Search Demo

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-01 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. February 06, 2020 We Welcome CDSS New Leadership Appointments- Meet Them According to Governor Newsom’s Press Re- lease Jennifer Troia, 41, of Sacramento, has been appointed chief deputy director of adult, children and families programs at the Califor- nia Department of Social Services. Troia has been principal consultant for the Joint Legis- lative Budget Committee since 2018. She was policy advisor on human services and child care for the Office of Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de Leon from 2014 to 2017 and deputy director and principal consultant for K-12 education for the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review from 2013 to 2014, where she was principal consultant for human services from 2009 to 2013. Troia was principal consultant for the Assembly Human Services and Foster Care Select Committees from 2008 to 2009, director of advocacy for the California Court Appointed Special Advo- cates Association from 2006 to 2008 and an attorney at the Youth Law Center from 2004 to 2006. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Troia is a Democrat. According to Governor Newsom’s Press Re- lease Marcela M. Ruiz, 44, of Stockton, has been appointed director of the Office of Equity at the California Department of Social Ser- vices. Ruiz has been chief of the Immigration Branch, Family Engagement and Empower- ment Division at the Department of Social Services since 2016. She was deputy direc- tor at California Rural Legal Assistance Inc. (CRLA) from 2013 to 2016, where she held several positions from 2006 to 2013, including regional director, directing attorney, staff at- torney and a Berkeley Law Foundation fellow. She was a law clerk at the East Bay Communi- ty Law Center from 2004 to 2005, co-founder and board secretary at Casa Mexico from 2000 to 2003 and assistant director of organizing at the New York Hotel Trades Council from 1999 to 2003. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Ruiz is a Democrat. Jennifer Troia Chief Deputy Director for Adult, Family & Childrens Programs Marcela Ruiz Director, CDSS Office of Equity CCWRO Welfare News February 06, 2020 2020-01 According to Governor Newsom’s Press Release Natasha Nico- lai, 37, of Sacramento, has been appointed chief data strategist for the California Department of Social Ser- vices. Nicolai has served as branch chief of the Cali- fornia Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids and Family Resilience program since 2019, where she served as lead research consultant for California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids from 2016 to 2019. Nicolai was a researcher at Mathematica Policy Research from 2014 to 2019. She earned a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley and a Doctor of Physical Therapy degree from the University of Puget Sound. Nicolai is a Democrat. According to Governor Newsom’s Press Release Alexis Fernandez, 34, of Sacramento, has been ap- pointed branch chief for the CalFresh Branch at the California Department of Social Services, where she has served as acting branch chief since 2019. Fernan- dez was chief of the CalFresh Policy Bureau at the Department of Social Services from 2016 to 2019. She was policy director for the First 5 Association of California from 2015 to 2016 and director of legisla- tion for California Food Policy Advocates from 2013 to 2015. Fernandez earned a Master of Social Welfare degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Fernandez is a Democrat. A Sacramento County Sheriff Department deputy al- leged that CCWRO’s Executive Director, Kevin Aslanian, broke the law by his presence and activities in the Sacra- mento County Welfare Department building and ordered him to either leave or face arrest. His crime: handing out fliers informing beneficiaries of their rights to redress the county’s decisions through legal action. Prior to this incident, Mr. Aslanian had emailed the DHA Deputy Director a copy of the flier and informed him of his plans to distribute them. When Mr. Aslanian arrived at the welfare department, he provided a courtesy copy to the Sheriff’s deputy present in a security role after distributing most of the flyers. After allegedly reviewing the flier’s content with County staff personnel, the deputy returned, ordered Mr. Aslanian to leave, and threatened him with arrest. I guess he did not like what the flyer said said Mr. Aslanian. When Mr. Aslanian met with Sacramento County leader- ship to address the incident, County leadership rejected the idea that armed forces in welfare offices might deter marginalized people from seeking benefits and insisted that County workers need lethally armed officers to protect them. The Deputy Director of the Department of Human Assistance stated that as a matter of long-term practice, we have not allowed the passing out of flyers within our locations without prior authorization. Passing out fliers within the confines of busy lobbies can create issues that impede the general operation. The Deputy Director conceded that Mr. Aslanian neither impeded the office’s general operations nor caused any disturbance. He stated that he did not know of any law that Mr. Aslanian had broken. The Deputy Director also stated that although he had not reviewed the flier, he would have cleared the way for Mr. Aslanian’s activi- ties. He could not say why County staff did not want Mr. Aslanian to distribute the flier after reviewing it. When asked for guidance on whether County policy required prior approval of written materials by the Director before distribution, the Deputy Director stated adamantly that it did not. County leadership and counsel promised that they would produce a written policy on distribution of written materials in welfare officers. 2 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DENIES CCWRO’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AT WELFARE OFFICE by Erin Simonitch, Senior Staff AttorneyNatasha Nicolai Chief Data Strategist Alexis Fernandez CalFresh Branch Chief CCWRO Welfare News February 06, 2020 2020-01 3 The presence of lethally armed officers in the county welfare office demonstrates the longstanding criminalization and stigma experienced by California’s welfare beneficiaries. This is not the first time CCWRO’s staff has faced threats and intimidation from Sacramento law enforcement, which the county pays from its social services budget to provide security to its employees. If these armed officers use the threat of force with impunity to impede the First Amendment rights of advocates, how much more frightening might their activities appear to vulnerable people seeking support? Our communities have not forgotten Operation Talon, in which law enforcement across the country used food stamp notices to entrap aid recipients and arrest them at welfare offices as recently as 2006.1 Just last year, New York City ex- perienced the consequences of criminalizing social services recipients after a police officer tore a screaming child from his mother’s arms, resulting in a public relations nightmare and a costly settlement.2 County welfare departments would do well to keep such incidents in mind before using armed officers to police beneficiaries. State law requires lead testing for one and two-year-old children enrolled in Medi-Cal. But between 2009 and 2018, providers tested only 27% of eligible children. More than 1.4 million children did not receive the required testing. Worse, many children who missed testing live in areas with elevated lead levels. On January 7, 2020, the California State Auditor released a damning report on California state agencies’ negligent administration of the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The full report is available in full at https:\/\/www. auditor.ca.gov\/reports\/2019-105\/responses.html. Califor- nia State Auditor Elaine Howle found that Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) failed to ensure that legally required testing occurred. Furthermore, the audit revealed that CDPH (California Department of Public Health) is not prioritizing the prevention of lead poisoning. 1 Kaaryn Gustafson, The Criminalization of Poverty, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 99 Issue 3 (2009), p. 670-671. 2 Nikita Stewart, $625,000 Settlement for Woman Whose Child Was Torn From Her Arms, The New York Times, Dec. 13, 2019, available at https:\/\/ www.nytimes.com\/2019\/12\/13\/nyregion\/jazmine-head- ley-video-settlement.html The negligence of the responsible agencies risks the health and future of millions of California children who should be tested for early childhood lead exposure. Despite a decade of abysmal compliance rates, DHCS failed to implement incentives for lead testing or establish measurable stan- dards for compliance. Meanwhile, the CDPH failed to ad- dress lead hazard abatement and enforce compliance with state mandates. It ducked its legal obligation to protect the youngest and most vulnerable Californians by delegating lead prevention to local programs. CDPH failed to provide any evidence to show that its local programs have actually mitigated lead exposure. The agencies’ abject failure to protect children from lead poisoning reflects priorities that elevate provider profits over a healthy future for young Californians. Providers and insurers know that if they test lead-exposed children, they will have to spend money treating them. If they neglect the testing, they protect their profits. Far from insuring testing, CDPH and DHCS have enabled willful ignorance among their industry stakeholders. Have the agencies forgotten that they work for all Californians, not just those who hold shares in health care corporations? Audit Highlights DHCS neglected its responsibility to ensure that children in Medi-Cal receive required tests at the ages of one and two years to check for elevated lead levels. Medi-Cal’s EPSDT program mandates these tests for all Medi-Cal eligible children. Yet DHCS has not enforced this require- ment. Instead, the Department has proposed giving health care providers even more money to encourage lead test- ing that they are already committed to perform. It seems DHCS considers lead testing optional, even though the law makes it mandatory. CDPH failed to identify areas of the State at high risk for childhood lead exposure and failed to take steps to reduce lead risks in those areas. Instead of proactively address- ing lead exposure hazards, CDPH only monitors lead abatement in the homes of children who already have lead poisoning. CDPH delegated most of its responsibilities to local lead prevention programs and never assessed the per- formance of the local programs. CDPH also failed to meet several legislative mandates, such as updating the factors health care providers use to identify children who need testing for lead poisoning. Agency Responses Double Down on Passing the Buck DHCS and CDPH responses to the State Auditor’s report continued their decade-long abdication of their responsibil- ity to protect California’s at-risk children. The agencies’ responses are included with the State Auditor’s comments. DHCS responded with a plan that fails to address the need for finalized performance standards on lead testing. It claims to have implemented a payment program for lead DHCS AND CDPH SHIRK STATUTORY DUTY TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM LEAD POISONING by Daphne Macklin, CCWRO Research CCWRO Welfare News February 06, 2020 2020-01 testing, contradicting information it had provided during the state audit. It also proposed a toothless notification plan for informing providers of statutory lead testing require- ments. CDPH’s response primarily defended its current policies and practices. The response shows a remarkable lack of good faith engagement with the Auditor’s recommenda- tions. The Auditor’s comments to CDPH call out the agency’s inadequate response on the following issues: \u00b7 In its defense, CDPH cited a confidential draft report, leaving the Auditor with no way to verify or dispute the agency’s claims. \u00b7 CDPH gave no evidence to support claims that it targeted high-risk areas for prevention. \u00b7 CDPH did not address concerns that the agency does not know whether its outreach has actually reduced incidences of lead poisoning. \u00b7 CDPH’s response misinterpreted the State Audi- tor’s recommendations in several respects and provided irrelevant statements in response to the Auditor’s report. \u00b7 CDPH cited specious privacy concerns related to its data-collection forms as a shield to avoid mak- ing its data (or lack thereof) public. \u00b7 CDPH cherry-picked the text of the Auditor’s recommendations to support its current policy and practice of inaction on early childhood lead exposure. \u00b7 CDPH’s response attempted to co-opt the legisla- tive process and obfuscate data by proposing a burdensome public information request process instead of the Auditor’s legislative recommen- dation for an online registry of lead inspection information. \u00b7 CDPH’s response included assertions that are factually inaccurate, specifically claiming that it introduced different allocation methods when it did not do so. \u00b7 CDPH has cited the parental right to refuse ser- vices as an excuse for failing to allocate funding in an equitable fashion throughout the state. WHY IS BLOOD LEAD TESTING NECESSARY? In its introduction, the State Auditor’s January 7, 2020 Report describes lead as a commonly used, naturally oc- curring element that is highly toxic to people and animals. The common existence of lead in our environment, par- ticularly air and soil, results from lead present in gasoline, paint, ceramics and costume jewelry. The wide use of lead in water pipes, cosmetics, and serving dishes also contrib- ute to lead exposure. Although federal law now strictly limits the use of lead as an additive for many products, many people still work with lead for commercial and industrial purposes. Extensive research has led most scientists to now believe that there is no safe level of lead exposure. Lead can can impact young children’s physical growth and adversely af- fect calcium-rich structures such as teeth and bones. Lead exposure also causes negative impacts on the develop- ment of the brain and nervous system. It can have life-long health consequences including developmental delays, behavioral disabilities,anemia, cardiovascular disease, and hearing issues. Because lead chemically resembles calcium, a child exposed to lead grows up with poison imbedded in their bones. This leads to one of the most chilling documented effects of lead poisoning, which occurs when a woman exposed to lead as a child becomes pregnant. Lead-con- taminated fetal calciumis transferred from mother to child during pregnancy. After birth, a baby can also absorb lead through the nursing mother’s breast milk. Children also suffer lead exposure through eating lead paint chips, breathing contaminated air, drinking con- taminated water, or playing in soil or dirt where previous industrial or commercial uses of the property used lead. Lead in the blood stream is cumulative. Currently, the medical standard for lead exposure for 12-month old and 24-month old children is set at 4.5 micrograms (mcg) of lead per deciliter of blood. Some experts recommend reducing this number to 2.5 mcg. Public health experts rec- ommend, and medical standards require active monitoring of any child, his or her siblings and housemates with blood lead levels (BLL) of 10.5 mcg or greater. Actual harm, including hearing loss and behavioral issues, may occur at exposure levels of 15.0 mcg or less. References and links Source: The information in the article is based on the cited references including the January 7, 2020 California State Auditor’s January 7, 2020 Report on California’s low level of required blood lead testing for Medi-Cal recipient children (https:\/\/www.auditor.ca.gov\/reports\/2019-105\/ index.html), web-based information for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the California State Child- hood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch which is within the California Department of Public Health. CDPH’s California Management Guidelines on Child- hood Lead Poisoning for Health Care Providers; California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch Information for Health Care Providers; https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nceh\/lead\/ prevention\/blood-lead-levels.htm CDC Federal resources and references: Response to Advi- sory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call of Primary Prevention; Recom- mendations of the Advisory Committee for Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention; Summary of Recommenda- tions for Follow-up and Case Management of Children Based on Confirmed Blood Lead Levels CCWRO Welfare News February 06, 2020 2020-01 5 County Welfare Department Client Abuse REPORT CalWORKs wife and mother caring for disabled husband denied exemption. Ms. 104592856 received a Notice of Action on July 11, 2019 from San Diego County stating that the county reduced claimant’s CalWORKs benefits from $924.00 to $772.00 effec- tive August 1, 2019. The NOA stated the reduction occurred because the claimant no longer has a con- dition that meets the rule to obtain cash aid after the 48-month time limit. The claimant’s husband is on SSI and he had provided several CW 61 forms stating that he needs his wife to care for him. Ms. 104592856 did not accept the unlawful deci- sion of San Diego County. She filed for a state hear- ing and the ALJ found that she meets the criteria for an exemption to the 48-month-limit for CalWORKS effective August 1, 2019 because she has provided at- home care for an incapacitated household member since August 1, 2019. San Diego County failed to issue the required notice of action to inform the AU of their 42nd month of CalWORKS time on aid. The county had information that the AU had a possible time on aid exception due to the care of incapacitated household member previ- ously used as an exemption by the claimant per MPP Section 40-107(a)(4)(C) and ACL 16-76. The pur- pose of the 42nd month notice of action is to provide the AU information about possible exemptions and exceptions. Alameda County prevented from taking $899. Ms. 104605469 asked for a state hearing on September 19, 2019 to contest Alameda County Collections Department’s August 14, 2019 demand letter for the collection of an $899 for a 1999 CalWORKs overpay- ment. The letter said that if she did not repay, the col- lection department would confiscate her income tax refund. Ms. 104605469 stated under penalty of perjury that she was not in the country in 1999 and that she had never applied for CalWORKs cash aid nor received CalWORKs benefits. At the hearing the county could not produce any evidence that a CalWORKs overpay- ment existed for Ms. 104605469. The county only re- scinded the alleged overpayment because she asked for a state hearing. If she had not, the county would have unlawfully taken $899 from her and gotten away with the theft. SSI applicant denied CalFresh Benefits. Mr. 104617704 is a disabled 46-year-old male who receives Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplementary Payment (SSI\/SSP) benefits. Mr. 104617704 submitted an online application for CalFresh benefits on June 12, 2019. On June 18, 2019, he participated in a telephonic CalFresh interview. According to a June 19, 2019 case comment, the eli- gibility worker who conducted the interview sent the claimant a SAR 7 form. The eligibility worker errone- ously required Mr. 104617704 to complete a SAR 7 be- cause the SAR 7 is not required for SSI beneficiaries applying for CalFresh. The case comments also indicate that the Claimant completed and signed additional forms. A case com- ment from June 28, 2019 states that Mr. 104617704 allegedly called the eligibility worker and left a mes- sage following up on CalFresh documents that were mailed to him. The eligibility worker noted that she would return the call at the end of the day as his CW 2200 form (verification request) was due that day. The case comments do not indicate when the County mailed a CW 2200 to the Claimant. In a July 22, 2019 case comment, the eligibility worker who conducted the June 18, 2019 phone interview with the Claimant wrote that Mr. 104617704’s CalFresh application was denied on July 1, 2019, because he did not complete the intake packet. At hearing, Mr. 104617704 testified that he never re- ceived a request for verification and did not recall re- ceiving a CalFresh intake packet. He also testified that when he called his eligibility worker to follow up on his application, she informed him that all of the CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 6 documentation required to process his applica- tion had been submitted. He questioned why the County could not just approve his application based on the information and documentation he had already submitted. The County Appeals Specialist stated that the SAWS 2 CalFresh appli- cation in the Claimant’s case file was only par- tially completed and that more information was required to process his application. She stated that she did not find proof that the intake packet and the verification requests had been mailed to the Claimant. The hearing was held on November 21, 2019 and Mr. 104617704 still has not received his CalFresh benefits. Mr. 104595890 unlawfully denied IHSS Protective Supervision by Riverside County. Mr. 104595890 is 58-year-old with a diagnosis of dementia and Chiari Malformation. He has limit- ed right hand mobility and experiences dizziness. He rents a room at a care facility. Six weeks before the administrative hearing, Mr. 104595890 was di- agnosed with Parkinson’s. Mr. 104595890, with the help of his sister, filed for a state hearing after Riverside County denied Protective Supervision. At hearing, it was the County’s position that the recipient was not enti- tled to Protective Supervision because he is self-di- recting, despite his mental impairment. Mr. 104595890’s provided evidence that he needs Protective Supervision because of his Chiari Malformation, a form of brain damage in which the brain is pushed off the brainstem as if he got kicked in the head by a horse. Subsequent surgery to put the brain back on its stem was not effective. Mr. 104595890 continued to have post-surgery nausea and pressure, similar to damage result- ing from a car accident. His brain injury affects his decision-making and impairs his executive functioning. Although Mr. 104595890 presents as a normal adult, the Chiari Malformation causes him to wander away from home and make poor decisions that have led to frequent run-ins with law enforcement. He has had about 10 run-ins with police because he was wandering. When contacted by police, Mr. 104595890 lies prone on the floor and refuses to move. He can remember his sis- ter and nephews’s telephone numbers, but they do not receive calls until after he gets into trouble. After eval- uating all of the evidence, the ALJ reversed Riverside County’s unlawful denial of benefits, restoring protec- tive supervision to Mr. 104595890. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-02 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 pro- grams in California. Types of services offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, IHSS, CAPI, Child Care, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. March 10, 2020 IN BRIEF California’s SSI recipients did not get their January 1, 2020 1.6% COLA this year because California’s county-operated computer systems was able to get the job done. As a result, at least a million SSI recipi- ents who desperately needed the additional income to keep up with inflation did not receive the 2020 federal passthrough COLA. County computer system opera- tors hope to have the COLA by March 1, 2020 but they are silent as to whether the COLA will be retroactive to January 1st. The 2021 Federal Budget confirms that only 21.4% of all TANF funds are used to provide cash assistance to America’s needy families. Since the federal FY 2021 budget cuts about 1.5 billion from TANF funding, ad- vocates will need to watch where California decides to make TANF cuts. The SNAP 2021 budget proposes to cut $180 billion from the SNAP program over a 10-year period. In ad- dition to a reduction of SNAP benefits States will be receiving bonuses for increasing overpayment collec- tions. On November 18, 2019, San Mateo County asked CDSS whether or not the county must comply with a CAPI hearing decision. San Mateo County asserts that the hearing decision is inconsistent with a presentation made by CDSS at a CAPI meeting. The ALJ ordered the county to exclude HUD and CalFresh benefits in making an Indigency Exception determination. On November 18, 2019, CDSS responded stating that the county is required to comply with all ALJ rul- ings, regardless whether they may contradict any guid- ance that we have provided. A Child Care services beneficiary asked for a review of the termination of a Stage 3 benefits by the RCOE program for failure to provide information. The review decision confirmed the Stage 3 termination of benefits. The beneficiary then asked for a California Depart- ment of Education (CDE) hearing to challenge the termination. CDE’s decision ruled that the Stage 3 termination was improper and State 3 Child Care benefits shall continue. The CWDA CalFresh Policy Committee estimates that 85% of the CalFresh ABAWDS beneficiaries will be exempt from working and 15% would have to meet the 20-hour work requirement. During 2020, FNS will visit San Francisco and Los Angeles to conduct the federal Management Evalua- tion of California SNAP program. The top errors that FNS will look for are the counties not using the CW 2200, SAR 7 phone number and Expedited Service. CalSAWS is getting funding for 8,000 hours for each of the three (3) consortias. Last year we asked CalSAWS how are they using the 24,000 hours and we are still to hear back. They have indicated that they really have no idea how those hours are being used – how much is being used to program General Assistance and Geberal Relief and how much is used for non-General Assistance. California has been conned into the CalSAWS proj- ect that will fail and it is waste of millions of dollars. There is a federal agency known as 18F that was born after the failed Affordable Care Act webpage failed. This new office was created by the Obama Admin- istration that has survived the Trump Holocust. It is the Federal General Services Department Technol-ogy Transformation Service. They have a wonder-ful handbook and Waldo Jaquith testified before the Michigan Legislature revealing some amazing facts. Some of the key points made was that a software should be funded for $10 million or less; procurement should be less than $2 million; all work should be done focusing on the user centered development ; agile software development and modular contracting; vendors should produce deliverables every two weeks and planning for years is a recipe for failure. There is also a helpful handbook published by 18F. https:\/\/github.com\/18F\/technology-budgeting\/blob\/master\/handbook.md#introduction https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=g-h6CtSwk30 CCWRO Welfare News March 10, 2020 2020-02 2 Statewide Webinars or Conference Calls Between of State and County Welfare Officials Exclude Advocates CDSS Child Care Bureau is conducting monthly webinars for counties: Webinars sched- uled for SB 80, 12-month continuous child care services implementation, will be held on 1\/5\/20; 2\/19\/20; 3\/18\/20; 4\/15\/20; 5\/20\/20 and 6\/17\/20. The webinars will be conducted from 2 pm to 3:30 pm. In order to participate in the webinar, counties have to register. Advocates have not received invitations for registration. The State verification HUB is being built by OSI in cooperation with DSS, DHCS. Ac- cording to County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) December was the first meeting between CDSS, DHCS, CalSAWS & Counties. The people that the HUB would affect, the beneficiaries of the various social service programs and their representatives were expressly excluded from this first December meeting. Advocates were not informed of this meeting. CDSS is planning to hold further meetings with counties and have so far expressly excluded advocates from the process. CDSS promises sometime in the future, when most of the deci- sions are made about the HUB, to include advocates and tell advocates what has been decid- ed. Advocates will have no idea why these decisions were made, what were the alternatives, options and considerations. CDSS Fraud Bureau has monthly meetings with county IEVS staff to discuss issues rela- tive to processing IEVS hits. These issues relative to terminating 100% of aid for families that often end up homeless in California with their children. These are issues that affect Cal- WORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries, but representatives of the beneficiaries are locked out. So much for transparency. CCWRO Welfare News March 10, 2020 2020-02 SB 80 Implementation May Be Delayed Because of CalSAWS Failure to Program New Provisions While SB 80 made several positive changes in the CalWORKs program to combat poverty and homelessness, SB 80 also include language that delays the implementation of these new policies. The Legislature allows CDSS to delay implementation of the SB 80 provisions if CalSAWS is not able to perform the necessary automation. See Chart #1 below for language enacted in SB 80 last year. Chart #1 Statute Legislative Language 11257- $10,000 limits for Cal WORKs (c) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, whichever date is later. 11265.3. CalWORKs IRT (j) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the State- wide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, whichever date is later. 11265.47 CalWORKs IRT (g) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, whichever date is later. 11323.3 Informing ap- plicants about child care (g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021, or the date that automation changes occur, as required for implementation of this section, in the Statewide Automated Welfare System, whichever date is later. 11450- Homeless As- sistance consecutive to cumulative (m) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, whichever date is later. 11451.5 Earned Income Disregards (d) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the State- wide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section. 11555- Car exemption – $25,000 (e) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Auto- mated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, whichever date is later. 11004(g)- OP treatment (i)(2) This paragraph shall be operative when the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) is able to produce a report identify- ing overpayments to which this paragraph applies. Except in cases involving overpayments due to fraud or an investigation into suspected fraud, if the individual responsible for the overpayment has not received aid under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) for 36 consecutive months or longer, the county shall deem an overpayment uncollectible and discharge, in accordance with existing discharge procedures, an overpayment received under that chapter. 3 CCWRO Welfare News March 10, 2020 2020-02 4 The legislative provisions of SB 80 ignore the needs of CalWORKs applicants and beneficia- ries. After June 1, 2020, CalWORKs applicants can still be denied CalWORKs if they have between $2,250 and $10,000 in liquid resources solely because CDSS has not certified that CalSAWS automation can perform that operation. Similarly, after June 1, 2020, a CalWORKs beneficiary with a car worth between $9,501 and $25,001 can be denied because CDSS has not certified that CalSAWS automation can perform that operation. Without these legislative provi- sions, the counties would be required to comply with the SB 80 changes by performing manual workarounds. Why should a homeless family with an infant have to continue sleeping in their car after using only 3 days of their 16-day temporary homeless assistance within the 16-day period, especially since SB 80 repealed the ill-conceived use it or lose it 16 consecutive day rule in CalWORKs homeless assistance? On November 26, 2019, advocates expressed their concerns about barriers to prompt implemen- tation of the SB 80 changes benefiting CalWORKs beneficiaries. On December 18, 2019, Frank Mecca, Executive Director of the California Welfare Directors Association, representing coun- ties, responded. The counties admit that advocates were never consulted in this matter by stating that there were a series of discussions between CWDA, SAWS, the Administration, and Legislative budget staff to evaluate which changes requires automation, to identify the dates by which complete policy guidance was needed, and to target the implementation dates to when automation was available. The major problem is the criteria by which CWDA, SAWS, the Administration and Legislative staff determine whether or not automation was necessary. There is no record in SB 80 analysis how the alleged determination was made that automation is necessary. Chart #2 is an analysis of the CalWORKs changes in SB 80 and whether or not they need to be delayed. We asked CDSS and CWDA for an explanation why these changes cannot be imple- mented without automation and have received no explanation. Why can’t the counties do a manual workaround to ensure that the most impoverished families in California benefit from enacted legislation? (SB80 cont’d from page 3) 5 Statute Legislative Language Automation imperative? Will ACL do? Workaround Necessary 11257- $10,000 limits for Cal WORKs (j) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, which- ever date is later. No Yes Not Necessary (c) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, which- ever date is later. No Yes Not Necessary 11265.3. CalWORKs IRT (g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021, or the date that automation changes occur, as re- quired for implementation of this section, in the Statewide Automated Welfare System, whichever date is later. No Yes Not Necessary (j) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, which- ever date is later. No Yes Not Necessary 11265.47 CalWORKs IRT (d) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section. No Yes Not Necessary (g) This section shall become operative on June 1, 2020, or when the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Auto- mated Welfare System can perform the necessary automation to implement this section, whichever date is later. No Yes Not Necessary 11323.3 Informing applicants about child care (g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021, or the date that automation changes occur, as required for imple- mentation of this section, in the Statewide Automated Welfare System, whichever date is later. No Yes Not Necessary CCWRO Welfare News March 10, 2020 2020-02 Chart #2 6 Five Bills Address Lead Testing for Young Medi-Cal Children On February 14, 2020, legislators submitted five bills to the California State Assembly and Califor- nia State Senate. These bills address the findings of the California State Auditor’s damning report on state agencies’ noncompliance with federal Medicaid law requiring blood lead screening for all Medi-Cal recipient children at ages 12 – and 24 – months. The proposed legislation enacts several of the State Auditor’s recommendations to improve California’s abysmal testing rate for federally man- dated blood lead screenings. California’s current testing rate is 36.1% of eligible children, lower than the testing rates of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. Pennsylvania has the highest reported level of testing at a reported 80% of eligible children tested. One of the bills, AB 2279, would adopt New York State’s standards for blood testing standards. New York State has a testing rate just above the national average of 44.9%. See State Auditor’s Report, Figure 9, https:\/\/www.auditor. ca.gov\/reports\/2019-105\/chapters.html. AB 2276 (Reyes) This requires the California Department of Health Care Services to ensure that Medi-Cal recipient children receive blood lead screening tests at 12 and 24 months of age. It also requires DHCS to ensure providers give blood lead screening tests to any child 2 to 6 years of age, inclusive, if there is no record of any previous test for that child. DHCS must: (1) annually report its progress on providing blood lead screening tests for all Medi-Cal covered chil- dren on its website; (2) establish a case management monitoring sys- tem, and require health care providers to test Medi- Cal beneficiaries who are children; (3) notify parents, guardians and caretakers of Medi-Cal recipient children and the child’s health care provider when a child has missed a required blood lead screening test; (4) require Medi-Cal managed care plans meet speci- fied standards of care for blood lead testing as part of a statewide goal of providing such testing for all Medi-Cal eligible children. AB 2277 (Salas) This bill requires that any Medi- Cal managed care health plan contracting with DHCS include an agreement in the plan’s executed contract: (1)to identify every child enrollee who does not have a record of blood lead screening; (2)to remind the responsible health care provider of the need to perform those tests on the identified child; and (3) to notify parents, guardians or others responsible for the child that about the missing screening test as part of an annual notification about preventive medi- cal services. AB 2278 (Quirk) This bill requires laboratories that perform blood lead screening test analyses to report the name of the health plan paying for each individual’s test to DHCS. AB 2279 (Garcia) This bill: (1) adds specific risk factors to the regulatory stan- dard of care that apply when a child is at risk of lead poisoning, including a list of items currently codi- fied in New York State Law. These factors include a child’s recent immigration status, residency or visits to a foreign country. (2) requires DHCS to develop regulations consistent with the proposed statutory requirements by January 1, 2021. (3) requires DHCS update its funding formulas for local agencies that contract with DHCS and its sister agencies to provide lead poisoning prevention ser- vices. SB 1008 (Leyva) This bill requires DHCS to create and establish an on-line registry that would allow the public to know the status of lead inspections and lead abatement for properties throughout the state. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-03 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 CCWRO is an IOLTA\/EAF funded support center serving IOLTA\/EAF 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. March 23, 2020 California’s response for means-tested public benefits programs is lacking relief for the newest victims of COVID-19 and the homeless families. However, the Newsom administration has taken significant steps to protect currently eligible persons and families for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, CalWORKs, CAPI and IHSS. The Newsom Executive Order (EO) waives eligibility re-determinations for 90 days. Further clarification reveals that this waiver applies for April, May and June annual re-determinations and recertifications (RD\/RC), SAR -7. March, April, May and June RD\/RCs and SAR 7s – the computer system will update all records saying received and complete . SAR 7s, RD\/RCs for April, May and June will not be mailed out. Any negative actions for failure to submit a SAR 7 and do the RD\/RC will be rescinded. The state 48-month clock has been stopped from March through June, 2020. Action on IEVS matches is still in the works. Com- ing soon. County welfare offices throughout the state have closed their doors. There are still a host of unan- swered matters that are not covered by the Governor’s EO that impact the victims of COVID-19 who are not currently receiving aid. Just look at the increase in unemployment insurance (UI) applications. Many workers are not eligible for UI in California those working in the so-called gig economy. All applica- tions are now being done on-line. Counties have drop boxes for applications. Many counties do not take general assistance applications on-line. Sacramento does, and we hope other counties will follow this Sacramento best practice. How do applicants verify that they are no longer working? e.g. the business is shut down. Current practice is no verification – application denied sorry. What is the COVID-19 practice\/policy? How do the homeless families get their next Cal- WORKs temporary homeless assistance (THA)? How do the homeless get their permanent home- less assistance on the day of the request, but no later than the next working day? Is the county allowed to verify everything which could take days or weeks before homeless assistance is issued? This is a shut- down. Right? How do applicants get their same day THA upon application as required by law? Offices are closed and you cannot get an EBT the same day? Will THA be extended after 16 days or will fami- lies with children be thrown out of their hotel rooms possibly to contract the corona virus? Is there a robust toll free line that is empowered to assist applicants and recipients who are not able to contact their local county welfare department? ACTION NEEDED NOW ! The Newsom Administration needs to issue another executive order to protect: (1) California’s CalWORKs home- less families; (2) the thousands of families who are no longer working because of Newsom’s warranted Stay at Home order; and they need to get access to the California safety net application process even though it is filled with bureaucratic barriers that need to be closed during this crisis. California Not Addressing the Needs of the Homeless and Incoming Economic Victims of COVID-19 https:\/\/www.gov.ca.gov\/2020\/03\/18\/governor-newsom-issues-executive-order-to-protect-ongoing-safety-net-services-for-most-vulnerable-californians-during-covid-19-outbreak\/ 2 California County Administrative Costs for the Refugee Cash Assistance Program Appear Excessive Last year, counties had approximately 700 Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) cases and claimed an average admin- istrative cost of $359.65 per case, per month. The average RCA monthly benefit issued is $550. It takes $359.65 a month to issue a $550 on an EBT card and not a check. TABLE #1 shows the progression of expenses being claimed over the years