Search Demo

  1. Newsletters
  2. »
  3. 2015

Folder 2015

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-01

2901 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150. Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org January 30, 2015 Issue #2015-01 In Brief On December 18, 2014 California notified the Federal Department of Health and Human Services that California would not be submitting a request for TANF caseload reduction credit because California has concluded that it could not earn a caseload de- duction. DSS reviewed Madera County’s Work Participa- tion Rate (WPR) data and DSS found 30 cases that were using earnings statements that cover more than one month. The County also failed to verify hours; projected hours worked incorrectly and casefiles had missing documentation to support hours reported. This is a 25% error rate for Madera. Yuba County WPR data verification revealed a 30% error rate. The error rate included cases in which job search hours were not verifiable or only partially verifiable and cases in which the County reported that the WPR had been met but had not been met. The SB 1041 Implementation Field report of Sep- tember 2013 for Orange County assert that there were 5,102 WtW enrollees and 7,610 mandatory participants. An enrollee is defined as a person who is referred to appraisal. A participant is one who either completes or fails to complete appraisal and subsequent WtW steps of the WtW maze. The re- port is silent on why only 1,375 participants of the 4,516 unduplicated participants received transpor- tation. In other words, 77% of the participants did not receive transportation. We wonder if 77% of Orange County Welfare Department employees or 77% of the DSS staff do not submit travel claims when they travel and are entitled to transportation reimbursement. It should also be noted that county and state employees do not live on an average fixed income that is equal to 21% of the supplemental poverty level. The Yolo County SB 1041 Implementation Field report shows that there are 712 enrollees and 1,028 participants. In March 2014 there were 565 undu- plicated participants in rural Yolo County but only 44 participants received transportation. Over 90% failed to receive transportation reimbursements. GOVERNOR’S 2015-2016 STATE BUDGET The Governor unveiled his 2015-2016 state budget on January 9, 2015. There were no major surprises in the proposed budget. Just like last year’s budget, the Governor proposes to transfer $1.5 billion from the CalWORKs budget to the General Fund.The TANF program is funded with $3.7 billion federal block grant and the State of California puts up about a $3 billion match to be eligible for the $3.7 billion block grant. In 2014-2015 only $5.1 billion was spent on CalWORKs impoverished families with ba- bies and minor children enduring the ravages of unprec- edented high poverty. For this fiscal year, the CalWORKs caseload is estimated to be about 533,000 cases. The administration touts the 10% increase in grants done last two years as addressing the deep poverty of Cal- WORKs children in 2015-2016. With the 10% grant increase, the average CalWORKs grant for a family of three effective April 1, 2015 will be $508 a month, that is approximately 31% of the federal poverty level and 21% of the supplemental poverty level. This is equal to what CalWORKs families received in 1982. State of the CalWORKs Program in 2015 2015-2016 CalWORKs Caseload – 533,000 cases 30% of the Total CalWORKs Caseload 160,000 cases with a grant for their family size CalWORKs grant @ 34% of Federal Poverty Level CalWORKs grant @ 23% of the Supplemental Poverty level 70% of the Total CalWORKs Caseload 373,000 cases with penal- ties, sanctions, MFG children, timing out due to 24\/48 month clock and other penalties & sanctions. CalWORKs grant @ 27% of Federal Poverty Level CalWORKs grant @ 19% of the Supplemental Poverty level Con’t on Page 2 CCWRO Welfare News January 30, 2015 # 2015-01- page 2 Con’t from Page 1 The average CalWORKs grant for a family of three (3) with the 5% increase in CalWORKs grant effec- tive April 1, 2014 authorized in last year’s budget resulted in an average monthly CalWORKs grant of $508. This average grant is equal to 31% of FLP and 21% of the SPL which is the amount CalWORKs (AFDC) recipients received in 1983 in California. This year’s budget did not allocate any funds for the SSI and CalWORKs COLA, the two primary safety net programs for California’s families. The budget did authorize other cost-of-living adjustments (CO- LAs) reflected below. 6100-119-0001 Educational Services for Foster Care Youth – $241,000 6100-119-150 American Indian Early Childhood Education – $9,000 6100-119-151 American Indian Early Education Centers – $64,000 6100-161-001 Special Education Programs for Individuals with Exceptional Needs $57,668,000 6100-161-001 – Early Education Programs for In- dividuals with Exceptional Needs $1,388,000 6100-203-0890 Child Nutrition Programs – $5,562,000 CalWORK COLA – $00.00 SSI COLA – $00.00 Where would the money come from to cover the cost of the CalWORKs COLA? The CalWORKs program. The governor proposes to take $1.5 billion from CalWORKs as a contribution to the General Funds. Why not use that for the California children endruing the highest poevrty rates in America? LEADER MODIFIES CW2200 Los Angeles County asked CDSS if they could add a request for WtW verification to the CW 2200. DPSS stated that participants are required to provide employ- ment schedules, community services schedules, men- tal health and substance abuse appointment schedules, education plans for vocational education and training programs, employment verification, supportive ser- vices receipts fund spent\/used appropriately, atten- dance and progress reports, CW 61, family stabilization proof of homelessness, excused absence verification, good cause verification, documentation to stop non- compliance\/sanction process and proof of job search. DSS informed DPSS that they can use the CW 2200 for WtW verification, but they must add an explanation of types of acceptable verification. Los Angeles County did not inform DSS that they also added the word op- tional for to the last page of the CW 2200. Many coun- ties have been unlawfully withholding the last page of CW 2200 form from applicants and recipients. Thus, applicants and recipients who need assistance with get- ting verification are not able to request such assistance from the county. The Gandhi Principles of Service and CalWORKs A customer is the most important visitor on our premises; he or she is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him or her. He or she is not an outsider in our business. He or she is a part of it. We are not doing him or her a favor by serv- ing. He or she is doing us a favor by giving us the opportunity to do so . . Mahatma Gandhi. This is the model that Monterey County is pro- moting for serving the beneficiaries of programs administered by the Monterey County Depart- ment of Human Services. It sounds great. We wonder if any person who works for the county who does not adhere to this wonderful stan- dard is allowed to continue to work? Of the 1,222 unduplicated participants in WtW, would a WtW worker who does not issue transporta- tion to 537 WtW participants be adhering to the Gandhi principles? TOTAL CalWORKS MONEY AVAILABLE $6.7 B I L L I O N AMOUNT TO BE TAKEN FROM CalWORKs 1.5 billion TOTAL CalWORKS TO BE USED FOR CalWORKS $5.1 billion Con’t on Page 3 CCWRO Welfare News January 30, 2015 #2015-01 – Page 3 It is great to put these wonderful words out there, but there must be a cultur- al change. For example. any case in which no transportation reimburse- ment is issued should be reviewed by the Director. Why is a family living on 21% of the supplemental poverty rate cash income not receiving money for transportation that he or she is clearly entitled to under the law? We must admit that it is indeed refresh- ing to see these fine words on emails floating around the State of Califor- nia and the County of Monterey and we applaud the Director of Monterey County, Elliot Richardson it. Covered California State Hearings Data At a recent CDSS State Hearing Division meeting with ad- vocates the following data was shared regarding Me- di-Cal and Covered California state hearings. The good news is that about 75% hearing requests were being granted. The bad news is that there are many problems in the program as evidenced with the hearing requests and the rate of grants. Although the Covered California staff are authorized to resolve cases before the hearings, staff are not able to spot all of the errors and take corrective action before it gets to the Administrative Law Judge. There is also some bad news at the expedited hearing arena. It appears that 80% of the expedited hearings are denied. We do not have any evidence of the types of expedited hearings filed the types that are granted and those that are denied. CDSS State Hearing Division ACA Hearings Data 10-13-14 through 12-14-14 Cov- ered Califor- nia Dual Elig. MAGI Medi- Cal TOTAL Hearings Filed 4,916 1,623 792 7,331 Cases Heard 2,782 883 513 4,178 Withdrawals 331 116 91 538 Conditional Withdrawals 410 109 128 647 VCW 15 0 2 17 Granted Decision 670 139 54 863 Denied Decision 261 12 12 310 Released Decisions Grant in Part 98 61 6 165 Grant 670 139 54 863 Dismissals 512 95 81 688 Denials 261 37 12 310 Expedited Hearings Approved 270 91 31 392 Denied 863 279 55 1197 Con’t from Page 2 ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-02

3431 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org March 9, 2015 Issue #2015-02 In Brief Transportation: At the November 2013 CWDA Self-Sufficiency Meeting, participants discussed the failure to provide transportation services to over 45% of the WtW unduplicated participants. The meeting attendants discussed the possibility that counties are not correctly reporting Welfare to Work transporta- tion reimbursements. Fresno, Placer, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Lassen counties agreed to look and determine why WtW cases are not receiving transportation. There is no timeline for this effort. ADVOCACY ACTION POINTER – If your clients are not receiving transportation reimbursements for Welfare to Work activities, please contact CCWRO for assistance. Transportation payment rates: Counties have low transportation payment rates. San Luis Obis- po pays17\u00a2 a mile; San Joaquin pays 26.3\u00a2 a mile; and San Bernardino pays 37.4\u00a2 a mile. Meanwhile, these counties pay county employees 56\u00a2 a mile. SB 1041 Evaluation: Lois Davis (Rand) and Gab- by Fain of American Institute of Research (AIR) gave an evaluation overview to the county welfare director representatives. AIR will work with 6 counties, Los Angeles, Riverside, Stanislaus, Sacra- mento, Alameda and Fresno, to conduct site visits and in- depth interviews with counties. Rand and AIR will conduct a survey of the imple- mentation status of the WtW implementation of SB 1041’s key components, organization and adminis- tration changes. Feedback on barriers are planned for late March 2015. The County CalWORKs Di- rector and\/or Agency Director will be the contacts for the survey. There are no plans to involve the ben- eficiary community in this endeavor at this time. Personnel Changes Linda Patterson, formerly in charge of California Cal- Fresh Division of CDSS, is the Director of Human Ser- vices in Placer County. Linda Patterson worked for the State Health and Human Services Agency under the Schwarzenegger Administration. Greta Wallace, Deputy Director for DSS Legal Affairs retired in December 2014. Greta worked for DSS in le- gal affairs, she was then the Director of the Department of Child Support Services. DSS is looking for a new Deputy Director for Legal Affairs. Claudia Menjivar of Western Center on Law and Pov- erty will move to the Los Angeles Foundation of Legal Assistance this coming March. Welcome to the services side of our community and keep up the impact work. Ms. McConnell has two children aged 4 and 5. She works part-time 20 hours a week, receives minimum wage, but meets the federal work participation rates for the Cali- fornia CalWORKs program. Ms. McConnell does not need childcare because she works when her children are in Headstart. Now that Ms. McConnell is working, her family is worse off financially than they were when she was working. She works 20 hours a week, receiving a gross income of $774\/ month. Her take home pay is $624, she pays $550 a month for rent. When she started earning $624 a month, her CalWorks grant decreased from $670 to $395 a month and CalFresh decreased from $494 to $391. Be- tween her wages and benefits she now receives $1,410 a month. Prior to starting the part-time job, between Cal- WORKs and CalFresh, Ms. McConnell received a total spendable income of $1,164 a month. Now, she must pay transportation costs at about $50 a week for gas and $100 a month for insurance. She gets no help from the county. She is part of the 45% of the CalWORKs WtW participants meeting the federal work requirements and not getting transportation. Con’t on Page 2 CalWORKs in Need of Work Incentive Reform CCWRO Welfare News March 9, 2015 # 2015-02- page 2 Con’t from Page 1 In addition, Ms. McConnell now pays for lunch costs and other work-related expenses. Today, the CalWORKs family loses when the parent works this has a real adverse impact on the develop- ment of children. It is sad that working means more child poverty in California in 2015. Although the old Aid to Families with Dependent Chil- dren (AFDC) program did not provide adequate dis- regards for working CalWORKs recipients, AFDC did allow working recipients to deduct their actual trans- portation costs and child care from the gross income before the income disregards were applied. This kept families on aid longer compared to the way earned income is treated today. The old system would have helped California meet their federal work participation rates (WPR) TODAY by keeping the families meeting the WPR on aid. TANF eliminated the transportation and childcare dis- regards for working recipients generally meeting the federal work participation rates and required them to ask the county welfare department for the transporta- tion and child care money. History shows that since TANF’s enactment, an aver- age of 50% of the unduplicated WtW participants have been fleeced out of their transportation money by Cali- fornia’s county welfare departments. Accessing child- care has also been a major barrier for impoverished families. In November 2014, Los Angeles County had 26,750 single parents participating in Welfare to Work ac- tivities, but only 15,809 received transportation. That means 10,941 did not receive transportation. Ironical- ly, 10, 709 of the 26,750 unduplicated participants were working in an unsubsidized job. We will not be sur- prised today, to find Los Angeles County CalWORKs recipients, who are working and meeting the federal work participation rates, being sanctioned and not re- ceiving the transportation payments of which they are legally entitled. What Needs to Be Done: No person should be work- ing and living on an income that is less that 100% of the poverty level. In order to achieve this, the current system has to be redesigned to allow a $600 deduc- tion from the gross income plus 60% of the remain- der should be disregarded. With this formula, a Cal- WORKs family of three, working 40 hours a week for minimum wage, would exit CalWORKs upon having earned income and CalFresh that is equal to 100% of the federal poverty level. Figure #1 reveals that, today, families who work exit CalWORKs when their net income plus food stamps is equal to 55% of the federal poverty level and 41% of the supplemental poverty level. County Welfare Department Abuse Report San Mateo County- RN 508074, a CalFresh case, was transferred from San Mateo County effective 9\/26\/2013. San Mateo County sent a CalFresh No- tice of Expiration of Certification to the household on 7\/18\/2014 informing the household that the cer- tification period was ending on 8\/31\/2014. There is no evidence that an appointment letter was mailed to the household; however, per case comments dated 8\/13\/2014, a face-to-face interview was scheduled verbally on 8\/14\/2014 at 9:00 a.m. Case comment dated 8\/25\/2014 confirmed that the household com- pleted its recertification interview on 8\/14\/2014. There is no evidence that any other information was pending. The CalWIN system took action on 8\/20\/2014, as part of its monthly update that occurs during the third or fourth week of the month, to discontinue the CalFresh case effective 8\/31\/2014 due to non-compliance with Redetermination process and for other eligibility re- quirements not met. However, at the time the action was taken by the system, the household was fully compliant with the redetermination process. Santa Cruz County – RN 508076 HH’s certification period ended on 8\/31\/2014, as evidenced by the Ap- proval Notice of Action dated 9\/4\/2013 and CalFresh Notice of Expiration of Certification (CF 377.2) dat- ed 7\/18\/2014. There is no evidence that an appoint- ment letter was sent to the household; however, per case comment dated 8\/5\/2014, an interview was con- ducted and Ms. Lopez was given a CalFresh Request for Information form requesting verifications by 8\/15\/2014. CalWIN system took action on 8\/5\/2014 as part of its review of all unsuppressed termination actions during the 1st week of the month, to discon- tinue the CalFresh case effective 8\/31\/2014 due to fail- ure to provide verification. Ms. Lopez submitted her verifications on 8\/20\/2014 and her CalFresh case was authorized on 9\/8\/2014 as evidenced by the approval notice dated 9\/9\/2014; no loss of benefits occurred. Con’t on Page 3 CCWRO Welfare News March 9 , 2015 #2015-02 – Page 3 Sacramento County – RN 509049 is a single, 18-year old female who had been deemed eligible for Expedited Service on 9\/02\/2014 and was approved for benefits on that date. At the time of certification, the participant was living at location A , Sacramento CA. Shortly after be- ing certified for benefits, the participant contacted the agency by telephone and reported that she had moved into her parent’s home at location B , Sacramento CA, effective 9\/16\/2014. The case was discontinued on 9\/24\/2014, but no case narration could be found to explain the reason for the discontinuance. State Quality Control (SQC) could find no evidence that a Notice of Action was ever generated or mailed to the participant informing her that benefits had been discontinued. SQC determined that Sacramento County did not properly document the reason for the change in eligibility and did not properly notify the participant of the negative action; SQC must cite an error. (MPP 63-300.5(j) and 63-504.26.) Siskiyou County – RN 503S12 is a single adult female who submitted an application via the electronic portal C4Yourself on 2\/18\/2014. The applicant completed the telephone interview on 2\/25\/2014. On 3\/07\/2014 the El- igibility Worker (EW) received the income verification for the last week of February and approved the applica- tion for prorated benefits of $74 for February. However, the EW used a statement from the employer to calculate projected income for the month of March. The informa- tion provided by the employer was inconsistent with the information provided by the participant with respect to the number of hours worked in a month. The EW dis- continued the case on 3\/07\/2014 for exceeding the gross income limit. SQC found insufficient documentation to determine that the participant was being paid bi-weekly in order to validate the EW’s income calculation as de- scribed in case narration. As such, it is possible that the income calculation by the EW was incorrect. SQC found that the county’s calculation method used to make the eligibility determination cannot be substanti- ated due to the inconsistencies between the statements from the participant and the employer; SQC must cite an error under MPP 63-300.5(j). A Notice of Action (NOA) for the discontinuance was mailed to the par- ticipant at the mailing address of record on the sampled action date of 3\/07\/2014. The NOA stated the effective date of the discontinuance was 2\/28\/2014, but this did not allow ten days between the date of the notice and the effective date of the discontinuance. This qualifies as an improper notification and SQC must cite an error. (MPP 63-504.252; 63-504.261) Con’t from Page 2 2015 CalWORKs & CalFresh Bills AB 233- Lopez – CalWORKs Child Care and Other Child Care Programs-This bill would provide for a 12 month child care certification period. AB 294- Lackey- Health & Human Services Program – Requires all Health & Human Services program state plans and waivers by placed on the front page of the applicable department web page. AB 371- Mullin-CalWORKs -This would repeal the 100-hour rule and simplify Cal-WORKs eligibility by eliminating the deprivation factor of eligibility. AB 433 – Chu- CalWORKs – This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to provide a grieving pe- riod and appropriate referrals to services when a Cal- WORKs recipient miscarries or when a child in the home of a CalWORKs recipient dies, without inter- ruption of services. AB 702- Maienschein – CalWORKs – This bill would delete the requirement that the 16 days of temporary homeless assistance be limited to 16 consecutive days and allow recipients to have a choice of when they can use it. AB 743 – Eggman – CalWORKs This bill would exempt veteran educational benefits as income for CalWORKs and require that the county adopt the satisfactory progress definition of the secondary educational institution that the participant is attend- ing. SB 23- Mitchell – CalWORKs – This bill would re- peal the Maximum Family Grant (MFG) rule. SB 297- McGuire – CalWORKs – This bill would modernize the California safety net programs applica- tion process by making the system more effective and efficient. SB 306- Hertzberg – CalWORKs – This bill would maximize participation in the CalFresh program to the extent permitted by federal law. SB 312- Pan – give the county the option to do elec- tronic application interviews. SB 521- Liu – This bill would require human counties to provide employment services to CalFresh recipi- ents for five (5) additional months; enhance CalFresh eligibility for students in employment and trainings courses and address CalFresh sanctions. – ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-03

