Search Demo

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-01 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. In Brief Social Workers Caught Lying & Fabricating Evidence Hardwick v. Orange County is a civil rights action alleging social worker defendants used alleged maliciously perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure plaintiff’s removal from her mother, and that this abuse of state power violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitu- tional rights to her familial relationship with her mother. (Hardwick v. County of Orange, 15-55563, published January 3, 2017) The United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that there is no absolute and quali-fied immunity for social workers who use perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure plain- tiff’s removal from her mother as an abuse of state power which violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to her familial relationship. Deanna Fogerty-Harwick lost cus- tody of her minor children, Preslie and Kendall by an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, California based upon false allegations, perjured testimony and fabricated evidence. Deanna Fogerty-Harwick brought a civil rights ac- tion under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and successfully sued some of the County and employees of its Social Services Agency ( SSA ) recovering monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. (Fogarty-Harwick v. County of Orange,No G)39045, 2010 WL 2354383 at 1(Cal.Ct. App. June 14, 2010) Excerpts from Trail – Judge Trott: Are you telling me that a person in your client’s shoes could not understand you cannot commit perjury in a court proceeding in order to take somebody’s children away? Answer: Of course not. Judge Owens: Was there anything you know of that told social workers that they should lie and they should create false evidence in a court proceeding? Answer: No . . . . DHCS established a Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) modernization workgroup that does not include CalWORKs advocates. MEDS has a huge impact on the lives of CalWORKs\/ Medi-Cal recipients. It appears that the workgroup excludes those pesky advocates who will represent the recipients of notices of action or inactions that will be based on MEDS information. The Social Security Administration has a new portal for requesting SSI reconsiderations. POMS SI 04005.040 an- nounces iAppeals Non-Medical for Title XVI. There are two (2) types of actions that can be filed on-line: Request for Reconsideration (i561), and Request for Hearing by Administrative Law Judge (i501). The Governor presented his budget for 2017-2018. The budget reveals that there is $7.3 billion available for CalWORKs families living on a fixed incomes equal to the maximum benefits they received in 1988, unadjusted for inflation, which is equal to 33% of the federal poverty level. Only $5.1 billion is allocated for CalWORKs. Last year’s budget passed by the Democratic Legislature liter- ally snatched $2,072,764,000 dollars out of the mouths of about 1 million children living in deep poverty. In 2011 AB 6 eliminated finger imaging for CalFresh recipients, but kept it for CalWORKs so that counties could use the system to fingerprint General Assistance and General Relief applicants. The 10\/31\/16 report from the Statewide Fingerimaging System shows that newly added persons included CalFresh applicants. Number of CalFresh applicants County Number of CalFresh Applicants Finger Imaged Alameda 1 Contra Costa 2 Los Angeles 188 Placer 14 San Diego 3 https:\/\/secure.ssa.gov\/iApplNMD\/start https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/forms\/ha-501.pdf https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/forms\/ssa-561.pdf http:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB6 http:\/\/ccwro.org\/ https:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2017\/01\/03\/15-55563.pdf CCWRO Welfare News March 16, 2017 2017-01 Page 2 – A Los Angeles County Medi-Cal recipient Ms. U26B6CB, had no share of cost Medi-Cal and was receiving IHSS with no share of cost. One hor- rible day on 3\/5\/17, she received a notice of action dated 3\/3\/17 stating: Your share of cost is changed to $100 per month beginning 03\/01\/17 , Also on 3\/5\/17 she received another notice of action dated 3\/3\/17 stating: Your share of cost is changed to $100 per month beginning 02\/01\/17. MPP 22- 001(t)(1) provides: Timely Notice – A written notice that is mailed to the person affected at least 10 days before the effective date of the action. See Section 22-072.4 for computation of the 10-day pe- riod. These illegal notices released by LRS are a gross violation of Goldberg v. Kelly that requires an advance notice before the county can take a nega- tive action. – Los Angeles County DPSS victim Ms. B0K0T24 is a mom of 8 kids. She receives CalWORKs, Cal- Fresh and Medi-Cal. Her annual redetermination was due in February of 2017. She completed the volumes of paper mailed by DPSS and turned them into the DPSS Compton office on 2\/17\/17. She was interviewed by a worker who requested numerous verification without using the CW 2200. NOTE: On 3\/14\/14, DSS issued ACL 14-26 stating that coun- ties have to use the CW 2200 to request verification. There was nothing in ACL 14-26 stating except for Los Angeles County. Ms. B0K0T24 returned to the DPSS Compton of- fice twice to keep the appointment with the worker, but the worker was not present. She turned in the requested verification, including one check stub for $420.75 and had a receipt proving that the request- ed verification was submitted. Her husband only received one check in January for $420.75. The check shows that the year-to-date was also $420.75. Effective March 1, 2017, the DPSS Compton office stopped her benefits because allegedly she failed to turn in all checks for January. Ms. B0K0T24 contacted her advocate on 3\/3\/17 who advised her to reapply for CalWORKs. The advocate was relying on MPP 40-109.1 Right to Apply for Aid subject to the limitations set forth in Section 40-117, any person has the right to apply for aid, either on his\/her own behalf or on behalf of another. An applicant who appears ineligible must still be allowed to exercise his\/her right to make an application . When Ms. B0K0T24 tried to make an application at the DPSS Compton office, she was told that she could not apply for CalWORKs because she had an open case. My benefits had been stopped, but my case is still open, said Ms. B0K0T24. That is (cont’d pg2) Harwick, cont’d. Preslie Harwick contended that the social worker employees acting under color of state law mali- ciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evi- dence to secure her removal from her mother, and that this abuse of state power violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to her familial relationship with her mother. Social workers, who lied under oath and fabricated evidence, claimed to have qualified immunity to shield them from the action brought by Deanna Fogerty-Hardwick. The court held: In this case, the jury specifically concluded that Vreeken and Dwojak lied, falsified evidence and suppressed exculpatory evidence all of which was material to the dependency court’s decision to deprive Fogarty- Hardwick of custody and that they did so with malice. The court held that Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency. Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2000) (cita- tions omitted). The US Supreme Court, in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 04 (1977) said Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institu- tion of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cher- ished values, moral and cultural. – Ms. B194F60 received a NOA from Los Angeles County terminating benefits for not turning in a SAR-7 that had no changes to report. The complete SAR-7 was turned in before the end of the submit month. The i s were dotted and the t s were crossed. However, Los Angeles County was not able to get LRS to understand that the completed SAR-7 was received and the case had to be re- stored. Thus, Ms. B194F60 did not receive her ben- efits timely in December 2016, January 2017 and February 2017 because the county had manually forced the system to issue the benefits, each month, after Ms. B194F60 told the county I did not get my benefits. County Client Abuse Report weird . But Los Angeles County DPSS Compton office supervisor, Ruby Dye told her she could not apply, and to just bring in certain verification and her benefits will be issued. The supervisor failed to give her a CW 2200 for the requested verification. Ms. B0K0T24 returned to the office on 3-7-17 and this time Ms. Dye said that she needed to reapply. The advocate trying to help Ms. B0K0T24. He contacted the DPSS Compton office and talked to Deputy Director, Darnell King. Ms. King told the advocate that Ms. B0K0T24 needs to provide DPSS Compton offie with copiews of all check stubs that her husband received during the 21st century end of story. Ms. King also stated that no person in Los Angeles county can apply if they have an open case. Ms. King stated that no person in Los Angeles county could apply if they had an open case, even if their benefits have been stopepd. The advocate asked if a person had an open case for several weeks or months but received no benefits, could they reapply? Ms. King’s response was no . The fundamental problem in this case is that Mr. B0K0T24 had only worked one week in January and got only one check. But DPSS did not believe him. The Compton office informed the advocate that Mr. B0K0T24 must go to the employer and get proof that he only received one check in January. Yes, DPSS wanted her husband to tell the employer that he is a welfare recipient and the welfare office does not believe that he only got one check in Janu- ary. Can you please give me a letter saying I only got one check in January? This may be the last time that Ms. B0K0T24’s husband is asked to work for this employer for the employer never knew that he had a welfare recipient working for him. Yes. DPSS calls the program welfare-to-work, but they run it like the welfare-to-welfare. As of 3\/9\/17, Ms. B0K0T24 still had no benefits and was prohib- ited from making an application for aid. Fortunately, Winna Crichlow, Division Manager of Division IV was able to get the payment out to Ms. B0K0T24. Thank you Ms. Crichlow. However, the questions is how many other Ms. B0K0T24’s are being treated this way by the Compton office? In December, 2016,during the holiday season, 1.3 million SSI re- cipients lost $124 million in food stamps. Annually, there is a $1.5 billion loss of federal money for California’s food insecure SSI re- cipients. Thousands of SSI recipi- ents endured food insecurity while the holiday cupboards of those who could have made food stamps avail- able to them were well stocked. This mean-spirited policy could eas- ily change if the will to do it was there. CCWRO FACT CCWRO Welfare News March 16, 2017 2017-01 Page 3 Mark Your Calendars! May 4th, 2017 Every year the Sac- ramento Region Community Foundation sponsors the Big Day of Giv- ing cam- paign. The Big Day of Giving is an oppor- tunity for donors to show their community pride and support the nonprofits that make our region great. This is the first year CC- WRO will be participating and we are asking friends, colleagues and the community to think of us on May 4th and donate what you can. We can also ask for matching funds from individuals, groups, companies, etc. Go to https:\/\/www.bigdayofgiving.org\/, go to find a nonprofit , enter Coalition of Cali- fornia Welfare Rights Organizations and explore our information pages and needs requests. We appreciate your support on May 4, 2017! ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-02 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Last year, CCWRO, through a grant from the California Endowment, worked with the County Welfare Directors’ Association in a pilot outreach program intended to increase participation in the Medi-Cal 250% working disabled program in three counties. That project produced information about the desperate need to raise California’s Medi-Cal standard of need. Information for this article is excerpted from the report CCWRO submitted to the project’s funding sources. The current Medi-Cal Standard of Need is $600 per month. This amount was initially established in 1990. The $600 level is nearly half of what is now universally recognized as being necessary for economic well-being. Using the United States Department of Labor’s CPI Inflation Calculator at the website www.bls.gov\/data\/inflation_calcula- tor.htm, the commiserate standard of need in 2015 would be approximately $1100. A more accurate standard of need based on the current usual and ordinary contemporary standard of living is $1180 which reflects that types of pur- chases that households generally have in 2017 — cell phones, cable television and\/or internet access. The higher number also considers California’s high housing costs. CCWRO suggested the adoption of one of two op- tions, namely Option #1: Raise the Medi-Cal standard of need to the current SSI\/SSP level of $889.00. Option #2: Raise the Medi-Cal standard of need to the 2016 SSA monthly earnings limit. For 2016, SSA established $1130 per month as a significant gainful activity measurement as a mini- mum earnings level for financial self-sufficiency. This level is slightly less than the contemporary In Brief Now is the time to move forward with Medi-Caid expansions and ACA reform On 11-22-16 San Joaquin County asked DSS Can we consider Vocational Education Internship\/Externship hours as a Work Experience activity instead of as Voca- tional Education? [If vocation education is counted as work experience, the county can count the hours in the WPR.] On 2-7-17 DSS confirmed that the county can consider Vocational Education Internship\/Externship hours as a Work Experience hours instead of Vocational Education. Vocational Education can only be counted toward the WPR for one year, while work experience – unpaid labor – has no similar limitation. On 1-10-17 San Mateo County asked DSS if caring for an ill or incapacitated member of the household exemption be applied\/granted to both parents in a two- parent household if the doctor has completed the CW61 stating that both parents are needed in the home to care for an ill child? On 2-6-17 DSS responded stating The county can apply MPP 42-2712.461 (a) which says, For an individual to qualify for this exemption, the CWD staff shall determine if the caretaking responsibil- ities impair the ability of the individual to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. The policy interpretation implies that the county can deny an exemption, even if the treating physician finds that both parents need to be home to protect the child. During a CWDA Child Care Committee meeting, Orange County said that CalWORKs beneficiaries who are entitled to Stage 2 child care are returning to Stage 1, because the Stage 2 providers require families to pay a higher family fee than what they were paying in Stage 1. In an email dated 2-28-17 Shasnee Clark said Stage 1 family moving to Stage 2 and having to pay a much higher amount in a copayment and wants to trans- fer back to Stage 1 to pay the lower copayment. CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2017 2017-02 Page would be limiting the SOC amount to no more than 25% of household income. This way the Medi-Cal program will truly work for people who need it and who have worked for the benefits they need to survive and live both indepen- dently and with dignity. Summary of the new contract: The USDA Food & Nutrition Services (FNS) and HHS Center for Medical Services (CMS) has informed California that effective 2023 there will only be federal financial participation for one com- puter system for public assistance in California. Currently there are three computer systems in California: CalWIN, C-IV and LRS. California is proposing an incremental approach to reach to one system by 2025, if this approach is approved by FNS & CMS. LRS and C-IV will be migrated to a new system called CalACES. California is proposing to transition the CalWIN and CalACES into one system called California Statewide Automated Welfare System (CalSAWS). This new system would include foster care determi- nations, consolidated SAWS portal and Mobile app and online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool (OCAT). The CalSAWS system would be governed by the 58 different counties and not by the single state agency. The single state agency, DSS, would simply provide oversight and collaboration. standard of living amount but is somewhat higher than the traditional CPI rate. The simple argument in favor of increasing the Medi-Cal standard of need is that the standard of need has not kept up with inflation and escalating costs of housing and basic needs of necessities of life over the last 27 years. The questions become: How will this change impact Medi-Cal recipients? Will it increase Medi-Cal costs? The positive impact on Medi-Cal recipients who have a high share of cost which is about 30% or more of the household’s income is this: increas- ing the Medi-Cal standard of need will make it less expensive for share of cost households to afford their care. In last year’s pilot, most responders to the outreach activities were concerned about reduc- ing their share of cost so that they could afford In-Home Supportive Services. Although the study sample of from three counties was small, the in- formation provided is compelling: The average household income was less than $1600 per month in SSDI or pension-related income. For these house- holds, the Medi-Cal share of cost was $1000. In other words, these individuals were being required to spend $1000 per month to pay for their in-home care services. While this is certainly less than the $3500 to $4000 per month in skilled nursing care costs, $1000 is a lot of money. For a person with $1600 in monthly income, $1000 is 62.5% of total income. This is a barrier to health care access. It leaves vulnerable seniors and the disabled at risk of receiving poor quality services or going without needed assistance. In other words, it’s a set up for accidents, injuries and even physi- cal and financial abuse that most likely will result in hospitalization and institutionalization. In many instances, family caretakers pick up the slack as best they can, often without compensation and on an irregular as needed basis. Raising the standard of need to approximately $900 if the 2017 SSI limit is used would result in an SOC for a household with $1600 of income, $700 to be used for medical expenses, or about 44% of household