Search Demo

” CCWRO Welfare News-2021-01 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. February 10, 2021 CWD Victim of the Month Ms. B1QW781 of Los Angeles County applied for cash aid and food stamps on December 1, 2020 at the Exposition Park welfare office. She and her 4 children, ages 3, 5, 6 and 8 were homeless. Her application languished at Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services (LADPSS) for 45 days. Over Christmas, the family had to figure out how to comply with the stay at home order despite being homeless, but the case continued to accumulate LADPSS dust while LADPSS staff celebrated Christmas and New Year’s. On January 15, 2021 LADPSS decided to issue a $ 200 imme- diate need check that should have been issued on December 2, 2020–44 days late. What would have happened to Ms. B1QW781 if she was 44 days late submitting requested veri- fication to the county? On the 10th day all benefits would be halted period. What happened to LADPSS as a consequence for being 44 days late? Nothing. LADPSS refused to issue all of her benefits because they did not have the immunization verification of all her children and could not locate the children’s birth certificates even though Ms. B1QW781 had given the birth certificates to LADPSS nu- merous times. Ms. B1QW781 was also told that she had to provide school attendance verification for the minor children. Wrong – see ACL 15-22. This has not been the law since 2015. LADPSS also informed Ms. B1QW781 that she needed to ap- ply for new birth certificates. Ms. B1QW781 stated that there was a fee for the birth certificates application. The LADPSS representative said that the county does not pay for fees. See 40-105.36 When the county has determined the applicant has made a good faith effort to obtain the evidence and a third party imposes a fee to obtain the evidence, the county shall pay the fee on behalf of the applicant or recipient. 40-126.332 Third Party Fees If necessary, the county shall pay a third-party fee to obtain existing evidence of eligibility on behalf of the applicant. As of 12\/20\/21, Ms. B1QW781 has only received the $200 im- mediate need payment that should have been issued on 12\/2\/20. There are thousands of cases just like Ms. B1QW781 in Los Angeles County and other counties in California needy fami- lies who had a horrible Christmas. CalWORKs State Budget for 2021-2022 The Governor’s Budget Summary for 2021-2022 states that the Total TANF expenditures are $9.3 billion (state, local, and federal funds) for 2021- 2022. (Page 108 of the Budget Summary.) $9.3 billion provides enough TANF\/CalWORKs money to meet the needs of the program and also pay for changes needed in the CalWORKs pro- gram to streamline program rules that will reduce barriers to entry, reduce CalWORKs racism and retain current families in CalWORKs. However, the 2021-2022 Governor’s proposed budget has over $1.9 billion TANF\/CalWORKs funds that are not allocated to the meet the basic survival needs of California’s needy families with children who are eligible for CalWORKs. This is nothing novel. CalWORKs families have long endured deep poverty because California’s budget writers have intentionally taken food right out of the mouths of California’s needy children at the annual rate of more than $1 billion a year. $904,200,000 of the $1.9 billion is used for Cal- WORKs cases that have been moved to the state general fund to help California meet the federal work participation rates (WPR), also known as WPR adjustments. Those are legitimate Cal- WORKs expenditures. But the remainder of the expenditures are not used to meet the needs of the CalWORKs eligible needy children and families. Historically, since FY 98-99, California has regularly had over $1 billion a year of TANF\/CalWORKs dollars that have not been allocated for expenditures that directly benefit CalWORKs eligible families. See Table #1 on page 2 for the history of CalWORKs funds not allocated to meet the needs of the CalWORKs children and families of California enduring deep poverty for decades. Historically, since FY 98-99, California has always had over $1 billion a year of TANF\/ CalWORKs dollars that have not been allocated to for ex- penditures to meet the needs of CalWORKs eligible families of California enduring deep pov- erty. CCWRO Welfare News February 12, 2021 2021-02 2 (cont’d from page 1- State Budget) TABLE #1 – History of CalWORKs funds not al- located to meet the needs of CalWORKs children and families. FY 98-99 $708,502,000 FY 99-00 $745,249,000 FY 00-01 $1,021,913,000 FY 01-02 $1,126,647,000 FY 02-03 $,1,088,940,000 FY 03-04 $1,163,238,000 FY 04-05 $1,087,321,000 FY 05-06 $1,299,448,000 FY 06-07 $1,184,134,000 FY 07-08 $1,745,291,000 FY 08-09 $1,268,997,000 FY 09-10 $1,262,291,000 FY 10-11 $1,262,046,000 FY 11-12 $1,234,159,000 FY 12-13 $1,896,060,000 FY 13-14 $1,586,755,000 FY 14-15 $1,661,424,000 FY 15-16 $1,661,764,000 FY 16-17 $2,076,557,000 FY 17-18 $2,312,158,000 FY 18-19 $2,312,158,000 FY 19-20 $2,662,827,000 FY 20-21 $1,887,895,000 FY 21-22 1,929.813,000 Most of the CalWORKs Budget is Allocated for CalWORKS Administration Costs Less than 39% of the available $9.3 billion is al- located for assistance payments to California’s needy children and families living in deep poverty. $1,929,813,000 of the CalWORKs\/TANF dollars will NOT be allocated to pay for expenditures for Cal- WORKs eligible children and families. TABLE # 2 2021-2022 CalWORKs Budget – In Thousands Program TOTAL Federal State County CalWORKs Grants $ 3,546,606 $ 2,469,263 $ 986,652 $ 91,691 WtW Costs $ 1,731,787 $ 1,519,171 $ 21,616 $ 00.00 CalWORKs Child Care $ 1,555,401 $ 682,200 $ 780,729,588 $ 00.00 County CalWORKs Administra- tive Costs (without WtW costs) $ 680,407 $ 301,017 $ 379,390 $ 00.00 California’s CalWORKs program has its major fo- cus on the administration and not the task of housing California’s needy families. As evidenced above, less than 39% of the TANF\/CalWORKs funds are used for the task of housing and feeding CalWORKs families. Stated another way, for every dollar– 61\u00a2 goes to administration and 39\u00a2 assistance goes to CalWORKs grants. The negative and devastating impact of deep poverty is well researched and publicly available it is in- deed CalWORKs state child abuse that needs to be stopped in its tracks. The 2021-2022 receives a very low mark for this task of reducing or eliminating Cal- WORKs child deep poverty. The 2020-2021 CalWORKs caseload was estimated to be 538,962. The new estimate for 2020-2021 is 403,317. That is a 25% overestimate of the case- load, which is significant. The 2021-2022 budget estimates caseload of 482,436. The immense need is out there for benefits. However, since March 15, 2020 most of the county welfare of- fices have shut their doors. Counties have blatantly violated many state laws when it comes to emergency CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits to thousands of homeless and hungry families. It is indeed uncon- scionable and reflects larger systematic racism in that office closures disproportionately impact Black and Latino families and children of California. Historically, since FY 98-99, Califor- nia has always had over $1 billion a year of TANF\/CalWORKs dollars that have not been allocated to for expendi- tures to meet the needs of CalWORKs eligible families of California enduring deep poverty. CCWRO Welfare News February 12, 2021 2021-02 3 CCWRO recommends that the CalWORKs Grants be increased to 50% of the federal poverty level for an assistance unit plus one. The budget published by the administration alleges that a three-person grant of $891 for 2021-2022 will bring CalWORKs families MAP up to 49% of the federal poverty level. This is ONLY true for a meager 36% of the caseload, but not true for 64% of the Cal- WORKs caseload. In fact, the administration’s budget document reveals that the average grant for a family of 3, is estimated to be $752 not $891. The 2018 budget act included a historic commitment to end deep childhood poverty by bringing all grant levels to 55% of the federal poverty level in Cali- fornia. The budget agreement provided a three step process to increase CalWORKs grants and the first two steps were completed in the 2018-19 and 2019- 20 budget. We are requesting that the Legislature provide additional funding to complete the process of bringing the CalWORKs average grants to 5% of the federal poverty level. Golden State Stimulus proposal excludes CalWORKs, General Assistance and SSI beneficiaries CCWRO recommends a budget amendment to include CalWORKs, General Assistance and SSI beneficiaries who did not receive a State EITC for tax year 2019. Unlike the federal stimulus, the EITC expressly excludes the most vulnerable persons and families of California CalWORKs families with children, general assistance, and SSI beneficiaries. The Governor states that the Golden State Stimu- lus is a tax refund for low-income households in- tended to provide cash support to families who are most likely to have suffered economically from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Regardless of income, all Californians pay a variety of taxes, including on the purchase of taxable goods. Totaling $2.4 billion, CalWORKs, General Assistance and SSI beneficia- ries by far meet the definition of people who suffered economically during the COVID-19 and continue to suffer irreparable harm. The budget limits the Golden State Stimulus to tax filers which excludes a large number of CalWORKs, General Assistance and SSI beneficiaries The CalWORKs 2021-2022 COLA CCWRO recommends that the Legislature enact trailer bill language to authorize the full cost-of-living adjustment for CalWORKs fami- lies in 2021. The budget proposes to increase CalWORKs maximum aid payment (MAP) by 1.5%. The CNI for 2020-2021 was 3.72%, The cost of the 1.5% CalWORKs MAP increase is $1,209,000 for grants to families and $247,000 administrative costs. That is a significant 20% administrative cost. The budget published by the administration alleges that a three-person grant of $891 for 2021-2022 will bring Cal- WORKs families MAP up to 49% of the federal poverty level. That may be true for a meager 36% of the caseload, but it is not true for 64% of the CalWORKs caseload. In fact, the administration’s budget document reveals that the aver- age grant for a family of 3, in reality during 2021-2022, will be $752 not $891. CalWORKs and CalFresh Caseload Saga The 2021-2022 budget reveals, that again, the caseloads esti- mated for 2020-2021 did not materialize. CalWORKs Caseload Cases Estimated for 2020-2021 586,962 Actual 2020-2021 caseload 405,317 This is a 32% overestimate for the CalWORKs program. Governor’s 2021-2022 Estimate 482,436 CalWORKs Employment Services (WtW) Caseload Cases Estimated for 2020-2021 250,953 Actual 2020-2021 caseload 175,774 This is a 30% overestimate for the WtW program. Governor’s 2021-2022 Estimate 206,749 CalFresh Caseload Cases Estimated for 2020-2021 3,528,017 Actual 2020-2021 caseload 2,772,548 This is a 22% overestimate for the CalFresh program. Governor’s 2021-2022 Estimate 3,247,632 What was missing in the assumption used to make these case- load projections? The major factor that was not considered: in mid-March of 2020 95% of the CalWORKs and CalFresh caseload were living in counties that shut their doors and we not accessible to CalWORKs and CalFresh applicants and recipients. CCWRO Welfare News February 12, 2021 2021-02 4 Access was, and still is today, virtually limited to persons and families with needy children who had com- puters or smart phones and internet access. Since the end of March 2020, 44 of large, medium and small California’s counties violated, and continue to violate, state laws and regulations outlined in TABLE #3 below relative to emergency aid. In these 44 counties, families with needy children needing emergency aid are not able to access the California safety net emergency assistance benefits of which thousands are eligible. These 44 counties are also violating a federal court order known as Blanco v. Anderson, 39F.3d 969(1994), State Regulation MPP 11-601 and California State Department of Social Services Policy guidance known as ACL 93-92 (December 17, 1993) and ACL 94-11 (February 14, 1994) Blanco v. Anderson. TABLE # 3 California Safety Net Emergency Assistance Programs Safety Net Program Statute\/State Regulation Mandate Who is eligible When are Benefits Due CalWORKs Tem- porary Homeless Assistance W&IC 11450(f)(3)(iii) MPP 44-211.523 Any CalWORKs eligible family or apparently eligible family with minor children On the date of request- ing temporary homeless assistance. CalWORKs Per- manent Homeless Assistance W&IC 11450(f)(3)(D) Any CalWORKs eligible family or apparently eligible family with minor children On the date of request- ing Permanent home- less assistance, but no later than the next working day. CalWORKs Immedi- ate Need W&IC 11266 Any CalWORKs eligible or apparently eligible family with minor children On the date of applica- tion, but no later than the next working day. CalFresh Expedited Services W&IC 18914 Any household whose combined monthly gross in- come and liquid resources are less than the monthly shelter cost and standard utility allowance. Within three (3) calen- dar days of application. Lack of access to the offices created major barriers for applicants to secure much needed aid that they desperately needed. Thousands of homeless beneficiaries were not able to access their mail at the closed down county welfare offices and to date, this problem continues. CDSS, the alleged single state agency that has the ministerial duty to supervise their agents, and the counties, have failed to do its job which continues today. CDSS defers to counties to carry out the laws governing the California safety net programs without any meaningful accountability. In essence for counties, it is do whatever you want to do, and you still get every penny of your single al- location. What a life. The same is not true for CalWORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries. Over 50% of the CalWORKs and Cal- Fresh applications were denied benefits by unaccountable county welfare offices not because the appli- cants were ineligible for the benefits they applied for, but because they failed to comply with the county so-called racist procedural requirement . See TABLE #4 for CalWORKs and TABLE #5 for CalFresh below. CCWRO Welfare News February 12, 2021 2021-02 54 TABLE # 4 – CalWORKs applications denied due to failure to meet the county procedural requirements during Covid-19 – Source CA 237CW Jul-20 CalWORKs Two-Parent Families Zero-Parent families All other Families TANF Timed Out Families Safety net- Fleeing Felon- Long Term Sanction Total Total Denials 1394 1426 10376 97 264 13557 Procedural Denials 690 447 5957 39 131 7264 Percentage of Cases Denied due to Procedural Reasons 49% 31% 57% 40% 50% 54% TABLE # 5 CalFresh applications denied due to failure to meet the county procedural requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic – Source CF 296 Month Denied Denied due to Procedural Reasons Percentage of Cases Denied due to Procedural Reasons July, 2020 91396 53282 58% August, 2020 69283 42076 61% September, 2020 55531 36880 66% Under current law, CDSS is the principle and the counties are the agents . CDSS views counties as their partners, in many cases it’s as if CDSS works for the counties. This relationship is not reflective of state law: W&IC 10600. It is hereby declared that provision for public social services in this code is a matter of state- wide concern. The department is hereby designated as the single state agency with full power to supervise every phase of the administration of public social services, except health care services and medical assistance, for which grants-in-aid are received from the United States government or made by the state in order to secure full compliance with the applicable provisions of state and federal laws. CDSS has taken the position that although they are supervising the counties, if the counties do not issue benefits in accordance with state duly enacted laws and regulations it’s not their problem. We would recommend that the statute be amended to read: Section 10600 of the &IC is amended to read: It is hereby declared that provision for public social services in this code is a matter of statewide concern. The department is hereby designated as the single state agency with full power to supervise every phase of the administration of public social services, and shall be deemed to be responsible for any violation of any of the laws of this division and any regulation or rule adopted or promulgated thereunder and only full compliance shall meet the department’s duty under this section, except health care services and medical assistance, for which grants-in-aid are received from the United States government or made by the state in order to secure full compliance with the applicable provisions of state and federal laws. CONCLUSION: These recommendations to stop the current widespread state child abuse by forcing over 700,000 California’s children to endure continued deep poverty, causing irreparable harm to the children as evidenced by the statement of public benefit administrators who describe the impact of deep poverty on chil- dren, are vital and achievable within the CalWORKs budget. The Legislature has a simple job – to allocate CalWORKs funds to California’s CalWORKs eligible families with needy children. ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2021-02 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. March 15, 2021 (cont’d on page 3)(cont’d on page 2) P-EBT for the 2020-2021 School Year: Expanded Coverage to Pre-School and Child Care Programs CDSS Proposes Inequitable Consumer Compensation for CalSAWS Portal Testing CalSAWS advocates have been working with CDSS to ensure equitable compensation for consumer feedback on the design of the BenefitsCal portal. Research on User\/Human Centered Design approaches have shown a significant increase in success because of the ways that user feedback can guide design choices. Accord- ing to research on user engagement by Constanza- Chock, institutions doing research always benefit more than the communities do. Consumer feedback is a defining factor in ensuring that the Ben- efitsCal portal can meet the needs of the target audience. The process asks consumers to share their hard-won experi- ence during difficult times in their lives to ensure that the State and Deloitte can be successful. Public benefit consumers deserve compensation that meaningfully reflects the value of their contributions just like the way county employees are compensated with federal and state funds in excess of $20 a hour in the form of wages. Part of the work of equity is addressing power dynam- ics and working to minimize them. People in need may be willing to accept a nominal incentive for their par- ticipation even if that incentive is not equitable. Even during remote engagement, participants may experi- With the change in federal administrations, the Pandemic EBT (P-EBT) Program issued signifi- cantly revised guidelines as of January 2021. The new round of federal funding includes new fea- tures intended to provide nutrition assistance to more children. P-EBT 2.0, like its precur- sors P-EBT 1.0 and P-EBT 1.5, provides school- based meals to children eligible for free and reduced priced meals through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs that are operat- ed by school districts and local education agencies (LEAs). In California, most LEAs are the County Offices of Education. The most awaited expan- sion of P-EBT 2.0 is the inclusion of pre-school aged children (ages 0 to 6 years) who were not part of the P-EBT 1.0 program. Agency Action CDSS staff have held meetings (webinars) with school food and nutrition advocates several times since January 1, 2021. The first sessions solic- ited information from the advocate communi- ty about what problems had impacted access to food assistance through the original P-EBT pro- gram. Later sessions explained the FNS guidance including the expansion of P-EBT to pre-school children. The most recent meetings reviewed the proposed plan for P-EBT 2.0 for California’s chil- dren that CDSS plans to submit to FNS by the end of February or in early March 2021. CDSS staff have indicated that eligibility for P-EBT 2.0 ben- efits will be based on information maintained by the California Department of Education (CDE) through its CALPADS data base. ___________________ Public benefit consum- ers deserve compensa- tion that meaningfully reflects the value of their contributions just like the way county employ- ees are compensated with federal and state funds in excess