from $74.74 per case, per month in 2010-2011 to $359.65 per case per month in 2019- 2020. That is an increase of more than 500% over 10 years. What is the actual ad- ministrative costs for RCA administration? Although counties claim monthly administrative costs of $359.65, the same eligi- bility worker that processes RCA cases may also pro- cess SNAP\/CalFresh and Medicaid\/Medi-Cal cases as well, while counties claim federal money for all three programs. The eligibility worker rate is $58.27 pe hour. CDSS estimates that the eligibility worker spends an average of 53 minutes for the RCA intake and another five (5) minutes per month for case management. $3 for three minutes multiplied by eight months is equal to $24. The estimated county time to process an SAR 7 is 16 minutes. Assuming that a worker uses two (2) hours for each case – the cost would be about $120 a case and not over $3,000 a month that counties have been claiming. Counties do not explain the methods used to determine the expenses of each RCA case nor do they identify the activities that they include in the claiming form that is presented to the federal government. We have been informed that CDSS is going to reconsider California County Human Services Agencies’ question- able claims and modify the administrative cost funding for 2020-2021 budget year. FY May Revise Average monthly administrative cost per RCA Case Average monthly projected RCA Cases 2020-2021 $359.65 700 2019-2020 $359.65 700 2018-2019 $234.66 1,026 2018-2017 $131.07 2,498 2016-2017 $114.90 1,969 2016-2015 $127.54 1,815 2015-2014 $88.55 2,092 2014-2013 $103.08 2,027 2013-2012 $99.13 2,321 2012-2011 Unknown 2,911 2011-2010 $74.76 2,911 CCWRO Welfare News March 23, 2020 2020-03 3 Consortiaonsortia 2020-2021 Annual Allocation Monthly Funded Hours Annual Funded Hours Cost Per Hour C-IV & LRS $109.7 million 16,000 hours 192,000 hours $1,569 per hour CalWIN $150.6 million 8,000 hours 96,000 hours $571 per hour TABLE #2 Governor Newsom Proposes Millions for Welfare Computers With No Explanation In 2018, Food Nutrition Services of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare demanded that California reduce the number of welfare computers systems from three to one. California has budgeted millions of dollars for migration to a single system and maintain the existing three systems also known as the C-IV, CalWIN and LSR consortias. The 2020-2021 State proposed budget proposes $180.6 million to fund CalSAWS activities to migrate the three computer systems into one. This funding comes from SNAP, Foster Care Title IV-E, and Refugee Cash As- sistance, Medi-Cal according to the budget documents of CDSS. Funding consists of federal, state and county dollars. County dollars are only to pay for the 58 county General Assistance programming and coding costs, includ- ing changes needing automation. The Budget explanation also states that the counties will contribute approximately $8 million to CalSAWS to write code for the 58 different county General Assistance\/General Relief programs. The Proposed Budget also allocates $267.7 million to maintain the current operation and maintenance of the three computer systems. The budget document states that LRS and C-IV will receive $109.7 million while CalWIN will receive $150.6 mil- lion. $7.4 million funds the Statewide Project Management. The budget documents available to the public do not reveal how the $448.3 million will be used and where it comes from. Each of the CalSAWS consortias receive 8,000 hours a month for operations but the budget does not reveal the hourly costs. It’s all a big secret that smells bad. When advocates asked CalSAWs how it’s consortias use the 8,000 hours, the explanation was maintenance and refused to clarify what maintenance activities were performed. Fiscal responsibility demands that the State understands how and why CalSAWS and counties spend millions of dollars. Maybe it is time for State Auditor General or the USDA Inspector General to conduct an in- vestigation to see how the federal and state money is being spent. Table # 2 below, is our estimate of how much each consortia gets per hour. CCWRO estimate of hourly costs. Each consortia gets 8,000 hours a month. There are three consortias. C-IV and LRS receive $109.7 million annually while CalWIN receives $150.6 million. Why? Who knows? ________________________ Maybe it is time for State Auditor General or the USDA Inspector General to conduct an investiga- tion into how the federal and state money is being spent. ________________________ CCWRO Welfare News March 23, 2020 2020-03 CCWRO Welfare News March 23, 2020 2020-03 4 However, we also have constructive criticism. Our most pressing concerns are twofold: 1. The broad grant of discretionary author- ity granted to the regional administra- tor as written, and 2. The lack of specific, binding standards, details, and definitions by which con- tracts and grants are awarded, as written. 3. It does not provide due process for the beneficiaries of the bill by declaring that the benefits are not entitlement. The latest draft of the bill can be found on the De- partment of Finance’s website here: CCWRO has proposed amendments to (1) ensure this system is as compassionate as possible, (2) cre- ate a baseline set of regulations and standards by which the regional administrator will award grants, and (3) increase transparency to the public in the reporting process. We will continue to be engaged in this process and welcome any feedback or comments from our community as the language for this bill develops. As part of its continuing efforts to end homeless- ness in California, the legislature is currently working on a trailer bill, tentatively titled the California Access to Housing Act (hereinafter CAHA) , to centralize and coordinate its policy response statewide. The structure of the new law, broadly, is as follows: 1. The state vests authority in CDSS to ad- minister and oversee regional authorities who collect and disperse state monies for homelessness services to local agencies. 2. CDSS also creates and administers a new set of regulations regarding the allocation of these funds, both in terms of the local organizations chosen as well as the par- ticular homeless populations prioritized. 3. These regional administrators collect data on services provided in their administra- tive district and relay that information back to the state for analysis and report- ing. Overall, CCWRO believes the goals and structure of this bill are good and soundly reasoned. As part of California’s commitment to providing a Housing First-centered response to homelessness, CAHA describes a system that responds holisti- cally to the diverse and complicated needs of persons and families experiencing homelessness. We laud these priorities and encourage the Gov- ernor and the legislature to continue building a sodarity-oriented, compassionate system to assist this vulnerable population. $750 Million California Homeless Proposal 2020 For further information contact CCWRO Andrew Chen, Staff Attorney https:\/\/esd.dof.ca.gov\/dofpublic\/public\/trailerBill\/pdf\/81 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-04 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. May 09, 2019 CDSS Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic is the latest tragedy for California’s poor. We commend the Newsom ad- ministration for taking steps to assure that current beneficiaries do not lose benefits. The administration has also taken some baby steps to address the huge influx of safety net program applications arriving at an alarming rate. There is still an open question regarding the liabil- ity that CalWORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries may encounter for alleged failure to report, since county office drop boxes do not provide the SAR-3 report form and counties do not have the capacity to ac- cept reports or provide a receipt when verification is submitted. See W&IC 11023.5. Counties and CDSS have failed to take necessary steps to assure that families with children and other program applicants are able to receive emergency assistance payments mandated by law. Applications for benefits are piling up and CalWORKs telephone interviews are being scheduled beyond 30 days from the date of application, even for households in need of emergency CalWORKs benefits. Many counties have shut down their offices and the counties prefer that families and individuals apply for benefits online. This assumes that everybody has access to the internet and is computer savvy. There are many who do not have access to internet or computers. There are also many who cannot use the internet or a computer even if they had one. The law requires that homeless families are issued homeless assistance benefits on an EBT card on the date of application, if eligible. 1 Many counties are not providing homeless assistance benefits to families with children as required by law. Most cunties do not make the CA-42 – homeless assistance application – available in about 70% of the cases, living in counties where they are locked out of the office. In Sacramen- to County, only 1 of 7 offices make the CA-42 home- less application available. Santa Clara County none, San Francsico none. The same is true in most counties of California. Families who need CalWORKs emergency assis- tance are required to be interviewed on the date of application, but no later than the next working day, and if eligible, benefits shall be issued on the date of application, but no later than the next working day. Most counties, if not all, are violation this law.2 Applicants who do not have a photo I.D. have 15 days to get a photo ID. If they do not produce a photo I.D., their benefits will be stopped by the county. It reminds us of the photo I.D. requirement to vote . The difference is, here all benefits are stopped and the family and children are sentenced to total poverty. CalWORKs applicants must be interviewed within seven (7) working days from the date of their applica- tion.3 1. See Welfare & Institutions Code Section 11450(f)(3)(D) for permanent home- less assistance and 11450(f)(3)(iii) for Temporary Homeless Assistance. Also see MPP 44-211.523 The payment for temporary shelter shall be issued or denied within the same working day in which the AU requests homeless assistance. 2. Welfare & Institutions Code Section 11266(b) 3. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11052.5. CCWRO Welfare News May 9, 2020 2020-04 (cont’d from page 1) On March 13, 2020, CDSS issued an ACWDL letter stating: County Office Closure Requirements. If CWD of- fices close during regular business hours, they must make it possible for individuals to apply for and re- ceive CalFresh and CalWORKs, including emergen- cy benefits, within the timeframes prescribed by state and federal law. CWDs must also provide notice of their hours of operation, and of the procedures during these hours of closure for applying for and receiving these benefits. CWDs must also: Notify the Department of the office closure as soon as possible by calling the CalFresh and Nutrition Branch main line at (916) 651-8047. Be ready to provide the following information: The name and location of the closed CWD office(s) The services normally offered at the closed CWD office(s) The anticipated timeframe, if available, of the closure The name and location of the office nearest the closed office within the county, if operating A county point of contact who can provide more information regarding the status of the office closure(s) CCWRO received a copy of the counties’ responses to the ACWDL and they contain inaccurate informa- tion. For example, Los Angeles County asserts that all offices are open from 8am am to 5pm. However, LAPDSS Director, Antonina Jim\u00e9nez, stated in April 2020 that all offices are inaccessible to the public. The same is true for Orange County, most of Sacra- mento and Stanislaus County. Counties that admit to have shut down their offices, thus violating the above-cited laws, include; Amador, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Glenn, Imperial, Madera, Nevada, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Sonoma, and Santa Clara. The informa- tion on office closures gathered by CDSS is helpful, but is not an accurate representation as to what is really happening on the ground. Counties have been processing 145,000 CalFresh ap- plications a month, and 34,000 CalWORKs applica- tions. And counties are running below 50% capacity. See TABLE # 1 on page 3. During the April 16th and 20th 2020 budget hearings, the Governor proposed to appropriate another $143 million dollars for the 2019-2020 county block grant program known as the single allocation. Allocat- ing additional money to counties is not the solution. Counties do not even have the capacity to spend all newfound money and it will not address the current application crisis in California. We propose that the new allocation of funds be coupled with a revision of the way applications are processed which could resolve the lengthy delays in benefits and bring the counties back into compliance with state and federal law. Additionally, counties should only receive additional funding if they meet their statutory and regulatory mandates for the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance, CalWORKs Immediate Need and CalFresh Expedited Services so as not to endanger the lives of California’s needy. FNS Issues Summary Waiver Denials On April 10, 2020, FNS denied all waiver requests for waiting students’ eligibility at 7 CFR 273.5(a), deny- ing benefits that exceed the maximum allowable for the household size. In addition, FNS also denied the following waiver requests: Waiving the state agency’s responsibility to reduce or ter- minate benefits when a household’s circumstances change, or the household is found to be ineligible; Treating all applications as if they are eligible for expe- dited processing under 7 CFR 273.2(i); Waiving requirements at 7 CFR 273.2(f)(4) to use docu- mentary evidence as the primary source of verification for all items except residency and household size; and Waiving requirements to verify gross non-exempt income at 7 CFR273.2(f)(1)(i) and 273.2(f)(8)(i). CCWRO Welfare News May 9, 2020 2020-04 3 a copy of Government Code Section 6253 which states that the county agency shall make the public document available to the PRA requester within 24 days. The California Welfare Directors Association Executive Director Frank Mecca’s’s reac- tion was why don’t you just go away . Most counties followed suit and did not respond to the legal CPRA. Some alleged that this would take a lot of time. All we were ask- ing for were copies of their policy issuances based on the Governor’s EO-N-20-29. A total of 42 counties violated California Gov. Code 6253(c). We acknowledge that 10 counties did respond. Six counties ac- knowledged the CCWRO CPRA request, but refused to comply with their duty embodied in Gov. Code 6253(c) to provide the re- quested information. TABLE # 2 on page 4 identifies how the counties responded to the California Public Records Act request. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom is- sued Executive Order 20-29 stopping any negative actions against current CalWORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries and stopping the 48-month time clock for CalWORKs. On March 30, 2020, CCWRO emailed a California Public Records Act (PRA)request to all 58 California Counties asking for cop- ies of any and all county welfare department writings relative to the county implementa- tion of Governor Newsom’s Executive Order and DHCS and CDSS policy guidance’s issue thereunder relative to the CalWORKs, Cal- Fresh, Medi-Cal, GA\/GR, WtW, GAIN, RCA and CAPI for the period of March 15, 2020 through March 30, 2020. CCWRO wanted to know how counties were implementing the Governor’s executive or- der. Given the fact that counties have always been reluctant to share information for the most part, it was imperative that we know what counties were doing. The PRA included California Counties Blatantly Ignore State Transparency Laws TABLE # 1 Application Filing Month\/Week March 2020 Week 2- Shut Down March 2020 Week 3 March 2020 Week 4 April 2020 Week 1 April 2020 Week 2 April 2020 Week 3 April 2020 Week 4 CalFresh Applications Received 41,918 57,177 95,516 87,234 93,153 90,561 97330 Application Filing Month\/Week March 2020 Week 2- Shut Down March 2020 Week 3 March 2020 Week 4 April 2020 Week 1 April 2020 Week 2 April 2020 Week 3 April 2020 Week 4 CalWORKs Application Received 6,765 6,284 14,380 12,156 11,564 9,369 10,636 CCWRO Welfare News May 9, 2020 2020-04 4 County Only Initial Response Provided Information Refused to provide information in 24 days Totally Ignored State Law County Only Initial Response Provided Information Refused to provide information in 24 days Totally Ignored State Law Alameda X Orange X X X Alpine X Placer X X Amador X Plumas X Butte X X Riverside X Calaveras X Sacramento X X Colusa X San Benito X X X Contra Costa X X X San Ber- nardino X Del Norte X X San Diego X X X El Dorado X San Fran- cisco X X X Fresno X San Joaquin X Glenn X San Luis Obispo X Humboldt X San Mateo X Imperial X Santa Barbara X X X Inyo X Santa Clara X X Kern X Santa Cruz X Kings X X Shasta X Lake X Sierra X X X Lassen X Siskiyou X Los Angeles X Solano X Madera X Sonoma X Marin X Stanislaus X X Mariposa X Sutter X Mendocino X Tehama X X Merced X Trinity X Modoc X Tulare X Mono X Tuolumne X Monterey X Ventura X Napa X X Yolo X Nevada X Yuba X TABLE # 2 CCWRO Welfare News May 9, 2020 2020-04 5 Many California Counties Ignore Due Process for State Hearings CDSS’ State Hearings Divisions reported that 11 counties are not doing administrative hearings, even by phone. Five counties have not decided when they will resume hearings. Even though Contra Costa and Glenn are on the No Hearing List the hearing representatives in both counties are working cases and Glenn County stated that they had at least one scheduled hearing. We believe that if the claimant files for a state hear- ing, a hearing MUST be scheduled within 30 days as mandated by state law – See W&IC 10952. If the County fails to appear, then the claim should be granted just like any other due process hear- ing. Beneficiaries of public social services should not have second class due process. The claim- ants are the moving party and the counties are the respondents. If they do not respond, they forfeit and the claim must be granted for the moving party. That is due process 101. 