income. Using one of the recommended CPI levels of at least $1100 as a standard of need level would reduce the SOC to household income ratio to 31.25% of household income. In otherwise, $500 per month, which is close to affordable. The best solution would be for California to con- duct a standard of need study and adjust the Medi- Cal standard of need upward to a level that makes sense for IHSS households. Another consideration March\/April 2017 Finalize Governance Language \/ Voting Structure April 2017 Complete additional Educa- tional Sessions, as needed April\/May 2017 Submit draft language for Approval by JPA General Membership May-July 2017 PA Agreement and MOU pre- sented to 40 County Boards of Supervisor for Approval Early Fall 2017 CalACES Consortium Formed Migration Planning Update Governance SAWS Moving to CalSAWS County Client Abuse Report In April of 2017,1.3 million SSI recipients will lose $124 million in food stamps. Annually, there is a $1.5 billion loss of federal money for California’s food insecure SSI recipients. Thousands of SSI recipients will endure food insecurity this April. This mean-spirited policy of not ending the SSI food stamps cashout could easily be changed by the Governor or California’s Democratic Legislature. CCWRO FACT CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2017 2017-02 Page 3 ETB-3 Update EBT 3 is the third EBT Services contract. Fidelity Informa- tion Systems, LLC (FIS) and Xerox competed. FIS was the winning bidder. Summary of the new contract: Continue offering EBT for food and cash benefit issuance. Add the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to EBT. New services: Data warehouse for business intelligence and program integ- rity analytics. Enhanced Cardholder Website Adding WIC, ability to sign up for text alerts, and map-based searches (with door-to-door directions) for surcharge-free cash access, retailer locations, etc. Mobile phone application Offers all website services. As of the January 31, 2017 EBT Food & Cash Transition Workplan, the Milestones are as follows: EBT 3 Milestones Based on EBT Food & Cash Transition Workplan As of 1\/31\/17 MilESTonE nAME STArT DATE FiniSh DATE DGS – EXECUTE FIS CONTRACT 6\/8\/2016 6\/8\/2016 EBT – FOOD & CASH MOCK CONVERSION TESTING 3\/17\/2017 10\/10\/2017 EBT – FOOD & CASH ELIGIBILITy SySTEM TESTING 4\/12\/2017 6\/14\/2017 EBT – DEL 8.A – COUNTy CHANGE IN CASH ACCESS PLANS 4\/5\/2017 1\/16\/2018 EBT – FOOD & CASH FEDERAL ACCEP- TANCE TESTING 8\/30\/2017 11\/01\/2017 EBT – FOOD & CASH TRAINING OF COUNTy TRAINERS 8\/10\/2017 10\/31\/2017 EBT – FOOD & CASH STATEWIDE CUTOVER- GO LIVE 1\/19\/2018 1\/21\/2018 A Shasta County beneficary of public benefits was barred from the Shasta County Welfare office. When he tried to appear at his due process hearing, Shasta County decided that this welfare recipient could not come into the welfare office, which was the only location that hearings were held, thus, no due process. The Shasta County welfare office is being used to deny due process and violate the basic constitutinal rights of Californians entitled to public benefits. Mark Your Calendars! May 4th, 2017 Every year the Sacramento Region Community Founda- tion sponsors the Big Day of Giving campaign. The Big Day of Giving is an opportunity for donors to show their community pride and support the nonprofits that make our region great. This is the first year CCWRO will be participating and we are asking friends, colleagues and the community to think of us on May 4th and donate what you can. We can also ask for matching funds from individu- als, groups, companies, etc. Go to https:\/\/www.bigdayof- giving.org\/, go to find a nonprofit , enter Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations and explore our information pages and needs requests. We appreciate your support on May 4, 2017! ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/1605): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 400 Bad Request “}

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-04 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave. Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. The U.S. economy has made a clear shift from an industrial-based economy to what is called a knowledge-based economy . Virtually all jobs paying a family sustaining wage require second- ary education. In fact, U.S. employers report that they cannot find an adequate number of qualified applicants for knowledge-based jobs. Yet California’s failed Welfare-to-Work (WtW) still functions as if the industrial-based economy of the previous century still exists. The focus of the WtW program, for which California spends over $2.2 billion a year, are blue collar, service jobs. California’s employment programs segregate CalWORKs recipients who are seeking employ- ment from persons not on CalWORKs who also seek employment. The non-CalWORKs recipients can participate in work investment opportunities, training and education programs, while CalWORKs recipients are forced to at- tend WtW appraisal, job club, and unpaid work duty that are solely designed for the industrial- based economy while some, here and there, are allowed by the county to attend secondary education to attain the tools for the knowledge- based economy jobs and earn wages that would sustain a family. CalWORKs recipients attending secondary edu- cational institutions to get knowledge-based jobs are severely punished by the counties through the WtW sanction. A family of two (2) receiving $577 a month see their CalWORKs benefits go down to $350 a month, which is equal to 22% of the federal poverty level. (cont’d on page 2) Total funds available for CalWORKs Total appropriated for CalWORKs Total redirected from the mouths of CalWORKs children living in deep poverty to nonCalWORKs programs, such as Student Aid Commission, Foster Care Programs, etc. California’s Welfare-to- Work Fails Recipients 7.4 billion 5.1 billion 2.3 billion 2017-2018 CalWORKs Budget FACTS FACT: While California’s CalWORKs children endure the highest federal supplemental poverty rates in the nation, in 2017-2018 only 69% of the available CalWORKs funds is appropriated for CalWORKs. Today, CalWORKs grant levels are the same as they were in l998, 28 years ago. This is clear State child abuse . CCWRO Welfare News June 15, 2017 2017-04 Page 2 The Public Law Interest Program and the East Community Law Center on behalf of Cal- WORKs Welfare-to-Work (WtW) participants sued DSS and Alameda County for failure to restore months to their 48-month clock when the county failed to engage CalWORKs recipi- ents in a WtW activity. There are thousands of CalWORKs beneficiaries who are not en- gaged but not sanctioned while their 48-month clock is running and the counties are earning $382.27 a month for each client. The petition- ers’ claim is that the law gives the counties 90 days to ask CalWORKs recipients to sign a WtW plan. DSS came up with a mind boggling defense it was the recipients’ fault. DSS and Alameda County assert that to enter into a welfare-to-work plan is a responsibility placed on the recipient The county also asserts that Alameda County has no duty to give the recipi- ent a WtW plan and claims that it is the duty of CalWORKs recipients to sign the plan. DSS and the county rely on the following lan- guage: 11325.21. (a) Any individual who is required to participate in welfare-to-work activities pur- suant to this article shall enter into a written welfare-to-work plan with the county welfare department after assessment as required by subdivision (c) of Section 11320.1, but no more than 90 days after the date that a recipient’s eligibility for aid is determined or the date the recipient is required to participate in welfare-to- work activities pursuant to Section 11320.3 Although the statement does not say the coun- ty must offer the plan to the recipient, Welfare and Institutions Code 11322.6 provides that The welfare-to-work plan developed by the county welfare department and the participant pursuant to this article shall provide for welfare- to-work activities. According to DSS and Alameda County, a plan can never be developed unless the recipient brings in a WtW plan and asks the county to sign it. It is kind of comical and sad. A court decision is pending. Why are these families subjected to WtW sanc- tions? Because they had the audacity to embark upon the path to self-sufficiency by attending col- lege without getting the permission of the county welfare department. The WtW 25 report contains the only information about the WtW program. The latest report for March 2017 reveals that the WtW program sanctions 37% of the unduplicated participants while only 4% found jobs that ended CalWORKs, but did not make them self-sufficient because they are generally still getting public ben- efits. In March of 2017, there were 67,062 single parents participating in the WtW program. 38,660 persons were being sanctioned which seems to be the primary purpose of the program given the dismal success rate of the segregationist and out of date WtW program. The March 2017 WtW report reveals that many coun- ties have more sanctioned CalWORKs recipients than those participating in a WtW activity. There are major benefits to counties in sanctioning participants. Coun- ties are funded through a single allocation system. Single allocation assumes that every registrant for WtW, regardless of actual participation in a WtW activity, costs $382.37 a month. For example, San Bernardino County has 9,931 CalWORKs recipients being sanctioned while only 8,025 CalWORKs recipients participate in WtW. Yet, San Bernardino continues to receive a single alloca- tion for 17,956 illusive participants. San Bernardino, a huge opponent of welfare fraud, has been overpaid by getting $382.27 a month per participant for 9,931 par- ticipants each month who cost the county zero dollars in that they are not participating in any WtW activity. The single allocation allows counties to use excess Cal- WORKs benefits for other purposes. TABLE #1 shows counties and the number of recipients being sanctioned in the CalWORKs program by having more people in sanction mode. Jones v. Lightbourne Lawsuit DSS & Alameda County Make Bizarre Claims Counties Fleecing the CalWORKs WtW Program TABLE #1 – Sanctions v. Participation WtW Fails Recipients (cont’d. from page 1) Counties Sanctions Actual Particiants Butte 575 451 Kern 5,364 2,061 Madera 489 92 Mendocino 227 164 Merced 1,340 1,024 San Bernardino 9,931 8,025 San Joaquin 3,297 1,503 Shasta 508 446 CCWRO Welfare News June 15, 2017 2017-04 Page 3 Fresno County Sanctions CalWORKs Recipient Who Was Working – On 6\/22\/16, Ms. 2016302097 was asked to come to an appointment for WtW ap- praisal on 7\/1\/17. The Fresno County representative acknowledges that Ms. 2016302097 told the county she did not attend the 7\/1\/16 orientation\/appraisal because she was working. The county contended that the sanction should be upheld because Ms. 2016302097 did not contact the county to reschedule the appointment. In Fresno County working is not a good reason to miss orientation\/ appraisal. Furthermore, Fresno County never told Ms. 2016302097 that she had a choice between working or obeying the commands of the welfare department the commands of the welfare department always supersedes working . Los Angeles County Unlawfully Denies Trans- portation – Ms. 2016315319 got a job in Utah when she was still living in Los Angeles County. She was meeting the federal work participation rates (WPR) and Los Angeles County would have proudly claimed her hours to show that they were meeting the WPR. In addition, her earnings were used as income in computing her monthly CalWORKs benefits. But then Ms. 2016315319 had the audacity to request supportive services. The transportation assistance was from her house to her job in Utah. Given the fact that it would take more than an hour each way, Ms. 2016315319 was entitled to actual mileage. But Los Angeles County was OK with using her hours for the WPR and money to reduce her benefits, but when it came to transportation no way. Ms. 2016315319 filed for a state hearing. At the hearing the county appeals representative stated that the County had denied the request for transportation to the work site in Utah for October 2016. The county based its de- nial on the claimant’s statement to the GAIN social worker that the employer paid her $75 per day for transportation, room and food. The information was verbally verified by the county worker with the em- ployer in Utah. No evidence was presented that the worker was authorized to contact the employer and tell the employer that he or she has a welfare recipi- ent working for them. There is also this thing called confidentiality . The ALJ upheld the County’s denial of transportation without any evidence that the employer actually paid transportation. Moreover, the county alleges that she got $75 a day for going back and forth to Utah from Los Angeles that covered hotel, food and gasoline. Los Angeles County Terminates Transitional Subsidized Employment of a CalWORKs Recipi- ent for Challenging the GAIN Worker Releasing her Social Security Number to the Employer – On 12\/13\/16, Ms. 2016354068 filed a request for a state hearing disputing the GAIN worker’s unpro- fessional conduct of removing her from the Transi- tional Subsidized Employment (TSE) Program and cancelling her TSE contract. Ms. 2016354068 said that she filed a request for a state hearing because her GAIN worker assigned her to a job where the employer fired the claimant because she did not feel comfortable shredding good checks. She said that the GAIN worker attempted to assign her to a new job, but that it would take two weeks for the new employer to check her background via social secu- rity number. Ms. 2016354068 asked her GAIN worker why and how the new employer had the claimant’s social security number to check her background. Ms. 2016354068 testified that she told the GAIN worker that he was wrong for providing the claim- ant’s prospective new employer with the claim- ant’s social security number. She told the GAIN worker that he should expressly request the claim- ant’s social security number from her before he submits the social security number to prospec- tive employers. The claimant testified that she thought that once she asked the GAIN worker why he took her social security number and gave it to the new prospective employer, the GAIN worker removed the claimant from the TSE program. The County Welfare Department County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report (cont’d. on page 4) CCWRO Welfare News June 15, 2017 2017-04 Page 4 claimant testified that she had a GAIN contract to work in the TSE program for eight months, but the GAIN worker removed her from the TSE program and can- celled the contract. Ms. 2016354068 filed for a state hearing and testified that she wanted the administrative law judge to repri- mand the GAIN worker’s unprofessional conduct of removing her from the TSE program and cancelling the TSE contract just because she asked the GAIN worker why he gave the new employer her social security number for a background check. The claimant wants the county to put her back in the TSE program. The claimant indicated that the county did not provide her with any written notice explaining why she was re- moved from the TSE program.The ALJ ORDERED Los Angeles County to reinstate Ms. 2016354068 into the TSE program; continue to provide the claimant with the opportunity to participate in TSE program, as otherwise eligible; and notify the claimant of the county’s action in writing. Los Angeles County Spends over $2,000 to collect a $17.16 WtW supportive services overpayment. On 1\/19\/17, Los Angeles County notified Ms. 2017019071 that she was no longer eligible for CalWORKs as of 2\/1\/17 and that she received an overpayment of Cal- WORKs benefits in March 2009 because the claimant was approved for an ancillary payment for supplies and was advanced $517.16 in GAIN support services. The county further contends the claimant provided a receipt for $500 for a cosmetology kit but did not provide any additional receipts for the remaining $17.16 of the ancillary payment issued to the claimant on 3\/4\/09. The county appeals representative testified that she reviewed the overpayment history and confirmed other than the adjustment of $500 for the amount of the claimant’s payment for the cosmetology kit on 5\/7\/09, the county has not collected any additional funds on the claimant’s CalWORKs overpayment. The county provided docu- ments in support of its contentions. The ALJ ruled that: It is found that the claimant received an overpayment of CalWORKs benefits in March in the amount of $17.16 due to inadvertent household error. The overpayment received by the claimant is based on the issuance of a GAIN ancillary payment in the amount of $517.16 for supplies. After the claimant was notified by the county that she had an overpayment of CalWORKs benefits in the amount of $517.16 because she had failed to provide a receipt for the supplies she purchased, the claimant provided a $500 receipt for a cosmetology kit resulting in the county adjusting the balance of the overpayment to $17.16. It is further found that the claimant has not made any payments on the $17.16 overpayment of CalWORKs benefits since 5\/7\/09. There- fore, the county may demand repayment of the overpayment in CalWORKs benefits issued to the claimant’s assistance unit in the amount of $17.16 for GAIN supportive services issued to the claimant in March 2009 due to inadvertent household error. 