of $20 a hour in the form of wages. https:\/\/documentcloud.adobe.com\/link\/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:2cd93a68-e8bd-4b21-93c9-8e13df70b107 https:\/\/medium.com\/notes-off-the-grid\/why-design-researchers-should-compensate-participants-a65252352f67 CCWRO Welfare News March 15, 2021 2021-02 2 (cont’d from page 1- P-EBT) Program Upgrades Higher Benefit Payment: The daily value of school-based nutrition programs has been set about $6.82. Using California’s average month- ly school attendance of 20 days per month this may provide eligible children a little less than $140.00 per month in benefits. The goal is to provide each eligible child in a household with their own new card which will be reload- ed monthly based on whether the local school district was (a) not open; (b) open for in-person learning; or (c) operating a hybrid program of both in-person and on-line learning. Stream-lined eligibility: P-EBT 2.0 will not have an application process. Any child who was eligible for P-EBT 1.0 or received benefits based on eligibility for a school-based nutrition pro- gram will receive P-EBT 2.0 benefits including retroactive benefits from the date of the approv- al of the California State Plan by FNS. This includes children who received P-EBT 1.5 ex- tended benefits for August and September 2020. The eligibility rules for preschool aged children is based on a feature of the new FNS guidance known as a qualifying assumption . These are factors that allow a child to be qualified for P-EBT 2.0 based on whether their school dis- trict was open, whether the child was previously qualified for free or reduced priced meals and if the child is part of a CalFresh\/SNAP household. Improved Public Information and Individual Help Access: Per CDSS staff responsible for P-EBT implementation, a key feature of P-EBT 2.0 will be significantly improved public infor- mation access and resources for individual as- sistance. Challenges with these issues were the source of considerable frustration and criticism of P-EBT 1.0. The upgrades include a public information campaign using social media and other resources to inform eligible families about P-EBT 2.0 especially the issuance of new load- able benefit cards. New staff are being recruit- ed, hired and trained to staff phone lines that will be available on an expanded time schedule from at least 7:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. five days a week. Some staff will receive expanded training which will allow them to assist callers beyond the usual information about PIN activa- tions, benefit amounts and general program op- eration questions. Phone line staff will be able to use the Language Line resource for translations. In addition to ma- terials in English and Spanish, CDSS will also be providing written materials in the four other most used languages in California’s schools: Vietnames, Arabic, Mandarin and Cantonese. Conclusions: At their meetings with advocates, the P-EBT pro- gram coordinators stressed their goals of providing much needed food assistance to California’s chil- dren as quickly and as simply as possible. A good goal, but one that will require more explicit cooper- ation with schools and resources that work directly with families. Although county welfare agencies will have no di- rect involvement in the P-EBT 2.0 program, house- holds eligible for P-EBT will be encouraged to apply for CalFresh and CalFresh eligible\/recipient children will be directed to the P-EBT program. A key challenge will be making certain that the new P-EBT 2.0 cards are sent to the correct address for any eligible child. This will mean communicat- ing with school staff rather than county welfare departments. At present, California’s proposals have yet to be submitted or approved by FNS. Approval is ex- pected with implementation most likely to occur in April 2021. 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 For more information: https:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/home\/pandemic-ebt https:\/\/www.cde.ca.gov\/ls\/nu\/sy202021pan- demicebt.asp CCWRO Welfare News March 15, 2021 2021-02 3 (cont’d from page 1- CalSAWS) ence opportunity costs that impact their ability to provide childcare in their home as well as the emotional cost of revisiting difficult, traumatic periods in their lives. After over a year of discussions, negotiations, and broken promises, (at one point CDSS agreed to the CalOAR compensation, which was $120 a session) CDSS has presented the CalSAWS advocates with a draft compensation plan for consumer engagement. In its draft plan, CDSS has proposed a nomi- nal $20 incentive for participation in consumer feedback activities. This incentive is clearly inequitable and insufficient to encourage mean- ingful consumer participation in the user testing process. Our independent research has found that the industry standard for compensating user-cen- tered feedback through remote research is $50- $100 per participant per hour. (See for example the research incentive calculator found here.) It’s not clear whether CDSS used an equity anal- ysis in developing this plan. In addition, CDSS has refused to reveal its budgetary allotment for consumer engagement or even whether any bud- get has been set aside at all. However, we know that Deloitte is receiving about $1M per month of mostly state and federal dollars to develop the consumer portal. If consumers were compensat- ed at $50 per hour, we estimate the overall cost to be no more than $15,000-$20,000 at most, which is about one tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the overall project budget for BenefitsCal. Advocates have set forth the following counter- proposal: 1. Phone interviews, focus groups, work groups, and user testing should be com- pensated at $50 per hour. 2. Additional compensation should be provided at $25 for each thirty-minute increment. 3. Electronic surveys and user testing (that do not include live engagement from the vendor) last- ing 15-60 minutes should be compensated at $20. 4. Travel expenses incurred by consumers should be reimbursed, just as they are for paid staff, using the same guidelines as the CalOAR model (Dec 2019 Letter, SB 89). 5. Include in the plan details about the process for compensation or identify what other information will be developed regarding how the compensa- tion will be provided and who consumers can connect with if they encounter problems. 6. Include a requirement to review the compensa- tion amounts every 3-5 years to ensure they continue to meet an equitable standard. We will continue to push CDSS, CalSAWS, and De- loitte to approach compensation from an equity per- spective and place an appropriate value on the contribu- tions of consumers in the user design process. CalSAWS Implementation of the $100 Asset Test for Homeless Families – $1 million Welfare and Institutions Code section 11450 entitles a family to receive an allowance for specified nonrecur- ring special needs after a family has used all available liquid resources in excess of $100, as specified, with the exception of funds deposited in a certain restricted account. SB 1065, approved by the Governor on September 25, 2020, excludes homeless assistance from that $100 liquid resources limit. The Governor’s 2021-2022 budget estimates that it will cost one million dollars in FY 2021-2022 to modify CalSAWS to implement a provision of SB 1065 that eliminates the $100 asset test for homeless families with children. See Local Assisrance 2021-2022 Gover- nor’s budget -CDSS Estimates Methodolies page 35. https:\/\/ethn.io\/incentives\/calculator CCWRO Welfare News March 15, 2021 2021-02 4 SB 91 What Does it Mean to Tenants? The California Assembly and Senate passed SB 91, a ten- ant and landlord assistance package designed to continue state assistance to the thousands of Californians who have lost income and are at risk of default or eviction. This post will summarize the main components of the bill, and explain how they impact CA’s low-income tenants, with a specific emphasis on consequences for these tenants and legal aid practitioners who serve them. This bill has two main provisions: 1. An extension of the eviction moratorium passed last year in AB 3088, and 2. The establishment of a Rental Assistance Program to provide funds in satisfaction of tenants’ rental arrears. Each of these provisions will be addressed in turn. Extending the Eviction Moratorium Last year, AB 3088 detailed and codified protections that Governor Newsom and the California Judicial Council had extended by executive order to halt the eviction of tenants due to COVID-19-related financial distress or debt. SB 91 extends these protections, which were due to expire on February 1, 2021, to July 1, 2021. As a reminder, AB 3088 protects tenants in the following ways: 1) It requires any landlord who delivers a 3-day notice to pay or quit during the COVID-19 crisis to provide state-specified language and an associated form declaration informing the tenant of their rights regarding COVID-19-related debt. (Cont’d on page 6) 2) It requires tenants to, in response to the notice, com- plete, sign, and return to their landlord, a legal decla- ration attesting that their rent debt is due to COVID-19. 3) It provides that no court may find a tenant guilty of unlawful detainer who has complied with these requirements. 4) Finally, it provides that tenants who pay 25% of their total arrears in one or more installments on or before the expiration of these protections (now extended to June 30, 2021), cannot be evicted based on non-payment of the remaining arrears (but may still be civilly liable for that amount). In addition, SB 91 adds the following protections: 1. Landlords may not use COVID-19 related rental debt as a factor in denying a housing application or refusing to rent a unit to an otherwise qualified tenant. (Cont’d from page 3-CalSAWS) CCWRO challenges this assumption. We believe that CalSAWS does not need to be modified in or- der to implement this provision of SB 1065. Cali- fornia’s eligibility workers can understand that they must issue Homeless Assistance to homeless fami- lies who may have more than $100 in the check- ing account by being told that the $100 limit does not apply to the homeless families. Our eligibility workfoce capable of understanding such a simple rule. CalSAWS Spends $100,000 of State and Federal Dollars to Automate LADPSS Application Delay Process Los Angeles requested that CalSAWS appropri- ate $96,499 of federal and state funds to automate LADPSS’ application approval process. For de- cades, LADPSS policy requires that after the eligi- bility workwe approves a CalWORKs application, the case is sent to the supervisor who must also approve the application before benefits are issued to CalWORKs families who are often enduring the ravages of deep poverty while the case sits on the desk of the supervisor. When questioned about the length of time that it takes to process the application, LADPSS response is that we have 45 days to approve the case. W&IC 10000 states: The purpose of this division is to provide for protection, care, and assistance to the people of the state in need thereof, and to pro- mote the welfare and happiness of all of the people of the state by providing appropriate aid and ser- vices to all of its needy and distressed. Sitting on the application while the needy family is in distress is a violation of state law. CCWRO believes that this policy arose after a qual- ity control report showed that erroneous applica- tions were being approved by eligibility workers. LADPSS was asked to come up with a corrective action plan and the plan was to have the supervi- sor approve the application. Los Angeles is the only county in the state that has this supervisory approval policy that hurts kids and families. Now, Los Angeles County is asking CalSAWS to spent 571 hours at $169 an hour to automate this antiquated county policy. The money will be paid through federal and state funds. It is also known as CA-55990 in the CalSAWS world. https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB91 https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3088 https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3088 https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3088 CCWRO Welfare News March15, 2021 2021-02 54 These are significant requirements, particularly in counties like Los Angeles that have a large number of threshold languages that vary by neighborhood. Legal aid advocates should keep a close eye on the local implementation of this program and coordinate to raise problems with the app or language access. Finally, the bill makes sure that the aid provided to tenants or landlords from this program cannot be used to calculate per- sonal income tax or eligibility for state programs (such as Cal- Fresh). For a more detailed summary, I recommend consulting the CA Assembly’s Floor Analysis of the bill. Legal aid practitioners should familiarize themselves with these county\/locality programs as they are rolled out. In ad- dition, legal aid language access expertise or teams should be deployed to help spread the word about this program. Finally, legal aid firms should set up intake processes or clinics to help small landlords and tenants complete the necessary application paperwork to avoid denials and associated complications. That’s all for today as always, please reach out to the au- thor at andrew.chen@ccwro.org if you have any questions or suggestions. American River College Legal Clinic American River College in Sacramento County offers a Public Benefits Legal Clinic staffed by paralegal students and supervised by two attor- neys. This Clinic, free to all California appli- cants and recipients, focus on issues relating to CalFresh, CalWORKs and Welfare to Work. The first day that the clinic serves clients will be March 2nd and ends on May 4th. The Clinic can accept referrals. The contact telephone number is (916) 934-2202. 2. No person is allowed to sell or assign COVID-19 related rental debt, until June 30, 2021. As with AB 3088, legal aid programs should continue to ensure that 1) any 3-day notices their clients receive have appropriate language and disclaimers as required by state law 2) that their clients who have COVID-19 related rental debt timely return their declarations and 3) that any settlement agreement reached in satisfaction of the arrears is not more restrictive than the current protections. The Rental Assistance Program SB 91 also creates a new program, the State Rental Assistance Program, to allocate the state share of the federal rental assistance fund. It distributes these funds to different localities based on population. Individuals and entities (tenants and landlords) will be allowed to submit applications to their local program implementer for reimbursement of rental arrears. Landlords who apply will receive up to 80% of a tenant’s arrears as compensation, as accrued between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021. However, they must agree that this payment represents a full satisfaction of the debt the tenant owes. In other words, the tenant will no longer owe the remaining 20%. A tenant whose landlord decides not to partici- pate in the program can also apply and receive assistance individually, up to 25% of the total amount owed. This will allow tenants to make the minimum payment, as described above, to avoid eviction for non-payment of COVID-related rental debt. However, the tenant may still be civilly liable outside of unlawful detainer for the remaining amount. Thus, the program is structured to encourage land- lords to participate in the program, as those who do so receive 80% of the arrears, as opposed to nonparticipants, who may receive as little as 25% of the arrears (or less). Importantly, this section of SB 91 also requires that each locality must implement this program according to the following rules: 1. The implementer must create a technol- ogy-driven system which has a mobile application, multi-language capability, and enough capacity to handle service without disruption. 2. The program must be up and ready to ac- cept applications by March 15, 2021. https:\/\/abgt.assembly.ca.gov\/sites\/abgt.assembly.ca.gov\/files\/SB%2091%20Analysis.pdf andrew.chen@ccwro.org CCWRO Welfare News February 12, 2021 2021-02 6 7 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2021-03 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. April 12, 2021 (cont’d on page 2) In Brief Discrimination in CalWORKs\/CalFresh CalWORKs Caseload Decreases With High Un- employment – Most counties are either closed to the public or open on a very limited basis. Applicants cannot contact the county welfare departments to get basic assistance with their applications. Thus, 60% of applications are being denied for families in need not because they are not eligible, but because they cannot navigate the CalWORKs application path. Another reason that caseloads are decreasing is the inability to complete annual recertification. Caseload goes down County Single Allocation goes up -The 2020-2021 budget projected that the CalWORKs caseload would be 587,000 cases with the counties being allocated $2,348,000,000 for the 587,000 cases. Even with Covid-19 and the record job losses, the actual caseload for 2020-2021 was 405,317 cases, much lower than the budget projection. This is a 32% difference between the estimated and actual caseload. As such, the counties were overpaid by $750 million. There are no repayment plans. In fact, while the 2021-2022 budget denies families living in deep poverty a full COLA based on California’s necessities index, it projects that the 2021-2022 caseload would be 482,436 cases and increases the county single al- location to $2,390,000. Partial CalWORKs Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) for 2021-2022 – The 2021-2022 budget proposes to give CalWORKs families a 1.5% cost- of-living adjustment (COLA) in lieu of the actual California Necessities Index (CNI) COLA of 3.72% for 2021-2022. The budget also discloses that about $2 billion will be diverted from the CalWORKs program as a contribution to the general fund for non-CalWORKs costs. The Journal of Health Psychology What Does Discrimination Look Like was on the agenda of the California Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health & Human Services March 17, 2021 hearing page 42. The article, analyzes six of the examples of discrimi- nation that are applicable to beneficiaries of safety net programs operated by California’s 58 counties, which by law operate under the supervision of CDSS but counties often create de facto policies through their own actions. 1. Beneficiaries of safety net programs are treated with less courtesy and respect than other people. 2. County welfare workers act as if beneficiaries of safety net programs are not smart. 3. County welfare administrators and workers act as if they are afraid of program participants, both applicants and recipients of safety net programs assistance. 4. Welfare agency staff treat all applicants and beneficiaries of safety net programs as if they are all dishonest. 5. County welfare administrators and staff act as if they are personally or morally superior to the client population who use safety net programs. 6. Beneficiaries of safety net programs are threat- ened or harassed by county welfare adminis- trators and workers. As the single state agency, CDSS should address these systemic problems. The following is how CDSS described to the budget committee how they will ad- dress these equity issues: Website Redesign Survey CCWRO is redesigning our website and would like your input, please fill out this brief survey by clicking here. https:\/\/docs.google.com\/forms\/d\/1fmIR8z8DuG_TMhGpI58TGLg9AHGaLfdM3-TFyUFpcHs\/edit CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2021 2021-03 2 (cont’d from page 1Cal WORKS) 1. Foster a culture of diversity and inclusion that actively invites the contribution and participation of all people and is representative of the varied iden- tities and differences (race, ethnicity, gender, dis- ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, tribe, caste, socio-economic status, thinking, and communication styles) in California. TODAY’S PRACTICE: CDSS does not invite …all people for contribution and participation in its policy development. As a practice, CDSS first meets with county people and after they decide what the policy should be, they may invite others who will not have any idea what alternatives were considered and accepted or rejected in developing the policy. There is an IEVS workgroup that meet regularly and advocates are expressly excluded, even after being asked to be allowed to contribute and participate. CalSAWS has a whole host of meetings with CDSS and county staff in which advocates are excluded. 