2443 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150. Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org April 20, 2015 Issue #2015-04 In Brief The Department of Health Care Services is planning to visit 5 counties this year to talk with eligibility workers and supervisors about CalHEERS problems. They will be vis- iting Los Angeles County, 2 CalWIN counties and 2 C-IV counties. Child care providers are still being paid with 20th century checks, not by direct deposit or utilizing efficient 21st cen- tury payments methods. The claiming of the payments is also limited to paper submission in lieu of electronic sub- missions. This is one of the reasons for the unnecessary administrative expenditures that could be used to provide child care services. During fiscal year 2013-2014 counties re- fused to spend $140 million child care dollars allocated for WtW Stage 1 and 2 participants. Meanwhile, less than 30% of the partici- pants in California are receiving childcare. Families & children face immense barriers to childcare. The most fundamental way of assuring that child care is available to those required to participate in a WtW activity is to verify that adequate and safe childcare is actually available before forcing a parent to participate in a WtW activity. While the welfare department verifies ev- erything under the sun before benefits are granted or continued, they never verify if the child actually has childcare before forcing a CalWORKs parent to participate in a WtW activity. Parents have been known to leave their children home alone to avoid enduring the horrific WtW sanctions. Families with a WtW sanction are forced to live on a fixed income of 21% of the federal poverty level. To demonstrate the inconsistencies of child care services in California we looked at the percentage of unduplicated one-parent fami- lies participating a WtW activity and receiv- ing child care. In January of 2015 there were 87,958 participants. 43,609 participants were being sanctioned and only 20,691 received childcare. Figure # 1 reveals the number of unduplicated participants receiving child care during January of 2015 in the 19 largest coun- ties of California. Con’t on Page 2 CalWORKs Child Care Not Getting to Entitled Families 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% S ta ni sl au s S ac ra m en to C on ta s co st a S an D ie go M er ce d O ra ng e Tu la re Fr es no Lo s A ng el es S an ta C la ra A la m ed a S ol an o S an B er na rd in o M on te re y Ve nt ur a K er n S an F ra nc is co R iv er si de S an J ou qu in S ta te w id e According to the 2\/5\/15 Califor- nuia Welfare Didrectors Association (CWDA) childcare committee min- utes: TrustLine Automated Regis- tration Process (TARP) contract ex- pires 6\/30\/15 CDSS is looking for a replacement solution. CDSS has used the same contractor since 1998 without competitive bidding. The Re- quest for Proposal (RFP) went out about two years ago. CDSS only received one proposal. The bidder withdrew because they wanted the state to commit to a certain annual volume and the state couldn’t com- mit. Now there are no interested par- ties. This impacts all stages of Child Care. TrustLine Web-based Applica- tion (TWA) is the other TrustLine pro- cess available to counties. The Child Care Provider completes fingerprint- ing at an approved Live Scan site and the R&R agency enters the Provid- er’s application information into TWA; whereas, TARP Live Scan and data entry are done at the same location. CCLD asked the group who currently pays the rolling fee\/Department of Justice (DOJ)\/Federal Bureau of In- vestigation (FBI) portion of the fee? (Those fees are not charged to pro- viders who complete Live Scan at a TARP location.) Figure # 1 – Percentage of total participants not receiving child care County % Stanislaus 11% Sacramento 12% Contra Costa 13% San Diego 15% Merced 15% Orange 17% Tulare 17% Fresno 19% Los Angeles 22% Santa Clara 23% Alameda 24% Solano 24% San Bernardino 31% Monterey 31% Ventura 33% Kern 37% San Francisco 39% Riverside 42% San Joaquin 45% Statewide 24% CCWRO Welfare News April 20 2015 # 2015-04- page 2 Con’t from Page 1 Congressional Republicans have launched the 2015 at- tack on the poor. The plan, repackaged for 2015, block grants major anti-poverty programs like SNAP (Cal- Fresh in California), Medicaid (Medi-Cal in Califor- nia) and Housing Assistance programs similar to the TANF block grant. They also complain that the SNAP, Section 8 and Medicaid Programs do not require job search and workfare as a condition of receiving ben- efits like the TANF program. The enactment of these proposed changes would mean less assistance to the poor and more financial aid for the state and county bureaucracies. The idea that those who work shall eat was the foun- dation of the Soviet Union and its leader Vladimir Len- in. Now many in Congress have embraced the Soviet mentality, even after seeing the disastrous results of the philosophy. What does history reveal about block grants? The TANF program, signed into law by Bill Clinton, abol- ished the AFDC program that paid 70% of the money to families. Today, TANF only pays 30% of the avail- able funds to direct payments to families. If the Repub- lican Congress gets their way, the major anti-poverty programs would be diluted into a welfare program for state welfare bureaucrats. In 2012, the Brown Administration decided to join Ar- kansas and Idaho to limit CalWORKs to 24 months. The 24-month time clock could be extended at the county option if the family is afforded one of the limited extension and only if they can prove that (1) they can get a job in 6 months;(2) has encountered uni- gue labor market barriers; (3) they have applied for SSI and a hearing is scheduled. It would be rare for any person to have verification that he or she can get a job in six-months. California Democrats objected saying that many of the CalWORKs families are unstable and Congress Attacks the Poor Family Stabilization Program need services before the 24-month clock starts. In response, the Brown Administration and the Demo- crats agreed to establish a Family Stabilization Pro- gram (FSP) which is limited to six months. Operated entirely by the individual counties, the purpose of FSP is to stabilize the families before the 24-month clock starts. Each county will decide the methods, type of services and timeframes for FSP. Counties submit quarterly reports on the number of participants receiving FSP services. So far, the coun- ties with no FSP participants for October, November and December 2014 are Fresno, San Joaquin, Marin, Mariposa, Merced, Placer, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo and Sutter. In 2013, DSS issued an All County Letter stating that persons having domestic violence problems, mental health issues and suffering from homeless- ness must be sanctioned for failure to participate in the FSP. Last year, the Budget Trailer Bill included language that prohibited DSS from sanctioning par- ticipants who fail to participate in the FSP. In lieu of the sanction, the participant would be scheduled for regular participation, unless otherwise exempt from the WtW program. Family stabilization sounds nice and so did communism . But the inherent flaw of FSP is that families living on an income of 31% of the federal poverty level cannot be stabilized in six months. But after 24 months, 80% of the families would have to endure life at 21% of the federal pov- erty level according to the estimates presented to the State Legislature by DSS. February 2015 WtW Fatcs Annual Cost of WtW $2,266,360.000 ($2.2 billion) Unduplicated Participate 117,932 Sanctions 59,351 Jobs that Resulted in Termination of CalWORKs 3,951 Avarage Cost Per Job $47,801 ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-04