1. Amador 2. Contra Costa expedited phone hearings only, resume in 6\/2020 3. Glenn 4. Humboldt 5. Kern resume on 5\/11\/20 6. Lake resume in 6\/2020 7. Marin resume in 6\/2020 8. Monterey 9. Solano 10. Sonoma resume in 6\/2020 11. Yolo resume in 6\/2020 10952 (a) The department shall set the hearing to com- mence within 30 working days after the request is filed, and, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, shall give all parties concerned written notice of the time and place of the hearing. (b) The 30 working day and 10-day requirements described in subdivision (a) shall not apply to a request filed by a benefi- ciary of a Medi-Cal managed care plan who meets the crite- ria for an expedited resolution of an appeal as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10951.5. (Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 738, Sec. 5. (AB 205) Effective January 1, 2018.) CalWORKs Sanctions Update Effective October 1, 2019 California’s law changed to require that counties affirmatively verify that Cal- WORKs participants had childcare before asking them to participate in a WtW activity. Welfare and Institutions Code 11323.3. (a) An applicant for, or a recipient of, CalWORKs benefits shall be informed of the availability of childcare services upon enrollment in the CalWORKs pro- gram, and at later times when a participant expresses to the county a need for childcare. The county shall verify if childcare is needed to participate in a pro- gram activity, as defined in subdivision (c) of Sec- tion 11323.2, and, if needed, that childcare services are authorized and that the participant has secured appropriate childcare prior to requiring a participant to participate in any mandatory activity. Verification that childcare has been secured may be established by the participant, the childcare contractor, or the childcare provider. CDSS adopted ACL 19-99 to implement this stat- ute. ACL 19-99 states: CWDs must verify that suitable childcare has been both authorized and secured before mandating participation in any activities, and before initiating any sanction or non- compliance process. At the time of the enactment of 11323.3, 15,689 families were sanctioned. In many of these cases the county did not have verification that the fam- ily had childcare. During January 2020, 65,677 persons participated in a WtW activity, while a whopping 48,435 families were sanctioned. Counties imposed many of these sanctions without complying with ACL 19-99. It should be noted that 4,183 apparent sanctions were imposed during December 2019. Table # 3, pg 6 reveals how many counties have more CalWORKs families being sanctioned com- pared to the number of persons participating in a WtW program. In San Bernardino County, 8,933 parents were sanctioned while only 5,093 received WtW services. (cont’d. on pg 6) CCWRO Welfare News May 9, 2020 2020-04 6 County Sanctions Participants Percenatge of Sanctions Percentage of Participants Statewide 49435 65677 43% 57% Imperial 1029 735 58% 42% Kern 5534 2202 72% 28% Lake 160 116 58% 42% Los Angeles 14064 17835 44% 56% Madera 391 122 76% 24% Merced 1262 681 65% 35% San Bernardino 8933 5093 64% 36% San Joaquin 2848 1067 73% 27% Shasta 409 311 57% 43% Siskiyou 59 31 66% 34% Stanislaus 1283 1083 54% 46% Sutter 214 179 54% 46% Ventura 667 583 53% 47% Statewide number of families sanctioned for over one year- 26,378 Source: County Reports via WtW 25 and WtW 25A January 2020 WtW Sanctions v. Participants TABLE #3 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-05 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. May 26, 2019 The CDSS executive summary of the 2020-2021 May Revised budget states: The CalWORKs budget includes a couple of notable grant increases. The MAP increase that went into effect October 1, 2019, was benchmarked at bringing an Assis- tance Unit (AU) of one (regardless of region or exempt status) at or above 50 percent of the 2019 federal poverty level and increasing all other AU sizes by an average of 10.8 percent. The 2020-2021 Governor’s Budget projects sufficient Child Poverty and Family Supplemental Support Subaccount funds for a 3.09 percent MAP increase, effective October 1, 2020, for all AUs. This increase results in MAP levels of $567 per month for an AU of one and $905 per month for family of three without income. With this MAP increase, AU sizes of one will be at 54 percent and all other AU sizes will be at 51 percent of the 2019 federal poverty guidelines. This sounds good, but it is simply not true. In fact, the 3.09% COLA coming October 1, 2020 will indeed increase the maximum aid payment to 50% of the federal poverty level for Region 1 and for a family of one in Region 2, but only for 37% of the families. See counties of Region 1 and 2 below. A majority of the CalWORKs children, 63%, will receive a CalWORKs grant which is below 50% of the federal poverty level in California after October 1, 2020. See Table #1 for more caseload details. Table # 2’s first part (37%) shows how much a CalWORKs family will get being aided for all family members. The 63% part of the table show that three persons family will get a payment for a two person family because they are in the 63% group for being CalWORKs sanctioned, CalWORKs penalized, CalWORKs timed out, etc. The fact is that most CalWORKs families will be enduring deep poverty, notwithstanding the incorrect insistence of some that CalWORKs families with children are no longer enduring deep poverty. They are. We must work hard to make sure that no child in California is enduring deep poverty. We have a long way to go. THANK YOU GOVERNOR NEWSOM! During the 2020-2021 May Revised Budget press conference, the Governor said, …we want folks to know that we’re not going to touch the grant enhancements for Cal- WORKs. We want to publicly thank the Governor for not attacking CalWORKs like many previous governors have done in the past. 37% of the CalWORKs Caseload 63% of the CalWORKs Caseload Total Caseload for Feb. 2020-CW 237 Two Parent Single Parent Families Receiving Aid for All Family Members % Parent not Aided Cases TANF Timed- Out Sanctions\/ Alleged Fleeing Felons Receiving Aid for 1 or more less family members % 363,982 24,734 111,458 136,192 37% 112,352 23,149 92,289 227,790 63% T a b l e #1 (Cont’d on page 2) CalWORKs Grant Status CCWRO Welfare News May 26, 2020 2020-05 Table #2 – Do the 2019 – 2020 CalWORKs Grants Exceed 50% of the Federal Poverty Level Today? 37% of the CalWORKs cases 63% of the CalWORKs Cases Region # 1 Region # 2 Region # 1 Region # 2 Persons 2020 federal poverty level 2020 CalWORKs MAP % 2020 Cal-WORKs MAP % Persons 2020 federal poverty level 2020 CalWORKs MAP % 2020 CalWORKs MAP % 1 $ 1,063 550 52% 520 49% 2 $ 1,437 550 38% 520 36% 2 $ 1,437 696 48% 661 46% 3 $ 1,810 696 38% 661 37% 3 $ 1,810 878 49% 834 46% 4 $ 2,183 878 40% 834 38% 4 $ 2,183 1060 49% 1007 46% 5 $ 2,557 1060 41% 1007 39% 5 $ 2,557 1242 49% 1180 46% 6 $ 2,930 1242 42% 1180 40% 6 $ 2,930 1424 49% 1353 46% 7 $ 3,303 1424 43% 1353 41% 7 $ 3,303 1606 49% 1526 46% 8 $ 3,677 1606 44% 1526 42% 8 $ 3,677 1788 49% 1699 46% 9 $ 4,050 1788 44% 1699 42% 9 $ 4,050 1970 49% 1872 46% 10 $ 4,423 1970 45% 1872 42% 10 $ 4,423 2152 49% 2044 46% 11 $ 4,796 2152 45% 2044 43% Will the 3.09% Increase in CalWORKs Grants Exceed 50% of the Federal Poverty Level Effective October 1, 2020? 37% of the CalWORKs cases 63% of the CalWORKs Cases Region # 1 Region # 2 Region # 1 Region # 2 Persons 2020 100% federal poverty level 2020 CalWORKs MAP % 2020 CalWORKs MAP % Persons 2020 100% federal poverty level 2020 CalWORKs MAP % 2020 CalWORKs MAP % 1 $ 1,063 $ 567 53% $ 536 50% 2 $ 1,437 $ 567 39% $ 536 37% 2 $ 1,437 $ 718 50% $ 681 47% 3 $ 1,810 $ 718 40% $ 681 38% 3 $ 1,810 $ 905 50% $ 860 48% 4 $ 2,183 $ 905 41% $ 860 39% 4 $ 2,183 $ 1,093 50% $ 1,038 48% 5 $ 2,557 $ 1,093 43% $ 1,038 41% 5 $ 2,557 $ 1,280 50% $ 1,216 48% 6 $ 2,930 $ 1,280 44% $ 1,216 42% 6 $ 2,930 $ 1,468 50% $ 1,395 48% 7 $ 3,303 $ 1,468 44% $ 1,395 42% 7 $ 3,303 $ 1,656 50% $ 1,573 48% 8 $ 3,677 $ 1,656 45% $ 1,573 43% 8 $ 3,677 $ 1,843 50% $ 1,751 48% 9 $ 4,050 $ 1,843 46% $ 1,751 43% 9 $ 4,050 $ 2,031 50% $ 1,930 48% 10 $ 4,423 $ 2,031 46% $ 1,930 44% 10 $ 4,423 $ 2,218 50% $ 2,107 48% 11 $ 4,796 $ 2,218 46% $ 2,107 44% (Cont’d from page 1) CCWRO Welfare News May 26, 2020 2020-05 3 Region 1 Counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura. Region 2 Counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba. ”

” CCWRO News News-2020-06 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-855 Telephone (916) 736-0616 1 Fax (916) 736-2645 – ccwro.org 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. June 8, 2020 (Cont’d on page 2) County Welfare Departments Fail to Meet CalWORKs Families’ Needs For Emergency Assistance Counties are the point of access for California’s family safety net emergency assistance programs: Homeless Assistance, CalWORKs Immediate Need, and CalFresh Expedited Services. Currently, only 13 counties\u2014most- ly smaller counties\u2014are currently open to accept, timely process and issue these crucial safety net programs. California’s remaining 45 counties have locked their doors to needy families. Beneficiaries and applicants in dire need of emergency assistance are not able to access such emergency assistance benefits. See TABLE #2 for county-by-county availability of in-person emergency assistance entitlements for CalWORKs and CalFresh. It should be noted that Governor Newsom did not suspend the emergency assistance program statutes and regu- lations for California’s safety net programs. See Table #1. TABLE #1 Safety Net Program Statute\/State Regula- tion Mandate Who is eligible When are Benefits Due CalWORKs Temporary Homeless Assistance W&IC 11450(f)(3)(iii) MPP 44-211.523 Any CalWORKs eli- gible family or apparently eligible family with minor children On the date of requesting temporary homeless as- sistance. CalWORKs Permanent Homeless Assistance W&IC 11450(f)(3)(D) Any CalWORKs eli- gible family or apparently eligible family with minor children On the day of requesting permanent homeless as- sistance, but no later than the next working day. CalWORKs Immediate Need W&IC 11266 Any CalWORKs eligible or apparently eligible family with minor children On the day of application, but no later than the next working day. CalFresh Expedited Services W&IC 18914 Any household whose combined monthly gross income and liquid resourc- es are less than the monthly shelter cost and standard utility allowance. Within three (3) calendar days of application. CCWRO Welfare News June 8, 2020 2020-06 2 (Cont’d from page 1) CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Counties must issue homeless assistance benefits on an EBT card on the date of application, if eligible. Counties fail to meet this requirement when homeless families cannot apply and receive homeless benefits on the same day. See Welfare & Institutions Code Section 11450(f)(3)(D) for perma- nent homeless assistance and 11450(f)(3)(iii) for Tempo- rary Homeless Assistance. Also see MPP 44-211.523: The payment for temporary shelter shall be issued or denied within the same working day in which the AU requests homeless assistance. 11450(f)(3)(D) A payment for or denial of permanent housing assistance shall be issued no later than one working day from the time that a family presents evidence of the availability of permanent housing. If an applicant family provides evidence of the availability of permanent housing before the county welfare department has established eligibility for aid under this chapter, the county welfare department shall complete the eligibility determination so that the payment for, or denial of, permanent housing assistance is issued within one working day from the submission of evidence of the availability of permanent housing, unless the family has failed to provide all of the verification necessary to establish eligibility for aid under this chapter. 11450(f)(3)(iii) This special needs benefit shall be granted or denied immediately upon the family’s application for homeless assistance, and benefits shall be available for up to three working days. The meaning of immediately in Section 11450(f)(3) (iii) is defined in DSS state regulation MPP 44-211.523: The payment for temporary shelter shall be issued or de- nied within the same working day in which the AU requests homeless assistance. CalWORKs Immediate Need – Families who need CalWORKs emergency assistance are required to be interviewed the date of application, but no later than the next working day. If the family is eligible, benefits shall be issued on the date of application, but no later than the next working day. See W&IC 11266(b). 11266 (b) If an applicant needs immediate assistance and is apparently eligible for aid as defined in subdivision (a), the county shall pay the applicant two hundred dollars ($200) or the maximum amount for which that applicant is eligible, whichever is less. The advance payment shall be made by the end of the first working day following the request for that aid. CalFresh Expedited Services Any person who meets the CalFresh Expedited Service standards must receive benefits within three days. 18914 (a) In accordance with, and to the extent provided by, federal law, the county human services agency shall provide CalFresh benefits on an expe- dited basis as provided in subdivision (b) to house- holds determined to be in immediate need of food assistance. (b) Pursuant to the federal requirements of Section 273.2(i)(2) of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regu- lations, the county human services agency shall screen all CalFresh applications for entitlement to expedited service. Applicants who meet the federal criteria for expedited service as defined in Section 273.2(i)(1) of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regu- lations shall receive either a manual authorization to participate or automated card or the immediate issuance of CalFresh benefits no later than the third day following the date the application was filed. To the maximum extent permitted by federal law, the amount of income to be received from any source shall be deemed to be uncertain and exempt from consideration in the determination of entitlement for expedited service. For purposes of this subdivision, a weekend shall be considered one calendar day. (c) The State Department of Social Services shall develop and implement for expedited issuance a uni- form procedure for verifying information required of an applicant. CalFresh Expedited Service Criteria: (1) the household’s gross income in the month of application does not exceed $150 and countable liquid assets (assets easily converted into cash, such as a bank account) do not exceed $100; or (2) he household’s combined monthly gross income and liquid assets are less than the com- bined monthly rent (or mortgage) and utilities (i.e., the appropriate SUA) CCWRO Welfare News June 8, 2020 2020-06 These regulations implement the December 20, 1994 judg- ment as amended January 3, 1995. 11-601 BLANCO V. ANDERSON LAWSUIT HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .1 Background The Blanco v. Anderson lawsuit challenged the closure of county welfare department (CWD) offices during regular business hours except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The initial decision, issued on December 16, 1993, addressed only the closure of CWD Food Stamp offices without first having completed a review of the office hours of operation as required by federal regulations at 7 CFR 272.4(g). Emergency state regulations implementing the specific federal regu- latory requirements for the required annual office hours review were effective June 1, 1994. The final judgment, issued December 20, 1994, and amended January 3, 1995, finds that by allowing CWDs to close their offices during the regular eight hours of the working day, class members have been denied their right to apply for and receive Food Stamp, AFDC, homeless assistance, and Medi- Cal benefits. The court ordered that when the CWDs are closed during the regular eight hours of the working day, they must do the following. They must make it possible for individuals to apply for and receive Food Stamp, AFDC, and Medi-Cal benefits, including emergency benefits, within the time limits prescribed by state and federal law. The CWDs must also provide notice of their hours of operation and of the procedures, during these hours of closure, for applying for and receiving these benefits, including emergency benefits. (Our emphasis added) HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .2 Definitions .21 For purposes of these regulations, the following apply: .211 Accept and act upon all applications for emergency benefits includes providing such emergency benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. .212 Local telephone service means a telephone number which is toll-free for the same geographic area as the regular telephone number for each CWD office. .213 Opportunity to file an application for benefits includes the provision of special assistance under 7 CFR 273.2(e) and (f) (see Sections 63-300.4 and .5) and 45 CFR 233.10(a)(10(vi) (see Section 40-157.213). (a) Special assistance means assisting the applicant as necessary in order to provide emergency benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law, including waiving the face-to-face office interview, conducting the application interview by telephone, and assisting the applicant in gathering needed documents. .214 Regular eight hours of a working day means the eight-hour period the CWD’s offices are open to the public. If the CWD office is never open eight hours on a working day, the regular eight hours of the working day shall mean the hours that the CWD office is open, plus an additional time period(s) immediately before, after, or between these hours, which cumulatively equal eight hours. .215 Working days means Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, excluding federal and state holidays. .3 County Responsibilities .31 If a CWD closes its offices at any time during the regular eight hours of a working day, the CWD shall do all the following during those hours of office closure: .311 Provide individuals the opportunity to file an application for and receive Food Stamp and\/or AFDC benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. (a) Make applications for such benefits readily available to individuals. (b) Provide a drop-box, mail slot, or other reasonable means for filing applica- tions. (1) Applications deposited as described in Section 11-600.311(b) shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of the CWD office closure. (2) In the event an individual certifies he\/she was denied the opportunity to file an application, and the CWD does not have evidence to the contrary, the application shall be processed in all respects as though it was filed on the date of the CWD office closure. .312 Provide individuals the opportunity to file an application for and receive expedited Food Stamp, immediate need AFDC, and\/or homeless assistance benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. (a) Maintain enough staff to accept and act upon all such applications, and\/or (b) Maintain a local telephone service with enough staff to accept and act upon all such applications as if such requests had been made in person at the CWD’s office. .313 Greet incoming calls on the main telephone lines of the CWD’s offices with an announcement informing the caller of the following: (a) The working days, or regular eight hours of a working day, when the offices will be closed; (b) The procedures for obtaining and filing applications for Food Stamp and AFDC benefits, during these hours of office closure; and (c) The procedures for applying for and receiving expedited Food Stamp, im- mediate need AFDC, and homeless assistance benefits, within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law, during these hours of office closure. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (d) CDSS and the Department of Health Services are enjoined by court order in the Blanco v. Anderson lawsuit. The court order includes provisions for providing services to clients under Medi-Cal as well as Food Stamp and AFDC programs. The order requires that telephone announcements greeting incoming calls informing the public of the provisions specified in Sections 11-601.313(a), (b), and (c) include information regarding Medi-Cal and emergency medical services. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .314 Post notices in prominent locations within the CWD’s offices and in the public areas, including the doors, immedi- ately outside the CWD’s offices which inform the public of the following: (a) The working days, or the regular eight hours of a working day, when the offices will be closed; (b) The procedures for obtaining and filing applications for Food Stamp and AFDC benefits during these hours of office closure; and (c) The procedures for applying for and receiving expedited Food Stamp, immediate need AFDC, and homeless assistance benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law, during these hours of office closure. (Our emphasis added) See -Blanco v. Anderson 39 F.3d 969 (1994); ACL 93-92 (December 17, 1993) and ACL 94-11 (February 14, 1994) 3 CCWRO Welfare News June 8, 2020 2020-06 TABLE #2 List of Counties that provide limited services are identified in Yellow – Not Open During Regular Business Hours Source: County Office Closure Reports 5-25-20 CalWORKs CalFresh Total Active Cases in Counties Open During Regular Business Hours 5% 34,6676 116,474 Total Active Cases in Locked Counties 95% 292,646 2,050,007 Percentage of Cases in Locked Down Counties 95% 95% County CalWORKs CalFresh Alameda 8,377 69,601 Alpine Less than 11 72 Amador 150 1,521 Butte 2,042 17,243 Calaveras 299 2,886 Colusa 95 762 Contra Costa 6,100 34,109 Del Norte 456 3,062 El Dorado 736 6,884 Fresno 18,549 93,741 Glenn 256 1,685 Humboldt 1,126 13,991 Imperial 3,558 18,106 Inyo 79 1,037 Kern 16,677 72,922 Kings 2,429 11,687 Lake 759 7,368 Lassen 320 1,693 Los Angeles 108,672 686,640 Madera 2,538 11,765 Marin 574 6,682 Mariposa 172 1,250 Mendocino 704 6,758 Merced 5,650 25,000 Modoc 109 765 Mono – 338 Monterey 3,316 19,439 4 CCWRO Welfare News June 8, 2020 2020-06 5 County CalWORKs CalFresh Napa 310 3,249 Nevada 426 4,805 Orange 11,774 110,589 Placer 814 8,638 Plumas 111 1,298 Riverside 18,826 121,585 Sacramento 19,121 110,594 San Benito 353 2,267 San Bernardino 32,232 160,041 San Diego 15,061 146,325 San Francisco 2,646 47,792 San Joaquin 9,702 47,259 San Luis Obispo 1,035 9,804 San Mateo 773 12,223 Santa Barbara 3,045 22,812 Santa Clara 4,796 50,181 Santa Cruz 1,228 15,360 Shasta 1,873 14,173 Sierra – 164 Siskiyou 514 3,890 Solano 3,391 21,570 Sonoma 1,476 13,773 Stanislaus 6,734 38,464 Sutter 1,083 5,571 Tehama 847 5,175 Trinity 71 1,102 Tulare 10,898 55,406 Tuolumne 328 3,160 Ventura 3,624 34,827 Yolo 1,066 12,189 Yuba 1,253 7,188 Statewide 339,248 2,208,481 CCWRO Welfare News June 8, 2020 2020-06 6 CalWORKs Employment Services At least nine counties have more CalWORKs families in sanction mode than they have families receiving the WtW services. The average administrative costs per case are $21,050 a year.1 These costs do not include childcare which is another $8,424 a year.2 Meanwhile, the same family only receives an average grant of $8,184 a year.3 State- wide, 49,058 families were being sanc- tioned during February of 2020 while there were 65,018 unduplicated participants. Kern, San Bernardino and San Joaquin Counties are actually operating a Welfare- to-Sanction program rather than a Wel- fare-to-Work program. See TABLE #3. During 2019-2020, counties receive $168 a month for a basic WtW case that needs services, $139 for a work-ready case that also receives services and $131.48 a month for a sanction case in which there is a re- duction of $125 in cash aid payments each month. So, the more people in sanction, t 1. The 2019-2020 annual WtW employment ser- vices appropriation to the counites was the sum of $1,368,627,000.00. 