2. Devise statistical reports that make inequities vis- ible. TODAY’S PRACTICE: To date, we have only seen one document about racial equity that was a statewide report. We have not seen any county-by- county racial information that reveal inequities in many of the counties negative and positive actions, such as application denial and approval, imposition of sanctions and penalties, fraud referrals and inves- tigations, etc. 3. Advance equity through training, tools, and tech- nical assistance. TODAY’S PRACTICE: Inequity is caused by state and county policies that are subjective . Train- ing, technical assistance and tools cannot do away with inequities caused by subjective policies. The remedy is to have objective policies that assure no racial inequity. For example, denial of applications vary from county to county, worker to worker. But once a family of 3 in Region 1 is found to be eligible and has no income, they will receive a payment of $878 no matter which county they are in or who the worker is. Why? Because $878 is an objective num- ber and there is no room for inequity. 4. Improve language access and access for commu- nities with disabilities. TODAY’S PRACTICE: There are some positive steps being undertaken by CDSS in this arena. We are hopeful for an equitable outcome. Stay tuned. 5. Support on-going partnerships with those commu- nities most affected by inequities to advance equi- table policy and systems changes. TODAY’S PRACTICE: CDSS has a wonderful partnership with counties, but no equitable partner- ship with the beneficiary and advocacy community. The module partnership was the CalOAR engage- ment that was done equitably where all parties, ben- eficiaries, advocates and counties were at the table from a to z . CDSS should adopt that as a module for all partnership engagement and not the divided progress that is generally used by CDSS staff. CalWORKs program equity – The March 17, 2021 Assembly Budget committee’s Health and Hu- man Services committee analysis set forth standards for equity. Now let us analyze how each of the six equity issues set forth above apply to beneficiaries of California’s safety net programs. 1. Beneficiaries of safety net programs are not treated with courtesy and respect. If you are a beneficiary of California’s safety net programs and go to a bank, you are treated like a customer, while at the county welfare department, beneficiaries are often treated like an annoyance. Consider the use of call centers . A person seeking information about a problem with CalFresh or Cal- WORKs may find themselves on hold for extended periods of time. After the call is answered it is often dropped mid-call or after an attempt to transfer the call to another agent. This leaves the caller deeply frustrated and unserved by a system that is sup- posed to be more efficient and accessible . CDSS, the principal administering agency for California’s safety net programs has yet to establish uniform call- center minimum standards for appropriate levels of customer. 2. County welfare workers act as if they think beneficiaries of safety net programs are not smart. The paternalistic nature of California’s safety net programs makes most beneficiaries of California’s safety net programs feel like they are less than other people, second-class citizens or worse. Most of the subjective rules are based on the assumption that CalWORKs beneficiaries need help understand- ing basic information. This is reflected in the WtW mandatory participation requirement that is based on the assumption that CalWORKs beneficiaries do not want to work and the only way to get them to want to work is by imposing the WtW sanctions, which is in reality what the WtW is all about -sanctions. A CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2021 2021-03 3 classic example is a recent conversation with a county welfare administrator about a bill that repeals the current rule that self-employed WtW participants must earn minimum wage if they want to continue with their self-employment ac- tivity. The county welfare department advocate stated that welfare administrators are concerned that the individual may fail and then will time out, thus, they should be required to show that they are making minimum wage or be sanc- tioned if they keep working at their self-employ- ment and refuse to participate in the WtW job search or workfare job which is work without pay for the county. The WtW program operated by counties do not guarantee that the parent will not time out without having a job that pays a family wage. 3. County welfare administrators and work- ers act as if they are afraid of program par- ticipants, both applicants and recipients of safety net programs assistance. In Los Angeles, in order to even enter the wel- fare office, beneficiaries of California’s safety net programs are forced to undergo a personal search procedure. This does not happen when people go to DMV, banks, stores and most places of service. When beneficiaries of Califor- nia’s safety net programs enter the welfare of- fice, armed police officers or guards, frequently treat them as if they are a suspect criminal class of people. 4. County welfare administrators and staff act as if they are personally or morally supe- rior to the client population who use safety net programs. The CalWORKs and CalFresh verification pro- cess screams out that the County welfare admin- istrators and workers simply do not trust just about anything that beneficiaries of safety net programs state – even under penalty of perjury. Applicants are asked to get a statement from a former employer going back nine (9) months stating that the individual no longer works there. If a beneficiary of safety net programs gets a cash payment for work and reports that on the income report, aid is terminated for failure to provide verification of the earned cash reported to the county. Finally, many beneficiaries of safety net programs are unlawfully required to file monthly reports to the WtW program. What types of reports, specifically? Under California CalWORKs and CalFresh programs most counties operate the Early Welfare Fraud Detection program. Under this program, all applicants and benefi- ciaries of safety net programs are presumed to be dishon- est and just about any applicant or beneficiary of safety net programs can be investigated for FRAUD. 5. County welfare administrators and staff act as if they are personally or morally superior to the client population who use safety net programs. County welfare administrators and workers have publicly asserted that applicants and beneficiaries of safety net programs cannot be trusted and must be monitored like criminals. As a result, many applicants and beneficiaries of safety net programs feel like criminals when dealing with the county administrators and workers. The current system allows for any applicant to be subject to a wel- fare fraud investigation, even where no act of fraud has been committed. Just entering the welfare office in many counties, you see a sheriff with a gun. That sets to tone of experience at the welfare office and that applicants and beneficiaries are so dangerous, that they need law en- forcement to control those people . 6. Beneficiaries of safety net programs are threatened or harassed by county welfare administrators and workers. It is not uncommon for a welfare worker to refer an ap- plicant and beneficiary of safety net programs to welfare fraud after requesting a state hearing. The right to request a hearing is an applicant or recipient’s legitimate, consti- tutional due process right. Compare the numbers of wel- fare fraud workers employed by counties for CalWORKs and CalFresh to the fraud investigators for the federal and state government for tax fraud, medical billing fraud, debt collection fraud, fake charities, mortgage fraud, prize and lottery fraud, procurement fraud, workers’ compensation fraud. Some workers use requests for unnecessary verification as a way to discriminate against applicants and benefi- ciaries of safety net programs. Workers are able to do this because the verification rules are very subjective and CDSS refuses to make these rules objective to stop discrimination. CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2021 2021-03 (Cont’d from page 3-CalW) CDSS and DHCS maintain that CalSAWS can’t expend resources to automate new statutory or regu- latory changes not required for migration of C-IV, LRS, and CalWIN to CalSAWS. Keep in mind that CalWIN’s migration to CalSAWS won’t be completed until October 2023. On February 19, 2021, CalSAWS stated that automa- tion needed to implement newly enacted laws cre- ates the risk that the volume of changes to baseline code may cause degradation in quality and increase in defects. This is referenced as Risk #204. In other words, CalSAWS does not want to timely implement new legislation, including legislation favorable to beneficiaries of California’s tattered safety net. Fur- ther, some favorable legislation does not need to be computerized. It only requires the county to modify its business practices. A CalSAWS system change request (SCR) CA_219227, asked for approval to use 10,000 hours to migrate C-IV schedule and on request report to LRS . This raised a question that most of the 200 reports were already in LRS according to Stanislaus County. CalSAWS responded that this request is only for 35 reports that may have been in LRS, but are now inactive. The review of [CA-219227][Analyt- ics] Release F Reports Re-Platform document shows that the System Change Report (SCR) will modify 74 reports and not 35. Why can’t CalSAWS activate the inactivated reports in LRS? Are all of these reports imperative? That’s 10,000 hours for CalSAWS. Imagine how many new laws could be implemented with 10,000 hours. Are these reports more important than providing medical assistance to the elderly and disabled or aiding needy children who are homeless? CA-220988 This LRS System Change Request will use 1,385 hours for Los Angeles Department of Social Services and Los Angeles Department Children & Family Services to provide responses to Consortia queries . This is for CalHEERS. CA-220989 This LRS SCR will use 1,385 hours so Los Angeles Department of Social Services and Los Angeles Department Children & Family Services can provide responses to Consortia queries This is not for CalHEERS. CA-220991 This LRS SCR will use 1,385 hours so Los Angeles Department of Social Services and Los Angeles Department Children & Family Services can provide responses to Consortia queries This is for On-Line . CA-220992 This LRS SCR will use 2,720 hours so Los Angeles Department of Social Services and Los Angeles Department Children & Family Services can provide responses to Consortia queries This is for Client correspondence . CA-220993 This LRS SCR will use 1,385 hours so Los Angeles Department of Social Services and Los Angeles Department Children & Family Services can provide responses to Consortia queries This is for Eligibility One may wonder what this is all about? 1,385 hours each for CA-220988, CA-220989, CA-220991, CA- 220993 and 2,720 hours for CA-220992 all for the same thing. Last year, we asked CalSAWS Director John Boule to provide a link for SCR on the sum- mary page showing the 1,385 hours calculation as well as the client 2,720 correspondence hours. Why do taxpayers have to pay for 8,260 hours or $536,900 just so LADPSS and LADCFS can respond to queries when CalSAWS actually charges CDSS and DHCS for each querie. CIV-108107 This is a 420 hour job to remove Sprint 7 features from C-IV which is soon going to be mi- grating to LRS. Why can’t this wait until the migra- tion which is right around the corner? CA 204582 309 hours to add edit functionality to a service arrangement. What is so imperative and nec- essary to have edit functionality. It is nice. But would it house or feed beneficiaries of the California safety net programs? CalSAWS, CDSS & DHCS Mislead the California State Legislature 4 CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2021 2021-03 5 CA-517409 3,626 hours Build a C-IV cus- tomer lobby management system. The lobbies are mostly closed in C-IV counties that would opt to use this system. Isn’t this part of migra- tion? CA -201377 3,905 hours GA\/GR solutions for C-IV counties that are migrating to LRS. CDSS\/DHCS\/CalSAWS told the Legislature if they improve the safety net program, that may need automation and CalSAWS just does not have the capacity do so. But, they need 3,905 hours for some unknown GA\/GR solution which is being done as C-IV is disappearing. These are just examples of CalSAWS changes that are being implemented while CalSAWS sheds crocodile tears that they are not able to automate changes in law to help California’s needy population that California’s tattered safety net is designed to serve On March 17th Ms. 2953307 of San Bernardino County went into the Rancho Cucamonga TAD branch to drop off documents related to her Cal- WORKs application. Ms. 2953307 was already homeless and staying on her mother’s couch at this time. Her mother was about to be evicted and Ms. 2953307 had a copy of that eviction notice with her, but she was not offered any services related to her homelessness by San Ber- nardino County TAD. Instead a security guard in front of the welfare office door let her know she could get homeless assistance. After leav- ing it to the security guard to provide services to this homeless, pregnant mother of one, San Ber- nardino County TAD worker told Ms. 2953307 that she could not apply for homeless assistance until she was on the street , and told her to wait until March 29th to apply for homeless as- sistance, two weeks in which San Bernardino County TAD could have helped Ms. 2953307 and her family find stable living quarters but instead chose to do nothing at all. Sadly, this story gets worse. On March 29th Ms. 2953307, complying with the incorrect direction of San Bernardino County TAD, tried to turn in her homeless assistance application and was told she could not even apply for the assistance because she had just received the $600 Golden State Stimulus, which should not be counted as CalWORKs resources per CDSS materials. These payments do not impact your CalWORKs or CalFresh eligibility or monthly benefits! https:\/\/ www.cdss.ca.gov\/inforesources\/cdss-programs\/golden- state-grant-program CDSS even added an exclamation point to make it clear. Twice, San Bernardino County TAD refused to accept Ms. 2953307 homeless assistance application. By state law and regulation, San Bernardino County TAD is mandated to immediately accept Ms. 2953307 homeless assistance application and not count stimu- lus payments as resources for CalWORKs. How many other San Bernardino County recipients or applicants are being denied for this same reason? How many families are being made homeless right now because San Bernardino County is just refusing to help families in need? San Bernardino County Refuses to Offer Homeless Assistance to a Pregnant Mom ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2021-03 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. April 12, 2021 Sanctions Flourish During the Pandemic During the December 2020 holidays, 41,108 Cal- WORKs families were sanctioned. During that same period 44,148 families were reported to be participating in the program. This means that a mere 40 additional families were participating v. those being sanctioned in the Welfare-to-Work program. The 2020-2021California-enacted state budget reveals that the WtW funding is $1,547,841,000. Of this amount, $1,124,101,000 is the fed- eral share and the State of California puts up $33,740,000. It should also be noted that while the average county funding for each WtW partic- ipant is $35,060 a year, the average CalWORKs grant for a WtW family of three is $8,808 a year. Table #1 provides a snapshot of the 11 most egregious sanction counties. The source of this information is the CDSS report WtW 25 and 25A based on county reports to the State Department of Social Services It is notable to mention that Madera County is sanctioning 87% of their WtW case load. While 389 families are being sanctioned, only 58 are participating in the WtW program. San Joaquin County is sanctioning 2,998 families while only 708 families are participanting. In the simplest of terms, 80% of San Joaquin County’s caseload are sanctioned. Similarly, San Bernardino County has 2,611 participants and 8,561 sanctions. It seems these counties did not listen to CDSS suggestions that the counties use the COVID-19 shutdowns to to cure sanctions in numerous CDSS policy issuances in the form ACL and ACWDLs. Table #1 Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) Corrupt County Administration Costs The 2021-2022 Governor’s proposed budget assumes that the administrative cost per Refugee Cash Assistance eligibility case is $259.65 an hour. All costs for Refugee Cash Aassistance are covered with federal funds. The CalWORKs administrative costs per eligibility worker is $80 per hour since these costs are not covered with 100% federal funds. The estimated eligibility worker time for the intake process is 53 minutes and the case management time is 5 minutes. December 2020 Long Term Sanctions Short term Sanctions Total Sanctions Participants Statewide 19983 21125 41108 44148 Madera 168 221 389 58 San Joaquin 1323 1675 2998 708 Merced 590 725 1315 363 Siskiyou 8 31 39 11 Kern 2009 2629 4638 1410 San Bernardino 3655 4906 8561 2611 Stanislaus 466 652 1118 553 Imperial 466 523 989 559 Butte 151 213 364 223 Shasta 118 145 263 172 Mendocino 65 103 168 140 CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2021 2021-03 2 (cont’d from page 1, RCA) The RCA case is limited to 8 months. The RCA administrative costs in 2012-2013 were $99.13. In 2018-2019 it leaped from $131.07 per case to $234.66 per case, a 45% increase. For 2019-2020, it took another leap from $234.66 up to $359.65 per case an- other 35% jump. See Table #2. What is the rational for paying county Refugee Cash Assistance workers 350% more in 2018-2019 compared to 2012-2013? Did inflation shoot up by 350% after 7-8 years? Did the cost of living go up by 350% during those 7-8 years? No. The counties and the State Department of Social Services saw free money coming from the federal govern- ment and decided no one’s watching anyhow. And then, counties and state officials talk about program integrity as a rational for imposing a host of sanctions and penalties on poor families with children and babies who live in deep poverty. Table #2 FY May Revise Average monthly administrative cost per RCA Case 2012-2013 $99.13 2013-2014 $103.08 2014-2015 $88.55 2015-2016 $127.54 2016-2017 $114.90 2017-2018 $131.07 2018-2019 $234.66 2019-2020 $359.65 2020-2021 $359.65 2021-2022 $259.65 CDSS claims that they want to achieve equity by supporting on- going partnerships with those communities most affected by the in- equities to advance equitable policy and system changes. The reality demonstrates the opposite. The CalSAWS system will be a major vehicle to deliver benefits to beneficiaries of California’s means tested safety net programs. CalSAWS was introduced as a system being built by the counties for the counties. Advocates soon realized that CalSAWS and the counties held meet- ings about policy and system changes without the valuable input that advocates and beneficiaries could provide. In 2019 the Legis- lature enacted a new law that provided The State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Health Care Services, the Office of Systems Integration, and the SAWS consortia shall en- gage with stakeholders to discuss current and planned functionality changes, system demonstrations of public portals and mobile ap- plications, and advocates’ identification of areas of concern, espe- cially with the design of public-facing elements and other areas that directly impact clients. After that, CalSAWS started meeting with advocates and beneficia- ries on a once a month basis while expressly excluding advocates and beneficiaries from the 17 CalSAWS committee meetings that dealt with policy and system changes. CalSAWS administrators said that rather than having advocates and beneficiaries attend the committee meetings, the decisions on policy and system changes will be announced during the monthly meetings. In April 2021, CDSS and CalSAWS informed the advocates that CDSS and CalSAWS cannot do monthly meetings because of a lack of time and resources to achieve equity by supporting on-going partnerships with those communities most affected by the inequities to advance equitable policy and system changes which is a stated goal of CDSS. Rather, we were told that once every three months should suffice. In 2020, CalSAWS, CDSS, and the counties have held 74 meetings billed at 185.4 hours while the advocates had 9 meetings billed at 20 hours, indicating that far from a lack of time and resources, Cal- SAWS and CDSS have simply prioritized meetings with the counties in vast disproportion to its commitment to meeting with advocates. TABLE #3 below is a list of CalSAWS county meetings v. advo- CalSAWS Denies Pro-Beneficiary Input Into CalSAWS Policy & Systems Changes CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2021 2021-03 3 Committee Meetings – 74 meetings County\/CDSS\/ DHCS Meeting Dates Meeting Hours- 185.