42-751.4 Collection of Overpayments (a) If the individual is no longer receiving aid under CalWORKs, recovery of overpayments will not be attempted where the outstanding overpay- ments are less than thirty-five dollars ($35). Rea- sonable cost-effective efforts at collection shall be implemented where the overpayment amounts owed are thirty-five dollars ($35) or more. In this case, Los Angeles County imposed an overpayment on an individual who is no longer a recipient of CalWORKs in violation of MPP 42-751.4 and cost taxpayers about $2,000 which is clearly government taxpayer abuse . San Diego County Fails to Pay All Transpor- tation – Ms. 2017024218 on 2\/15\/17 received a Notice of Action from San Diego County inform- ing her that the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Pro- gram transportation payment she had requested had been denied because she had already been reimbursed for 344.8 miles at the rate of $0.54 per mile between December 6 and December 31, 2016 for a total of $186.19, and her request for 43.1 miles on December 2, 2016 and 43.1 miles on December 5, 2016 was denied because she was not approved for CalWORKs Program benefits on those dates. The claimant filed a request for hearing on 1\/20\/17 disputing this county determination as well as the denial of reimbursement for the cost of training classes in the amount of $170 in December 2016. Thanks to ALJ Michael Kanz, San Diego County was ordered to pay the $170. COMING SOON The CalWORKs 2017-2018 State Budget Gives $108.9 million to counties and nothing to the CalWORKs families living in ddeep poverty – State Child Abuse Continues County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report (cont’d. from pag 3) ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-05 – 7-7-17 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. A CCWRO Point of View National Organizations Drop the Ball Regarding Means- Tested Program Block Granting Block granting Medicaid is right around the corner. Next on the chopping block is food stamps. The conservatives argue that block grants will not hurt anyone it will be great. Just look at the Clinton 1996 successful welfare reform bill. That was the first means-tested program to be block granted. Since the enactment of alleged Welfare Reform (TANF), Congress has not increased funding to the block grant. The common perception in the national press is that since the TANF block grant worked and it was a success. National groups, including the Center for American Progress, Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, FRAC, Feeding America and others are not conveying the true failure of the so called welfare reform that contin- ues to be a nightmare for the beneficiaries. No one is saying on national TV that be- fore October 22, 1996, 70% of the grants helped families and today only 30% of the money goes to the families. Poverty is up and families are suffering. There is no or- ganized effort by the National multi-million dollar organizations to spend a few dollars to counteract the huge myth that welfare reform was a success. When will they wake up? How many more have to die? WINNER – Counties $199 million $108.9 million for County Single Allocation $47 million for County Housing Program $43 million for County Housing and LOSERS – $00.00 CalWORKsPoor babies and children living at 31% of the federal poverty level SB 89- The Human Services Budget Trailer Bill CalWORKs Identity Verification SB 89, Section 15 and 16 require the Department of Social Services to submit a report to the Legislature by November 1, 2017 about how they will be implementing a nonbiometric identity verifica- tion method for the CalWORKs program. The bill requires DSS to consult with stakeholders, includ- ing legislative staff, representatives of counties and county human services agencies, current or former CalWORKs clients, advocates for clients and others. The bill ask the workgroup to consider how any new methods of identity verification would impact applicant or recipient experiences and make application and eligibility practices more efficient. OCAT Interface with SAWS SB 89, Section 20. The Online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool (OCAT) is the new Welfare-to-Work (WtW) assessment tool. It is a several Con’t on page 2 2017-2018 CalWORKs Budget FACTS CCWRO Welfare News July 7, 2017 2017-05 Page 2 hour process wherein WtW participants answer questions designed to identify potential participation barriers. Once OCAT spots the barrier, the county decides if they should address the barriers or ignore them and require participation in a WtW activity. Currentl,y the OCAT system does not interface with the county SAWS system. This section would require the interface. WtW Mental Health Services for CalWORKs Children SB 89, Section 21 through 29 Under current law only WtW participants have access to WtW mental health service. These sections would make those services available to children. CalWORKs Educational Opportunity & Attain- ment Program SB 89, Section 30 – The purpose of this statute is to provide CalWORKs recipients with positive incentives for achieving certain edu- cational milestones. Section 11341 states that the county may issue incentives. Then Section 11342 states that the county shall issue the benefits. Finally, section 11345 makes it crystal clear that this is not an entitlement and that the counties do not have to do this unless there is funding available for this purpose. It would be interesting to see how this is implement- ed. CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review (CalOAR) SB 89, Section 38 of the COAR Act requires DSS to establish a workgroup comprised of representatives from county human services agencies, legislative staff, interested welfare advocacy, research organizations, current and former CalWORKs recipi- ents, organizations that represent county human servic- es agencies, county boards of supervisors, representa- tives of community colleges, tribal organizations, and the workforce investment system, and any other state entities that the department deems necessary. What would CalOAR do? Counties received $108.9 million in additional funds for 2017-2018 while the CalWORKs and WtW caseload is going down. CalO- AR is supposed to be a process to show that the coun- ties are spending the additional millions and millions of dollars that they have been showered with while CalWORKs families are living on a fixed income equal to 31% of the federal poverty. The workgroup will consider the current performance indicators and suggest additional performance indica- tors. The workgroup is also tasked to consider giving counties additional incentives to do their job besides getting a $108.9 million windfall. CalOAR would come up with standards, then ask the county to do a self-assessment of whether they are meeting these standards and if the county, by some miracle, decides they are not, they may opt to do a a CalWORKs sys- tem improvement plan while they continue to get the millions of current and additional dollars. Immigrant Services SB 89, Section 40 – Existing and proposed policy of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), provide that certain persons who do not have legal sta- tus in the United States and who meet specified guide- lines may apply for deferred action on removal from the United States, as specified. Today the Department of Social Services, subject to the availability of funding, is required to provide grants to qualified organizations, as specified, to be used to provide persons living in California with specified services, including services to assist with the application process for initial or renewal requests of deferred action under the DACA and DAPA policies, and to provide legal training and technical assistance to other qualified organizations. The qualified organi- zations are also required to provide free education and outreach information, services, and materials about DACA, DAPA, naturalization, or other immigration remedies. This bill would expand the legal services for which grants are available to refer to immigration remedies, as specified, and would delete the specific references On June 28, 2017, Ms. 1B33725 received a notice of action stating that We have looked at all of the information we have about your case. Based on this information, your eligibility for Medi-Cal will end on the last day of 03\/2017. The back of the notice states: If you ask for a hearing before an action on Medi- Cal takes place your Medi-Cal will stay the same while you wait for a hearing How can somebody ask for a hearing before the end March of 2017 when they get the notice of action on or after 06\/28\/2017. Maybe Sacramento County knows how to go back in time. If so, it would help to let Ms. Ms. 1B33725 how to do that. -Ms. BOXP522 applied for CalWORKs on May 2, 2017. She signed all of the necessary paperwork and assigned all of her rights to child support to the county as CalWORKs children do not get child sup- port. Ms. Ms. BOXP522 fixed income is way below 50% of the federal poverty level, thus, her and her child are living in deep poverty. For the month of July 2017, Los Angeles County anticipated that Ms. Ms. BOXP522 would still receive child support while knowing that the child support payment would be kept from Ms. BOXP522. County Client Abuse Report SB 89- The Human Services Budget Trailer Bill – Con’t from Page 1 CCWRO Welfare News July 7, 2017 2017-05 Page 3 to DAPA. The bill would instead authorize the department to provide grants to qualified orga- nizations to provide legal training and technical assistance, as defined. The bill would make these services available to persons presently or formerly residing in California. This bill would authorize the State Department of Social Services to transfer funds appropriated for purposes of contracting with qualified nonprofit legal services organiza- tions and providing grants to qualified organi- zations among any of the services provided in response to the results of requests for applications received or to changing state or federal law. County Single Allocation Revise SB 89, Sec- tion 47 The county single allocation (CSA), a block grant that counties often do not use, has been going down during the past two years as the CalFresh and CalWORKs caseloads started declining. Today, counties are actually using all of their CSA, but have fewer beneficiaries to serve. This opens the door for counties to keep staff with fewer clients. Depending on the county, some workers may be helping folks and some may be pursuing folks for alleged fraud and WtW sanc- tions to justify their monthly paychecks. The CalWORKs case load has been going down from 2014-2015 by 16%. See Table 1. TABLE # 1 The WtW funding allocates $382.73 for each case. For 2016-2017 counties got paid $382.73 for 183,134 cases, when in reality, only approxi- mately 90,414 participated in a WtW activity. The county gets paid for sanctioned cases and for exempt cases. These are cas- es that costs the county nothing but they still get $382.73 per case. Now if a welfare recipient submit- ted a travel claim for an expected 1200 miles, and it turns out that the par- ticipant only traveled 200 miles, the county would impose an overpayment, attach their federal and state EITC payments and attach any tax returns. Counties got paid for 183,134 cases, but only served 90,414 cases does anybody dare ask the county for the money back? No. Section 47 of SB 98 provides that DSS shall work with CWDA to develop recommendations to the modify county single allocation methodology and as part of the process for of developing these recom- mendation, legislative staff, advocates, and organi- zations that represent county workers shall be con- sulted. The recommendations for 2018-2019 shall be submitted to the Legislature by January 10, 2018. By October 1, 2018, the same people must submit recommendations for 2019-2020. Safe Drinking Water Supplemental Benefits SB 89, Section 53 Under this section, until July 1, 2020, would require the Department of Social Ser- vices to create the Safe Drinking Water Supplemen- tal Benefit Pilot Program to provide time-limited additional CalFresh nutrition benefits to residents of prioritized disadvantaged communities that are served by public water systems that consistently fail to meet primary drinking water standards. It would require the benefits to be delivered through the EBT system’s flexible benefit issuance mechanism. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2020, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2021. Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDS) Improvements SB 89, Section 54- 56- Section 54 provides that the DSS, and not the county, shall submit the ABAWDS waiver to the USDA\/FNS. Some counties that are not eligible for a waiver have zip codes within the county that may be eligible for waiver. This would require that the coun- ty submit the waiver for a subarea within the county. Section 55 provides counties can allow ABAWDS recipients to self-initiate volunteer work of 20 hours a week as long as the ABAWDS recipient provides verification of working 20 hours a week. Finally, section 56 provides that anybody homeless is deemed to be exempt from Fiscal Year CalWORKs Cases 2014-2015 535,532 2015-2016 463,540 2016-2017 459,173 2017-2018 451,022 January Fiscal Year Number of Participants Counties Were Paid for Actual Number of Participants Served Percentage of Participants that DSS is paying to counties who are not participating in any WtW activity 2014-2015 230,032 123,453 46% 2015-2016 195,209 111,961 43% 2016-2017 183,134 90,414 51% 2017-2018 180,495 88,442 51% TABLE # 2 – DSS Paying Counties for WtW Participants Not Receiving Any WtW Services – CCWRO Welfare News July 7, 2017 2017-05 Page 4 make application and eligibility practices more efficient. (e) (1) A method implemented and maintained pursuant to this section shall be reviewed annually, with an up- date to the Legislature in the course of the annual spring budget subcommittee process, according to the follow- ing criteria: (A) The extent to which the method improved identity verification and prevented duplicate aid. (B) The extent to which the method improved the client experience. (C) The extent to which the method aided in the efficien- cy and efficacy of the file clearance process. (2) A method implemented and maintained pursuant to this section shall be evaluated, and a written report shall be submitted to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, addressing the criteria in paragraph (1) by April 1, 2019. County Single Allocation Workgroup\/ Consultation – 15204.35. (a) The State Department of Social Services shall work with representatives of county human services agencies and the County Welfare Directors Association to develop recommendations for revising the methodology used for development of the CalWORKs single allocation annual budget. As part of the process of developing these recommendations, leg- islative staff, advocates, and organizations that represent county workers shall be consulted. (b) (1) Recommendations for initial changes to the methodology for development of the CalWORKs single allocation for the 2018 19 fiscal year shall be made to the Legislature by January 10, 2018. (2) Recommendations for additional changes to the methodology for the 2019 20 and subsequent fiscal years shall be made to the Legislature by October 1, 2018. ABAWDS Workgroup\/Consultation – W&IC 18926.1. (a) To the extent not prohibited by federal law and guidance, the department shall ensure that all recipients subject to the federal ABAWD time limit described in Section 18926 are permitted to meet the work requirements of the time limit through all forms of work, including, but not limited to, volunteer work at a nonprofit organization or a public institution that the recipient chooses, if the county can verify the hours of participation using the process established by the department pursuant to subdivision (b). (b) On or before January 1, 2018, the department, with input from the County Welfare Directors Association and advocates for CalFresh recipients, shall issue an all-county letter instructing counties as to how to verify hours of the volunteer work specified in subdivision (a). CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review CalOAR – State the ABAWDS requirement to the extent permitted by federal aw. County Housing Assistance Money – $46,675,000 shall be available for county housing supports for those families in receipt of CalWORKs for whom homelessness or housing instability is a barrier to self-sufficiency or child well-being pursuant to Sec- tion 11330.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. County Housing and Disability Advocacy Pro- gram Funding – $43,461,000 was appropriated to counties for the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program to increase participation among home- less persons with dis-abilities who may be eligible for disability benefits programs pursuant to Sec- tion 18999.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This funding shall be available for encumbrance or expenditure until June 30, 2020. 2017-2017 State Budget Workgroups SFIS WORKGROUP – W&IC 10831. (a) The department (DSS) shall implement and maintain an automated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program. It is the intent of the Legisla- ture to codify additional details regarding this method so that recipients of aid, other than dependent children, will be required, as a condition of eligibility, to cooperate with this method. (b) The department shall update the Legislature, no later than November 1, 2017, regarding options for the design, implementation, and maintenance of an auto- mated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program. (c) The options developed under this section shall be for use in California counties and shall include procedures and a schedule for implementation. (d) Prior to the update to the Legislature, the department shall do both of the following: (1) Consult with stakeholders, including legislative staff, representatives of counties and county human services agencies, current or former CalWORKs clients, advo- cates for clients, and other stakeholders, as appropriate. (2) Consider how any new methods of identity verifica- tion would impact applicant or recipient experiences and CCWRO Welfare News July 7, 2017 2017-05 Page 5 Workgroup – W&IC 11523(c) (1) (A) – By October 1, 2017, the department (DSS) shall convene a workgroup comprised of representatives from county human services agencies, legislative staff, interested welfare advocacy and research organizations, current and former CalWORKs recipients, organizations that represent county human services agencies and county boards of supervisors, representatives of community col- leges, tribal organizations, and the workforce investment system, and any other state entities that the department deems necessary. The workgroup members shall also include individuals with expertise related to domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health. The work- group shall establish a workplan by which the Cal-OAR shall be conducted, pursuant to the provisions described in this section, including a process for qualitative peer reviews of counties’ CalWORKs services. The work- group shall discuss potential costs for state and county participation. (B) The department shall report annually to the Subcom- mittee on Health and Human Services of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Sub- committee on Health and Human Services of the Assem- bly Committee on Budget during the budget process with an update on the schedule for development of and future changes to the Cal-OAR. (2) At a minimum, in establishing the work plan, the workgroup shall consider existing CalWORKs perfor- mance indicators being measured, additional, alternative, or additional and alternative process and outcome indica- tors to be measured, development of uniform elements