2618 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150. Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org May 15, 2015 Issue #2015-04 News Brief Con’t on Page 2 TANF Reauthorization Proposal Benefits Poor Families4The 296X (CalFresh Ex- pedited Service quarterly re- ports) for October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 shows that 1,138 CalFresh households in Los Angeles County did not receive expe- dited service within 7 days, in violation of federal law. The report also reveals that Los Angeles County did not cause any delays, in fact, accord- ing to the 296X, CalFresh ap- plicants caused the delays in every case. Statewide, 4,336 household received CalFresh expedited services after 7 days with 2,440 client-caused de- lays and 1,896 county-caused delays. 4The California Welfare Di- rectors Association (CWDA) CalWORKs Action Response Team known as CAT sug- gested that all applicants and recipients complete the Year\/ Make\/Model and Vehicle License Number sections of the CW 80 to ensure that all applicants answer these ques- tions, even if the vehicle is exempt. The CAT proposal violates MPP 40-105.12 that states: It is the responsibil- ity of all who are concerned with the administration of aid to do so with courtesy, con- sideration, and respect toward applicants and recipients and without attempting to elicit any unnecessary informa- tion. (Our emphasis added) In 1996, Bill Clinton signed legislation that eliminated the AFDC program and lim- ited food stamps to adults without children to a 3-month period every three years. This was one of the most punitive and barbaric changes in law that has contributed to the deep income divide in America today. The legislation also provided that the employment programs for poor families be ad- ministered by welfare departments instead of having each state’s jobs department work with poor families to obtain employment. This would be like a carpenter per- forming heart surgery. But when it came to finding poor families jobs it was decided to use welfare departments that are not in the employment business. Under AFDC, 70% of the money was used for direct payments to families. Under TANF, only 30% of the money is used for direct payments to families. Many states decided the way they would get more money for the state bureaucracies was to impose full-family sanctions on families. In essence, the TANF program allows states to punish children for what their parents do. This is clearly government child abuse. PROPOSED TANF REAUTHORIZATION PLAN FOR THE IMPOVERISHED FAMILIES AND CHILDREN OF AMERICA If Congress cares about poor children and families then they should reauthorize TANF as follows: 1. States must use 70% of the TANF block grant and State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for direct payments to eligible families with children; 2. 20% of the block grant and MOE shall be transferred to the state jobs\/employ- ment\/labor department to provide employment services to eligible families with children over 3 years old. Parents with a child under 3 can opt to voluntarily partici- pate in the employment program. 3. 10% of the funds shall be used by States for TANF program administration. 4. No state shall take away benefits from children solely because of the failure of the parent to cooperate without good cause in an employment program. Good cause shall include, but shall not be limited to, lack of childcare or transportation. 5. Any payments to families funds not used by September 30th shall be returned to the federal government to be used to pay down the National Debt. 6. TANF recipient shall be entitled to receive childcare through the Child Care Block Grant (CCBG) program. Any funds left over CCBG program can be used to provide childcare to others eligible for CCBG benefits. CCWRO Welfare News May 15, 2015 # 2015-04- page 2 Con’t from Page 1 Counties Violate State Law SB 1041 Family Stabilization The law below mandates that counties provide family stabilization services to Welfare-to-Work participants. These services shall in- clude, but shall not be limited to housing, mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence. Welfare & Institutions Code Section 11325.24 provides: 11325.24. (a) If, in the course of appraisal pursuant to Section 11325.2 or at any point during an individual’s participation in wel- fare-to-work activities in accordance with paragraph (1) of subdivi- sion (a) of Section 11322.85, it is determined that a recipient meets the criteria described in subdivision (b), the recipient shall be eli- gible to participate in family stabilization. (b) (1) A recipient shall be eligible to participate in family stabili- zation if the county determines that his or her family is experiencing an identified situation or crisis that is destabilizing the family and would interfere with participation in welfare-to-work activities and services. (2) A situation or a crisis that is destabilizing the family in accor- dance with paragraph (1) may include, but shall not be limited to: (A) Homelessness or imminent risk of homelessness. (B) A lack of safety due to domestic violence. (C) Untreated or undertreated be- havioral needs, including mental health or substance abuse-related needs. (c) Family stabilization shall include intensive case management and services designed to support the family in overcoming the situa- tion or crisis, which may include, but are not limited to, welfare-to- work activities. Counties were required to submit a county plan to DSS for this pro- gram but the law did not require those plans to be approved by the Department of Social Services. Why would lawmakers ask the De- partment to do their job? To be honest it was the Department of Social Services that drafted the language that did not require that they approve the plans. All they wanted was a plan. Family stabilization is supposed to provide assistance with (1) homelessness; (2) mental health; (3) substance abuse; (4) domestic violence and (5) case management services. Each county submitted a plan. The plans are publicly available on the web page of the DSS. Del Norte County plan violates W&IC 11325.24 and limit family stabilization program (FSP) to addressing homelessness only. Sacramento County plan violates W&IC 11325.24 and limit fam- ily stabilization program (FSP) to addressing homelessness and do- mestic violence only. San Diego County plan violate W&IC 11325.24 and limit family stabilization program (FSP) to addressing homelessness only. Amador, Butte and Calaveras county plans violate W&IC 11325.24 and limit family stabilization program (FSP) by limiting only homelessness in their county plan. Lassen County did not submit a family stabilization plan at all. In February 2015, Lassen County had 14 families being sanctioned. Not one of the 14 families had access to stabilization services. DSS is taking no action against these counties breaking the law to date. Why would CAT violate this provision? If verification of a vehicle, even when exempt, is required and the ap- plicant and recipient fails to provide that verification, the county will deny the application or terminate on- going benefits. When the applicant or recipients does provide the Year\/Make\/Model and Vehicle License Number the county can then request additional infor- mation such as the vehicle’s value. 4OCAT NEWS: The On-line CalWORKs Appraisal Tool which was to be operational when the 24-month clock started in January of 2013, is still under construc- tion. 4Counties wonder if they can sanction a WtW par- ticipant for not signing the privacy form (WtW 47). Counties agree that participants shall not be sanctioned for not signing the WtW 47, but does that mean that participants will not be sanctioned for failure to co- operate? DSS should revise the form by deleting the signature requirement, which is not required by law or regulations and can result in unnecessary sanctions. 4The CWDA-CAT meeting minutes reveal that counties will only do an assessment of a learning dis- ability for English-speaking clients only. This is a violation of the civil rights of non-English speaking CalWORKs recipients. Ask your county if they are violating the civil rights of non-English speakers by refusing to conduct assessment of a learning disability. The state law mandating a learning disability review does not limit it to English speakers. California’s Con- stitution does not give the county or a county group the right to be lawmakers. 4WINS, a program designed to give working Cal- Fresh households with children, $20 a month to keep them in the TANF caseload without giving them Cal- WORKs benefits, has made a difference. DSS is hop- ing that WINS will help California avoid federal work participation sanctions for a number of years sanc- tions that can add up to several hundreds of millions of dollars. WINS payments are now going out between the 20th and 24th of the month so counties can verify the income before issuing the $20 payment. How Much Does The Governor’s Proposed Budget for 2015-2016 Take Away from California’s Impoverished Families with Children Enduring the Highest Rate of Child Poverty in the Nation? $1.8 Billion ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-05

2697 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150. Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org June 22, 2015 Issue #2015-05 2015-16 State Budget Outcome – California’s Economic Child Abuse of CalWORKs Children Gets Worse The 2015-2016 State Budget completely rejected any pro- posal to address the state of California’s CalWORKs poor children living in deep poverty. Meanwhile, the Governor and Legislature sit leisurely on a surplus of over $4 billion. According to the Anne Casey Foundation, California leads the nation in child poverty. California’s uncaring response to its deep child poverty problem is reflected in the new budget. The State Budget does contain a $350 million appropria- tion for a State Earned Income Tax Credit. However, very few of those dollars will reach families with children living in deep poverty who cannot find jobs. This money should have first been used to relieve the victims of the Maximum Family Grant (MFG) policy which would have cost less than $200 million. What did Democratic legislative leaders give up during their negotiations with the Governor? 4 Repeal of Maximum Family Grant (MFG)-California has over 100,000 children who are not receiving cash aid because they were born while their mothers were on wel- fare. 4A one-year suspension of the 24-month time clock- While the federal law allows for 60-months, Califor- nia has limited CalWORKs to 24-months. 21 red states have 60-month time limits and only two other states have 24-month time limits, Arkansas and Idaho. The Adminis- tration publicly opposed the suspension of the 24-month proposal by alleging that it would impede California’s abil- ity to meet the federal work participation rates (FWPR). This is an irrational argument. After 24 months, children would continue to receive Cal- WORKs benefits assuring they do not end up in foster care. California pays $2,200 a month, per child in foster care, while CalWORKs costs $200 a month per child. Af- ter 24-months the family would still be in the denominator used to calculate the FWPRs. Meanwhile, the parent has no chance of meeting the federal work participation rates because he or she will not be al- lowed to participate in the WtW program. Thus, common sense would dictate that the 24-month time clock impedes California’s ability to meet the federal work participation rates and end up in the numerator that would help California meet the FWPRs 4 Restoration of the CalWORKs and SSI COLA, de- layed until 2019 and 2020- Rejected- Who received a COLA in 2015-2016? Table # 1 reveals a long list of pro- grams receiving a COLA in 2015-2016. California leads the nation in child poverty with 0% COLA for CalWORKS. 4 A $10 increase for SSI recipients – Rejected. In summary 2015 was another bad year for California’s children living in deep poverty. The Governor underes- timates the state’s income in order to continue the failed austerity policy that hurts the poor through the State’s eco- nomic child abuse of poor children. 43% of the Rainy Day Funds comes out the mouths of California’s impoverished families with needy babies and children living in deep poverty. What is the highlight of the CalWORKs budget for 2015-2016? The State takes $1.5 billion from poor babies and children as an alleged contribution to the State General Fund. While California leads the na- tion in child poverty, the Governor and Legislature commit economic child abuse. Con’t on Page 2 CalWORKs TANF MONEY $1.5 billion Remainder of Rainy Day Funds $1.8 Billion Rainy Day Fund-$3.5 Billion CCWRO Welfare News June 22, 2015 # 2015-05- page 2 TABLE # 1 – 2015-2016 Budget – Programs Receiving a COLA – No CalWORKs or SSI COLA 1. 5205086-Educational Services for Foster Youth – Of the funds appropri- ated in this item, $155,000 is to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment. 2. 5200131-American Indian Early Childhood Education Program – Of the funds appropriated in this item, $6,000 is to reflect a cost-of-living adjust- ment. 3. 5200032-Pupil Transportation – Of the funds in this item, the Superin- tendent of Public Instruction shall first apportion a Home to School Trans- portation cost-of-living adjustment of 1.02 percent to each school district and county superintendent of schools. 3. 5200127-California American Indian Education Centers – Of the funds appropriated in this item, $41,000 is to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment. 4. Reimbursements to 5200217-Early Education Program for Individuals with Exceptional Needs – – Of the amount provided in Schedule (1), $37,202,000 is to reflect a cost- of-living adjustment. – Of the amount provided in Schedule (2), $896,000 is to reflect a cost-of- living adjustment. 5. For local assistance, State Department of Education, for allocation by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to school districts, county of- fices of education, and other agencies for child care and development programs included in this item, in lieu of the amount that otherwise would be appropriated pursuant to any other statute – The maximum standard reimbursement rate shall not exceed $39.58 per day for general child care programs. This reflects a 1.02 percent cost-of-living adjustment and a 7.5 percent rate increase to the standard reimbursement rate. The maximum standard reimbursement rate shall not exceed $42.29 for full-day state preschool programs. Furthermore, the migrant child care program shall adhere to the maximum standard reimbursement rates as prescribed for the general child care programs. All other rates and adjustment factors shall conform. 6. 6100-196-0001\u2014For local assistance, State Department of Education (Proposition 98) – The maximum standard reimbursement rate shall not exceed $27.14 per day for part-day state preschool programs. This re- flects a 1.02 percent cost-of-living adjustment, a 1 percent increase to reflect increased information and annual teacher training requirements pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 8238 of the Education Code, a 7.5 percent increase to the standard reimbursement rate, and a 10 percent increase to the part-day state preschool rate. 7. 5210058-Child Nutrition Programs – 5. Of the funds appropriated in this item, $1,641,000 is to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment. 8. 6870-101-0001\u2014For local assistance, Board of Governors of the Cali- fornia Community Colleges (Proposition 98) (2) Of the funds appropri- ated in Schedule (1), $61,022,000 shall be used to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment of 1.02 percent. 9. 6100-111-0001\u2014For local assistance, State Department of Education (Proposition 98), Home to School Transportation 2. Of the funds in this item, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall first apportion a Home to School Transportation cost-of-living adjustment of 1.02 percent to each school district and county superintendent of schools. CalFresh Immediate Need Benefits Questionable Denials 61% of CalFresh applicants who had less than $150 in income and $100 in assets are denied CalFresh Expedited Services. Although the law mandates that all applica- tions be screened for immediate need Cal- Fresh\/Food Stamp (CF-ES) benefits by coun- ties, 24% of the applications were not screened during January, February and March of 2015 for CF-ES. That is 111,110 applications that were not screened for immediate need food stamp benefits. Has this resulted in any corrective action by the state and federal agencies in charge of the SNAP\/CalFresh\/Food Stamp Program? No. But, imagine the headlines of a finding that food stamp recipients violated the law 24% of the time. Table # 2 reveals the number of applications that had less than $150 income and less than $100 in resources that were denied CF-ES during the first quarter of 2015. Under state regulations, the only verifica- tion required for CF-ES is identity of the head of the household. Identity can be veri- fied through the MEDS system on the same day if the applicant has been on aid before. If the applicant has not been on aid then the MEDS system would verify the identity the next working day using the applicants’ social security number. See MPP 63-301.541 below: MPP 63-301.541 All reasonable efforts shall be made to verify within the expedited processing standards, the household’s resi- dency, as specified in Section 63-300.515, in- come statement (including a statement that the household has no income), liquid resources, and all other factors required by Section 63- 300.51 through collateral contacts or readily available documentary evidence. However, Con’t from Page 1 Con’t on Page 3 CCWRO Welfare News June 22 , 2015 #2015-05 – Page 3 1st quarter of 2015- January- March, 2015 Applica- tions processed under ES disposed of during the report quarter Found entitled to ES CF-ES- Denials Percentage of CF-ES Denials Statewide 360,644 140,904 219,740 61% Solano 2,591 1,420 1,171 45% Tulare 6,698 3,388 3,310 49% Mendocino 1,588 780 808 51% Los Angeles 76,095 34,453 41,642 55% San Bernardino 36,303 16,250 20,053 55% San Francisco 4,691 2,066 2,625 56% Fresno 11,231 4,665 6,566 58% Stanislaus 9,844 3,844 6,000 61% Alameda 11,722 4,470 7,252 62% Riverside 30,636 11,611 19,025 62% Kern 17,635 6,609 11,026 63% Orange 15,225 5,551 9,674 64% San Joaquin 10,232 3,700 6,532 64% Madera 2,461 858 1,603 65% San Diego 24,322 8,020 16,302 67% Monterey 6,895 2,223 4,672 68% Contra Costa 5,494 1,765 3,729 68% Sacramento 21,942 5,476 16,466 75% San Mateo 4,374 1,040 3,334 76% Santa Cruz 3,134 456 2,678 85% San Mateo 4,374 1,040 3,334 76% Santa Cruz 3,134 456 2,678 85% benefits shall not be delayed beyond the deliv- ery standards prescribed in 63-301.53 solely because these eligibility factors have not been verified. Verification of these eligibility factors shall be postponed if unobtainable within the expedited processing standards. Who is eligible for CalFresh Expedited Services? MPP 63-301.5 Expedited Service .51 Entitlement to Expedited Service The following households, if otherwise eligible, are entitled to expedited service: .511 Households with less than $150 in monthly gross income as defined in Section 63-502.1 provided their liquid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; .512 Migrant or seasonal farmworker house- holds who are destitute as defined in Section 63-503.43 provided their liquid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; or .513 Households whose combined monthly gross income and liquid resources are less than the household’s monthly rent or mortgage, and utilities. CONCLUSION – It is very hard to determine why the CF-ES was denied. Once a household has been determined to have less than $150 in- come and $100 in resources there are very few reasons why the household would be ineligible. If they are ineligible, it could not be over 60%. That is inconceivable. Counties still have major barriers to participation, such as requiring the hungry to come to the office at 7 a.m. for an in- terview when it can be done through electronic means. Often CF-ES is denied due to failure to provide verification when the verification is not needed to approve CF-ES. WHAT CAN ADVOCATES DO? Join your local anti-hunger advocates and food banks. Ask the county why all of these requests for expedited services were denied. What are the reasons for denials? What barriers has the coun- ty erected to prevent persons enduring hunger insecurity from receiving hunger-relieving as- sistance in which they are entitled? CCWRO would be glad to provide technical assistance upon request and availability of resources. TABLE # 2 This table is based on information from the DSS DFA 296X reports. This table presents the number of Cal- Fresh Expedited Services (CF-ES) screened to have less than $150 income and $100 in resources that were denied CF-ES benefits during the first quarter of 2015. Con’t from Page 2 ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-06