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 8-Apr-20 3.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 12-Aug-20 3.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 9-Dec-20 3.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 15-Jan-20 6 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 10-Jun-20 3.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 17-Mar-20 3.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 13-May-20 3.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 9-Sep-20 3.5 CalWORKS\/CalFresh Committee 14-Oct-20 3.5 Collections Committee 19-Aug-20 1 Collections Committee 19-Feb-20 1 Collections Committee 20-May-20 1 Collections Committee 18-Nov-20 1 Fiscal Committee 22-Apr-20 1.5 Fiscal Committee 22-Jan-20 1.5 Fiscal Committee 22-Jul-20 1.5 Fiscal Committee 21-Oct-20 1.5 Foster Care Committee 6-Feb-20 1 Foster Care Committee 28-Jul-20 2 Foster Care Committee 24-Mar-20 2 Foster Care Committee 26-May-20 2 Foster Care Committee 17-Nov-20 2 Foster Care Committee 22-Sep-20 2 General Assistance\/General Relief 23-Jul-20 1.5 IEVS Committee 13-Feb-20 1 IEVS Committee 23-Apr-20 2 Imaging Committee 27-Aug-20 3 Imaging Committee 27-Feb-20 4 Imaging Committee 23-Jan-20 5 Imaging Committee 23-Jul-20 3 Imaging Committee 18-Jun-20 3 Imaging Committee 30-Jun-20 2 Imaging Committee 25-Mar-20 4 Imaging Committee May 20 & 21, 2020 6 Imaging Committee May 27 & 28, 2020 6 Imaging Committee 6-May-20 3 Date of meeting CalSAWS, CDSS & DHCS meetings with advocates – 9 meetings Meeting Hours- 20 Jan-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 2 Feb-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 2 Mar-20 cancelled 0 Apr-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 3 May-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 2 Jun-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 2 Jul-20 cancelled 0 Aug-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 2 Sep-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 2 Oct-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 2 Nov-20 CalSAWS Stakeholders Meeting 3 Dec-20 cancelled 0 CalSAWS County\/CDSS\/DHCS Meetings – Advocates Participation Disallowed CalSAWS Meetings with Advocates – County Participation Allowed Table #3 Table #3 continued on page 4 CCWRO Welfare News April 12, 2021 2021-03 (Cont’d from page 3-CalSAWS) 4 Imaging Committee 19-Nov-20 1 Imaging Committee 22-Oct-20 3 IVR\/Contact Center Committee 22-Jan-20 5 IVR\/Contact Center Meeting 22-Apr-20 2 Lobby Management Committee 26-Mar-20 2 Lobby Management Committee 24-Sep-20 2 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Committee 8-Aug-20 2 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Committee 8-Dec-20 3 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Committee 5-Feb-20 5 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Committee 7-Jul-20 3 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Committee 3-Jun-20 5 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Committee 6-Oct-20 3 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Committee 2-Sep-20 3 Medi-Cal\/CMSP Meeting 1-Apr-20 5 Resource Data Bank Committee 30-Sep-20 2 Self Service Portal Committee 7-Jan-20 2 Self Service Portal Committee 7-Jul-20 2.5 Self Service Portal Meeting 5-Mar-20 2 Self-Service Portal Committee 5-May-20 2 Task Management Committee 10-Dec-20 2 Task Management Committee 25-Jun-20 2 Task Management Committee 5-Nov-20 2 Task Management Committee 3-Sep-20 4 Tax Intercept Committee 19-Aug-20 0.5 Tax Intercept Committee 19-Feb-20 1 Tax Intercept Committee 20-May-20 1 Tax Intercept Committee 18-Nov-20 1 Training Committee 8-Jan-20 1 Training Committee 1-Jul-20 1.5 Training Committee 11-Jun-20 1.5 Training Committee 4-Mar-20 1 Training Committee 6-May-20 1 Training Committee 4-Nov-20 1.5 Usability Committee 9-Jan-20 2 Welfare To Work Committee 16-Jan-20 2.5 Welfare To Work Committee 19-Mar-20 2 Welfare To Work Committee 21-May-20 2 Welfare To Work Committee 19-Nov-20 2 Welfare to Work Committee 17-Sep-20 2 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2021-05 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. May 31, 2021 Unlike the overwhelming applications for Unem- ployment Insurance Benefits that EDD received during the pandemic, CalWORKs and CalFresh applications did not grow although the need for CalWORKs and CalFresh skyrocketed. People in the Capitol and Administration have wondered why applications for public assistance did not increase. From the perspective of a poor person needing as- sistance, the problem is obvious. Counties closed their doors to the needy. Welfare offices in just about every county made their customers complete the application process on-line. Although counties may have provided paper applications outside the shuttered welfare offices for applicants to complete and then place in the mail drop, the counties re- quired telephonic or on-line interviews. Those who made this decision thought that relying exclusively on online applications was a good enough solu- tion because they all have smart phones, iPads, and one or more computers at home with access to the internet. To those armed with so many gadgets and resources, it is easy to assume that everybody else is in the same place. However, even the homeless people that had phones did not have the ability to recharge them since the usual locations with access to a charger were unable. Facilities such as librar- ies, shopping malls and Starbucks were closed to in-person traffic. Although the welfare departments were closed to their in-person customers, the welfare departments continued to operate, albeit with a small staff. The law in California is clear. Under state law counties must give applicants and recipients access to the welfare office during regu- lar working hours. Per Blanco v. Anderson (Court Order, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, No. CIV-S-93-859 WBS, JFM, dated Janu- ary 3, 1995) E.A.S. 11-601 (d), CDSS and the Department of Health Services are enjoined by a court order includ- ing provisions for providing services to clients under Medi-Cal as well as Food Stamp and AFDC programs. The order requires that notices posted by the CWD offices inform the public of the provisions specified in Sections 11-601.314(a), (b), and (c) include information regarding Medi-Cal and emergency medical services. Additionally EAS 11-601.312 requires that counties: 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 sufficient staff to accept and act upon all such applications, and\/or (b) Maintain a local telephone service with sufficient staff to accept and act upon all such applications as if such re- quests had been made in person at the CWD’s office. This regulation also cites to Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 10553, 10554, 18902 and 18904. While many state office opened their doors to Californians in need, like DMV, the most county welfare offices to date, in blatant violation of state laws and regulations, are still shut down. Why? Good question. Counties Erect Barriers To Prevent Needy Californians From Receiving Basic Survival Assistance CCWRO Welfare News May 31, 2021 2021-05 2 CalWORKs & CalFresh Procedural Denials = California child poverty Former CDSS Director Marion Woods institution- alized statistical reporting during the first Jerry Brown administration during 1972 through 1980. Data from CDSS published on CDSS’s web page provides helpful insights to how the county wel- fare administrators abuse California’s impover- ished. According to CDSS statistical reports, state- wide, 50% of the CalWORKs application denials in December 2020 were the result of applicants failing to meet county procedural requirements and not because they were ineligible. For example, Butte County denied 135 cases. Of those, 111 denials resulted from the applicant allegedly failing to meet the county’s procedural requirements, all while the county blatantly violated State Regulation EAS 11-601.11 et. seq requiring office access during the pandemic when most counties shut their doors to the needy of California. 77% of applications in Kern County were rejected for failing to meet county procedur- al requirement. Stanislaus County’s procedural denial rate was 61%. On the other hand, San Di- ego County’s procedural denial rate was 28%, Al- ameda’s 27% and Contra Costa’s 23%. For more county information, see TABLE #1 containing data for December 2020 from CDSS CA255CW. TABLE #1- CalWORKs Procedural Denials Denials Procedural Denials % of Procedural Denials Statewide 19269 9684 50% Butte 135 111 82% Kern 1095 844 77% Stanislaus 392 238 61% Riverside 1824 1078 59% San Bernardino 2210 1192 54% Fresno 883 453 51% Los Angeles 5656 2857 51% San Joaquin 465 197 42% Orange 264 110 42% Sacramento 970 310 32% San Diego 1309 363 28% Alameda 442 118 27% Contra Costa 228 53 23% California Inequitable CalFresh\/SNAP Denials Statewide Administration Questioned The excessive denial rates for failure to com- ply with procedural requirements extended to CalFresh. Nationally, California has always been one of the lowest rated states for SNAP\/ CalFresh participation. During December 2020, 68% of the CalFresh applications were denied for allegedly failure to meet procedural require- ments. Tulare’s procedural denial rate was 96%, Butte’s 91%, and Riverside’s 86%, while San Diego’s was 11% and Santa Cruz’s was 24%. The difference in these rates occurs because of differences in county management. The CalFresh program is called a statewide sys- tem, but TABLE #2 reveals that it may be a state- wide system for the federal, state and county administrators, but not for the applicants. For applicants the chances of getting food on the table if they happen to live in Riverside, Butte, Merced, or Stanislaus Counties are much less than if they were living in San Diego or Santa Cruz. The CalFresh denial rates during the pandemic clearly demonstrate that California has a real problem it is a county run program and not a state run program. Most TANF and SNAP pro- grams in the USA are operated by the State and not the 19th century county run program. For 5 months during the pandemic, Sacra- mento, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Solano and Yolo Counties had fewer than 10% of CalFresh applications de- nied. Meanwhile El Dorado, Riverside, Sonoma, Shasta and Stanislaus counties had a denial rate of 40%-50% percent per month. That is statisti- cally significant. A person living in Riverside County has a 400-500% higher chance of having their application being denied that if they lived in neighboring San Diego County. CCWRO Welfare News May 31, 2021 2021-05 3 Table #3 continued on page 4 TABLES #2 CalFresh Applications September 2020 Denials Applications received Denied % of Total Denied Statewide 163528 56940 35% San Luis Obispo 952 54 6% Santa Barbara 1956 111 6% Yolo 1530 87 6% Santa Cruz 963 64 7% Solano 1533 105 7% San Diego 14578 1287 9% Sacramento 7569 702 9% Santa Clara 3378 316 9% San Francisco 3084 292 9% Humboldt 1000 504 50% Monterey 1675 855 51% Siskiyou 258 137 53% Riverside 12043 6411 53% El Dorado 512 280 55% Stanislaus 2876 1585 55% Shasta 1078 601 56% Napa 392 225 57% Sonoma 1228 803 65% CalFresh ApplicationsOctober 2020 Denials Applications received Denied % of Total Denied Statewide 166951 53271 32% Solano 1526 86 6% Santa Cruz 931 60 6% Santa Barbara 1817 121 7% San Luis Obispo 849 57 7% San Diego 14494 1390 10% San Francisco 3018 296 10% Santa Clara 3134 340 11% Sacramento 7483 819 11% Ventura 2153 250 12% Contra Costa 2375 354 15% Stanislaus 2917 1458 50% Riverside 12134 6248 51% Napa 498 259 52% Butte 1422 764 54% Shasta 1173 650 55% Sonoma 1139 998 88% CalFresh Applications – December 2020 Denials CCWRO Welfare News May 31, 2021 2021-05 Applications received Denied % of Total Denied Statewide 248199 61092 25% San Luis Obispo 1274 53 4% Santa Barbara 2794 129 5% Santa Cruz 1234 62 5% Solano 2518 129 5% Yolo 1214 78 6% Santa Clara 5651 373 7% Sacramento 12011 904 8% San Diego 20437 1739 9% Contra Costa 4176 387 9% Ventura 3346 316 9% San Francisco 4823 520 11% CalFresh Applications – January 2021 Denails Applications received Denied % of Total Denied Statewide 207214 69253 33% Santa Cruz 1089 39 4% Santa Barbara 2398 96 4% San Luis Obispo 1041 44 4% Yolo 1083 52 5% Sacramento 10811 573 5% Santa Clara 4709 328 7% Ventura 2851 199 7% Solano 2096 160 8% San Diego 17539 1507 9% Contra Costa 3547 377 11% San Francisco 4091 436 11% Orange 12365 5605 45% Monterey 2622 1205 46% Humboldt 1291 594 46% Kings 1040 482 46% El Dorado 704 338 48% Napa 504 248 49% Stanislaus 3592 1784 50% San Bernardino 15769 7900 50% Riverside 15092 7906 52% Shasta 1418 781 55% Sonoma 1513 931 62% Alameda No Report CONCLUSION – California leads the country in child poverty and low SNAP participation. The pandemic has exposed the truth: that there is no statewide safety net system in California. It is full of holes that children fall into depending on what county they live in. County flexibility that violently discriminates against CalWORKs and CalFresh program beneficiaries is similar to states rights that is a recognized racist policy in America. How about beneficiary flex- ibility ? That would be totally unacceptable to the paternilistic CalWORKs and CalFresh Califor- nia state and county program administrators. The CalWORKs and CalFresh program needs to be deracitized if we are ever going eliminate poverty in California! CCWRO Welfare News may 31, 2021 2021-05 5 California’s P-EBT 2.0 Plan Approved 5\/4\/2021Buckle Up and Hold On P-EBT is the federal food and nutrition program for children who were no longer able to access free or reduced school-based lunch and supplemental nutrition programs as a result of COVID-19 pandemic school closures. This crisis was underscored by the fact that many of these children were members of CalFresh households with parents and family breadwinners who were themselves experiencing workplace shutdowns and layoffs in response to the public health emergency. In terms of dol- lars and cents, approximately $1.3 billion was provided in food assistance benefits to 3.7 million school-aged children. See https:\/\/www.cafoodbanks.org\/wp-content\/ uploads\/2021\/03\/2021_CAFB_Pandemic- EBT_Report.pdf P-EBT 2.0 benefits will be provided to any child eligible for free or reduced priced meals as of the 2019\/2020 school year. The benefits for the 2020 2021 school year as proposed are: n $123 per month for any child liv- ing in a county where at least one school was operating on a fully virtual basis. n $68 per month per child for any child living in a county where schools were operating at least 55% if the time on a hybrid basis. Hybrid models may involve at- tending school in person on a short- ened day or shortened week along with virtual learning. California’s P-EBT 2.0 State Plan has been approved and child-care aged children may be eligible for benefits for the October 2020 through May 2021 time period. This is an enormous step forward and 1 million poor young children who are part of CalFresh\/ SNAP households will benefit from a monthly payment of $123 for the October 2020 May 2021 school year. CalFresh school aged children will not need to apply for P- EBT 2.0 benefits. At its April 2021 conference call with anti- hunger advocates, CDSS estimated this amendment would serve 500,000 previously unserved children and their households. To satisfy federal concerns, CDSS staff are pro- posing the establishment of a two-tiered P-EBT benefit for school-aged children based on whether the school districts in a county are operating on an in-person, virtual or hybrid model. The goal is to end all P-EBT 2.0 benefits for all children, even those attending school on a virtual basis, once all schools have returned to a full- time in-person. For additional information, please contact Daphne Macklin at daphne.macklin@ccwro. org. 7 ”

” Bad CalFresh NOA – On 5-13-21 Santa Clara County mailed a notice of action (NOA) to Ms. 1B0HY80 stat- ing that her CalFresh benefits are being reduced from $234 to $19 each month because: Your housing cost has changed. When your housing cost changes, the amount of CalFresh benefits you are eligible to received chang- es. Your medical care deduction changed. When your medical care deduction changes, the amount of CalFresh benefits you are eligible to receive changes. In reality her housing costs increased and did not go down. But how much was her housing cost before? The NOA does not say. What were the current housing cost numbers used by Santa Clara County to reduce the benefits? The NOA does not say. How much were the medical deductions before? The NOA does not say. How much of a medical deduction was allowed? Nothing? Something? The NOA does not say. CalSAWS Building ABAWDS and Delaying Build- ing Legislative Changes Helping the Poor- Cal- SAWS, a joint powers body that works in secrecy for 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 Erect Barriers To Prevent Needy Californians From Receiving Basic Survival Assistance Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736 0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 June 29, 2021 FNS Withdraws Proposed Rule on SNAP Categorical Eligibility On June 9, 2021, FNS withdrew the nasty Trump Administration pro- posed rule that would have limited states’ ability to use participation in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to determine eligibility for SNAP. FNS received about 158,000 comments. Most of the comments opposed the proposed rule. FNS states that Many expressed concerns that this policy would increase the administrative burden on states and potentially jeopardize food security for children, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly. Los Angeles County Violates CalWORKs Im- mediate Need and Homeless Assistance Laws Ms. B178T58 applied for CalWORKs at the LADPSS Metro Family office on 6-7-21. She re- ceived no homeless assistance on 6-7-21. On 6-8-21 she again received no homeless assistance nor did she get her CalWORKs Immediate Need payment. On 6-10-21 she received an EBT card with her $200 Immediate Need payment, but the worker said she still needed to wait to talk to a homeless worker about homelessness. Homeless assistance should have been issued on 6-7-21, but often family homelessness in California is a direct product of county welfare department violations of state laws and regulations. In Brief CCWRO Welfare News-2021-06 In This Issue In Brief – Page 1 Majority of Welfare Fraud Allegations Lack Evidence – Millions of Dollars Wasted – Page 2 County Failure to Obey Federal & State Laws Cause More CalWORKs and CalFresh Overpayments – Now Hidden from the Public – Page 3 CalSAWS Advocacy Update – Page 7 P-EBT 2.0: The Rubber Hits the Road- Eventually – Page 8 2 (cont’d from page 1, INBRIEF) most part, has been complaining to Legislative staff that CalSAWS does not have the capacity to automate new legislative changes while building a system that would integrate three systems into one. Advocates have said, in writing, that this is a CalSAWS false statement. Advocates base this statement on evidence that the CalSAWS Control Board, in a secret April 29, 2021 meeting from which the public was expressly excluded, approved using 8,686 hours to start building automation for an ABAWDS process that has a fed- eral waiver for several years (SCR or system change request CA-207637). The odds that ABAWDS will go into effect statewide before CalSAWS goes live are slim to none. But CalSAWS apparently has enough hours to build something for a premise that may never materialize, but does not have the hours to build auto- mation for legislative changes. Legal Services Corporation (LSC) 2022 Biden Budget Proposal The 2021 LSC budget was $395 million. The 2022 Biden proposed budget is $600 mil- lion. The budget documents published by the Biden Administration would make two changes. First, they would permit LSC recipients to operate with boards of directors that have as few as 33% attorneys without requiring appointment by bar associations and suspend the 60% attorney requirement in the LSC Act. This will greatly improve recipients’ ability to have fiscal experts and community representatives on their governing bodies. Second, they would continue to apply the appropriations restrictions on recipients’ use of these appropriated funds while permitting recipients to use funds from other sources as intended by those funders. Past Drug Convictions Bar to SNAP benefits to be Repealed – Biden’s 2022 budget proposes … remov- ing barriers to successful re-entry for those with past drug convictions by removing the ban on their partici- pation in SNAP, supporting these individuals and their families with the food resources they need as they return to their communities. CDSS and Counties Help Fight Hunger by Issuing Food Stamps – FNS-46 report shows that in March of 2021 California dispersed 933,042,823 dollars of food stamps. Most CalFresh Overpayment are county er- rors . The FNS 209 report shows that in second quarter of Fiscal Year 2021 there were 1,716,685 Calfresh over- issuances. 