2. The average monthly costs for Stage 1 child care is $702 according the 2019-2020 state budget documents published by CDSS. 3. The average monthly costs for a CalWORKs grant is $702 according the 2019-2020 state bud- get documents published by CDSS TABLE #3 February 2020 Sanctions Unduplicat- ed Partici- pants Statewide 49058 65018 Butte 409 309 Kern 5536 2188 San Bernardino 8803 5113 San Joaquin 2836 1052 Shasta 401 302 Sutter 195 162 Tuolumne 58 48 Ventura 678 596 Souce: 2-20 WtW 25 & 25A The Welfare-to-Sanction Counties of California FY 2020-2021 Counties get $131.48 a month for a sanction case. CalWORKs fami- lies get a reduction of $125 in cash aid payment each month. So, the more people in sanction, the more money the county re- tains and more kids suffer = 21th century county child abuse. Update: Blood Lead Testing Bills for Medi-Cal Kids Get To The Assembly Floor Daphne Macklin On March 3, 2020, the California State Auditor Elaine Howle and her key staff presented their findings on the state’s abysmal compliance with federal Medi-Caid required blood lead screenings for Medi-Cal recipient children aged 12 months and 24 months. The hearing by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee was an op- portunity for members of the State Assembly and State Senate to vent their concerns and outrage at the failure of the Department of Health Care Ser- vices, Department of Public Health, Department of Managed Care, and most egregiously, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, to protect Medicaid children. The legislators were clearly armed for bear, but the emerging COVID-19 crisis, meant that some key participants invited to the hearing were not available to attend. The State Auditor, along with the key staff who prepared the January 7, 2020 report, answered specific questions about the report and noted that their report was the third report that had been prepared over the past ten years on the same issue. Gilbert Bradley, M.D., the newly appointed head of the Department of Health Care Services, attended the legislative session and apologized for the agency’s lapses in vigorously pursuing compliance with federal blood lead screening standards. Although the State Legislature’s focus on the pandemic has substantially overridden almost all other legislative priorities, blood lead test- ing issues remains a matter of serious focus and concern. Three bills sponsored by CCWRO, the Environmen- tal Working group and other organizations, AB 2276 (Reyes) AB 2278 (Salas) and AB 2279 (Cristina Gar- cia) passed out of the Assembly Health Committee on the consent calendar in late May. AB 2276 (Reyes) – This bill requires that Medi-Cal managed care plans provide information to parents and caretakers of young children about blood lead testing and require case management services to as- sure both testing and any appropriate follow up care for children with elevated blood lead levels of 5 mcg or greater. AB 2277 (Salas) – This bill focuses on children who come to Medi-Cal after age 24 months and requires that Medi-Cal managed care plans determine which children have not had blood lead screenings as of age 24 months and advise parents and caretakers of the availability of testing services. AB 2279 (Cristina Garcia) – This bill authorizes the Department of Public Health Services Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program to redetermine the allocation of funds that it provides to counties that provide follow-up care for Medi-Cal children who are identified as having elevated blood lead levels of 5 mcg or greater. Under the special rules adopted for the pandemic ad- justed 2020 legislative calendar, all of three measures passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Commit- tee on June 3, 2020. The bills will now be voted on by the entire Assembly and should move on to the California State Senate for policy and finance hearings in the next few weeks. For more information contact Daphne Macklin of CCWRO at daphne.macklin@ccwro.org CCWRO Welfare News June 8, 2020 2020-06 7 ”

” CCWRO News News-2020-07 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-855 Telephone (916) 736-0616 1 Fax (916) 736-2645 – ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal ser- vices 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 July 2, 2020 The deadline for applying for P-EBT has been extend- ed per the CDSS website from June 30, 2020 to July 15, 2020. See CDSS website: ca.p-ebt.org. Applying for and using P-EBT will not be considered a public charge issue for immigration purposes. When schools closed in mid-March 2020, thousands of low-income school children and pre-schoolers no longer had access to their federally subsidized meals. Some districts shifted to grab and go services to provide healthy lunches and snacks to children shel- tering in place with their families. Congress enacted the disaster relief program Pandemic-EBT or P-EBT program to feed these children. P-EBT provides a one-time payment of $365 to each child who had received free or low cost meals before the schools closed in March. The P-EBT payment is based on the value of school provided meals to which most eligible children would have received for the time period March 2020 through June 15, 2020, when schools typically closed in California. California’s federally approved waiver to operate the P-EBT program was granted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA\/ FNS). The waiver designated the California Depart- ment of Social Services (CDSS) to oversee the is- suance of the P-EBT payments with help from the California Department of Education (CDE). CDSS limited the method for applying for P-EBT to an on- line process. There are no paper applications. Another, extremely serious complication is that P- EBT information from CDSS is provided in three languages: English, Spanish and Chinese. However, the San Francisco County website provides added explanatory information in Russian, Tagalog (Fili- pino) and Vietnamese. https:\/\/www.sfhsa.org\/services\/ health-food\/groceries-and-meals\/pandemic-ebt-p-ebt AB 1436 extends Covid-19 Emergency Eviction Protections California Pandemic-EBT to leave millions of federal dollars on the table (Cont’d on page 2) CCWRO’s most recent Homelessness Project Blog provides additional advice for tenants and advocates and addresses AB 1436, a new bill to protect tenants.. AB 1436, authored by Assembly members Chiu, Bonta, Gonzalez, Santiago, and Wicks, would provide significant relief to tenants after Governor Newsom’s emergency eviction order expires. This bill provides several safeguards for tenants. These include: -Preventing landlords from applying security depos- its or monthly rental payments in satisfaction of any obligations other than a prospective month’s rent (the month ahead), with certain criteria; -Declaring that a tenant who fails to pay rent during or within 90 days of the COVID-19 state of emergen- cy shall not be considered in default, and no action to recover that rent may be pursued, until 15 months after the state of emergency expires; -Preventing landlords from adding additional fees, including attorney’s fees and costs, late fees, penal- ties, and interest, to the rent owed by a tenant during the COVID-19 state of emergency; and, -Prohibiting landlords from harassing, threatening, or seeking to intimidate tenants for the nonpayment of these rents. Due to the sheer breadth of protections this bill af- fords tenants, it is likely to be strongly opposed by lobbyists for landlords and related interests. This bill needs strong support from the Housing community including letters of support to the authors listed above and testimony at any remote hearing that may be conducted. More information including a sample letter of support for AB 1436 can be found at https:\/\/ccwrohomeless- nessblog.wordpress.com\/. CCWRO Welfare News 2 For children who qualified for free and reduced price meals under the community (school-wide) blanket eligibility program, language access and disability access to P-EBT is critical. These children often live in families who are unfa- miliar with CalFresh or who may not have received a P-EBT card linked to the family’s eligibility for Medi-Cal. The roll-out of the program has been, well, rocky. CDSS mailed P-EBT cards to eligible families in May 2020 to families that received CalFresh, most categories of Medi-Cal or Foster Care benefits. However not all eligible households automatically received a P-EBT card in the mail by May 20, 2020. Other families received P-EBT cards loaded with benefits for only one child, when there were two or more eligible children in the same household. The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles filed a formal discrimination complaint about the P-EBT language and on-line access issues with the Califor- nia Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) on June 16, 2020. California Food Policy Advocates, based in Oak- land, California, submitted a letter to State School Superintendent Tony Thurmond of CDE request- ing an extension of the original P-EBT applica- tion deadline, which was granted. However, the language and computer access issues have not been resolved. Parents and caretakers of P-EBT eligible chil- dren should check to see if any preschoolers who received subsidized meals are eligible for these benefits. Also,pandemic related waivers have been accepted that make it easier for families that rely on WIC to get healthy nutritious food to their young children. More information is available at Pandemic EBT. If you are experiencing problems applying for or receiving P-EBT benefits, or you’d like more infor- mation, please contact Daphne Macklin at macklin. daphne@ccwro.org. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed severe weakness in the ability of California counties to respond to a major crisis with flexibility and ef- ficiency. With unemployment skyrocketing, it is even more important that families have timely ac- cess to CalFresh to mitigate food insecurity. Un- fortunately, counties statewide are failing our most vulnerable families and communities. In June, local food advocates alerted CCWRO to a problem with timely appointment setting and benefits issuance in Sacramento County. Under Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) 18914(b), if an applicant qualifies for expedited service, they should receive benefits no more than three calen- dar days after the date of application. But some Expedited Services (ES) applicants in Sacramento waited over thirty days for the county to even con- tact them with an interview date. When CCWRO contacted Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (DHA) for more information, DHA reported that the late issuances resulted from a lack of internet security for em- ployees working at home. However, late issuances of ES have been a significant problem in Sacra- mento since at least 2019, when the county already issued less than 90% of benefits on time. In other words, the pandemic has only worsened an existing problem. After CCWRO raised the late issuances with the statewide advocate community, data analysis by the Public Interest Law Project revealed that many counties have failed to meet expectations for Cal- Fresh ES since March 2020. To cite the most egregious examples, ten coun- ties, including Los Angeles and Sacramento County, issued less than 52% of ES benefits on time in April. Sacramento County processed only 33% of ES applications on time in April, and 52% of ES benefits were issued more than a week late. Los Angeles County processed 36% of applications on time in April, with 37% of ES benefits issued over a week late. Sonoma County issued a whopping 97.5% of ES benefits late in April, with 91% over a week late. After a meeting with advocates, CDSS has prom- ised to look into this problem, but the Department Many Counties Fail to Issue CalFresh Expedited Services Benefits Timely During COVID-19 (Cont’d from page 1) CCWRO Welfare News July 2, 2020 2020-07 must also hold counties accountable and move swiftly to find solutions. Statewide, only 68% of Expedited Services benefits were issued on time in April, and reports from the trenches suggest that May and June may show even worse percentages. The below table shows data for the 35 counties with an ES late percentage of 10% or higher in April. For more information contact erin.simo- nitch@ccwro.org Public benefits and immigration advocates won a major victory in June when CDSS suddenly re- versed their policy on counting food and housing benefits against indigent applicants for CAPI (Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants). CDSS announced a new policy effective June 24, 2020 that in all CAPI indigence exception cases, housing subsidies and food stamps should no longer be counted as income when determining eligibil- ity for indigence exception to sponsor deeming. The agency has drafted an ACL notifying counties of this change. The Department said they will revise the SOC 813 (CAPI Indigence Exception Determi- nation) form and amend the Manual of Policies and Procedures 49-037.44 to reflect the new policy. For more information contact erin.simonitch@ ccwro.org As of June 25, 2020, the three bills CC- WRO is co-sponsoring to improve the rate of Medi-Cal blood lead screenings for 12- and 24-month old children passed out of the California State Assembly and are awaiting action in the California State Senate Health Committee. Letters of sup- port should be sent to that committee for AB 2276, 2277 and 2279 should be sent to that committee as soon as possible. (See below.) The vital and life altering impacts of screening children for elevated blood lead CDSS Ends Use of Food & Housing Benefits to Deny CAPI Indigence Exception Elevated Blood Lead Levels – Consequences, Options and Actions levels (EBLL) were featured in a recently published study titled Downstream Conse- quences of Childhood Lead Poisoning , Coul- ton, C. et al, Case Western Reserve Universi- ty, Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, June 2020. The study com- pared two discrete groups of children from the late 1990s and early 2000s who had had at least one medically documented EBLL before age 5. These children were then com- pared to similar children who had not had an EBLL. Most of the children in the study were African-American residents of Cleve- land, Ohio. A summary discussing the article identified these key findings based on comparisons of medical, school, juvenile court and welfare records. The children with EBLLs were \u25cf 27 percent less likely to be ready for kin- dergarten; \u25cf up to 30 percent more likely to enter the juvenile justice system; \u25cf 34 percent more likely to be incarcerated as young adults; \u25cf 40 percent more likely to experience some level of homelessness. \u25cf Children with high lead-level tests were also significantly more likely to be charged with crimes considered violent before turn- ing 18, even as reports of violent crimes as a whole declined in Cleveland.See https:\/\/ www.ideastream.org\/news\/lead-exposure- sets-more-cleveland-children-on-a-poisoned- to-prison-path The findings confirm information from earlier studies establishing EBLLs have life conse- quences with both high individual costs as well as high social costs. This is especially true in light of the high costs associated with the criminal justice system. The study’s principal author Claudia Coulton, Ph.D., of Case Western Reserve University stated that the findings of the long term (20 years of data) study indicate that Prevention is re- ally the only way out. It’s almost always less costly both in human pain and suffering and in the economic sense to prevent [exposure], but it’s often a hard sell. Contact macklin. daphne@ccwro.org. ”

” CCWRO News News-2020-08 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-855 Telephone (916) 736-0616 1 Fax (916) 736-2645 – ccwro.org 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. August 27, 2020 By Madison Allen, CLASP Public benefit programs are racist. They are also es- sential. For decades, programs like Medicaid, the Supple- mental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have provided essential support for families with low incomes. At the same time, these programs have re- inforced structures of oppression. It is critical that we understand the history of the safety net in the United States because, without recognition of past and pres- ent harm, we run the serious risk of complicity in upholding systems of white supremacy. Many scholars have written at length about racism and the history of public benefit programs and wel- fare reform in America. From mother’s pensions in the 1900s used to exclude Black women to Reagan’s Welfare Queen narrative in the 1980s to Clinton’s 1996 racialized welfare reform and workfare pro- grams, false racist narratives have long been applied to people experiencing poverty. As Johnnie Tillmon noted in 1972, we’ve been trained to believe that the only reason people are on welfare is because there’s something wrong with their character. For decades, these narratives have served as dog whistles that are employed to garner support to cut funding and to restrict the eligibility for these programs with direct harms to both people of color and white people with low incomes. Racism in Public Benefit Programs: Where Do We Go From Here? (Cont’d on page 2) Many of the white supremacist structures histori- cally embedded in public benefit programs remain in place today. Disguised under terminology like work requirements, family caps, drug testing, and resource limits these polices are fundamen- tally rooted in oppression, paternalism, and control of Black and Brown lives. The policies themselves reinforce misconceptions about beneficiaries, sug- gesting that individuals with low incomes must be coerced to work and avoid drug use. Although whites are the largest group of beneficiaries when it comes to government programs the support basic needs, policies framing benefits access in terms of deserving versus undeserving rely upon and perpetuate false narratives about benefit recipients. While many of these policies appear race neutral, in practice they discriminate by failing to acknowl- edge the skewed racial realities of the U.S. crimi- nal justice system and labor market. For example, when racial discrimination in hiring prevails, work requirements necessarily place a disproportionate burden on people of color. When states agencies di- rect staff to consider an applicant’s criminal history as a basis for reasonable suspicion in drug testing, people of color suffer the consequences of dispa- rate policing of drug use in their communities. And when agencies impose resource limits with exclu- sions for home ownership, again people of color experience compounded barriers due to historic and systemic racism that excluded Black people from home-buying opportunities. CCWRO Welfare News August 27, 2020 2020-08 2 With Black and Latinx people dying from COVID-19 at significantly higher rates than white people, public health data is manifesting generations of racial inequi- ties. These disquieting statistics challenge the advocacy community to propose solutions which address the sys- temic and historic discrimination that have long driven policymaking and implementation of public benefit pro- grams. Looking forward, we must ask ourselves: How do we not only reduce inequities but eliminate them? At a time when systemic discrimination and a widen- ing racial wealth gap make it increasingly difficult for families to thrive, now is the time for us to evaluate the ways in which our past efforts have failed, to think beyond incremental reform, and to actively dismantle racism in the safety net. I hope that the advocacy com- munity will consider all possibilities and continue these conversations in close partnership with people directly impacted by the outcomes. We must follow the direc- tion of people with lived experience and affirmatively address the ways in which public benefit programs have been complicit in enabling suppression of Black people, Immigrants, and other communities of color. I look forward to the work ahead and to reimagining what is possible for the future of public benefit programs in our country. California started issuing CalFresh benefits to SSI beneficiaries in June 2019. Prior to that, all SSI benefi- ciaries in California received a $10 benefit with their SSI checks. The $10 constituted a cash-out available to purchase food. California opted for this cash-out in 1973 because 70% of SSI beneficiaries did not apply for or receive food stamps. In reversing the cash-out, California decided to use the established method of making SSI beneficiaries apply for CalFresh even though all SSI beneficiaries are eli- gible for CalFresh benefits. As a result, only 30% of SSI beneficiaries receive CalFresh benefits. Based on a report from Alluma entitled Facilitating CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for SSI Recipients, advocates recommended that California use 21st century tools to enroll SSI recipients. After one year, CDSS still does not have the neces- sary data to identify the number of SSI beneficia- ries receiving CalFresh and the benefit federal\/state benefits issued. CDSS’ CalFresh dashboard fails to include these very basic data points so that the ef- fectiveness of the program can be evaluated. The CF Data Dashboard does include the monthly number of applications submitted by SSI benefi- ciaries and the number of applications which were approved. The State CalFresh Administrator stated that the number of SSI beneficiaries whose applications were approved since June of 2019 is the number of persons getting CalFresh in July 2020. Interesting- ly the same dashboard shows that about 9,000 food stamp beneficiaries who are receiving the state only Supplemental Needs Benefits (SNB) & Tem- porary Needs Benefits (TNB) lost their benefits. There are about 40,000 households in in the SNB & TNB program. 