2761 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150. Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org July 10, 2015 Issue #2015-06 Kim-McMoy Wade New Chief for DSS CalFresh Division Kim McCoy-Wade has been hired as the Cal- Fresh Division Chief for the Department of Social Services effec- tive August 24, 2015. She recently worked with the Alliance for Justice focused on advocacy for the Cal- Fresh Program. Kim started as a Je- suit Volunteer. She has been the Assistant General Counsel for Per 63-402.226 and 63-301.51: The HH member receiving SSI\/SSP is ineligible for CalFresh, and the member’s in- come and property is excluded in both the screening for ES, and in the HH budget. The member is considered an ineli- gible member, and should be put in the case to be included as a contributor toward any HH expenses. It doesn’t matter if they are receiving any other income in addition to their SSI\/SSP. All income and property are ex- cluded. Any income by otherwise eligible HH members would be considered when answering the ES screening questions. On March 3, 2015 Riverside County asked DSS: Scenar- io: HH of 2 consisting of mom and daughter. Mom receives employment income and daughter receives child support. The HH receives the dependent care deduction. The HH provides a voluntary mid-period report of mom’s employ- ment income ending mid-period and provides verification. No change in dependent care is reported. Benefits are in- creased based on the decreased income. a) Are eligibility staff required to remove the dependent care deduction mid-period resulting from the change in em- ployment\/income? b) Do we ask the customer if they still have the expense and determine continued eligibility to the deduction or contin- ue to allow the deduction for the certification period, even though the qualifying factor of employment is removed? c) Do we only act if a change in expense is also reported? The information added to question #37 in ACL 12-25E states we would act on a change in dependent care resulting from income changes considered VUR. Additional verifi- cation is required to determine whether the HH continues eligibility to the dependent care deduction prior to disal- lowing it. Prior instruction stated not to pursue additional requests for verification (ACIN I-58-13) due to a voluntary mid-period report. On April 1, 2015 DSS responded: Because the mid-peri- od income report is VUR the county must act upon it to increase benefits. Because there was no mention of any change in dependent care the county should not pursue the subject until the next regular reporting period. Had the cli- ent reported a change in dependent care as well, the county would act upon it if VUR, otherwise the county would wait until the next regular report to act so as to not decrease ben- efits. More on Page 2 the Children’s Defense Fund, Senior Policy Analyst for Bread for the World and Executive Director of the Cali- fornia Association of Food Banks. We welcome Kim and look forward to working with her to improve the CalFresh Program. On April 17, 2015 Siskiyou County asked DSS: Assume that while screening a CalFresh application for Expedited Services, it is learned that a household (HH) member re- ceives SSI\/SSP income but the other HH member(s) have no income. a) Is the SSI\/SSP income included in the determination of whether the HH has less than $150 in monthly gross in- come and liquid resources of $100 or less; or used to de- termine whether the combined monthly gross income and liquid resources which are less than their monthly rent or mortgage and utilities? b) If HH member receives RSDI in addition to SSI\/SS, is it reviewed and included in the screening process? On April 30, 2015 DSS responded: Assuming everyone in the HH purchases and prepares together: CalFresh Policy Interpretations CCWRO Welfare News July 10, 2015 # 2015-06- page 2 The report reveals, Federal law requires the states to help ensure that overpayments do not occur by maintaining a system to screen welfare program applicants and recipients against these match lists for initial and ongoing eligibility. This system is known as the Income and Eli- gibility Verification System (IEVS). Although federal law does not require California to use IEVS for CalFresh applicants, state regulations require that all CalFresh applicants and recipi- ents receive IEVS screening. Social Services regularly provides counties with 10 match lists, and federal regulations require that five of these 10 lists be processed within 45 days of receipt. DSS has promised to come up with a formal procedure by April 2016 for processing IEVS reports and SIU review processes within the federal and state regulatory 45-day timeline. The most recent IEVS Reports reveals that 92% of the potential fraud reports reveal no dis- crepancies after spending millions of dollars and reviewing thousands of IEVS reports. But the welfare fraud industry wants the public to believe that there is rampant fraud when the data shows negligible fraud, if any. Some counties do not even bother to process the IEVS reports. Colusa County and Trinity Coun- ty simply do not make IEVS reports. Counties that are years backlogged are: Counties Months Backlogged Butte 32 Imperial 76 Placer 142 San Benito 22 San Joaquin 14 Ventura 160 DSS is working on finding a viable alternative to the wasteful fingerimaging system. As to the rest of the problems identified in the report- the beat goes on. 0n June 23, 2015, the State Auditor General released a report regarding the CalFresh and Cal- WORKs program fraud detection and prevention activities such as spending $12 million a year on the SFIS fingerprint system that only detected 59 potential discrepancies. Since 2003 the Auditor General has been telling DSS that SFIS is actually government waste and should be stopped. It was stopped for CalFresh, but legislative leaders refused to stop it for CalWORKs because counties want to use it for the county General Assistance program. If it stopped for CalWORKs, then counties would have to pay for the whole system and they don’t want to do that. The report finds that DSS’s reviews of county welfare departments are insufficient. One recom- mendation is that DSS should establish cost effec- tiveness for county fraud activities. Some counties incur very high fraud activity expenses while other counties spend less. In response DSS asserts that: Costs is only one aspect of the effectiveness of anti-fraud efforts. A more important aspect may be deterrence, which is often unquantifiable. DSS agrees to determine if there is any need to make a cost effectiveness analysis of the county fraud bureaucracy. DSS also agrees to share county best practices with all 58 counties with a qualification that what might be a best practice in one county may not work for another for variety of reasons . What the Auditor General is suggesting is that DSS identify all of the best practices and then require all counties to do the same thing also known as statewide administration of the CalFresh and Cal- WORKs programs. But that would mean that DSS would have actually acted as the principal and tell its agents what to do as mandated in the Califor- nia state law. The report also mentioned that counties refuse to process IEVS reports that often result in inflated overpayments. Although not pointed out in the report, counties prosecute large overpayment cases for welfare fraud when the case is not processed within the fed- eral and state regulatory 45-day timeline. Con’t from Page 1 New California State Auditor Report on Welfare Fraud ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-07