1,662,675 of those over- issuances were not fraud over-issuances. In fact, 54% of the over-issuances were administrative errors . Work requirements for those using public-assis- tance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary As- sistance for Needy Families (TANF) can negatively affect the recipients’ health outcomes and limit their ability to find stable jobs, says a resolution presented at the June 2021 AMA Special Meeting. Majority of Welfare Fraud Allegations Lack Evidence- Millions of Dollars Wasted In California, counties refer CalWORKs and Cal- Fresh cases suspected of welfare fraud to investi- gations by the county welfare fraud investigators. Referrals did not stop during the pandemic. Seem- ingly in an effort to justify and keep the welfare fraud investigators busy, counties increased refer- rals that lacked evidence. There is no objective cri- teria for the welfare fraud referrals, and we suspect that many of the referrals are disproportionately CalWORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries of color given the subjective criteria for making the welfare fraud referrals for investigation. Most of the cases were rejected for lack of evidence to reduce, deny or discontinue benefits. TABLE #1 on page 3, shows the percentage of welfare fraud investigations with no evidence of fraud and no evidence to even reduce, deny or dis- continue benefits. The referrals were frivolous and wasteful and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 3 THE LAW Federal and state law requires counties to act on potential overpayments (also known as abstract ) to prevent accumulation of overpayments within 45 days of receiving a report of potential overpayment. See 7 CFR 272.8(c)(2) and MPP 20-006.421. THE STATE BUDGET GIVES BOUNTIES FOR OVERPAYMENT COLLECTION The California budget, based on W&IC 11486(j), since 1998, has made in- centive payments made annually to counties for the collection of client-caused CalWORKs overpayments in the previous FY. Each county receives 12.5 percent of the actual amount col- lected on these overpayments. County incen- tives are paid with TANF funds and must be used for purposes prescribed under the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PL 104-193). In 2020-2021 it was 4,350,000 and for 2021-2022 it is estimated to yield $4,408,000. Thus, if the counties act on overpayments prompt- ly, and prevent overpayment accumulations, then they would collect less and will get less 12.5% of the amounts collected. POTENTIAL OVERPAYMENT DATA For de- cades CDSS reported quarterly on how many IEVS hits reflecting potential overpayments were received and how many were acted upon by the counties. The results were abysmal. Table #2 below reveals that each quarter only 24% to 27% of the potential overpayments were acted upon by counties. That means about 75% of the poten- tial overpayments were not acted upon by coun- ties, causing overpayments to grow and counties’ 12.5% bounty also grew. CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 DSS 466 Report Investigations conducted Investigations concluded during the quarter with evidence found to reduce, deny, or discontinue benefits Investigations conclud- ed during the quarter with no evidence found to reduce, deny, or discontinue benefits Percentage of Investigations with no evidence CalFresh CalWORKs CalFresh CalWORKs CalFresh CalWORKs CalFresh CalWORKs 4th Q-2019 9192 6834 3915 2200 5277 4634 57% 68% 1stQ-2020 9911 7065 3651 1976 6260 5089 63% 72% 2nd Q-2020 7664 5499 2352 1409 5312 4090 69% 74% TABLE #1 – Welfare Fraud Wasteful Investigations Conducted County Failures to Obey Federal & State Law Cause More CalWORKs & CalFresh Overpayments – Now Hidden from The Public 4 TABLE # 2 – Potential Overpayment Reports Received by Counties and Reports Reviewed That Had No Overpayments – Wasteful Reviews Year- Quarter Abstracts on Hand During the Quarter Abstracts Received During the quarter Abstracts Acted Upon Percentage of on hand acted upon during the quarter Percentage of abstracts processed with no discrepancy 2018-Q2 1099833 300884 296933 27% 92% 2018-Q1 1099215 304016 294446 27% 93% 2017-Q4 1069055 285090 262872 25% 93% 207-Q3 1063749 289552 286647 27% 92% CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 COUNTIES AND CDSS TAKE ACTION TO HIDE DATA SHOWING COUNTY COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW -Several years ago we discovered from our public records act requests that CDSS was meeting with counties regarding IEVS. Advocates were exclud- ed, even after seeking inclusion. In February of 2019 CDSS published ACL 18-121 that states: The CDSS Welfare Fraud Bureau and the Data Systems and Survey Design Section (DSSDS) in conjunction with County Welfare Departments (CWDs), participated in a workgroup to redesign and restructure the DPA 482 report. These changes have been made in an effort to improve and sim- plify data reporting to align with all other required response documents for other IEVS matches. The DPA 482 is used to assess IEVS Integrated Fraud Detection (IFD) wage match processing by the CWDs. As a reminder, the IFD wage match in- cludes wage information from California employers provided by the Employment Development Depart- ment. Thus, counties in concert with CDSS decided to stop reporting the number of IEVS abstracts received, the total number on hand, and the number acted upon. The reporting was embarrassing for them, exposing county incompetence and neglect of overpayment collection that served to enhance the W&IC 11486(j) bounty. According to CDSS the new …report will collect data only on overpayments\/overissu- ances (OP\/OI) established, number of cases discontinued, and cases referred to the Spe- cial Investigative Unit and\/or District Attor- ney’s office for investigation during the report quarter. Cases with OP\/OI established during the report quarter include client-caused and administrative-caused errors by number of cases and dollar amounts. In contrast to the information provided by the old DPA 482 report, now no one will know how many potential overpayment reports are lingering on for months or years at the county level accumulating overpayments that the lawful 45-day mandated action timeline would prevent. Many end up in jail facing thousands of dollars in overpayments caused by the county welfare departments’ refusal to do their job i.e. process the abstract report within 45 days. Parents of CalWORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries, serving time in jail, results in breaking up families and the kids end up in foster care. And all because coun- ties refuse to do their job – process the ab- stracts in 45 days as required by law. The counties have yet more reasons to hide this information from the public to avoid em- barrassment. Most of the abstracts end up showing no overpayment at all. A blank hit. 5 Alameda, San Bernardino, Imperial, Siskiyou, Napa and Humboldt counties are a few of the counties that processed less than 10% of their abstracts with potential overpayments. See TABLE #3 below. But today, this information is intentionally being withheld from the public and policy makers to make sure that counties like Alameda, San Bernardino, Imperial, Siskiyou, Napa, Humboldt, and others are not embarrassed and exposed. TABLE # 3 – Percentage of Cases Processed by Counties that Found No Over- payment – Wasteful Work Year\/Quarter County Percentage of Abstracts on Hand Processed During the Quarter – Found No Overpayment 3rd Q of 2017 Statewide 27% 3rd Q of 2017 Napa 1% 3rd Q of 2017 Alpine 3% 3rd Q of 2017 Humboldt 4% 3rd Q of 2017 Imperial 6% 3rd Q of 2017 San Bernardino 6% 3rd Q of 2017 Trinity 6% 3rd Q of 2017 Siskiyou 7% 3rd Q of 2017 Lassen 8% 3rd Q of 2017 Alameda 9% Year\/Quarter County Percentage of Abstracts on Hand Processed During the Quarter – Found No Overpayment 4th Q of 2017 Statewide 25% 4th Q of 2017 Trinity 4% 4th Q of 2017 Humboldt 4% 4th Q of 2017 Napa 5% 4th Q of 2017 Alpine 5% 4th Q of 2017 Imperial 5% 4th Q of 2017 Nevada 5% 4th Q of 2017 Alameda 6% 4th Q of 2017 Siskiyou 7% 4th Q of 2017 San Bernardino 7% CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS FEDERAL – CFR 7, 272.8.(c)(2) State agencies must initiate and pursue the actions on recipient house- holds specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section so that the actions are completed within 45 days of receipt of the information items. Actions may be completed later than 45 days from the receipt of information if: (i) The only reason that the actions cannot be completed is the nonreceipt of verification requested from col- lateral contacts; and (ii) The actions are completed as specified in 273.12 of this chapter when verification from a collateral con- tact is received or in conjunction with the next case action when such verification is not received, whichever is earlier. STATE – MPP 20-006.421 Current federal rule prescribes that the IEVS match follow-up shall be complet- ed within 45 days of the date the state agency completes the match. 6 Year\/Quarter County Percentage of Abstracts on Hand Processed During the Quarter – Found No Overpayment 1st Q of 2018 Statewide 27% 1st Q of 2018 Alameda 7% 1st Q of 2018 Mono 0% 1st Q of 2018 Napa 5% 1st Q of 2018 San Bernardino 6% 1st Q of 2018 Imperial 6% 1st Q of 2018 Trinity 7% 1st Q of 2018 Nevada 8% Year\/Quarter County Percentage of Abstracts on Hand Processed During the Quarter – Found No Overpayment 2nd Q of 2018 Statewide 27% 2nd Q of 2018 Alameda 7% 2nd Q of 2018 Napa 5% 2nd Q of 2018 Imperial 6% 2nd Q of 2018 San Bernardino 6% 2nd Q of 2018 Siskiyou 8% 2nd Q of 2018 Trinity 8% 2nd Q of 2018 Humboldt 8% CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 With no reporting in 2020-2021 and fu- ture years, we have no idea how many potential overpayments are not being processed within 45 days as mandated by federal and state law. And some county and state offi- cials have the audacity to talk about program integrity . 7 CalSAWS System Migration Approaching First Go-Live Date CalSAWS will go live for California’s C-IV counties on September 25, 2021, replacing the current C-IV system for welfare workers. For beneficiaries, the C4Yourself customer portal will be replaced by the new BenefitsCal Portal in those counties. This date is now less than four months away, but CalSAWS leadership has pushed to limit meetings with advocates to one stakeholder meeting every three months instead of the previous once per month. While a meeting every three months meets the minimum statutorial requirement for stakeholder engagement, this move has raised red flags for advocates given continued User Centered Design concerns and the many urgent issues that require resolution prior to the first CalSAWS go-live date. With such a limited amount of time to go before the rubber hits the road for the statewide computer system, advocates are continuing to push for frequent check- ins with the CalSAWS project team, ongoing meetings with the state contractors in charge of designing the consumer-facing BenefitsCal portal, and frequent com- munication with CDSS personnel regarding policy de- cisions. Our hope and goal is to ensure that CalSAWS and BenefitsCal improve on the current systems and provide a better experience for beneficiaries of Califor- nia’s safety net programs. CalSAWS Advocate Co-Lead Nomination Period The CalSAWS Advocate Group is now accepting nomi- nations for its co-chair role. The new co-chairs will as- sist Jenn Tracy by partnering in strategic development, meeting preparation, communications with CDSS and CalSAWs, and participating in stakeholder and public meetings, sharing notes, and seeking resources to build our advocacy efforts. If you’re interested in nominating someone or inter- ested in being part of this ongoing effort to ensure that CalSAWS results in an equitable, effective system for all Californians, please contact Jenn Tracy at jennifer@ jenntracy.com or erin.simonitch@ccwro.org for more information. Protecting Interim Access to GetCalFresh During Migration Advocates were alarmed by a surprised recent move by the CalSAWS project leads to sunset access to Code for Amer- ica’s popular GetCalFresh application during the September go-live of BenefitsCal. Many of our county-level advocate allies reached out to their county staff, who were also unaware of the proposed change and shared ad. Statewide advocates reached out to the Governor’s office, CDSS, and legislative staff. Following the alarmed responses from all of these stake- holder groups, including county stakeholders, the CalSAWS leadership issued a clarification and made assurances that they would continue to work with GetCalFresh to maintain access. Advocates will continue to monitor this situation closely, as GetCalFresh remains a crucial functionality for many assisters and CBOs. Making a Difference with CalSAWS Local Advocacy The CalSAWS Advocates Group has developed tools and materials to help local advocates reach out to their county de- cisionmakers in advance of the CalSAWS migration. Counties will be developing new business practices as CalSAWS goes online, and they have a certain amount of discretion when adopting CalSAWS processes and ancillary systems. There- fore, there are huge opportunities for advocates and counties to work together to protect consumers and improve access. Some big decisions will occur at a statewide level, but indi- vidual counties still control many aspects of the migration. For example, CalSAWS will offer new systems for contact center menus\/phone trees, BenefitsCal features, and Business Process Redesigns (BPR) that may impact the consumer experience. Have you been wanting to see a same day service model implemented in your county? Would you like your county to make interview scheduling more flexible for consumers? These are the types of improvements you can encourage your county to prioritize by reaching out to county staff, other advocacy groups, or even your county Board of Supervisors. By opening communications now, you can help them under- stand what is at stake and show them how they can play a role in positive outcomes. In addition, open communications will be very beneficial once CalSAWS goes live in your county, allowing cooperation and information sharing about potential problems and solutions. Please contact Jenn Tracy at jennifer@jenntracy.com for more information regarding advocate toolkits for local advocacy. CalSAWS Advocacy Update CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 Well after it was proposed and financed by Con- gress, and months after California submitted its P-EBT 2.0 plan, that plan has finally been approved and a roll-out of the School Year 2020-2021 Pan- demic-EBT program is set to start slowly. On the upside, the newly commenced program based on the recently approved USDA\/FNS State Plan makes key changes that should provide finan- cial assistance to households with school aged and other young children to replace free and reduced price school meals. Features of the new program — specifically focuses on children who are part of existing CalFresh households; — will provide new reloadable P-EBT benefit cards for the 2.0 benefits; — include benefits for children younger than age 6. The new P-EBT 2.0 program will have a formal roll-out in late June 2021. The new program will stress better co-operation and information sharing between CDSS and local school districts. While a downside is that county welfare departments will not be information resources for this program, CDSS has set up an enhanced telephone information system that will be able to provide better services and address more complicated issues. Parents and caretakers, should make certain that local school districts have their child or children’s current cor- rect mailing address in order to make certain that the household receives a new P-EBT 2.0 reloadable benefits card. Critically there is no application process for P-EBT 2.0. Eligibility is based on whether a child was eligible for free or reduced price school meals for the 2019-2020 school year. That eligibility was categorically extended to the 2020-2021 school year. In terms of benefits, any eligible child will receive a benefit set at the rate of $128.00 for any month that a school would have been in session on a full-time remote learning schedule for the time period August 2020 through June 2021. If a school had moved to part-time attendance, the monthly P-EBT payment rate would be $68.00. The program’s expansion to children younger than age 6 will base those benefits on whether the schools in the county or the district where the child lives were operating on either a distance learning or part-time in-person basis. Per CDSS staff, the current challenge is the issuance of the new benefit cards which are being issued based on the child’s last name beginning hopefully in July 2021. This means that benefits are retroactive pay- ments but a household will have 12 months from the receipt of the benefits to use the allocated funds. The problems are that there are still no easy solutions for challenges, such as a child who is improperly deemed ineligible or who does not receive a card. Also there are still unresolved language access issues for households where the primary language is not English, Spanish, Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese. And there is the still unresolved issue of disability access. On the upside, even the delayed disbursement of these funds may have a silver lining: the funds will be dis- tributed after many families may have lost their eligi- bility for federally enhanced unemployment benefits. And as household food costs are likely to increase as there is more demand for comestibles (a fancy word for edible food) as restaurants reopen, additional money for food will be very welcome, especially to households with kids. P-EBT generally has increased the recognition that school children need to be well fed, regardless of family resources. State Sen. Nancy Skinner is the author of SB 364, a ground-breaking proposal to pro- vide nutritious school meals to all California school- aged children. The current version of the measure is https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient. xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB364. The bill is per Sen. Skinner’s website is now a 2-year measure. Some components of the bill may be enacted as part of the 2021-2022 state budget. Action items: contact your local school district about how it plans to move forward with P-EBT and follow up with your local school board about SB 364 and free lunch for all kids. by Daphne Macklin P-EBT 2.0 : The Rubber Hits The Road…Eventually 8 ”