of the county CalWORKs self-assessment and the county CalWORKs system improvement plans, timelines for implementation, recommendations for reducing the exist- ing CalWORKS services data reporting burden in light of new requirements established by the act that added this section and the resulting Cal-OAR, recommenda- tions for financial incentives to counties for achievement on performance measures, and an analysis of the county and state workload associated with implementation of the requirements of this section. (d) The Cal-OAR shall consist of the following three components: performance indicators, a county Cal- WORKs self-assessment, and a county CalWORKs system improvement plan. (i) Process measures shall include measures of participant engagement, CalWORKs service delivery, and participa- tion. Specific process measures shall be established by the department, in consultation with the workgroup, and may include measures of engagement as shown by im- provement in program participation, timeliness of service provision, rates of utilization of program components, such as vocational education, and referrals and utilization of services based upon recommendations from the Online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool. (ii) Outcome measures shall include measures of em- ployment, educational attainment, program exits, and program reentries, and may include other indicators of family and child well-being as determined by the depart- ment, in consultation with the workgroup. (B) Performance indicator data available in existing county data systems shall be collected by counties and provided to the department, and performance indicator data available in existing state department data systems shall be collected by the department and provided to the counties. These data shall be reported in a manner and on a schedule to be determined by the department, in consultation with the workgroup, but no less frequently than semiannually. (C) (i) During the first three-year Cal-OAR cycle, performance indicator data, as reported by each county, shall be used to establish both county and statewide baselines for each of the process measures. After the first review cycle, the department shall, in consultation with the workgroup, establish standard target thresholds for each of the process measures established by the work- group. (ii) The department, in consultation with the workgroup, shall develop a process for resolving any disputes re- garding the establishment of standard process thresholds pursuant to clause (i). Local Level Program Involvement – (ii) Local stakeholders shall include county CalWORKs administrators, supervisors, and caseworkers; current and former CalWORKs recipients; and county human services agency partners. To the extent possible and relevant, local stakeholders shall also include representa- tives of community colleges, tribal organizations, and the local workforce board. Additional specific county human services agency partners shall be determined by the county and may include, but are not limited to, adult education providers, providers of services for survivors of domestic violence, the local housing continuum of care, county behavioral health departments, county drug and alcohol programs, community-based service provid- ers, organizations that represent CalWORKs recipients, child care resource and referral programs, and alterna- tive payment programs, as appropriate. County Board of Supervisor Involvement – (3) (A) (i) The county CalWORKs system improve- ment plan shall consist of uniform elements to be devel- oped by the workgroup. It shall, at a minimum, describe how the county will improve its CalWORKs program performance in strategic focus areas based upon infor- mation learned through the county CalWORKs self- assessment process. The county CalWORKs system improvement plan shall be approved in public session by the county’s board of supervisors or, as applicable, chief elected official, and submitted to the department. (ii) The county CalWORKs system improvement plan shall be completed every three years by the county, approved in public session by the county’s board of supervisors or, as applicable, chief elected official, and be submitted to the department. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-06 – 8-7-17 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. The existing statewide waiver of the work re- quirements for the Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Work Requirements will end in most California counties on August 31, 2018. For the past two years, the California Department of Social Services has conducted meetings with counties, advocates, food bank rep- resentatives and others to develop policy for the re-implementation of these often harshly restric- tive rules. CDSS staff are presenting a series of information- al webinars to introduce the ABAWD rules to county staff, advocates and others working to re- duce hunger in California. The next presentation is August 15, 2017 and will discuss the vital issue of exemptions from the ABAWD rule. For more information review the information at the CDSS CalFresh webpage. At the August 1, 2017 ABAWD work group meet- ing, CDSS staff discussed three key issues: –The outline for the ABAWD Handbook 1.0 (ex- pected release in September 2017); –Guidance for the use of the 15% allocation of special exemptions; and — Standard CalFresh certifications for ABAWDs. CDSS’ proposal is that for ABAWDS who are working and meet the requirements of the program and ABAWDS who clearly qualify for an exemp- tion will be granted a standard12-month certifica- tion period. The California segregated WtW program con- tinues to excel in its primary mission sanc- tioning participants while failing to assist participants to obtain jobs that result in ter- mination of CalWORKs benefits and achieving self-sufficiency. During August 2016, 36% of the CalWORKs par- ticipants were sanctioned. In April 2017 that number increased to 39%. Meanwhile, during September 2016 about 4% of the unduplicated participants got jobs that result in termination of CalWORKs benefits (which does not necessar- ily mean that the jobs allowed self-sufficiency) while in April 2017 only 3% obtained jobs. Counties continue to deprive CalWORKs recipi- ents from achieving self-sufficiency by not allow- ing them to obtain the tools needed to achieve self-sufficiency in the 21st century economy the knowledge based economy. Just 3% of the CalWORKs WtW participants are allowed an op- portunity to attain the tools needed to achieve self-sufficiency by the administrators of the seg- regated welfare-to-work program. See TABLE #1 below. TABLE #1 Sanctions Jobs College 16-Aug 36% 3.40% 2.87% 16-Sep 36% 3.83% 2.92% 16-Oct 37% 3.36% 3.02% 16-Nov 37% 3.08% 3.01% 16-Dec 37% 3.07% 2.98% 17-Jan 38% 2.58% 2.76% 17-Feb 38% 2.82% 2.87% 17-Mar 38% 3.04% 2.97% 17-Apr 39% 2.98% 2.92% Con’t on page 2 California’s Segregated WtW Program UPDATE ABAWDS Work Requirement Coming September 1, 2018 Advocte Input Needed 7-16 12-16 8-16 9-16 10-16 11-16 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/inforesources\/CalFresh-Resource-Center\/Webinars kevinaslanian Highlight CCWRO Welfare News August 7, 2017 2017-06 Page 2 TABLE #2-Percntage of households denied emergency food assistance TABLE # 3, on page 3, reveals county-by-coun- ty rate of ES denials for the month of April 2017. Sacramento County at a whopping 69%. Santa Clara, San Diego, San Mateo Counties are between 12% and 9% over the state average of 53%. The state and federal regulations provide that if an applicant is found to be ineligible for CF-ES, the applicant cannot request a state hearing no due process but they can ask for a so-called agency con- ference. Most, if not all applicants, have no idea what an agency conference is or that they are entitled to one. A DSS CF-ES Q&A addressed questions from a county whether or not there is a form that applicants can use to request an agency conference. Question 8: Is there a particular form to be used for agency conference appointments? Answer 8: No, there is no particular form. Counties are instructed to document in the case file the date and time of the scheduled appointment and the out- come of the agency conference. How do applicants ask for an agency conference that they have no idea about it. If DSS was serious and wanted to help people ask for an agency conference, they would have a form that would be given to ap- plicants who are found not to be eligible for CF-ES. Applicants denied CF-ES never get a written state- ment saying that they have been denied CF-ES and that their CF application will be processed within 30 days. In fact, it is not unusual for CalFresh appli- cants call their worker inquiring about their benefits and the answer is we have 30 days to process our application . CDSS proposes that individuals who are not work- ing the required number of work hours at the time of their certification interview will be granted a four-month certification. CDSS explained that the four-month certification is to encourage continued contact with the individ- ual and encouragements to become enrolled in a work program or evaluated for eligibility for some type of a waiver. At least one county was extreme- ly concerned about the workload impact of this proposal. CCWRO has offered to solicit comments from the advocate community about the positive and nega- tive impacts of the 4-month certification period. Please e-mail Daphne Macklin with your comments at tlk2014dlm@gmail.com. Daphne will share CDSS’ written proposal on certification periods when it is released. The CalFresh Program’s expedited services (ES) component to is to ensure that applicants who are food unsecure do not have to endure food insecuri- ty. The following households are eligible for expe- dited service food stamps: Rent or mortgage and utility costs that are more than your liquid resources and this month’s income before deductions (see the other side of the page for definitions of income and liquid resources), OR No more than $100 liquid resources and less than $150 income for the month before deductions, OR No more than $100 liquid resources and at least one member of the household is a migrant or sea- sonal farmworker. Persons found eligible for ES are issued ben- efits within three days from the date of applica- tion. The denial rates of expedited service is above 50% of the caseload and there is no data to explain why food insecure human beings are sentenced to continue food insecurity by counties throughout California. TABLE #2 reveals statewide level of sentencing food insecure humans to continued food insecuri- ty by denying expedited service CalFresh benefits – emergency food stamps. Month\/Year Percentage of CF-ES Denied Month\/ Year Percentage of CF-ES Denied 7-16 56% 12-16 56% 8-16 57% 1-17 53% 9-16 59% 2-17 56% 10-16 58% 3-17 55% 11-16 56% 4-17 53% CalFresh Expedited Service Denials Alleged Remedy for Denial of Expedited CalFresh – Agency Conference ? Con’t on page 3 CCWRO Welfare News August 7, 2017 2017-06 Question 11: If the household did not re- quest an agency conference, is there a requirement to document in the case com- ments? DSS CF-ES Q&A. Answer 11: There is no requirement, but it is beneficial for the county to document in the case file that the household did not re- quest an agency conference if they were found non-entitled for ES. It really looks like an agency conference is just a joke as far as SNAP\/CalFresh admin- istrators are concerned. Although you have a right to an agency conference, counties won’t inform applicants about the availabil- ity of an agency conference and won’t doc- ument in the case that you did not ask for something that you have no idea about. CalFresh applicants may very well be eligible for CalFresh but denied procedural reasons such as missing an appointment and not being able to reschedule, failing to provide verification that was never properly requested or that the county did not use the CW 2200. Question 10 deals with a procedural denial. Question 10: Please clarify if a second interview appointment is required prior to denying the application? Can the application be denied prior to the 30th day for missed interview? Answer 10: If a household misses the initial scheduled interview appointment, the county must send a NOMI to the household. The NOMI informs the household that they are responsible to contact the county to schedule a second interview if they wish to partici- pate in the program. If the household does not schedule a second interview, the county denies the CalFresh application. Percentage of ES Denials Percentage of ES Denials Percentage of ES Denials Statewide 53 Madera 58% Contra Costa & Mendocino 47% Sacramento 69% San Francis- co & Shasta 57% Lassen & Los Angeles 46% Napa 67% El Dorado, Imperial, Kern, Riverside & San Joaquin 56% Solano & Ven- tura 45% Colusa 66% Sutter 55% Placer & Yuba 44% Santa Clara 65% Fresno, Santa Cruz & Sonoma 54% Trinity 43% Plumas 63% San Benito, Stanislaus & Tuolumne 53% Modoc 41% San Diego, Monterey, San Mateo, Del Norte 62% Calaveras, Kings & Mariposa 52% Santa Barbara 35% Nevada, Orange, Siskiyou 61% Tulare 51% San Luis Obispo 31% Mono, Butte, Amador 60% Alpine 50% Sierra 20% Glenn, Humboldt, Marin & Tehama 59% Inyo & San Bernardino 49% Yolo 0% Lake 48% T A B L E # 3 CalFresh Procedural Denials CCWRO Welfare News August 7, 2017 2017-06 Page 4 Welfare & Institution Code 18914(b) provides- that Pursuant to the federal requirements of Section 273.2(i)(2) of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the county human servic- es agency shall screen all CalFresh applications for entitlement to expedited service. During the month of May of 2017, according to the CW 237 CalWORKs report, there were 38,865 CalWORKs applications. The CF 296 report re- veals, that only 4,404 of them were screened for CalFresh Expedited Service. The CalWORKs cases are known as the Public Assistance Cal Fresh cases. The CF 296 reveals that only a meager 7% of the needy families with children received CF-ES. See TABLE #4 below. TABLE #1 May-17 CalWORKs applications CW 237 CalWORKs applications not reviewed for ES PACF ES reviewed CF 296 PACF ES Denied CF296 Percentage of CalWORKs Applicants Getting CF-ES Percentage of CalWORKs Applicants Reviewed for CF-ES Statewide 38,865 34,461 4,404 1,541 7% 11% Alameda 1,009 1,009 no reports 0 0% 0% Alpine 0 0 0 0 0% 0% Amador 37 35 2 1 3% 5% Butte 273 262 11 6 2% 4% Calaveras 47 40 7 4 6% 15% Colusa 17 17 0 0 0% 0% Contra Costa 763 722 41 17 3% 5% Del Norte 50 47 3 1 4% 6% El Dorado 201 188 13 4 4% 6% Fresno 1,360 1,300 60 31 2% 4% Glenn 34 32 2 2 0% 6% Humboldt 158 143 15 6 6% 9% Imperial 378 341 37 14 6% 10% Inyo 13 10 3 1 15% 23% Kern 2,103 1,909 194 76 6% 9% Kings 294 269 25 9 5% 9% Lake 123 115 8 5 2% 7% Lassen 46 41 5 4 2% 11% Los Angeles 9,399 7,226 2,173 626 16% 23% Madera 418 397 21 11 2% 5% This is also circumstantial evidence that there is widespread unlawful denial of CalWORKs emer- gency assistance benefits required by W&IC 11266 and MPP 40-129. These laws provide that emergency CalWORKs assistance can be de- nied if the family’s sole need is food and they were issues food stamps on the date of applica- tion, but no later than the next day. The data below reveals the appalling public ben- efits state of affairs for California’s poor families and children – the evident widespread denial of immediate public benefits to nutritionally and fi- nancially challanged families that looks like government state and county child abuse . TABLE #4 CalWORKs Applicants with Needy Children not Screened for CalFresh Expedited Service (CF-ES) http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/inforesources\/Research-and-Data\/CalWORKs-Data-Tables\/CA-237-CW http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/inforesources\/Research-and-Data\/CalFresh-Data-Tables\/CF296 kevinaslanian Highlight kevinaslanian Highlight CCWRO Welfare News August , 2017 2017-06 Page 5 Marin 64 56 8 2 9% 13% Mariposa 30 29 1 1 0% 3% Mendocino 100 82 18 7 11% 18% Merced 560 507 53 19 6% 9% Modoc 19 18 1 1 0% 5% Mono 8 8 0 0 0% 0% Monterey 439 413 26 14 3% 6% Napa 66 65 1 1 0% 2% Nevada 65 58 7 3 6% 11% Orange 1,169 1,055 114 61 5% 10% Placer 198 198 0 0 0% 0% Plumas 12 10 2 1 8% 17% Riverside 3,171 2,887 284 88 6% 9% Sacramento 2,386 2,120 266 139 5% 11% San Benito 53 51 2 0 4% 4% San Bernardino 4,264 3,855 409 118 7% 10% San Diego 2,636 2,534 102 49 2% 4% San Francisco 337 287 50 18 9% 15% San Joaquin 1,103 999 104 41 6% 9% San Luis Obispo 198 183 15 3 6% 8% San Mateo 264 249 15 8 3% 6% Santa Barbara 304 280 24 11 4% 8% Santa Clara 630 596 34 20 2% 5% Santa Cruz 121 107 14 9 4% 12% Shasta 274 256 18 11 3% 7% Sierra 2 2 0 0 0% 0% Siskiyou 75 72 3 1 3% 4% Solano 359 342 17 7 3% 5% Sonoma 184 169 15 4 6% 8% Stanislaus 909 837 72 39 4% 8% Sutter 152 138 14 5 6% 9% Tehama 138 133 5 0 4% 4% Trinity 20 18 2 2 0% 10% Tulare 865 822 43 24 2% 5% Tuolumne 67 63 4 2 3% 6% Ventura 633 613 20 9 2% 3% Yolo 138 128 10 0 7% 7% Yuba 129 118 11 5 5% 9% May-17 CW applica-tions CW 237 CW applica- tions not reviewed for ES PACF ES reviewed CF 296 PACF ES Denied CF296 Percentage of Cal- WORKs Applicants Getting CF-ES Percentage of Cal- WORKs Applicants Reviewed for CF-ES ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-07 – 9-5-17 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. MPP 30-757.15 Assistance by the provider is avail- able for transportation when the recipient’s presence is required at the destination and such assistance is necessary to accomplish the travel, limited to: .151 Transportation to and from appointments with physicians, dentists and other health practitioners. .152 Transportation necessary for fitting health relat- ed appliances\/devices and special clothing. .153 Transportation under .151 and .152 above shall be authorized only after social service staff have de- termined that Medi-Cal will not provide transporta- tion in the specific case. .154 Transportation to the site where alternative re- sources provide in-home supportive services to the re- cipient in lieu of IHSS. However, DSS promulgated underground rules to add new preconditions set forth below. Additionally, before authorizing Medical Accompaniment, the county department staff should discuss with the recipient (or his\/her au- thorized representative) his\/her Medi-Cal program health plan coverage to determine whether the re- cipient is required to obtain their medical care from an in-network provider (within the county con- fines of the health plan) or if they have an approved Continuity of Care exception to continue to see an out-of-network provider in another county as ap- proved by their health plan through the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) (http:\/\/www. dhcs.ca.gov\/services\/Pages\/ContinuityOfCareInfo. aspx#coc). Medi-Cal