2916 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org August 18, 2015 Issue #2015-07 News Briefs In May 2015, USDA, FNS published a report on the results of an Oregon and Utah demonstration program to eliminate the mandatory application interview and replace it with an interview only if the state SNAP agency decides it is warranted. The results of the demonstration program showed that it did not impact the states error rate and it reduced time for benefit determination and improved ac- cess to SNAP benefits. For Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2015, accord- ing to a letter from USDA, FNS dated June 15, 2015, California received Supplemental Nutri- tion Assistance Education (SNAP-Ed) plan for $122,586,302.27,. This money will be distributed as follows: While many CalWORKs families, who live on fixed incomes less than 30% of the federal poverty level, starve the last week of the month when their SNAP benefits run out, we are spending $123 mil- lion on SNAP education? Why not give that $123 million to poor SNAP families who can provide true life lessons on how to live on $4 per day, per person. Now that should be worth millions. The new IHSS CMISP system has been sending counties overpayment bills. Counties have no con- fidence about the way these bills are being tracked in CMISP. Welcome to our world counties. Coun- ties have been doing this to CalWORKs and Cal- Fesh recipients for decades. WtW 24-month clock There are 5,000 cases that have reached the 24-month clock and only 4 may have received a time extender. DSS alleges that 20% of families who reach the 24-month time clock will receive an extender. FACT 0.08% extender is a more accurate number – a far cry from 20%. more on page 2 How is $122,586,302 USDA FNS SNAP- Ed dollars divided up for federal fiscal year 2015? Who Gets the Money? How Much Do they Get? CDSS $4,586.279 Cathlolic Charities $2,981,000 UC, Davis (UC CalFresh) $104,281,207 Draft House TANF Reauthorization Proposal of 2015 The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources held a hearing on July 29, 2015 on the subcommittee’s draft TANF reauthorization Bill. TANF is the predecessor of the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Under AFDC, 70% of the funds were used as cash assistance to families and 30% was used for administration and em- ployment programs. TANF now only uses 30% of the funds for cash assis- tance while most of the other funds are used for anything other than meeting the basic survival needs of poor families of America. The committee asked what portion should be used for cash assistance. Don- na Pavetti, of the Center on Budget and Policies and Priorities, testified that only 50% should be used for what they call TANF core program that not only includes cash assistance to meet the basic survival needs of the fam- ily, but also pays for work activities and work support. Work activities includes the staff cost of state and county workers who impose full family sanctions upon families living in deep poverty often way below 25% of the federal poverty levels. Moreover, the work program for TANF recipi- ents is a segregated program designed to make sure that TANF recipients do not sit in the same room with non-TANF Americans in need of employment services. Thus, by supporting money for TANF, CBPP is promoting segre- gated employment services for TANF recipients. We attempted to ask Ms. Pavetti why the Center on Budget and Policies and Priorities supports less money for poor families who live below 25% of the federal poverty level. We also wanted to inform Ms. Pavetti that if 50% of the funds were used for cash assistance, childcare and segregated employ- ment services, it may very well result in less than 30% being used for cash assistance. Ms. Pavetti did not return our call. The committee draft has the following proposals: Elimination of caseload reduction credit Under the caseload reduction credit, states got credit for terminating families from TANF when the family did not get a job that would support the family-many ended up homeless or the kids ended up in foster care breaking up families. This is an anti-child, anti-family policy. Elimination of the definition of core\/noncore hours for participation in work activities all hours would be core hours . Giving states work participation rate credit for partial participation in work activities. Increasing community college vocational education from 1 to 2 years. Elimination of various ways States have been gaming the TANF laws to meet the federal work participation rates. Limiting the use of TANF funds for families with income below 200%. CCWRO submitted testimony on the draft that can be found on What’s New at www.ccwro.org. CCWRO Welfare News August 18, 2015 # 2015-07- page 2 Department of Health Care Services Seeks Guidance from Counties to Release Public Information to California’s Press and Advocates The revised OCAT system requires that welfare work- ers enter information into the OCAT system that has pre- viously been entered into CalWIN, C-IV and LEADER\/ GEARS. OCAT is welfare-to-work tool that does an ap- praisal for any CalWORKs recipient who is required to work in order to receive the CalWORKs fixed income that is less than 30% of the federal poverty level. Counties have asked DSS to provide guidance regard- ing reappraisal, initial appraisal and updates on appraisal. Reappraisal is defined in the duly promulgated regulation MPP 42-711.7. Appraisal is defined in MPP 42-711.52. After appraisal it is job club, or SIP, or remedial education. The only way counties can do an update of an initial ap- praisal is to go back in time and that is not in the cards in 2015. It appears that counties want more ways to sanction failure to cooperate for updating the appraisal ? At a May 14, 2015 CWDA meeting, Rene Mollow, Deputy Director for the State Department of Health Care Services appeared to receive permission from counties to release or not to release public information. According to the committee’s approved minutes of this meeting. Eligibility and enrollment data for Medi-Cal and Covered California. DHCS is required to report by the end of May. The report will contain high level state- wide aggregate data from SAWS on the number of case level renewals received by counties and those that were processed, and percent of individuals that retained coverage. Data will include 2014 plus initial data on 2015. DHCS has received inquiries on this data from consumer advocate groups and the press. A number of inquiries have been for renewal data on a county-by-county basis. Ms. Mollow asks Self Sufficiency about our desired response, which could be one of three: a. Refer folks directly to individual counties for informa- tion b. DHCS could provide the county-level information they have through SAWS c. DHCS could continue to not respond, not provide any information, because DHCS does not feel it tells the whole story. It is unclear as to what marching orders Ms. Mollow re- ceived from counties on whether or not to release public information to the press and advocates. We contacted Ms. Mollow about this article, to find out what direction did she get from CWDA, but she did not get back to us before we published this newsletter. Child Care News: In 2014 there were 92,071 unduplicated Welfare-ti-Work (WtW) participants with children under the age of 11, yet only 23%, or 21,177 cases received childcare. Why is that? Very simple counties are refusing to verify that families have child care before telling participants that they must either show up for a WtW activity or endure a re- duction of grant from $542 to $333 for families of 2. Many CalWORKs children are home alone because their parents, scared about sanctions, are forced to go to an activity (cho- sen by the welfare worker)without securing childcare. MC 355 and CW 2200- At the June 4, 2015 meeting of County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) Medi-Cal Committee meeting, counties stated that some use the out- dated MC 355 and some use the CW 2200 for requesting Medi-Cal verification from Medi-Cal applicants and recipi- ents. Counties told DHCS that they want to keep the MC 355 for Medi-Cal rather than use the CW 2200 for Medi-Cal as well. Why do counties want more forms? Covered California has provided CWDA Medi-Cal com- mittee with data about the Customer Service Center Call Line and the County Liaison Call line call response time below: NOTE: The 14 seconds is after the customer goes through the telephone tree, which can take much more than 14 sec- onds. On-Site County Visits DHCS, Program Review Section, has been conducting on-site county visits and discussions regarding technical and policy issues counties are ex- periencing. DHCS conducted three county visits last month. They are asking how to resolve technical and policy issues, and to prioritize those issues for resolution. Future site vis- its will be scheduled, including visits to northern California. DHCS seeks to strengthen partnerships with counties. How much information will be collected via county site visits be- fore needed changes will be put into place? Ms. Mollow said that identified issues will be addressed on an on-going ba- sis. DHCS will share the results of their visits with counties, via a master list of issues, with CWDA. Source: CWDA Self-Sufficiency Committee Meeting Minutes. CCWRO has submitted numerous Public Records Act Requests to the De- partment of Health Care Services regarding their on-site county visits. To date, DHCS has not provided any informa- tion about these visits. Counties received an additional $150 million dollars in their single allocation for Medi-Cal administration for 2015- 2016. Con’t from Page 1 ACA Customer Calls County Liaison call Activity Results Activity Results Average Wait Time 14 seconds Average Wait Time 4 seconds Service Level 92.3% Service Level 96.2 Average Handle Time 13.59 minutes Average Handle Time 14.27 minutes CCWRO Welfare News August 18 , 2015 #2015-07 – Page 3 Con’t from Page 2 u Child with Cerebral Palsy Denied IHSS by River- side County. – Riverside County incorrectly denied Ms. 2015048059’s December 17, 2014 application for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program benefits on behalf of her 2-year-old with a diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy and he is paraplegic (spastic). The recipient’s primary care physician submitted a completed SOC 873, IHSS Program Health Care Certification Form, dated January 26, 2015, stating that the recipient is unable to independently perform one or more activity of daily living, and one or more IHSS service is recommended in order to prevent the need for out-of-home care. It was further noted that the recipient is premature, not walking by himself. Recipient uses a walker (assisted walking) and is paraplegic (spastic). The county still de- nied IHSS to this child. The parent of the child asked for a state hearing and it was determined the recipient needed assistance in transfers, ambulation, rubbing skin\/reposition- ing, and care with prosthesis. The judge also held that the County has not met its burden demonstrating or establishing that the opinion of the Medical Professional in this matter should be disregarded. u A child with PTSD and ADHD put in danger by Santa Clara County when protective supervision was taken away – On February 9, 2015 Santa Clara County issued a notice to Ms. 2015049087 that her hours would be reduced from 216.12 hours a month down to 6.34 a month. Ms. 2015049087 receives Supplemental Security Income and is diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), reactive attachment disorder, destructive behavior disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, Attention Deficit Hyper- active Disorder (ADHD), and mood disorder NOS. The record reflects the Recipient has received IHSS, includ- ing protective supervision since at least 2010, and that the County continued protective supervision after an assess- ment conducted in 2012. Ms. 2015049087 asked for a state hearing. At the hearing the social worker testified she had never met the Claimant or the Recipient prior to the January 14, 2015 assessment, and did not have any interaction with the child other than the visual curb side observation at the school. The social worker said the entire assessment took about one and half hours, of which the visual observation at the school took approximately five minutes. She also indi- cated she reviewed a psychological evaluation report (dated April 26, 2008), and various other documents provided by the Claimant, and determined that the behaviors described by the Claimant were antisocial behaviors for which pro- tective supervision cannot be authorized under the IHSS regulations. The judge concluded that the evidence in the case record establishes that due to her various medical di- agnoses, the Recipient displays severe behavioral problems which require the Claimant to constantly supervise her in other to prevent injury and gave her back the hours that the counties was trying to illegally take away from her. u Los Angeles County wrongfully denied IHSS to a child with autism because of a form that the county had or should have had. -Ms. 2015056461 received a notice of action from Los Angeles County denying IHSS services for her 5-year-old autistic son whose application for IHSS submitted on October 27, 2014 was denied. The county alleged that she did not submit the SOC 873 form to the county. The fact is that the SOC 873 was completed by her son’s physician, M.R., MD, of Los Angeles, on November 11, 2014. The following day she faxed the completed SOC 873 to her social worker. u San Bernardino County takes away protective super- vision from a 18-year old with Down Syndrome and sleep apnea. Effective August 22, 2014, San Bernardino County determined that Mr. 2015029053 was eligible for only 47 hours a month. Mr. 2015029053 is an 18-year-old male with a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, sleep apnea, and skin in- fections. His speech is difficult to understand at times. He receives Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplemen- tary payments. Mr. 2015029053 asked for a state hearing asserting that he is entitled to protective supervision. At the hearing, the County social worker stood by her case assess- ment and emphasized that the behaviors of concern, which the claimant’s mother reported at the home visit, were past behaviors, and that nothing recent was reported. The administrative record contains a copy of the SOC 821 form, dated April 24, 2014, by which the physician states that she has treated the claimant since today, and that the prognosis for the claimant’s Down Syndrome is permanent. The physician further indicates that the claimant has moder- ate memory deficit ( unable to remember phone numbers, emergency numbers ), severe disorientation ( patient will wander and not able to remember or orient to go home or back to school ), and severely impaired judgment ( does not distinguish between strangers or friends, may access or use appliances inappropriately, putting himself in danger ). The physician states that she is aware of an injury or acci- dent that the claimant has suffered due to deficits in mem- ory, orientation, or judgment ( left pizza in microwave too long and set fire; eating rotten or uncooked meat ). The physician also states that the claimant retains the mo- bility or physical capacity to place himself in a situation that would result in injury, hazard or accident. As additional comments, the physician writes, Parents constantly super- vise the patient due to his lack of judgment and ability to wander off. The judge held that In this matter, the evidence establishes that the claimant is non self-directing and mentally im- paired. Non self-direction is an inability, due to a mental impairment\/mental illness, for individuals to assess danger and the risk of harm, and therefore, the individuals would most likely engage in potentially dangerous activities that may cause self-harm. County Welfare Department Abuse REPORT CCWRO Welfare News August 18, 2015 #2015-07- Page 4 How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? A lot of Sanctions. Very Few Work. Welfare-to-Work OR Welfare-to-Sanction? $2.3 billion could be better used to lift California’s Children, who lead the Nation in Child Poverty, out of deep poverty. Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports WtW Update plus SB 1041 Impact Analysis June, 2015 California Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes REPORT June, 2012 June, 2013 June, 2014 June, 2015 Number of Unduplicated Participants Participating in a WtW Activity 117,336 119,946 122,710 118,365 Sanctioned Previously and Currently 48,000 51,552 62,734 59,083 Noncompliance this Month 25,835 26,513 27373 38,150 Good Cause this Month 12,776 13,503 16,539 15,936 Set for Sanctioned this Month or Next Month 13,059 13,0100 10,834 22,214 TOTAL Number of Families Being Sanc- tioned and to be Sanctioned Next Month 61,859 64,562 73,568 81,297 PERCENTAGE Unduplicated Partici- pants Being Sanctioned this Month and to be Sanctioned Next Month 53% 54% 60% 69% Secondary Education 420 175 175 123 Self-Initiated Program (SIP) 10,078 10,506 7,784 6,280 TOTAL Participants in Secondary Educa- tion – College 10,498 10,935 7,959 6,403 Percentage of Secondary Education 9% 7% 6% 5% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction $7,732,375 8,070,250 $9,196,000 $10,162,125 Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 4,108 3,567 4,528 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 3% 3% 3% 4% Total Cost for Employment Services & Child Care $2,284,070,000 $2,284,070,000 $2,284,070,000 $2,284,070,000 Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of Cal- WORKs $46,801 $46,334 $53,361 $42,036 ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-08

