama $2,702.97 $2.04 Calaveras $1,486.78 $2.00 Orange $44,142.47 $2.00 San Bernardino $96,950.82 $1.95 San Joaquin $32,719.64 $1.94 Fresno $54,098.79 $1.92 Madera $6,682.71 $1.90 Glenn $794.80 $1.88 Yolo $3,496.18 $1.88 Santa Barbara $8,715.04 $1.85 Kings $5,169.25 $1.75 Stanislaus $20,853.92 $1.74 Butte $6,035.34 $1.73 Lake $1,948.95 $1.73 Shasta $5,238.92 $1.71 Alpine $6.75 $1.69 Imperial $7,238.42 $1.68 Tulare $25,242.52 $1.65 Sonoma $5,231.98 $1.63 Mariposa $327.19 $1.46 Lassen $667.54 $1.44 Trinity $207.39 $1.44 Colusa $247.73 $1.37 Modoc $181.70 $1.26 Plumas $243.45 $1.24 Del Norte $980.68 $1.22 Grand Total $1,545,254.02 $2.75 Source: DSS Chart #2 ”

” 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 On May 5, 2013 the U.S. House of Represen- tatives passed H.R. 1947 that made significant cuts in the SNAP program. Limiting categorical eligibility to households receiving cash assistance through other low-in- come means tested assistance programs;. Medical marijuana will not be considered as a medical expense; Receipt of LIHEAP benefits must be over $20 to be used as a standard utility deduction; Limit the employment and training program to students who are enrolled in specific career or technical education courses or basic education, remedial, and literacy courses; Prohibits Government funded recruitment ac- tivities such as outreach in the USA or in foreign counties. Eliminate performance bonuses provided to state agencies for effectively administering the SNAP program; and Reduces funding of Food Stamp Employment and Training program from $90 mil-lion to $79 million. This is similar to the bill passed by this same committee last year. The bill would most likely pass the House and then await for Senate action. On May 14, 2013, Jerry Brown released his May Revised State Budget. The revised budget takes $2,029,000 from the mouths of CalWORKs ba- bies and children living on a fixed income FRO- ZEN at just $6 above the 1985 level so he can proudly announce that the budget has a surplus. This represents 30% of the CalWORKs money being involuntary taken from CalWORKs im- poverished families and used as an involuntary contribution to the Jerry Brown 2013-2014 State Budget. See TABLE #1. It is estimated COLA under the California Ne- cessities Index (CNI) for 2013-2014 would have been a little more than 2% or 3%. On the other hand counties single allocation received a whop- ping 7% increase – $191 million. Because of these actions, Jerry Brown has achieved another milestone California leads the Nation in supple- mental poverty ratings by the U.S. census bureau and his budget says who cares . Meanwhile the counties continue to fleece welfare recipients participating in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity out of transportation supportive services. About 50% of the WtW participants are not re- ceiving transportation. Counties have OPPOSED the suggestion that WtW participants be allowed to submit on-line transportation travel claims. While welfare administrators and DSS officials can readily reach and get a travel claim, coun- ties intentionally do not make the travel claims for transportation accessible to CalWORKs WtW participants. This has been on-going since 1999 and the Legislature does not care. CCWRO has asked the Legislature for supplemental report language on this issue and this request has been rejected every time. May 24, 2013 Issue #2013-07 U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Passes Bad Food Stamp Bill The Jerry Brown 2013- 2014 May Revise Proposal Fails to Address Child Poverty Ravishing California CCWRO Welfare News May 24 , 2013 #2013-07 The following TABLE provides details of the Cal- WORKs state budget for 2013-2014. The proposed budget transfers $924,216 million dollars to the Cal- Grants program for persons who do not meet the CalWORKs eligibility requirements. Another no- table line item is the $220,173 million taken from Con’t from Page 1 Budget Item (in thousands) TOTAL Federal State County CalWORKs Program 6,347,150 5,075,886 1,118,961 82,303 TANF – AF\/TP Cash Payments 3,109,250 2,466,121 577,351 65,778 CalWORKs Services Expenditures (16.30) 1,177,326 1,025,440 151,886 0 CalWORKs Administration (16.30) 561,543 269,257 292,286 0 CalWORKs Child Care (16.30) 405,267 372,530 32,737 0 Tribal TANF 80,133 0 80,133 0 TANF Pass-Through for State Agencies 18,322 18,322 0 0 TANF Transfer to Student Aid Commission 924,216 924,216 0 0 CalWORKs SB 1041 0 0 0 0 Kin-GAP Program (16.30) 71,093 0 54,568 16,525 Additional TANF\/MOE Expenditures in CDSS 317,653 297,571 19,017 1065 Automation Projects – TANF\/MOE 56,213 56,213 0 0 CWS-Emergency Assistance 173,500 173,500 0 0 Minor Parent Services and Investigations 7,097 3,549 2,483 1,065 CWS – TANF 17,636 17,636 0 0 SSP MOE Eligible 812 0 812 0 CFAP MOE Eligible 9080 0 9,080 0 EA – Foster Care TANF 46,673 46,673 0 0 Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement 6,642 0 6,642 0 Non-TANF\/MOE Eligible Expenditures -621,959 -162,530 -446,731 -12,698 Stage One Child Care Transfer to Title XX -162,530 -162,530 0 0 Trustline -135 0 -135 0 CalWORKs Non-MOE -459,294 0 +446,596 -12,698 MOE Eligible Expenditures 524,255 0 524,255 0 Community College – Expansion of Services 26,695 0 26,695 0 CDE Child Care Programs 484,363 0 484,363 0 State Disregard Payment to Families 13,197 0 13,197 0 State Support Costs 30,156 29,512 644 0 TOTAL TANF BLOCK GRANT EXPEND. 6,597,255 5,240,439 1,286,146 70,670 State and County Expenditures 1,356,816 0 1,286,146 70,670 State and County Maintenance of Effort 2,908,684 Work Participation Rate MOE Adjustment 0 State\/County MOE Reduction – Tribal TANF -67,061 Adjusted State and County MOE 2,841,623 Expenditures Below the MOE 1,484,807 Excess MOE Needed to Fund Programs 323,780 GF MOE Adjustment 0 -1,808,587 -1,808,587 0 CalWORKs MOE Subaccount Funds (AB X1 16) 0 0 -1,120,551 0 Funding After Adjustments 6,597,255 3,431,852 1,974,182 0 Net General Fund Applied to MOE 1,974,182 General Fund Appropriation for CalWORKs 1,449,927 0 TANF Block Grant Available 0 3,882,710 TANF Block Grant to the State 3,733,818 TANF Block Grant Transfer\/Carry Forward 148,892 Single Allocation Reappropriation (AB 1477) 0 TANF Block Grant Before Transfer 450,858 Total TANF Transfers 450,858 Tribal TANF – Transfer 86,085 Transfer to Title XX 364,773 Total TANF Reserve 0 Net TANF Block Grant 0 CalWORKs children and given to the child welfare service and foster care emergency assistance program. We do admit that the nonstop poverty caused by California’s con- tinuous fleecing of the Cal-WORKs program has resulted in increased child neglect abuse. TABLE #1 CCWRO Welfare News May 24, 2013 #2013-07 CalWORKs Involuntarily Contributions of to the State General Fund State Fiscal Year CalWORKs Recipient Contribution to the State General Fund FY 1998-99 $708,502,000 FY 1999-00 $745,249,000 FY 2000-01 $1,021,913,000 FY 2001-02 $1,126,647,000 FY 2002-03 $1,088,940,000 FY 2003-04 $1,163,238,000 FY 2004-05 $1,087,321,000 FY 2005-06 $1,299,448,000 FY 2006-07 $1,184,134,000 FY 2007-08 $1,745,291,000 FY 2008-09 $1,268,997,000 FY 2009-10 $1,262,046,000 FY 2010-11 $1,234,159,808 FY 2011-12 $1,222,447,450 FY 2012-13 $1,153,301,000 FY 2013-14 proposed May Revised $2,037,913,000 CalWORKs Recipients Contributions to the State General Fund from FY 98-99 through 12-13 – $17.3 Billion Source: DSS Estimates Binder Auxiliary Tables Page 10 and 11 CHART #1 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/localassistanceest\/May13\/AuxiliaryTables.pdf ”