100% state funded SNB & TNB CalFresh benefits are issued to SSI households who lost benefits due to the cash-out. There are 1,135,190 SSI beneficiaries according to the dashboard in California. As of May, 2020, a meager 388,212 households receive CalFresh benefits. It should also be noted that as annual redetermina- tions come due, we have already heard from SSI CalFresh beneficiaries that they are being terminat- ed from CalFresh for failure to complete an annual redetermination packet that they never received. Many were also dropped for failure to turn in a SAR 7. San Francisco County succeeded in establish- ing 40% of their SSI beneficiaries. In Los Ange- les County 40% of the SSI beneficiaries receive One Year Later, Most of California’s SSI Beneficiaries Still Do Not Have CalFresh Benefits (Cont’d from page 1) CCWRO Welfare News August 27, 2020 2020-08 3 CalFresh. Many rural counties only have 20% of the SSI ben- eficiaries receiving CalFresh benefits. See Table #1 for a county-by-county analysis. The reported numbers overstate the actual number of SSI beneficiaries receiving CalFresh because it only shows the number of approved applications June 1, 2019 and assumes that no SSI beneficiary left the CalFresh program. To date, California has failed to enroll 60% of SSI beneficiaries in the CalFresh. CalFresh overissuances have been a problem for a long time. Many overissuances are county-caused. Overissurances are often caused by the complexity of the California safety net programs. The so-called income reporting threshold (IRT) has one standard for CalWORKs and another standard for CalFresh. Although the law requires that the county informs the beneficiary of the reporting requirements, most beneficiaries do not know the amount of IRT. Counties will admit that they do not provide educa- tion to assistance units and households regarding the IRT beyond the required notification. An informal survey of county welfare workers as to why overissuances occur is very revealing. Below are excerpts of written statements submitted by county welfare workers: Ms. C.H.M. of Tehama County states that over- payments are caused due to Confusion on behalf of the customers as to when, and what to report for the different programs and incorrect data entry by county staff. What Do County Welfare Workers Believe Causes CalFresh Overissuances in California? Ms. S.L. of Madera County admits that workers do not take the time to explain the IRT to beneficiaries. She says that overissuances are caused by understaff- ing in some units and not recognizing they need to go back and do the OI\/OP. Ms. K.L. of San Luis Obispo County states that OI\/ OPs are caused by confusing and conflicting report- ing requirements for SAR 7 processing from CDSS. ACLs complicates the process so that it is difficult to understand and administer. IRT does not make sense to recipients and is misreported. Recipients have more things to track in life than CalFresh\/CalWORKs IRT. Ms. L.C. of Colusa County says that CalFresh overis- suances are caused by staff shortages and workload or- ganization in a task model due to Health Care Reform and significant increases in cases. Ms. L.C. reference to Health Care reform is about counties contribut- ing 11% of the Medi-Cal Costs and 25% for CalFresh. Thus, many counties have the same worker doing Medi-Cal and CalFresh. Ms. M.A. of Glenn County reasons that it is late SAR 7 processing by staff as well as workers not clearly explaining the IRT. A DSS designed manda- tory notice that better explains the IRT besides the SAR2 would be helpful. The problem with the SAR 2 is that the applicant does not receive it until after the case has been approved. The recipient disregards it and the worker forgets to explain. If the worker does not clearly explain the consequences behind not reporting income over the IRT, the recipient won’t report. Ms. R.F. of Glenn County stated that the majority of the OI are due to incomplete and inaccurate report- ing by recipients. They often throw away NOAs and information forms sent to them and forget reporting responsibility timelines. There is a small number of cases that are actually where the recipient knowingly omits information that causes overpayments when state generated IEVS\/PVS and New Hire reports are gen- erated. A small percentage is also due to administra- tive error when the verifications are provided, but the worker does not act timely on the changes. CCWRO Welfare News 4 Ms. C.C. of San Luis Obispo County states that what most contributes to the number of OI established by the county are late SAR7 & RRRs and incorrect income being used (misreading pay stubs or not asking for enough pay stubs). Ms. L.R. of Merced County states EW failure to take timely action on reported changes. This may be attributed to several reasons with not enough staff to confusion on policy on when to take ac- tion on changes reported. Ms. A.M. of Monterey County asserts that customers often don’t understand or forget their IRT amount which is buried in the approval NOA. Ms. J.L. of Yolo County admitted that they do provide education to households regarding IRT. However, the ratio of cases to worker makes it impossible to keep up with the workload. Cal- Fresh and Medi-Cal recipients are assigned to a continuing benefit center (CBC). It is much easier in this environment for tasks to be ignored and for mistakes to continue unnoticed due to lack of accountability. Additionally, recipients are very frustrated with the call wait times and the difficul- ty they experience in reporting information along with not having an individual worker to report to. Ms. I.Z. of Tulare County attributed banked caseloads and pooled tasks as causes for O\/I in Tulare County. She also states that IRT is not properly explained to CF\/CW beneficiaries. Ms. R.T. of Lassen County states that lack of understanding of reporting requirement is the major reason for OP\/OIs. Ms. J.H. of San Francisco County attributers OIs to task-based case system . Ms. N.N. of Eldorado states that OI are caused because of high caseloads. Many errors are caused by either late processing or eligibility staff not determining eligibility correctly (i.e. budgeting income incorrectly, not adding\/remov- ing household member as required, not obtaining the correct required income, not budgeting expenses cor- rectly) which vary between not being detailed or not understanding regulations well enough to ensure the right information is obtained. Ms. K.J.G. of Riverside County asserts that OI are agency caused errors because of the failure of county staff to act on IEVS\/PVS reports timely. Ms. L.J. of San Benito County says OP\/OI are caused by lack of experienced workers since the majority of San Benito staff have less than 2 years of experience. Ms. S.R. of San Mateo County says that CF\/CW OP\/ OI are caused by late processing, task-based work, lack of ownership and late reporting by recipients. Mr. A.V. of Madera County says that OP\/OI are caused by input errors by county staff. Ms. T.J. of San Bernardino County states that OP\/ OI are caused by EW’s not being trained properly which contributes to the number of accounts in our County. Ms. TR.R. of San Bernardino County state that OP\/ OI are caused by having too many workers handling the cases. Root Causes of OI\/OP 1) rules that are not clear and different for Cal- Fres\/CalWORKs\/Medi-Cal. We need objective rules and regulations that are clear and consis- tent throughout the State to prevent OI\/OPs. 2) Having to many underground rules to oper- ate the prorgram in violation of the California Administrative Procedures Act Government Code section 11340 et seq. 3) lack of data showing the reasons for OI\/OPs in California. CCWRO Welfare News August 27, 2020 2020-08 5 County SSI Beneficiaries Total Appicants Approved for CF % of SSI HH getting CalFresh County SSI Beneficairies Total Appicants Approved for CF % of SSI HH getting CalFresh Statewide 1,135,190 388212 34% El Dorado 2,767 887 32% Colusa 571 112 20% Sonoma 7,736 2499 32% Inyo 358 73 20% Sacramento 60,416 19630 32% Sierra 78 16 21% Santa Clara 39,764 13000 33% San Mateo 9,212 2063 22% Stanislaus 18,832 6159 33% Alpine 33 8 24% Kern 31,038 10172 33% Sutter 3,711 907 24% Siskiyou 2,353 779 33% Glenn 1,042 258 25% Calaveras 964 319 33% Imperial 9,949 2487 25% Yuba 3,521 1166 33% San Benito 859 222 26% Modoc 414 137 33% Monterey 7,591 1966 26% Solano 10,681 3540 33% Ventura 14,450 3767 26% Butte 10,183 3393 33% Mono 89 24 27% Contra Costa 22,931 7647 33% Merced 10,384 2799 27% Napa 1,868 634 34% Madera 4,441 1202 27% Mariposa 411 142 35% Placer 4,989 1357 27% Lassen 863 301 35% Orange 67,075 18590 28% Lake 3,506 1247 36% Riverside 57,936 16244 28% Yolo 4,944 1760 36% Kings 4,572 1311 29% Del Norte 1,697 609 36% Trinity 602 173 29% Tehama 2,879 1045 36% Santa Barbara 7,676 2221 29% Santa Cruz 4,531 1652 36% Plumas 621 180 29% Shasta 8,819 3223 37% Amador 648 190 29% Nevada 1,844 679 37% Tulare 17,480 5143 29% Mendocino 3,020 1119 37% Fresno 41,276 12389 30% Tuolumne 1,493 562 38% San Luis Obispo 3,802 1156 30% Los Angeles 366,052 145876 40% San Bernardino 65,947 20212 31% Humboldt 5,039 2065 41% San Joaquin 25,947 8001 31% Marin 2,578 1080 42% San Diego 73,274 22922 31% San Francisco 35,035 16955 48% Alameda 44,220 13942 32% TABLE #1 – SSI Benficiaries Whose Applications for CalFresh Were Approved Starting June 1, 2019. This does not show the real number of of SSI beneficiaries actually getting CalFresh as of May 2020. That number is unavailable today. Source: CDSS CalFresh Dashboard ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-09 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. October 7, 2020 In Brief The counties are testing the County Ex- pense Claim Reporting Information System (CECRIS) which is designed to detail how each county spends their portion of the TANF block grant. CECRIS is the first pro- gram that tracks the counties’ TANF expen- ditures. As of now, the public has no idea how counties spend the millions of dollars they get as a block grant also known as the county single allocation. At the June 11, 2020 CWDA Adult Ser- vices meeting, county staff discussed a situ- ation in which IHSS clients refuse to allow IHSS staff into their home. The participants determined that if the client refuses to allow the IHSS worker to come to their home and refuses to video conference with the IHSS worker, the client will be deemed out of compliance with program requirements because a video conference will not expose them to COVID. County IHSS staff and CWDA Adult Services seems unaware that not all IHSS beneficiaries have depend- able internet access and the ability to video conference. CalSAWS will automate the Los Angeles County General Assistance hearing process to automatically create a hearing for GA\/ GR cases that have been discontinued in Los Angeles County. Other counties do not require that each discontinuance be given a mandatory hearing, and therefore will not opt in to this CalSAWs function. CalWORKs WtW Sanctions Going During the COVID-19 Pandemic Since March 2020, CDSS issued several guidances to counties on curing WtW sanctions during the current coronavirus pandemic. The statewide June WtW 25s published by CDSS for the period of January 2020 to June of 2020 indicates that the number of WtW sanctions decreased by 33%, which is very significant. See Table #1. However, over 42,000 Cal- WORKs families remain under sanc- tion, reducing their benefits by an aver- age of $125 during a crucial period in which families face intense economic pressures due to COVID-19. Santa Barbara, Placer, Solano, Kings, San Mateo, Tulare, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Sacramento and San Diego counties reduced their sanc- tion rate between 88% to 72 %. Santa TABLE # 1 Counties Sanctions Cured from 1-20 to 6-20 Statewide 33% KKKKK Star Counties Santa Barbara 88% Placer 87% KKKK Star Counties Solano 82% Kings 81% San Mateo 80% Sonoma 79% Tulare 76% KKK Star Counties Santa Cruz 74% San Luis Obispo 74% Sacramento 73% San Diego 72% KK Star County Monterey 33% Riverside 33% Santa Clara 33% Stanislaus 29% 0 Star Counties San Bernardino -3% San Joaquin -3% Mendocino -3% CCWRO Welfare News October 7, 2020 2020-09 (cont’d from page 1) Clara, Stanislaus and Monterey reduced their sanction rate by 33%. Mendocino, San Bernardino and San Joaquin were the worst performing counties, increas- ing their sanctions by 3% during a period in which the counties had stopped WtW activities. These continu- ing sanction rate defy the logic stated in the CWDA blog: For children, deep poverty can cause toxic stress that harms brain development and early functioning, dis- rupting their ability to succeed in school and in life. Imagine as a child not knowing when you will be able to eat next, if you’ll be forced to sleep in a shelter tomorrow or if you can make it to school the next day; those real anxieties are oftentimes coupled with other traumatic events. Even a short amount of time in deep poverty can derail a child emotionally, psychologically, physically and educationally. These negative effects last through adulthood. Children who live in deep poverty are less likely to graduate high school, more likely to have poor health, and more likely to become involved in the criminal justice sys- tem. They are also three times as likely to be deeply poor as adults compared to children that do not grow up in deep poverty.(Emphasis added.) Finally, the June 2020 report reveals the counties that have a significant higher number of sanctioned CalWORKs families than participating CalWORKs families during a period in which 95% of the WtW caseload was paused. See Table # 2 below. TABLE #2 County June 2020 Sanctions Unduplicated Participants Butte 356 209 Imperial 806 606 Kern 5,000 918 Lake 132 49 Madera 338 41 Mendocino 149 112 San Bernardino 8,301 2,957 San Joaquin 2,610 753 Stanislaus 1,218 691 Sutter 181 123 Statewide 42,328 54,774 County Welfare Department Victims of the Month County Terminates CalFresh Benefits After Mov- ing from One County to Another – On 4-18-20 Mr. 1B9PC84 received a notice of action from CalWIN Sacramento County stating You household’s applica- tion for CalFresh has been denied. Here’s why. You or a member of your household are not a resident of this County or have moved out of this County and are not eligible to receive CalFresh Benefits from this County. CalFresh Benefits may be applied for in the County where you or the member of your household lives. (DFA 377.1A CalFresh Denial Various Reasons.) At all times, Mr. 1B9PC84 has lived and continues to live in Sacramento. This notice is inadequate. The notice fails to identify the individual who left the county and why that indi- vidual is not eligible for an intercounty transfer. The notice also fails to state why the individual who alleg- edly did not move from the county is ineligible. If one member had left the county, why does the remaining member lose their CalFresh benefits? Before CalFresh intercounty transfers began, when a person applied for food stamps in County A and moved to county B , the application was denied. That all changed in 2011, when AB 1612, authored by then Assembly Member Skinner, allowed for intercounty transfer (ICT) of CalFresh too just like CalWORKs. ACL 11-22 – Chapter 725, Assembly Bill 1612. Since 2011, millions have been spent on CalWIN to program ITC to make sure that folks like Mr. 1B9PC84 are not victimized for moving from one county to another county. Despite this investment, the CalSAWS EBCD system continues to end benefits when a ben- eficiary moves to a different county\u2014even when that move is illusory, as in this case. Sacramento County Terminates Benefits Because SSA Offices are Closed – Ms. 1B9LQ59 and her fam- ily are refugees who entered the country during the coronavirus pandemic. They are not able to apply for a Social Security card because, like the welfare offices, the social security offices were closed. On 9-2-20 Ms. 1B9LQ59 received an NOA saying that they will be stopping her benefits for refusing to apply and get a social security card. Sacramento County Issues Inadequate CalFresh NOA Sacramento County resident Mr. 1B8ZY93 who is a SSI beneficiary, received a NOA stating that 2 CCWRO Welfare News October 7, 2020 2020-09 3 his CalFresh benefits will be decreased from $113 to $99 because: Your housing costs has changed. When your housing cost changes, the amount of CalFresh benefits you are eligible to receive changes.Your utility cost changed. When your utility cost changes, the amount of CalFresh benefits you are eligible to receive changes. The NOA did not include calculations showing the previous and current rent and\/or utility costs used by the county.. The B339628’s, an SSI couple received Cal- Fresh. They then received a July 18, 2020 NOA stating that their CalFresh benefits would be stopped because they failed to complete their an- nual review. CDSS instructed counties that annual reviews for CalFresh would restart after August 31, 2020 because FNS did not approve California’s request for a further waiver of annual reviews. But that did not prevent Sacramento County from stopping B339628 SSI couple’s CalFresh benefits before August 31, 2020 because they failed to complete their annual review. However, Sacra- mento County was not conducting any annual reviews during that time, so the couple had no way of completing one. On July 29, 2020 B339628 SSI couple received another NOA stating Your household’s ap- plication for CalFresh has been denied. Here’s why: Your CalFresh are being denied because your household’s income exceeds the maximum level for benefits issuance. The NOA failed to identify the allowable maximum income and the income that the county alleged the household received in SSI. Unfortunately, this is occurring statewide since these computerized NOAs were sent to thousands of SSI beneficiaries in California compliments of the multibillion California computer system. Mr. 1B0GL85 of Yolo County is an SSI benefi- ciary who was told to apply for CalFresh. His CalFresh was approved in January 2020. In September 2020 his CalFresh stopped. He never got a letter or NOA. We assume it stopped be- cause Yolo County did not get a SAR-7 which he never received from the county. How many other SSI beneficiaries have lost their CalFresh during this pandemic because the county welfare depart- ments failed to perform their jobs? Federal Update from Center on Budget Policy & Priorities As multiple news outlets reported yesterday, President Trump announced he has halted nego- tiations on a federal COVID relief package until after the November election. After the President’s announcement, Speaker Pelosi issued a state- ment slamming the President for walking away from the talks that she and the Administration (represented by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin) had just restarted a week ago. While the dynamics could change, that’s unlikely \u2014 which would mean no COVID relief for at least a couple of months, if not longer. As CBPP President Bob Greenstein tweeted, this news is extremely disappointing, as we all know the needs of millions of struggling families and state and local governments have not gone away. Today’s release of the latest biweekly Census Household Pulse Data makes that continued hardship clear. Nearly 78 million adults \u2014 about 1 in 3 \u2014 are struggling to pay usual household expenses such as food, rent or mortgage, car payments, medical expenses, or student loans, according to our latest analysis of the Census data. This data further shows that people of col- or and low-income families and individuals are disproportionately affected by the pandemic and recession. The failure of Congress and the Trump Administration to agree to a strong, bipartisan COVID relief package means that this hardship will only continue, putting more people at risk of homelessness, debt, and other long-lasting consequences. And, as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said this week, a lack of federal relief would make the recession longer and more painful. CCWRO Welfare News October 7, 2019 2020-09 4 California Safety Net Public Benefit Applications by the Week Week\/Month of 2020 CalFresh CalWORKs Medi-Cal March 2020 Apps Received March 2020 Week 1 42,366 7,662 44,706 Apps Received March 2020 Week 2 41,918 6,765 41,630 Apps Received March 2020 Week 3 57,177 6,294 37,851 Apps Received March 2020 Week 4 95,516 14,380 55,128 April 2020 Apps Received April 2020 Week 1 87,277 1,162 42,157 Apps Received April 2020 Week 2 93,247 11,564 42,500 Apps Received April 2020 Week 3 90,579 9,369 43,183 Apps Received April 2020 Week 4 100,226 10,665 57,068 May 2020 Apps Received May 2020 Week 1 66,646 8,158 38,352 Apps Received May 2020 Week 2 60,854 7,180 37,719 Apps Received May 2020 Week 3 63,107 7,350 35,653 Apps Received May 2020 Week 4 67,539 6,165 36,899 June 2020 Apps Received June 2020 Week 1 42,998 5,789 34,241 Apps Received June 2020 Week 2 40,675 