3159 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org October 10, 2015 Issue #2015-08 News Briefs 4Los Angeles County’s Call Center requires callers to enter their customer ID and PIN before they are able to talk to anyone. This is in lieu of calling the assigned caseworker. Would not hav- ing a customer ID and PIN keep someone from re- porting income to avoid an overpayment? Why do beneficiaries of Los Angeles County public ben- efits have to enter an ID and PIN number before they can talk to their public servants? 4Los Angeles County continues the long- standing practice of denying CalFresh benefits to the elderly whose income is between 133% and 200% of the federal poverty level. In addition, DPSS compute benefits based on the actual shelter costs. DPSS has not programmed the computer to comply with state law, thus, the law is often be- ing violated. DPSS has tried training and issuing flyers to no avail. Meanwhile, there are many low income elderly being denied CalFresh benefits or underpayments. What does DPSS plan to do? More flyers and trainings. DPSS refuses to review all cases with elderly households members to in- sure that they received full shelter deductions. 4Los Angeles County refuses to accept appli- cations from asylum applicants, U-Visa applicants and other immigrants. According to legal services advocates of Los Angeles County, DPSS orally deny these folks without issuing notices of action. Oral denials are illegal if any person enters the county welfare department and asks to apply for benefits. 4Effective November 1, 2015, San Francisco County will provide diapers as a CalWORKs ben- efit. When the program is in full operation it will serve 1,300 families at the cost of $479,000 a year. The program will be operated by Help a Mother Out. www.helpamotherout.org 4Effective October 1, 2015 there will be no cost-of-living increase for SNAP\/CalFresh. The shelter cost will go up to $504, which is a $14 in- crease. About 6,000 children will endure a 24-month penalty this Christmas. According to the Brown Administration, All County Letter 15-59, a Christ- mas present for about 6,000 impoverished CalWORKs children already liv- ing in deep poverty, will take effect by December 31, 2015. That is when the 24-month clock, passed by California’s Democratic Legislature, joins only two other anti-poor states, Arkansas and Idaho, to limit CalWORKs to 24-months. Federal law allows the state up to 60-months. Over 31 red states adopted the 60-month timeline. Just in time for Christmas, California has a gift for poor kids more poverty. Putting it in human terms, Ms. Jones and her 3 year-old who currently recieve $569 as month will get $350 in January. Her rent is $500 can’t pay the rent means homelessness with a three-year old. Now that is compassion California style. County Children Alameda 360 Calaveras 2 Colusa 6 Contra Costa 46 Del Norte 20 El Dorado 8 Fresno 278 Imperial 66 Kern 16 Kings 20 Lake 8 Lassen 16 Los Angeles 2180 Madera 16 Marin 4 Mariposa 2 Mendocino 6 Merced 46 Monterey 10 Napa 4 Orange 28 Placer 8 Riverside 282 County Children Sacramento 688 San Benito 10 San Bernardino 126 San Diego 504 San Francisco 42 San Joaquin 120 San Luis Obispo 12 San Mateo 8 Santa Barbara 40 Santa Clara 32 Santa Cruz 16 Shasta 6 Solano 68 Sonoma 20 Stanislaus 136 Sutter 16 Tulare 464 Tuolumne 2 Ventura 42 Yolo 30 Yuba 12 Statewide Total 5826 Number of children in each county hitting the 24-month clock by Christmas CCWRO Welfare News October 10, 2015 # 2015-08- page 2 Los Angeles County Contends That A Person Who Completed The CalFresh Redetermination Was a No Show – Los Angeles CalFresh beneficiary B10XS86 re- ceived a letter that he has a 9-2-15 telephone redetermina- tion interview with his worker at the DPSS Lancaster dis- trict office. The worker never called. He called the call center who made an appointment for him on 9-14-15 at 9 am. That morning, he checked in and at 10 am nobody had called him. He went to the window and finally, a supervisor talked to him. The supervisor assigned another worker to complete the redetermination process including the inter- view. He then went home. On 9-17-15 he received a notice of action that his CalFresh benefits will stop because he no showed for his appointment. That is a blatant lie said Mr. B10XS86, I not only showed up, but I completed the in- terview. Placer County Still Imposing the IHSS 7% Reduction – Ms. 1173977 received a notice of action dated 9-14-15 from the Placer County IHSS office saying that her authorized hours have been reduced by 7.0 percent. This was a genuine CMIPS II-generated notice of action. Seems like the IHSS authority in Placer County was not aware of the fact that the 7% reduction was repealed on 7-1-15 by the State Legisla- ture. CALHEERS Turns A Refugee Medi-Cal Case to Re- stricted Scope Medi-Cal – Ms. 1B52G38 arrived in the United States as a refugee in 1994 and received Medi-Cal. She received a notice of action from Covered California that her Medi-Cal has been changed to restricted-scope on 6-01-15. Somehow CalHEERS not only redesignated her Medi-Cal eligibility but also assigned her a new Cal- HEERS case number. Conflicting NOAs From Sacramento County Ms. 1B4SP09 received a CalWorKs notice of action dated 8-24- 15 stating, As of 09-01-15, the County is changing your monthly cash aid from $670 to $444. Here’s why: Your family income has changed. When your family income changes, your cash aid amount also changes. Ms. 1B4SP09 received another notice of action, also dated 8-24-15. This one states You recently told the County facts about your case. The county looked at these facts and has figured out that your cash aid will not change at this time. Which one can Ms. 1B4SP09 believe? Los Angeles County Refuses To Replace Lost Benefits Timely and Is At Least 58 Days Late – In the case of Ms. SH# 14318155, the County of Los Angeles forwarded the demand for reimbursement of $201.31 for the month of September 2014, to the Auditor Controller’s Office after determining that Ms. SH# 14318155 is entitled for replace- ment of lost benefits. As of December 8, 2014 the claim was still pending with the Auditor Controller’s office. ACL 13-67 indicates that if the investigation is not complet- ed within 25 days, the county must issue repayment of the lost or stolen benefits pending the completion of the inves- tigation. Los Angeles County still refused to issue replace- ment benefits to Ms. SH# 14318155 when she appeared for a state hearing. San Luis Obispo County Endangered the Life Of an Eight Year Old Child With Autism Ms. 15055286, is an 8 year old boy who resides with his parents and two sib- lings. Ms. 15055286 is autistic and has speech and language impairments. After receiving protective supervision for sev- eral years the County decided to stop protective supervision effective 3-1-15. Fortunately, Ms. 15055286 timely filed for a state hearing and received Aid Paid Pending. The judge ruled that the county did not have enough evidence to stop protective supervision. . San Diego County Denies IHSS Services To A Child Eli- gible For Services Mr. 15055354 applied for IHSS on 12-16-14. On 2-13-15 the county social worker attempted to conduct an assessment. At the time of the application, Minor Child 15055354 was living in a motel. Later he and his mother moved into a women’s shelter. On 2-19-15, San Diego County mailed a Notice of Action informing his mother that his application for IHSS services was being denied because he does not live in his own home. San Diego County’s position was that the denial was correct because a women’s shelter is not a home under the appli- cable regulations. Further, while the claimant was living at his own home at the time of the application, he is required to live in a home (though not necessarily the same one) throughout the application\/evaluation process. A person is eligible for IHSS-R who is living in his\/her own home and who meets all SSI\/SSP eligibility criteria, except for income in excess of SSI\/SSP eligibility standards. ( 30-755.113) San Diego County made several mistakes in this case. Ac- cording to the state regulation EAS 30-759.2 Applica- County Client A b u s e Report Con’t on Page 3 CCWRO Welfare News October 10 , 2015 #2015-08 – Page 3 Con’t from Page 2 tions shall be processed, including eligibility determina- tion and needs assessment, and notice of action mailed no later than 30 days following the date the written ap- plication is completed. Services shall be provided, or arrangements for their provision shall have been made, within 15 days after an approval notice of action is mailed. San Diego County defined home too narrowly. Prior to March 27, 2000, a person’s own home was defined in state regulations as the place in which an individual chooses to reside. An individual’s own home does not include an acute care hospital, Skilled Nursing Facility\/ Intermediate Care Facility, community care facility, or board and care facility. A person receiving an SSI\/SSP payment for a nonmedical out-of-home living arrange- ment is not considered to be living in his or her own home. ( 30-701(o)(2)), renumbered from 30-753(o) (2), November 14, 1998; revised March 27, 2000) The regulations cited above were revised but then rein- stated because the amended regulations had been issued without meeting the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. (Lubahn v. Saenz, Preliminary Injunc- tion, Sacramento Superior Court, June 2, 2000) Under state law, the purpose of the IHSS Program is to provide those supportive services to Aged, Blind and Disabled persons who are unable to perform the servic- es themselves and who cannot safely remain in their homes or abodes of their own choosing unless these ser- vices are provided. (WIC 12300(a)) Mr. 15055354 requested a state hearing and the judge held that San Diego County was wrong to deny IHSS services to Mr. 15055354. The Judge held that a wom- en’s shelter is not an acute care hospital, Skilled Nursing Facility\/Intermediate Care Facility, community care fa- cility, or board and care facility and as such, constituted a home for purposes of receiving IHSS services. Los Angeles County Violates The Law And Endan- gers The Lives Of Disabled Children – On June 18, 2014, Ms. 15062072 applied for IHSS benefits on behalf of her three-year-old grandson (applicant). On Decem- ber 15, 2014, the county sent a notice of action that de- nied this application. State regulation 30-759.2 provides that an application shall be processed within 30 days. This application was processed over 150 days late. On February 3, 2015, the claimant filed a hearing request to contest the denial of the applicant’s IHSS application. During a pre-hearing review of the claimant’s file, the county determined that the claimant’s IHSS application was denied in error. On April 17, 2015, the claimant and the county entered into a conditional withdrawal agreement, where the county agreed to rescind the December 15, 2014 notice of action and the denial of the claimant’s IHSS application; conduct an assessment of the applicant’s IHSS needs; and conduct an assessment of the applicant’s need for protective supervi- sion effective June 18, 2014. On May 22, 2015, the claimant asked that her hearing re- quest be reopened because the county did not comply with the terms of the conditional withdrawal agreement dated April 17, 2015. This request was granted. The hearing was held on July 2, 2015 in Los Angeles Coun- ty. The claimant, the applicant, and a county representa- tive were present at the hearing. At the hearing the county agreed to rescind the action and hopefully issue benefits af- ter more than a year from the date of application. Sacramento Denies CalFresh Application Without A No- tice Of Action – On July 31, 2015 Sacramento County was informed that RN 504064 applied for CalFresh benefits on 3-3-15. On 4-6-15 CalWIN shows that the case was denied, but no notice of action was ever mailed to the applicant. Merced County CalFresh Interviews Plus 30 Days From The Date Of Application & Does Not Use The CW 2200 – Mr. RN 503041 applied for CalFresh on 2-3-15. On 2-3-15 the applicant was given an appointment date for 3-10-15. EAS 63-300.46 states: The CWD shall schedule all interviews as promptly as pos- sible to ensure eligible households receive an opportunity to participate within 30 days after the application is filed. The special circumstances of the household, including house- holds with working members, must be considered to the ex- tent practicable, when interviews are scheduled. If a house- hold misses its scheduled interview, the CWD shall send the household a Notice of Missed Interview (NOMI). The CWD shall reschedule if the household requests another interview within 30 days of the initial application filed. The application was denied on 3-23-15 for allegedly fail- ure to provide verification. The DSS report does not reveal whether Merced County used the CW 2200 to request the verification. ACL 14-26 mandates that the counties use the CW 22000 when requesting verification. Legal Service Practice Pointer: Any termination for failure to provide verification without the CW 2200 is an defective negative action and the county should rescind the negative action. CCWRO Welfare News October 10, 2015 #2015-08- Page 4 How much do Californians spent and what do they get? A lot of sanctions and very few jobs. Is this Welfare-to-Work or Welfare-to-Sanction? FACT: California leads the nation in child poverty. $2.2 billion could be better used to lift California’s children out of poverty rather than more sanctions. Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports July, 2012 July, 2013 July, 2014 July, 2015 Number of Unduplicated Participants Participating in a WtW Activity 116,000 119,946 123,637 116,709 Sanctioned Previously and Currently 49,108 51,876 62,973 59,348 Noncompliance this Month 24,927 25,073 27470 29,897 Good Cause this Month 14,200 13,319 16,516 17,138 Set for Sanctions this Month or Next Month 10,727 11,754 10,954 12,759 TOTAL Number of Families Being Sanc- tioned and to be Sanctioned Next Month 59,835 63,630 73,927 72,107 PERCENTAGE Unduplicated Participants being sanctioned this month and next month 52% 53% 60% 62% Secondary Education 317 122 110 100 Self-Initiated Program (SIP) 9,395 8,204 7,457 5,893 TOTAL Participants in Secondary Educa- tion – College 9,712 8,326 7,585 5,993 Percentage of Secondary Education 8% 7% 6% 5% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction $7,479,375 $7,953, $9,240,875 $9,013,375 Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 4116 4,108 3,336 4,240 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 4% 3% 3% 4% Total Cost for Employment Services & Child Care $2,284,070,000 $2,284,070,000 Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs $46,243 $46,334 $57,056 $44,891 WtW Update plus SB 1041 Impact AnalysisJuly, 2015 California Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes REPORT 0% 5% 10% 2012 2013 2014 2015 WtW Secondary Education 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 2012 2013 2014 2015 WtW Sanctions of Unduplicated Participants WtW Sanctions of Unduplicated Participants WtW Secondary Education Non-Core the Only Possible Non-Core Activity ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-10

2215 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org November 30, 2015 Issue #2015-10 more on page 2 California Child Welfare Services Finds Easy Targets – Children from Poor Families. Child Welfare Services program is essentially limited to poor children because federal funding is available for children who would otherwise be eligible for AFDC under the 1996 rules. This means that the child welfare system only targets poor fam- ilies. When the child is removed from the home, a petition to remove the child is filed to determine if the child should remain in or out of home placement. Upon the first appearance in court at the detention hearing, the judge will appoint a lawyer if the par- ent can’t afford a lawyer. If CPS recommends continued out of home placement, the judge will make an order for visitation. After the child is removed from a CalWORKs family, the par- ent loses eligibility for CalWORKs. CPS demands that the parent enroll in parenting classes, go to drug and alcohol coun- seling, take drug tests, etc. 70% of the children are removed for neglect. Neglect is a by-product of families subsisting on fixed incomes less than 30% of the federal poverty level. On February 8, 2008, the San Jose Mercury posted a story about CPS. In part, the story is as follows: In this Sacramento courtroom, attorneys spend two minutes on the case of a 3-year-old sent to the chil- dren’s shelter after being found in a filthy home. The case of a teenager anxious to reconnect with lost sib- lings gets three minutes, yet his desperation cannot be felt; he’s absent from his own hearing. Should a mother’s right to her child be terminated? The court date opens and closes in 60 seconds. Parent and child are legally severed for life. By 11:30 a.m., 14 cases into a 21-case morning, Sac- ramento Superior Court Referee Daniel Horton is anxious. C’mon folks, we can do this! Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go! he shouts. OK, counsel, we can do this, let’s go, let’s get it done. It’s like driving a car. Sit down and buckle up. Scenes like this repeat daily in the state’s juvenile dependency courts, a little-known arm of the justice system deciding the fate of families whose children have been removed by social workers. http:\/\/www. mercurynews.com\/ci_8210271 California Child Welfare Services Caseload Type of Case Number of Cases Getting Foster Care Payments 43,798 Emergency Response 39,802 Family Maintenance 23,663 Family Reunification 23,192 Permanent Placement 33,708 Family Reunification 23,192 Payments to Children Eligible for CalWORKs\/AFDC Where AFDC\/CalWORKs Eligible Children Live Monthly Welfare Benefit Levels Foster Care Group Home (No TANF\/CalWORKs work requirement, no asset or income test) $8,300 Foster Family Agency- (No TANF\/CalWORKs work requirement, no asset or income test) $2,075 Adoption Assistance for Adoptive Parents- (No TANF\/ CalWORKs work requirement, no asset or income test) $972 Foster Family Home – (No TANF\/CalWORKs work requirement, no asset or income test) $916 Federal Guardian Assistance – (No TANF\/CalWORKs work requirement, no asset or income test) $790 Kinship Guardian Assistance – (No TANF\/CalWORKs work requirement, no asset or income test) $751 Living with Natural Parents getting CalWORKs- (TANF\/CalWORKs work requirement, asset and income test the individuals getting these welfare checks are getting an average fixed income at less than 30% of the federal poverty rate.) $205 CHILD WELFARE\/FOSTER SERVICES PROGRAM ANNUAL EXPENDITURES $2,2 billion NOTE: Many of these cases are a duplicated count because in a a given year the same case can be emer- gency response, familiy maintenance, family reunfina- tion and and permanent placement CCWRO Welfare News November 30, 2015 # 2015-10- page 2 Con’t from Page 2 Nothing has changed since 2008. Poor parents are still afforded third class justice in California. In addition, poor families are not even entitled to ad- ministrative due process of law in California. Califor- nia has had the unlawful policy of refusing to grant a 45 CFR 205.10 hearing to poor families whose children have been removed. When the court orders services such as reasonable visitation or the atten- dance of parenting classes, the social worker deter- mines the parameters of the services by which the parent(s) must live by and obey. California pays for the social paid for with federal IV-B and IV-E dollars. In one case, the dependent minor was 3 years old but the worker required the mother to attend parenting classes designed for a teenager. The mother complied in order to get her child returned. The Federal Child Welfare Services Manual clearly requires California to provide child welfare services clients with an administrative hearing to challenge the reasonableness of the social worker’s decisions. Since the enactment of IV-B and IV-E California has intentionally REFUSED to afford due process to victims of the child welfare services system. Had California had the administrative hearing process, the mother of the 3 year old could have challenged the social worker’s requirement. Federal law originates from the same Due Process provisions that CalWORKs and CalFresh use–45 CFR 205.10. Due process requires that the child welfare services social worker issue an adequate no- tice of action, including a right to a hearing, if the recipient of the notice of action disagrees with the so- cial workers’ determination. If the social worker decides to modify the visita- tion, then the social worker shall, and not may, issue a timely and adequate notice of action changing the visitation. If the recipient files for a timely request for a hearing, then the old visitation stays in effect until the matter is resolved by the hearing authorities. And this is called DUE PROCESS of LAW? Cali- fornia’s parents of impoverished families are endur- ing deep poverty living on a fixed income that less than 30% of the federal poverty level. Meanwhile the TANF State Budget takes $1.5 billion out of the CalWORKs program as a contribution to the State General Fund . Finally, the constitutional rights of California’s poor parents to due process have been emasculated by de- nying them decent court representation and access to the administrative hearing process. The 2015 Child Welfare Manual. Question: Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings for appeals related to services as well as financial claims? Answer: Yes. The regulations at 1355.30 (p)(2) provide that the procedures for hearings found in 45 CFR 205.10 shall apply to all programs funded under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Fair hearings in relation to services as well as financial claims are therefore cov- ered under this regulation. The Department believes that the close programmatic and fiscal relationship between titles IV-E and IV-B makes a fair hearings requirement appropriate. The process for fair hearings under section 205.10 is essentially the same for services hearings as for financial hearings. However, because the substantive portion of the regulations provides no examples of ser- vice issues, the State has the option of modifying the context of the hearing to accommodate services program complaints. The hearing process under either situation requires that recipients be advised of their right to a hear- ing, that they may be represented by an authorized rep- resentative, and that there be a timely notice of the date and place of the hearing. The following paragraphs, excerpted from the now ob- solete section 1392.11, may be used as guidance for the hearings related to services issues. The State must have a provision for a fair hearing, under which applicants and recipients may appeal denial of or exclusion from a service program, failure to take account of recipient choice of service or a determination that the individuals must participate in the service program. The results of appeals must be formally recorded and all applicants and recipients must be advised of their right to appeal and the procedures for such appeal. There must be a system through which recipients may present grievances about the operation of the service program. Examples of service issues in title IV-B that might result in a grievance or request for a hearing include: Agency failure to offer or provide appropriate pre-placement preventive services or reunification services; Agency may not have placed child in the most family-like setting in close proximity to his parents; Parents were not in- formed of their rights to participate in periodic adminis- trative reviews; Agency failed to provide services agreed to in case plan; A request for a specific service is denied or not acted upon; and Agency failure to carry out terms of adoption assistance agreements. Source\/Date: ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04 (10\/26\/83) Legal and Related References: 45 CFR 1355.30 (k), 205.10 and 1392.11 ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-09