managed care plan contractors are re- quired to maintain adequate numbers\/types of spe- cialists within their network to accommodate the need for specialty care in accordance with Title 22 CCR Section 53853(a) and WIC Section 14182(c) (2). Also, there are time and distance standards that Medi-Cal contractors are required to main- tain. The network of Primary Care Physicians should be located within 30 minutes or 10 miles . Con’t on page 2 On June 15, 2017, a county asked DSS whether IHHS includes hours for out of state medical appointment accompaniments. Question: Do we have any regulations relating to dis- tant, out-of-county travel for clients? A client is request- ing time for an appointment in Seattle, Washington from Humboldt County, California. We do allow for out-of-county travel but are not sure about out-of-state travel. This roundtrip travel could be in excess of 30+ hours if driving, less if taking plane but what about delays in flights etc Can we authorize travel time for the care provider to accompany out of state? On June 20, 2017, DSS responded. Response: Yes, the IHSS program does possess regu- lations relating to out-of-county travel (this is what the IHSS program calls out-of-state\/physical absence from the state) this section of the regulations appears under Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Sections 30- 770.42 through .45, which provide for temporary physi- cal absence for recipients from the state with the intent to continue residing in the State of California . MPP 30-757.15 states Medical Accompaniment may be authorized when the recipient has a health care appoint- ment with out of county or out of state specialist provid- ed the appointment is medically necessary, as is with this case and there [are] no other reasonable alternative medi- cal providers either [in] the recipient’s county of residence or state. Additionally, the recipient must need assistance with an authorized IHSS task(s) during the transporta- tion to\/from and\/or at the destination. As you noted the provider in this case is providing ambulation, bowel and bladder, dressing, transfer and repositioning at the des- tination of the appointment, thus meeting this criteria. The IHSS regulations governing transportation to and from the medical appointment are clear. If the IHSS recipient has a medical appointment, then they shall get assistance with the medical appointment. DSS Issues Unlawful Guidance CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2017 2017-07 Page 2 Con’t on page 3 of a Member’s residence unless the Contractor has a DHCS-approved alternative time and distance stan- dard. This information will be useful for the county to consider in determining if there is a specialist the recipient is able to see in his\/her geographic area. If it is determined that the out-of-state medi- cal appointment meets all of the requirements for authorizing Medical Accompaniment, your propos- al to authorize time to include flight time and time spent at the actual medical appointment would be ap- propriate. All information relevant to the authoriza- tion should be fully and clearly documented in the case record. There is nothing in MPP 30-757.15 that states: 1. The county must approve the medical provider of the IHSS beneficiary. 2. The approval is based on whether or not the beneficiary is required to get the medical ser- vices or that the beneficiary wants the medical ser- vices. There is nothing in MPP 30-757.15 that states IHSS transportation will only be paid if the ben- eficiary can prove that the medical services are re- quired . Required by whom? The social worker? DSS? DSS ordered Humboldt County to authorize flight time, even if the transportation was done by car. Does DSS think that the individual being transported may have an ADA issue with flying? There is noth- ing in 30-757.15 that states the person has to take the cheapest mode of transportation. If that was a rule it would have been promulgated in the regula- tions just like the transportation rules exist in the regulations for CalWORKs employment services. On April 19, 2017, DSS asked the three SAWS con- sortias; (1) CalWIN; (2) C-IV; and (3) LRS to review the data and program logic and explain how volun- tary participation in Welfare to Work programs is being reported for FY 14-15, FY 15-16 and FY 16- 17. Several counties showed a high number of ex- empt and participation counts in comparison to the enrollee counts. It appears based on responses from the counties, which exempt individuals who ‘volunteer’ are being tracked on this report inac- curately whereby inflating the participation rates. CalWIN reported: Exempt volunteers are given two open registration statuses, Exempt Mandatory and Registered Voluntary. This caused the data reported in Lines 1 and 2 to be counted twice. In addition to tem- poral tracking, a registered voluntary status is required in order to authorize supportive services payments. C-IV Responded: a clarification was provid- ed from CDSS on 12\/09\/2016 to both C-IV and LRS that included the following bullet Individuals exempt from WTW, including exempt volun- teers, or sanctioned individuals are not Enrollees. The WtW25-published instructions are inconsis- tent with the DSS bullets provided to C-IV and LRS. Enrollee: Is an individual who has been enrolled or has been sent a notice that he or she was scheduled for a WTW appraisal. Count individuals who received cash aid, who were eligible for cash aid (e.g., individuals in a zero basic grant status), or were considered CalWORKs recipients in the report month. This would include adults who are in receipt of family reunification services, have had a child(ren) removed from the home, and are no lon- ger in receipt of cash aid. An enrollee is defined as either (1) required to participate, or (2) willing to participate. One thing is certain counties are double counting vol- unteers that results in an enhanced work participation rate for the county. Welfare to Work funding is part of the county sin- gle allocation. See County Fiscal Letter 16\/17-39. The counties are funded for WtW cases that are exempt, sanctioned and participating. They only have to pro- vide supportive services and case management to those participating, yet they get funded for those not participating. For example, San Joaquin County gets funding for 4,804 cases while only 1,086 cases are ac- tually participating. That means San Joaquin County gets money for 78% of the caseload without incur- ring any supportive services or case management costs. Statewide, while counties received $138.3 million dur- ing 2016-2017 for 158,122 cases, only 41% of the cas- es actually participated. That means that counties were overpaid in 59% of the cases, which is equal to $81.6 million. That is a lot of money that could help just about every homeless CalWORKs family in California. See TABLE #1 on page 3 revealing the claims submit- ted by large and medium counties during 2015-2016. County Claims for WtW Funding Questionable WtW 25 Data Double Counts the Number of Volunteers (Cont’d from page 1) CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2017 2017-07 Page 3 May 2016 WtW Other Families Exempt Sanction Unduplicated Participants (UP) Number of Cases County Received WtW Funding in 2015-2016 Statewide 53,476 39,272 65,374 158,122 Alameda 1,239 741 1,982 3,962 Butte 526 363 291 1,180 Colusa 21 26 9 56 Contra Costa 1,104 497 1,411 3,012 Fresno 1,506 675 4,251 6,432 Kern 2,111 3,784 1,593 7,488 Kings 266 215 409 890 Los Angeles 12,823 10,496 17,928 41,247 Madera 383 325 86 794 Mendocino 97 149 122 368 Merced 715 883 681 2,279 Monterey 524 352 520 1,396 Orange 2,922 1,023 3,464 7,409 Riverside 3,911 2,885 3,893 10,689 Sacramento 3,062 1,109 4,459 8,630 San Bernardino 6,352 6,581 5,753 18,686 San Diego 3,025 1,250 5,111 9,386 San Francisco 670 258 1,071 1,999 San Joaquin 1,493 2,225 1,086 4,804 San Luis Obispo 330 45 129 504 San Mateo 184 55 239 478 Santa Barbara 531 56 512 1,099 Santa Clara 956 367 1,337 2,660 Santa Cruz 328 49 508 885 Shasta 379 320 286 985 Solano 507 153 352 1,012 Stanislaus 1,322 1,120 1,144 3,586 Sutter 140 142 142 424 Tulare 1,631 469 2,031 4,131 Ventura 1,304 681 991 2,976 TABLE #1 – Large and Medium Counties Fleecing the State of California Ms. 17086115 received a notice of action dated March 17, 2017 stating that effective April 1, 2017 her aid would be reduced from $810 to $714 because the claimant failed to comply with Wefare-to-Work regulation 42- 7321.23. Although 42-7321.23 requires a 30- day notice, the county issued a 13-day notice. 42-721.23: Upon determination that an individual has failed or refused to com- ply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the individual a notice of ac- tion effective no earlier than 30 calen- dar days from the date of issuance. However, at the hearing, Los Angeles County representative testified that Ms. 17086115 did not complete the required ap- praisal appointment. Ms. 17086115 testified that she kept the appointment, but called to say she was running late. When she arrived for the appraisal appointment she started to complete the various county forms. She also showed her worker her proof of pregnancy. The worker told her that she could leave and did not have to finish completing the coun- ty forms. The next thing she knew, she got a letter saying that she was being sanctioned for doing what her worker told her to do. Ms. 17130018 of Los Angeles County received a notice of action, dated May 10, 2016, terminating her CalWORKs benefits effective May 31, 2017 be- cause her income exceeded the Maximum Aid Payment for an assistance unit of two. The Los Angeles County representative stated under oath at the hearing that her benefits were stopped ef- fective May 31, 2017 for an unknown reason. During the hearing it was revealed that on February 3, 2017, the county mailed Ms. 17130018 a New Registry Notification of Employment and scheduled an appointment for February 27, 2017, however, she was working and did not keep the appointment. During the hearing Ms. 17130018, who pre- viously was homeless, complained that Los Angeles County refused to use her new address which she reported in March 2017 and forced to her to use the county address in June of 2017. Ms. 17066065 of Los Angeles County had her CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits stopped effec- tive February 28, 2017 because she did not complete her Annual Redetermination. During the months of December 2016 and January 2017, LA County provided her with homeless assistance. However, on January 4, 2017, Los Angeles County mailed the annual redetermination packet to the old address. Ms. 17066065 realized in March that her bene- fits had stopped and reapplied for aid on March 10, 2017. For the month of March 2017, Ms. 17066065 who lives on a fixed income less than 34% of the federal poverty level, lost 33% of that meager cash aid. She asked for a hear- ing and the ALJ decided that the County nev- er received notice from the recipient that she had moved asserting that the county was jus- tified to send the AR packet to the old address. CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2017 2017-07 Page 4 FACT: While California’s CalWORKs children endure the highest federal supplemental poverty rates in the nation, in 2017-2018 only 69% of the available CalWORKs funds are appropriated for CalWORKs. Today, CalWORKs grant levels are the same as they were in l998, 28 years ago. This is clear state government child abuse . County Client Abuse Report ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-08 – 10-15-17 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Con’t on page 2 l California SNAP Beneficiary Exercising the Constitu- tional Right to Travel, Goes Hungry After Losing EBT Card in Washington State -While visiting Washington State, a SNAP\/CalFresh beneficiary lost her EBT card. Fresno County contended that the lost card could not be re- placed by sending it to an address other than the address in CalWIN’s casefile. The beneficiary complained to the FNS Regional Office that Fresno County unlawfully deprived her of using her CalFresh benefits to eat. Federal law is very clear a SNAP beneficiary has the right to use their SNAP benefits anywhere in the United State of America. SEE 7 CFR 274.8(b)(10) Interoperability. State agencies must adopt uniform standards to facilitate interoperability and the form of an EBT card to be redeemed in any State. l Butte County Tries to Deny Benefits to Eligible Needy Families – On 5-22-17, Butte County asked DSS whether it could deny CalWORKs (CW) benefits for what they call separation of convenience. The applicant parent has five kids, two with the absent parent who provides diapers and clothing for his children. Butte County actually had the audacity to ask the CW applicant why they were not living together. On 6-2-17 DSS responded that Separation of convenience does not apply to this particular case. The children have absent parent deprivation. MPP 41-401.14 states a child is considered deprived of parental support or care if a parent is continually absent from the home where the child is liv- ing l CalWIN Asserts That DSS Fails To Provide Adequate Guidance For Tracking ABAWDs – At the May 15, 2017 DSS meeting with counties, CalWIN had requested three items regarding tracking ABAWDS that needed follow-up: 1. Kim McCoy and Alexis Fernandez were not exactly clear on the CDSS owner of the STAT 47. We need to know from CDSS who this individual is and that they are included in our communication. If needed, we need to make sure that individual is aware of all our prior clarifications and work In Brief California Status of CalFresh Expedited Service – Dismal According to USDA, California’s food insecurity rate for 2016 was 12.5%. The former food stamp program, now called CalFresh in California and SNAP nationally, is the primary antidote against food insecurity. One of the prominent antidotes for food insecurity is the Expe- dited Service provisions of the SNAP program requiring the issuance of food benefits within 3 days for Califor- nians enduring from food insecurity. In 2012, California enacted a statute, authored by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner and sponsored by Western Center on Law & Poverty to restate what federal law has required for many decades in the food stamp program all applicants shall be screened for CalFresh Expedited Service that can only have two (2) different outcomes: (a) CalFresh expedited services is denied; (b) CalFresh expedited services is granted. (Cont’d on page 2) THE LAW – 18914 …(b) Pursuant to the federal requirements of Section 273.2(i)(2) of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the county human services agency shall screen all CalFresh applica- tions for entitlement to expedited service. (c) The State Department of Social Services shall develop and implement for expedited issuance a uniform procedure for verify- ing information required of an applicant. (Amended (as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 227, Sec. 88) by Stats. 2012, Ch. 468, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2013.) CCWRO Welfare News October 15, 2017 2017-08 Page 2 Con’t on page 3 by counties. 2. Alexis mentioned that CDSS believed that there were errors in the FED calculation (or at least some ambiguity in the formula applied to STAT 47 data). Alexis reported that she awaits clarification from FED. We need to know the progress and if any new information is known. All of our efforts are predicated on the information provided by CDSS, and if there is any change\/clarification, we will need to evaluate for impact to our STAT 47 coding. 3. Kim (McCoy-Wade) acknowledged that direct communication with coun- ties through established ACL\/ACIN has not been followed since original ACL 14-91 was issued in January 2015. Kim (McCoy-Wade) agreed to draft any clarifications and communication provided to SAWS and counties into an update to ACL 14-91. We would like an update on progress and time line for this item. It looks like DSS and coun- ties have been working on a process to track ABAWDS which has excluded ad- vocates. Given that the ABAWDS rule will be go- ing live soon, it is troubling that DSS and the CalWIN counties don’t know the number for the ABAWDS population. IN BRIEF (Cont’d from page 1) CCWRO reviewed California’s compliance with this statute and federal law. Our find- ings reveal that California, through its 58 counties, are committing widspread violations of Federal regulation 7 CFR 273.2(i)(2) and California Welfare & Institutions Code 18914. During June 2017, out of 138,202 applications received by the 58 California counties, a whopping 24% of those applications, were not screened for expedited service. For im- poverished families with children it is worse. 87% of the public assistance applications were not screened for extreme food insecurity by the 58 counties. Table # 1 reveals counties with the lowest ES rates among CalWORKs applicants with children for expedited services as required by Federal regulation 7 CFR 273.2(i)(2) and California Welfare & Institutions Code 18914. Table # 1 CalWORKs Applications Found Eligible for EAS Found NOT Eligible for ES Not Screened for ES % Not Screened for ES Statewide 33,267 2,860 1,535 28,872 87% Yolo 178 2 0 176 99% Solano 388 8 3 377 97% Placer 169 2 3 164 97% Ventura 641 13 9 619 97% Tulare 929 14 21 894 96% Contra Costa 635 15 10 610 96% Fresno 1,363 26 35 1,302 96% San Diego 2,703 61 70 2,572 95% Santa Clara 661 15 19 627 95% San Mateo 266 7 8 251 94% Santa Barbara 292 14 3 275 94% Monterey 417 16 10 391 94% Madera 189 7 6 176 93% Stanislaus 821 36 28 757 92% Merced 471 30 11 430 91% Kern 1,642 101 73 1,468 89% San Bernardino 3,120 245 111 2,764 89% Riverside 2,498 212 85 2,201 88% We also looked at all CalFresh applications, county-by-county, to see if this phenomenon of not being screened is limited to CalWORKs applicants who are categorically eligible for CalFresh or is there widespead violaions of large California counties? The County violation of 18914 was not as horrendous as they were for CalWORKs. However one (1) in four (4) applicants who could have been food insecure were not screened for Expedited Service by a majority of California’s large counties. CalFresh Expedited (Cont’d from page 1) CalWORKs Applicants Not Screened for CalFresh Expedited Services FACT: In October, 2017,1.3 million SSI recipients lost $124 million in food stamps. Annually, there is a $1.5 billion loss of federal money for California’s food inse- cure SSI recipients. Thousands of SSI recipients endured food insecurity while the holiday cup- boards of those who could have made food stamps available to them were well stocked. This mean-spirited policy could easily change, if the will to do it, was there. CCWRO FACTS CCWRO Welfare News October 15, 2017 2017-08 Page 3 FACT: California’s CalWORKs children endure the highest federal supplemental poverty rates in the nation. In 2017-2018 only 69% of the available CalWORKs funds are appropriated for CalWORKs. That means $2.3 billion dollars that could and should be used for poor families is not. Moreover, today CalWORKs grant levels are the same as they were in l998, 28 years ago. This is State Government Child Abuse . (Cont’d from page 2) When a CalFresh recipient breaks the CalFresh laws, welfare fraud investigators scream about fraud. When a county breaks the law that results in adults and children going hungry it is treated with indif- ference by state and county CalFresh administrators. TABLE # 2 reveals specific large counties breaking federal and state law and causing major food insecu- rity in their counties. Table # 2 County Percentage of All CalFresh Applicants Not Screened for CF-ES Statewide 24% San Diego 64% Santa Clara 64% Santa Barbara 57% Contra Costa 55% Sacramento 53% Santa Cruz 49% Tulare 48% San Francisco 46% Solano 44% Yolo 40% Placer 39% Ventura 39% Napa 37% San Mateo 36% Monterey 34% Orange 30% What’s Next? 1. DSS needs to start acting like a single state agency requesting corrective action plans from counties vio- lating federal and state law for a three-month period; 2. If counties do not obey the law within three months, DSS should propose penalties that are comparable to penalties that counties impose upon CalFresh appli- cants and recipients who do not comply with many of the federal and state reporting laws . We need to STOP having a double stan- dard of compliance with the law. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-09 11\/11\/17 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services pro- grams 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Fiscal Year 2016-2017 County Allocated Funds from the State and Expenditures During the 2017-2018 budget battle, counties came out the big winners getting an additional $108.9 mil- lion dollars for the county single allocation while the CalWORKs and CalFresh budgets have been taking a nose dive. CalWORKs families could not even get a simple COLA while they live on about 40% of the fed- eral poverty level. The COLA would have cost much less than the $108.9 gifted to the counties. This month we received the report on what happened to the County Single Allocation last year: Program – Displayed in Thousands Fund Allocated Funds NOT Used & Given back to the government CalWORKs Child Care $412 million $93 million CalWORKs WtW Employment Services $972 million $145 million CalWORKs WtW Mental Health Services $76 million $10 million CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse Services $50 million $16 million County Homeles Housing Support Program $48 million $5 million CalFresh Administration $632 million $47 million Traffickig & Crime Victim Assistance Program (TCVAP) $7 million $2 million Commercilaly Sexually Exploitd Children (CSEC) $30 million $19 million COUNTIES Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Child Care Allocation Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Child Care Expenditures Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Child Care Not Spent STANISLAUS $ 6,492,305 $ 2,281,558 $ 4,210,747 CONTRA COSTA $11,238,454 $ 5,731,199 $ 5,507,255 MERCED $ 4,967,576 $ 2,569,186 $ 2,398,390 SAN MATEO $ 3,364,125 $ 1,743,656 $ 1,620,469 SACRAMENTO $24,566,420 $13,948,986 $10,617,434 MONTEREY $ 4,936,581 $ 2,959,918 $ 1,976,663 SAN JOAQUIN $ 7,753,035 $ 4,841,584 $ 2,911,451 SANTA CLARA $16,237,366 $10,262,317 $ 5,975,049 LOS ANGELES $118,619,966 $78,062,115 $40,557,851 SOLANO $ 4,533,540 $ 3,006,591 $ 1,526,949 ORANGE $ 21,516,324 $16,583,759 $ 4,932,565 SAN LUIS OBISPO $ 2,451,051 $ 1,923,764 $ 527,287 SONOMA $ 4,234,366 $ 3,338,409 $ 895,957 KERN $ 11,706,952 $ 9,268,408 $ 2,438,544 TABLE #1- Total Stage I child care unspent funds by certain counties TABLE #1 reveals counties that have failed to spend millions of Stage I child care funds. TABLE #2 reveals some of the large counties not using more than 50% of their child care allocations. TABLE #2 – Stage I child care unspent funds by certain counties County $$ County $$ Los Angeles $40,557.8511 Orange $4,932,565 Sacramento $10,617, 434 Stanislaus $4,210,747 Santa Clara $5,975,049 San Jouquin $2,911,451 Contra Costa $5,507,255 Fresno $2,554,303 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2017 2017-09 Page 2 Con’t on page 3 AB 214 Weber WCL&P & CCWRO 10-1-18 If a county is participating in a CalFresh (CF) restaurant meals program (RMP) then any college in that county should also participate in the RMP if the college has food facilities on campus. Redefines what constitutes half time from less than 6 units to attending at least half-time any semester or term in which he or she enrolls in at least half of the number of credits needed each semester or term to graduate within four years of enrollment as a first-time freshman, or within two years of enrollment as a transfer student Students who receive any Cal Grant award shall be told by the Student Commission that they qualify for an exemption from the CF student rule and can get food stamps, if they are otherwise eligible. A student is also eligible for CF if they have been approved for work study, even if they do not have a work study slot at the time of asking for CF and have not turned down a work study slot. AB-236 Maienchein WCL&P & CCWRO 10-1-18 Parents, who can reunify with a child(ren) in foster care for lack of housing will be eligible for CalWORKs homeless assistance. AB 323 Berman WCL&P 1-1-18 AB 323 would amend current law which requires a county to provide a writ- ten list of emergency food providers to CalFresh applicants who request it by allowing a county to, instead, provide a 211 referral AB-480 – Fletcher-Gonzalez 4-20-18 A CalWORKs recipient who is participating in a welfare-to-work plan shall be eligible for $30 per month to assist with diaper costs for each child who is under 36 months of age. AB-557 -Rubio WCL&P & CCWRO 7-1-18 Victims of domestic abuse would have a right to a waiver for vaccination and CalLearn. A CalWORKs applicant who provides a sworn statement of past or pres- ent domestic abuse and who is fleeing his or her abuser is deemed to be homeless and is eligible for temporary homeless assistance, for a16 day in one lump sum payment of temporary homeless assistance, notwithstand- ing any income and assets attributable to the alleged abuser. It would also require all CalWORKs applicants and recipients to be informed verbally and in writing, and to the extend required by law, in the language understood by the applicant or recipient, of the availability of services designed to assist individuals to identify, escape, or stop future domestic abuse as well as to deal with the effects of domestic abuse. AB 563 Arambula WCL&P & CCWRO 7-1-18 AB 563 will support CalFresh recipients in securing employment and earn- ings that are enough for them to exit poverty. It will do this by: Removing the double penalty of unemployment for beneficiaries’ subject to the Able-Bodied Adult Without Dependents (ABAWD) time limit; Establishing a CalFresh E&T Center for Excellence; and, Clarifying that the Department of Social Services may directly contract with CalFresh E&T Providers. AB 818 Burke CWDA 1-1-18 This bill provides that a WtW participant who completes the activity of ob- taining a high school diploma or its equivalency shall have those months subtracted from their 24-month clock. AB 910 Ridley-Thomas WCL&P & CCWRO 1-1-18 This bill would codify existing DSS policy for participation hours of pregnant women to 20 hours a week and 20\/30 for a two-parent family where one of the parents is exempt. Bill Sponsor Effective Date What does the bill do? 2017 Chaptered Bill Summary & Effective Dates – Part I CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2017 2017-09 Page 3 AB-1021 – Baker CCWRO 1-1-18 This bill would require each county to accept applications for benefits under the program by telephone, through facsimile, or in person, or, if the county is capable of accepting online applications or applications via email for ben- efits under the program, by email or other electronic means. AB-1604 – Nazarian CCWRO 1-1-18 The bill would require a recipient who has not received his or her high school diploma or its equivalent to be offered a welfare-to-work plan to participate in a high school education program or high school equivalency program, as specified. If the recipient declines to participate in the speci- fied educational activities, and chooses instead to participate in job club or job search activities, or other activities, the bill would require the recipient to make that election, in writing, on the welfare-to-work plan. SB 278 Wiener WCL&P & CCWRO 1-1-19 This bill would require the department, by January 1, 2019, to finalize an analysis and determine whether it has adequate information to set a mini- mum statewide cost-effective threshold for collecting overissuances that are greater than $125, and, if it has adequate information, to include that greater threshold in the state’s claims management plan that is submitted for approval to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The bill would require the department to estab- lish a minimum statewide cost-effective threshold if the claims management plan includes that threshold and the USDA FNS approves the plan. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature detailing the results of the analysis, as specified, if the department determines that it does not have adequate information to set the minimum statewide cost-ef- fective threshold described above. SB 282 Wiener WCL&P & CCWRO 1-1-18 This bill would require a county human services agency to notify the depart- ment when a mass overissuance, as defined, has been identified, and to include in the notification information about whether the mass overissuance was caused by specified events. The bill would require the department to report mass overissuances to the USDA FNS, in accordance with federal law and guidance. SB 360 Skinner CCWRO 1-1-18 This bill would prohibit a person from being subject to criminal prosecu- tion, as specified, for an overpayment or overissuance of benefits, obtained under the CalWORKs program or the CalFresh program, for any month in which the county human services agency was in receipt of any Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) data match information indicating any potential for an overpayment or an overissuance and for which the county human services agency has not provided to the person a timely and ad- equate notice of action for the collection of the overpayment or the overis- suance. The bill would provide that the county human services agency be deemed to be in receipt of the information following 45 days, or the com- bined total of 45 days and an authorized delay, as specified, from the date of the county human services agency’s possession of that information. SB-380 -Bradford WCL&P & CCWRO 1-1-18 SB 380 allows step or half siblings who receive child support to opt out of the assistance unit. It is the family’s option that must be exercised in writing. SB-570 -Newman WCL&P & CCWRO 1-1-18 This bill would exempt benefits and related allowances received through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for education, training, vocation, or rehabilitation from consideration as income for purposes of de- termining eligibility for CalWORKs program benefits and calculating grant amounts for veterans and their spouses and dependents, under specified circumstances. Bill Sponsor Effective Date What does the bill do? 2017 Chaptered Bill Summary & Effective Dates – Part II CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2017 2017-07 Page 4 County Percntage of total stage 1 child care returned County Percntage of total stage 1 child care returned FRESNO 84% ORANGE 77% KERN 79% SOLANO 66% SAN LUIS OBISPO 79% SAN JOAQUIN 63% ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-10 12\/13\/17 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. In Brief Since the most recent recession, counties have been inventing ways to reduce services to public benefit beneficiaries such as, banking cases . Now we have so-called call centers that erect major bar- riers between beneficiaries of public benefits and their workers. 29 counties are operating call cen- ters that contribute to the CalWORKs and CalFresh churning , commonly defined as, when a house- hold exits CalWorks or CalFresh and then re-enters the program within 4 months due to procedural rea- sons. Los Angeles County with 30-40% of California’s caseload, started a call center that has been a night- mare for beneficiaries. Recent reports reveal that 50% of the calls placed never get to the call cen- ter staff. Many beneficiaries were not able to get through. Sorry. Service is not our business . Table #1-Calls to LA Call Center Total Calls made 10-17 549,522 Number Calls Answered 272,092 Number Calls NOT Answered 277,430 Con’t on page 2 HUNGER IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES CAUSED BY LOCAL CONTROL – Many community college childless students continue to be food insecure, they cannot qualify for food stamp benefits notwithstanding the numerous pieces of legisla- tion passed during the past few years. This is primarily caused by the community colleges not having a uniform statewide process to help students get food stamps. Giv- ing the local colleges the right to run their own system, even if that means students go hungry, has been toler- ated by the California Community College Chancellor’s office for many years. The Chancellor should put the needs of the students ahead of colleges who have poli- cies and processes that result in student hunger. On September 22, 2016, Alameda County informed Beverly Parnell of the Department of Social Services (DSS) that when a WtW participant works more hours than what the Welfare to Work (WtW) Plan provides, which results in additional child care, the county will not pay the child care provider the additional hours. The only exception is when the parent informs the Eligibility Specialist within the week that the change occurred so as to allow any necessary changes can be made to the Plan. This Alameda County policy discourages work and can result in CalWORKs recipients losing their jobs because they were not able to reach their Eligibility Spe- cialist. Nevada County reported, when we receive an in- voice from the child care contractor, and the hours do not match the approved hours in the WTW Plan, we would contact the parent to determine the reason for the additional hours. If it is an appropriate reason we would approve. CCWRO asks, what constitutes an appropri- ate reason? Los Angeles DPSS- Call Center Blues i CCWRO Welfare News December 13, 2017 2017-10 Page 2 Con’t on page 3 On August 11, 2017, Stanislaus County asked DSS whether a recipient remains eligible for IHSS during the periods of time she is out of county, stay- ing with family in another county? On October 4, 2017, DSS responded: Yes, the recip- ient remains eligible; her periodic stays with a fam- ily member residing in another county (who will also be a provider) do not affect her eligibility for IHSS. She would continue to be eligible for her county of permanent residence (Santa Clara) as well as when she temporarily resides in the other county (Stan- islaus) . Stanislaus County: If so, can her son be compensat- ed by Santa Clara County for providing temporary services in Stanislaus County? DSS Response: Yes, the county in which the recipi- ent permanently resides, as the owner of the case, would be responsible for all aspects of the case, in- cluding compensating the providers, without regard to which county the services were provided in. Stanislaus County: At what point would an inter- county transfer be initiated? In other words, how long would a recipient have to stay in a county before ini- tiating an ICT? DSS Response: An ICT would not need to be initi- ated unless and until the recipient makes a permanent move from her current county of residence to another county. The determining factor is not length of time she spends but rather where (in which county) the recipient makes her permanent home, e.g., where she owns\/rents property, receives mail, is registered to vote, etc. This would typically, but not necessarily, be the county where she spends the majority of time. San Bernardino County- On September 18, 2017, told DSS: I’ve searched the CAPI regulations and the USCIS website and have been unsuccessful in lo- cating the answers to my questions regarding the New Affidavit of Support (I-864). I am hoping you can assist me. San Bernardino County asks immigrants to verify sponsorship status by providing one of the following: A photocopy of the Affidavit of Support (I-864 or I-134), or A written statement from USCIS verifying the exis- tence or non-existence of an Affidavit of Support. From my research, San Bernardino usually obtains this verification from completing the G-845 process. With the G-845 process, USCIS sends back a response to verify sponsorship. However, if an immigrant turns in a copy of the I-864: Is a copy of the original I-864 submitted by the spon- sor enough, Must the USCIS Only entries be completed to show it was received and reviewed by USCIS, or Is there another type of response sent back to the im- migrant or sponsor to verify the Affidavit was reviewed\/ accepted? On September 19, 2017, DSS responded saying You are correct that, technically at least, the county is sup- posed to have an I-864 on file for all sponsored indi- viduals applying for CAPI. MPP 49-037.54 via the definition in MPP 49-005(a)(1). It is the claimant’s responsibility to provide the I-864 to the county. MPP 49-037.541. CCWRO PRACTICE NOTE: This CDSS regu- lation violates POMS SI 00502.240.G.2 that states: 2. How to Verify Sponsorship-Follow region- al instructions for contacting DHS to verify spon- sorship. In the absence of regional instructions, contact DHS for verification of sponsorship using DHS Form G-845. Complete and attach a G-845 Supplement (see SI 00502.115B.6. for exhib- it) and ask DHS to complete Item 7. Ask the lo- cal DHS contact office to check their central case control. Since an individual’s records can be in- terfiled with the records of other family members, California Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) and INS Form I-864 ON IHSS WHILE VISITING ANOTHER COUNTY CCWRO Welfare News December 13, 2017 2017-10 Page 3 any information you can give DHS about the alien’s date of entry or about other family mem- bers (their names, dates of entry, point of entry, etc.) will