Search Demo

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-01 February 9, 2019 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 TABLE #1 – CalWORKs Funds Redirected from the Mouths of Needy Babies and Children to the State General Fund for Non-CalWORKs Programs CalWORKs Involuntary Contribution to the General Fund FY 98-99 $708,502,000.00 FY 99-00 $745,249,000.00 FY 00-01 $1,021,913,000.00 FY 01-02 $1,126,647,000.00 FY 02-03 $1,088,940,000.00 FY 03-04 $1,163,238,000.00 FY 04-05 $1,087,321,000.00 FY 05-06 $1,299,448,000.00 FY 06-07 $1,184,134,000.00 FY 07-08 $1,745,291,000.00 FY 08-09 $1,268,997,000.00 FY 09-10 $1,262,291,000.00 FY 10-11 $1,262,046,000.00 FY 11-12 $1,234,159,000.00 FY 12-13 $1,896,060,000.00 FY 13-14 $1,586,755,000.00 FY 14-15 $1,661,424,000.00 FY 15-16 $1,661,764,000.00 FY 16-17 $2,076,557,000.00 FY 17-18 $2,312,158,000.00 FY 18-19 $2,404,295,000.00 TOTAL $29,797,189,000.00 19-20 Proposed Budget $2,557,119,000.00 Homeless CalWORKs children and their families have become fixtures in the Cal- WORKs program. There are many reasons why CalWORKs families become homeless. The fact that the average CalWORKs grant in 2018-2019 is $556 a month for a family of three is a major contributor of the Cal- WORKs child homelessness phenomenon. The CalWORKs grants today are at the same benefit amount as they were in 1985. How- ever, the purchasing power of the grant has been drastically reduced. California Governors are the major contribu- tors to today’s unconscionably low grants levels. Jerry Brown, Pete Wilson and Arnold Swarzanegger as well as the democratic legislative bodies are all responsible. Since 1998, CalWORKs has contributed over $1 billion each year to the California General Fund for a grant total of over $29 billion. SEE TABLE # 1. CalWORKS Homelessness in California 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 (Con’t on page 2) (Cont’d on page 3) CCWRO Welfare News February 9, 2019 2019-01 (Cont’d from page 1) County welfare departments also contribute to Cali- fornia’s CalWORKs homeless problem. The CW 255 reports have a cell called Enter the number of denials that resulted from the failure of a member of the applicant group to comply with procedural requirements specified for CalWORKs eligibility requirements. These are CalWORKs families with children who are financially eligible, but failed to meet one or more of the county welfare require- ments. (The county requirements were authorized by statute to give counties flexibility to meet the local needs.) 17,215 families were discontinued from CalWORKs during October 2018 for reasons such as not meeting income, property, depriva- tion, timing out and failing to meet the procedural requirements . 11,246 cases (65% of the discon- tinuances) were due to failure to meet CalWORKs bureaucratic reasons. The discontinuances affected about 22,500 children. One classic example is submitting a SAR-7 that has no change to report to the county after the 11th of the month. CDSS regulation 40-181.22 states, SAR 7s not received by the 11th of the SAR Submit Month shall be considered late. Counties gener- ally take 5-10 days from the beginning date of the month to restore benefits, by that time many fami- lies are issued a 3-day late payment notice with a 30 or 60-days eviction notice for being late with the rent. The CalWORKs Immediate Need regulations do not even consider whether rent is due and has not been paid as an emergency requiring Immediate Need for applicants. However, the applicant waits and gets an eviction notice, then they are eligible for $200 and are on their way to homelessness be- cause of inept laws that do not consider the rent due to be Immediate Need. CALIFORNIA’S FRACTURED HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Governor’s budget for 2019-2020 proposes to spend about $90 million for the County Housing Support Program (HSP) that would serve, maybe, a meager 6,500 persons. This program has been op- erating for several years and there is no data on the number families the counties were funded to serve, how many were served, what happened to the unused money, how much of the money was used for pay- ments for housing assistance and how much was used for the administration of the program. The HSP is not an entitlement. It is up to each county as to how they operate the program on any one day of the week. Moreover, the California Department of Social Ser- vices refuses to publish the proposals submitted to it and funded with dollars from the California legisla- ture, to assure that the constituents of the California legislature know what is available to them. TABLE #2 reveals how counties are funded that does not make sense. For example, San Luis Obispo County was awarded $2.6 million while Fresno County only received about $900,000. There is also a large difference between the cost of serving per family at $24,000 per family for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties versus $2,800 in Kings County and $3,700 in Tulare County. There is no evidence that housing in San Mateo and Santa Clara are 600% higher than housing in Kings and Tulare County. Moreover, the HSP only served 6,500 persons a year while the Homelessness Assistance Program serves about 57,000 families a year and it can do better with more resources. The homeless assistance program provides a homeless family with 16 days of tempo- rary homeless assistance limited to a hotel or motel. This is a major barrier in that the $85 given to the CalWORKs family cannot secure a hotel\/motel room, because most CalWORKs recipients do not have the prerequisite of a VISA or Mastercard in order to rent a room. Families who are able to get a room at a 2 CCWRO Welfare News February 9, 2019 2019-01 (Cont’d from page 2) 3 hotel\/motel which doesn’t require a credit card, are forced to bring their children to rooms with mold, lead poisoned water, crime and flea infestations. Current California law knowingly allows children to go homeless and intentionally does nothing about it. It is indeed State Child Abuse. The Home- less Assistance Program limits aid to the home- less to once a year and only allows 16 days to find housing. The 16-day rule was enacted into law in the late 1980s. Since then, the housing market has gone through a major transformation, yet the CalWORKs program is operated as if it is still the 1980s. Today, 16 days is simply not enough time for families to locate permanent housing. However, the most callous provision of the current law is that homeless assistance is limited to once a year. It appears lawmakers are OK with thousands of CalWORKs children living on the streets of America because they have already used their once-a-year homeless assistance. The message being received is that homeless kids do not deserve a place to live because they’ve already received assistance this year. If that is not child abuse, then what is? Why are they homeless again? There are many reasons. Any landlord can give a tenant a 60-day notice for no rea- son. Sometimes their welfare benefits are terminated, often unlawfully, by the county welfare office. Sometimes their aid is reduced for one of the various CalWORKs behav- ioral sanctions, such as child support sanctions, failure to provide verification of immunized children and a host of other reasons, including the fact that majority of the Cal- WORKs families are living in deep poverty. TABLE #2 – County Funding for the Housing Support Program (HSP) County Newly Housed Continuing to be Housed Total Allocation Average Cost per family Alameda 79 27 106 $1,877,071 S17,708 Amador 18 4 22 $170,000 $7,727 Butte 220 50 270 $2,000,000 $7,407 Calaveras 5 5 10 $143,642 $14,364 Colusa 10 8 18 $75,000 $4,167 Contra Costa 100 25 125 $2,415,719 $19,326 Del Norte 40 6 46 $197,131 $4,285 El Dorado 63 16 79 $889,891 $11,264 Fresno 70 30 100 $957,615 $9,576 Glenn & Trinity 80 30 110 $645,596 $5,869 Humboldt 60 21 81 $744,107 $9,187 Imperial 80 60 140 $850,000 $6,071 Kern 209 6 215 $930,828 $4,329 Kings 170 50 220 $633,973 $2,882 Lake 25 0 25 $290,000 $11,600 Lassen 9 9 18 $188,425 $10,468 Los Angeles 490 280 770 $6,990,594 $9,079 Madera 60 30 90 $413,019 $4,589 Marin 25 18 43 $882,824 $20,531 CCWRO Welfare News February 9, 2019 2019-01 Mariposa 10 3 13 $118,657 $9,127 Mendocino 38 5 43 $343,000 $7,977 Merced 200 72 272 $2,170,427 $7,980 Monterey 80 20 100 $1,000,000 $10,000 Napa 24 2 26 $243,860 $9,379 Nevada 20 10 30 $414,768 $13,826 Orange 86 38 124 $1,000,000 $8,065 Placer 36 12 48 $578,759 $12,057 Plumas 10 10 20 $100,000 $5,000 Riverside 275 42 317 $2,547,000 $8,035 Sacramento 225 59 284 $2,843,416 $10,012 San Benito 11 5 16 $159,065 $9,942 San Ber- nardino 220 102 322 $4,140,000 $12,857 San Diego 376 101 477 $3,817,500 $8,003 San Francisco 110 115 225 $4,879,304 $21,686 San Luis Obispo 70 120 190 $2,618,079 $13,779 San Mateo 50 38 88 $2,117,338 $29,751 Santa Barbara 69 10 79 $738,281 $9,345 Santa Clara 128 40 168 $4,128,125 $24,572 Santa Cruz 67 41 108 $1,958,500 $18,134 Shasta 65 40 105 $929,840 $8,856 Siskiyou 16 9 25 $332,523 $13,301 Solano 42 78 120 $2,456,802 $20,473 Stanislaus 80 60 140 $1,338,675 $9,562 Sonoma 52 12 64 $1,219,825 $19,060 Stanislaus 80 60 140 $1,338,675 $9,562 Sutter 60 55 115 $788,500 $6,857 Tehama 10 5 15 $143,738 $9,583 Tulare 75 29 104 $382,088 $3,674 Tuolumne 25 15 40 $230,000 $5,750 Ventura 75 45 120 $1,080,000 $9,000 Yolo 100 30 130 $1,800,000 $13,846 4 County Newly Housed Continuing to be Housed Total Allocation Average Cost per family CCWRO Welfare News February 9, 2018 2019-01 2019-2020 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOMELESS ASSISTANCE 1. Ensure that the services offered by the CalWORKs Housing Sup- port Program are transparent and easily accessible to the commu- nity. 2. Allocate the Housing Support Program money to those counties that put up a 50% match and mandate that at least 85% of the funds shall be used for direct assistance to homeless families. 3. Hold county public hearings on the Housing Support Program plan to assure that the local community is involved in developing a plan that meets the needs of the community. 4. Amend the Homeless Assistance Program (HAP) to provide: a. 32 days of temporary homeless assistance; b. Allow temporary homeless assistance to be used at hotels, motels and any other businesses or private individuals that are willing to give a homeless family shelter; c. Authorize homeless assistance for families who need assis- tance with preventing eviction to prevent homelessness; d. Repeal the once a year limitaton for HAP eligibility. e. Authorize additional temporary homeless assistance if the fam- ily’s temporary homeless has been exhausted for families that have a permanent home paid for by HAP, but they have to wait to move in. f. COLAtize the THA daily rate each year. 5 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-02 March 11, 2019 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 Performance Evaluation of CalWORKs 2.0 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 (Con’t on page 2) Background Information In 2017, Fresno, Humboldt, Kings, Orange and Placer Counties started the rollout of CalWORKs 2.0. This program originated through county only planning without meaningful and robust participa- tion by advocates and CalWORKs beneficiaries. The California Welfare Directors Association, contracted with Mathematica and the Center on Budget & Priorities to come up with a new WtW program called CalWORKs 2.0. The idea was to make CalWORKs 2.0 a beneficiary-led case management program that gives flexibility to CalWORKs beneficiaries to set goals that they can achieve. In addition to Fresno, Humboldt, Kings, Orange and Placer, a number of other counties imple- mented CalWORKs 2.0 sometime in 2018. The CalWORKs 2.0 web page does not have this basic information such as the identity of the county or the implementation date. County Implementation Date Fresno May 2017 Humboldt July 2017 Kings April 2017 Orange September 2017 Placer March 2017 CalWORKs 2.0 is the latest in the line of work pro- gram tweaks developed for CalWORKs participants. From the onset of the GAIN Program in 1992, and renamed WtW in 1998, CalWORKs beneficiaries have been subjected primarily to life-threatening sanctions that push families into deeper poverty by these so- called work programs. The Legislature wanted to ensure that families would not be forced to pay for such supportive service expenses as transportation, school books, or work sup- plies using the CalWORKs grant. However, through their practices, the counties have succeeded in forcing families to use the CalWORKs grant to either pay for rent and utilities or for supportive services in order to participate in Welfare-to-Work (WtW). Families try reasonably to keep a roof over their childrens’ heads in lieu of paying for work expenses, but, often they get sanctioned. Had counties obeyed the law and provided supportive services, most sanctions would not occur. The WtW program has its roots in the idea that Cal- WORKs recipients must prove they deserve the meager assistance they receive to care for their minor children. One child on CalWORKs receives about $200 a month while a foster care parent receives about $2,700 a month for that same child. The WtW program is fundamentally flawed. Instead of authorizing the Employment Development Depart- ment to oversee the WtW Program, the Legislature CCWRO Welfare News March 11, 2019 2019-02 assigned the responsibility to the county welfare de- partment to get CalWORKs beneficiaries job ready. The county welfare departments have no expertise in this area. This practice is similar to a person with a medical problem seeking treatment from an electri- cian instead of a medical doctor. CalWORKs 2.0 fails to give beneficiaries a real choice in selecting the activities in which to partici- pate and decide which necessary supportive services would guarantee success before they are even re- quired to participate. Representatives of CalWORKs beneficiaries have several major complaints about the WtW program: 1. Sanctions. When a family of two with a child over 1 year old is sanctioned, their aid of $577 is reduced to $355. This results in an even greater spiral downward to homeless- ness; 2. Child Care and supportive services. Cal- WORKs beneficiaries do not receive child care, transportation and other needed services upon being summoned to participate in a WtW activity. The beneficiaries either use the CalWORKs benefit or are sanctioned; 3. Mandated Work Activity. CalWORKs beneficiaries do not have a free choice of the activity in which they want to participant. Instead, the county tells them the assignment for all practical purposes. The Result of the CalWORKs 2.0 Experiment We evaluated the effectiveness of each county’s pro- gram by looking at the performance of each county insofar as the sanction rates, number of unduplicated WtW CalWORKs beneficiaries placed in a job that resulted in termination of CalWORKs, percentage of non-complaint beneficiaries found to have good cause, number of unduplicated CalWORKs benefi- ciaries participating in a WtW activity getting trans- portation, and the number of CalWORKs benefi- ciaries who were allowed to attend postsecondary education as a self-initiated participant. Fresno County – After 19 months of CalWORKs 2.0 not much has not changed in Fresno County for Cal- WORKs beneficiaries. In November 2018, 65% of the participants did not receive transportation to the work assignment. Approximately one hundred CalWORKs beneficiaries attend postsecondary education, which is the primary path to getting off welfare in today’s 21st century knowledge-based economy. Fresno County operates CalWORKs 2.0 as a welfare-to-sanction program and not a welfare-to-work program. The rate of good cause determination for cases that were allegedly non-compliant remains in the range of 10% to 12%. This means that on a monthly basis about 400 CalWORKs beneficiaries are sanctioned. This means, aid for a family of two (2) is reduced from the meager $549 a month to $336 a month. (Fresno is in Region 2 which pays $577 a month for a family of 2, less than Region 1.) Fresno County reports the range for the sanction rate at 11%-14%. During the month of November 2018, Fresno reported on the WtW 25 and 25A, a total of 562 sanctions, yet for the same month it also reported on the CW 237 reports that 1,291 persons were sanctioned for more than one-year. The WtW 25 reports instructions for sanction reporting states: WtW sanctions: Enter the total number of individuals in the program who were not aided during the report month due to WtW sanction. This is a count of total individuals sanctioned in the program. Do not list individuals if the entire case has been discontinued. [Cell 3] The difference is that Table #1 does not include the number of families who have been sanctioned for over one-year. It should be noted that whenever CDSS de- velops a reporting form and instructions, CDSS always receives robust input from counties before finalizing the reporting form. CDSS wants the counties to be com- fortable with it and understand what will be required of them. Fresno County must be comfortable with under reporting the sanction rate. If a CalWORKs beneficiary submitted under reported income on the SAR-7, the CalWORKs beneficiary and the entire family is termi- nated. See TABLE #1 below. 2 CCWRO Welfare News March 11, 2019 2019-02 3 TABLE # 1 – Fresno County CW2.0 data report Months WTW sanctions Number of individuals (Unduplicated) Items 6-29 % of Sanc- tions Non-com- pliance Good cause for not par- ticipating in WTW % of Good Cause Transp. % getting transp. Plus One-Year Sanctions Total Jobs % of jobs Total SIPS Jan17 575 4495 11% 488 46 9% 1493 33% 1182 125 2.8% 126 Feb17 605 4412 12% 506 53 10% 1407 32% 1192 88 2.0% 109 Mar17 642 4437 13% 540 48 9% 1494 34% 1215 122 2.7% 124 Apr17 653 4303 13% 563 53 9% 1424 33% 1227 110 2.6% 107 May17 675 4251 14% 498 54 11% 1410 33% 1237 130 3.1% 129 Jun17 669 4144 14% 431 54 13% 1318 32% 1237 117 2.8% 111 Jul17 643 4037 14% 440 58 13% 1221 30% 1274 132 3.3% 128 Aug17 637 4169 13% 488 49 10% 1369 33% 1301 141 3.4% 129 Sep17 635 4153 13% 447 44 10% 1281 31% 1312 133 3.2% 133 Oct17 613 4252 13% 489 43 9% 1366 32% 1330 140 3.3% 142 Nov17 621 4136 13% 519 52 10% 1279 31% 1322 110 2.7% 112 Dec17 616 4116 13% 522 57 11% 1118 27% 1305 97 2.4% 99 Jan18 588 4118 12% 489 52 11% 1290 31% 1366 65 1.6% 86 Feb18 557 3968 12% 505 54 11% 1178 30% 1358 90 2.3% 108 Mar18 600 3950 13% 520 61 12% 1260 32% 1385 123 3.1% 111 Apr18 593 3964 13% 528 64 12% 1259 32% 1413 95 2.4% 100 May18 598 4031 13% 543 54 10% 1219 30% 1404 99 2.5% 97 Jun18 598 3998 13% 503 52 10% 1201 30% 1421 108 2.7% 100 Jul18 563 3905 13% 477 62 13% 1160 30% 1373 151 3.9% 106 Aug18 583 3996 13% 475 52 11% 1322 33% 1437 152 3.8% 129 Sep18 584 3852 13% 431 52 12% 1206 31% 1450 151 3.9% 127 Oct18 571 3808 13% 447 55 12% 1316 35% 1434 122 3.2% 121 Nov18 562 3724 13% 441 54 12% 1291 35% 1401 142 3.8% 132 CCWRO Welfare News March 11, 2019 2019-02 Humboldt County – After 17 months of CalWORKs 2.0 much has not changed in Humboldt County for CalWORKs beneficiaries. Since Humboldt is a rural county, the participants would be expected to drive farther to the assignment. Yet, Humboldt County, still refuses to pay for transportation to 40% of the participants in November 2018. The number of CalWORKs beneficiaries allowed to attend postsecondary education, remains the same for all practical purposes. In January 2017, shows that Humboldt County reported 56 individuals as being non-compliant and 100 individuals had good cause. In October 2017 Humboldt County reported 57 individuals as being non-compliant and 107 individuals had good cause. Don’t roll your eyes. In November 2018 there were 48 individuals who were non-compliant and 92 individu- als had good cause. See TABLE #2. The sanction rate and the number of CalWORKs beneficiaries being sanctioned remains unchanged. In November 2018, the number of CalWORKs beneficiaries being sanctioned in excess of one-year increased from 9 to 20, which is over a 100%. While the sanction rate averages 100 per month, the number of CalWORKs beneficiaries finding employment ranges from one (1) to five (5) per month. TABLE # 2 – Humboldt County CW2.0 data report Month WTW sanctions Num- ber of Undupl. Part. % Sanc- tions Non-compliance Good cause for not participating in WTW % Good Cause Transp. % getting transp. Plus One-Year Sanctions Total Jobs % jobs Total SIPS 17-Jan 158 271 37% 56 100 146 146 54% 8 2 0.7% 126 17-Feb 150 265 36% 58 93 124 124 47% 10 2 0.8% 109 17-Mar 155 262 37% 51 103 144 144 55% 10 3 1.1% 124 17-Apr 147 297 33% 59 104 138 138 46% 9 4 1.3% 107 17-May 143 288 33% 62 99 133 133 46% 17 4 1.4% 129 17-Jun 139 266 34% 65 103 119 119 45% 21 3 1.1% 111 17-Jul 145 261 36% 61 91 106 106 41% 16 3 1.1% 128 17-Aug 130 251 34% 59 104 111 111 44% 7 3 1.2% 129 17-Sep 130 249 34% 60 101 108 108 43% 13 4 1.6% 133 17-Oct 132 250 35% 57 106 120 120 48% 14 5 2.0% 142 17-Nov 127 243 34% 59 100 120 120 49% 13 5 2.1% 112 17-Dec 114 235 33% 67 95 116 116 49% 9 4 1.7% 99 18-Jan 124 276 31% 47 100 137 137 50% 11 4 1.4% 86 18-Feb 108 288 27% 55 94 131 131 45% 13 5 1.7% 108 18-Mar 105 269 28% 56 92 134 134 50% 23 4 1.5% 111 18-Apr 108 269 29% 57 87 144 144 54% 10 5 1.9% 100 18-May 104 301 26% 61 97 142 142 47% 14 6 2.0% 97 18-Jun 106 264 29% 69 104 136 136 52% 12 1 0.4% 100 18-Jul 104 262 28% 71 97 121 121 46% 12 1 0.4% 106 18-Aug 111 263 30% 50 90 123 123 47% 14 3 1.1% 129 18-Sep 112 214 34% 51 87 125 125 58% 15 3 1.4% 127 18-Oct 112 211 35% 51 92 135 135 64% 9 2 0.9% 121 18-Nov 104 210 33% 48 92 126 126 60% 20 2 1.0% 132 4 CCWRO Welfare News March 11, 2019 2019-02 5 Kings County – After 17 months of CalWORKs 2.0 not much has changed in Kings County for CalWORKs beneficiaries. Kings County failed to pay transportation to 35% of the participants in November 2018. The good cause determination rate remains unchanged for all practical purposes. Stating that more participants are being sanctioned than finding jobs is an understatement. 