” 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 Los Angeles CalFresh Program Has Many Barriers to Participation. See Page 2. July 9, 2013 Issue #2013-10 l Effective January 1, 2013 SB 1041 imposed a punitive 24-month time limit on Cal- WORKs recipients. To offset this harshness, SB 1041 was supposed to result in more CalWORKs re- cipients participating in education through the self-initiated program (SIP) as the welfare-to-work plan for the first 24 months of imple- mentation. However, to date, SB 1041 has had the opposite effect. In October 2012, 8.76% of the WtW unduplicated participants were in a SIP component. In May 2013, 8.10% of the WtW undupli- cated participants were in a SIP component. This is a significant .66% decrease over 8 months. This is rather starnge because overpayments are not an employmnet function. Moreover why use employment money to pay for spotting food stamp overpayments?In Brief The 2013-2014 budget, signed by Jerry Brown took over $2 billion from the mouths of CalWORKs kids and gave it to the general fund. This was about $800 million more that what was taken from the same kids last year. l eNotifications will be implemented through the County Letter Process . http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ let tersnot ices\/PG980.htm This letter is in sign-off pro- cess and waiting for DHCS to send language to CDSS that may have some changes to comply with the Medi- Cal program requirements. l Policy Interpretations (PIs)- During a May 2, 2013 CWDA CalFresh Committee meet- ing, CDSS stated that it is in the process of categorizing the answered CalFresh PIs and placing them in a shared file. The file will be made avail- able soon according to Linda Patterson of CDSS. l New CWDA Staff Assmaa Elayyat is current- ly on assignment to the CWDA Office as a Medi-Cal Program Specialist. Assmaa is on loan from River- side County. Riverside County Director, Susan Loew, was thanked for allowing Assmaa to be reassigned. l New CDSS Staff Will Lightbourne announced that Adam Dondro has been hired as Assistant Direc- tor for Horizontal Integration (HI). Horizontal Integra- tion is designed to prevent multiple applications for aid by the same applicant. If an applicant initially applies for, or renews for a means tested program and also con- sents to have his or her application information used to simultaneously initiate an application for other means tested programs, the application will be considered for the other means tested progams. Dondro was originally from Senate Budget and is familiar with the issues in- cluding integration issues. Welcome to CDSS Adam. l Based on previous expenditure reports to CDSS, CCWRO estimates that for fiscal year 2012-2013 counties will not spend $87 million of the $533 million allocated for CalFresh admin- istration. This is 16% of the total CalFresh administration al- location while barriers to receiving CalFresh benefits remain. l CCWRO estimates that of the total CalWORKs $1.2 bil- lion allocated to the counties, a significant amount of $216 million will not be spent. This means 17% of the coun- ty single allocation is returned to the general fund while over 45% of the WtW participants are being denied their transportation supportive services. A single county alloca- tion is the block grant that is handed over to the county to spend the way they see fit for all practical purposes. l The 2013-2014 budget signed by Jerry Brown took over $2 billion from the mouths of CalWORKs kids and gave it to the general fund. This was about $800 million more from last year. l CDSS estimates that the cost of using EQUIFAX to dis- cover CalWORKs and Food Stamp overpayments would cost millions. There is a discussion about how to pay for it. EQUIFAX maintains information of new earned income in addition to credit reports. At the 5-9-13 CWDA meeting there was a proposal to take the money from employment services allocation to pay for an eligibility function. CCWRO Welfare News July 9, 2013 #2013-10 – Page 2 Con’t from page 1 7. Applications are being denied for failure to submit ver- ification that has been submitted. 8. CalFresh applicants eligible for expedited services often do not receive it. CDSS 296X report for the quarter Octo- ber-December 2012 shows the following statistics for LA. 65% of the CalFresh expedited services applications are denied. Many are erroneously denied for not doing the interview that was in fact, completed. See Table # 1. It is estimated that Los Angeles County will not spend $18 million of the $149 million allocated for CalFresh admin- istration. This $18 million could pay for many more Cal- Fresh workers to address the immense workload issues. There is no reason for poor folks in Los Angeles County to face barriers to CalFresh benefits when the county re- fuses to spend all of its administrative funds to address these problems. Los Angeles County needs a good over- haul of its CalFresh system to remove these inhumane barriers and STOP HUNGER IN LOS ANGELES NOW. Los Angeles County leads the state in churning in Cal- Fresh. Churning occurs when an eligible household is termi- nated from CalFresh due to a procedural requirement, such as failure to submit quarterly reports, application processing or renewals, and then reapplies the next month and receives Cal- Fresh for they were eligible for CalFresh all the time. Los An- geles County forces many eligible people for CalFresh to go hungry or rely on a food bank while not receiving the benefits they are enttiled due to solely procedural barriers. When DPSS asked community partners why they are not using the Los Angeles County on-line application web page for CalFresh applications, the community partners informed DPSS that the in-person applications are processed faster and they cannot recommend on line applications to the community they serve. Other barriers for hungry people seeking CalFresh benefits include: 1. LA requires each CalFresh application be reviewed by a supervisor before benefits are issued. It is common for hungry applicants to call their worker to find out when their benefits will be issued, only to be told, My supervi- sor must authorize it before it can be issued. We have 30 days to approve you case. LA’s intake workers work on 50 to 100 cases a month depending on the volume of appli- cations. Each supervisor has about 7 workers. This means that the supervisor has 20 working days in a month to re- view and authorize at least 400 cases. When you divide 400 by 20 days it means the supervisor must review 20 cases a day and will have no time to answer any questions, pro- vide supervisory direction to any worker or attend meetings. 2. Applicants are given a telephone interview date and time, but may never receive a call from the wel- fare department resulting in applications being de- nied for failure to complete the application process. 3. When a telephone interview does occur, the application is often denied for failure to do an interview done by phone. 4. Folks who did complete their in-person interviews often received erroneous notices of action stating that they failed to do the interview. 5. When a CalWORKs applicant is denied, CalFresh is also de- nied even when he\/she is eligible for CalFresh. It appears that LEADER is not programmed to insure that the person is actu- ally ineligible for CalFresh before denying CalFresh benefits. 6. Applications are denied for failure to provide verification of identity when the county can J verify the identity. J verify is a process where the applicant or recipient’s iden- tity can be verified through the MEDS computer system. Los Angeles CalFresh Program Has Many Barriers to Participation Number of Applications Considered for Expedited Food Stamps 83,280 Number of Applicants Receiving Expedited Service Food Stamps 29,314 Number of Applicants found Ineligible for Expedited Service Food Stamps 53,966 Percentage of Applicants De- nied Expedited Food Stamps 65% Los Angeles County Expedited Services for the last quarter of 2012 T A B L E #1 ”