5,160 33,922 Apps Received June 2020 Week 3 50,297 4,993 35,540 Apps Received June 2020 Week 4 67,989 7,221 54,540 July 2020 Apps Received July 2020 Week 1 38,853 5,968 32,964 Apps Received July 2020 Week 2 44,114 6,174 36,361 Apps Received July 2020 Week 3 42,336 5,571 38,488 Apps Received July 2020 Week 4 59,047 8,211 61,211 August 2020 Apps Received August 2020 Week 1 50,394 8,110 37,770 Apps Received August 2020 Week 2 51,410 7,153 34,853 Apps Received August 2020 Week 3 49,534 7,180 34,996 Apps Received August 2020 Week 4 49,534 8,316 45,877 September 2020 Apps Received September 2020 Week 1 33,209 5,689 31,411 Apps Received September 2020 Week 2 50,238 7,325 34,500 Apps Received September 2020 Week 3 41,255 6,174 33,353 Apps Received September 2020 Week 4 51,969 8,205 54,729 Source: CDSS ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-09 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736-0616 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 Online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool (OCAT) went live November 2, 2020. CDSS scheduled a call on November 2 for county staff as well as county production support calls November 2 through November 13 from 4:30 pm to 5 pm. Represen- tatives of the beneficiaries are ex- pressly excluded from participating in the calls. Deloitte and Associates is build- ing the new CalSAWS beneficiary portal. CCWRO recommends that Deloitte & Associates incorporate the verification HUB into the ap- plication portal. Incorporating the verification HUB would streamline the process for persons seeking benefits from California’s safety net programs According to DHCS, MAGI Medi- Cal uses modified adjusted gross in- come for eligibility determinations. This calculation does not include pre-tax deductions such as health care premiums. See IRC 36B(2)(B) and 42 CFR 435.603(e). CalWORKs WtW Sanctions Counties Commit Child Abuse The June 2020, WtW 25 and 25A reports identify the counties that have a significant higher number of sanctioned CalWORKs families compared to those participating in a WtW activity while 95% of the caseload are in counties that are not fully open for the WtW program. See Table #1. Sanctions means that CalWORKs families with children living in deep poverty have their meager benefits reduced by $125 a month. This is devastating to families and it is comparable to county child abuse. According to Califor- nia Welfare Directors Association: [f]or children, deep poverty can cause toxic stress that harms brain development and early functioning, disrupting their ability to succeed in school and in life. Imagine as a child not knowing when you will be able to eat next, if you’ll be forced to sleep in a shelter tomorrow or if you can make it to school the next day; those real anxieties are oftentimes coupled with other traumatic events. Even a short amount of time in deep poverty can derail a child emotion- ally, psychologically, physically and education- ally. These negative effects last through adulthood. Children who live in deep poverty are less likely to graduate high school, more likely to have poor health, and more likely to become involved in the criminal justice system. They are also three times as likely to be deeply poor as adults compared to chil- dren that do not grow up in deep poverty. Yes. A County WtW sanction is child abuse as confirmed by the counties. California counties, please stop county child abuse! CCWRO Welfare News November 18, Table #1 Counties With High Sanction Rates County June 2020 Sanctions June 2020 Participants Butte 356 209 Imperial 806 606 Kern 5,000 918 Lake 132 49 Madera 338 41* Mendocino 149 112 San Bernardino 8,301 2,957 San Joaquin 2,610 753 Stanislaus 1,218 691 Sutter 181 123 Statewide 42,328 54,774 Estimated. The WtW reports do not report sanctions and partici- pants under 11 years old.. Alameda County CPS Takes Children From Essential Worker Who Requested Homeless Assistance Due to Domestic Violence An employed CalWORKs mother in Alameda County with two (2) children who is an essential worker, re- quested CalWORKs Homeless Assistance. Her family was sleeping in their car in order to escape domestic abuse. Alameda County gave her 16 days of homeless assistance. After 16 days, her family was sleeping in the car again due to lack of additional CalWORKs Homeless Assistance benefits. Current law states that a family can only receive 16 days of CalWORKs Homeless Assistance once a year. Alameda County welfare employees notified CPS who took the children from their mother for neglect because they were homeless. Domestic abuse has intensified during the Covid-19 pandemic. The victim and children have the Hob- son’s choice of staying with the abuser or fleeing. This Alameda mother fled and lost her children to CPS. This situation could have been avoided. July 2020 WtW Activity Reports Reveal Thousands of Working CalWORKs – often Essential Workers not Getting WtW Transportation Benefits from California Counties The July 2020 WtW Activity Report reveals that coun- ties reported 52,216 persons participating in the WtW program. What these reports do not show is the number of people who were actually participating given the fact that most of the counties shut down their WtW programs in March 2020. The counties reported 29,674 participants as work- ing. Many participants were essential workers . Only 16,856 of them received transportation. This means that a statistically significant 47% of the working participants were cheated out of the transporta- tion CalWORKs WtW benefits for which they were entitled. Los Angeles County reported 13,909 unduplicated participant and reported that 5,000 were working. Only 2,853 of the 5,000 received transportation. Los Angeles County failed to provide transportation to 47% WtW participants actually working. However, LA County is not the worse county for not providing transportation reimbursement. -Fresno County: 83% of the working participants did not receive transportation; -Kern County: 78% of the working participants did not receive transportation; -San Francisco County: 99% of the working Participants did not receive transportation; -Santa Barbara County: 95% of the working partici- pants did not receive transportation; -Tulare County: 93% of the working participants did not receive transportation; and 2 CCWRO Welfare News November 18, 2020 2020-10 Counties Unduplicated Participants Working Participants Estimated Transportation Issued to Working WtW Participants * Percentage of Actual Working WtW Parents Getting Transportation Statewide 52216 29674 7,248 24% Alameda 1826 1654 0 0% Butte 207 68 9 13% Contra Costa 1259 1098 73 7% Fresno 4723 2373 403 17% Imperial 463 235 12 5% Kern 909 490 109 22% Kings 412 196 61 31% Los Angeles 13909 5000 2,853 57% Madera 37 8 6 70% Monterey 266 84 50 60% Orange 3391 2699 103 4% Placer 276 206 14 7% Riverside 2108 1028 648 63% Sacramento 5573 4395 246 6% San Bernardino 2895 1572 1,127 72% San Diego 4393 2845 551 19% San Francisco 904 781 9 1% San Joaquin 749 349 25 7% San Mateo 163 145 7 5% Santa Barbara 344 249 13 5% Santa Clara 1041 711 438 62% Solano 219 84 23 28% Sonoma 423 323 24 7% Stanislaus 633 266 21 8% Sutter 105 28 8 29% Tulare 1551 1277 87 7% Tuolumne 42 24 7 29% Ventura 629 250 25 10% Yolo 343 232 15 6% Yuba 199 83 15 19% TABLE # 2 – WtW Participants, many of whom are essential work- ers are not getting WtW Transportation Benefits * The estimated transportation issued is based on the percentage of the total ‘unduplicated participants who are working. We then use that percentage of the transportation issued to all CalWORKs WtW beneficiaries to estimate how many working beneficiaries received transportation. Notwithstanding the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on the welfare computer, there are no reports that show exactly how many of the working WtW CalWORKs beneficiaries are getting transportation. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-11 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736 0616 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 Commit Widespread Violation of Safety Net Program Emergency Assistance Program Laws December 13, 2020 (cont’d on page 2) Since the inception of Covid-19 and the shutdown order on March 15, 2020, counties have caused severe poverty for impoverished California resi- dents who are forced to rely on public benefits. 95% of people on public benefits in California live in limited services counties. Each county defines limited services differently. Some coun- ties have some in-person operations while other counties depend entirely on electronic communi- cations. To date there has been no meeting regarding the issue of what constitutes limited services that include CDSS, counties, and the beneficiary community. While CDSS works closely with counties to release ACWDLs, ACINs, and ACLs, advocates are not privy to the development of the documents for most part until they are finalized. The poorest of Californians, those that have lim- ited or no access to telephones or electronic com- munications, are being left totally out of public assistance benefits. In order to approve a benefits application, the counties insist on a telephonic in- terview. Those who do not have a phone or access to internet are often denied emergency assistance that they are entitled to or their applications are denied due to procedural reasons. See TABLE #2. CDSS released policy guidance ACIN I-76-20 on November 5. This information notice mostly repeats the ACWDL issued on March 13, 2020. There are a few additional points made in the guidance that were appreciated, but nothing that directs the counties to obey California’s laws rela- tive to issuing emergency assistance for persons and families in need of emergency assistance. In fact, ACIN I-76-20 makes it clear that it only contains recommendation of best practices that will assist CWDs to comply with access requirements that enable our state’s most vulnerable populations to apply for and receive criti- cal benefits and services. The ACIN states: Access to benefits and services that is provided via telephonic communications must be provided in a timely manner to ensure legal compliance with access requirements Extended wait times, which require applicants and recipients to hold for hours or to call back on multiple days to speak to CWD staff, are not compliant. Should such wait times occur in the immediate aftermath of an unanticipated emergency or disaster, counties should make adjustments to staffing to come back into compliance as soon as possible. This ACI I-76-20 fails to identify what constitutes a timely manner and extended wait times for applicants and beneficiaries trying to reach a worker on the telephone. The ACIN was drafted in concert with the County Welfare Directors Association. Advocates were not invited to be a part of the ACIN stakeholder process. CCWRO is disappointed with the exclusion of ad- vocates and anticipates that the ACIN will not stop the economic havoc experienced by California’s impoverished individuals, families, and children. The policy guidance does not create any enforce- ment provisions to assure that people in need receive the benefits they are lawfully entitled to in the right amount at the right time. CCWRO Welfare News December 18, 2020 2020-11 (cont’d from page 1) 2 State regulations are clear if a county is not open during regular business hours from 8 am to 5 pm, then the county must make sure that benefi- ciaries receive the proper benefits. Under current law, if a family with small children is homeless Friday morning, they are entitled to receive home- less assistance, if otherwise eligible, on Friday. That means that the family must be able to apply; if eligible, get an EBT card; and receive assistance that will protect them from sleeping in the streets for the weekend. CCWRO has heard from eligible people whose children have been taken away by CPS because of homelessness, which destroys families and compounds the harm of poverty. ACIN 76-20 says the county has to do this, but the state also knows that the county is not doing it. The state knows that most counties have not been doing this since April of 2020. In July 2019, California assisted 7,576 homeless families with children and in August 2020 that number plum- meted down 2,581. That is a deep spike in home- less families of California. See TABLE # 1. TABLE # 1- Homeless Assistance Issued Month Homeless Assistance Issued 19-Jul 7486 19-Aug 7576 19-Sep 6611 19-Oct 6599 19-Nov 5438 19-Dec 5488 20-Jan 6009 20-Feb 5036 20-Mar 4108 20-Apr 3177 May-50 3569 20-Jun 3150 20-Jul 2948 20-Aug 2581 ACIN 76-20 contains some wonderful best practices for counties but it is toothless. The ACIN cites MPP Sec- tion 11-601 but does not require the counties to identify their compliance methods. Our folks have to submit an SAR-7 every 6-months. If the county fails to receive the SAR-7 because the county failed to send it out, the family’s aid is terminated. If the SAR-7 report does not contain verification of termina- tion of employment due the COVID-19, the SAR-7 is deemed to be incomplete and aid is terminated. The county DEMANDS verification even if the business has shut down. However, the counties do not hold them- selves to the same reporting standard. During July of 2020, 51% of all CalFresh applications were denied due to failure to meet the counties wide range of varying procedural requirements that limit access to benefits for hungry people and contribute to food insecurity. Shasta, Tehama, Placer and Siskiyou counties lead the state with over 70% of the applica- tions being denied. See TABLE #2 on page 3 for the percentage of applications denied county-by-county in California during the corona virus pandemic. LAWS BEING VIOLATED BY CALIFORNIA COUNTIES CASH AID Widespread county violations- Getting cash help for children & families in dire need. CalWORKs Immediate Need Law Being Violated-W&C 111266 FOOD ASSISTANCE Widespread county violations- Getting food for hungry children & families. Law Being Violated- W&IC 18.13 HOMELESS ASSISTANCE Widespread county violations- Getting assis- tance to homeless children & families. Laws Being Violated-W&IC 11450(f)(D) & 11450(f)(3)(iii) & MPP 44-211.523 CCWRO Welfare News December 14, 2020 2020-11 3 TABLE #2. Percentage of CalFresh Applications Denied During July of 2020 not because the applicant was ineligible for benefits, but because the applicant failed to meet the county bureaucratic procedural requirements during the CO- VID-19 Pandemic Counties Percentage Monterey 55% Sonoma 54% Stanislaus 54% Yuba 53% Calaveras 52% San Joaquin 52% Del Norte 51% Sacramento 51% Alameda 50% Imperial 50% Mendocino 50% Plumas 50% Santa Barbara 50% Fresno 49% Yolo 49% Orange 47% San Benito 47% Contra Costa 46% Los Angeles 44% San Luis Obispo 44% Madera 43% Solano 41% San Francisco 39% Santa Clara 38% Marin 33% Counties Percentage Statewide 51% Shasta 78% Tehama 74% Placer 72% Siskiyou 70% El Dorado 66% Tulare 65% Riverside 64% Butte 62% Kings 62% Nevada 62% Tuolumne 62% Glenn 61% Humboldt 61% Sutter 60% Ventura 59% Napa 58% Amador 57% San Bernardino 57% San Diego 57% San Mateo 57% Lassen 56% Santa Cruz 56% Kern 55% Lake 55% Merced 55% Skyrocketing hunger demonstrates that California’s safety net is deeply inadequate. Denial rates of CalFresh ap- plications accelerated in 56 out of 58 counties in 2020 at a time when CalFresh is needed more than ever. In July 2019, counties approved 65% of the CalFresh applications. However, in July 2020, the CalFresh approval rate plummeted to 44%, a 21% reduction of CalFresh application approval rates. Only two California counties in- creased the CalFresh approval rate during July 2020 Sonoma County by 13% and Colusa by 10%. Other counties, such as Tulare reduced the approval rate by 29%, San Joaquin reduced the approval rate by 28%, San Bernardino reduced the approval rate by 26%, Los Angeles County reduced the approval rate by 26% and Santa Clara County CCWRO Welfare News December 13 2019 2020-11 TABLE #3 – Percentage of Applications Approved from July 2020 v. July 2019. 2020 2019 Difference Statewide 44% 65% -21% Mono 27% 63% -35% Tulare 48% 77% -29% San Joaquin 34% 62% -28% Yuba 46% 74% -28% Amador 32% 58% -27% San Bernardino 39% 65% -26% Los Angeles 47% 73% -26% Santa Clara 47% 71% -24% Tuolumne 40% 64% -24% Stanislaus 35% 58% -23% Placer 28% 51% -23% Monterey 37% 60% -23% Mendocino 52% 75% -23% Riverside 32% 54% -22% Orange 44% 67% -22% Alameda 48% 69% -21% Kings 43% 64% -21% San Benito 42% 63% -21% Sacramento 42% 63% -21% Calaveras 49% 70% -21% San Mateo 29% 50% -21% Merced 40% 60% -21% Imperial 45% 65% -20% Fresno 47% 67% -20% Ventura 48% 68% -19% Contra Costa 43% 62% -19% Sutter 39% 58% -19% County 2020 2019 Difference Santa Cruz 47% 65% -18% Solano 49% 66% -17% Yolo 39% 56% -17% Kern 46% 63% -16% Shasta 38% 54% -16% Lake 51% 67% -16% Santa Barbara 46% 61% -15% Trinity 53% 68% -15% San Francisco 54% 68% -14% Madera 51% 65% -14% Napa 36% 49% -13% San Luis Obispo 44% 56% -12% Modoc 63% 74% -12% Glenn 43% 55% -12% Lassen 64% 75% -11% Tehama 46% 56% -11% El Dorado 49% 59% -11% San Diego 48% 59% -10% Inyo 55% 64% -9% Mariposa 61% 69% -9% Humboldt 43% 50% -8% Del Norte 50% 58% -7% Siskiyou 44% 51% -7% Marin 55% 61% -7% Butte 50% 54% -5% Plumas 58% 61% -3% Nevada 56% 58% -1% Colusa 64% 54% 10% Sonoma 36% 23% 13% CCWRO Welfare News December 13, 2019 2019-11 PEOPLE NEEDING ENMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE ENDURE HUNGER 5 EMERGENCY NEED FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE NOT BEING ADDRESSED If a household applying for CalFresh, also known as EBT\/CalFresh\/SNAP, has (1) less than $150 in regular in- come, (2) less than $100 in liquid resources; (3) their rent and utilities are less than their income or (4) homeless, then they are entitled to get emergency CalFresh within 3 days. Below are the state and federal laws relative to emergency food assistance also known as expedited service . In July 2020 many CalFresh applicants were not considered for CalFresh Expedited Service in violation of Welfare & Institutions Code 18914 (b) which states that the human services agency shall screen all CalFresh applications for entitlement to expedited service. . This is very disturbing in that 25,475 household who may be hungry were not even considered for CalFresh Expedited Services. The other fact that surfaced reviewing the CDSS CF 296 reports based on county reports is that while in July of 2019 statewide 27% received emergency food assistance, in July of 2020 it went down to 20%. This is a significant 7% reduction of issuing emergency food assistance. TABLE # 4 FEDERAL LAW 7 CFR 273.2(i)(2) (i) Expedited service – (1) Entitlement to expedited service. The following households are entitled to expedited service: (i) Households with less than $150 in monthly gross income, as computed in 273.10 provided their liquid resources (i.e., cash on hand, checking or savings accounts, savings certificates, and lump sum payments as specified in 273.9(c)(8)) do not exceed $100; (ii) Migrant or seasonal farmworker households who are destitute as defined in 273.10(e)(3) pro- vided their liquid resources (i.e., cash on hand, checking or savings accounts, savings certificates, and lump sum payments as specified in 273.9(c) (8)) do not exceed $100; (iii) Households whose combined monthly gross income and liquid resources are less than the household’s monthly rent or mortgage, and utilities (including entitlement to a SUA, as appropriate, in accordance with 273.9(d)). (2) Identifying households needing expedited ser- vice. The State agency’s application procedures shall be designed to identify households eligible for expedited service at the time the household re- quests assistance. For example, a receptionist, vol- unteer, or other employee shall be responsible for screening applications as they are filed or as indi- viduals come in to apply. STATE LAW 18914. (a) In accordance with, and to the extent provid- ed by, federal law, the county human services agency shall provide CalFresh benefits on an expedited basis as provid- ed in subdivision (b) to households determined to be in immediate need of food assistance. (b) Pursuant to the federal requirements of Section 273.2(i)(2) of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the county human services agency shall screen all CalFresh applications for entitlement to expedited service. Applicants who meet the federal criteria for expedited ser- vice as defined in Section 273.2(i)(1) of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall receive either a manual autho- rization to participate or automated card or the immediate issuance of CalFresh benefits no later than the third day following the date the application was filed. To the maxi- mum extent permitted by federal law, the amount of in- come to be received from any source shall be deemed to be uncertain and exempt from consideration in the determi- nation of entitlement for expedited service. For purposes of this subdivision, a weekend shall be considered one cal- endar day. (c) The State Department of Social Services shall develop and implement for expedited issuance a uniform proce- dure for verifying information required of an applicant. Federal Regulation and State Law for Emergency Food Assistance CCWRO Welfare News November 11, 2019 2019-10 6 TABLE # 4 Number of CalFresh Applications Filed, Number Considered