381% more CalWORKs beneficiaries are being sanc- tioned than those finding employment that results in termination of CalWORKs benefits. TABLE # 3 – Kings County CW2.0 data report Mont WTW sanctions Number of Unduplicated Participants % of Sanc- tions Non-com- pliance Good cause for not participating in WTW % of Good Cause Transp. % getting transp. Plus One-Year Sanctions Total Jobs % of jobs Total SIPS Jan17 216 403 35% 100 49 49% 279 69% 117 38 9% 3 Feb17 213 402 35% 116 46 40% 282 70% 113 38 9% 2 Mar17 193 450 30% 118 50 42% 272 60% 118 45 9% 4 Apr17 196 403 33% 109 47 43% 282 70% 122 54 12% 4 May17 215 409 34% 101 45 45% 276 67% 118 48 11% 3 Jun17 215 399 35% 106 61 58% 247 62% 79 57 13% 2 Jul17 216 360 38% 101 60 59% 237 66% 83 55 13% 1 Aug17 233 409 36% 106 70 66% 261 64% 86 74 15% 2 Sep17 220 433 34% 120 71 59% 257 59% 79 67 13% 3 Oct17 206 459 31% 138 67 49% 278 61% 82 58 11% 4 Nov17 215 451 32% 114 60 53% 284 63% 87 32 7% 3 Dec17 225 406 36% 87 57 66% 249 61% 120 51 11% 3 Jan18 229 395 37% 79 56 71% 265 67% 127 32 7% 1 Feb18 204 417 33% 83 56 67% 260 62% 118 48 10% 3 Mar18 191 446 30% 95 54 57% 263 59% 118 66 13% 4 Apr18 188 413 31% 79 50 63% 249 60% 110 53 11% 3 May18 191 412 32% 77 51 66% 261 63% 123 64 13% 2 Jun18 194 355 35% 68 50 74% 250 70% 120 58 14% 1 Jul18 189 353 35% 65 56 86% 232 66% 108 44 11% 2 Aug18 186 384 33% 75 54 72% 250 65% 113 55 13% 2 Sep18 192 380 34% 83 50 60% 266 70% 112 58 13% 2 Oct18 185 419 31% 75 52 69% 264 63% 112 57 12% 2 Nov18 179 377 32% 74 52 70% 236 63% 105 47 11% 3 CCWRO Welfare News March 11, 2019 2019-02 6 Orange County – After 15 months of CalWORKs 2.0 there has been no dramatic changes in Orange County for CalWORKs beneficiaries. In November 2018, Orange County did not pay for transportation to 73% of the unduplicated WtW participants living in deep poverty. The number of CalWORKs beneficiaries attending post- secondary education, has declined to 144 in November 2018. The good cause determination has seen a dramatic change in that, at the beginning of the year, only 1% of the non-compliant CalWORKs beneficiaries were found to have good cause. During November 2018 the County granted good cause for 32% of the non-compliant CalWORKS beneficiaries. The overall sanction rate has stayed in the bottom twenties and the number of CalWORKs beneficiaries being sanctioned for more than one-year remains between 580 to 600 a month. 422% more CalWORKs beneficiaries are being sanctioned compared to those finding employment that results in termination of CalWORKs benefits. This is allegedly the welfare-to-work program, but in reality, it is the welfare-to-sanction program. TABLE # 4 – Orange County CW 2.0 data report Month WTW sanc- tions Number of Undu- plicated Participants % Sanc- tions Non-compli- ance Good cause for not participating in WTW % Good Cause Transp. % getting transp. Plus One-Year Sanctions Total Jobs % jobs Total SIPS Jan17 1026 3707 22% 532 3 1% 989 27% 515 181 5% 201 Feb17 1000 3632 22% 479 6 1% 936 26% 513 204 6% 205 Mar17 996 3610 22% 493 7 1% 941 26% 515 235 7% 201 Apr17 1031 3444 23% 446 6 1% 913 27% 523 186 5% 181 May17 1023 3464 23% 446 4 1% 945 27% 539 226 7% 187 Jun17 1004 3381 23% 454 5 1% 933 28% 549 190 6% 166 Jul17 1041 3317 24% 455 4 1% 844 25% 557 203 6% 159 Aug17 1071 3319 24% 471 40 8% 904 27% 562 252 8% 164 Sep17 1047 3299 24% 420 67 16% 867 26% 570 267 8% 158 Oct17 1050 3293 24% 438 71 16% 885 27% 576 231 7% 167 Nov17 999 3193 24% 415 82 20% 815 26% 577 225 7% 164 Dec17 993 3088 24% 427 87 20% 754 24% 585 195 6% 159 Jan18 948 3036 24% 390 81 21% 763 25% 612 175 6% 156 Feb18 958 3022 24% 393 89 23% 722 24% 602 174 6% 158 Mar18 948 3036 24% 401 94 23% 789 26% 599 201 7% 177 Apr18 912 2950 24% 394 96 24% 728 25% 605 174 6% 179 May18 941 2984 24% 369 99 27% 756 25% 616 218 7% 177 Jun18 923 2875 24% 417 99 24% 759 26% 610 202 7% 165 Jul18 896 2903 24% 387 100 26% 765 26% 596 208 7% 164 Aug18 909 2894 24% 364 106 29% 828 29% 590 178 6% 167 Sep18 927 2899 24% 352 115 33% 746 26% 582 247 9% 140 Oct18 874 2924 23% 363 113 31% 822 28% 587 244 8% 135 Nov18 818 2835 22% 365 115 32% 758 27% 588 194 7% 144 CCWRO Welfare News March 11, 2019 2019-02 7 Placer County – Placer County was the first county to implement CalWORK 2.0. The sanction rate has remained relatively constant floating between 16% to 22%. The non-compliance good cause determination rate has seen a sharp increase from 50% to 70%. However, only 63% of the participants receive transportation sup- portive services. The number of SIPs decreased in 2017 but in late 2018 started to increase. However, less than 4%-5% of the participants are allowed to be a SIP. Overall there are 931% more sanctions compared to those who end up with a job. TABLE # 5 – Placer County CW2.0 data report Month WTW sanc- tions Number of Unduplicat- ed Partici- pants % of Sanc- tions Non-com- pliance Good cause for not par- ticipating in WTW % of Good Cause Transp. % getting transp. Plus One- Year Sanc- tions Total Jobs % of jobs Total SIPS Jan17 80 294 21% 79 34 43% 139 47% 38 19 6% 10 Feb17 82 272 23% 76 32 42% 122 45% 41 20 7% 10 Mar17 76 273 22% 78 34 44% 139 51% 49 13 5% 8 Apr17 78 277 22% 74 29 39% 124 45% 47 27 10% 8 May17 75 267 22% 76 32 42% 144 54% 50 19 7% 10 Jun17 76 267 22% 61 23 38% 145 54% 48 32 12% 12 Jul17 62 254 20% 61 36 59% 121 48% 49 20 8% 8 Aug17 62 279 18% 78 35 45% 136 49% 49 17 6% 5 Sep17 67 271 20% 56 36 64% 128 47% 48 17 6% 5 Oct17 56 289 16% 63 45 71% 130 45% 48 32 11% 6 Nov17 51 267 16% 69 34 49% 112 42% 50 22 8% 4 Dec17 53 260 17% 70 34 49% 85 33% 50 30 12% 3 Jan18 49 256 16% 91 38 42% 93 36% 47 20 8% 2 Feb18 52 252 17% 80 34 43% 78 31% 45 23 9% 4 Mar18 59 250 19% 71 30 42% 103 41% 47 28 11% 5 Apr18 58 238 20% 58 30 52% 79 33% 46 23 10% 4 May18 55 246 18% 60 26 43% 109 44% 39 27 11% 3 Jun18 54 243 18% 65 32 49% 102 42% 35 25 10% 5 Jul18 52 247 17% 67 33 49% 96 39% 34 16 6% 4 Aug18 64 260 20% 61 47 77% 83 32% 33 29 11% 7 Sep18 57 259 18% 69 54 78% 85 33% 32 23 9% 7 Oct18 56 261 18% 78 58 74% 95 36% 32 28 11% 12 THE LAST WORD – The results are not surprising. CW2.0, in essence, continues the current flawed CalWORKs WtW process designed to give maximum flexibility to the counties. There are no performance requirements that have consequences equal to the brutal consequences imposed upon CalWORKs recipients. A CalWORKs family of two will have their aid of $577 reduced to $355 while counties continue to get their block grant county single allocation no matter what they do. A true CW2.0 would give maximum power to the CalWORKs beneficiaries with equal consequences to both counties and WtW participants. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-03 April 23, 2019 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 CCWRO 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 (Cont’d on page 2) In Brief The CalWORKs Home Visit Program, for counties that applied and received state dollars to run this program, was scheduled to start on March 1, 2019. However, the counties have not started the program yet. Fresno County refuses to accept a MC-306 form from an advocate in violation of ACWDL 18-26 dated December 18, 2018. The ACWDL states that the county shall accept a MC 306 until June 18, 2019. DHCS issued clarification that the authorization for repre- sentation on the back of the NOA or the DPA-19 are only acceptable for the state hearing purpose but not sufficient authorization to allow an AR to review the case file. We hope DHCS makes it clear to counties that the AR, for hear- ing purposes, has a constitutional right to review the case file without the additional MC 306 or 382. The MC 382 can be signed telephonically as all counties have the telephone signature capacity for Medi-Cal. On 2-21-19, Anur Murrar asked DHCS Hello Kennalee. Can a client being interviewed attest to their spouse’s self- employment income and citing ACIN -I-45-11 that authoriz- es counties to use an affidavit for determining gross income. The comments continued: When processing applications for Dual MC\/CalFresh cases, we have discrepancy in pro- cedure. We have found Regulations for CalFresh purposes, as seen below, allowing counties to have any HH member complete the Affidavit. We are doubtful this same norm applies to MC cases, how- ever, as an attestation of income is at the lowest scale of the verification\/documentation hierarchy. We believe that when an Affidavit Under Penalty of Perjury is used, only the person attesting of his\/her own income can sign it. Mr. Murrar cited ACIN I-45-11 that authorizes counties to use an affidavit for determining gross income. DHCS Response: An affidavit signed under penalty of perjury may be signed by either the person (adult household member) with the income; the spouse of the person with in- come; or the parent\/caretaker relative of child with income Low Returns, and SSI Cash-Out CDSS Breaks the Law In 2018, AB 1811 (codified at Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18900.5) ended the SSI cash-out and re- quired the Department of Social Services to establish quarterly meetings which included stakeholders on the implementation of ending the SSI CalFresh cash-out. Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 18900.5 (d) provides that The provisions of this section and Sections 18900.6 and 18900.7 shall be implemented by the department in consultation with stakeholders and counties. Additionally, beginning July 1, 2018, and continuing quarterly through June 2019, or the alternate implementation date described in sub- division (b), the department shall convene discus- sions with the Legislature regarding implementa- tion. (e) Households eligible for TNB shall be initially certified for one 12-month period and then households may be recertified for additional six-month periods through a recertification process developed by the department, following consultation with counties and stakeholders, so long as the household continues to meet all of the following criteria: . . . CDSS convened the Reversing SSI Cash-Out Custom- er Experience Advisory Group which is open to the public consistent with the provisions of the Bagley- Keene Act. The Department then created four (4) additional workgroups whose members were selected (Cont’d on page 5) CCWRO Welfare News April 23, 2019 2019-03 (Cont’d from page 1) 2 by invitation only. These closed workgroups violate the Bagley-Keene Act. DSS also closed the Policy and Automation workgroup to advocates and limited participation to state and county staff. By not identifying the Policy and Automation workgroup on the Reversing SSI Cash-Out Customer Experience Advisory Group webpage, they have violated the Bagley-Keene Act. See Table #1 below. CCWRO informed the CalFresh Division Chief of this practice which violates the Bagley-Keene Act. DSS has not responded. Admittedly, there are no penalties for state CalFresh officials for willfully and knowingly violat- ing the law it is one of the benefits of being a state official sometimes. TABLE #1 – The SSI Cash-Out Workgroups of 2019 Name of Statutorily Created Workgroup W&IC 18900.5(d) By Invitation Only Open to the Advocates Complying with Bagley-Keen Reversing SSI Cash-Out All Stake- holder Implementation Advisory Group – W&IC 18900.5(d) No Yes Yes Reversing SSI Cash-Out Outreach Advisory Group – W&IC 18900.5(d) Yes Yes No Reversing SSI Cash-Out Customer Experi- ence Advisory Group – W&IC 18900.5(d) Yes Yes No Reversing SSI Cash-Out Data Technical Work Group- W&IC 18900.5(d) Yes Yes No Reversing SSI Cash-Out Policy & Automa- tion Work Group – W&IC 18900.5(d) Yes No No Briefing the Legislature – W&IC 18900.5(e) Yes No No The DSS CalFresh Division has outlined its goals for the workgroup only 41% of the SSI recipients will re- ceive CalFresh. See figure #1 on page 3. CalFresh Benefits with Federal Dollars left on the table – 59% of the 605,900 SSI cases will not receive any Cal- Fresh benefits under the 20th century enrollment methods. DSS is not discussing the use of 21st century tools to increase the SSI participation in the CalFresh program by using automation at its max to enroll SSI beneficiaries in the CalFresh program. In fact, in 1998, the Legislature rejected the end of the SSI cash-out for the over 1 million SSI households be- cause the children in mixed households would have lost maybe $100 million in CalFresh benefits. Instead, SSI recipients were denied about one billion each year in food stamp\/SNAP\/CalFresh benefits during the succeeding 21 years. When SSI cash-out was done in 1973, it was because about 30-35% of the SSI recipients were receiving Cal- Fresh. The June 1, 2019 ending the SSI cash-out is estimated less than 40% of the 1.3 million SSI recipients, which is pretty pathetic given the 21st century tools at the disposal of CDSS. CCWRO Welfare News April 23, 2019 2019-03 3 369,000 HH – $593 million 64,318 HH – $86.7 million 605,000 SSI HHs will not get CalFresh- $972 million left on the table Figure #1 California’s Segregated Welfare-to-Work Program January 2019 Update Unduplicated Participants 68,956 Sanctioned Participants 54,103 Sanctions over 1-year 26,372 Unduplicated Participants NOT getting Transportation 25,515 San Bernardino County leads all other counties who have more WtW participants in sanction than partici- pating. San Bernardino only has 5,113 CalWORKs parents participating in WtW while more than 9,222 parents are being sanctioned. Kern County comes in second with 2,175 persons participating in a WtW activity and 5,638 persons in sanctions. What is surprising is that Kern County receives funding for 7,813 WtW participants. Los Angeles County has 16,575 persons being sanc- tions and 18, 731 persons participating. Yet, Los An- geles County is funded for 35,306 persons and not the 18,731 persons who are actually participating. Of the 18 large counties, 6 counties have mastered the art of sanctions rather than the art of meaningful engagement. Of course, counties get rewarded for sanctioning WtW participants in that they get the same amount of funding for parents participating as parents not participating. CCWRO Welfare News April 23, 2019 2019-03 4 Large counties Medium counties Small counties TABLE #1 The number of participants being sanctioned versus those engaged in WtW County Participating Being Sanctioned Number of Sanctions in Excess of WtW Participation San Bernardino 5113 9222 4109 Kern 2175 5638 3463 San Joaquin 982 3007 2025 Merced 695 1347 652 Stanislaus 1227 1440 213 Madera 193 387 194 Butte 321 512 191 Shasta 329 473 144 Imperial 906 1029 123 Lake 121 185 64 Yuba 174 197 23 El Dorado 157 175 18 Tuolumne 35 53 18 Amador 14 24 10 Colusa 7 16 9 Inyo 4 12 8 Mendocino 149 157 8 Monterey 389 395 6 Glenn 21 25 4 CCWRO Welfare News April 23, 2019 2019-03 sender or no forwarding address, before proceeding with the steps to discontinue the beneficiary, the county shall first check all available sources to see if the beneficiary is a deemed infant or former foster youth. The county shall then attempt to contact the beneficiary as required in W&I Code Section 14005.37(c). This shall include first, an ex parte review of information available to the county about the beneficiary or his or her family members, such as from a CalFresh file with more current contact information for the beneficiary, and then, if necessary, by attempting to contact the beneficiary via email, by telephone, or by other means available to the county according to the beneficiary’s preferred method of contact if a method has been identified. For beneficiaries other than deemed infants or former foster youth, if all required attempts at contact fail, the county shall send a notice of discontinuance and document the inability to make appropriate contact in the case file. Following the most recent guidance, deemed infants should not be terminated for loss of contact. Regards, Nick Clark, MPA Medi-Cal Eligibility Division (MCED) Department of Health Care Services Office: 916-345-8092 On August 22, 2018, DSS notified Solano County regarding the DSS findings that: Solano County does not send CalWORKs\/CalFresh beneficia- ries request for verification letter for potential discrepant IEVS match required MPP 20-006.543; 7 CFR 273.12(c); 45 CFR 205.56A(a)(1)(ii); ACL 17-41 and ACL 13-89; Solano County is not processing potential overpayments notifi- cations within 45 days as required by state and federal law; Solano County is exposing federal tax information data to individuals without need-to-know by having the New Employee Badge workstation in the same area where the tax information could be visible to individuals not authorized to look at tax information. IHSS Paramedical regulations: It appears that both advocates and counties oppose the new paramedical regulations that require a longer form to be completed by the doctors. The problem with the longer form is that it takes more time for doc- tors to complete it and may doctors charge for the completion that IHSS does no cover. New regulations also require that the IHSS provider be trained to do the paramedical services. The new regulations also eliminate the hours task guideline (HTGs) that counties like to use. Counties use the HTGs as mandatory timelines instead of general guidelines. Counties inform IHSS applicants\/recipients that the HTGs hours are mandatory and there is no deviation from them. CalWORKs Single Allocation: According to the CWDA Self- Sufficiency Committee meeting minutes of 1\/10\/19, The larger stakeholder group distributed a survey to counties to think of methodology concepts and how components have changed, i.e. lite touch. Consider case management and support needed, staffing patterns, caseload ration and what can we learn. By May, staffing qualification and needs for case management will be brought forward. We look forward to seeing copies of these responses. or an authorized representative of the case. For purposes of reporting to the Medi-Cal program, per 22 CCR 50149 only one person’s signature is needed on the appli- cation or any other forms necessary to complete the eligibility determination. 22 CCR 50163 states that either the applicant or the spouse of the applicant may sign the statement of facts. Additionally, an authorized representative with full author- ity may now sign the application on behalf of the applicant. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 14014.5) Former foster care children receiving Medi-Cal who move to another state are not able to get Medicaid because MEDS does not show that Medi-Cal has been stopped in California. That means a former foster care child cannot get medical services in another state. The evidence of this issue was revealed in an email from Alameda County to DHCS on 2-11-19 stating: Good morning Jeanette! As I mentioned last Thursday at the County conference call, Alameda County was notified over a year ago by several states that Medi-Cal was active on MEDS for our federally eligible Non-Minor Dependents (NMD) placed in their states. States denied Medicaid to our County’s NMD because their Medi-Cal remained active. The nonfederal NMD have active Medi-Cal when placed in other states as they are not eligible for Medicaid. On November 15, 2018, Sylvia Wilson of Monterey County wrote to DHCS stating: I was hoping you can help me with a question, I am trying to determine if a Deemed Eligible Infant can be discontinued for Loss of Contact. In researching I came across these two different resources that are confusing me. Below is the ACWDL 11-33 which states that we can in fact discontinue the DE child. However 42 CFR 435.11 Deemed Newborn Children section seems that Loss of Contact is not in fact an allowable reason to discontinue them. CFR 42, 435.117 Deemed Newborn Children The child is deemed to have applied and been determined eligible under the Medicaid State plan effective as of the date of birth, and remains eligible regardless of changes in circum- stances until the child’s first birthday, unless the child dies or ceases to be a resident of the State or the child’s representative requests a voluntary termination of eligibility. Title 22, CCR 50175 (a) (6) states that eligibility shall be discontinued when, The county department, after reasonable attempts to contact the applicant or beneficiary, determines that there is loss of contact. When the county terminates a family with a deemed infant for loss of contact and later the family reestablishes contact, the county shall reinstate DE to the infant for any months discon- tinued due to loss of contact, unless the family lost California residency. DHCS responded saying: The most recent guidance in AC- WDL 14-32 states, Loss of Contact: If the MC 0216 is returned to the county with a return to In Brief – (cont’d from page 1) 5 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-04 May 27, 2019 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 CCWRO 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 (Cont’d on page 2) In December, Ms. McVinney., a CalWORKs mom with a newborn, got a part-time job working at a family friend’s neighborhood store during the Christ- mas break. Ms. McVinney’s mom watched the baby for the several weeks that Ms. McVinney. worked. Her SAR-7 was due in the month of January and her report month was December. She completed the SAR-7 on January 12, included the pay stubs and also included information that she was no longer working. The following week she received a notice of action stating that the SAR-7 was incomplete because she failed to include verification that she no longer work- ing. Reporting under penalty of perjury that she was no longer working was insufficient. Ms. McVinney. had to ask the family friend\/store owner for a state- ment that she no longer worked at his store. Her benefits were not terminated because she provid- ed verification from a third party that she no longer worked at the store. Six months later she had her annual redetermination. During the redetermination, the worker insisted that Ms. McVinney. again pro- vide verification that she was no longer working. She went back to the store owner and got another state- ment. The store owner was perplexed as to why she needed a second identical notice. After providing the county with a duplicate statement. Ms. McVin- ney. was successfully recertified. Six months later she got her SAR-7 in January. On January 5 she completed the SAR-7 and reported no income. The county SAR-7 task worker compared the previous year’s SAR-7 and the new SAR-7 and realized that the previous SAR-7 had reported income. There was no verification on the new SAR-7 as to why the income stopped, thus, it was incomplete and could not be accepted. On January 18th, Ms. M. re- ceived a notice of action (NOA) stating that her SAR- 7 was incomplete because she failed to report income. The NOA did not specify what income. She then tried to call her worker, but now she had to contact a call center. After a couple of days of calling and being on hold for more than an hour, she reached a live person who told her that her SAR-7 was incom- plete because she had no verification that the income she reported on her previous SAR-7 had stopped. Ms. M. told this worker that she had given the verifi- cation to the county twice, the worker said Your case is closed and we can only reopen it if we get verifica- tion and terminated the conversation. Ms. M. told her mom that her part time job a year ago had caused such a nightmare, her mother was ap- palled. Her mother went to the store owner and got the verification again. The store owner was annoyed and decided that she would never hire another welfare recipient. Ms. M. also learned a lesson The system is designed to discourage work and punish welfare recipients who have the audacity to work. FNS Approved $400 Threshold for Waiving CalFresh County-Error Overissuances. In 2012, the Legislature enacted SB 1391 (Senator Liu), a bill sponsored by legal services advocates, that set a $35 minimum limit for col- lecting county-caused CalFresh overissuances. In 2017, SB 278 (Senator Wiener) enacted a bill, sponsored by legal services advocates, that authorized CDSS to study the administrative cost of establishing and recouping county- CalWORKs Anti-Work County Practices FNS approves a minimum threshold of $400 or more 2 CCWRO Welfare News May 27, 2019 2019-04 caused CalFresh overissuances. CDSS conducted the survey and determined that it costs about $400 per claim. Subsequently, pursuant to 7 CFR 273.18 (e)(2), CDSS submitted a request to USDA Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) to establish a minimum threshold of $400 per claim for non-participating households. On March 4, 2019, USDA notified CDSS in a letter of ap- proval that FNS had approved the request. The USDA, FNS letter said: California requested to establish a $400 claim threshold for non-participating households, in accordance with 7 CFR 273.18 (e)(2). FNS has reviewed the cost analysis to es- tablish claims that was provided by your office. The WRO (FNS Western Regional Office) agrees that the higher thresh- old will aid in reducing the administrative costs associated with claims collections, and that use of this threshold is a cost-effective plan for managing California’s claims. We are pleased to approve a $400 threshold for non-partici- pating households. These thresholds do not apply to claims arising from quality control reviews. Please let us know the effective date of implementation of these changes. CDSS Proposes to Exclude Earned Income of Temporary Census 2020 Employees from the Benefits Calculation for CalFresh. On March 27, 2019 CDSS submitted a demon- stration program request entitled Census 2020 Demonstra- tion Project Declaration Exclusion of Earned Income of Temporary Census Employees. The primary dates for Census 2020 operations are from January through June 23, 2020. Under the demonstration project, the earned income of temporary Census 2020 em- ployees can be excluded from consideration when determin- ing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, as long as the earned income is related to Census 2020 operations. This only applies to temporary Census 2020 employees that directly receive income from the Census Bureau. The demonstration project may be extended through September 30, 2020, upon request, in the event that Census 2020 hiring operations are extended. In order to participate in the demonstration project, California will complete a final report by November 30, 2020. To complete the report, California will identify cases where Census 2020 income was excluded and provide to the USDA FNS the fol- lowing information for all months that demonstration project is approved: The number of unduplicated SNAP households that had temporary earnings excluded; the average number of months the income was ex- cluded; the average monthly benefit these households re- ceived; and the average amount of excluded Census 2020 in come per household with excluded earnings. It is interesting that the $400 threshold does not ap- ply to CalWORKs, just CalFresh. We wonder why? On October 6, 2017, the USDA FNS Western Regional Office issued guidance stating: Recently it has come to our attention that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) applicants and households are sending certification materi- als to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) instead of the appropriate SNAP state and local SNAP agencies for processing. At that time, States, including California, were asked to revise their recertification materials to prevent CalFresh churning. The fact is that the only email address on the CF 37 is federal FNS Civil Rights Office email address. Thus, many CalFresh beneficiaries who wish to avoid churn- ing will email copies of the CF 37 and attachment to the only email address they see on the CF 37 federal FNS Civil Rights. California does not have an email address for beneficiaries to email their recertification forms and documents. Two years later, on March 14, 2019, FNS was forced to issue another policy guidance document, again stating: On October 6, 2017, FNS issued a memo regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assis- tance Program (SNAP) applicants and households who are sending certification materials to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) instead of the appropriate SNAP State agency for processing. At the time, SNAP State agencies were reminded to review the clarity of their applications and certi- fication material submission instructions to identify areas where they can be made more user-friendly. However, USDA continues to receive large vol- umes of misdirected SNAP applications. Will California reduce churning by providing a correct email address for CalFresh beneficiaries to email their forms and verification documents? CalFresh Certification Documents Mailed to FNS Civil Rights Office CCWRO Welfare News May 27, 2019 2019-04 Nutrition Education is a program designed to educate poor persons and families on how to use their limited CalFresh benefits and urge them to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. The average person on CalFresh receives $138 a month. That is $4.60 a day or $1.53 per meal for food. How can you buy fresh fruits and vegetables for $1.53 a meal? Many persons and families who are Cal- Fresh beneficiaries endure hunger during the last week of the month. On March 21, 2019, CDSS received a letter stating that Food and Nutrition Service’s (FNS) approved the redistribution of California’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP- Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2018 carry-over funds. FNS approved a transfer of FFY 2018 carry-over funds totaling $1,655,000 from California Depart- ment of Public Health to be awarded to the Califor- nia Department Social Services. CDSS will use the funds to increase program activities, staffing rates and oversight activities. FNS awarded the funds with the expectation that increased oversight and technical assistance will be delivered by CDSS to the state implementing agencies. See TABLE # 1 for who got what in FY 2018 and FY 2019. The State agency should obligate FFY 2018 carry- over funds by September 30, 2019 and liquidate by December 30, 2019. FFY 2019 funding will be available for expenditure over the two-year period of FFY 2019 and FFY 2020. Using the First In, First Out (FIFO) principle, it is incumbent on the State to expend FFY 2018 funds prior to expending FFY 2019 funds, unless there are notable exceptions. FNS reserves the right to request additional docu- mentation and\/or withhold funds for any question- able portion of activities, should FNS at a later date, identify activities and costs that cannot be justified or require further clarification. CDSS has not re- ported to the Legislature how the $1,655,000 will be spent. The foregoing are questions and answers from Santa Clara CAPI Training January 28-31, 2019 conducted by CDSS Adult Protection Division: Q: May a claimant sign the SSP 14 in his\/her own lan- guage? A: Per SSA: Yes, but two witnesses must attest to the signa- ture. The witnesses do not need to understand the language in which the authorization is signed; they simply attest to the fact that they witnessed the claimant write his or her purported signature on the authorization form. Q: Is a power of attorney allowed to sign the SSP 14 on behalf of the claimant? A: Per SSA: No. The claimant him\/herself must sign the SSP 14 authorization. See ACL #16-41. CCWRO COMMENT: What is the basis of this statement. What SSA rule? Q: Does the MEDS system show the re-exam date on the MEDS screens? A: No. Re-exam date is listed only on the DDSD paper- work. Q: How do counties verify a NMOHC living arrangement (similar to SSP 22)? A: For now, an affidavit from the head of household stat- ing that he or she is providing the claimant with NMOHC services is sufficient. CDSS is working on a CAPI form similar to the SSP 22 used for SSI\/SSP. California Nutrition Education Costs About $100 Million a Year Questions & Answers from the CDSS Santa Clara CAPI Training of January 28-31, 2019 Entity FY 2018 FY 2019 California De- partment Social Services $7,148,625 $9,859,290 California Department of Public Health $75,999,191 $72,500,000 California Department of Aging $1,232,661 $2,512,661 Catholic Chari- ties of Califor- nia $2,612,500 $3,012,500 TOTAL $97,992,977 $99,284,451 TABLE # 1 3 CCWRO Welfare News May 27, 2019 2019-04 Q: Are retirement\/pension (401K) plans of a sponsor counted as resources to the CAPI recipient? A: If the claimant signed the New Affidavit of Support, sponsor deeming (not parental\/spousal deeming) ap- plies, and the current value of the 401(k) is deemed. This is reflected in POMS SI 00502.240(C), and POMS SI 00502.220\/SI 01320.910(c)(3). Therefore, the value of a sponsor’s 401(k) would be deemed to the claimant, regard- less of who is the sponsor. A sponsor’s 401(k) is deemable resource with certain limitations. All income (i.e., anything received in cash or in kind that can be used to meet basic needs of food or shelter) of a sponsor and the sponsor’s spouse are included when determining the amount of a sponsor’s income subject to deeming (POMS SI 01320.940(A)). Only the resource exclusions that apply to an eligible individual ap- ply to a sponsor (POMS SI 01330.550(A)); a 401(k)\/retire- ment account is not an excludable resource for an eligible individual (POMS SI 01110.210). However, one exception to deeming a 401(k) could be when the sponsor is either an ineligible spouse or ineligible parent of the CAPI applicant. Per SSA policy, retirement benefits of an ineligible spouse or ineligible parent are not deemed to the recipient (POMS SI 01330.120(A)(1)(b)\/SI 01330.220(A)(1)(b)). The county would deem the 401(k) account as described in POMS SI 01120.210 to sponsors who are not ineligible spouses\/parents. In terms of count- ing income for the purpose of deeming, the value of a retirement fund is the amount of money that an individual can currently withdraw from the fund. If there is a penalty for early withdrawal, the fund’s value is the amount avail- able to an individual after penalty deduction. However, the retirement account is not a resource if is not available; i.e., the sponsor is unable to access the funds. Exception: Old Affidavit of Support vs. New Affidavit of Support: If the claimant signed the Old Affidavit of Support, and the sponsor is an ineligible spouse or parent, then spousal and parent-to-child deeming still apply, and the 401(k) is not deemed. Q: Confirmation of ineligibility for disabled (under 65) CAPI applicant whose entry in prior to 08\/22\/1996. A: Qualified aliens who were lawfully residing in the United States on August 21, 1996 must be age 65 or older to be eligible for CAPI. (MPP 49-020.21) Claimants law- fully residing in the U.S. on 08\/21\/1996 who are disabled and less than 65 years of age are ineligible for CAPI. Q: Can staff use MEDS to determine whether an applicant has received CAPI benefits through another county? A: Staff can check MEDS to see whether the applicant had an active CAPI case within the last 12 months, through which county, the aid code and the termination date (if applicable). Staff will not be able to view previ- ous CAPI payment history or reason for termination. If no termination date is listed, claimant’s CAPI case may still be active. Governor Newsom Appoints Secretary to the California Health & Human Services Agency SACRAMENTO Governor Gavin Newsom appointed practicing pediatrician and direc- tor of health and social impact for Los Angeles County Mark Ghaly as his secretary for the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS). As both a physician and an expert in public health, Ghaly brings a deep knowledge and understanding of how individual and community health outcomes intersect with policy and law on issues like whole-person care, mental health and stage of life care. He will help lead the administration’s efforts to advance the Governor’s health care agenda, including proposals to lower prescription drug costs, pro- vide coverage to young undocumented adults through Medi-Cal, and help put California on a path toward single-payer health care. At a time when the Trump Administration is systematically dismantling health care pro- tections for American families, California is moving forward on ideas to cover more people and make health care more affordable, said Governor Newsom. Mark’s experience, passion and vision will be instrumental in driving California to a healthier future. Mark Ghaly, 44, of South Pasadena, has served as director of health and social impact for Los Angeles County since 2018. He was deputy director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services overseeing community health and integrated programs from 2011 to 2018 and medical director for the Southeast Health Center, a San Francisco Department of Public Health clinic, from 2006 to 2011. Ghaly earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Harvard Medical School and a Master of Public Health degree in health policy from the Harvard School of Public Health. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $209,943. Ghaly is a Democrat. Source: The Governor Press Office. 4 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-05 June 15, 2019 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 CCWRO 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 In 1973, about 30% of SSI recipients received food stamps. Food advocates decided to cash out food stamps and give each SSI recipient $10 in additional benefits in their SSI check to use to purchase food. This covered 100% of Californians getting SSI. The $10 allocation was never adjusted for inflation. Since 1995, food advocates have wanted to end the SSI cash-out, so that all SSI recipients would receive Food Stamps (CalFresh). The argument against this policy change was that the SSI cash-out would hurt maybe 5% of the SSI recipients children who would lose some food stamps. The federal government refused to treat California SSI kids differently than all other SSI kids in Amer- ica, thus – no cash-out even if it benefits 95% of the caseload. For 25 years 95% of the SSI recipients were denied meaningful purchase power for food – at the urging and insistence of those not on SSI and not enduring hunger. The 2018-19 Budget bill, AB 1811, ended the state’s SSI cash-out policy. SSI\/SSP recipients became eligible for CalFresh food assistance as of June 1, 2019. The state projected that 369,000 households, out of 1.3 million SSI recipients, would sign up for Cal- Fresh after gaining eligibility. The AB 1811 created a state-funded food benefit for certain households whose current CalFresh benefits will be reduced or eliminated when SSI cash-out (Cont’d on page 2) SSI Beneficiaries Face Barriers to Securing CalFresh Benefits ends. These households contain a mix of SSI\/SSP recipients and other people with low incomes who 1) were not enrolled in SSI\/SSP and 2) received CalFresh benefits. Based on the CalFresh benefits calculations, once SSI\/SSP recipients become eligible for CalFresh about 80,000 of these mixed households would see reduced CalFresh assistance or lose eligibility for Cal- Fresh, according to state projections. The state budget provided $230 million to end the SSI- cash out. Of this amount, $199.3 million paid for the new state-funded food benefit for the 80,000 cases. The remainder will support automation changes (such as reprogramming computer systems) and counties’ additional costs for administering the CalFresh pro- gram. The budget package authorized the Department of Finance (DOF) to transfer additional funds, as needed, to pay for other costs associated with ending the SSI cash-out. The law provided that folks could apply in May with CalFresh eligibility starting in June. The county oper- ated SAWS system shows that while in April there were 58,833 applications, in May there were 108,242 applications. There are no numbers of how many households actually received food assistance. As stated above, the Department of Social Services (DSS) also estimated that out of 1.3 million SSI recipients about 369,000 will receive benefits. That is equal to 30%, which what we had in 1972. DSS set up workgroups, some open to the public, to plan for the implementation of the SSI Food Stamp Cash-Out. At these meetings it was agreed that folks can apply on-line, by phone or in-person. DSS agreed (Cont’d on page 2) 2 CCWRO Welfare News June 15, 2019 2019-05 that the only verification needed for SSI recipients to obtain CalFresh benefits would be medical and shelter expenses for all practical purposes. If the SSI recipi- ent\/CalFresh applicant claimed medical expenses and housing costs, the county could request verification of the housing costs only if the housing costs were ques- tionable. Several applicants, in various counties, like San Diego, Sacramento, applying on-line, received a CFS 77 form requesting a list of verification below. The form wants the applicant to provide the verification that applies to non-SSI recipients applying for CalFresh for the first time. Most people would look at this form and dump it in the closest garbage can, saying you’ve got to be kidding me. The CFS 77 states Please provide all of the items be- low that apply to you and your household. Non-Citizen Sponsor’s Statements Proof of Income such as: Pay Stubs or other proof of earnings Social Security and Veteran Benefit Award Letters School Grants\/Loan Statements