” 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 July 9, 2013 Issue #2013-10 Effective January 1, 2013 SB 1041 imposed a punitive 24-month time limit on CalWORKs recipients. To offset this Welfare-to-Work Plan Process Illegal and Designed to Imposed Government induced Economic Child Abuse The purpose of a Welfare-to-Work plan is allegedly for the county and the participant to mutually develop a self-suffi- ciency plan that achieves self-sufficiency that reflect the al- leged robaust assessment. Many counties do plans in stages. This results in county opportunities to sanction the participant. CDSS and counties insist that WtW participants are in- volved in the decision as to what path to take towards self-sufficiency by coming up with a self-sufficiency plan. In real life, WtW participants are given a plan for a certain activity, then another one for another activity, or a plan for part 1 of the activity, such as attending the fall semester at college, and then another brand new plan for stage two of the same activity, such as the spring se- mester at college. Why is this done this way? We looked at the county sanctions to see if this plays a part in the California sanction ridden welfare-to-work program. We found that one of the major reasons for sanctioning WtW participants in California is the alleged failure to sign a welfare-to-work plan. Counties force participants to sign multiple WtW contracts which often result in sanctions. The last CDSS WtW report showed that 35% of the WtW partic- ipants were sanctioned while only 4% of the participants in the same month found employment that resulted in termina- tion of CalWORKs benefits. This does not necessarily mean that families achieve self-sufficiency. Many families termi- nated from CalWORKs continue to live in deep poverty. Is this legal? We looked at W&IC 11325.21 to see if the stat- ute permits counties to require multiple WtW plans and found that there is no authority in the statute for multiple WtW plans. The statute requires that counties do a WtW plan within 90 days that shall include the activities and services that will move the individual into employment. This does not provide for a separate WtW plan for each activ- ity that would enhance the opportunities for the county to impose WtW sanctions on WtW participants result- ing in government induced economic child abuse. Subsection (e) provides that the plan shall specify, and shall be amended to reflect changes in, the participant’s wel- Welfare-to-Work Plan Process Illegal and Designed to Imposed Government induced Economic Child Abuse fare-to-work activity, a description of services to be provided in accordance with Sections 11322.6, 11322.8, and 11322.85, as needed, and specific requirements for successful completion of assigned activities including required hours of participation. There is a major difference between amending a plan and hav- ing a brand new plan. If a plan is not for 48 months, then the plan is a sham and is designed to achieve the actual purpose of the program imposing sanctions on impoverished families. W&IC 11327.4(a)(2) does not authorize counties to im- pose WtW sanctions for failure to sign the amended plan. It expressly limits the county ability to impose sanctions only for failing or refusing to sign a welfare-to-work plan and not an amended plan. Thus, counties have been sub- verting the statute to achieve the ultimate goal of the WtW plan sanctioning WtW participants to impose govern- ment induced economic child abuse upon poor families. W&IC 11327.4 (a)(2) states: For the purposes of this article, the phrase failed or refused to comply with pro- gram requirements shall be limited to: failing or refusing to sign a welfare-to-work plan, participate or provide re- quired proof of satisfactory progress in any assigned pro- gram activity, pursuant to this article, including self-ini- tiated programs described in Section 11325.23 or accept employment; terminating employment; or reducing earnings. In October 2012 there were 119,946 unduplicated par- ticipants. In May of 2013 there were 116,686 undu- plicated participants. This is a 3 percent reduction in WtW participation, even though counties received an in- crease in their single allocation to serve more people. The number of families being sanctioned increased 3% from October 2012 to May 2013. The families in May of 2013 lost $9.5 million dollars to these inhumane sanc- tions that are often only because the county failed to verify that they family had supportive services before being forced to participate in a welfare to work activ- ity or being asked to sign a contract over and over again. In October of 2012, and May of 2013 only 3% of the unduplicated participants were terminated from Cal- WORKs due to employment. This, compared to 67% of the unduplicated participants who were either al- ready sanctioned or being sanctioned in May of 2013. SB 1041 Preliminary Look CCWRO Welfare News July 24, 2013 #2013-11 – Page 2 Con’t from page 1 Taxpayer cost for securing a CalWORKs recipient employ- ment that result. In October 2012 there were 119,946 unduplicated partici- pants. In May of 2013 there were 116,686 unduplicated participants. This is a 3 percent reduction in WtW partici- pation, even though counties received an increase in their single allocation to serve more people. The number of families being sanctioned increased 3% from October 2012 to May 2013. The families in May of 2013 lost $9.5 million dollars to these inhumane sanctions that are often only because the county failed to verify that they family had supportive services before being forced to participate in a welfare to work activity or being asked to sign a contract over and over again. In October of 2012, and May of 2013 only 3% of the undu- plicated participants were terminated from CalWORKs due to employment. This, compared to 67% of the unduplicated participants who were either already sanctioned or being sanctioned in May of 2013. Taxpayer cost for securing a CalWORKs recipient employ- ment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs is $65,157. Over 46% of the unduplicated participants are being deprived of transportation supportive services by counties who REFUSE to allow participants to claim transporta- tion on-line. For the month of May 2013 WtW participants may have been shorted out of $6.5 million in transportation reimbursements. October 2012, 8.76% of the unduplicated participants were self-initiated program participants. May 2013, 8.10% of the unduplicated participants were self-initiated program participants. This is a .66% reduction as a result of the alleged flexibility that SB 1104 is providing to WtW participants. We still get calls from WtW participants who are not al- lowed to go to school. One person was told by his WtW in Riverside nobody pays for my transportation, why should I pay for yours. It is shameful and appalling that after 15 years of unlawful sanctions upon impoverished families and children, coun- ties continue to get away with this kind of blatant abuse of CalWORKs families and government induced economic child abuse. Since 2009 counties have been getting millions of dollars for so-called IHSS Program Integrity Investigations and related services. When counties received this money they were re- quired to submit quarterly reports just like CalWORKs and food stamp recipients are required to do. When a CalWORKs or food stamp recipient fails to submit the report their benefits are immediately stopped. We wondered if welfare fraud investigators were actu- ally completing the quarterly reports in return for the millions of dollars they receive. The answer is no. In ACL 12-17, page two (2) DSS admits that, many, if not all of the participating counties, were unable to provide all of the data elements and in many cases the gaps in the reporting were consistent. None of these counties were told that they needed to return the money for failing to submit quarterly reports. ACL 12-17 also reveals that CDSS received feedback from county Special Investigative Units and District at- torney’s offices on a new report form. It was hoped that maybe now counties would actually meet their reporting requirements even though there are no penalties for not reporting and they continue getting the money. 15 counties or 31% of the counties did not submit a report after the county Special Investigative Units and District attorney’s offices had been consulted and agreed to the revised reporting form. HSS Fraud Investigators Do Not Practice Integrity But Demand Integrity from IHSS Beneficiaries FY 2009-2010 $26.4 million Source: CFL No. 09\/10-54 FY 2010-2011 $28.2 million Source: CFL No. 10\/11-53 FY 2011-2012 $10.1 million Source: CFL No. 11\/12-19 County Funding Allocated Quarterly Re- port Los Angeles $386,573 No Report Alameda 116,679 No Report Riverside 112,188 No Report Stanislaus 64,659 No Report Ventura 61,669 No Report Merced 59,723 No Report Solano 33,755 No Report Tehama 29,263 No Report Shasta 18,637 No Report Napa 15,713 No Report Sutter 15,190 No Report Nevada 15,045 No Report Yuba 14,965 No Report Colusa 13,920 No Report Trinity 13,920 No Report ”