” 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. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736 0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 August, 2021 In Brief CCWRO Welfare News-2021-08 In This Issue In Brief – page 1 Many States Refuse to Aid Women Who Exercise Their Right to Reproducitve Choice- page 2 Statistic of the Month – Tulare County Has No WtW Sanctions During the Pandemic – page 3 Sacramento, Davis or Woodland Transit Riders who Complete a Survey Qualify for a $50 Gift Card- page 3 l On August 13, 2021, the California Employ- ment Development Department announced in News Release No: 21-48 that the Federal- State Extended Duration (FED-ED) 13-week additional benefits will be halted on Septem- ber 11, 2021 because California’s unemploy- ment rate is decreasing. This means thousands of CalWORKs and CalFresh beneficiaries who are receiving FED-ED benefits will be cut off from UI benefits and their CalWORKs and Cal- Fresh benefits will continue to be calculated with the UI income that is no longer coming. l When EDD announced the FED-ED reduction. counties, effective 8-13-21, should have anticipated that the FED-ED would stop and adjusted the ben- efits to eliminate the FED-ED UI income from the benefit calculation for the September 1, 2021. What have counties done to make sure that CalFresh households do not endure hunger insecurity and hardship? What have counties done to make sure Cal- WORKs families get the right amount of CalWORKs at the time? They have done nothing. CalSAWS has not been reprogrammed to pound out UI income that the county knew from their interface with EDD that was no longer coming. CalWORKs families will re- ceive CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits under the false assumption that beneficiaries will be receiving UI. l Los Angeles County returned $45 million dol- lars of CalWORKs employment single allocation funds to the general fund during 2019-2020. During the first quarter of 2020-2021 fiscal year Los Ange- les County only used 40 million or 11.32% of their $354.4 of the 19-20 allocation. On April 21, 2021 LADPSS issued a policy announcement known as Call-Out Number 21-45 saying CalWORKs WtW participants can get 52\u00a2 a mile for the first 500 miles and only 20\u00a2 for every mile thereafter. In- stead of returning $45 million to the general fund, LADPSS should have reimbursed WtW participants at a rate 52\u00a2 per mile exceeding the first 500 miles. l California is still using the 100-hour rule for CalWORKs applicants who are two-parent families. What is the 100-hour rule in Califor- nia? A CalWORKs child with 2-parents, whose primary wage earning parent is applying for CalWORKs assistance, is not eligible for Cal- WORKs when the parent has worked less than 100 hours in the preceding four weeks, and will continue to work over 100 hours the next month even if the wages are less than $1. Four (4) states impose the anti-family 100-hour rule for TANF-California (Blue state), Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota (Red states) MISSISSIPPI – The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Mississippi’s bid to revive a Republican-backed state law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of preg- nancy, a case that could undercut the 1973 ruling, 2 CCWRO Welfare News August, 2021 2021-08 MANY STATES REFUSE TO AID WOMEN WHO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE known as Roe v Wade, that legalized abortion nation- wide. MISSISSIPPI has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmar- ried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion. LOUISIANA – Lawmakers have approved a state law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. LOUI- SIANA has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first- time pregnant woman, married or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion TEXAS Republican Governor Greg Abbott in May signed a law to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks and often before a woman even realizes she is pregnant. The law, due to take effect in September, also grants citizens the right to sue doctors who perform terminations beyond the cut- off mark. TEXAS has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion ARKANSAS – In March, Arkansas banned all abortions except in medical emergencies, making no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. ARKANSAS has opted to TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, mar- ried or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion OKLAHOMA Republican Governor Kevin Stitt signed an outright ban on abortion except when a patient’s life is endangered in April 2021, which is due to come into effect in November. OKLAHOMA has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion. ARIZONA In April 2021, Republican Governor Doug Ducey signed into law a measure banning abor- tions performed because of genetic disorders like Down’s syndrome or cystic fibrosis, unless the condi- tion is considered lethal. The law is scheduled to take effect in August 2021. ARIZONA has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, mar- ried or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion. SOUTH DAKOTA A measure barring abortion based on a fetus’ confirmed or suspected diagnosis of Down Syndrome was signed into law in March, and went into effect on July 1, 2021. SOUTH DAKOTA has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion NEW HAMPSHIRE Lawmakers in June voted to ban abortion after 24 weeks, with no exception for rape, incest or fatal fetal conditions. The law, which is the state’s first bar on late-term abor- tion, is due to come into effect from January 2022. NEW HAMPSHIRE has opted to TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion SOUTH CAROLINA – Republican Governor Henry McMaster signed a law in February 2021 outlawing abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detect- ed. The law is on hold pending a legal challenge by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. SOUTH CAROLINA has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion. KENTUCKY – The attorney general has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate its ban on the dilation and evacuation method, typically used in second trimester abortions. The ban was signed into law, but struck down by a court in 2019. Abortion rights advocates say it would effectively outlaw abor- tions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. KENTUCKY has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmarried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abortion. MISSOURI – A 2018 law banning abortions after eight weeks is on hold due to legal challenges. MISSOURI has opted to deny TANF benefits to any first-time pregnant woman, married or unmar- ried, who opted to have a baby in lieu of an abor- tion SOURCES: Guttmacher Institute, Center for American Progress, NARAL Pro-Choice America, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Kaiser Family Foundation. Statistic of the Month CCWRO Welfare News August, 2021 2021-08 CCWRO Welfare News August, 2021 2021-08 In the month of June 2021, San Bernardino, Kern, San Joaquin and Merced Counties sanctioned more CalWORKs families in a 24-month period than they had CalWORKs families actually participating in the WtW program. Contra Costa County had just 28 more participants than sanctioned families. The real victims are the 40,310 innocent children who have to endure the deep poverty that these counties meat out. See Table #1 below. Tulare County has no long-term or short term WtW sanctions during the pandemic. In Tulare County the sanctions were all cured in accordance with CDSS’s various ACLs that allowed counties to stop the devastating WtW sanctions, county child abuse in most cases. Thank you, Tulare County on behalf of poor children. UC Davis’ Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), funded by the California Department of Transportation, is conducting a survey for individuals using public transportation. The survey results may lead to the implementa- tion of a statewide universal transit care or payment process for public transit users. Twenty individuals who complete the sur- vey will win a $50 gift certificate. The statewide universal transit card or pay- ment process for public transit is not new. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) co-ordinates with other public transportation services by develop- ing the Clipper Card, a single loadable card that is recognized by the entire SFMTA system. The Clipper Card can be used in counties surrounding San Francisco Bay to provide public bus and train services (in- cluding Amtrak) that serve the various cities and the entire region including connec- tions to the major airports and ferry service. Visit www.susanpike.net to access the survey and push the future of affordable, environmentally friendly mass transit just a little bit closer to now. EDITOR’S NOTE: Why is CDSS only giving CalWORKs beneficiaries $20 for a CalSAWS survey? SACRAMENTO, DAVIS OR WOODLAND TRANSIT RIDERS WHO COMPLETE A SURVEY MAY QUALIFY FOR A GIFT CARD TABLE # 1 – How many WtW Long-Term Sanctions versus WtW participants? See Column E Counties June 2021 WtW 25,25A and CA237CW More than 24-month Sanctioned Families Kids in Long Term Sanctions Families Participating in any WtW Activity Column E Statewide 16841 40310 32561 15720 San Bernardino 3194 7938 2061 1133 Kern 1656 4410 999 657 San Joaquin 1150 2735 471 679 Merced 513 1365 290 223 Contra Costa 409 790 437 -28 3 ”

” 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. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736 0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 22, 2021 In Brief CCWRO Welfare News-2021-07 On June 30, 2021, the Biden Administration withdrew the 12-5-19 Final Federal Regulations limiting state-implemented waivers of the work requirements on which receipt of SNAP food assistance may be conditioned and found to be unlawful by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This action implemented the 10- 18-20 decision known as D.C. and Bread for the City, et. al. v. USDA, et.al, No. 20-cv-00119- BAH(D.D.C. 2020. The federal government estimated that, nationwide, the 12-5-19 rule would have affected over one million individu- als receiving SNAP benefits. According to the DSS the average grant for a CalWORKs family of three in 2020-2021 is $723 a month or $8,676 a year. According to the Children’s Defense Fund about 737,640 children lived in extreme poverty in 2019. CalWORKs maximum grants are below 50% of the federal poverty level with only 33% of the CalWORKs families eligible to receive the maximum grant. The remaining 67% of Cal- WORKs families survive on an income that is below 30% of the federal poverty level. It does not have to be this way. Governor and legislative budget writers transfer at least $1 billion from TANF each year to use it for non- CalWORKs programs that should be used to make sure that no child in California endures deep poverty. Statewide, 65% of the unduplicated participants are not receiving transportation. During the month of April 2021 there were 43,368 unduplicated WtW participants and only 15,184 of them was issued a transportation payment. Was this true for CWDA meeting attendees who work for the county when they came to Sacramento for meetings? California’s 58 counties run welfare fraud squads also known as special investigative units (SIU). County dis- trict attorney offices operate 22 SIUs; County Sheriff’s departments operate 3; County Probation Department operate 1 SIU and the welfare departments operate the remaining 32 SIUs. During the first quarter of 2020, SIUs conducted 10,595 investigation and only referred 2 cases for prosecution. How much money did the taxpay- ers spend for these SIUs? No public record exists relat- ing to the costs of the 58 SIUs. When will California decide to come clean with the public and show exactly how welfare administrators are spending taxpayer dol- lars? In This Issue In Brief – Page 1 Majority of Welfare Fraud Allegations Lack Evi- dence – Millions of Dollars Wasted – Page 2 County Failure to Obey Federal & State Laws Cause More CalWORKs and CalFresh Overpay- ments – Now Hidden from the Public – Page 3 CalSAWS Advocacy Update – Page 7 2 CCWRO Welfare News July 22, 2021 2021-07 Los Angeles County – Ms. 104722560, work- ing during the pandemic while LADPSS was shut down, received a notice of action from the child care contractor, Mexican American Opportunity Foundation (MAOF) that her child care will stop because she failed to provide the child care contractor with a copy of her paycheck stubs. She filed for a state hearing. At the hearing it was revealed that the request for the check stubs by the county child care contractor, was mailed to the wrong address so Ms.104722560 never received the request for the check stubs. The date on the notice of action was 12-22-20 and effective 12-31-20. NOAs that terminate child care must comply with the 10-day ad- vance notice as required by 22-001(t)(1) and 22-072.4. 22-001 (t)(1) Timely Notice – A written no- tice that is mailed to the person affected at least 10 days before the effective date of the action. See Section 22-072.4 for compu- tation of the 10-day period. 22-072.4 In computing the notice period required by Section 22-072.1, the 10-day period shall not include the date of mailing, or the date that the action is to take effect. Los Angeles County did not issue a 10-day ad- vance notice as required by law. Despite the inadequate notice period, the CDSS Administrative Judge (ALJ) did not rule that the notice was untimely, so aid paid pending was not ordered. This unfair hearing decision results from the ALJ’s failure to comply with the ministerial duty to render due process of law. LA County failed to comply with ACL 19-99 which states This All County Letter (ACL) pro- vides direction to County Welfare Departments (CWDs) on the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 80 (Chapter 27, Statutes of 2019). SB 80 increases access to child care services for CalWORKs participants by authorizing Cal- WORKs Stage One Child Care immediately upon CalWORKs cash aid approval continu- ously for 12 months or until the participant is transferred to Stage Two. This ACL supersedes any regulations or ACLs governing Stage One Child Care to the extent they are inconsis- tent with SB 80 and this ACL. (Our emphasis added) In this case it appears that child care benefits were terminated before the 12 month con- tinuous ACL 19-99 child ended. Please note, Los Angeles County received $91,845,541 for child care for 2018-2019 but only spent $68,947,838 returning $22,897,705 to the State. In 2019-2020 Los Ange- les received $103,064,170 and returned $14,183,495 to the State. Clearly the Los An- geles County has plenty of funds to provide child care to Ms. 104722560 Orange County – On December 13, 2019, Orange County sent a NOA to Mrs. 104634719 and her spouse. The NOA stated that the CalWORKs (CW) cash aid would be reduced from $1060 to $696 effective Febru- ary 1, 2020, because they failed to comply with Welfare to Work (WTW) Program require- ments. The hearing was conducted on August 13, 2020. Present at the hearing were the claimant, her spouse, three Orange County welfare fraud investigators and an Orange County appeals specialist (AS). The hearing decision states that on Novem- ber 22, 2019, Mr. 104634719 called Orange County to explain that he did not attend the assessment because he was homeless. He also requested an exemption for his wife. County Welfare Department Victim Report 3 CCWRO Welfare News July 22, 2021 2021-07 Orange County demanded medical proof from the doctor. Mr. 104634719 told Orange County that he was hav- ing difficulty with the doctor complet- ing the medical exemption form for his wife. He said that the doctor was charging $50 to complete the form and they did not have the money to pay for the form. On January 6, 2020 Mr. 104634719 called and stated that he could not attend Job Search Review due to not having child care and gas to at- tend. Orange County informed Mr. 104634719 that child care could be provided for hours in which the chil- dren were not in school. The Case Manager explained that if the couple started a WTW activity, a child care packet could be requested and that bus passes were available in order for them to attend the activity. The Case Manager’s advice is con- trary to ACL 19-99. ACL 19-99 super- sedes any regulations or ACLs gov- erning Stage One Child Care to the extent they are inconsistent with SB 80 and this ACL. Effective October 1, 2019, CWDs shall begin authoriz- ing immediate and continuous Stage One Child Care for 12 months or until CalWORKs recipients are transferred to Stage Two. The term immediate child care is defined as the concur- rent approval of CalWORKs cash aid and authorization for full-time Cal- WORKs Stage One Child Care servic- es. Immediate and continuous Stage One Child Care begins the date the child care authorization is provided or the first day child care is used, which- ever is later. Child care shall be authorized full- time unless the recipient specifical- ly requests part- time care. Full-time care is defined as care provided 30 or more hours per week (5 CCR Section 18075(d). Orange County knew that the 104634719 fam- ily was entitled to full time child care unless the 104634719 family, tells the county that I want part-time child care. On January 6th, Mr. 104634719 mentioned that he could not obtain the medical exemption form because he did not have $50 to pay the doctor. The County case manager explained that he could be reimbursed for the fee if he provided a receipt from the doctor. The Case Manager failed to inform Mr. 104634719 that the county could pro- vide an advance payment for the $50 that the doctor wanted to complete the county paper- work. The Case Manager notified Mr. 104634719 that the county will not provide child care and if the couple did not complete a compliance plan without child care they would be sanctioned effective February 1, 2020. Mr. 104634719 reiter- ated his request for child care numerous times without success, in contravention of ACL 19-99 that states: Verification of Child Care Prior to Mandat- ing Program Activities CWDs must verify that suitable child care has been both authorized and secured before mandating participation in any activities, and before initiating any sanction or non- compliance process. The term authorized means that the county has authorized 12 months of Stage One Child Care services for the participant. Orange county verified that the victim here asked for child care and the county admittedly refused to issue child care that the victim was entitled to and then proceeded to achieve the primary purpose of the WtW program- sanction that was illegal. CCWRO Welfare News July 22, 2021 2021-07 For Fiscal Year 2020-2021, counties re- ceived $668 million dollars for CalFresh administration. This funding allows coun- ties to make eligibility determination and comply with other lawful directives of the single state agency respon- sible for the ad- ministration of the CalFresh program. One directive is to submit required re- ports to CDSS, which is the single state agency for CalFresh. One such reports is the CF 296. The CF 296 are monthly CalFresh case load activity reports that are due on the 20th day of the following month per ACL 16-39. Unlike CalFresh beneficiaries who fail to submit a SAR 7 timely and are discontinued from ben- efits, there are no consequences for counties who fail to submit the CF 296. As of July 2021, 36 counties or 62% of the counties, had not submitted their CF 296 reports for April 2021. According to the CA 253 Report, during April 2021 these same counties terminated CalWORKs and CalFresh benefits to families living in deep poverty for not turning in their SAR 7s. The April 2021 Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Update According to the WtW 25 and 25A Re- ports, while most county welfare offices were closed, counties were busily issu- ing sanctions. Offices in counties such as Fresno and Ventura were finding WtW participant to be in compliance with the WtW plan, even though only essential services were being provided. Five counties have more people in sanction status that they have people participating in the program. These counties have been doing this al- though the pandemic. See Table #2. Table #2 – County has more sanctioned families than fami- lies participating in WtW. County WTW Unduplicated Participants WTW Sanctions Kern 1,283 2,103 Lake 11 39 Madera 65 170 Merced 364 614 San Bernardino 2,551 3,927 Counties Fail to Submit Mandated Reports to CDSS Sanctions have been halted by CDSS for now. but counties are now asking CDSS that they be allowed to start sanctioning again, eventhought counties have not all reopened. Persons aided Region 1 – MAP Region 2 – MAP 1 $579 $548 2 $733 $696 3 $925 $878 4 $1,116 $1,060 5 $1,308 $1,243 6 $1,499 $1,425 7 $1,691 $1,607 8 $1,883 $1,789 9 $2,074 $1,971 10 or more $2,266 $2,152 CalWORKs Maximum Aid Payments – Effective October 1, 2021 5 CCWRO Welfare News July 22, 2021 2021-07 On June 28, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 832 into law, extending and enhancing protections for tenants in financial distress due to COVID-19. Overall, this bill is a big win for tenants and tenant advocates. Below is a summary of the changes and how they’ll affect you and\/or your clients: The bill expands and extends many of the prior tenant protections, including: 1. Until October 1, 2021, prohibit- ing landlords from: turning off utilities to try and evict you; sell- ing debt you owe to your land- lord to a third party (like a debt collection agency); bringing an action in court to evict you for non-rent reasons (like noise or nuisance) out of retaliation for you not being able to pay. 2. Until September 1, 2021, prohibiting a bank or other mortgage cervices from denying your request to pause (forbear) a foreclosure without pro- viding specified written notice to the borrower. 3. Until October 1, 2025, requiring that all lawsuits to recover COVID-19 rental debt go through the Small Claims Court (not eviction court). 4. Until October 1, 2027, requiring that a landlord trying to recover COVID-19 debt demonstrate that they have made good faith efforts to seek gov- ernment assistance for the debt, and worked with their tenant to obtain such assis- tance. This provision also requires that courts take a landlord’s refusal to do so into account when determining damages, and limits attor- ney’s fees. 5. Until October 1, 2025, extends the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, which allows tenants who have received an eviction notice to attach a declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress to their answer to prevent being consid- ered in default for that rent. This provision also further specifies the lan- guage landlords must use when they serve such eviction notices. 6. Requires a landlord seeking to recover money from a lease that came due between April 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021 to verify certain information relating to state rental as- sistance: \u00b7 That your landlord has not received rental assistance or other financial com- pensation from any other source for the rent owed, and \u00b7 That your landlord does not have any pending application for rental assistance or other financial compensation from any other source for this money. Please note that this is a simplified list for refer- ence and ease of use, and not a substitute for legal advice from your attorney. If you have comments or questions, please reach out to the author at andrew.chen@ccwro.org. Legislature Extends COVID-19 Protections: AB 832 in Plain English for Tenants and Advocates ”