2289 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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. http:\/\/www.ccwro.org November 25, 2015 Issue #2015-09 more on page 2 Segregated WtW 24-Month Clock OK For a long time, we have been critical of the WtW-24- month time clock. We have now changed our position. We have concluded that the 24-month clock is not one of the most evil provisions of the WtW segregated program in California. The major difference between the WtW policy before the 24-month clock and post 24-month clock, is that Self-Initiated Program (SIP) students are generally limited to 36-months of school, whereas before they were allowed to attend school for 48-months. Post 24-month clock requirements excuse welfare-to- work (WtW) recipients from meeting the federal core program requirements for the first 24 months. Before the 24-month clock if they did not meet the federal core requirements within the first 24-month, they were sanctioned. The only exception generally were SIPs and participation in programs to address substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence issues. Participation in substance abuse, mental and domestic violence issues were always minimal counties rarely, if ever, used all of the funds that they received for sub- stance abuse mental health treatment. So in essence rather than being subject to the core participation requirements from day 1, participants are subject to the core requirements from day 1 of the 25th month. The statute has some exemptions, but those ex- emptions are very nebulous and incomprehensible. The post 24-month promise of flexibility thus allow- ing more choices for WtW participants, has never ma- terialized. Neither DSS nor the counties were serious about affording participants’ real choices. DSS was not serious because they deferred to the counties and counties were not serious about it because it would impede counties ability to meet the federal work par- ticipation rates for which they would be fiscally liable. Meanwhile, transportation took a dive in 2015 from 60% to 58%. SANCTIONS GO UP – Sanctions are climbing and fewer CalWORKs recipients are allowed to get a col- lege education to achieve self-sufficiency. DSS sta- tistics show that sanctions increased because 200,000 Year WtW Upduplicated Participants Receiving Transport. Percentage Receiving Transporation Estimated Dollars Not Paid to WtW Participants 9\/12 117,372 63,310 54% $6.2 million 9\/13 119,946 64,915 54% $6.4 million 9\/14 123,637 73,600 59% $7.2 million 9\/15 116,709 67,182 58% $6.6 million CALIFORNIA’S 48-MONTH CLOCK As of 2013, the majority of states and the District of Columbia (40 out of 51) ap- ply the full federal 60-month limit to their TANF programs (as California did initially until from 1998 to 2011). Four other states match California’s 48-month time limit, while the remaining six states apply a 24- or 36-month limit. Source:Rand Report- Sep- tember, 2015 cases with children under 6 were asked to participate in a WtW activity without verifying that supportive services, child care and transportation, were actually available so they could participate. A large number of sanctions were a result of lack of supportive services that has always been the case. SB 1041 has successfully driven up the sanction rates for unduplicated WtW participants from 42% in 2012 to 51% in 2015. In human terms this means that in 2012 there were 50,000 sanctioned families living in deep poverty, while in 2015, there were 60,000. That is 10,000 more families and an estimated 20,0000 kids, many under 5, who were shoved deeper into poverty by the changes in SB 1041. COUNTIES NOT PAYING TRANSPORTATION TO FAMILIES LIVING BELOW 30% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY RATE 1 CCWRO Welfare News November 25, 2015 # 2015-09- page 2 Con’t from Page 2 County Client Abuse Report 4LOS ANGELES COUNTY WRONGFULLY DENIES CHILD CARE – Ms. 2015048446 began work- ing on November 5, 2014 in Los Angeles County. Her mother provided childcare services for her daughter beginning No- vember 5, 2014. On that same day, Ms. 2015048446 informed the social worker that she was employed. The social worker accepted her request for childcare service and told her that he would contact her in two weeks and provide her with form(s) for her employer to complete. The social worker did not contact her in two weeks, nor did the social worker provide her with any form(s) for her employer to complete. She went to the county’s office on December 4, 2014 and made a second request for childcare services, but the social worker did not provide her with any dform(s). The county finally provided her with form(s) and a Request for Employment Verification in January 2015. Los Angeles County then decided to pay child care from January 22, 2015 rather than November 5, 2014. She asked for a haering and the jduge ordered the County to pay child care for the period of November 5, 2014 through January 22, 2015. During 2014-2015 Los Angeles County received $108, 300,103 from the state to pay for child care. Los Angeles returned $27,816,235 to the State as they were not able to spend the child care money. 4 CalWORKs MOM PREVENTED FROM SELF-SUFFICIENCY BY STANISLAUS COUN- TY Ms. 2015082254 attends school to become self-sufficient. Her morning starts at 6 am. It consists of making breakfast for her children aged are 14 and 8. She drives them to school at differ- ent locations. Both children are A students. In addition, she helps her father, who has Parkinson’s disease, to go to medical appointments and running errands etc. When Ms. 2015082254 went to her WtW Orientation and Ap- praisal she was told she would have to participate in the activ- ity of Job Retention. She told the appraiser at that time that she was attending school. She was told she would have to en- gage in a certain amount of WtW Program hours and was told verification was needed for the school program. She faxed to her school, verification forms given to her by the county and assumed the school submitted them to the county, in October 2014. Ms. 2015082254 was told that a number of hours were needed for her to complete her WtW participation and she was assigned to Job Retention for that purpose. She did not choose this activity but was given a paper in which her activ- ity was job retention and was told to sign it. Before she was assigned to this activity, the claimant told the county worker who assigned this activity that she was attend- ing school and that she was taking care of her kids who had to be taken to and picked up from school. She had no one else to do this for her. Child care expenses were not offered to her at that time. No one explained to her what the activity of Job Retention entailed. She was not told that the school- ing could be part of her WtW activities at that time. How- ever, later this was explained to her by her county worker, but not on the day she signed the WtW activity form. She called her worker subsequently, about 2 days later, and was then told the school might be allowed as credit toward her WtW activity but she had to submit verifications. When she signed the WtW Activity Plan for Job Retention no one explained to her the option of having a third- party neutral evaluation. On February 24, 2015 Stanislaus County issued a notice of action proposing to impose a sanction by reducing her mea- ger monthly benefit of $515 down to $331 a month. The county testified that it was aware that she was already enrolled in a Pharmacy technician program and requested verification. The county noted that the enrollment verifica- tion for the Pharmacy Technician Program that the claim- ant submitted to the county was insufficient for verification purposes. The county never told her what was insufficient. The hearing decision held: The claim is granted in that as the county failed to properly determine the claimant’s eligibility to a SIP, the county’s sanctioning of the claimant for non-participation in the WtW Program is not sustained. The county shall rescind its February 24, 2015 NOA sanc- tioning the claimant for non-participation in the WtW Pro- gram and restore the claimant’s CalWORKs Program grant to $515 per month effective April 1, 2015. The claim is remanded to the county to determine the claim- ant’s eligibility for a SIP given her enrollment and continuing classes in her Pharmacy Technician Program. Upon remand, the county shall further determine whether the claimant is eligible to a WtW Program exemption based on her care of a disabled person in her household. The county shall issue NOAs to the claimant informing her of the county’s deter- minations of her eligibility for a SIP and her eligibility for an exemption from the WtW Program due to her care for a disabled individual in her household. The claimant’s right to file a timely request for hearing disputing these county determinations is expressly reserved. 4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANCTIONS AN INDIVIDUAL ON DIALYSIS On May 6, 2015, Los Angeles County mailed a notice of action reducing the benefits of Mr. 2015138142 from $561 down to $342 a month. Mr. 2015138142 is very ill and he is on dialysis. But that did not stop the county from trying to sanction Mr. 2015138142. The county not only issued a notice, but refused to ac- knowledge good cause and revoke the notice of action. The county went to the hearing, forcing this severely disabled person to appear in person and explain that he is on dialysis. At the hearing the county finally capitulated and agreed to reconsider their good cause determination. The county still refused to admit that being on dialysis was good cause. The county only agreed to make Mr. 2015138142 come to the wel- fare office again so the GAIN worker can decide if a person on dialysis can be sanctioned. It is possible that this person could again be sanctioned again – not having transportation and being too sick to go to the Los Angeles County GAIN office to see a worker. 2 CCWRO Welfare News November 25, 2015 #2015-09- Page 3 Welfare-to-Work or Welfare-to-Sanction? Sanctions = 42% Jobs= 4% FACT: California leads the nation in child poverty. $2.2 billion could be better used to lift California’s children out of poverty rather than more sanctions. September 2012 September 2013 September 2014 September 2015 Number of Unduplicated Participants Participating in a WtW Activity 117,372 119,946 123,637 116,709 Sanctioned Previously and Currently 49,870 51,876 62,973 59,348 PERCENTAGE Unduplicated Participants being sanctioned this month 42% 53% 60% 62% Secondary Education 414 122 110 100 Self-Initiated Program (SIP) 10,241 8,204 7,457 5,893 TOTAL Participants in Secondary Educa- tion – College 10,655 8,326 7,585 5,993 Percentage of Secondary Education 9% 7% 6% 5% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction $6,233,750 $7,953, $9,240,875 $9,013,375 Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 4,286 4,108 3,336 4,240 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs 4% 3% 3% 4% WtW Update plus SB 1041 Impact AnalysisJuly, 2015 California SEGREGATED Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes REPORT 0% 5% 10% 2012 2013 2014 2015 WtW Secondary Education California’s Epployment Program for CalWORKs is SEGREGATED- We Need to END SEGREGATION of California’s Poor Families!! QUESION : Why is California’s Welfare-to-Work Progam SEGREGATED ? ANSWER: Congress authorized over $3.3 billion a year to operate employment programs for Amer- icans in the most recently reauthorized WIA act P.L. 113-128. In California there is another estimated $5.6 billion employment programs for Califor-nians. 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 2012 2013 2014 2015 WtW Sanctions of Unduplicated Participants WtW Secondary Education Percentage of WtW Undupli- cated Participants Sanctioned Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports 3 ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-11