” 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 October 25, 2013 Issue #2013-14 . Congress passed the Continuing Appropriation Bill Public Law 113-46 authorizing the federal government’s re- opening also included an extension of the TANF funding until January 15, 2013. It provides: Activities authorized under Part A of Title IV and Section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (except for activities au- thorized in section 403(b)) shall continue through the date specified in section 106(3) of this joint resolution in the man- ner authorized for fiscal year 2013, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropri- ated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. This known as the Continuing Resolution (CR). The CR came just in time because California would have had prob- lems getting food stamp out to folks after November 1, 2013. . DSS’ evaluation of the SB 1041 implementation in- cludes conducting visits to counties. Prior to the county visit, DSS solicits input relating to on-going implementation issues from the advocates via a conference call. However, the county controls the SB 1041 visits. The county selects the caseworkers that DSS staff will meet and the cases for review. The SB 1041 review should be conducted in the same manner as Quality Control (QC) reviews. QC staff tells the county which cases to pull for the review. Unfortu- nately, DSS staff does meet the actual program users. . IHSS CMISPs II is slowly going live in California. DSS ordered this system in the previous century and CMISP II is unable to accept on-line applications. Counties question the accuracy of the data that CMISPs II is spewing out. The CWDA August 2013 Adult Services Committee Minutes noted one problem. If Medi-Cal issued a NOA in mid-June stating Medi-Cal will stop July 1st and the recipient has a share of cost, CMISPs II charges the provider. Counties look at CMISPs II as a system that is not perfect. CMISPs II already has 88 request for changes and it has not been implemented statewide yet. . The Los Angeles County Your Benefits Now (YBN) is bad news for applicants. The evidence shows that im- poverished families using the YBN option is twice as likely to be denied than applicants applying in-person. Our advice is don’t use YBN until DPSS adopts a business practice that is on-line application friendly. CalWIN and C-IV on-line applications are worse. On-line application causes deeper poverty for persons and families in dire need of help. CHART # 1 – County Receipt and Use of Funds For CalWORKs and CalFresh Source: CDSS Additional Funds Given to Counties 2013-2014 Funds Not Used in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 CalWORKs Single Al- location that includes Cal- WORKs Child Care $224 million $262 million including $143 million for Child Care CalFresh Single Allocation $61 million $77 million . New County Welfare Directors Association officers slat- ed for 2014 President Susan Loew – Riverside County Vice President at Large Barry Zimmerman – Ventura County Vice President of Services Kelly Woodard – Madera County Vice President of Administration Trent Rhorer – San Francisco Vice President of Program Howard Himes – Fresno County Secretary\/Treasurer Lori Cox – Alameda County Executive Officer Charlene Reid – Tehama County . DSS has sent out 600 letters pursuant to ACL 13-54 regarding alleged excessive replacement of EBT cards. DSS has advised counties that they can also send out a letter. Some county administrators wondered why should counties sent out another letter? What would be the purpose? Counties Do Not Spent Funds Allocated for Administration of Public Social Services Programs The 2013-2014 state budget was very kind to counties. Counties received an additional $244 million for their single allocation block grant for CalWORKs. They also received an additional $61 million for CalFresh administration. The Governor can be kind to counties with these single alloca- tions because history shows that counties often do not spend the money and return it to the state while claiming that they lack resources to serve CalWORKs families in deep poverty. Chart #1 reveals additional funds received by counties for FY 2013 and money counties did not spent last fiscal year. CCWRO Welfare News October 25, 2013 #2013-14- Page 2 Last year, counties received a block grant allocation of $1.9 billion dollars to use at their discretion. Counties returned $118 million to the state because they were not able to spend it all. Chart # 2 below shows the denials of CalWORKs applications during July of 2013 based on the CA 237 CDSS reports. The data reveals that Counties are more likely not approve an application for CalWORKs than to approve one. Most nonapprovals are not because the family failed to meet the CalWORKs need standards but be- cause the applicant failed to satisfy the county welfare bureaucracy’s demands for unnecessary documents in the Cal- WORKs application process including waiting for hours and coming back next day while moms often have hungry kids with them all this time. Chart #2 reveals large counties not approving over up to 67% of the applications. CalFresh benefits are paid 100% by the federal government. Ignoring this, California counties still deny 39% of all CalFresh applications. Of those, over 68% of the denied applicants had less than $100 in resources and less than $150 in income should have been approved for expedited service CalFresh. Eligibility for expedited service Cal- Fresh only requires that the household have less than $100 in liquid resources and less than $150 in income and the only verification re- quired is alien status . Generally the denials are for technical reasons. Denying CalFresh applications results in it being harder to put food on the table for the children in California. Counties ignore the fact that CalFresh benefits stimulates the economy by putting money in the hands of mom and pop stores that sell the food who then make purchases from other vendors. Our question is why do counties deny eligible CalFresh recipients the first time the family applies? It is not that counties don’t have the money to run their food stamp program. Last year they got $533 mil- lion and failed to spend $77 million. Just imagine how many expedited service applications could have been processed with that $77 million during 2012-2013. Los Angeles County, alone, failed to spend almost $16 million during 2012-2013 while 68% of the expedited service ap- plications were denied. See Chart #3 for more details.July 2013 Source: CDSS CHART # 2 Denial Percentage For CalWORKs Applications Statewide 58% Ventura 67% San Diego 66% San Bernardino 65% Riverside 65% Stanislaus 65% Contra Costa 64% Kern 63% Santa Clara 60% San Francisco 60% Orange 60% San Joaquin 59% Sacramento 59% Solano 54% Merced 49% Los Angeles 48% Alameda 47% Fresno 47% Tulare 38% CHART # 3 EXPEDITE SERVICE FOR October- December, 2012 – Source: CDSS Requested Exped i ted Services (FS-ES) Denied FS-ES % of Denials of FS-ES Statewide 311,105 210,092 68% Santa Clara 6,647 4,948 74% Sacramento 15,986 11,866 74% Contra Costa 4,834 3,340 69% Riverside 30,536 19,811 65% Orange 15,548 9,984 64% Kern 14,417 8,995 62% San Bern. 36,658 22,708 62% Stanislaus 9,173 5,636 61% Los Angeles 80,533 48,463 60% San Diego 29,175 17,361 60% San Fran. 4,942 2,887 58% Fresno 13,552 7,811 58% Merced 4,269 2,413 57% Alameda 9,774 5,420 55% Tulare 7,290 3,870 53% Solano 2,362 1,046 44% San Joaquin 6,414 2,809 44% Ventura 2,756 962 35% Major County Barriers to Help for Families with Children In Dire need ”