” 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. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 September, 2021 In Brief CCWRO Welfare News-2021-09 In This Issue In Brief – page 1 CalSAWS Update- page 2 Procedural Denials Account For Most California TANF\/SNAP (CalWORKs and CalFresh) Application Denials- page 3 P-EBT 2.0 Update- page 4 Child Tax Credit Resources – Accord- ing to the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) families can sign up for the Child Tax Credit (CTC) monthly pay- ments using the simple tool for non-filers through November 15, 2021. Treasury data reveal that at least 2.3 million families could be missing out on these payments. It is es- sential that the benefit reaches eligible indi- viduals who do not normally file income taxes and therefore may not automatically be re- ceiving the credit. Human services agencies serve many of these families and are well positioned to deploy resources on the ground to assist eligible individuals. Non-filer portal. Los Angeles County Criminalized The Homeless Population – Los Ange- les DPSS adopted Policy 40-107.3 that clas- sifies families in deep poverty and distress to be high risk cases. The County deems these cases prone to fraud. Characteristics of a high risk case include all cases where a member of the assistance unit or house- hold has been convicted of welfare fraud; moves frequently; the household composition changes frequently; uses a mailing address or a post office box; or lives in a motor home or camper. This policy encompasses all Los Angeles homeless families and criminalizes home- lessness. We thank Lena Silver of Neighbor- hood Legal Services for finding this policy. The next step is to identify the racial compo- sition of these high risk cases in Los Ange- les County. Counties Not Using Substance Abuse Funds For Substance Abuse Treatment – During 2019-2020 the Califor- nia State Budget allocated $26,834,594 so that counties could provide substance abuse treatment to CalWORKs beneficiaries. Over- all, the counties only used $5,095,048 or 19% of the allocation and returned the rest back to the State’s General Fund. Alameda, River- side and San Mateo Counties did not use any of their allocated funds. Los Angeles County only used $2.6 million of the available $15.4 million. Meanwhile, CalWORKs beneficia- ries who seek substance abuse treatment go without services. https:\/\/www.getctc.org\/en 2 CCWRO Welfare News September, 2021 2021-09 Los Angeles DPSS to Open On September 22, 2021, Los Angeles Depart- ment of Public Social Services announced plans to resume in-person operations at all DPSS public-serving offices effective Friday, October 1, 2021. While DPSS has remained open to serve customers throughout the pandemic, this repre- sents the reopening of all office lobbies to accept customers for services. ProPublica Explains WhyTANF\/Child Support Laws are Anti-Family – An informative article in ProPublica explains how TANF\/CalWORKs child support laws work to destroy the lives and relationships of poor indi- viduals and children. Most of the child support collected goes to the federal and state coffers and does not benefit the child. HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement date reveals that federal and state governments pocketed roughly $684 million more in child support from these fa- thers in 2020 than in 2019, which experts say is mostly attributable to the dads’ stimulus checks being intercepted. None of that money went to women and children. Many well-meaning absent parents are prevented from playing a role in the family that is beneficial to the development of the children. If the father paying child support starts visiting the children, the mom is often accused of welfare fruad for not reporting a man in the house who was a visiting man and not living in the house. -The 39 C-IV counties migrated to Cal- SAWS September 27, 2021. If you see cases in which applicants and recipients of public social services have problems using the new system, please contact CCWRO. – CalWORKs benefits will increase by 5.3% effective 10-1-21. CalSAWS must update the Eligibility Benefits Determi- nation Calculation to make sure Cal- WORKs families receive their increase on 10-1-21. – CalSAWS IVR System: The CalSAWS Interactive Voice Response (IVR) re- ceived a system change that allows public benefit beneficiaries to cancel a scheduled appointment, but does not allow for the appointment to be rescheduled at the same time. Missed appointments is a major cause of Cal- WORKs and CalFresh denials due to failure to meet procedural require- ments . See Page 3 and 4 for more details. – According to the August 2021 Cal- SAWS Policy Update, CalSAWS plans to complete programming for the in- creased Child Support Pass-Though which increased to $100 effective 1-1- 22. AB 79 was signed into law on June CalSAWS Update CCWRO Welfare News September, 2021 2021-09 CCWRO Welfare News September, 2021 2021-09 3 29, 2000. Section 2 of AB79 amended Section 17504 of the Family Code to increase the child support pass-through from $50 to $100 for one child and $200 for two or more children. ACL 20-115 was the implementing policy issuance. – California’s elderly and disabled ben- eficiaries often encounter many barriers trying claim Medical Deductions. CDSS published ACL 18-114 released the re- vised CF 31-the CalFresh Supplemental Form for Excess Medical Deductions. This form can be used to identify ex- cess medical expenses that may qualify a household to claim the medical or standard medical deduction. CalSAWS release 22.01 will add the latest version of the CF 31 to the system and should add functionality to automatically mail the CF 31 to CF elderly\/disabled house- hold when a medical expenses record is pending. Although CF 31 is designed to identify excess medical expenses that may qualify a household to claim the medical or standard medical deduction, CalSAWS will only provide this form to folks who are claiming medical deduc- tions and will not be made available to all elderly\/disabled recipients\/applicants to identify excess medical expenses that may qualify a household to claim the medical or standard medical deduc- tion. Procedural Denials Account For Most California TANF\/SNAP (CalWORKs and Cal- Fresh) Application Denials California has been notorious for denying Cal- WORKs (CW) and CalFresh (CF) applications because applicants failed to meet the CW\/CF bureaucratic procedural requirements. During the pandemic, the rate of procedural denials exceeded 70% of the submitted applications for many months during the pandemic. Although each of the 58 counties adopted different business practices for processing applications, within those counties that have more than one office, often each office has its own business practices. Most of the business practices that counties adopt are designed to meet the needs and desires of the administra- tors and workers not the applicant. State regulations governing the CW\/CF ap- plication process provide a lot of flexibility to counties, thus, the lack of uniformity becomes a major cause for procedural denials. In many counties it is not unusual that a person has a telephone interview and then receives a notice saying the application is being denied because they failed to complete the interview. There are no statewide objective application process- ing rules to combat the widespread procedural denials. The call center that most large counties adopted to save on labor costs creates im- mense barriers for the beneficiaries applying or receiving CW\/CF benefits. There are no statewide minimum standards for call centers. Some counties utilize a call back feature but other counties don’t. Tables #1 and #2 on page 4 reveal how dur- ing the pandemic, when counties closed their offices and started using call centers without any minimum standards, widespread applica- tion denials due to procedural eligibility factors, not financial eligibility factors, are the predomi- nate reason for denials. This demonstrates the widespread unlawful denials and failure of timely issuance of CalWORKs homeless assistance, CalWORKs Immediate Need and CalFresh Expedited Services. TABLE # 2 – CalWORKs Procedural Denials for FY 2020-2021- Source:CA255CW Month\/ Year Total Cases Denied Total Cases Denied Due to Failure to Meet Procedural Requirements PERCENTAGE of Total Cases Denied Due to Failure to Meet Procedural Requirements 20-Jul 12128 7264 60% 20-Aug 13327 7577 57% 20-Sep 14346 8113 57% 20-Oct 13705 7881 58% 20-Nov 13540 7883 58% 20-Dec 17571 10386 59% 21-Jan 15310 9387 61% 21-Feb 14220 8775 62% 21-Mar 14045 8663 62% 21-Apr 11583 7070 61% 21-May 11009 6647 60% 21-Jun 11751 7424 63% TABLE # 1 – CalFresh Procedural Denials for FY 2020-2021- Source:CA255CW Month\/ Year Total Cases Denied Total Cases Denied Due to Failure to Meet Procedural Requirements PERCENT- AGE of Total Cases Denied Due to Failure to Meet Procedural Requirements 20-Jul 91396 53282 58% 20-Aug 69454 42209 61% 20-Sep 56940 37005 65% 20-Oct 53349 35491 67% 20-Nov 47723 31849 67% 20-Dec 60719 40374 66% 21-Jan 72615 51366 71% 21-Feb 60888 41905 69% 21-Mar 63512 43784 69% 21-Apr 52979 37427 71% 21-May 53486 38517 72% 21-Jun 66206 46018 70% 21-Jul 85675 63323 74% 4 P-EBT for School Aged and Young Children: The Next Phase- School Aged Children The Pandemic-EBT (P-EBT 1.0) program created in 2020 provided food assistance funding for school aged children who as of March 2020 were locked out of their public schools because of the COVID-19 public health emer- gency. This meant these children no longer had access to free and reduced price school meals including break- fast, lunch and in some cases after school snacks and week-end food supplements. Per the Food Research Action Center (FRAC), in Cali- fornia, the P-EBT program provided nutrition assistance funds to 3.74 million low-income school aged children and paid out $1.36 billion in issued benefits. https:\/\/frac.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/9-14-20fa-stateprofile- ca.pdf The program was a success but it was not without its challenges and problems. Federal funding was reauthorized in late 2020. The proposal submitted to the USDA Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) by CDSS staff had two parts — a continuation for School Year (SY) 2020 – 2021 for school- aged children who were eligible for the free and reduced price meal program based on their Fall 2019 applications and new cover- age for young child from birth to age 6 who were part of a CalFresh household. The P-EBT 2.0 program provides direct pay- ment of nutrition supplement funds to school- aged children with: — no requirement of an application for ben- efits; — new P-EBT 2.0 benefits provided on indi- vidual reloadable cards for each child in a household; and CCWRO Welfare News September, 2021 2021-09 5 CCWRO Welfare News September, 2021 2021-09 — a two-tiered payment rate based on whether a child’s school was operating on an in-person schedule ($0.00 payment), remote learning (about $123.00) or hybrid learning (in-person and remote learning students will get about $68.00) per month. Currently all school aged children who qualified for free or reduced price school meals based on their Fall 2019 application for this program, are deemed eligible for P-EBT 2.0 benefits along with children in other categories, i.e. Foster Care. CDSS is issuing new P-EBT 2.0 cards to these children. The cards are reloadable and should be kept as waves of payments will be made using these instruments. Current P-EBT Payments are as follows: P-EBT 1.0 – paid $365 (approx.) to all school aged children for SY 2019 – 2020. Extended P-EBT 1.0 benefits were paid to chil- dren who met the P-EBT 1.0 eligibility rules for August and September 2020. CDSS expects that the waves of P-EBT 2.0 payments will occur in late fall 2021 based on eligibility and school operating policies for the SY 2020-2021 school year. More simply put, the benefits that will be is- sued for the P-EBT 2.0 program are retroac- tive coverage for SY 2020-2021. See https:\/\/ capandemic-ebt.org Further analysis of the need for and impact of P-EBT and related emergency child nutrition programs are discussed in the Kone Report commissioned by FRAC\/CCPB. https:\/\/frac. org\/wp-content\/uploads\/P-EBT-Documenta- tion-Report.pdf P-EBT 2.0 for Young Children California’s Pandemic EBT 2.0 or P-EBT 2.0 program is in the midst of the second issuance of P-EBT cards to school-aged children. There is no application process. Cards are being is- sued based on existing information within the CDSS CalFresh program. Per CDSS the issuance of P-EBT cards for young and pre-school aged children ages 0 to 6 years old was com- pleted in August 2021. Eligible young children include those who were part of a Cal-Fresh (SNAP\/Food Stamp) household between October 2020 and January 2021. The reloadable cards are issued in the name of the child, one card per eligible child. CDSS plans a series of distributions of the P-EBT benefit to young children. The benefits are not for the current school year (SY 2021 – 2022). Rather the distribution is for benefits based on the SY 2020-2021. Per CDSS the planned distribution of benefits, through the automatic loading of each individual card, will happen during the lat- ter part of 2021 in at least two waves. The amount of benefits will be based on whether schools in the county where the child lives were closed or open using the hybrid (distance and in-person) learning model. For more information go to https:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/ home\/pandemic-ebt or https:\/\/ca.p-ebt.org\/. Written information is available in five languages: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Traditional and Simplified Chinese and Arabic. P-EBT also enhanced its telephone helpline services to assist with creating PINs and addressing other issues. by Daphne Macklin ”

” 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. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 October-November, 2021 CCWRO Welfare News-2021-10 In This Issue Welfare Fraud Waste Unveiled-page 1 CalSAWS Update-page 1 County Victim of the Month- Page 2 BenefitsCal Impedes California Application assisters- page 2 Beneficiaries on the Ground Report-page 3 USDA, FNS CalkFresh Monitoring Report-page 3 $50 Monthly Broadband Credit Now Available-page 4 WELFARE FRAUD WASTE UNVEILED During the pandemic lock down, California wasted an estimated $288 million on wel- fare fraud investigations. Counties conduct- ed thousands of investigations to identify CalFresh households receiving excess ben- efits during this period in order to reduce or discontinue benefits. Table #1 shows that the current subjective eligibility worker fraud referral system resulted in unwarranted in- vestigations. Way over 50% of the cases referred for a welfare fraud investigation not only showed no fraud at all, but did not even show an overissuance. Year \/Quarter Source: CDSS DSS 466 Reports Investigations concluded during the quarter with NO evidence found to reduce or discontinue benefits Investigations concluded during the quarter with evidence found to reduce or discontinue benefits Percentage of investigations that found no overissuances 2020 – 4th quarter 6149 3388 64% 2021-1st quarter 8003 3360 70% 2021 2nd quarter 7971 3668 68% CalSAWS Update In September, 39 counties migrated to CalSAWS. Advocates have been tell- ing state officials for several years that CalSAWS needs to provide effective CalSAWS training for the workers before they go live. Advocates urged CalSAWS to adopt a certification process veri- fied by a third party assuring the worker is able to navigate the system effectively. CalSAWS rejected our recommendation outright and insisted that the web-based training was sufficient. After going live, CalSAWS discovered that not all welfare workers are proficient using the system. County workers are having issues using CalSAWS that must be addressed. 