Child Support papers showing awards by the courts Unemployment printouts\/stubs Disability\/Workman’s Compensation award letter\/ stubs Statements of any other income Rent and Utility bills showing the address and person billed for the rent and\/or utilities Property Tax Statements Real Estate, Mortgage, and Personal Property Loan Statements Cost of medical bills or receipts Cost of medical transportation Child Care Receipts Proof of Court Ordered Child Support you pay Statement of school expense for household members Personal Property and\/or resource documents such as: Vehicle Registrations and Payment Books Checking Account Statements Savings Account Statements or Bank Records Insurance Policies Property Trust Deeds Mortgage Bills Verification documents such as: Identification for anyone over the age of 18 who lives in the home Social Security Cards Documentation of Naturalized Citizenship Status\/ Non-Citizen Status Proof you applied for Disability Benefits or Un- employment Benefits \u00b7 School or Training Enrollment\/Attendance Docu- mentation Registration for Work with Employment Develop- ment Department (EDD) Doctor’s Statement Verification about settlements such as Lawsuits and Insurance Claims Immunization Verification for all children ages six years and younger Birth Verification Proof of Pregnancy Marriage\/Divorce Documents Health Insurance policies and premiums paid Conservator, Guardianship, Power of Attorney papers However, verification is not the only problem. One person applied on-line and then got a packet of 35 pages, demanding that SSI recipients complete the forms and return it to the county, even though the on-line application was signed electronically. Many counties denied the application because the SSI recipient applied in May and were told to reapply in June, even though DSS issued policy guidance to counties that they must take the ap- plications filed in May and process them effective June 1, 2019. For example, Ms. BL27433, an SSI recipient, ap- plied for CalFresh during the month of May 2019. On May 23, 2019 Ms. BL27433 received a NOA stating: Your household’s application for CalFresh has been denied. Here’s why: You or a member of your household are a recipient of Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplemental Program (SSI\/ SSP) benefits and are not eligible to receive Cal- Fresh benefits in California under existing law. Does this mean that on June 1, 2019 any household that had an SSI member became ineligible for Cal- Fresh? It sure reads that way. A similar letter was received by Ms. 1B93387 who applied on-line and completed a telephone inter- view in June only to get a notice of action dated 06\/03\/19 stating that Your household’s application for CalFresh has been denied. Here’s why: You or a member of your household are a recipient of Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplemental Program (SSI\/SSP) benefits and are not eligible to receive CalFresh benefits in California under exist- ing law. SSI Beneficiaries Face Barriers to Securing CalFresh Benefits (Cont’d from page 1) (Cont’d on page 3) CCWRO Welfare News June 15, 2019 2019-05 Some applicants did a telephone interview and then get a notice of action denying the application be- cause they allegedly did not complete the interview. The State Legislature and the Governor’s office showered the counties with millions of dollars to program their computers to avoid these kinds of idi- otic denials of food stamp benefits to SSI recipients See Table # 1. Yet after giving counties $12.8 million, the com- puters are still programmed to deny June CalFresh benefits for applicants with SSI incomes. Automation is an integral part of the implementa- tion of the CalFresh SSI expansion. Yet what have the millions of dollars given to counties produced? -Applications unlawfully being denied because the computer still thinks that SSI beneficiaries are not eligible for CalFresh, even after June 1, 2019. -Applicants being asked for all sorts of verifica- tions, even verifications which were eliminated as CalFresh requirements several years ago. The SSI expansion is being done in the 21st century with the policies and practices, including technol- ogy, of the 20th century. When will California enter the 21st century? ANOTHER VIEW – On June 6, 2019, Charles Bean, the Executive Di- rector of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance stated I would ask: For what amount, $10 a month, this much work is not worth it! or You do not already have this information for the Medi-Cal or SSI\/ SSP I am already receiving? The paperwork alone discourages many to apply; of course if some one does it for them, that is different. What happened to the use of technology and reduction in paper? Technology is tapping into other programs like Medi-Cal and verifying what is on file. Reduction in paper is less space used be- tween lines and electronic signatures at office. By the way, reduce the number of times they send out our civil rights (in every language); I know there was a lawsuit that required this, but it is differently something that can be re-looked at and lessen the work Social Workers have to do (Have you ever signed up for Medi-Cal or CalFresh? They have you listen to a video tell you of your rights and then every time they send an ac- tion they re-send it). Anyway, thank you for the information. Thank the workers at the different Food Banks (and other sites) who take the time to assist individuals -their assistance make 3 TABLE # 1 CalFresh SSI Eligibility Expansion Expenditures 2018- 2019 2019- 2020 TOTAL In Millions CalFresh SSI Expansion County Administration $ 44.7 $ 84.4 $ 129.1 CalFresh SSI Expansion County Automation $ 11 $ 1.8 $ 12.8 SSI Beneficiaries Face Barriers to Securing CalFresh Benefits Marko Mijic, 32, of Sacramento, has been ap- pointed deputy secretary of program and fiscal af- fairs at the California Health and Human Services Agency, where he has served in several po- sitions including as act- ing deputy secretary of program and fiscal affairs since 2018 and assistant secretary of program and fiscal affairs from 2015 to 2018. Mijic held several position at the American Heart Association, including manager of licens- ing and new ventures from 2014 to 2015 and man- ager of government relations from 2013 to 2014. He held several positions at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including special as- sistant from 2011 to 2013 and senior staff assistant from 2009 to 2011. Mijic earned a Master of Public Policy degree from the American University School of Public Affairs. This position requires Senate con- firmation and the compensation is $170,004. Mijic is a Democrat. (Cont’d from page 2) ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-06 July 12, 2019 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 CCWRO 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 On June 27, 2019, Governor Newsom announced that he nominated Kimberley Johnson from Sacra- mento as Director of the California Department of Social Services subject to Senate Confirmation. Johnson served as deputy director of the Family Engage- ment and Empowerment Division at the California Department of Social Services from 2018 to 2019, branch chief of CalWORKs and Child Care from 2017 to 2018 and branch chief of Child Care and Refugee Programs from 2015 to 2017. She was public policy director at the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network from 2012 to 2015, manager of the early childhood mentor program at City Col- lege of San Francisco from 2009 to 2012, where she was director of programs and training for the parent services project from 2007 to 2010. Johnson was program director at the Children’s Network of So- lano County from 1999 to 2007. Director Johnson is a great choice to lead CDSS. CCWRO looks forward to working with Ms. Johnson on improving the lives of California’s impoverished, making this a better place to live for families and individuals. (Cont’d on page 2) Governor Newsom Appoints Kim Johnson On June 28, 2019, the County CalSAWS computer system was legally born. This is an endeavor funded primarily with federal and state dollars that would build a new computer system by the counties for the counties, as pro- claimed by Antonina Jimenez, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services and the outgo- ing President of CalACES that became CalSAWS. After Ms. Jimenez called the meeting to order, the next item on the agenda of the meeting was entitled 2. Public op- portunity to speak on items not on the Agenda. NOTE: The public may also speak on any item ON the Agenda by waiting until that item is read then requesting recognition from the Chair to speak When Ms. Jimenez asked for public comments, Kevin Aslanian of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization began to make a public statement, how- ever, half-way through the statement, at the apparent urging of Executive Director John Boule, CalACES President Antonina Jimenez cut him off and said, your time has expired. The agenda did not specify a time limit for the public statement and so, the interests of public benefit beneficiaries were not heard. Below is the full text of Kevin Aslanian’s statement at the June 28, 2019 CalSAWS meeting. (Cont’d on page 2) CalSAWS Prevents Advocate From Making a Public Statement ..a new computer system by the counties for the counties, pro- claimed by coun- ties at CalSAWS 2 CCWRO Welfare News July 12, 2019 2019-06 CCWRO Public Statement for CalSAWS June 28, 2019 Meeting by Kevin Aslanian, CCWRO The California Computer System has been a blessing and a travesty for public benefit beneficiaries of Cali- fornia. The CalWIN migration took two or more years before all cases were transferred to the CalWIN system in early 2000. LEADER and LRS migration were also infested with problems that caused thousands of fami- lies to go without health care, food and housing in Los Angeles. It seems like when a welfare computer system changes, all hell breaks loose, while, when the banks change their system, nobody knows about it. Why? Money is different than people . This is why we have been try- ing to be involved in the CalSAWS conversation. And I would not be doing my job right if I didn’t highlight areas where we could all improve. At the Los Angeles meeting last year, in his presenta- tion, Mr. Boule confirmed that the CalSAWS system has four (4) partners: counties, the State, Legislature, and advocates\/stakeholders. Since last year it has been evident that there is only one real partner in this en- deavor counties. We admit that CalSAWS has been meeting with us monthly, but those meetings have been challenging and have not completely addressed advocate\/stakeholder issues from the beneficiary\/consumer perspective. What is our vision for CalSAWS? While spending mil- lions of dollars on CalSAWS we should at least have a system designed, like most other 21st century systems, and not the 19th or 20th century. We want CalSAWS to function at its max with all available 21st century technology to better serve the beneficiaries of public benefits that we represent. CalSAWS is refusing to make many of the changes that we are proposing to have a computer system built in the 21st century that would fully utilize the 21st century available technology. CalSAWS is happy to make enhancements that meet the county’s 21st century needs, but not the 21st century needs of California’s public assis- tance beneficiaries. We have made over 40 specific recommenda- tions that have been mostly ignored; such as: allowing beneficiaries to request WtW sup- portive services transportation, child care and ancillary services on-line; allowing beneficiaries to request advance payments; allowing beneficiaries to submit child care timesheets on-line; allowing beneficiaries to request and cure WtW sanctions on-line that reduce benefits for a family of two (2) from $683 down to $418 a month. allowing beneficiaries to request inter- county-transfer on-line by simply reporting a new address and then the 21st century com- puter will transfer the case to the appropriate county; allowing sanctioned CalWORKs parents to cure their sanctions on-line. Today they call their eligibility worker (EW) to stop the sanction. The EW refers them to the WtW worker. The WtW office says they do not have an open WtW case and tells them to call the EW. This is a regular ping-pong that has resulted in over 25,000 families being sanctioned for more than a year. See Table # 1 on page 3. There is a better way in the 2st century. A County Computer System for the Counties – Not the People (Cont’d from page 1) (Cont’d on page 3) CCWRO Welfare News July 12, 2019 2019-06 March 2019 – Source WtW 25 and CW 237 Partici- pants Sanc- tions % of Sanctions Sanc- tions Over 1 Year % of Sanctions Over One Year One- Parent 50,440 37,394 43% 19,808 53% Two- Parent 17,709 15,631 47% 6,117 39% TOTAL 68,149 53,025 44% 25,925 49% 3 allowing beneficiaries to do an immediate inter- view on-line after submitting the application with the aid of the 21st century artificial intelligence or bots . allowing beneficiaries to complete their OCAT the WtW orientation on-line rather than driving 50-100 miles to the welfare office and paying $3-4 a gallon for gas; allowing beneficiaries to request homeless assis- tance on-line rather than traveling long distances, sometimes waiting for hours with 2-3 hungry kids, in order to get off the streets of California; allowing beneficiaries to request domestic vio- lence (DV) exemptions and services on-line; In summary, we want to make sure that this computer being built can provide maximum services to public benefit beneficiaries rather than saying we can’t do that because we have been asked to bring the three 20th century systems together rather than bring them into the 21st century. CalSAWS is being built for the convenience of the counties in lieu of the most efficient and con- venient process for both counties and beneficia- ries whose lives will be affected by the statewide welfare computer system. Ms. 2041702 of Monterey County received an NOA reduc- ing her CalFresh benefits from $448 to $217. The NOA states Here’s why: CK has either been added to your program or has become a member. This person has Income or Property, it counts when deciding your eligibility. Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor has changed. This notice of action does not identify the exact reason for Ms. 2041702’s benefits reduction and leaves the reason open to interpretation. Option # 1. CK was added to your program. Which pro- gram? Medi-Cal? SSI? Option # 2. CK has become a member. Option # 3. Income of the beneficiary caused the reduc- tion of CalFresh. Option # 4. The income of the spouse caused the reduc- tion of CalFresh. Option # 5. The income of the parent caused the reduc- tion of CalFresh. Option # 6. The income of the sponsor caused the reduc- tion of CalFresh. The NOA does not tell the beneficiary which of these six (6) reasons apply to his or her case. Maybe CDSS and counties think that CalFresh beneficiaries are telepathic and can read the mind of the county worker who took the nega- tive action. The county computer systems were given millions of dol- lars to make sure that the SSI cash-out would not turn into a disaster. That did not help. In 2018-2019 counties got $11 million, for 2019-2020 they will be showered with another $1.8 million. Counties were also showered with $129.1 million for staffing to make sure this program operates cor- rectly. See TABLE #2 below. In many cases around the state similar to this instance, CalFresh households with SSI beneficiaries are getting NOAs that do not specify that the households will get a supplemental nutrition benefit (SNB) of $70. This SSI child will still lose $147 a month, even when they get the $70 SNB money. And the promise was nobody will be hurt . SSI Food Stamp Cash-Out Mess Update TABLE # 2 CalFresh SSI Eligibility Expansion Expenditures FY 2018- 2019 FY 2019- 2020 TOTAL In Millions CalFresh SSI Expansion County Administration $ 44.7 $ 84.4 $ 129.1 CalFresh SSI Expansion County Automation $ 11 $ 1.8 $ 12.8 TABLE #1 a new computer sys- tem by the counties for the counties, proudly proclaimed by counties at Cal- SAWS meeting ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-07 August 15, 2019 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 CCWRO 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 LADPSS CAUSES CalWORKs HOMELESS- NEES – Ms. B1QQB24 completed her Cal- WORKs redetermination online. DPSS sent her a letter telling her that she had a telephone interview for 7-3-19. Nobody called as promised. She con- tacted the call center and they told her that a worker would call her on 7-15-19. Again, nobody called. There are thousands of Ms. B1QQB24s in Los Ange- les. If the CalWORKs parent fails to complete the interview because the worker never called, all of the benefits will still be terminated at the beginning of the next month. Many such families are homeless today because they were not able to pay for their rent and got evicted. What happens to the county welfare administrators who are running a flawed process? Nothing. In 2019-2010, counties receive more single allocation block grant money that can be used any way they want. LADPSS WELFARE FRAUD DEPARTMENT HAS NOW BECOME THE WELFARE DE- PARTMENT – Ms. BOK8B91 received a Notice of Action (NOA) from the Los Angeles County West Valley office stating As of 12-1-18, the County is stopping your CALFRESH. Here’s why: You failed to show up for your scheduled appoint- ment with our Fraud Department that was scheduled for 8\/3\/18. Los Angeles DPSS VictimS The alleged authorities for this action, according to LRS, are regulations 63-300 through 63-505 -178 pages. The NOA specifically cites 63.300-301 and 63-300.505. MPP 22.001(a)(1) states that NOA must have the specific regulations supporting such actions. Nowhere on any of the 178 pages does it state that CalFresh can be terminated for failure to keep an appointment with the County Fraud Department. On the same day this victim received a NOA terminat- ing CalWORKs benefits. The NOA states As if 12-1- 18, the County is stopping your Cash Aid. Here’s why: You failed to show up for your scheduled appointment with our Fraud Department that was scheduled for 8\/3\/18. The NOA cites MPP 40-105.1 as the basis of the ac- tion terminating CalWORKs benefits for the crime of not meeting with the Fraud Department. Again, the word fraud does not appear anywhere in 40-105.1. Finally, welfare fraud is a criminal matter and Cal- WORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries still have a few Constitutional rights, like the right to have an attorney before they have a meeting with criminal prosecutors. Maybe Los Angeles County had decided that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to CalWORKs and Cal- Fresh beneficiaries. 2 CCWRO Welfare News July 12, 2019 2019-06 A common LA County welfare fraud case is when the fraud investigator contacts a former CalWORKs recipient and charges the person with a felony welfare fraud for failure to report income to the welfare office years ago. Sometimes the welfare fraud bureaucrat will go to the former CalWORKs recipient’s workplace. The fraud unit sends the current employer notice on the welfare fraud letterhead seeking wage information about an employee. Some of the letters contain a nice big law en- forcement badge designed to freak out the em- ployer to give information to the welfare fraud bureaucrats. Criminalization of the public benefit system has been a long-standing policy for California’s welfare administrators. Just go to the welfare office in Los Angeles and see a big line to go through security to get in the office and ap- ply for benefits or get information. Most of- fices welfare offices in California have security guards or uniformed police officers hanging around the welfare office intimidating public benefit beneficiaries. State law requires that the IEVS hit be pro- cessed within 45 days. An IEVS hit is when information reported to the county is inconsis- tent with information employers report to the state and federal tax agencies. In most counties, the IEVS hits are processed by the welfare fraud bureaucracy known as the Special Investigative Unit. This is the so-called law and order part of the welfare system. Current federal rules prescribe that the IEVS match follow-up shall be completed within 45 days of the date the state agency completes the match. 