help DHS locate the needed information. If DHS does not respond to your request within 30 days (or other period based on regional instructions), send a follow-up request. Indicate that this is a follow- up and include a copy of the original request and the date it was made. The problem is that an applicant for CAPI benefits generally does not have a copy of the I-864. While our regulations offer that the claimant may obtain a copy from USCIS through the FOIA process, navigating the bureaucracy inherent in this route is often beyond the ability of elderly, disabled or blind claimants, par- ticularly if they do not speak English well (or at all). Although CDSS has not issued any policy on this is- sue, we generally encourage counties to avoid deny- ing CAPI benefits solely based on lack of an I-864. You are correct that the county may obtain the rele- vant information via the G-845S. While this currently adds extra time to the county’s eligibility determina- tion (potentially jeopardizing compliance with the 30-day application process), this situation should be obviated by the rapid response provided by the elec- tronic G-845 (the paper version will become obsolete this coming May). In answer to your question, an original I-864 or a pho- tocopy thereof should be acceptable. I know of noth- ing in our regulations that requires counties to obtain evidence that the I-864 was received\/reviewed\/accept- ed by USCIS. In a general way, this is supported by MPP 49-037.22, which provides that sponsor deem- ing begins when the sponsor executes the I -864 (or the immigrant’s date of entry, whichever is later). That regulation does not mention anything about review or approval by USCIS. Alma Calvelo of Los Angeles County told DSS that she received a call from an authorized represen- tative (legal advocate) and wanted clarification of the policy whether Authorized Representative (AR) should always: 1. Provide appropriate identification every time she visits the DPSS office (with or without the CAPI par- ticipant) to represent our CAPI participant, although an Appointment of Representative form was previous- ly signed and filed on the case. 2. Accompany the CAPI participant to any required face-to-face interview. (This AR wanted to have a teleconference, while the CAPI participant is in the office for face-to-face interview with the CAPI worker). On August 13, 2017 DSS responded saying that Authorized Representative policy is in the works, with an ACL in draft. AR policy has been coun- ty-by-county. Common sense is called for in these situations. Identification, accompaniment, and face- to-face with the applicant\/recipient are always good ideas. In the meantime, our implicit policy endors- es any measures the County takes to prevent fraud- ulent actions resulting from AR relationships. Of course, as per usual for CAPI, specific directions can be drawn from the SSI POMS where a multitude of policy related to AR exists. Parjackj Ghaderi of Los Angeles County Counsel also responded saying The Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) is a state-funded program that is administered by the State and the County. Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that the California Department of Social Services, Manual of Policies and Procedure regarding confidentiality govern the treatment of CAPI records. Under the MPP guide- lines, information relating to eligibility that was provided by the applicant\/recipient contained in ap- plications and other records made or kept by the county welfare department in connection with ad- ministration of the program can be reviewed by the applicant\/recipient or his\/her authorized represen- tative. Authorization may either be written or via telephone. There is no specific requirement that the authorization be verified by an in-person identifica- tion or identification card. Written authorizations are preferred and the only requirement outlined in the State regulations is that they expire one year from the date given. The only CDSS form I could find was to designate an authorized representative for hear- ings and that form does not require identification. However, I don’t know what DPSS’ policy is in this regard. At such, although there is no statutory re- quirement that authorizations be verified through in- person or other means, I suggest that you follow your department’s policy. It appears that the county counsel had better advice than DSS. The DSS response did not refer to current regulations, telephone authorization under MPP 19- 015.22 and asserting that counties can do whatev- er they want to do under the disguise of combating fraud -even violate the rights of CAPI recipients to have representation. CAPI & AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN LOS ANGELES Con’t on page 4 Butte County is also unlawfully requiring the fin- gerprinting of Inter-County Transfer (ICT) clients. DSS considers ICT as a redetermination of eligi- bility and SFIS is not required at redetermination. (ACIN 1-05-09) (MPP 40-188 thru 40-197) San Bernardino County is not processing the Payment Verification System abstract matches to identify recipients who have\/are receiving Social Security Title II retirement, disability or survivor’s benefits; unemployment; or state disability insur- ance within the required timeframe. DSS reviewed a sample of 40 abstracts from the 10\/5\/16 run date and found 20 abstracts were processed late and 10 were not processed at all. That is a 75% fail- ure to rate by a county that relentlessly pursues fraud. Most of the fraud is actually caused by San Bernardino County’s failure to do their job. If San Bernardino did its job, the overpayments would be smaller. San Bernardino County had a backlog of 5,615 PVS abstracts as of July 2017 New Hire Registry. San Bernardino County is not processing the NHR abstracts within the required timeframe. DSS re- viewed a sample of 40 abstracts from the 10\/3\/16 run date; 20 abstracts were processed late and 7 were not processed at all. That is an estimated 68% failure rate by San Bernardino County. DSS also noted that a San Bernardino County SFIS station is located in an area where workers meet with clients. There is no privacy curtain or com- puter screen protector to prevent clients and other workers from seeing the SFIS screen. DSS rec- ommended that TAD provides a computer screen protector and a privacy curtain to safeguard the SFIS area. The TAD must meet the confidential- ity requirements when fingerprinting clients ac- cording to Welfare and Institutions Codes (WIC) 10850 (B). The county must ensure SFIS worksta- tions cannot be viewed or accessed by others dur- ing data entry or the image processing. Monterey County is not processing the PVS match within the required timeframe. Of the 40 abstracts reviewed from the 8\/31\/16 run date, 12 abstracts were not processed timely and 14 were not processed at all. That is a 65% failure rate by Monterey County. The DSS recommendation was that Monterey County should develop over- sight processes for supervisors to ensure that EWs take prompt action after receiving an PVS match. We wonder if DSS would make a similar recom- mendation for CalWORKs and CalFresh beneficia- ries who do not submit at all or after the due date Elvia Leyva of Sacramento County asked DSS that a … question has come up about Marshall Islands and SSI. Since they are considered PRUCOL, we do not refer them to apply for SSI correct? There is some debate with our seasoned workers that they should be referred since some of them have work quarters and have been found eligible to SSA. My thought is that when we interview the client, we would only refer them to apply for SSA if they have a work history and it would be to apply for SSA not SSI. Or should we just have them apply for SSI? Please let me know what you think. Steve Koehler DSS responded saying Thank you for your inquiry related to the question of SSI eligibility for Marshall Island individuals. Citizens of the Compact of Free Association States (collectively known as the Freely Associated States or FAS) are permanent non-im- migrants who are lawfully allowed to permanently re- side and work in the Unites States. These individuals may qualify as PRUCOL in order to obtain CAPI bene- fits. ACL 16-33. As such, they are not qualified aliens for SSI eligibility purposes. FAS citizens are no longer eli- gible for SSI. POMS SI 00502.100(A)(2)(a)(1)\/ The Integrated Fraud Detection System (IFD) identi- fies unreported income. In August 2017, DSS monitored Butte County. Butte has a backlog of 2960 unprocessed iFD abstracts that have past the mandated timeframe. Butte County was also cited for the unlawful practice that provides Once the client is discontinued for fail- ure to cooperate with the IEVS verification process, they are not allowed to receive benefits at reapplication un- til the IEVS verification has been received. The DESS is also not allowing the client to use third party employ- er information or a sworn statement as verification for IEVS. Recommendation: The DESS must grant Immediate Need for CalWORKs And Expedited Services for CalFresh for eligible clients. The client is still respon- sible for providing pending verification to continue their benefits. (MPP 40-129.9) (MPP63-301.548) if the cli- ent has difficulty providing verification, the DESS must contact the appropriate income or benefit source. (MPP 20-066.543) If the client or third party is unable to pro- vide verification, the client can submit a sworn statement (ACL 14-26) CCWRO Welfare News December 13, 2017 2017-10 Page 4 WELFARE FRAUD DSS MONITORING REPORTS CAPI – MARSHALL ISLANDS Con’t on page 5 DECEMBER 2017 FACTS: SSI – About 1 million IHSS recipients will be food insecure this holiday season compliments of the State of California which refuses to give SSI recipients food stamps depriving them of a Christmas meal. Shame! CalWORKs – There are 647,000 children living in families with an average cash income less than 39% of the federal poverty level. Many of the 647,000 children, living in deep poverty, will go hungry this Christmas while California fleeces over $2.3 billion of CalWORKs dollars, resulting in California State government child abuse of CalWORKs kids. Why? Because although there was $7.3 billion available for the CalWORKs program during 2017-2018, the Governor proposed, and the Democratic Legislature only approved $5.1 for California’s CalWORKs kids and families living in deep poverty. What happened to the rest – $2.3 billion? It was used to partially fund California’s the rainy day fund. SAR 7? Do not stop their benefits just develop an oversight process. DSS also found that Monterey County …is not processing the IRS match within the required time- frame. DSS reviewed a sample of 10 IRS abstracts from the 4\/11\/16 run date; none of the abstracts were processed timely. DSS again recommend- ed that Monterey County should develop over- sight processes for supervisors to ensure that EWs take prompt action after receiving a IRS match. Monterey County was also cited for discontinuing CalWORKs cases when the CalWORKs beneficia- ry fails to provide income verification for volun- tary mid-period report See MPP 44-316.31 IHSS beneficiary total confused – Ms. 1588539 applied for IHSS in Sacramento County on 9\/9\/17. Her provider received a notice that IHSS was ap- proved effective 9\/11\/17. Ms. 1588539 received an NOA stating that IHSS was approved effective 10\/25\/17. Which one is the actual beginning date of IHSS benefits? Mr. 2016287258 received a notice of action dated 9\/26\/16. Los Angeles County notified the claimant that he was authorized for 63 hours and 11 minutes per month of IHSS effective 11\/1\/16. The county also notified the claimant that his protective su- pervision eligibility was being discontinued. On 10\/13\/16, the claimant requested a state hearing to challenge the county’s discontinuance of protec- tive supervision. Mr. 2016287258 is an adult that has a mental im- pairment, which is schizoaffective disorder, and is also diagnosed with diabetes, neuropathy, heart problems, and epilepsy. Mr. 2016287258’s psychiatrist stated that the claimant’s orientation is moderate if [the claim- ant] is not on medication and without support he could not function. Also, in the Protective Supervision form, the psychiatrist stated that the claimant’s judgment is severely impaired. The psychiatrist stated that the claimant’s judgment is severely impaired without support and medication. Moreover, the psychiatrist stated that the claimant is se- verely schizoaffective and needs 24\/7 [sic] due to his dis- ease. Lastly, the psychiatrist responded to the questions of: are you aware of any injury or accident that the pa- tient has suffered due to deficits in memory, orientation, or judgment, with ammonia elevated by Depakote anti- seizure medication. The ALJ found that Mr. 2016287258’s is non-self direct- ing, likely to engage in dangerous activities, and requires supervision 24 hours per day and seven days per week. CCWRO Welfare News December 13, 2017 2017-10 Page 5 County IHSS Client Abuse Report ”

” CCWRO Welfare News 2017-11 12\/26\/17 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Many counties throughout the state are doing CalFresh applications and annual redeterminations telephonically in order to reduce welfare administra- tive costs. County policy makers design policies that are suitable for the county with little or no consider- ation of how the policy impacts the beneficiaries of public benefits program. During the application or annual redetermination process, many counties tell the individual that they will get a call on a certain day between 8 am 12 noon, or 10 am – 11 am or 1 pm – 3 pm, depending on the county. In setting the time, there is no consider- ation that the applicant\/recipient may be working or maybe has to get the kids to school or pick them up from school during the county designated time zone. The applicant or the recipient is told that the county will call, but they do not mention that the call will be coming from a blocked number. These kinds of policies are the major cause of CalFresh churning . It’s no wonder that California leads the nation in low SNAP participation and has one of the highest administrative costs in the nation. In 2013, DSS implemented SB 1041 that among oth- er things, require breast feeding moms to participate in the WtW program components of job club or work ex- perience. The parents could be exempt, but they would have to request an exemption, which is not easy when call-center phones ring and go unanswered. 29 coun- ties have call-centers, another major barrier between the caseworker and the beneficiary. When messages are re- turned, if they are, they come as no caller ID\/blocked and beneficiaries do not answer the call because they fear that it is another solicitor. During 2017 an estimat- ed 35,000 families with babies under 2 years, were sanc- tion by the California Welfare-to-Sanction program also known as Welfare-to-Work. During the SB 1041 deliberations, CCWRO predicted that SB 1041 would simply increase the severe pover- ty in the CalWORKs program through increased sanc- tions. CalWORKs families receive an average fixed cash assistance well below 50% of the federal poverty level. When WtW sanctions the family, the family lives an average fixed income at around 21% of the federal poverty level. TABLE # 1 below reveals the increase in the number of CalWORKs families found to be non- compliant and the increase in the number of them found to have no good cause, which means sanction severe deep poverty. SB 1041 Successfully Increases WtW Non-Compliance & Sanctions Year- July Total Undupl Monthly Noncomp. Monthly % of Noncomp. Monthly Good Cause Monthly NO Good Cause Cases that results in Sanctions % of no Good Cause Each Month Annualized Total Families Sanctioned 2012 99837 24927 25% 14200 10727 43% 128,724 2013 100237 25073 25% 14200 10873 43% 130,476 2014 111757 27397 25% 16512 10885 40% 130,620 2015 108783 29899 27% 17162 12737 43% 152,844 2016 86355 23809 28% 9783 14026 59% 168,312 Telephonic Processing of Applications and Recertifications Cause CalFresh Churning more on page 2TABLE # 1-Number of Families Sanctioned CCWRO Welfare News December 26 2017 2017-11 Page 2 WHAT IS A GOOD, HUMANE POLICY? First of all, why are counties blocking their telephone num- bers? These are taxpayer funded telephone num- bers, not the workers’ personal telephone numbers. Counties should not call with blocked numbers when the call is coming from a publicly funded telephone number. Counties should offer several time slots, just like counties do when they want to set up a meeting, such as, a doodle appointment setter. The same should be done for beneficiaries of public benefits. STATE HEARING ABANDONMENTS- This is also a problem for telephonic state hearings. Hearings are scheduled for a certain date and time period and folks get a call from a blocked number. Many believe the blocked call is another irritating call trying to sell something and they do not answer. Then DSS calls the hearing abandoned . CDSS SHD should stop blocking their telephone numbers so claimants will know who is calling. We have a question about a case that is on the E2Lite list. We cannot find an ACL that specifically address- es this issue. Below are the details: Case Background: Client failed to disclose his job to CalWORKs Employment Specialist. This undisclosed job actually meets WPR (client worked many hours). Case went into sanction because the Employment Specialist did not know about the job and case was eventually closed. Case has since been included in the E2Lite sample and a different worker discovered this job. Question: Can we now count these hours to allow this case to meet WPR? If so, what would be the best way to move forward given that the hours were not claimed in the system? Can we back-date an employ- ment plan? Ana Marie Lara, MPA Management Analyst – #E202 Welfare-to-Work Services Division San Francisco Human Services Agency T – (415) 557-5938 Email: ana.marie.lara@sfgov.org How nice. The person is working and meeting the WPR and rather than removing the sanction all the coun- ty wants to know is how can they use the sanctioned persons hours to meet the county WPR. This is not an aberration. In 2012, DSS admitted that in one month there were over 3000 persons sanctioned meeting the WPR. In 2017 we found out that in a given month, over 5,000 families who met the federal WPR were still be- ing sanctioned. Thus, every month there are thousands of CalWORKs recipients meeting the federal WPR and still being sanctioned. According to DSS, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) penalized California for failing to meet the overall WPR in each federal fiscal year from 2008 through 2014, and for the two-parent family from 2012 through 2015. As a result of successful implementation of statewide strategies in cooperation with our coun- ty partners, the initial penalty exposure of $1.8 billion has been substantially reduced through corrective com- pliance. Nominally, the current penalties for 2014 and 2015 are $296 million and $66 million respectively. However, methodological inferences, based on recent correspondence from OFA, suggest that these amounts may be further reduced to less than $5 million in 2014 and $13 million in 2015. Interesting, how government sanctions can evaporate while sanctions against CalWORKs and CalFresh re- cipients, often illegally, take affect within a month or so and just go on and on meeting the apparent real purpose of the program to punish the poor for being poor. While CalWORKs recipients, who allegedly fail to participate are sanctioned for months, the State of California has yet to be sanctioned for refusal to meet the federal WPR in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The $1.8 billion has gone down to $18 million. We ask if there is any way families who endure deep poverty could get similar compassionate treatment from California’s public benefits administrators and the democratically controlled Legislature when it comes to CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work sanctions? California Sanctions for Failure to Meet the Federal WPR, goes down by 99% County Wants to Use the Work of a Sanctioned Family to Meet the County Federal WRP (from page 2) ”