” 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 September 12, 2013 Issue #2013-13 The fundamental flaw of California’s Welfare-to- Work is the fact that counties operate the program with the very tacit supervision of the State Depart- ment of Social Services (DSS), the alleged single state agency actually responsible for the pro- gram. DSS and Counties insist that participants are incapable of deciding what path they should take towards self-sufficiency because counties know best just like fathers know best it is a pa- ternalistic mentality. DSS and Counties oppose affording WtW client\/consumer\/customer\/service receivers a CHOICE of how to become self-suf- ficient. The DSS and county position is that it is their way or the highway. The highway is the 25- 40% reduction of benefits through WtW sanctions For two decades counties have performed mag- nificently in imposing sanctions against undupli- cated participants at an average of 30% while less than 4% of the unduplicated participants found jobs that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. One of the most successful paths to self-sufficien- cy is a college education. However, most county WtW administrators and workers do not want to support a college education. Although counties have maximum flexibility to support women who self enroll in college, they are often forced to drop out of college or endure a 30-40% reduction in their fixed income that is at the same level that it was in 1985. It’s called a WtW sanction because the student refuses to stop their self-ini- tiated plan in order to participate in a wasteful job-search program or work without pay for the county or a county designated agency. In June 2012 there were 7,340 par- ticipants in SIP. In June 2013 that number dropped to 6,814. This is a significant reduction shown in Chart #1 below. Table 1 reveals that while the number of partici- pants have been going down, the number of sanc- tions is on the rise which is the primary purpose of the WtW program. While there were 2,195 fewer participants in June 2013 compared to June of 2012, the number of sanctions shot up by 1,082 in June of 2013 compared to June of 2012. TABLE #1 June 2012 June 2013 WTW Sanctions 34,537 36,732 Unduplicated Number of Participants 83,367 82,285 Another SB 1041 promise was that counties would pay the supportive services for participants. Histor- ically counties have fleeced CalWORKs recipients out of transportation money. Counties categorical- ly REFUSE to pay for the legitimate transportation costs incurred by WtW participants and they do this knowingly, which should be a felony but jus- tice is not blind. In June 2012 transportation costs were not paid to 43% of the unduplicated partici- pants. In June 2013 counties denied transporta- tion costs to 43%. See Graph #1 on page 1 above. The program should be renamed and called by its true function the Welfare-to-Where? pro- gram or the Welfare-to-Sanctions program. California’s Failed Work Program CCWRO Welfare News September 12, 2013 #2013-13- Page 2 Con’t from page 1 MAXIMUM FAMILY GRANT (MFG) INFORMATION Recently CDSS requested information from the three California computer systems. LEADER did not respond. AU Size Number of Families AU Size Number of Families 2 459 9 521 3 7585 10 256 4 10,623 11 99 5 8,980 12 40 6 5,654 13 19 7 2,704 14 9 8 1,277 15 5 AU Size Number of Cases 0 768 1 13,463 2 18,237 3 9,344 4 3,228 5 983 6 301 7 107 8 20 9 6 10 5 11 2 A successful program would give participants the RIGHT to decide how to embark upon the road of independence, that can be rejected by counties if the county can show that the path chosen by the participant would never lead to self-sufficiency. Now that would reduce the current high sanction rate which is the real purpose of the program. The current program never guarantees self-suffi- ciency, however, the program administrators are guaranteed over a $1 billion a year to operate this failed program. The participants are forced to obey the counties that have fleeced millions of transportation dollars from CalWORKs recipients who are living on fixed incomes at 1985 levels. Majority of changes enacted to California’s so-called work program allegedly designed to make families self-sufficient has been a long line of changes that propel California impoverished families with babies and children towards deeper and deeper poverty while giving more money to the program operators. The federal TANF Program placed a maximum time limit of 60 months for adults to receive as- sistance. Four states impose time limits for the work component under 25 months: Arkansas, Cali- fornia, Connecticut, Idaho and Indiana. Three states have a 36-month time limit and four states have a 48-month limit. All other states MAIN- TAIN a 60-month time limit. C-IV’s Response: The number of MFG children tracked in C-IV: Children 46,464 The number of cas- es with MFG children: 33,756 CalWIN’s Response The number of MFG children tracked in C-IV: Children 53,352 The number of cas- es with MFG children: 38,232 C – I V C a l W I N Time Limits CCWRO Welfare News September 12, 2013 #2013-13 – Page 3 Con’t from Page 2 CDSS SURVEY ON CALFRESH TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS CDSS is seeking an extension of the federal waiver for CalFresh telephone interviews. FNS re- quested information on the number of households that used the telephone interview. The follow- ing are the responses from the consortia regarding telephone usage for the CalFresh Program. CalWIN Number of Telephone Interviews for Applications 74,170 Number of Telephone Interviews for Recertification 151,343 C-IV Number of Telephone Interviews for Applications No Data Number of Telephone Interviews for Recertification No Data LEADER Number of Telephone Interviews for Applications 1,576 Number of Telephone Interviews for Recertification 133,891 THE CALIFORNIA WELFARE COMPUTER SYSTEM KNOWN AS SAWS AT A GLANCE The federal government requires that each State utilize one computer system for welfare. California has three different computer systems that make up the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) Consortia LEADER CalWIN C-IV Counties Covered Los Angeles * All remaining 39 counties Director Hawyard Gee Hali Reyes John Boule Project Director Telephone Number 626-312-6001 916-608-3457 916-851-3226 Project Director Email hawyardgee@lacounty. gov Hali.Reyes@calwin.org boulej@c-iv.org Deputy Project Director Dorothy Avila Lynn Bridwell Karen Rapponoti DPD Telephone Number 626-312-6004 916-608-3357 DPD Email Address dorothyavila@lacounty. gov Lynn.Bridwell@calwin. org Karen.Rapponotik@c-iv. org Prime Contractor Unisys Hewlett-Packard (HP) Accenture Annual Cost of Maintenance $31 million $78 million $77 million *Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obis- po, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Tulare, Ventura and Yolo. Unknown County Victim Ms. 2013050089 attends school and has a child in day care. In August 2012, Ms. 2013050089 requested pay- ment for $47 worth of bus tokens. The unknown county never gave her a notice of action denying her request for supportive services. (The County is unknown because the State Hearings Division of CDSS redacted this informa- tion from the public unlawfully.) The county testified un- der oath that the county was wrong not to issue a notice of action a blatant violation of her due process rights guaranteed by the United State Constitution. The county insisted that Ms. 2013050089, living on a fixed income at the same level CalWORKs families received in 1985, should use her meager CalWORKs money to cover the cost of complying with the duly signed WtW contract where the county agreed to pay for supportive services and Ms. 2013050089 agreed to participate or be sanc- tioned. No similar penalties are imposed upon the people running the county welfare system zero accountability for the workfare workers and punishment for CalWORKs moms is what WtW is about. In this case the county fought for their position of violating WtW participants due pro- cess right with impunity and lost the hearing- the claim was granted. San Joaquin County Victim Mr. 20130503366 is a WtW participant from San Joa- quin County. This victim was sanctioned by the county for failure to participate in the welfare-to-work program. The victim asked for a state hearing and at the hearing it turned out that Mr. 20130503366 had a learning disability that San Joaquin County knew about but ignored. This is typical. Most counties require CalWORKs participants to sign a waiver of the learning disability assessment. Thus, most WtW participants’ learning disabilities are sanctioned for failing to participate when in reality it is the county that should be sanctioned for refusing to do their job. Mr. 20130503366 was lucky. He got a decent judge and won the hearing. No sanction for Mr. 20130503366. San Bernardino County Victim On October 5, 2012, San Bernardino County mailed a notice of action denying protective su- pervision to Mr. 2013057264. Mr. 2013057264 filed for a state hearing. Mr. 2013057264 is le- gally blind, mentally retarded and has a seizure disorder. San Bernardino County alleged that Mr. 2013057264 does not engage in dangerous behavior and does not put himself at risk of in- jury. The evidence revealed that Mr. 2013057264 