7 CFR 272.8 (c)(2). State agencies must initiate and pursue the actions on recipi- ent households specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section so that the actions are completed within 45 days of receipt of the information items. Actions may be completed later than 45 days from the receipt of information if: (i) The only reason that the actions cannot be completed is the nonreceipt of verifica- tion requested from collateral contacts; and (ii) The actions are completed as specified in 273.12 of this chapter when verification from a collateral contact is received or in conjunction with the next case action when such verification is not received, whichever is earlier. See also MPP 20-006.421. For the months of October, November and December 2018 Los Angeles County received 38,022 IEVS hits from CDSS and processed 42,864 hits. That means 178,080 potential overpayments linger at the end of December 31, 2018. Assuming that LADPSS continues to receive 38,022 hits a quarter and processes 42,864. At this rate it would take Los Angeles County 16 months to catch up. San Bernardino County would need 71 months or more than 6 years to be process- ing IEVS hits within the number of days required by law. Alameda would need 64 months or more than five years. Statewide it would take 13 months for Cali- fornia to be able to process IEVS reports in accordance with state and federal law. See TABLE # 1 on page 3. County Mismanagement of IEVS Causes Extreme Hardship and Waste (Cont’d on page 3) CCWRO Welfare News August 15, 2019 2019-07 TABLE # 1 Number of Months Needed for the County to Process IEVS Hits Within the Time Limits of the Law County County Size Hits on Hand at the end of the month Hits received during the quarter Hits Processed Months it would take to be LEGAL Statewide State 796553 260835 248957 13 San Bernardino Large 241377 23944 14140 71 Trinity Small 533 50 34 65 Alameda Large 176782 13209 11167 64 Alpine Very Small 39 3 3 52 Placer Medium 14767 1194 1190 50 Imperial Medium 34958 2451 2895 48 Siskiyou Small 3800 422 365 42 Napa Medium 3619 434 370 40 Butte Medium 5604 2038 938 29 Humboldt Medium 6974 1092 1126 25 Lassen Small 939 192 194 19 Los Angeles Very Large 178080 38022 42864 16 San Francisco Large 7665 1768 1898 16 Calaveras Small 592 317 191 15 Nevada Small 357 373 163 14 Santa Clara Large 18728 6772 5802 14 Monterey Medium 12123 3456 3770 13 Yuba Small 2119 728 693 12 Orange Large 40453 16023 13808 12 3 CCWRO Welfare News August 15, 2019 2019-07 4 Funding for the Housing Support Program is proposed to increase to $95 million in FY 2019-20. There is a proposal to reappropriate unexpended balances from funds appropriated in the 2018 Budget Act. The Legislature approved $14.6 million from the General Fund for 2019-20 and placeholder Trailer Bill Language ( SB 80) to remove the 16-day consecutive requirement in the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program (HAP), allowing for use of the 16 days in a year-long period, to begin in 2019-20. This was the only improvement of the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program. The Homeless Assistance Program serves about 60,000 families a year at the cost of an estimated $75 mil- lion, while the Housing Support Program (HSP) serves about 5,100 families a year, which is less than 10% of what the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program does. TABLE #2 below shows how many families each county will assist with the HSP allocation during 2018- 2019. Counties Allocation FY 18-19 Target number of families to newly house per county certification Number of families to continue housing per county certification Costs Per Homeless Family ALAMEDA $1,877,071 79 27 $17,708.22 AMADOR $170,000 18 4 $ 7,727.27 BUTTE $2,000,000 220 50 $ 7,407.41 CALAVERAS $143,642 5 5 $ 14,364.20 COLUSA $75,000 10 8 $ 4,166.67 CONTRA COSTA $2,415,719 100 33 $ 18,163.30 DEL NORTE $197,131 40 6 $ 4,285.46 EL DORADO $889,891 47 16 $ 14,125.25 FRESNO $957,615 70 40 $ 8,705.59 GLENN & TRINITY $645,596 50 30 $ 8,069.95 HUMBOLDT $744,107 60 21 $ 9,186.51 IMPERIAL $850,000 80 60 $ 6,071.43 KERN $930,828 209 6 $ 4,329.43 KINGS $633,973 85 42 $ 4,991.91 LAKE $290,000 25 0 $ 11,600.00 LASSEN $188,425 8 0 $ 23,553.13 CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program – County Block Granted Housing Support Program CCWRO Welfare News August 15, 2019 2019-07 5 LOS ANGELES $6,990,594 490 280 $ 9,078.69 MADERA $413,019 60 30 $ 4,589.10 MARIN $882,824 25 18 $ 20,530.79 MARIPOSA $118,657 10 3 $ 9,127.46 MENDOCINO $343,000 38 5 $ 7,976.74 MERCED $2,170,427 220 72 $ 7,432.97 MONTEREY $1,000,000 80 20 $ 10,000.00 NAPA $243,860 24 2 $ 9,379.23 NEVADA $414,768 20 10 $ 13,825.60 ORANGE $1,000,000 86 38 $ 8,064.52 PLACER $578,759 36 12 $ 12,057.48 PLUMAS $100,000 10 10 $ 5,000.00 RIVERSIDE $2,547,000 275 42 $ 8,034.70 SACRAMENTO $2,843,416 225 59 $ 10,012.03 SAN BENITO $159,065 11 5 $ 9,941.56 SAN BERNARDINO $4,140,000 220 102 $ 12,857.14 SAN DIEGO $3,817,500 376 101 $ 8,003.14 SAN FRANCISCO $4,879,304 110 115 $ 21,685.80 SAN LUIS OBISPO $2,618,079 70 120 $ 13,779.36 SAN MATEO $2,117,338 50 38 $ 24,060.66 SANTA BARBARA $738,281 69 10 $ 9,345.33 SANTA CLARA $4,129,125 128 40 $ 24,578.13 SANTA CRUZ $1,958,500 67 41 $ 18,134.26 SHASTA $929,840 65 40 $ 8,855.62 SISKIYOU $332,523 16 9 $ 13,300.92 SOLANO $2,456,802 68 78 $ 16,827.41 SONOMA $1,219,825 52 15 $ 18,206.34 STANISLAUS $1,338,675 80 60 $ 9,561.96 SUTTER $788,500 60 61 $ 6,516.53 TEHAMA $143,738 10 6 $ 8,983.63 TULARE $382,088 75 29 $ 3,673.92 TUOLUMNE $230,000 25 15 $ 5,750.00 VENTURA $1,080,000 75 45 $ 9,000.00 YOLO $1,800,000 100 30 $ 13,846.15 YUBA $1,131,802 95 7 $ 11,096.10 TOTAL $66,202,891 4,302 1,857 $ 10,748.97 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-09 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-855 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. Counties have requested $99 per hour to process SSI CalFresh cases. In an internal memo, CDSS noted that CWDA recently surveyed the counties on their actual CalFresh worker’s hourly rate. They are asking for about $99 an hour compared to the current $58.27 per hour. The $99 hourly rate per case worker is approximate- ly $204,336 annually. Currently, Los Angeles pays case workers approximately $42,262 per year. How are the counties spending the remaining $158,604 per worker per year? Santa Barbara County asked CDSS for a policy interpretation regarding whether the county could establish a CalWORKs overpayment against a convicted embezzler when the funds were taken over a period of months. CDSS responded in Policy Interpretation PI#18-22 that recurring stolen funds do not meet the definition of income under the Cal- WORKs program. The embezzled funds were not a result of labor, services and it cannot be character- ized as earned or unearned income. Ms. L00D8B3 moved from Pomona to Pasadena within Los Angeles County. She called the Pomona office numerous times to provide her new address. Ms. L00D8B3 received no benefits in September 2019. The County mailed her SAR 7 to the old address which she never got. Thus, the County did not get the SAR7. On 8-24-19, the Pomona office issued an NOA terminating all cash and food assis- tance effective September 1st for not submitting a SAR 7. The law – Supreme County case Goldberg v. Kelly requires at least a 10-day notice. California Welfare-to-Work UPDATEIn Brief October 11, 2019 The 2019-2020 State Budget appropri- ates $1.7 billion for the CalWORKs WtW program. The estimated monthly number of unduplicated participants will be less than 67,000 each month. Each month, counties will receive $2,081 for each WtW participant. In contrast, the average family will receive $682 a month in CalWORKs. Additionally, 50% of the Welfare to Work participants do not receive transportation because county of- ficials argue that CalWORKs recipients living in deep poverty simply do not want to get that transportation. When the WtW participant does receive transportation reimbursement, the average is $100 per month. From July 2018 through April of 2019, coun- ties sanctioned an average of 11,748 families each month while 71,670 families participated in a WtW activity. During this same time period, only 5,812 families found jobs result- ing in the termination of their CalWORKs benefits. Moreover, on the average a total of 54,400 families were being sanctioned each month. That is why many call the Californua WtW progam the Welfare-to-Sanction pro- gram. (cont’d on page 2) CCWRO Welfare News October 11, 2019 2019-9 CDSS will conduct CalFresh geocoding analyses of four new counties in 2019 and present results through interactive web-maps and dashboards focusing on neighborhoods where increased out- reach might be beneficial. After years of not having lawful CalFresh expe- dited service questions, C4Yourself will be up- dated to include questions including: (1) Is your household’s (HH) gross income less than $150 and cash on hand, checking and savings account less than $100? (2) Is your HH’s combined gross income and liquid resources less than the combined rent\/mortgage and utilities? and (3) Are you a Migrant\/Seasonal Farmworker? Effective October 1, 2019, SB 80 increases ac- cess to Stage One Child Care for CalWORKs participants continuously for 12 months or until the participants are transferred to Stage Two. The participant will receive a Stage One Child Care authorization the day the participant is deemed eligible for CalWORKs. Beginning no later than January 1, 2021, CWDs shall provide limited, read-only, online access through SAWS database to local contractors providing CalWORKs child- care services. Access shall include a single sum- mary page that contains current individual family data needed to enroll a family in CalWORKs childcare services or transfer a family between stages. CalWIN update: Nine of the eighteen CalWIN counties will administer Stage 1 Child Care using CalWIN. CalWIN does not limit the number of Stage 1 months that can be administered to a post- aid case. This should ensure that there will be no break in childcare when transitioning to Stage 2. In Brief (cont’d from page 1) Since the implementation of the TANF program, Cali- fornia has diverted CalWORKs funds to the State’s General Fund. This yearly fleecing of the CalWORKs program by California’s lawmakers and administration officials fluctuates between 1 billion to 2 billion a year, even during the recession, when benefits were slashed to the bone. While Governor Newsom increased CalWORKs ben- efits by 13.1% this year, for which we are grateful, the increase means that many CalWORKs families remain below the poverty level. The October 1, 2019 Cal- WORKs Grant Increase brings 37% of the CalWORKs families of 1 above the 50% of the federal poverty level which is a very small portion of the CalWORKs casel- oad. In the real world, only 37% of families in CalWORKs actually receive aid for all members of the family. 63% of CalWORKs families receive aid for one or more less persons each month either because of being timed out or for being sanctioned for such actions as not having childcare, transportation, immunization sanctions, child support sanctions, or school attendance sanctions. Table #1 below reveals the grant increases effective October 1, 2019 for the 37% and the 63% of the Cal- WORKs cases. After issuing a 13.1% increase in CalWORKs grant, what happened to the rest of the CalWORKs\/TANF money? $2.6 billion was transferred from TANF to the General Fund. The TANF rainy day reserve is a meager $70 million. Table #2, based on information from CDSS, reveals that 40% of the available TANF funds will be used for CalWORKs grants, 31% are used for the county welfare departments, 4% is used for state administration, and a whoppoing 25% is being used for non-CalWORKs programs. FACT: 13.1% CalWORKs Grant Increase – And Most CalWORKs Children Continue to Endure Deep Poverty CCWRO Welfare News October 11, 2019 2019-9 3 37% of the Caseload Family Size Maximum Aid Percentage of the federal poverty level Region 1 – Effective October 1, 2019 1 $550 53% 2 $696 49% 3 $878 49% 4 $1,060 49% 5 $1,242 49% 6 $1,424 49% 7 $1,606 49% 8 $1,788 49% Region 2-Effective October 1, 2019 1 $520 50% 2 $661 47% 3 $834 47% 4 $1,007 47% 5 $1,180 47% 6 $1,353 47% 7 $1,526 47% 8 $1,699 47% 63 % of the Caseload Family Size Maximum Aid Percentage of the federal poverty level Region 1-Effective October 1, 2019 2 $550 39% 3 $696 39% 4 $878 41% 5 $1,060 42% 6 $1,242 43% 7 $1,424 44% 8 $1,606 44% 9 $1,788 49% Region 2-Effective October 1, 2019 2 $520 37% 3 $661 37% 4 $834 39% 5 $1,007 40% 6 $1,180 41% 7 $1,353 42% 8 $1,526 42% 9 $1,699 47% All Family Members At least one Family Member Not Being Aided Due To Being Timed Out or Being an Ineligible Parent for Various reasons etc. Table #1 CCWRO Welfare News October 11, 2019 2019-9 CDSS CalFresh Division Practices Segregation Table #2 California Department of Social Services Local Assistance 2019-20 Appropriation Historical CalWORKs and TANF Funding Chart FY 2019-20 Appropriation Total TANF Grant\/Required MOE $6,572,555,000 Percentage of the Total Avail- able TANF Money Total Available Funding $7,488,586,000 Total Funding Needed $7,417,718,000 Total TANF Reserve $70,868,000 CalWORKs Grants 3,030,848,000 40% Administration 645,736,000 Services 1,216,172,000 Child Care 330,658,000 Mental Health\/Sub. Abuse Services 126,606,000 County Single Allocation (CSA)- County TANF Block Grant Allocation 2,319,172,000 31% TANF Transfer to Student Aid Commission 1,060,090,000 Kin-GAP Program 95,310,000 Additional TANF\/MOE Expenditures in CDSS 464,938,000 Other MOE Eligible Expenditures 776,985,000 State Support Costs 27,588,000 0.4% Non-CalWORKs Transfers 192,119,000 CalWORKs Involuntary Contribution to the General Fund $2,670,078,000 29% EDITOR’S NOTE: The word involuntary was added by CCWRO CDSS CalFresh Division Practices Seg- regation in lieu of Integration – Al- though Secretary Ghally of the California Health and Human Services Agency has posted the New- som Administrations new principles of collaberta- tion, stating that progams shall implemented in a collaborative manner , which in integration , the CDSS CalFresh Branch holds ABAWD Techni- cal Assistance calls with counties and intentionally exclude stakeholders who are not with the county welfare department, which is segregation. Here is the agenda for the 5-1-19 meeting from 10:30 11:30 that advocates representating Cal- Fresh beneficiaries are intentionally excluded. 10:30 to 10:35 – Welcome and Introductions 10:35 to 11:00 – CDSS Update Waiver Update 11:00 to 11:20 – County Updates\/Questions\/Con- cerns 11:20 to 11:30 – Wrap-Up and Next Steps Next Technical Assistance Meeting: Thursday, May 30, 10:30 11:30- AM 4 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-10 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-855 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. Please Welcome Jennifer Hernandez November 11, 2019 According to Governor Newsom’s Press Office Jennifer Hernan- dez, 39, of Sacramento, has been appointed deputy director of the Family Engagement and Empow- erment Division at the California Department of So- cial Services. Hernandez has been associate secretary for farmworker and immigrant services at the Labor and Workforce Development Agency since 2015. She was Western Region director at the AFL-CIO from 2013 to 2015 and Western Region campaign coordinator from 2010 to 2013. She was a partner at Cultivo Consulting from 2008 to 2010 and civic engagement director at the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation from 2007 to 2008. Hernan- dez was deputy director of Communities United to Strengthen America from 2006 to 2007, special assis- tant to the president at Voice for Working Families from 2004 to 2006 and driver’s license campaign manager at United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO from 2002 to 2004. Hernandez earned a Master of Public Policy degree from George Mason University. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $164,256. Hernandez is a Demo- crat. In the early 1970s the SSI food stamp cashout went into effect giving each SSI beneficiary $10 a month because less than 30-35% of the SSI beneficiaries were getting food stamps. For 25 years California refused to make food stamps available to California’s aged, blind and disabled be- cause it would mean less benefits for 5 percent of the SSI recipients. The refusal to end the SSI food stamp cashout prevented billions of dollars to come to Cali- fornia and California lost several hundred thousand jobs that the food stamp benefits would have created in California. Well finally in 2019, it was decided to let SSI recipients get food stamps, now called CalFresh. The 2019-2020 appropriated $86.7 million dollars for address the Cal- Fresh households that would be losing benefits and the counties get $30.3 million for county administration of the expansion of SSI CalFresh. SSI beneficiaries were able to apply for CalFresh in May to be eligible effective June 1, 2019. Many coun- ties denied SSI beneficiary applications filed during May 2019, contrary to state law and DSS policy issu- ances. ( See ACL 18-90E that states: Newly eligible SSI\/SSP-only households that apply in May and are otherwise eligible, will be issued June benefits as soon as possible, but no earlier than June 1, 2019,and no later than 30 calendar days past the date of initial ap- plication.) Many of those SSI beneficiaries will be lost forever, because they do not want to through that same county welfare department abuse again. SSI CalFresh Expansion Update (cont’d on page 2) CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 There are 1,193,089 SSI beneficiaries in California. A recent data released by CDSS that CDSS received from counties for June, July and August of 2019 revealed that only 18% of the SSI beneficiaries were able to navigate the county CalFresh application process and qualify for CalFresh. 9% of the applicants, or 20,374 SSI beneficiaries were denied CalFresh. The reasons for the denial are unknown as when CDSS was planning the SSI CalFresh Expansion, the CalFresh Expansion Data Committee was a closed committee, in violation of the California Open Meeting Act. There are no public data reports showing the reasons of the deni- als. Why would a person be denied? Most CalFresh denials are due to applicant failure to meet the 58 different county procedural requirements. This is evident by the looking at the county-by-county denial rates in Table #1. Now why is that Fresno County only had a 4% denial rate and San Francisco had a 1% denial rate while Riverside, Kern, San Bernardino and San Joaquin had way over the statewide average? Table # 1 reveals county-by-county the number of SSI beneficiaries who applied during June, July and August of 2019 were denied CalFresh. As noted above, the reasons for the denials are unknown. If we knew the reasons, we could see what can be done to reduce the denials of CalFresh benefits to SSI recipient living below the 100 percent of the federal poverty rate. CalFresh Program Operated Through Underground Rules for more than 10 years It has been more than a decade since the CalFresh program has enacted a lawful regulation in Califor- nia. To date, the California Food Stamp, SNAP or CalFresh program has been running through unlaw- ful underground rules known as All County Letters. (cont’d from page 1) Table #1 CalFresh denial rates for SSI beneficiaries per County High Denial Counties Low Denial Counties Napa 21% San Diego 3% Butte 21% Santa Barbara 3% Imperial 20% Sonoma 3% Monterey 20% Tulare 3% Kings 19% Ventura 3% Riverside 19% San Luis Obispo 3% Merced 18% Solano 3% Madera 18% Contra Costa 3% Kern 18% Orange 3% Shasta 16% Alameda 3% San Bernardino 16% Sacramento 2% Stanislaus 15% San Mateo 2% San Joaquin 14% Santa Cruz 2% Marin 14% Yolo 2% Statewide 9% Santa Clara 2% Los Angeles 8% Placer 2% Fresno 4% San Francisco 1% The last time that lawful regulations were enacted in California was the Food Stamp Program Recertifica- tion Simplification and SFIS Exemptions regulation package and the program was known as the Food Stamp program. For the purpose of enacting lawful regulations in California time has stood still and a host of changes in the program have been implemented through underground rules in violation of the Califor- nia Administrative Procedures Act. We wonder what has the office of Administrative Law been doing all this time? See page 3 for a long list of underground rules used by the State Department of Social Services since 2009. GOOD NEWS: CDSS has started the process of updated the CalFresh regu- lations to reflect all of the policy issuances below in a collaborative with stakehold- ers that is refreshing and welcome. 