” CCWRO Welfare News – 2017-12 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. African American mothers and children found a direct cor- relation between high blood lead levels during infancy and early childhood as a high predictor for involvement with the criminal justice system in late adolescence and young adulthood. See Cincinnati Lead Study , National Insti- tutes of Environmental Health (2007) https:\/\/www.niehs.nih.gov\/research\/supported\/cohort\/re- sources\/cohort755390.cfm. Source: Cincinnati Lead Study , National Institutes of Environmental Health (2007) – Accessed 12\/26\/2017. Childhood Lead Poisoning By the Numbers The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has joined international health agencies in stating that there is no safe level of lead exposure. Since 2016, the CDC rec- ommends that children with blood lead levels of 4.5 micro- grams of lead per 1 deciliter (approximately 4 ounces) of blood receive public health treatment including lead expo- sure assessments of their homes and other environments. It also recommends that these children and their families also be provided with appropriate nutritional and medical sup- port to counteract the impacts of lead poisoning. Lead poisoning in children is like hypertension (high blood pressure) in adults. It is a condition that can only be iden- tified by appropriate testing as well as on-going surveil- lance. It is best treated with on-going monitoring, changes in conduct and diet. Parents can only address blood lead poisoning if they know one thing: what is my child’s current blood lead level? CDHS information indicates that only 25% of one and two year olds eligible for some type of health care assistance have been tested between 2012 and 2015. Per federal law, 100% of these children should be tested annually during their 12 and 24 month medical check-ups. With most chil- dren not receiving these recommended medical screenings, as many as 500,000 young children are at risk of the life- threatening consequences of lead poisoning. The effects of high blood levels can affect a child’s ability to learn; can negatively impact a child’s conduct and behaviors; and can kill if high levels of exposure are not identified and treated as quickly as possible. For most of 2017 CCWRO staff and volunteers reviewed in- formation about blood lead poisoning and children, particu- larly, poor children who are Medi-Cal recipients or Medi-Cal eligible. The resulting information is alarming. Most chil- dren, eligible for free blood lead screening at ages 12 months and 24 months, are not receiving these screenings. Accord- ing to the most recently provided data from the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), only about 25% of Medi-Cal recipient children are being tested.1 What does this mean? It means possibly as many as 500,000 children who are at known risks for lead exposure are not receiving federally mandated blood lead screenings. Facts For Your Consideration: Children who are exposed to lead lose $3,000 to almost $8,000 in lifetime productivity for each 1 microgram per deciliter (\u03bcg\/dL) increase in blood lead level. Blood lead lev- els over 1 \u03bcg\/dL are associated with measurable reductions in IQ. Between 2007 2008 and 2009 2010, interventions that con- trol or eliminate lead hazards before children are exposed (primary prevention) helped reduce the number of children exposed to lead (blood lead levels \u2265 1\u03bcg\/dL) by nearly 3 mil- lion, saving $26 57 billion in lifetime productivity earnings alone. These estimates do not account for behavioral and other adverse effects on lifetime productivity linked to lead. Source: CDC; NCEH State Fact Sheets: California, posted April 29, 2014 https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nceh\/information\/state_factsheets\/cali- fornia.htm – Accessed 12\/27\/2017 Medical studies have documented that a woman can transfer lead stored in her bones to her fetus during pregnancy, thus making maternal lead transfer a risk to the fetus during preg- nancy and while the mother is nursing. See https:\/\/www.cdc. gov\/nceh\/lead\/tools\/are_you_pregnant.pdf Source: CDC Flyer Are You Pregnant? Accessed 12\/26\/2017. A 2008 report based on a blood lead studies of predominantly 1 CDHS revised data on blood lead testing for FFY 2012 – 2015. Lead Poisoning & California’s Children: This is Not a War That Has Been Won 12\/30\/17 CCWRO Welfare News December 30, 2017 2017-12 Page 2 What is lead? Lead is a naturally occurring element. It is often used in metal-working with other elements, such as iron. It is used to make pipes and other products such as solders, paint, dishes, pottery, toys (including jewelry), candy. Lead may be included in imported home remedies, medicines and cosmetics and make-up. Lead can also be found in many workplaces mainly auto repair, construction, metal manufacturing, recycling and plumbing. See https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nceh\/lead\/tools\/ leadglossary_508.pdf – Accessed 12\/2017 What is lead poisoning? A sickness caused by swal- lowing or breathing lead. Lead poisons children when it gets into their bodies. Lead poisoning can hurt the brain and nervous system and slow down growth and develop- ment. See https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nceh\/lead\/tools\/leadglos- sary_508.pdf – Accessed 12\/2017 What are the symptoms of lead poisoning in a child? Most children who have lead poisoning do not look or act sick. Symptoms, if present, may be confused with common childhood complaints, such as stomach pain, crankiness, headaches, or loss of appetite. See https:\/\/www.cdph.ca.gov\/Programs\/CCDPHP\/DEOD CLPPB\/Pages\/frequently_asked_questions. aspx#howdoiknow – Accesssed 12\/2017. What are the effects of lead poisoning in chil- dren? Severely lead poisoned children and adults from toxic lead exposure. Lead can affect all parts of a child’s body. In young children, toxic lead exposure has been found to cause nerve damage, hearing problems and behavior problems. Children with high blood lead levels have problems learning and controlling their behav- ior. Source: EPA website Learn About Lead Updated 5\/26\/2017 at https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/lead\/learn-about- lead#effectsn -Accessed 12\/2017. Where can I get blood lead testing for my child or children in my community? Children age 1 and 2 years old enrolled in publicly funded health care, i.e. Medi-Cal,CHDP and WIC, are at high risk of lead poi- soning and should be tested. Cost for the test is covered by the public health programs listed above and most private health insurance plans. Children enrolled in publicly-funded health care programs who are between 2 and 6 years old and have not been tested are eligible for free services. Young children under 6 who spend time in homes, childcare centers, or buildings built before 1978 should also be tested. Any infant or child who is thought to be at risk or comes in contact with items that may contain lead should be tested. Source: California Childhood Lead Poisoning Preven- tion Branch website https:\/\/www.cdph.ca.gov\/Programs\/ CCDPHP\/DEODC\/CLPPB\/Pages\/clpppsrvs.aspx – Ac- cessed 12\/26\/2017. The only way to know if your child has lead poisoning is for the child to get a blood test for lead. Talk to your child’s health care provider to see if your child is at risk for lead poisoning. According to the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch (within the California Department of Public Health) those at most risk are Children under six years old and fetuses (unborn ba- bies at all stages of development. The bodies of young children and infants are growing and developing rapidly, most especially their bones and their nervous systems. The high risk of lead exposure for very young children are based on these facts: \u25cf They frequently crawl on floors or furniture contaminated with lead dust and put their hands or other objects in their mouths. \u25cf More of the lead that gets into their mouth is taken up into their bodies. \u25cf Much of the lead is stored in their bones. \u25cf Lead can be measured in their blood and re- mains in their bodies for a long time. Other children at risk include \u25cf Young children under six years of age who spend time in homes, childcare centers, or buildings built before 1978 that have chipping or peeling paint. (The old paint may still have lead in it.) \u25cf Young children who play in bare soil, especial- ly soil that is close to an older house or struc- ture, i.e. a garage, shed or barn that may have been painted with lead paint.. \u25cf Children who have recently come from or who spend time in other countries, i.e. recent immi- grants and children adopted from other coun- tries \u25cf Infants born to mothers with an elevated level of lead in their blood would be at risk for lead poisoning. Lead crosses the placenta and has harmful effects on the fetus. Pregnant women exposed to lead should ask their doctor about a blood test. Source: https:\/\/www.cdph.ca.gov\/Programs\/CCDPHP\/ DEODC\/CLPPB\/Pages\/frequently_asked_questions. aspx – Access 12\/2017 Which Children are at the Highest Risk for Lead Poisoning Lead Poisining: Frequently Asked Questions CCWRO Welfare News December 30, 2017 2017-12 Page 3 Parents of children who use Medi-Cal should discuss lead poisoning and risks factors specific to their child with the child’s doctors. The federal Early and Peri- odic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment program, known as EPDST , provides a range of comprehen- sive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in the Medi-Cal (Medi-Caid) program. This includes children who are on SSI (Social Security Supplemental Security Income), children in Foster Care or Kin-Gap families. In California EPDST services are provided through the CHDP, Child Health and Disabilities Prevention program. Source: Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment | Medicaid.gov https:\/\/www.medicaid.gov\/medicaid\/benefits\/epsdt\/ index.html; and Guideline #6, Blood Lead Test and Anticipatory Guidance, California Department of Health Care Services, Integrated Systems of Care Division, Child Health and Disability Prevention Program, Health Assessment Guidelines SEPTEMBER 2017, http:\/\/ www.dhcs.ca.gov\/services\/chdp\/Documents\/HAG\/ Chapter6.pdf – Accessed 12\/2017 EPDST eligible children are required to receive blood lead screenings at ages 12 months and 24 months. If a child has not been tested, CHDP allows for a child to receive free testing up age 6. See also Guideline #6 referenced above. Every county public health agency has a staff person who is designated as a contact resource by the Cali- fornia Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch. Paste this link to your browser to find the contact for your county: https:\/\/www.cdph.ca.gov\/Programs\/CCDPHP\/DE- ODC\/CLPPB\/Pages\/CLPPPIndex.aspx kn Parents should discuss the results of their child’s blood lead test with a qualified medical professional. While there is no known safe level of lead exposure for children, treatment can range from monitoring and reducing environmental risks to aggressive medi- cal interventions that have the goal of reducing blood lead levels. The relevant levels are: m 4.5 micrograms per deciliter Management of lead exposure is key. Identify pos- sible sources of lead exposure; encourage hand wash- ing; avoid contact with items that may contain lead such as bullets, certain types of make-up, toys and ceramic dishes. Consult with a nutritionist to identify foods, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables that can increase the child’s intake of iron and calcium and other mineral nutrients from healthy, natural sources. m 5.0 – 9.9 micrograms per deciliter Identification and management of lead exposure sources is critical. Other children, pregnant and nursing women in the home (or building if the child is living in a multi-family property) should be tested. Retesting (rather than screening tests) should be scheduled to determine if the blood lead level is stable or declining rather than increasing. Consulta- tion with a nutritionist and industrial hygienist are strongly recommended. m 10 – 14 micrograms per deciliter (or higher) Same as the strategies outlined above. At blood lead levels greater than 10 micrograms, the child should be referred for public health management through the local county public health agency or the state CCLPB services. Prompt identification of lead exposure sources must be made to address environmental risks to the child and others who may be at risk. Source: Guideline #6, Blood Lead Test and Anticipa- tory Guidance, California Department of Health Care Services, Integrated Systems of Care Division, Child Health and Disability Prevention Program, Health Assessment Guidelines SEPTEMBER 2017, http:\/\/ www.dhcs.ca.gov\/services\/chdp\/Documents\/HAG\/ Chapter6.pdf – Accessed 12\/2017 Where Can I Get my Child’s Blood Level Tested? What Should I KnowAbout the Results of My Child’s Blood Lead Test? CCWRO Welfare News December 30, 2017 2017-12 Page 4 Re-Engaging in the War on Lead Poisoning – The 2018 To Do List Con’t on page 5 l Encourage anyone that you know with a young child (6 or younger) to discuss lead poisoning risks with their doctor and have the child or children tested for lead exposure. l Insist that groups and organizations and loca- tions where parents of young children gather have information about lead poisoning risks and testing services have brochures available and posters on the walls. l Have your home or any location where your young child spends time (grandma’s house, the babysitter’s place, day care, even the church nursery) assessed for lead exposure by a qualified professional. See the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch Website at https:\/\/www.cdph. ca.gov\/Programs\/CCDPHP\/DEODC\/CLPPB\/Pag- es\/home_test.aspx At CCWRO, our position on blood lead testing is that any Medi-Cal recipient or eligible child who has not been tested is at risk. The state’s poor testing performance needs to be improved, imme- diately. Untested children (those 3 to 6 year olds who did not receive their tests as 1 and 2 year olds) must be screened as soon as possible and hopefully before they start school. In doing this research, we found stories that illus- trated the breadth of the risk of lead exposure: l A pediatrician who learned that her home was exposing her children. Source: Special Report: Thousands of U.S. areas afflicted with lead poi- soning beyond Flint’s, \/www.reuters.com\/article\/ us-usa-lead-testing-specialreport\/special-report- thousands-of-u-s-areas-afflicted-with-lead-poi- soning-beyond-flints-idUSKBN1481BT, published 12\/19\/2016, accessed on line 12\/28\/2017. l Widespread blood lead poisoning among children in Brooklyn, New York’s Hassidim. Source: Harretz https:\/\/www. haaretz.com\/us-news\/1.822782, published 11\/14\/2017, accessed 12\/27\/2017. The challenge of reducing blood lead expo- sure for California’s children has identified hotspots, such as Fresno, California. Many other children in many other communities both urban and rural and even suburban towns, are also at risk. What to do? r Fully utilizing existing statutes and policies could increase California’s testing rates from under 30% to something more robust, or at least 50% of eligibles. r Encourage pregnant women and nurs- ing women that you know to have their lead tested for blood. You may want to insist if she is not only low-income but living in an older home or apartment or if she uses a drinking water source with known risks for heavy metals. r New California laws are directing school districts and local water agencies to test drinking fountains and water sources in schools for lead exposure. Make sure your local school is participating in these testing activities. r Write, call and tell your legislators (state and Federal) as well as local political lead- ers that you are concerned about lead poisoning as it relates to older housing (built before 1978); public water source; and prompted effective treatment for lead exposed children. DECEMBER 2017 FACTS: SSI – About 1 million IHSS recipients will be food insecure this holiday season compliments of the State of California which refuses to give SSI recipients food stamps depriving them of a Christmas meal. Shame! CalWORKs – There are 647,000 children living in families with an average cash income less than 39% of the federal poverty level. Many of the 647,000 children, living in deep poverty, will go hungry this Christmas while California fleeces over $2.3 billion of CalWORKs dollars, resulting in California State government child abuse of CalWORKs kids. Why? Because although there was $7.3 billion available for the CalWORKs program during 2017-2018, the Governor proposed, and the Democratic Legislature only approved $5.1 for California’s CalWORKs kids and families living in deep poverty. What happened to the rest – $2.3 billion? It was used to partially fund California’s the rainy day fund. CCWRO Welfare News December 13, 2017 2017-10 Page 5 County IHSS Client Abuse Report WELFARE FRAUD DSS MONITORING REPORTS Con’t on page 5 vvghjklrtyui\uf02d o234567890sxd\uf02d crftvbgyhnuijmok, ”