2384 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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. http:\/\/www.ccwro.org December 21, 2015 Issue #2015-11 more on page 2 Food Insecurity In California Lingers On County Stops Benefits For Failure To Complete The Annual Redetermination Because Los Angeles County Refused To Complete The Annual Redeter- mination – On March 2, 2015, Los Angeles County advised Ms. 2015085097 that her certification for CalFresh benefits would terminate effective April 30, 2015. After Ms. 2015085097 received the letter dated March 2, 2015, she called her eligibility worker every day and the eligibility worker never answered her calls. She then asked for a state hearing. The county hearing representative called her and told her she had an appointment on April 7, 2015 to com- plete her yearly review. Ms. 2015085097 picked up the paperwork from the county office before April 7, 2015, completed the paperwork, and returned to the county office on April 7, 2015. On April 7, 2015, a county worker told her that she did not have an ap- pointment and they would not accept her paperwork because she had a pending state hearing. Thereafter she tried to contact the county hearing representative but she was unable to reach her after April 7, 2015. On April 20, 2015, Los Angeles County issued a no- tice of action that Ms. 2015085097 CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits would discontinue effective April 30, 2015 because she did not complete the yearly re- determination. County Stops CalFresh For Excess Income When There Was No Excess Income – Mr. 201512443 is a forty-year-old man who received CalFresh benefits from the county on behalf of himself, his adult daugh- ter and one minor child. On April 9, 2015, the County issued a notice of action discontinuing CalFresh ben- efits to Mr. 201512443’s household effective April 30, 2015, on the basis of excess gross income. 1 County Client Abuse Report According to the CDSS website, The CalFresh Program add[s] to your food budget to put healthy and nutritious food on the table. . . The CalFresh Program helps to im- prove the health and well-being of qualified households and individuals by providing them a means to meet their nutritional needs. In truth, Californians are experienc- ing an increase in food insecurity in part, due to the failure to provide emergency food assistance to persons and families in dire need of food. Previously known as the Food Stamp Program since beneficiaries received food coupons that were redeem- able for food, the Program was never designed to pay for all food needs it was just a supplemental food as- sistance program. Effective Oct. 1, 2008, the federal government changed the name to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Pro- gram (SNAP) and after spending several millions of dollars California decided to call it CalFresh which says nothing about food. The idea of using the word fresh was to encourage beneficiaries to use their bene- fits to buy fresh food. In reality, CalFresh benefits rarely last through the month- they run out in the third week. THE BENEFITS OF THE CALFRESH PROGRAM – In September 2015 there were 2,075,773 households who received CalFresh benefits. These households constitute 4,380,389 individuals. The CalFresh benefits issued in September 2015 amounted to $631,249,251. Annually, the CalFresh Program in California creates over 80,000 jobs through the economic activity that it triggers in California. THE DARKSIDE OF THE CALFRESH PRO- GRAM There remains thousands of Californians who continue to endure food insecurity. During the 3rd quarter of 2015, 63% of CalFresh applicants who had less than $100 in resources and less than $150 income were denied emergency benefits. In human terms, this is 219,000 household or over 600,000 human beings. See Table # 1. The county reports the quarterly statistics to CDSS in the DFA 296X reports as mandated by Section 18913 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. more on page 3 CCWRO Welfare News December 21, 2015 # 2015-11 Con’t from Page 2 In addition, there are monthly reports known as DFA 296 that report the number applications received and what happened to the applications. Although Orange and Placer Counties did not submit the July-September quarter, both counties still received their CalFresh single allocation funds. In contrast, when Public Assistance-CalFresh recipi- ent fails to turn in his or her report, they did not receive the same forgiveness from Placer and Orange Counties. Orange County terminated 178 cases and Placer County terminated 22 cases for not submitting reports. Although the law requires that all CalFresh applica- tions be reviewed for expedited services, during the third quarter, 85,210 households applying for Cal- Fresh were not evaluated for food insecurity. Table #2 reveals the top 10 counties violating state law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEADS THE STATE WITH COUNTY-CAUSED OVERDUE CALFRESH RECERTIFICATIONS Los Angeles County, which reports hardly any churning, leads the State of California in overdue recertifications. During September 2015, LA County had 2,035 cases that were not recertified because of county-caused delays. We thought that this might simply be an aberration. After a review of the DFA 296 reports, we learned that it is not an aberration. TABLE #3 reveals the number of Los Angeles County Caused Overdue CalFresh Recertifications. In most CalWIN counties, thousands of redetermina- tions result in termination of CalFresh benefits. This means the household must reapply for benefits. Counties generally mail the beneficiary a 45-day advance notice with an appointment, and sometimes with the SAWS-2 application. The county then says that they will call. Sometimes the beneficiary never gets a call from the county at the designated date and time. Many counties provides the beneficiary with a call-in window, like from 8-12 noon. This is very beneficiary unfriendly in that many beneficiaries take their kids to school and bring them home. Some may be working. Beneficiary unavailability is rarely a factor that the county uses to schedule the telephon- ic appointment for a redetermination. Certainly, this type of recertification process is provider friendly at the expense of the CalFresh program beneficiaries. 2 April, May and June of 2015 TOTAL Ap- plications Received during the quarter Applications Processed for CF-ES During the Quarter Percentage of Applications NOT Reviewed for CF-ES Santa Barbara 4,229 1,493 65% Yolo 2,576 1,085 58% San Luis Obispo 2,384 1,122 53% Santa Clara 10,118 4,774 53% Ventura 9,105 4,830 47% Solano 4,547 2,605 43% Los Angeles 156,660 92,604 41% Contra Costa 8,758 5,317 39% San Diego 33,531 23,408 30% San Francisco 7,511 5,505 27% TABLE #1 TABLE #2 April, May and June of 2015 Applications Processed for CF-ES During the Quarter Applications Approved for CF-ES Percentage of Applications NOT Approved for CF-ES Statewide 384,871 143,890 78% Sacramento 22,967 4,967 73% Santa Clara 4,774 1,300 73% Sonoma 3,328 907 70% Monterey 5,511 1,628 68% San Diego 23,408 7,583 67% Contra Costa 5,317 1,770 65% San Joaquin 9,807 3,418 64% Riverside 35,736 12,887 64% Orange 16,528 5,964 63% Alameda 11,441 4,221 63% Kern 17,324 6,416 62% Stanislaus 10,043 3,799 59% Los Angeles 92,604 37,826 62% Month\/Year Overdue recertifications (CWD caused) during the month in Los Angeles County January, 2015 820 February, 2015 1202 March, 2015 1495 April, 2015 1200 May, 2015 1729 June, 2015 1566 July, 2015 1343 August, 2015 1754 September, 2015 2035 TABLE #3 Con’t from Page 1 CCWRO Welfare News December 21, 2015 #2015-11 3 The county records show that the reason for the pro- posed discontinuance was not that Mr. 201512443’s household had excess gross income but that he had allegedly failed to provide income verification when requested. Los Angeles County admitted that the Case Comments established that the Claimant complied with the verification request but a glitch in communications occurred between the case-car- rying eligibility worker and the Income and Eligi- bility Verification System (IEVS) eligibility work- er. The County did not rescind the discontinuance even though it was correct for the County to have done so. The County found that a review of the income verification established that the Claimant’s household has ongoing eligibility for CalFresh. Mr. 201512443 had to ask for a state hearing and actu- ally go to the hearing before Los Angeles County took corrective action. Los Angeles County Erroneously Stops CalFresh July 1, 2013 and Refuses to Restore Benefits Back to July- Ms. 2015140282 received a notice of action on June 2013 stopping her benefits effective July 1, 2013. The county record revealed that Ms. 2015140282 completed her recertification in May 2013, but the County still incorrectly discontinued Ms. 2015140282’s CalFresh benefits in May 2013. Los Angeles County also failed to give Ms. 2015140282 an adequate notice of the discontinu- ance. Ms. 2015140282 discovered this unlawful termination of her benefits in May 2015. Because CalFresh law limits restoration of lost benefits to 12 months but county collection of overpayments to years, Ms. 2015140282 would only be made whole for 12 of the 24 months that her benefits were un- lawfully withheld. Los Angeles County Causes A Five-Month Cal- Fresh Overissuance And Recoups From the Household Who is in Dire Need. On April 16, 2015, Ms. 2015162254 submitted all necessary verification for Los Angeles County to compute the correct CalFresh benefits. Los Angeles County failed to do their job and caused a $609 CalFresh overissuance. Although Ms. 2015162254’s expens- es exceed her income, her family had to survive on reduced CalFresh benefits to recoup a CalFresh overpayment caused by Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Stops CalFresh For Not Submitting the SAR 7. Mr. 2015160067 did not get his CalFresh benefits on May 1, 2015. He asked for a state hearing which was held on August 11, 2015. Mr. 2015 2015160067 testified under oath that he took the completed SAR 7 to the County on April 1, 2015. He also testified that he called the Coun- ty welfare office and left messages on April 6, 9, and 13 to make sure that the County got the SAR-7. Los Angeles County said that they did not get the SAR 7 which had nothing new to report. Notwithstanding Mr. 2015160067’s testimony under oath that he turned in the SAR and called the county three times and no one called him back, ALJ Korson ruled that the County was right to stop his food stamp and let him endure hunger. Santa Clara County Terminated CalFresh Benefits Without Using the Mandatory Form, CW 2200, to Request Verification On April 17, 2015, Mr. 2015156295 received a notice of action terminating his benefits for failure to provide verification. The notice apparently did not specify the verification he failed to provide. Moreover, it appears that Santa Clara refused to use the correct process of requesting verification the CW 2200. Rather the county used a Request For Information (RFI). Mr. 2015156295 applied for CalFresh benefits in Janu- ary 2015. He asserts that he had an incompetent Coun- ty worker as well as an incompetent County worker supervisor. He said that neither the County worker nor the supervisor contacted him to schedule an appoint- ment, and he was given his paper work in a piece meal fashion. The Claimant said that he received the County’s March 25, 2015 letter requesting that he provide verification\/ proof of his current address. He said that he also re- ceived the County’s April 17, 2015 notice of action informing him that his CalFresh benefits would be discontinued effective April 30, 2015 due to the fact that he did not provide all necessary verification. The Claimant testified that he does not recall when he re- ceived the notices but he did not have time to provide the necessary verification to the County, and as a re- sult, when he re-applied for CalFresh benefits on June 5, 2015, he also filed a hearing request to dispute the County’s discontinuance of his CalFresh benefits. Santa Clara County erroneously believes that in order to receive CalFresh, the household must have an ad- dress. Wrong. MPP 63-401.5 states: 63-401.5 The CWD shall not require an otherwise eligible household to re- side in a permanent dwelling or have a fixed mailing address as a condition of eligibility. ”

pdf CCWRO Welfare News #2015-12

2240 downloads

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 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 and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www.ccwro.org December 29, 2015 Issue #2015-12 more on page 2 New York Asks How California Meets SNAP and TANF Emergency Assistance Requirements Using on-Line Application Tools. Answer: California Rarely Does Los Angeles County Intentionally Delays Issuing CalWORKs Benefits to Needy Families New York is developing an on-line application process and wants to know from California how they handle the requirements for emergency assistance for SNAP and TANF cash assistance. In California, that means Cal- WORKs and CalFresh. What New York does not know is that California’s laws and regulations governing emergency assistance for persons and families in dire need, are rarely obeyed. DSS has no meaningful monitoring process to insure compliance with the emergency assistance provisions of CalFresh Expedited Service and CalWORKs Immediate Need. DSS used to get monthly reports about Immediate Need, but that was stopped in the nineties. We believe it was stopped to conceal the systematic refusal of counties to comply with the WRL v. Woods order and state regula- tions MPP 40-129. The same is true for CalFresh. During the months of July, August and September of 2015 there were 15,091 CalWORKs applications that were considered for Cal- Fresh expedited services-7,047 applications were denied expedited service CalFresh benefits. It is not uncommon for advocates to get a call regard- ing CalWORKs applicant benefits issuance delays in Los Angeles County after applicants have provided all county requested verification and information. When an advocate contacts the county the response is we have 45 days to process an application. Los Angeles County workers make this excuse even when the applicant was issued Immediate Need. MPP 40-129.9 mandates that the cases be issued full benefits within 15 working days. MPP 40-126.1 provides: The determination of eligibility, including the gathering of any necessary evidence, shall be completed promptly. Los Angeles County has decided that promptly means the full 45 days. There is no regulation that support this perplexing policy. So where did this policy come from? First, in Los Angeles County, the intake worker does the interview, gathers all verification, determines if the case is eligible for aid, but cannot issue benefits unless the supervisor approves the issuance of benefits. This is called supervisory approval . There is no supervisory approval for denying the case, only for granting the case as far as we know. So where did this policy come from? This policy comes from the when the AFDC program had quality control (QC) and Los Angeles County was dinged for an error rate of granting applications incor- rectly. In response to being cited for the error rate, Los Angeles County developed a corrective action plan that all cases will be reviewed by the supervisor before benefits are issues at intake. Now, there is no AFDC program and no QC for Cal- WORKs but the policy lives on. Cases that should be issued payments when eligibility has been cleared wait for days to weeks for the supervisor to get around to approving the case. Workers, when in doubt, deny the case to lighten the work of the supervisors. Thus, there is an enormous amount of churning in Los Angeles County. This outdated policy from previous years should be ditched by DPSS immediately. 15,091 considered 143,833 NOT considered CCWRO Welfare News December 29, 2015 # 2015-12- page 2 Con’t from Page 1 Any person eligible for CalWORKs Immediate Need is also eligible for CalFresh Expedited Services in 99% of the cases. During the July through September 2015 period, there were 143,883 CalWORKs applications. As stat- ed above, only 15,091 CalWORKs applications were considered for CalFresh Expedited Service (CF-ES). CalWORKs applicants are categorically eligible for CalFresh, thus, they should all been considered for CalFresh expedited service. Some may argue that not everyone who applies for CalWORKs also applies for CalFresh. That is fair. But can anybody argue that only 10% of the CalWORKs applicants also applied for CalFresh? Counties CalWORKs Applications Considered for CalFresh Expedited Service CalWORKs Applications Considered for CalFresh Expedited Service PERCENTAGE CalWORKs Applications Considered for CalFresh Expedited Service CalWORKs Applicants Received CalFresh Expedited Service PERCENTAGE CalWORKs Applicants that DID NOT Receive CalFresh Expedited Service Statewide 143,883 15,091 10% 8,044 47% Orange 4766 1,240 26% 330 73% Santa Clara 2584 83 3% 23 72% Sacramento 7671 631 8% 262 58% Monterey 1894 144 8% 66 54% San Mateo 1129 67 6% 31 54% Contra Costa 2763 151 5% 71 53% San Joaquin 3876 421 11% 203 54% San Diego 10,082 509 5% 248 51% Fresno 5526 108 2% 53 51% Tulare 3189 300 9% 152 49% Stanislaus 3054 334 11% 177 47% Ventura 2372 79 3% 42 47% Kern 7125 765 11% 413 46% San Bernardino 14494 1,404 10% 762 46% Alameda 3393 389 11% 218 44% During the same period only 15,091 cases out of the 143,883 applicants were considered for CalFresh Expedited Service. Given the fact that thousands and thousands of CalWORKs were not considered for CalFresh Expedited Services, it is reasonable to assume that they were not considered for Cal- WORKs Immediate Need also. CalWORKs families in deep poverty and distress should be provided with CF-ES and CalWORKs Immediate Need. TABLE # 1 reveals the number of applicants who were not considered for CalFresh Expedited and very likely not for CalWORKs Immediate Need in California’s large counties. So if New York really wants to know how California is complying with the Emergency Assistance re- quirements of California law the answer is they are not, for the most part. SOURCE: 3rd quarter of 2015 Based on DFA 296X and CW 273 DSS Reports From California Welfare Depratments TABLE # 1 – CalWORKs Applicants Considered for CalFresh Expedited Services and Issued Expedited Service during July through September of 2015. If The county did not evaluate for emergency food stamps, then most likely they never evaluated for CalWORKs Immediate Need! Column #4 reveals the estimated number of CalWORKs applicants evaluated for CalWORKs Immediate Need by the county. ”