2 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 ACL 09-62 (October 23, 2009) -Food Stamp Program (FSP) Waiver Of Face-To-Face Interview ACL 09-41E (November 23, 2009) – Errata to Cali- fornia Work Opportunity And Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) And Food Stamp Programs Quarterly Reporting And Prospective Budgeting (QR\/PB) Ques- tions And Answers (Q&A’s) ACL 09-41 (September 2, 2009) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) And Food Stamp Programs Quarterly Reporting And Prospective Budgeting (QR\/PB) Questions And An- swers (Q&A’s) ACL 09-26 (June 4, 2009) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And The Food Stamp Programs: Treatment Of 2010 United States Census Workers’ Income ACL 09-25 (June 16, 2009) – Food Stamp Application Process For Youth Who Are Aging Out Of Foster Care ACL 09-24 (May 27, 2009) – Modified Categori- cal Eligibility For The Food Stamp Program; Ques- tions And Answers ACL 09-12 (February 27, 2009) – Implementation Of Provisions In The American Recovery And Reinvest- ment Act Of 2009; Temporary Increase In Benefits By 13.6 Percent Of The June 2008 Value Of The Thrifty Food Plan ACL 09-01 (March 12, 2009) – New ‘Request For Verification’ Form (CW 2200) For Verifying Eligibil- ity In The CalWORKs And Food Stamp Programs ACL 10-55 (November 23, 2010) – Implementation Of The Renaming Of The Food Stamp Program To CalFresh ACL 10-32 (July 23, 2010) – Food Stamp Waiver For The Restoration Of Eligibility And Benefits ACL 10-18 (April 19, 2010) – Food And Nutrition Service (FNS) Census 2010 Demonstration Project- Exclusion Of Earned Income Of Temporary Census ACL 10-11 (July 27, 2010) – Elimination Of Food Stamp Sanctions For Noncompliance With Substitute Program Work Requirements ACL 10-10 (March 26, 2010) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And Food Stamp Programs Quarterly Reporting And Prospective Budgeting (QR\/PB) Questions And An- swers (Q&A’s) ACL 10-01 (January 29, 2010) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And Food Stamp Program (FSP) Whereabouts Un- known And Client Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Usage ACL 11-83 (December 6, 2011) – Discontinuance Of The Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) Requirement For The CalFresh Program ACL 11-70 (October 26, 2011) – Transitional Cal- Fresh Recertification Process ACL 11-57 (August 11, 2011) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs Frequently Asked Questions And Answers 3 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE UNDERMINES THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT For several years California has enacted legisla- tion that undermines the California Administrative Procedures Act by authorizing CDSS to implement statutes with All County Letter (ACL). When this practice started, the Legislation would give the Department a timeline to enact regulations after implementing the statutory change with an ACL. But soon statutory requirement for regulations disap- peared and here we are today with 10 years of ma- jor changes in the CalFresh program that include no timelines for promulgating regulations. CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 4 ACL 11-49 (August 11, 2011) – CalFresh Eligibility And Budgeting Of Anticipated Unemployment Insur- ance Income ACL 11-46 (June 17, 2011) – Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplementary Payment (SSI\/SSP) Recipients In Suspended Status And Eligibility to CalFresh ACL 11-26E (September 27, 2011) – Heathcock v. Al- lenby Lawsuit – Statewide Policy Regarding Initiating Collection On Overissuance (O\/I) Claims Require- ments In The CalFresh Program ACL 11-22 (March 25, 2011) – Implementation Of The New Inter-County Transfer Process For CalFresh Program Benefits; Welfare & Institutions Code 11053.2 Added By Statutes Of 2010, Chapter 725, Assembly Bill 1612 ACL 11-17 (February 16, 2011) – Workers’ Compen- sation Insurance Coverage For Participants In The California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program And The CalFresh Em- ployment And Training Program ACL 11-13E (February 10, 2011) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) Program And CalFresh: Changes In The Treatment Of Federal Tax Credits And Refunds In The CalWORKs And CalFresh Programs ACL 11-13 (February 2, 2011) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program And CalFresh: Changes In The Treatment Of Federal Tax Credits And Refunds In The Cal- WORKs And CalFresh Programs ACL 11-11 (January 27, 2011) – Expansion Of Modi- fied Categorical Eligibility For CalFresh To All Non- Assistance CalFresh (NACF) Households ACL 11-01E (August 17, 2012) – New Federal Sampling Requirement For Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)\/CalFresh Negative Case Reviews \u00b7 ACL 12-74E (June 24, 2013) – Correction To All County Letter 12-74 Implementation Of Policy Changes Regarding CalFresh Expedited Service \u00b7 ACL 12-74 (December 24, 2012) – Implementa- tion Of Policy Changes Regarding CalFresh Expe- dited Service ACL 12-62E (June 28, 2013) – Examples Of Modi- fied Categorical Eligibility (MCE)\/Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) Households For CalFresh ACL 12-61 (October 30, 2012) – Implementation Of The Heat And Eat Program For CalFresh ACL 12-59 (October 29, 2012) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) And CalFresh Programs: New And Revised Forms And Notices Of Action (NOAs) For The Semi-Annual Reporting (SAR) System ACL 12-49E (February 12, 2013) – Corrections To ACL 12-49: Implementation Of The Annual Re- porting\/Child Only (AR\/CO) System In The Cali- fornia Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs ACL 12-49 (September 27, 2012) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Implementation Of The Annual Reporting\/Child Only (AR\/CO) System ACL 12-37 (August 1, 2012) – CalFresh Waiver To Average Student Work Hours ACL 12-35 (July 30, 2012) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Implementation Of As- sembly Bill (AB) 959 For The CalWORKs And CalFresh Programs ACL 12-26 (May 31, 2012) – CalFresh Waiver Of Face-To-Face Interviews CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 ACL 12-25E (December 16, 2013) – Correction To All County Letter (ACL) 12-25, Implemen- tation Of The Semi-Annual Reporting (SAR) System In The California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs ACL 12-25 (May 17, 2012) – Implementation Of The Semi-Annual Reporting (SAR) System In The California Work Opportunity And Respon- sibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs ACL 12-09 (February 17, 2012) – Revised Cal- Fresh Monthly Caseload Movement Statistical Report [DFA 296 (1\/12)] ACL 12-03 (January 9, 2012) – Passage Of Senate Bill 43 And Changes To The CalFresh Employment And Training Program ACL 13-108 (December 31, 2013) – Implemen- tation Of Assembly Bill 191 (Chapter 669, Stat- utes Of 2013) – CalFresh Categorical Eligibility For Medi-Cal ACL 13-107 (December 30, 2013) – Changes To The CalFresh Employment And Training Pro- gram With The Passage Of Senate Bill 134 ACL 13-104 (December 20, 2013) – Implemen- tation Of Assembly Bill (AB) 309 Regarding Homeless Youth In The CalFresh Program ACL 13-103 (December 18, 2013) – Process- ing Consumer Requests For Referral To The CalFresh Or California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Programs Under The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act (ACA) ACL 13-102 (December 24, 2013) – Verification Of Dependent Care Expenses In CalFresh ACL 13-89 (October 31, 2013) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh: Steps To Determine Referrals For Inves- tigations ACL 13-80 (September 26, 2013) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: New And Revised Notice Of Action (NOA) Messages And Forms For The Semi- Annual Reporting (SAR) System ACL 13-79E (November 22, 2013) -CalFresh Adminis- trative Overissuances ACL 13-79 (September 24, 2013) -CalFresh Adminis- trative Overissuances ACL 13-78 (September 19, 2013) -CalFresh Intercoun- ty Transfer (ICT) ACL 13-75 (September 19, 2013) -Revised CalFresh Application Form ACL 13-74 (September 10, 2013) -CalFresh New (and Revised) Forms for The Semi-Annual Reporting (SAR) System ACL 13-65 (August 12, 2013) -Revised CalFresh Ex- pedited Service Quarterly Statistical Report DFA 296X (7\/13) ACL 13-61 (July 24, 2013) -CalFresh Waiver To Send E-Notifications And View Notices Electronically ACL 13-58 (July 8, 2013) -Waiving The Recertifica- tion Interview For Nonassistance CalFresh Households In Which All Adults Are Elderly Or Disabled Without Earned Income ACL 13-57 (July 5, 2013) -CalFresh: New (And Re- vised) Forms For The Semi-Annual Reporting (SAR) System 5 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 ACL 13-56 (June 28, 2013) -New Third Party Workers’ Compensation Claims Administrator And Claims Reporting Procedures For California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) And CalFresh Employment And Training Program Participants ACL 13-54 (July 1, 2013) -California CalFresh Integrity Plan; Excessive Card Replacement Process ACL 13-46 (June 10, 2013) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program And CalFresh: Changes In The Treatment Of Federal Tax Credits And Refunds In The Cal- WORKs And CalFresh Programs ACL 13-45 (June 7, 2013) – California CalFresh Alert Case Process ACL 13-32 (April 24, 2013) – Modified Categorical Eligibility\/Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility And Elderly\/Disabled CalFresh Households ACL 13-28 (April 10, 2013) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Implementation Of The Annual Reporting\/Child Only (AR\/CO) System Questions And Answers (Q&A) ACL 13-26 (April 8, 2013) – California Work Op- portunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: New And Revised Forms And Notices Of Action (NOAs) For The Semi-An- nual Reporting (SAR) System ACL 13-17 (March 22, 2013) – Updated Informa- tion For Semi-Annual Reporting Implementation For CalFresh ACL 13-08 (January 31, 2013) – CalFresh Semi- Annual Reporting Waivers ACL 14-106E (August 10, 2015) – Corrections to Revised CalFresh Supplemental Form For Special Medical Deductions ACL 14-106 (December 31, 2014) – Revised CalFresh Supplemental Form For Special Medical Deductions ACL 14-101E (August 26, 2015) – Revisions to CF 37: New Form For CalFresh Recertification ACL 14-101 (December 22, 2014) – CF 37: New Form For CalFresh Recertification (RC) ACL 14-100 (December 19, 2014) – Changes In Eligi- bility For All People With A Prior Felony Drug Convic- tion In The California Work Opportunity And Responsi- bility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs ACL 14-92 (December 22, 2014) – Removal Of The Treatment Of Individuals With A Prior Felony Drug Conviction From The Application For CalFresh Ben- efits ACL 14-91 (January 6, 2015) – Discontinuance Of Annual Work Registrant And Food Stamp Employment And Training (FSET) Program Caseload Report STAT 48 (10\/06) Revised Non-Assistance CalFresh Work Registrants, Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD), And Employment And Training (E&T) Program Quar- terly Statistical Report STAT 47 (10\/04) ACL 14-90E (May 7, 2015) – Revisions To Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Excessive Card Replacement Warning Letter, EBT 2260 ACL 14-90 (December 2, 2014) – Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Excessive Card Replacement Warning Letter Process ACL 14-63 (September 16, 2014) – Households Eli- gible For CalFresh, But Entitled To No Benefits ACL 14-56E (April 10, 2015) – Corrections To ACL 14- 56 CalFresh Modified Categorical Eligibility ACL 14-56 (August 22, 2014) – CalFresh Modified Categorical Eligibility ACL 14-54 (May 29, 2014) – Agricultural Act Of 2014 (Farm Bill): CalFresh Changes 6 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 ACL 14-49 (August 6, 2014) – CalFresh Restaurant Meals Program (RMP) For The Homeless, Elderly And Disabled ACL 14-37 (June 25, 2014) – Updated Forms For The CalFresh Program ACL 14-26 (March 14, 2014) – California Work Op- portunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Revised ‘Request For Verification’ Form (CW 2200) ACL 14-20 (February 27, 2014) -CalFresh Waiver To Waive Interview Scheduling Requirements ACL 15-95 (December 1, 2015) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Calculating Overpayments (OPs) And Overissuances (OIs) And the Treatment Of Income Eligibility Verifica- tion System (IEVS) Matches Under Semi-Annual Reporting (SAR) And Annual Reporting\/Child Only (AR\/CO) ACL 15-94E (April 25, 2017) – Errata to CalFresh Program: Residency ACL 15-94 (November 3, 2015) – CalFresh Pro- gram: Residency ACL 15-93 (November 20, 2015) – CalFresh Waiver Extension: Deny Initial Applications Before The 30th Day ACL 16-118 (December 30, 2016) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) And CalFresh Noticing Requirements For Usage Of Consumer Credit ACL 16-112 (December 23, 2016) – CalFresh Implementation Of AB 1747: Restaurant Meals Program, CalFresh Outreach And The Emergency Food Assistance Program ACL 16-108 (December 28, 2016) – Federal Chang- es To Referring CalFresh Overpayment Debts To The Treasury Offset Program (TOP) From 180 Days To 120 Days ACL 16-77 (September 20, 2016) – Revisions Made To The Application For CalFresh Benefits (CF 285) And Recertification For CalFresh Benefits (CF 37) ACL 16-71 (September 12, 2016) – CalFresh Overis- suance (O\/I) Notice Of Action (NOA) Requirements: Here’s Why Section ACL 16-60 (July 13, 2016) – Updated Forms For Workers’ Compensation Coverage For California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work (WTW) And CalFresh Employment And Training (E&T) Program Participants ACL 16-59 (July 13, 2016) – CalFresh Waiver To Provide All Clients Who Apply Online For CalFresh Benefits At The Local Offices With A Copy Of Infor- mation For Their Records ACL 16-24 (April 21, 2016) – CalFresh Summary Of The Able-Bodied Adult Without Dependents (ABAWD) Time Limit ACL 16-14E (July 20, 2016) – Expedited Service En- titlement And Application Processing For CalFresh ACL 16-14E (July 20, 2016) – Expedited Service En- titlement And Application Processing For CalFresh ACL 16-14 (February 29, 2016) – Expedited Service Entitlement And Application Processing For CalFresh ACL 17-120 (December 5, 2017) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To KIDS (Cal- WORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Federal And State Earned Income Tax Credits Changes ACL 17-118 (November 21, 2017) – CalWORKs and CalFresh: Administrative Disqualification Hearings ACL 17-101 (December 22, 2017) – CalFresh Maxi- mum Certification Periods ACL 17-98 (September 12, 2017) – CalFresh Income, Deductions, Resources And Exclusions: Final Federal Regulatory Changes 7 ACL 17-97 (September 21, 2017) – CalFresh Averaging Student Work Hours ACL 17-80 (July 31, 2017) – CalFresh Telephone Inter- views ACL 17-61 (June 27, 2017) – California Work Oppor- tunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Achieving A Better Life Experience (ABLE) Accounts For Individuals With Disabilities In California ACL 17-58E (December 5, 2017) – Errata To The Cali- fornia Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Changes To The Inter-County Transfer (ICT) Process As A Result Of Sen- ate Bill (SB) 1339, Revised And New Notice Of Action (NOA) Messages ACL 17-58 (June 23, 2017) – California Work Oppor- tunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Programs: Changes To The Inter-County Trans- fer (ICT) Process As A Result Of Senate Bill (SB) 1339, Revised And New Notice Of Action (NOA) Messages ACL 17-57 (June 9, 2017) – Electronic Signatures In The CalFresh And CalWORKs Programs ACL 17-55 (July 11, 2017) – CalFresh Waiver Extension Approval: Deny Initial Applications Before The 30th Day ACL 17-53E (May 18, 2018) – CalFresh Elderly Simpli- fied Application Project (ESAP) Notices: CF 377.2C and CF 377.2D Revisions ACL 17-53 (June 14, 2017) – New CalFresh Notices For Elderly And\/Or Disabled Households With No Earned Income: CF 377.2B, CF 377.2C, And CF 377.2D ACL 17-41 (June 6, 2017) – CalWORKs And CalFresh: Recipient Income And Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Processing Time frames ACL 17-35 (April 25, 2017) – CalFresh Standard Medical Deduction Demonstration Project For Elderly\/Disabled Households ACL 17-34 (April 25, 2017) – CalFresh Elderly Simplified Application Project Waiver Approval For Elderly\/Disabled Households ACL 17-30 (April 17, 2017) – CalFresh Process- ing For Victims Of Domestic Violence: Imple- mentation Of Assembly Bill (AB) 2057 ACL 18-141 (December 4, 2018) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Revised Supplemental Form For Excess Medical Deductions (CF 31) ACL 18-131 (October 31, 2018) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Reversing Cash-Out Policy, Supplemental Nutrition Benefit Program, And Transitional Nutrition Benefit Program Quarterly Question And Answer ACL 18-118 (September 20, 2018) – CalFresh Notice Of Expiration Of Certification Form (CF 377.2) Revisions ACL 18-99 (September 14, 2018) – Brown And Espinosa-Tapia V. Lightbourne Lawsuit State- wide Policy Regarding Overissuance Collection Periods In The CalFresh Program ACL 18-97E (October 15, 2018) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Able-Bodied Adults With- out Dependents Time Limit Waiver ACL 18-97 (August 27, 2018) – CalFresh Able- Bodied Adults Without Dependents Time Limit Waiver ACL 18-96 (August 9, 2018) – CalFresh Waiver Extension Approval: Reinstatement Of Benefits Within 30 Days Of The Effective Date Of Ineli- gibility ACL 18-94 (August 9, 2018) – New And Re- vised CalFresh Notices Of Action And Letters For The Able-Bodied Adults Without Depen- dents Time Limit CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 8 ACL 18-90E (April 10, 2019) | Executive Sum- mary – CalFresh Reversing Cash-Out Policy: Eli- gibility For Recipients Of Supplemental Security Income And\/Or California State Supplementary Payment Benefits ACL 18-90 (July 31, 2018) – CalFresh Reversing Cash-Out Policy: Eligibility For Recipients Of Supplemental Security Income And\/Or California State Supplementary Payment (SSI\/SSP) Benefits ACL 18-74 (June 22, 2018) – CalFresh Waiver Ap- proval To Combine Reminder Notice And Notice Of Adverse Action At The Periodic Report ACL 18-64 (June 18, 2018) – CalFresh Waiver Extension\/Modification Approval: Deny Initial Ap- plications Before The 30th Day ACL 18-50E (July 16, 2018) – CalFresh Overissu- ance Notices Of Action: Revisions To DFA 377.7F, CF 377.7D3 LP, And DFA 377.7F LP ACL 18-50 (May 3, 2018) – CalFresh Implemen- tation Of Redesigned Regular And Large Print Overissuance Notices ACL 18-49 (May 14, 2018) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Implementation Of CF 377.7G Cal- Fresh Intentional Program Violation (IPV) Notice Due To Trafficking ACL 18-27 (April 2, 2018) – CalFresh Student Eligibility: Implementation Of Assembly Bill (AB) 214 ACL 18-24 (March 15, 2018) – CalFresh Restau- rant Meals Program (RMP) And Employment And Training (E&T) Program: Implementation Of Sen- ate Bill (SB) 282 ACL 18-22 (March 27, 2018) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) And CalFresh: Criminal Prosecution Of Intentional Program Violation (IPV) Timeframes ACL 18-20 (February 28, 2018) – CalFresh Changes To County Welfare Department Action On Unclear Information Received Mid-Period ACL 18-18 (February 16, 2018) – CalFresh Changes To Reporting Requirements ACL 18-11 (January 25, 2018) – CalFresh Implemen- tation Of AB 563: CalFresh Employment And Train- ing Program ACL 19-79 (August 5, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Treatment Of 2020 United States Census Income ACL 19-78 (August 5, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalWORKs AND CalFresh: Applicant Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Processing At Redetermination And Recertification (RD\/RC) ACL 19-65E (August 1, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Federal Report: Food And Nutrition Service (FNS) Status Of Claims Against Households 209 Report: 2019 Validation Review And Ongoing Valida- tion Review Requirement ACL 19-65 (July 16, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Federal Report: Food And Nutrition Service (FNS) Status Of Claims Against Households 209 Report: 2019 Validation Review And Ongoing Valida- tion Review Requirement ACL 19-63 (July 1, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Data Dashboard Upgrades, Expansion, And New Process ACL 19-60 (July 2, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents And California Food Assistance Program Percentage Exemptions ACL 19-57 (June 11, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Waiver Extension\/Modification Approval: Deny Initial Applications Before The 30th Day ACL 19-79 (August 5, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Treatment Of 2020 United States Census Income CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 9 ACL 19-78 (August 5, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalWorks AND CalFresh: Applicant Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Processing At Redetermina- tion And Recertification (RD\/RC) ACL 19-60 (July 2, 2019) | Executive Summary – Cal- Fresh Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents And California Food Assistance Program Percentage Ex- emptions ACL 19-57 (June 11, 2019) | Executive Summary – Cal- Fresh Waiver Extension\/Modification Approval: Deny Initial Applications Before The 30th Day ACL 19-55 (May 31, 2019) | Executive Summary – Cal- Fresh Authorized Representatives ACL 19-51 (May 23, 2019) | Executive Summary Cal- Fresh Eligibility For Residents Of Institutions ACL 19-50 (May 28, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh Claims Establishment: New Threshold For Closed Cases ACL 19-49 (May 20, 2019) | Executive Summary – Cal- Fresh Forms And Notices Updates Due To Expansion Of CalFresh To Supplemental Security Income Recipi- ents ACL 19-44 (May 9, 2019) | Executive Summary – Cal- Fresh Application Joint Processing By Social Secu- rity Administration And County Welfare Departments ACL 19-41 (April 29, 2019) | Executive Summary – Expanding CalFresh To Supplemental Security In- come (SSI) Recipients, Supplemental Nutrition Benefit Program, And Transitional Nutrition Benefit Program Quarterly Question And Answer No. 3 ACL 19-39E (June 11, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh And CalWORKs Electronic Notices ACL 19-39 (May 3, 2019) | Executive Summary – Cal- Fresh And CalWORKs Electronic Notices ACL 19-38 (April 22, 2019) | Executive Summary – Changes To The CalFresh Homeless Shelter Deduction Effective October 1, 2019 ACL 19-37 (May 2, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh List Of Emergency Food Providers: Implementation Of Assembly Bill 323 ACL 19-33 (April 16, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalWORKs And CalFresh: Nationwide Prisoner Match And Deceased Persons Match Processing Guidance ACL 19-32 (April 22, 2019) | Executive Sum- mary – CalFresh Student Eligibility: Clarification Regarding Cal Grants For Community College Students ACL 19-29 (April 12, 2019) | Executive Summary – CalFresh: Restaurant Meals Program Annual Letter ACL 19-13 (January 21, 2019) | Executive Sum- mary – California Work Opportunity And Re- sponsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) And CalFresh Implementation Of Assembly Bill (AB) 2030 (Chapter 485, Statutes Of 2018) ACL 19-12 (January 31, 2018) | Executive Sum- mary – Reversing Cash-Out Policy, Supplemental Nutrition Benefit Program, And Transitional Nu- trition Benefit Program Quarterly Question And Answer No. 2 ACL 19-10 (February 3, 2019) | Executive Sum- mary – CalFresh Recertification Delayed Process- ing ACL 19-09 (January 28, 2019) | Executive Sum- mary – CalFresh Implementation Of Senate Bill 1050: Eligibility For Exonerated Inmates And 15 Percent Exemptions Priority ACL 19-08 (February 9, 2019) | Executive Sum- mary – Use Of The Work Number For CalFresh, Across CalWORKs Programs And Program Integrity ACL 19-03 (January 22, 2019) | Executive Sum- mary – CalFresh New Notices And Updated Form For Intercounty Transfer Process CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 10 During the past decade there have been significant changes in the Food Stamp\/SNAP\/CalFresh program ac- cording to CDSS: 2008 – Face-to-Face Waiver W&IC section 18901.10 – Counties could waive the face-to-face intake interview to help streamline the application process and improve the Food Stamp Program’s administrative efficiency. This policy was imple- mented at county option beginning in 2008 and statewide in 2012. 