has the tendency of leaving the house, going out on the street, where he is unaware of dangers posed by cars due to his blindness. The evidence also revealed that he has left the house several times and has been brought back home by police or firefighters. Fortunately this victim was able to find somebody to stand up for his rights and maybe save his life. Los Angeles County Victim Los Angeles County stopped the CalFresh bene- fits of Ms. 2013074209 for allegedly not complet- ing her annual recertification effective February 1, 2013. Ms. 2013074209 filed a hearing request for this and also complained that in September 2012 she completed an on-line CalWORKs appli- cation with the assistance of a community-based organization and the county refused to process the application. At the hearing, Los Angeles ad- mitted that they failed to process the CalWORKs application filed over a 180-days ago. At the hearing the county testified that Los An- geles County correctly terminated the family’s CalFresh benefits because Ms. 2013074209 re- fused to complete the annual certification. In response Ms. 2013074209 provided verification that she had submitted certification papers and verification needed through a community-based organization. This is not unusual in Los Angeles. DPSS has been informed by Los Angeles-based community organizations that they do not trust the LEADER on-line application. Los Angeles County Victim On March 7 and again on April 3, 2013, Los Angeles County imposed a sanction on Ms. 2013085473 for failing to participate in the WtW program. At the hearing it was discovered that Ms. 2013085473 should have never been forced to participate in the WtW program because she was caring for her disabled child. Los Angeles County was ordered to reverse the unlawful sanc- tion against Ms. 2013085473 who is living on a fixed income of what similar families received in 1985. California Welfare Department Victim Report CCWRO Welfare News September 12, 2013 #2013-12- Page 4 Con’t from Page 3 ”

” 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 November 18, 2013 Issue #2013-15 IN BRIEF FAMILY STABILIZATION APPLIES TO SANCTIONED Cal- WORKs RECIPIENTS – At the September 12, 2013 meet- ing, the CWDA CalWORKs Policy Committee discussed the newly passed Family Stabilization language in AB 74. The committee agreed that persons eligible for these services are families who are required to participate in a WtW activ- ity, including sanctioned families. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BREACHES PRIVACY OF 200 FAMILIES – On July 10, 2013, Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) committed a privacy breach by making unauthorized disclosure of MEDS information in 200 cases. The disclosed informa- tion included full names, sex, date of birth, social security numbers, income, bank account and other IEVS and MEDS information. The federal government was informed on July 11, 2013. The summary of the report from DHCS Office of HIPPA Compliance states: It was reported by LA County that an individual who is not affiliated with LA County was in possession of approxi- mately 100 State of California Department of Health Care Services Income and Eligibility Abstracts (IEVS). Based on the available information it is believed that this individual obtained the IEVS abstracts from a COLA-DPSS employee. The cause of this incident is still under investigation. Additional investigation is pending to determine the role, and the exact names of the COLA-DPSS employees who may be possibly involved. The report also reveals that DHCS immediately reported this incident to SSA on 7\/15\/13. SSA # PII 13673. CALAVERAS COUNTY REFUSES TO OBEY STATE LAW AND CAUSES OVERPAYMENTS – During July 2013, CDSS revealed that Calaveras County failed to stop over- payments known to the county. CDSS reviewed 26 cases of potential overpayment information in the possession of Calaveras County of which 6 cases were processed time- ly. That is a 73% violation of the law mandating that the overpayment reports be processed within 45 days to avoid future overpayments. See MPP 20-006.421. CDSS also found that Calaveras County is sitting on 1,075 cases with potential overpayments as far back as January of 2010. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REFUSES TO OBEY STATE LAW AND CAUSES OVERPAYMENTS – During July 2013, CDSS revealed that Santa Cruz County failed to stop over- payments known to the county. CDSS reviewed 40 cases of potential overpayment information in the possession of Santa Cruz County of which 11 cases were processed time- ly. That is a 73% violation of the law mandating that the overpayment reports be processed within 45 days to avoid future overpayments. See MPP 20-006.421. CDSS also found that Santa Cruz County has a backlog, the size of which has yet to be determined, of unprocessed Payment Verification System (PVS) Match reports in CalWIN STANISLAUS COUNTY REFUSES TO OBEY STATE LAW AND CAUSES OVERPAYMENTS – During July 2013, CDSS revealed that Stanislaus failed to stop overpayments known to the county. CDSS reviewed 40 cases of potential overpay- ment information in the possession of Stanislaus County of which 19 cases were processed timely. That is a 52% viola- tion of the law mandating that the overpayment reports be processed within 45 days to avoid future overpayments. See MPP 20-006.421. CDSS also found that Stanislaus County is sitting on 2,224 cases with potential overpayments as far back as November 2006. VENTURA COUNTY REFUSES TO OBEY STATE LAW AND CAUSES OVERPAYMENTS – During July 2013, CDSS revealed that Ventura County failed to stop overpayments known to the county. CDSS reviewed 38 cases of poten- tial overpayment information in the possession of Ventura County of which only 10 cases were processed timely. That is a 74% violation of the law mandating that the overpayment reports be processed within 45 days to avoid future overpay- ments. See MPP 20-006.421. COUNTIES PROMULGATE UNDERGROUND RULE DURING CLOSED DOOR MEETING At the September 12, 2013 closed door meeting, counties promulgated a new underground rule relating to the exemp- tion of a parent or other relative who has primary respon- sibility for personally providing care to one child from birth to 23 months as codified in Welfare and Institutions Code 11320.3(b)(6)(A)(iv). This section provides: The following individuals shall not be required to participate for so long as the condition continues to exist: Effective Jan- uary 1, 2013, the parent or other relative has primary respon- sibility for personally providing care to one child from birth to 23 months, inclusive. The exemption provided for under this clause shall be available in addition to any other exemption provided for under this subparagraph. An individual may be exempt only once under this clause. The counties declared this exemption to be a once-in-a-life- time exemption regardless of the number of months actually used. Counties ruled that the exemption cannot be repeat- ed, even when there is a break in-aid, including Sanctions and Discontinuances and the child is still under 23 months of age. In a two-parent assistance unit, the parent who has never been granted the exemption, may receive it. Some at- tendees of the meeting may have thought that it only applied to recipients and not applicants. CDSS, which is the single state agency, has failed to ad- dress this issue head on triggering the promulgation of an underground rule by the CDSS’ agents. There is nothing in this statute that states once-in-a-life exemption. If the Leg- islature wanted to impose a once-in-lifetime exemption, they CCWRO Welfare News November 18, 2013 #2013-15- Page 2 would have done so just as the Legislature limited home- less assistance to once-in-a-lifetime. In this case what the Legislature said is that the young child exemption would only apply when a recipient requests the exemption once. When that parent is terminated from CalWORKs, and he or she reapplies, the county must determine if there are any exemptions that apply to the applicant before the applicant is found to be a mandatory participant that includes the young child exemption . FINAL REPORT FOR THE CalWORKS 2012-2013 ACTUAL USAGE OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING ALLOCATION BY COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS During 2012-2013 California coun- ties were allocated $2.5 billion to op- erate California’s welfare system. Counties had to return in excess of $374 million to the State since the funds were not used to provide services. Counties receive a single allocation for administrative and services costs of the public social services safety net. Counties are accorded total flexibility of how to spend the money. The consumers of the program have no voice in how the money is spent. See Chart #1 for specifics. CHART #1 Items County Single Allocation County Single Allocation Not Spent Employment Services $786,272,000 $70,480,998 Food Stamps\/CalFresh $532,628,000 $76,743,910 CalWORKs Eligilibity $617,598,000 $49,847,126 WtW Mental Health $ 76,907,508 $15,698,024 WtW Substance Abuse $ 50,656,492 $15,052,907 Stage 1 & 2 Childcare $432,203,000 $143,427,591 CalLearn $ 23,830,000 $ 3,089,826 Total $2,520,095,000 $374,340,382 Monthly & Annual Cost for Per WtW Participant The Governor’s budget revealed that the average Cal- WORKs family received about $463 a month in CalWORKs. The Governor’s budget does not provide any information as to the actual cost for requiring the same family to partici- pate in Welfare-to-Work. How Much CalWORKs Money is Used for WtW Compared Payments to Impoverished Families of California with Needy Children? The Governor’s budget also revealed that it costs Califor- nia about $403,622 per child per month for childcare ser- vices. The budget allocated $1068,022 million for WtW, that include money for mental health and substance abuse treatment. This means that counties spent about $1671 a month on each WtW participant or $20,052 annually for WtW services while only spending $463 per month or $5,556 annually for CalWORKs benefits. Chart # 2 – The Monthly and Annual Costs for Employment Services (WtW) v. Family Assistance Payments (CalWORKs) Monthly costs Annual Costs WtW Costs $1,671 $20,052 CalWORKs Grant Costs $ 463 $ 5,556 ”

” 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 4 Equal Justice? The HHS Office of Inspector General released Report A-01-12-02500 finding that the State of Pennsylvania’s welfare office unlaw- fully claimed $1.3 million in IV-E training funds. That is a $1.3 million fraud committed by Pennsylvania’s welfare officials. Did anyone go to jail? No. In fact, the report recommended that the agency return the stolen money. We wonder what the recommenda- tion would have been if the perpetrator was a poor welfare mom- lock her up and throw away the key. 4 States Carry Over TANF Money While Re- ducing Benefits. During federal fiscal (FY) year 2011, States carried over $4 billion to FY 2012 while reducing TANF grant amounts. Meanwhile, throughout many states, thousands of children experienced gov- ernment child abuse because of inhumane low wel- fare grants and barbaric, punitive full-family sanctions. 4 States Fleece the TANF Program. During FY 2011, only 36%, or $11.1 billion of the Federal TANF and State-TANF MOE money, was used for assis- tance . Assistance includes expenditures for TANF means-tested families which also include administrative expenses. The remainder of the total $30.6 billion was used for non-assistance purposes. Low utilization of TANF monies by states in Table #1 below reveal that TANF is a program for States to fleece poor families. How States Used TANF Money TANF Money Total TANF Percentage Total TANF Funds Used for TANF Used for Non- Federal & State of TANF During FY 2011 Eligible Persons Assistance Funds Available Funds Used Assistance for FY 2011 for poor families U.S. TOTAL $ 11,131,407,676 $19,492,710,638 $ 30,624,118,314 36% ARKANSAS $ 15,706,228 $ 170,887,018 $ 186,593,246 8% ILLINOIS $ 110,592,904 $ 1,200,457,743 $ 1,311,050,647 8% NORTH CAROLINA $ 75,160,984 $ 553,496,919 $ 628,657,903 12% MICHIGAN $ 193,973,371 $ 1,182,656,360 $ 1,376,629,731 14% GEORGIA $ 85,820,475 $ 475,682,292 $ 561,502,767 15% SOUTH CAROLINA $ 39,258,511 $ 198,230,175 $ 237,488,686 17% IDAHO $ 4,734,754 $ 21,153,310 $ 25,888,064 18% MARYLAND $ 88,468,836 $ 366,095,921 $ 454,564,757 19% TEXAS $ 158,860,696 $ 651,633,512 $ 810,494,208 20% CONNECTICUT $ 98,168,216 $ 384,401,940 $ 482,570,156 20% In December 2012, FNS released the recent national food stamp participation rates. California continues to lead the participation rates from the bottom. Although DSS and counties have made efforts to improve participation, food insecurity is rampant in California as only 55% of the households eligible for food stamps are ac- tually participating in the food stamp program. The fact that SSI recipients are not eligible for food stamps is a factor in this low rate, but it is not the primary factor. The primary factor for low participation rates are such major barriers as unnecessary verification requirements and procedural requirements . California is unique in that it is administered by 58 dif- ferent counties who do what they want. There is no real uniformity for verification and procedural requirements in California. Counties justify inconsistencies by their busi- ness practice . Yes, county flexibility may be desirable if it produces results. However, a 45% non-participation rate is clearly failed results . California leads the nation in the lowest participation rates in food stamps. January 8, 2013 Issue #2013-01 Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services TABLE #1 In Brief CCWRO Welfare News January 8, 2013 #2013-01 After several decades of this consistent county failure it is time for the single state agency to take steps to combat non-participation in the Food Stamp Porgram. The problem starts with the way food stamp expedited services is administered in California for households in urgent need of food. Verification for expedited services is very limited only identity has to be verified. All other verification can be postponed for 30 days. Identity can be verified by getting the applicants’ social security number and G verify the applicant for expedited service food stamp benefits. How does G verify work? When the county receives the applicants’ social security number (SSN) on the ap- plication for benefits, the county inputs that number into their computer system and the computer verifies that this SSN belongs to the person with the name on the appli- cation. If the applicant has been on aid previously, then their identity can be verified within minutes. If they have not been on aid previously, then the identity will be veri- fied the next working day. A county worker viewing of a SSN card is not necessary and requesting a copy of the SSN card is the solicitation of unnecessary verification that causes low food stamp participation rates. While some counties have same day filing, they do not have the same day issuance to the extent permitted by federal law. Most counties insist on verification in addi- tion to identity and refuse to G verify identity through the social security number. G verification of identity should be the preferred method of verification of iden- tity. It saves time in that workers do not have to take the identification document from the applicant, copy or scan it and then return the document to the applicant. This is all time wasted that can be used to process more cases effectively and more efficiently by simply G verifying the identity of the applicant if possible. Many counties prefer to verify identity through col- lateral contact in lieu of G verification or simply ask the applicant to come back when they documen- tary evidence. And thus, the barriers to become eli- gible for food stamps starts from day one. There are other verification efficiencies that DSS can have counties use, such as using the worker num- ber income verification to verify income in lieu of asking the applicant to produce check stubs that need to be copies or scanned. Finally, the federal regulations provide many state options. Frequently, California opts for options that erect barriers to participation. One solution is that DSS perform a comprehensive assessment of the regulations and its policies to de- termine its impact on participation in the food stamp program. This is something that DSS has never done. How does G verify work? When the coun- ty receives the applicants’ social security number (SSN) on the application for bene- fits, the county inputs that number into their computer system and the computer verifies that this SSN belongs to the person with the name on the application. If the applicant has been on aid previously, then their identity can be verified within minutes. If they have not been on aid previously, then the iden- tity will be verified the next working day. One solution is that DSS perform a comprehensive assessment of the regulations and its policies to de- termine its impact on participation in the food stamp program. This is something that DSS has never done. Con’t from Page 1 ”