for Emergency Food Assistance and Percentage of Applicants Receiving Emergen- cy Food Assistance July of 2019 v. July of 2020 – Part I July 2020 July 2019 Apps Consid- ered for ES Re- ceived ES % Re- ceived ES Apps Considered for ES Received ES # Re- ceived ES Statewide 187491 162016 32528 20% Statewide 257340 217460 58531 27% Alameda 7108 6892 862 13% Alameda 8423 7865 1304 17% Alpine 5 3 3 100% Alpine 6 6 6 100% Amador 101 101 23 23% Amador 189 189 55 29% Butte 1154 1153 349 30% Butte 2287 2286 519 23% Calaveras 168 168 45 27% Calaveras 268 268 96 36% Colusa 61 61 17 28% Colusa 112 112 33 29% Contra Costa 3031 759 347 46% Contra Costa 4146 1188 568 48% Del Norte 155 155 35 23% Del Norte 270 270 65 24% El Dorado 504 504 182 36% El Dorado 800 799 306 38% Fresno 5292 3480 1132 33% Fresno 8709 4704 1748 37% Glenn 116 116 30 26% Glenn 201 200 63 32% Humboldt 908 908 250 28% Humboldt 1632 1632 430 26% Imperial 1083 1083 284 26% Imperial 2083 2083 569 27% Inyo 60 60 21 35% Inyo 80 80 33 41% Kern 5971 5971 1669 28% Kern 9175 9174 3069 33% Kings 772 772 229 30% Kings 1089 1088 435 40% Lake 364 364 118 32% Lake 768 768 241 31% Lassen 88 88 33 38% Lassen 204 204 72 35% Los Angeles 63710 63701 9662 15% Los Angeles 81984 81978 18419 22% Madera 700 700 184 26% Madera 1093 1093 309 28% Marin 523 523 177 34% Marin 747 747 189 25% Mariposa 66 66 21 32% Mariposa 114 114 38 33% Mendocino 438 438 138 32% Mendocino 779 779 271 35% Merced 1602 1602 392 24% Merced 2011 2010 702 35% Modoc 24 24 8 33% Modoc 89 89 19 21% Mono 33 33 12 36% Mono 48 48 20 42% Monterey 1806 1806 338 19% Monterey 2158 2158 567 26% Napa 353 353 66 19% Napa 427 427 71 17% Nevada 346 346 137 40% Nevada 533 532 186 35% 7 July 2020 July 2019 Apps Consid- ered for ES Re- ceived ES % Re- ceived ES Apps Considered for ES Received ES # Re- ceived ES Orange 10001 6436 1709 27% Orange 12752 8024 2411 30% Placer 651 533 142 27% Placer 1009 777 502 65% Plumas 77 77 24 31% Plumas 147 147 48 33% Riverside 11974 11974 2277 19% Riverside 16911 16909 5367 32% Sacramento 10232 10232 1185 12% Sacramento 12252 12252 1875 15% San Benito 171 171 45 26% San Benito 241 241 87 36% San Bernardino 12701 12700 2789 22% San Bernardino 18190 18185 6483 36% San Diego 13591 8142 2855 35% San Diego 18801 8974 2653 30% San Francisco 3202 1782 426 24% San Francisco 6446 2724 457 17% San Joaquin 3952 3947 691 18% San Joaquin 5184 5183 1406 27% San Luis Obispo 705 243 122 50% San Luis Obispo 1084 401 233 58% San Mateo 1790 323 204 63% San Mateo 1631 418 253 61% Santa Barbara 1787 665 190 29% Santa Barbara 2127 695 269 39% Santa Clara 4057 2304 398 17% Santa Clara 6111 1819 576 32% Santa Cruz 836 415 98 24% Santa Cruz 1212 604 209 35% Shasta 1083 1083 269 25% Shasta 1852 1852 523 28% Sierra 0 0 0 0 Sierra 18 18 9 50% Siskiyou 255 255 58 23% Siskiyou 392 392 90 23% Solano 1560 807 260 32% Solano 2281 960 428 45% Sonoma 2465 767 267 35% Sonoma 2957 1743 198 11% Stanislaus 3037 3034 508 17% Stanislaus 5201 5201 1327 26% Sutter 443 443 95 21% Sutter 682 682 210 31% Tehama 358 358 94 26% Tehama 725 725 194 27% Trinity 77 77 19 25% Trinity 112 112 35 31% Tulare 1991 527 325 62% Tulare 3385 2210 902 41% Tuolumne 201 201 50 25% Tuolumne 409 409 110 27% Ventura 2469 1500 422 28% Ventura 3233 1908 858 45% Yolo 842 347 131 38% Yolo 1570 231 167 72% Yuba 439 439 110 25% Yuba 773 773 255 33% TABLE # 4 Number of CalFresh Applications Filed, Number Considered for Emergency Food Assistance and Percentage of Applicants Receiving Emer- gency Food Assistance July of 2019 v. July of 2020- Part II ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2020-12 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736 0616 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. December 29, 2020 What DMV Could Teach County Welfare Departments By Daphne Macklin As a Californian there is one agency that all of us know to approach with fear and dread: the Department of Motor Vehicles, the DMV. Earlier this week I had to visit the DMV in person, as there were no online options available for the services I needed. The Broadway DMV customer service office is usually a mob scene, but when I approached the parking lot had only a few cars and the usual crowd pouring out the door was quite sparse. In fact, there were more DMV employees milling around the doors than customers. A sign directed me to the door for people without appointments. The young woman wearing her mask asked what I needed to do and then she advised that I was being given a 3:00 p.m. appointment. It was 11: 30 a.m. I explained that I was taking the bus, so perhaps some accommodation could be made for a senior citizen using public transpor- tation. (cont’d on page 3) CalSAWS Hourly Allotments Don’t Make Sense CalSAWS has allotted 8,611 development hours to automate ABAWDS determina- tion when the State is not even running an ABAWDS program thanks to a federal waiver. (See CalSAWS System Change Request CA-207637\/CIV-103743.) Before the pandemic hit, California spent mil- lions gearing up to protect households from the racist, cruel, and unnecessary effects of ABAWDS. ABAWDS would have limited food stamp benefits for able bodied adults to three months in any 36-month time period, unless the head of the household could meet one limited exception or worked 20-hours a week and mak- ing minimum wage. About 6 counties implemented the ABAWDS rule, but when unemployment rates began to skyrocket, California requested a federal waiver that should delay ABAWDS implementation for several years. Despite this, CalSAWS has assigned 8,611 hours to automate the ABAWDS determination process over other urgent priori- ties that would help rather than harm Califor- nians. To add insult to injury, during the 11-13-2020 CalSAWS briefing of Legislative staff, Cal- SAWS leadership suggested that because they have limited hours to build the CalSAWS sys- tem, the Legislature should not pass new laws (cont’d on page 2) ____________________ The no-contact lockdown modality imposed in March 2020 has been revised by a great many public- facing government agencies since June 2020. For the county welfare department that provides essential supports to the poor, the elderly, the disabled and families with young children, to still be closed until further notice without any flexibility for those without online or phone access is unacceptable. ___________________ CCWRO Welfare News December 29, 2020 2020-12 2 improving the lives of Californian safety net benefi- ciaries experiencing deep poverty. CalSAWS gets 24,000 hours a month to make changes unrelated to migrating CalWIN and C-IV functions into the new statewide welfare program. Why not use the avail- able hours wisely and not wastefully? In addition, CalSAWS has allotted 524 hours to change the CalWORKs income disregard from $500 to $550 on forms. The CalSAWS system change request states that pursuant to ACL 19-76, CalWORKs income deduction of $500 will be increased to $550 effective June of 2021. Such a simple change should not require 524 hours. There are 37 forms where the word $500 has to be de- leted and the word $550 has to be inserted, mean- ing that CalSAWS estimates it will take 14.5 hours to change the amount on each form and test whether the changes work\u2014a staggeringly inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. Counties Cite False Need for Automation to Justify Delay in Implementing the Repeal of the 24-month Clock The CalWORKs 24-month clock became law on June 27, 2012 with the implementation of SB 1041. ACL 12-67 states: SB 1041 eliminated the WTW core and non-core hourly requirements and estab- lished a 24-month period in which aided adult clients will be able to participate in the CalWORKs WTW activities that are consistent with the clients’ assessments. Additionally, the number of hours cli- ents are required to participate in WTW has been aligned with the federal hourly requirements, which reduces the weekly participation requirements for single- parent families. The increased flexibility resulting from the elimination of the core and non-core hourly requirements during the 24-month period is intended to support clients’ opportunities to reach self-suffi- ciency. The implementation of the 24-month time clock did not require automation. It was implemented through ACL 12-67 effective 1-1-13. The 24-month clock was always confusing to both workers and WTW participants. Studies revealed the 24-month clock never really did what it was designed to do give participants options. In fact, WTW workers came to the capitol and testified that giving participants 24-month clock options would prevent them from meeting federal work partici- pation rates. On June 29 of 2020, AB 79, Chapter 11 did away with the 24-month clock and provid- ed that WTW par- ticipants can par- ticipate in core or non-core activities for 60 months. AB 79 states that the repeal of the 24-month clock goes into effect on May 1, 2022, or when the department noti- fies the Legisla- ture that the State- wide Automated Welfare System can perform the necessary automa- tion to implement the repeal. Is automation really necessary to implement the repeal of the 24-month clock that many counties operating the CW2.0 are already doing? The legis- lature did not say that CDSS and CalSAWS have to do automation even if it is not necessary. That would be wasteful and abuse of taxpayer dollars. The Legislature specified that the automation must be necessary. Spending tax dollars on automa- tion that is not necessary would be a terrible use of taxpayer dollars. For a few years, many counties have operated their WTW program as CalWORKs 2.0, which ignored the 24-month clock for core or non-core activities. Yet now that the 24-month clock has been repealed, counties are alleging that they need automation to do what they are already doing in most counties of California. The 24-month clock went into effect in 2012 without automation, so why can’t the 24-month clock go away without automation? The solution is very simple WTW workers should no longer require participants to do core activi- ties after 24-months. Nevertheless, CalSAWS is asking for about $3 million to issue a memo to this effect. The $3 million is needed, according to a cost (cont’d from page 1- Hourly Alootments) ___________________ The legislature did not say that CDSS and CalSAWS have to do automation even if it is not necessary. That would be wasteful and abuse of taxpayer dollars. The Legislature specified that the automa- tion must be necessary. Spending tax dollars on automation that is not nec- essary would be a terrible use of taxpayer dollars. ___________________ CCWRO Welfare News December 29, 2020 2020-12 3 I was then directed to a very short, socially distanced line managed by several DMV employ- ees. Before I could enter the main room, I was asked a series of recent health related questions and scanned with an infrared thermometer. Ok, you’re fine. Put on this sticker. In less than 30 seconds I was admitted to the usually full waiting room. I was directed to a small room with some computer terminals and allowed to fill out some forms. The computers must have been monitored because once my forms were done, an employee greeted me with a slip of paper with my customer number. A janitor immediately came to my vacated computer terminal and began to sanitize the area. I spoke with a polite young man behind a plexi- glass screen. Instead of reviewing my responses on paper, I was directed to use a small computer screen. I pushed a few buttons, paid my fee and was done. The interaction was more than five minutes only because the worker had to discuss something about my case with a supervisor, socially distant of course. Both workers were wearing masks. California’s county welfare departments should implement similar strategies. There was nothing at the DMV or the Post Office that would have been beyond a county office to adopt to allow in- person services. Plexiglass barriers and customer compliance with mask wearing rules are common at small businesses and grocery stores now. If the issue is ventilation, almost all of the Sacra- mento DHA facilities have large parking lots that could accommodate tent-based services. An appointment system would also improve the process. CWD’s and Sacramento’s DHA could set standards for in-person service with medical pre-screenings, regular business hours as re- quired by law. The no-contact lockdown modal- ity imposed in March 2020 has been revised by a great many public-facing government agencies since June 2020. For the county welfare depart- ment that provides essential supports to the poor, the elderly, the disabled and families with young children, to still be closed until further notice without any flexibility for those without online or phone access is unacceptable. Pandemic-EBT: P-EBT 2.0 By Daphne Macklin When California and the nation’s schools closed in March 2020, millions of school children lost access to free and reduced school-based nutrition and meal programs. In its application to the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Services (FNS), California officials stated that they expected to serve a little less than 4 million school aged children through the implementation of the P-EBT 1.0 program.1 This was the approximate number of chil- dren (elementary and high school students) participating in school-based feeding programs for breakfasts, lunches, after school snacks and at some schools, nutritious foods for the weekends. For some schools, special rules allowed all children registered to receive free meals regardless of income. In the immediate aftermath of COVID-19 school closures, school district staff improvised bag lunch pick-ups as a way to get food to hungry kids and help families who faced job losses, limited public transportation options and budgets where food costs were just one more thing in the gap between lost income and enough money to pay for food and rent and utilities. Emergency supplemental payments to CalFresh house- holds helped existing CalFresh households, but the closure of most county welfare department offices created obsta- cles for new applicants. Congress promptly approved a new USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) program, Pandemic-EBT, as a benefit for school children who qualified for and had been receiving free school lunch and other nutrition benefits. California’s P-EBT program was quickly approved but the rollout was about as smooth as Rocky Road ice cream. The basic problem was simple: school-based nutrition programs are operated by the California Department of Education (CDE). The P-EBT program however was managed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). (Cont’d on page 4) 1 https:\/\/www.cbpp.org\/sites\/default\/files\/atoms\/files\/9-14-20fa- stateprofile-ca.pdf (cont’d from page 1- DMV v. CWD) CCWRO Welfare News December 29 2020 2020-12 (Cont’d from page 3-P-EBT Eventually, per published reports, California was able to provide P-EBT lump sum benefits of about $360 through P-EBT 1.0. The initial program’s primary problems included – A simplified on-line application process that was available in only three languages (English, Span- ish and Chinese). – An automatic card issuance plan that originally issued one card per household that was changed to one card per eligible child. – Tight application deadlines with little in the way of readily accessible telephone information re- sources. The deadlines were eventually modified. By August 2020, however, when many children were scheduled to return to school, most districts remained closed due to COVID-19 or were considering and debat- ing alternatives to remote learning. P-EBT 1.5 was implemented to provide additional food benefits for children who were still attending school and had previously received P-EBT supplemental benefits for August and September 2020. Unfortunately, these bene- fits were not scheduled for payment until November 2020 with the final set of payments of these benefits expected as late as January 2021. Congress has authorized funding for P-EBT to cover the 2020-2021 school year (SY 2020-2021) which features some improvements to the basic program. P-EBT 2.0 benefits are available to any child who was eligible for free or reduced-price meals during the 2019-2020 school year. The key program differences are as follows: – 100% of administrative costs will be paid by the federal government. – Benefits will be paid monthly based on whether a school district was closed for regular in-person instruction or whether children were attending school in-person on a full or part-time basis. California has not yet submitted its P-EBT 2.0 proposed plan to the USDA FNS, so the timing for the actual issuance of benefits remains uncer- tain. For the present, P-EBT recipient and eligible households should consider the following to assure eligibility for benefits under the new program: — Keep any previously issued P-EBT cards. — Document each child’s actual school atten- dance and on-line participation. — Promptly report any changes of address or enrollment at a different school. The best advice for any parent or caretaker of a school aged child is to be alert for information from CDSS and their local school district about P-EBT payments and changes. CCWRO would like to hear from any parent or caretaker who is having problems with P-EBT for the school-aged children in their care. E-mail D. Macklin at tlk2014dlm@gmail.com 4 CCWRO Welfare News December 29, 2020 2020-12 5 Sacramento County Medically Distressed CalWORKs Recipient Denied Benefits by County Indifference As the COVID-19 pandemic hit a new peak in November 2020, Sacramento County Depart- ment of Human Assistance (DHA) terminated the TANF Cash Aid, CalFresh and Medi-Cal benefits that B017652 received for her son and herself. According to Sacramento’s DHA, B017652 failed to provide the county with certain documents needed to complete her October 2020 benefits redetermination process. As a result of a series of strokes, B017652 is medically fragile and is also severely vision impaired. She had in- formed DHA staff about her medical impairments during the October 2020 re-evaluation. After the evaluation, DHA informed her that she had to provide DHA with certain docu- ments. DHA directed her to bring the redeter- mination documents to a DHA office so the docu- ments could be placed in an office drop box, as DHA offices remain closed to the public. Because of her medical conditions, including her vision impairment, B017652 could not physically comply with DHA’s requests that she physically leave her home. She asked her daughter to help get the documents to DHA. The daughter had a positive Covid-19 test and was in quarantine but did attempt to call DHA about the medical issues. When DHA did not receive the requested pa- perwork, DHA sent a regular English language Notice of Action (NOA) that B017652 could not read as a result of her visual impairments. She had explained her accommodation needs to DHA staff, but DHA failed to provide the ADA required accommodation. B017652’s adult daughter attempted to contact DHA on her mother’s behalf with only limited success. The daughter, on behalf of her disabled mother then contacted CCWRO. DHA reviewed the matter only after CCWRO’s intervention and restore B017652’s benefits on an expedited emer- gency basis in December 2020. This case is just one example of a multitude of similar cases that have occurred and continue to occur throughout Cali- fornia. County welfare departments with limited staff (many of whom are working at home or oth- erwise off-site) are oper- ating with significantly reduced client access. In some critical instances, these agencies are fail- ing to provide timely and adequate services and benefits to needy, disabled and elderly households and families. The inability to reach a live welfare staff person is resulting in the unnecessary loss of desperately needed benefits. While CCWRO understands the necessity of pro- tecting the health of county workers, the needs of safety net beneficiaries\u2014the most vulnerable Californians\u2014must be given equal priority. So far, many California counties have not met their obliga- tion to provide equitable access to all beneficiaries and ensure needed accommodations for disability, age, and illness. The pandemic is no excuse for the abject failure to administer state welfare programs in a fair, accessible manner\u2014in fact, the unique pressures and impacts of the pandemic make equity and access more important than ever. Counties must do better, and CCWRO will continue to hold county programs accountable when their processes fall short. ____________________________________ While CCWRO understands the necessity of pro- tecting the health of county workers, the needs of safety net beneficiaries\u2014the most vulnerable Californians\u2014must be given equal priority. So far, many California counties have not met their obliga- tion to provide equitable access to all beneficiaries and ensure needed accommodations for disability, age, and illness. The pandemic is no excuse for the abject failure to administer state welfare pro- grams in a fair, accessible manner\u2014in fact, the unique pressures and impacts of the pandemic make equity and access more important than ever. Counties must do better, and CCWRO will continue to hold county programs accountable when their processes fall short. ________________________________________ 4 ”