2009 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 PL-111-5 – Participants in California’s Food Stamp Program were provided a 13.6 percent increase in monthly benefits that began on Febru- ary 17, 2009 and ended October 31, 2013. Expanded Categorical Eligibility Food Stamp Program W&IC section 18901.5 Categorical eligibility for the Food Stamp Program was expanded by waiving excess resource lim- its for households with minor children receiving TANF-funded benefits. 2011 – Inter-County Transfer W&IC sections 11053 (repealed), 11053.2 (repealed), and 10003 – An inter-county transfer process was implemented to ensure uninterrupted benefits for CalFresh households that move from one county to another1. Extended Modified Categorical Eligibility W&IC sections 18900.1 and 18901.5 Categorical eligibility was extended by waiving excess resource limits for households that include elderly\/disabled individuals receiving TANF-fund- ed benefits. 2012 – AR\/CO W&IC section 11265.45 – Ef- fective October 1, 2012, reporting for CalWORKs child-only cases was reduced from four reporting periods and five reports under QR\/Prospective Budgeting to one reporting period and one report under AR\/CO. California was unable to obtain federal waiver approval to fully align CalFresh reporting to CalWORKs. Therefore, CalFresh converted child-only CalWORKs cases to change reporting. All AR\/ CO CalFresh households converted to SAR for CalFresh purposes effective October 1, 2013. SFIS Elimination W&IC section 10830 (repealed) – The SFIS requirement for CalFresh households was eliminated beginning January 1, 20122. 2013 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance Pro- gram\/Standard Utility Allowance W&IC section 18901.2 – All CalFresh-eligible households were pro- vided a nominal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program outreach service benefit, which qualifies those households to have the Standard Utility Allowance used in the computation of their CalFresh benefit allotments, resulting in an increase in the amount of nutritional sup- port or new eligibility for some households. SAR W&IC sections 11265.1 and 11265.2 The QR system for households was replaced with a SAR system, which reduces the number of required income reports for non-child-only CalWORKs and CalFresh recipients to twice per year. In addition, a new mid-period income reporting threshold was imposed for CalFresh when household earnings reach 130 percent of the FPL. CalFresh cases with an associated CalWORKs case were also shifted to SAR. CalFresh Simplifications (e-Notifications and Telephonic Signatures) ACL 13-61 Counties may email notices in lieu of mailing hard-copy correspondence (NOA, informing notices, etc.) to house- holds who elect this option. Counties may also implement the federal option to record signatures electronically, eliminating the need to send documents to households to sign and return. 2014 – SUAS W&IC section 18901.2 and section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 CDSS implemented the SUAS effective July 1, 2014, replacing the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. CalFresh households who are not otherwise eligible for the Standard Utility Allowance in the compu- tation of their CalFresh allotment, and who do not already receive the maximum allotment for their household size, are issued a $20.01 cash payment once per year. Receipt of the SUAS payment allows such households to have the Standard Utility Allowance used in their benefit calcula- tion. CCWRO Welfare News 11 Modified Categorical Eligibility for CalFresh W&IC section 18901.5 Effective July 1, 2014, the gross income limit for the TANF\/MOE-funded service that confers Modi- fied Categorical Eligibility was increased for all CalFresh households (except those that have been disqualified or sanctioned) to the federally allowed maximum of 200 percent of the FPL. 2015 – Drug Felon Eligibility for CalFresh W&IC section 18901.3 – Effective April 1, 2015, the lifetime ban on CalFresh benefits for those convicted of certain drug felonies was lifted. The change was intended to bring greater stability to those released from prison as well as to decrease recidivism. Student Eligibility W&IC section 18901.11 – Existing federal law provides that students who are enrolled in college or other institutions of higher education at least half time are not eligible for SNAP benefits unless they meet one of the several specified exemptions, including participating in specified employment training programs. Statute expanded CalFresh eligibility to students who participate in educational programs that could be a component of CalFresh Employment and Training. Effective October 1, 2015, students participating in certain educational programs qualify for an exemp- tion. Eligible programs are determined by CDSS. Fleeing Felon Eligibility for CalFresh PL 110246 as implemented in 80 Federal Register 54410. In September 2015, FNS published new rules clarifying and narrowing the definition of fleeing felon. The new rules allow a majority of previously ineligible adults to become eligible for CalFresh benefits. The rules became effective No- vember 9, 2015, and were implemented in Califor- nia on December 1, 2015. 2016 – Eliminating Change Reporting W&IC sections 11265.1, 11265.2, 11265.3 and 18910. In July 2016, all households converted to SAR as CalFresh streamlined reporting requirements to use one household reporting system in the ongoing ef- fort to gain administrative simplicity and increased program access to CalFresh. Under QR (Califor- nia’s reporting system prior to SAR), federal rules excluded migrant and seasonal farmworker house- holds, homeless households, households in which all adults are elderly\/disabled, and households living on Indian reservations from reporting quar- terly and required these households to be assigned to Change Reporting. Change Reporting required households to report changes to certain eligibility factors (e.g., employment, income, residency, etc.) within 10 days of the change. Change Reporting was maintained for these households under Califor- nia’s implementation of SAR, but CalFresh’s new reporting requirement took advantage of a federal option to employ a single SAR measure. 2017 – Elderly Simplified Application Project and Standard Medical Deduction Section 17(b) (1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 – The ESAP is an effort to streamline CalFresh and CFAP enrollment among households composed solely of elderly and\/or disabled members, which includes a simplified recertification process and reduced reporting requirements for this population. House- holds with no earned income composed solely of elderly (defined as 60 years of age or older) and\/ or disabled members are certified for a three-year period. Additionally, no interview is required at recertification unless requested by the recipient. In conjunction with ESAP, CDSS implemented a standard medical deduction to further simplify processes for ESAP households as well as any non- ESAP household with a member who is elderly or disabled. All households with at least one elderly or disabled member will be able to claim a stan- dard medical deduction of $120 if they have veri- fied medical expenses of more than $35 per month. Households with actual medical expenses above the standard medical deduction may continue to claim and deduct their actual expenses. 2018 – ABAWD Time Limit 7 CFR section 273.24 – California had been under a statewide waiver of the ABAWD time limit since 2008 due to a high statewide unemployment rate. Effective Au- gust 31, 2018, the statewide waiver expired. Due to improved economic conditions, Santa Clara, CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 12 San Francisco, and San Mateo became ineligible for the waiver of the ABAWD time limit beginning September 1, 2018. All counties, including those that continue to qualify for a waiver of the ABAWD time limit, are responsible for tracking ABAWDs and implementing the time limit. Beginning Sep- tember 1, 2019, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin counties will also become ineligible. 2019 – CalFresh Overissuance Cost-Effective Threshold W&IC sections 18927 – On March 4, 2019 FNS approved California’s request to implement a cost-effective threshold for collect- ing CalFresh overissuances from former CalFresh recipients. The approved $400 threshold applies to inactive cases and includes administrative and inadvertent household errors. CDSS is currently as- sessing next steps for implementation, including the issuance of all county policy guidance and impact on eligibility system functionality. Additionally, counties are required to notify the De- partment when a mass overissuance has been identi- fied and include information in the notification as to whether the mass overissuance is known to have been caused by either negligence, fraud, or a major systemic error. A mass overissuance is an overissu- ance that is caused by the same action or inaction and impacts either 8 percent of the county CalFresh caseload, or more than 1,000 CalFresh households within the county, whichever is greater. CalFresh SSI Eligibility Expansion W&IC sections 18900.5, 18900.6, and 18900.7 AB 1811 (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2018) reverses the CalFresh eligibility policy known as cash-out, under which SSI\/SSP recipients are ineligible for CalFresh. Ef- fective June 1, 2019, individuals receiving SSI\/SSP are eligible for CalFresh, provided all other eligibil- ity criteria are met. Additionally, AB 1811 creates the SNB Program and the TNB Program to miti- gate the reduction of CalFresh benefits or CalFresh ineligibility some current CalFresh households may experience when a previously excluded SSI\/SSP recipient is added to the household. AB 1811 also augments the grant amount for the CAPI for parity with SSI\/SSP recipients. CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 13 Disaster CalFresh W&IC sections 18917 – Effec- tive January 1, 2018, California implemented a series of new requirements pertaining to Disaster CalFresh: Counties are required to submit an annual Disaster CalFresh plan as determined by CDSS in consultation with stakeholders and develop mutual aid agreements between counties to assist in the implementation of Disaster CalFresh. CDSS is required to implement the following: offer Disaster CalFresh training, maintain Disaster Cal- Fresh materials online, request Disaster CalFresh whenever a declaration of major disaster with Indi- vidual Assistance is made, which will include mass replacement and a request to waive hot foods restric- tions, ensure safe access to Disaster CalFresh applica- tion sites, and provide EBT support for counties when operating Disaster CalFresh. 1 SB 1339 (Chapter 801, Statutes of 2016, updated the Inter-County Transfer process adding W&IC sec- tion 10003 and repealed W&IC sections 10053 and 10053.2) 2 SB 89 (Statutes of 2017, Chapter 24) repealed W&IC 100830 when the finger printing requirement was also removed for CalWORK. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-08 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 150 Sacramento CA 95825-855 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. (cont’d on page 2) California is at the bottom of the barrel for CalFresh\/ SNAP participation in the United States. Only Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have lower rates than California. California spends millions on outreach and has the highest administrative costs in the country. Unlike most other states, California’s 58 counties operate its CalFresh program. This results in 58 different poli- cies and procedures to process CalFresh applications. Counties seem to be more interested in denying or closing Cal Fresh cases then authorizing benefits to starving families. It is not unusual for a child to go to bed hungry because their parents did not satisfy the county-specific procedural requirements. As the Table below demonstrates, over 50% of the April 2019 CalFresh applications were denied because of procedural requirements as opposed to the appli- cants being found ineligible. It is noteworthy that 78 % of the CalFresh denials in San Diego County are due to procedural denials. Similarly, the denial rate in San Francisco is 78%; Contra Costa, 77%; Orange, 74%; Riverside, 71%; Alameda, 74%; and Stanislaus, 63%. Procedural Reasons include such things as the household failed to complete the application process by not signing the application, not attending the inter- view, or failed to provide the requested verification. Source: CDSS CF 296 Instructions. On August 6, 2019, CDSS presented Stephen Gold- berg, Regional Counsel of Legal Services of Northern California, with a CDSS Lifetime achievement award for his advocacy on behalf of his law-income clients. Stephen’s biography follows. Stephen is the classic polymath\u2014he can do everything. Before he graduated from McGeorge, like any aspir- ing attorney, he competed in mock trial in high school and debated in college. He won a top attorney award in mock trial competition and a national economics writing contest. After graduating from High School in Palo Alto in 1987, Stephen attended UC San Diego. Stephen majored in political science with minors in history and law and society. He graduated cum laud with honors. Thereafter Stephen attended McGeorge School of Law and gradu- ated in 1994. He received the American Jurisprudence award for Federal Courts. After law school, Stephen did not choose the career that one would expect. He dedicated his life’s work to three things: public interest advocacy, training young minds, and music. Stephen started his long and active law service in public interest law focusing on housing and public benefits. He elected to work for the Human Rights\/Fair Housing Commission and Legal Services of Northern California as a staff attorney. He then worked for Lawyers for Civil Justice and the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations for a short time before rejoining LSNC. County Practices Result in Califor- nia’s Low CalFresh Participation Rate Stephen Goldberg, Legal Services of Northern CA, Honored by CDSS (cont’d on page 2) September 5, 2019 2 CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2019 2019-08 (Cont’d on page 3) A failure to sign a CalFresh application is confusing since 58% of the CalFresh applications are filed in person while the remaining 42% are filed on-line. It is puzzling how an application could be submitted without being signed. Another reason that counties deny an application is for not attending an interview. Frequently, missed interviews are the result of the county dictating the time and place of the appointment interview without considering whether the time and place is convenient for the applicants. Many times the applicant has to take the kids to school, or the doctor. Once the county sets the time and place for the appointment interview, it is difficult for the applicant to request a change in the appointment. In most counties, ap- plicants do not have workers. Even if they have an assigned worker it is hard for the applicant to contact the worker. In counties that use call centers, it is nearly impossible for the applicant to change an ap- pointment. Counties frequently deny CalFresh benefits for fail- ing to provide verification which is unnecessary to demonstrate eligibility. Counties often request a long list of documents from households to prove CalFresh eligibility. If the county doesn’t receive the extrane- ous documents, the case will be closed. Every month, counties are required to submit a CF 296 report detailing the number of applications received, the number denied because the household is ineligible, and the number denied for procedural reasons. Some counties, like Sacramento and Santa Clara simply do not submit the report. Nevertheless, CDSS continues to issue funding to non-reporting counties. What happens to CalFresh beneficiaries who do not report – benefits stopped summarily. See page 3 for county-by-county application denials due to procedural (bureaucratic). As a representative for advocates statewide, Stephen has reviewed countless draft regulations, All County Notices, and All County Information Notices for the CalWORKs, CalFresh, IHSS, and RCA programs and provided invalu- able input. After LSNC’s regional counsel, Jodie Berger, became a SHD judge, Stephen became acting regional counsel and took Jodie’s place as key advocate for public benefits. Stephen frequently gives voice to the advocate community in the State Hearings Arena. Not only does he provide well-reasoned comments to proposed State Hearing regu- lations and procedures, but he also doggedly participates in sub-committee meetings such as SB320 and ACMS. Stephen is a well-respected and much sought after panelist at the SHD’s Statewide Training Conference. Stephen is also a life-long debater who selflessly coaches several high school debate teams, including McClatchy High School in Sacramento and Nevada Union High School in Grass Valley each week. Stephen had a cameo appearance in a documentary movie about high school debate in 2007. Each January, the Debate organization announces the national debate topic for the next year. During the summer, Stephen conducts research on the topic and develops pro and con arguments. Then, from September to June, Stephen travels to Grass Valley and McClatchy almost every week to help students prepare for the debate tournaments. Stephen is the founder and president of the Sacramento Urban Debate League. After much work and politicking, he secured the National Catholic Forensic League Nation- al competition. The competition is held in Sacramento at multiple locations, including McClatchy High School, the Sacramento Convention Center, and Sacramento State University. Stephen shares his love for the law by teaching courses to undergraduate paralegal students at American River Col- lege in landlord tenant law and administrative law. In this way, he can be Professor Goldberg. He is also a mentor to new attorneys at LSNC and through Legal Aid As- sociation of California, a statewide organization for legal services programs. Finally, if these activities were not enough, Stephen plays trombone in the Sacramento City College Jazz Band. The band holds at least four concerts during the school year. He practices trombone at his LSNC office at 11:00 P.M. and has been told not to give up his day jobs. At some point during each concert, he has a solo. He usually gives a heads-up for the concert an hour in