” 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 December 12, 2013 Issue #2013-16 2013 The Good and the Bad The Good 4The Legislature increased CalWORKs grants for the first time since state fiscal year 2004-2005. The 5% in- crease will go into effect March 1, 2014. 4CalWORKs recipients will see an increase in the auto- mobile property limits. The new automobile limit is $9,500. 4The Legislature enacted a provision for a standardized assessment tool and process for new welfare-to-work WtW recipients. Also enacted is family stabilization which authorizes counties to provide money or resources to help recipients overcome destabilizing problems before the recipients are forced to participate in the WtW program. The Legislature also authorized a program for subsidized employment in counties that want to do it. The program is designed with maximum county flexibility and minimal ben- eficiary, participant, recipients flexibility. We do not antici- pate any significant improvement in the lives of CalWORKs recipients because of these new WtW changes. Counties received $47.7 million as a block grant giving them maxi- mum flexibility of how to use the money and no beneficiary\/ participant\/recipient involvement at the county level. 4Effective January 1st, 2014 county workers, not a ro- bocaller, must contact a family before stopping their Cal- WORKs benefits. The worker must document in the case file that the contact was attempted in order to have a valid termination of benefits for failure to submit the SAR-7 or complete the annual recertification. After January 1st, when a person comes to legal services because their benefits were stopped for no SAR 7 or for failing to complete the CalWORKs recertification process check to see if the per- son lost some benefits upon reapplication. The lost benefits must be restored if there is no evidence in the case file that the contact was attempted by the county. 4Also effective January 1st, 2014 CalWORKs and Cal- Fresh recipients do not have to report a change in address as a condition of eligibility. There is no requirement that the CalWORKs or CalFresh family be a resident of a certain county as long as they live in California. A number of coun- ties have launched criminal prosecutions against welfare par- ents for failure to report a change in address even though they were otherwise eligible for benefits. The new statute Section 11265.3(a)(2) states: The household address has changed. The act of failing to report an address change shall not, in itself, result in a reduc- tion in aid or termination of benefits. 4During 2013 CalWORKs and CalFresh recipients creat- ed over 195,000 jobs in California. Recipients are not takers we are job creators . Unlike corporations who allege to be job creators we do not ship our jobs to China. The jobs that we create are jobs that stay in California. 4During 2013 the CalWORKs program assisted over 1 million children with families. In as much as that assistance was meager, it was better than nothing. 4During 2013 the State Department of Social Services and the California Human Services Departments provided food assistance to over 4 million Californians. The Bad There were no cuts, but the Governor was able to fleece the CalWORKs program by an additional 31% over the 2012-2013 amount. In 2012-2013 the Governor extracted $1,153,301,000 from CalWORKs families. This year he proudly extracted $1,654,806,000 from the mouths of Cal- WORKs kids just so he can have a surplus. He never in- formed Californians of the involuntary contribution that Cal- WORKs families made to his budget. Table # 1 shows the history of involuntary contributions made by CalWORKs re- cipients to the California State general fund over the years. SB 1041 became effective repealing the exemptions of fami- lies with children under 2. CCWRO predicted that this would result in increased sanctions as that is the primary purpose of the California Welfare-to-Work program notwithstanding the propaganda promoted by the proponents of the program. As evidenced on page 2 in the Table #2 the sanction rates went up. NOTE: The law provides that only participants can be sanc- tioned. Proponents of the programs would prefer that we use the number of enrollees (which includes individuals who are not subject to a sanction) so that the sanction rate is lower. CCWRO refuses to play that game. During 2013 CalWORKs and CalFresh re- cipients created over 195,000 jobs in Califor- nia. Welfare recipients are not takers they are the job creators of the 21st century. In 2012-2013 the Governor extracted $1,153,301,000 from CalWORKs families. This year he proudly extracted $1,654,806,000 from the mouths of CalWORKs kids just so he can have a surplus. CCWRO Welfare News December 12, 2013 #2013-16- Page 2 Counties Received $90 Million to Reduce Sanctions Every Year- What Is the Outcome? Did Sanctions Go Down? WtW sanctions are a problem. In response, in 2006, the California State Legislature gave counties an additional $90 million. Research reveals that most sanctions are a result of lack of supportive services and county failure to identify good cause before imposing the sanction. Historically about 50% of the persons participating in the WtW program do not received transportation. The law mandates that transpor- tation shall be provided when needed. There is no county option. But counties do not like helping WtW participants with transportation. The comment we have heard from counties is that we don’t get money for transportation from our home to work why should WtW participants get it. Of course county workers do not receive $463 per month for a Activity October, 2012 October 2013 Number of Unduplicated Par- ticipants 117,112 117,794 Number of Unduplicated Par- ticipants Being Sanctioned 49,580 51,442 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants being Sanctioned 42% 44% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction $ 6.2 million $ 6.4 million Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 3502 2665 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 3% 2% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicat- ed Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs $26,921 $46,017 Number of Participants Be- ing Paid Transportation by the County 67,211 68,227 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During September 2012 57% 58& Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Coun- ties Not Receiving Transporta- tion @ $100 Per Participant $4,956,700 Welfare-to-Work October 2013 Outcome Report CalWORKs Recipient INVOL- UNTARY Contribution to the California State General Fund FY 1998-99 $708,502,000 FY 1999-00 $745,249,000 FY 2000-01 $1,021,913,000 FY 2001-02 $1,126,647,000 FY 2002-03 $1,088,940,000 FY 2003-04 $1,163,238,000 FY 2004-05 $1,087,321,000 FY 2005-06 $1,299,448,000 FY 2006-07 $1,184,134,000 FY 2007-08 $1,745,291,000 FY 2008-09 $1,268,997,000 FY 2009-10 $1,262,046,000 FY 2010-11 $1,234,159,808 FY 2011-12 $1,222,447,450 FY 2012-13 $1,153,301,000 FY 2013-14 $1,654,806,000 Source: http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/ cdssweb\/entres\/localassis- tanceest\/Jan13\/AuxiliaryTables. pdfPage 10 TABLE # 2 TABLE # 1 family of three. So what did the $90 million achieve? In October 2006 there was a 33% sanction rate. In October of 2013 the sanction rate is 44%. Yet every year the State Legislature blindly appro- priates $90 million to counties to reduce the sanction rate when the sanction rate is climb- ing through the roof. When that parent is terminated from CalWORKs, and he or she reapplies, the county must determine if there are any exemptions that apply to the applicant before the applicant is found to be a mandatory participant that includes the young child exemption . ”