advance in the hope that no one can come. CCWRO is honored for Stephen’s friendship and support. Goldberg Honored (cont’d from page 1) County Practices (cont’d from page 1) CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2019 2019-08 May 2019 CalFresh Applications Denials May, 2019 – CF 296 Ineligibility Denials Procedural Denials Procedural Denials As Per- centage of Total Denials Statewide County Size 35168 35228 50% Sacramento Large NO REPORTS Santa Clara Large NO REPORTS Alpine Very Small 0 1 100% Mono Small 2 15 88% Colusa Small 4 19 83% Napa Medium 18 85 83% Placer Medium 58 253 81% San Luis Obispo Medium 55 213 79% Amador Small 11 41 79% San Diego Large 1036 3778 78% San Francisco Large 207 736 78% Yolo Medium 75 261 78% Contra Costa Medium 187 627 77% Santa Barbara Medium 150 478 76% Solano Medium 125 398 76% Orange Large 708 2017 74% Alameda Large 443 1242 74% San Mateo Medium 143 399 74% Ventura Medium 166 445 73% Riverside Large 1661 4067 71% Nevada Small 59 141 71% Santa Cruz Medium 84 184 69% Sutter Medium 61 131 68% Glenn Small 22 47 68% Butte Medium 319 579 64% El Dorado Medium 108 194 64% Stanislaus Medium 452 776 63% Fresno Large 601 996 62% Shasta Medium 272 427 61% Monterey Medium 216 338 61% Madera Medium 86 132 61% Tuolumne Small 44 67 60% Del Norte Small 47 66 58% Tehama Small 143 199 58% 3 CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2019 2019-08 4 San Benito Small 16 22 58% Mendocino Medium 76 103 58% Kern Medium 951 1278 57% Tulare Medium 219 289 57% Lassen Small 24 29 55% San Joaquin Medium 576 657 53% Siskiyou Small 67 72 52% San Bernardino Large 2246 2212 50% Marin Medium 143 134 48% Inyo Small 13 12 48% Trinity Small 36 32 47% Calaveras Small 52 46 47% Plumas Small 15 13 46% Merced Medium 575 475 45% Modoc Small 16 13 45% Mariposa Small 31 22 42% Humboldt Medium 672 463 41% Imperial Medium 255 171 40% Kings Medium 281 165 37% Yuba Small 143 83 37% Los Angeles Very Large 19047 9455 33% Lake Medium 481 126 21% Sonoma Medium 1665 4 0% Sierra Small 5 0 0% May 2019 CalFresh Applications Denials May, 2019 – CF 296 Ineligibility Denials Procedural Denials Procedureal Denials As Per- centage of Total Denials CCCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2019 5 Alameda County Denies Cal- Fresh Application For Not Keeping Future Appointment. Ms. 10456838 applied for CalFresh on February 22, 2019. The February 25, 2019 notice denied the CalFresh appli- cation for not keeping the 7:30 AM Cal- Fresh interview appointment scheduled for February 26, 2019. Ms. 10456838 filed for a state hearing indicating that she disagreed with Alameda County’s decision. The Alameda County appeals unit reviewed the case and decided that the county acted appropriately and that any reasonable person would have completed the interview. The county argued under oath that Alameda County was right to deny the application for not keeping the CalFresh appointment on February 26, 2019 at 7:30 am, even though the county mailed the denial letter on February 26, 2019. This is another example of the so-called procedural reasons that Alameda County uses to justify denying 74% of its CalFresh ap- plications. CalFresh Punishes Beneficiaries Who Work In Los Angeles Coun- ty. Ms. 104572890 is a beneficiary of the CalFresh program. In 2018, Ms. 104572890 worked and reported her employment on the SAR 7 but subse- quently lost her job prior to December 2018. In January 2019, she received a new SAR 7. The county explained that she should put down all of the infor- mation for the report month that is on the upper right-hand side of the SAR 7. The January 1, 2019 SAR-7 asked: Did anyone get income from employment in the Report Month? \uf06f Yes \uf06f No (If yes, complete the section below and at- tach proof). The Report Month is listed at the top of the first page. List each job for each person who works. If you need more space attach a separate piece of paper. Examples include baby-sit- ting, salary, self-employment, sick pay, tips. Etc. If you lost your job, attach proof. Ms. 104572890 completed the SAR7 and reported no income because in the report month she had no earned or unearned in- come. On January 30, 2019 she received a notice of action stating that her CalFresh benefits would stop effective March 1, 2019 because you did not submit a complete Semi-Annual Report (SAR-&) for December 2018. Los Angeles County succeeded in punishing Ms. 104572890 for working and then not having a job in December 2018 to report. The county’s termination of benefits was upheld by the State Hearing decision. Los Angeles County Denies Cal- WORKs Application For Not Keep- ing An Unscheduled Face-To-Face Appointment. On January 31, 2019 Ms. 104570613 and her three children applied for CalWORKs in Los Angeles County. Ms. 104570613 completed her scheduled tele- phone interview on February 27, 2019. On April 19, 2019, Ms. 104570613 received a notice of action stating the denial of her ap- County CalFresh Victims of the Month (Cont’d on page 6) CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2019 2019-08 6 plication because she failed to complete the face-to-face interview. LA County never scheduled a face-to-face inter- view. After spending millions of dollars on a new computer system, the com- puter still denies applications for not keeping a face-to-face interview that was never scheduled. The other prob- lem with this case is that the County denied the application took place on the 70th day and not the 45th day. Orange County Uses Blocked Numbers to Complete CalFresh Interviews. Given the proliferation of spam callers whose sole purpose is to defraud unsuspecting individu- als, law enforcement and advocates recommend that unknown or blocked numbers should not be answered. In keeping with this advice, Ms. 1BBWS63 of Orange County programmed her phone to not accept calls from blocked numbers. Ms. 1BBWS63 applied for CalFresh at the age of 79 years. 211 helped her with the application and transmitted documents to the Orange County Welfare Office. She received a letter from her worker, Ms. Saylor in- forming her that she had a telephonic interview at 10 am. When she did not receive a call, she called the worker, Ms. Saylor, who then conducted the interview. During the interview she was informed that the worker had, in fact, called from a blocked number. As Ms. 1BBWS63 receives so many spam calls, her phone blocked the CalFresh work- er’s call. The county worker also said that the county never got the verifica- tion that was transmitted to them by 211. She had to mail another packet of the same information to Orange Coun- ty. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Ser- vices has provided CCWRO with 2019 call center statistics in response to a California Public Records Act Request. The records paint a picture of a time-consuming and un- helpful process for IHSS recipients and providers, matching the anecdotal reports of recipients and advocates. Excessive Wait Times. Callers abandoned around half of all calls coming into the help line. This high abandonment rate probably results from the long wait times. The majority of abandoned calls occurred after more than 20 minutes in the wait queue. On average, callers waited 20-30 minutes to speak with a person. Ineffective Self Service. Callers who tried using the auto- mated Self Service system found this option particularly unhelpful. Only about 35% of callers resolved their issues or questions through Self Service. This means that 2 out of 3 callers wasted their time using Self Service and still had to wait 20-30 minutes to speak with a worker. Unprepared Workers. Once the callers actually spoke to a helpline representative, they only had a 60% chance of speaking with a worker who was ready to address their issue. In 2019, social workers received about 30,000 calls per month and resolved only about 11,000 of those calls, a resolution rate of around 36%. Senior Clerks received about 70,000 calls per month and resolved about 40,000 of those calls, a 57% resolution rate. In July 2019, callers who waited the 20-30 minutes to speak to a human still had their issue resolved less than 50% of the time. Stagnant Improvement. The statistics show little im- provement over time from the beginning of 2019. In fact, July saw a notable uptick in wait times and abandoned calls. This highlights the problems with LA County’s at- tempt to depersonalize and automate duties once performed by IHSS caseworkers familiar with individual case files and recipients. It suggests that the county has devoted insuffi- cient training and resources to support and improve the call center. IHSS Call Center: Long Waits, Few Resolutions in LA County (Cont’d from page 5)Los Angeles County The Truth About Improper Payments – Mostly Caused by Food Stamp\/ SNAP\/ CalFresh Agencies and not beneficiaries DATE: November 8, 2018 – AUDIT NUMBER: 27401-0003-11 As 60 percent of SNAP’s payment errors are caused by State agencies, FNS works with States to strengthen the upfront eligibility determination process through system improvements, policy training, im- proved data matching and verification. The remaining 40 percent of payment errors are client caused. FNS works with States to improve client education efforts and the clarity of notices to ensure application and reporting instructions are clearly conveyed. Gil H. Harden, FNS Assistant Inspector General for Audit -Washington, D.C. – November 7, 2018 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2019-11 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-855 Telephone (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 December 11, 2019 (cont’d on page 2) 4 CalSAWS Update -The CalSAWS system, built by the counties for the counties according to the Cal- SAWS Past President, but paid with federal and state funds are migrating to an Amazon Connect platform. Here are the go-live dates for the C-IV Migration to Amazon Connect platform. County Go-Live Date Marin Monday, November 25, 2019 Kern Friday, January 10, 2020 Sutter Friday, January 24, 2020 Yuba Friday, January 24, 2020 Butte Friday, January 31, 2020 Shasta Friday, January 31, 2020 San Bernardino Friday, February 21, 2020 Humboldt Friday, March 6, 2020 Stanislaus Friday, March 6, 2020 Monterey Friday, March 20, 2020 Kings Friday, March 27, 2020 Riverside Friday, April 10, 2020 Merced Friday, April 10, 2020 San Joaquin Friday, April 10, 2020 4 During 2019-2020 each CalSAWS three compo- nents; LRS, C-IV and CalWIN, get 8,000 hours of code writing funding each month. What happens during those 8,000 hours is a mystery and we hope to get information from CalSAWS as to how they use those hours funded with welfare money. Meanwhile, changes suggested by representatives of public social services program beneficiaries are rejected alleging there are not enough resources available to make the changes. 4 CDSS provided information on new language incorporated on all ACL’s that reads Implementa- tion date by XX or when automated in SAWS or Consortia . When SAWS is referenced, it means when automation can occur in the three consortia systems (CalWIN, C4, or LRS). When CalSAWS is referenced, it means automation in the one statewide consortia system scheduled to be live in all counties by 2023. If the changes cannot be automated by the implementation date, the change will be delayed until the consortia systems can automate. Without automa- tion, the counties will be utilizing work-arounds and beneficial changes to beneficiaries will have to wait for technology. 4 CDSS Draft ACL Letter on Earned Income Disregard (EID) and Income Reporting Thresh- old (IRT) CalWORKs cases will remain open with a $0 grant until the family is over the 130% IRT or at the client request. This is to allow the family to continue receiving regular WTW services rather than post-aid services. The family will remain eli- gible for special needs, such as, homeless assistance. Additionally, the family will be required to abide by all WTW reporting and redetermination responsibili- ties. Counties shared concerns on how this will affect the clients’ CW, TANF, WTW timeclocks, TCF, and WTW sanctions if the client fails to participate. CDSS response to these concerns are unknown at this time. 4 Child Care Immediate Approval and 12- month eligibility – CDSS confirmed that available child care slots will be open to all CW recipient’s including ARCO sanctioned cases. Child Care availability be- CCWRO Welfare News December 11, 2019 2019-11 (cont’d from page 1) gan Oct 1, 2019. The Child Care ACL was released on September 30. The new rule applies to all Cal- WORKs applicants and recipients. CalWORKs ben- eficiaries who are recipients have not been told that they are eligible for childcare for 12-months. Most counties are not complying with the law. For example, Los Angeles County Call-Out 19-64 speci- fies that in order to activate the 12-month childcare, the beneficiary must turn in a county drafted PA129. The PA 129 is provided to applicants at the time of application. The LADPSS policy issuance further states that recipients will be given the PA 129 at the time of their annual redetermination. DSS requires a CCP 7 form and not the county PA 129. 4 CDSS provided answers to the following outstanding SB 726 questions – SB 726 will set the overpayment recoupment threshold over $250 and require a county to expunge an overpayment if the county determines that the overpayment has been caused by a major systemic error or negligence. Q. Does the 36 consecutive months start from the date of discovery? A. No, the 36 consecutive months timeframe should begin on the month following the Cal- WORKs case discontinuance, not the date of dis- covery. Q. Does the discharging provision only cover a court ordered settlement agreement? Or does it cover both settlement agreements and civil judge- ments? A. The discharge provision would be applicable to both settlement agreements and civil judgements as long as the overpayments are not fraudulent. Q. Will the automation of the discharge include gen- erating the informing notice to the client(s)? A. Yes, CDSS is working with SAWS to ensure the informing notice is automated. Q. Can the State provide an example of when there is more than one individual liable for the OP? A. The most prominent example is two parent AUs where one parent has moved out of the home and is no longer receiving cash aid, but the other parent and child are still being aided. In this example, the overpayment will not be discharged for the parent no longer receiving aid and will only be discharged once both parents are no longer receiving CalWORKs cash aid for 36 con- secutive months. We are requesting CDSS address the fact that if coun- ties collect on an OP that has a balance of less than $250 after July 1, 2019, that counties do not have to repay it, but would simply quit collecting on the OP. CDSS is currently conducting further research on this question. 4Temporary Census Income – The income for Cal- Fresh is exempt and counties will need to count income as appropriate for each program. AB 807 also exempts this income for CalWORKs purposes and the imple- mentation is for Oct 1. 4The California Welfare Directors Association has new elected officials for 2020: President – Ann Edwards, Sacramento County Executive Officer – Chevon Kothari, Mariposa County VP At Large – Elizabeth Kelly, Colusa County VP of Administration – Bob Menicocci, Santa Clara County VP of Services – Jennifer Vasquez, Yuba County VP of Program – Barry Zimmerman, Ventura County Secretary\/Treasurer – Sanja Bugay, Kings County 4Integrated Fraud Detection (IFD) Discontinuances – Several counties have concerns with the IFD draft ACL. Counties are instructed not to discontinue Cal- WORKs if the client does not respond to a CalWORKs request for information and county is unable to obtain information. CCWRO Welfare News December 11, 2019 2019-11 TABLE #1 – Actual 5\/19 WtW Participation Facts Type of WtW case Number of Cases Percentage Does CWD Work on the Case? Is Funding Justified? Actual Unduplicated participants 68,294 40% Yes Yes Sanctioned Case 51,425 30% Maybe 10% Only 10% Exempt Cases 52,586 30% No No TOTAL 172,305 100% 43% Only 43% TABLE #2 – January-March 2019 Housing Assistance data for FS. Of the FS cases in Item 1(Table 3), Homeless support\/services received during the quarter: Rental Assistance 490 Security Deposits 91 Utility Payments 166 Moving Cost Assistance 34 Hotel Assistance 804 Direct Assistance Payment to Families 1419 Families Receiving County Services without any Direct Assistance 2018 TOTAL 3603 To allocate over about 2 billion dollars to county welfare offices, the Employment Services case- load is comprised of all adults that are required to participate in a WTW activity (including (1) participants, (2) sanctioned, non-compliant, and (3) exempt due to good cause) as well as those with a WTW exemption who are voluntarily participating. See TABLE #3. In Table #1 the May 2019 WtW reports reveal the participants, sanctioned and exempts: The CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Puzzling Funding Game Even though there are 68,294 cases actually being participating in some way, the counties receive funding for 157,368 cases. This is a 57% overpayment to counties. The major number of hours are allocated to the 29,159 cases that are receiving Family Stabili- zation (FS). What is FS? It is county assistance for adults who have domestic violence (DV), mental health, substance abuse or housing issues. The FS issues are revealed when the adult competes the Online CalWORKs Ap- praisal Tool (OCAT). If the adult identifies do- mestic violence, mental health, substance abuse or housing issue, it does not mean they will be diverted to FS. They can still be required to participate with these problems identified in OCAT. The domestic violence, mental health, substance abuse ser- vices are essentially a referral to those service. Counties are already funded for DV, mental health, substance abuse ser- vices. The housing service is confusing in that counties are funded for Homeless Assistance Program, Housing Support Program and not the FS program. The only one that is an entitlement is the Homeless Assistance Program. TABLE #2 for the 1st quarter of 2019 FS homeless services. CCWRO Welfare News December 11, 2019 2019-11 4 $1.7 billion is available for the county single allocation for welfare to work services which includes an increase of $43.9 million for fiscal year (FY) 2019-2020. The highest amount of time is devoted to Family Stabilization (FS) Services. The second category is this so- called barrier removal which is how Family Stabilization is described in ACL 15-09. This group is 80,311, which is 12,017 more cases that the actual number of cases participating in a WtW activity during May of 2019. And then there are the young exempt and sanctioned cases that get 30 minutes a month. There are cases that are basically banked and in most counties are never looked at. In fact, in most cases when a sanctioned individual wants to participate, they contact their eligibility who tells them talk to the GAIN or welfare-to-work worker. When they call the GAIN office or the WtW office, they are told they do not have a worker to talk to. Sorry, your case has not been assigned to anybody . But that does that justify an unassigned case being allocated 30 minutes each month for being unassigned? TABLE #3 CalWORKs WtW 2019-2020 Budget employ- ment specialist cost per hour-$100.34 Cases Time Per case Total Funding Per Case Admin. Costs Direct Service Costs 1) Intensive cases, for WTW families in crises requiring intensive employment barrier removal, and that may also be receiving additional assis- tance from other supportive programs 29,159 5 hours $501.70 $311.54 $189.16 2) Basic cases, for WTW families requiring some barrier removal and work training to gain and retain employment, 80,311 3 hours $301.02 $186.63 $114.39 3) Work Ready cases, for families with job skills and work experience that are ready to re-enter the workforce with minimal supportive services, and 9,041 1 hour $100.32 $62.20 $38.12 4) Re-engagement and Young Child Exempt cases, for re-engagement efforts with cases that have been sanctioned more than 12 months and employment preparation for cases with a young child exemption. 38,857 30 minutes $50.16 $31.10 $19.06 CCWRO Welfare News December 11, 2019 2019-11 5 Congratulations to CCWRO board member, Kishwer Vikaas for receiving the Sacramento Business Journal’s 40 under 40 Award! Kishwer, Immigration clinic staff at- tory at University of the Pacific Mc- George Community Legal Services, was recognized for her outstanding immigration work with victims of vio- lent crime, unaccompanied minors, Dreamers and so much more. Kishwer is a great advocate and big part of our CCWRO family. CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 7 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 8 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 9 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 10 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 11 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 12 CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 13 ”