2 CCWRO Welfare News October-November, 2021 2021-10 COUNTY VICTIM OF THE MONTH Ms. BE12302 is living in poverty. She can only eat because she is receiving CalFresh benefits. Her social security disability income is about $1,500, which means she has a long history of work and is now disabled. She has a huge share of cost and her house payment is about $1,200. She was get- ting CalFresh. On November 2021 her CalFresh benefits stopped. No notice. Nothing. In October, according to Ms. BE12302, a couple of big men appeared at her house, unannounced, demanding to talk to her. They identified them- selves as fraud investigators. Being aware of her 5th amendment rights, she refused to talk to the fraud investigators. In November her CalFresh benefits were stopped on the ORDERS of the Sacramento County welfare fraud investigators for failure to cooperate with the welfare fraud inves- tigators. Apparently the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to Ms. BE12302, a CalFresh beneficiary in Sacramento County. She never received a Notice of Action CalFresh just stopped – period. An advocate contacted Sacramento County with Ms. BE12302 on the line and confirmed that her CalFresh benefits were stopped without a due process Notice of Action. Why the CalWIN computer system, which costs taxpayers 100’s of millions of dollars, would allow entitlement benefits to stop without a Goldberg v. Kelly Notice of Action is mind boggling. Thankfully, Sacramento County agreed to rescind the theft of Ms. BE12302’s CalFresh benefits. Her benefits were back on her EBT card on November 11, 2021. She can now eat. BENEFITSCAL IMPEDES CALIFORNIA APPLICATION ASSISTERS CalSAWS has gone live with their new BenefitsCal portal which works in the 39 former C-IV counties. The new portal is operated by CalSAWS and not counties. All benefits assisters must register with BenefitsCal. When the person registers, they must indicate the county of their residence. If the county of residence is LA County or a CalWIN county, the individual cannot complete the registration even though the assisted person being helped resides in a CalSAWS county. If the individual says they live in a C-IV county and iden- tifies a false zip code, then the request will become a external agency task and some secret person in that made-up county will process the task. How- ever, CalSAWS refuses to provide advocates with a list of these contact persons. CalSAWS Refuses to Release Trouble Tickets With the introduction of CalSAWS in 39 coun- ties, unexpected technical issues encoun- tered by workers or beneficiaries have been occurring. When this happens, a trouble ticket is created to describe the problem and is tracked with the help desk analyst or help desk manager. According to CalSAWS the Help Desk Ticket Analysts are responsible for reviewing and analyzing trouble tickets for CalSAWS core system, Regional Call Cen- ters, Self Service Portal\/Mobile app, Imaging, Lobby Management, IVR, etc. In addition, the analysts review and analyze tickets submitted for both level 1 and level 2 help desk support which varies county to county. Full technical support to managed counties includes project management of the local network infrastructure, workstations and printers down to the county level. Non-managed county support includes technical support to the network point of presence at the county’s data center and triage of all trouble-tickets related to the sys- tems supported by the project. Once tickets are triaged and determined to be a valid issue, the tickets move into level 3 help desk support which is managed by the system integrator vendor. In addition, analysts per- form ticket trend analysis, monitoring system performance for compliance with service level agreements, and communicating with end users surrounding the remediation of trouble tickets and system performance is- sues. CCWRO has publicly asked CalSAWS for copies of the trouble tickets so that advo- cates have knowledge of the problems that counties and beneficiaries experience. CalSAWS Director, Boule, refuses to make the trouble tickets public because the tickets may include confidential information. Cal- SAWS other excuse is that the trouble tickets are work product. CCWRO contends that computer system problems that result in low-income beneficiaries of public 3 CCWRO Welfare News October – November, 2021 2021-10 3 benefits, not receiving the right amount of ben- efits as mandated by federal and state laws and regulations, is a matter of public right and public interest. Beneficiaries On the Ground Report Ms. BC34397 received a Notice of Action from Sac- ramento County on the state approved NOA CF 377.4 Disc. (6\/13) CalFresh Notice of Termination which said: Effective 10\/31\/21, your CalFresh benefits are termi- nated because: Your net nonexempt income exceeds the CalFresh net income limits. The NOA did not provide the amount of the net nonexempt income. The NOA also did not identify the CalFresh net income limit. Ms. B1QW781’s family is homeless in Los Angeles County. She applied for homeless assistance and re- ceived 7 days of homeless assistance on Wednesday, October 6th. She has four minors, 3, 6, 7 and 8 years of age. LA DPSS gave her housing search forms and told her that she would have to give the welfare office proof that she used the payment for shelter. When she went on LADPSS’s YBN system, there was nowhere to upload the homeless assistance verification. There is a drop down that mentions income, identification, etc. but no other that allows individuals to upload documents for CalWORKs homeless assistance. On October 13, 2021, she was in a panic because her second 7-day payment had not arrived. She called the LADPSS call center 6 times and each time the system was busy and terminated the call. On October 13, 2021, she followed the suggestion of her advocate and used the identification dropdown to upload the homeless assistance documents and that was received by LADPSS. It’s unfortunate that one needs to lie to get a document to the county. Why does California force the homeless to turn in verification during the pandemic? Why does the law still force a homeless family of 5 with little ones, to contact the welfare office every 3 or 7 days to get their homeless assistance? Ms. S.W. is a working CalWORKs parent. On August 4, 2021, her current employer received a request for veri- fication of income stating With reference to the above named, we are informed this subject is or was in your employee. There is a matter currently pending in this office concerning this subject, and we appreciate you furnishing us with the following from your records. You may be assured this information will be kept in confidence. This letter was signed by a worker at San Mateo County Welfare Office. The San Mateo County worker should have known that this letter violated the confidentiality of Ms. S.W. The employer now knows that an individual working for this employer is a welfare recipient . The form used is C-137(Re.3.00) SIU Employment Verification. USDA, FNS CalFresh Monitoring Report FNS released its 2021 Management Evalua- tion Report for the State of California. The review was conducted of two counties: Los Angeles and San Diego. FNS conducted the Los Angeles Department of Public Social Ser- vices review in May 2021 and in San Diego in June 2021. The Management Evaluation Report confirms many of the concerns voiced by advocates, including: Los Angeles County is not allowing Cal- Fresh applicants to file a CalFresh application the same day as mandated by federal regula- tion 7 CFR 273.2(c)(iii). This blatant violation of this federal regulation began in March 2020 and may have finally stopped last month. Los Angeles County conducts CalFresh interviews outside the building in public. Although the welfare offices front doors are open, LADPSS refuses to allow applicants and beneficiaries to enter the building. This is a violation of 7 CFR 273.(e)(1). Los Angeles County does not record the correct application filing date received after business hours if submitted on a Friday or Saturday. Los Angeles County currently oper- ates using extended office hours on Satur- days. If someone calls and files an application by phone, their application date is Saturday. If the application is by mail, drop boxes or on-line, an application filed on Saturday is deemed to be filed the following Monday and not Saturday. Since the County has ex- tended hours for Saturdays, Saturday would 4 CCWRO Welfare News October-November, 2021 2021-10 be considered the filing date for any application received after hours on a Friday or on a Saturday per 7 CFR 273.2(iii). In violation of 7 CFR 272.4(b)(3)(i) Los Ange- les fails to provide federally mandated informa- tion relative to their modified services, including providing applications and other information in languages other than English and Spanish. The LADPSS has a policy of returning calls within 3 days. FNS suggested a shorter period of time. Observation #3: CDSS Form CW 2200 Verification Notice is unclear and vague. FNS addressed this observation to the CDSS and not the counties. The language is CW 2200 is We will not deny or end your benefits as long as you try to get the proof and tell us if you are having problems. This Notice fails to inform the recipient that the county is required to assist applicant in obtaining documents. $50 Monthly Broadband Credit Now Available Federal Communications Commission (FCC) upgrade to its life-line program for low and fixed income households is a COVID-19 point of light that deserves to be used by as many people as possible. The benefit, if a household is approved, is a $50.00 per month credit for broadband access. The current FCC lifeline service is less than $10.00 per month. According to an LA Times article published September 29, 2021 only about 730,000 eligible California household’s have applied for and been approved for the generous benefit which is higher for qualifying users who live on tribal lands. However, per Sunne Wright McPeak, a former state agency head and Chief Executive at the California Emerging Technology Fund, as many as 3 million California moderate, low and limited income families including seniors and the disabled, may qualify for this benefit. The basic EBB (Emergency Broadband Benefit Program) eligibility rules qualify households or individuals who meet any of these criteria: — Household income of $17,400 or less for indi- viduals; $35,800 or less for a family of 4; — Eligibility for at least one federal safety net program, i.e. SSI, CalFresh, Medi-Cal or a tribal assistance program; — Eligibility for and receipt of a Pell grant for School Year (SY) 2021 – 2022, or qualification for a free or reduced price school means for SY 2019, SY 2020 or SY 2021; or — Eligibility for an internet service provider’s discounted broadband rate. Eligible applicants should apply to their local internet provider services or on-line for the EBB program. The grant is available for only one service line per household. Program funding is expected to last through May 2022. EBB is directed at families with school-aged children and low-income students whose lack of internet access during the height of the CO- VID-19 health emergency became a hallmark of disruptions to educational programs. As the responses to the public health emergency pushed increasing numbers of people to ac- cess vital services including medical treatment, counseling and even religious services on-line, the truly brutal dimensions of the Digital Divide emerged, neighborhood by neighborhood, in stark relief. EBB, which is expected to continue in a some- what reduced form later in 2022, is one response to COVID-19 that may result in a beneficial permanent change. For more information contact your local pub- lic library, your local internet service provider or https:\/\/www.usac.org\/about\/emergency- broadband-benefit-program\/ See also https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/business\/ technology\/story\/2021-09-29\/big-discounts- for-broadband-do-you-qualify ”

” 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. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave Suite 635 Sacramento CA 95825-8551 Telephone (916) 736 0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 12\/21CCWRO Welfare News-2021-11 In This Issue CalSAWS Update – Concerns – page 1 County Welfare Department Victim – page 1 Counties Fail to Use Allocations for Families Living in Deep Poverty-page 3 The CalSAWS statewide implementation process has been clouded by a lack of transparency and unanswered questions. For example, CalSAWS publishes a Change Control Board (CCB) report identifying changes that have been approved and the number of hours that are be- ing invested to make these changes. The CCB Report shows that work order CA-232326 Other Person Count Report will need 468 hours of work. It is nice that CalSAWS is letting the pub- lic know that they are using 468 hours to construct a report for other per- son count , however, details of why this is needed and why 468 hours is hidden in work order CA-232326 is unknown. These decisions are made in rooms that are not open to the public. Advocates in a public meeting asked CalSAWS Director Boule to provide a link to work order CA-232326. A link was shared, but when the public clicks on it, it takes us to a page entitled 403 forbidden . Additionally, CalSAWS has consistently made presentations to legislative staff stating they are unable to make automation changes because they are CalSAWS Update – Concerns County Welfare Department Victim Report Ms. B1QW781 of Los Angeles County receives Cal- WORKs. To complete the November 2021 Annual Redetermination, she received a packet and an inter- view on 10-25-21. Although previously submitted, LA demanded the birth certificates for each of her four (4) children. This violates MPP 40-126.35 which prohib- its counties from asking for verification that was previ- ously submitted. The birth certificates are already in the case file. She paid for the birth certificates since LA never informed her that the county will pay the fees for getting demanded verification. This violates MPP 40- 126.332 which states: Third Party – Fees If Necessary, the county shall pay a third party fee to obtain existing evidence of eligibility on behalf of the applicant . LA County also requested that she provide verification of social security income that she last received 8 long years ago. Now the county is unlawfully trying to stop her benefits for failure to provide verification. An advo- cate helped her avoid losing her benefits, but how many other families similarly situated were not lucky enough to find an advocate to save them from these types of un- lawful actions by Los Angeles County Welfare Office? (cont’d on pg 4) $0 $500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 Co un ty – Fe de ral \/St at CalSAWS FUNDING – 97% federal\/state – 3% county 2 CCWRO Welfare News overwhelmed with the work required to get all 58 counties into one system, but aren’t automation changes that benefit California’s benefit recipients the purpose of the statewide CalSAWS system? CalSAWS, an entity governed by counties for the counties, will pay a meager 3% of the total cost of implementation and management of CalSAWS, $5,379,000, with the remaining 97% to be paid by State and Federal fund- ing according to the 2021-2022 State budget docs. Source: May revise Local Assistance Estimate Methodology, page 348. (cont’d on page 2) CalSaws Update, cont’d. Every county has very different rules for General Assistance under Section 17000 of the Welfare & Institutions Code. CalSAWS is automating 58 other county general assis- tance programs 3% funded by the county and 97% funded with state and federal funds. So, federal and state dollars are paying 97% of the cost of the 2,894 hours to automate the Los Angeles County General Relief program, which is supposed to be 100 percent funded with county funds. See CA-215672 DDID 2320\/2314 FDS: GA GR Phase2 Batch 2 (4 Rules) – Income Rules and Corresponding NOA Reasons. Los Angeles County will get 3398 hours to Modify LRS lobby applications to work with the new Self-Service Portal and 1201 hours to create a preview functionality for CalSAWS Lobby Kiosk and CalSAWS Lobby Tablet. What portion of that is for the Los Angeles County General Assistance Pro- gram? Is Los Angeles paying their share? It’s no wonder counties wanted to make sure that this is a system for the counties to be gov- erned by the counties mostly paid by federal and state funds to pay for county programs. Maybe it’s time for an audit of CalSAWS by the California Auditor Generals Office. TABLE #1- CalSAWS County approved hours paid 97% with State and Federal Funds Release SCR # DESIGN AP- PROVAL Team Responsible Hours 22.01 CA- 232326 DDID 1631: Other Person Count, and Other Person Amounts are Not Repre- sented in the CalSAWS Report Template Reports 468 21.11 CA- 215672 DDID 2320\/2314 FDS: GA GR Phase 2 Batch 2 (4 Rules) – In- come Rules and Corre- sponding NOA Reasons Eligibility 2894 CCWRO Note: Funded by CalSAWS for Los Angeles County GFR program 21.11 CA- 217869 Modify LRS lobby applica- tions to work with the new Self-Ser- vice Portal Online 3398 22.01 CA- 222133 Create preview functionality for CalSAWS Lobby Kiosk and CalSAWS Lobby Tablet Online 1201 Maybe it’s time for an audit of CalSAWS by the California Auditor Generals Office? 3 CCWRO Welfare News December, 2021 2021-11 3 TABLE #2 – Child Care Allocation Not Used COUNTY Allocation Allocation NOT Spent % TULARE $23,430,004 $19,968,192 85% STANISLAUS $ 6,658,663 $4,585,360 69% SACRAMENTO $26,197,908 $17,570,359 67% SUTTER $1,192,259 $795,074 67% ORANGE $22,018,626 $14,018,073 64% SAN MATEO $3,030,750 $1,918,078 63% KERN $15,366,242 $8,789,623 57% SAN BERNARDINO $39,233,488 $22,051,203 56% Trafficking and Crimes Victim Assistance Program (TCVAP) were allocated $8,678,000 in fiscal year 2020-2021, Yet, counties only used $4,771,187 while unlawfully denying benefits to many TCVAP appli- cants. The theory that if you give counties the money with no oversight or direct supervision, they will do the right thing and use the money seems to be mistaken. CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse funding – Substance abuse treatment incredibly difficult to get in the low-income community, with few resources and few open intake or treatment slots available. In 2020- 2021 the Legislature appropriated $50.3 million for this purpose and counties only used $16.3 million, leaving unused $34 million 65% of the funds. TABLE #3 below shows some of the counties that did not use their substance abuse allocations. TABLE #3 CalWORKs Substance Abuse FY 20-21 Allocation & Expenditures County Allocated Not Spent Percentage STATEWIDE $50,314,000 $33,945,239 67.47% SAN DIEGO $4,413,589 $2,751,844 62.35% MERCED $356,731 $214,424 60.11% VENTURA $595,220 $318,926 53.58% SAN BERNARDINO $4,915,979 $2,423,299 49.29% SAN FRANCISCO $1,036,731 $417,686 40.29% BUTTE $959,498 $384,420 40.06% CONTRA COSTA $1,403,272 $509,520 36.31% ORANGE $1,362,014 $295,246 21.68% SONOMA $264,151 $11,615 4.40% Counties Fail to Use Allocations For Families Living in Deep Poverty Every year counties ask for more money. Often, coun- ties complain that they do not have the resources to make changes that would bring them in compliance with various statutory mandates. These are just a few examples: CalWORKs County Single Allocation Funding – In fiscal year 2020-2021 the Legislature approved $2,394, 284,000 for the county single allocation. The counties sent back $706 million at the end of 2020-2021. In 2021-2022, the single allocation was reduced by $217.8 million, while CalWORKs children continue to endure the ravages of deep poverty. In 2021-2022 over $2 billion of CalWORKs money was diverted from the means-tested CalWORKs families as contribution to the General Fund. CalWORKs Stage 1 Child Care – For fiscal year 2020- 2021, the Legislature appropriated $481.4 million and counties returned $177.1 million. Meanwhile, many families were denied childcare by counties for various reasons, such exempt providers not being trustlined, etc. Interestingly, the CW 115 reports contain no informa- tion on how many children applied for Stage 1 child- care, how many were denied and why were they de- nied. Since the CW 115 reports don’t tell us how many applications for Stage 1 childcare were denied and why, advocates have no way of knowing how many families have fallen through the cracks. This lack of transpar- ency serves only to conceal the real-world harm suffered by children living in poverty as a result of overzealous denials by county welfare departments San Bernardino’s WtW Program had 1 person partici- pating for every 2.5 persons sanctioned. The county re- ceived $39.2 million but spent on $17.2 million return- ing the remaining $22 million in 2020-2021. However, they imposed sanctions upon families who probably did not have childcare approved a violation of state law. TABLE #2 reveals some of the large counties not using their Stage 1 childcare allocations. 4 CCWRO Welfare News December, 2021 2021-11 CalWORKs Housing Support Program For fiscal year 2020-2021 the legislature appropriated $97 million for counties to assist homeless families. During FY 2020- 2021 counties denied CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Benefits to over 3,600 homeless families. Many of the de- nials were for those seeking homeless assistance because they applied within a year of their last receipt of homeless assistance. Counties only used 18% of their allocation ($17,245,406). TABLE #4 lists the counties that failed to provide necessary housing support to its residents. TABLE #4- FY 20-21 – Housing Support Program Funds Not Used COUNTY Allocation Allocation NOT Spent % SAN JOAQUIN $ 1,293,333 $ 814,918 63% SAN MATEO $ 2,628,820 $ 1,474,550 56% NAPA $ 381,930 $ 212,511 56% SACRAMENTO $ 4,200,303 $ 2,115,824 50% MERCED $ 4,894,580 $ 2,064,434 42% TULARE $ 600,000 $ 229,289 38% KERN $ 1,663,019 $ 617,798 37% BUTTE $ 2,400,000 $ 792,733 33% ALAMEDA $ 2,158,632 $ 541,013 25% MADERA $ 482,549 $ 120,639 25% COUNTY VICTIM REPORT, (cont’d from pg 1) Ms.22614423 of San Mateo County is a mom and a victim of skimming. She has four (4) children, two of whom are three years and younger. Thieves stole all of her $980 Cal- Works benefits on December 1, 2021. She immediately called the EBT hotline and reported the theft. She was instructed to complete the EBT 2259 form and turn it to the county. She completed the form. She was also told to report it to the police department. She reported it. On 12-4-21, she received a Notice of Action stating: On 12-4-21 San Mateo County issued a M16-705 EBT Adjustment Denial Notice stating The county has denied your request to have $980 credited to your EBT Cash Aid. Here’s why: You reported that on 12\/01\/21 an error happened and you did not receive the right amount of cash you tried to get, you were charged too much, or you did not make a purchase that day. After review it has been found that the right amount was taken from your EBT Cash Benefit Balance and that the purchase of 12\/01\/21 was made with the EBT card given to you or your designated Alternate Cardholder. CDSS ACL 21-133 provides that CalWORKs stolen benefits will be replaced within 10 days. If the money had been stolen from a skimmed bank ATM, the $980 would have been back on the ATM card right away. But because this is CalWORKs account and counties seem to act on the assumption that recipients are guilty of some malfeasance, it took over two weeks, and the help of advocates emailing a complaint to the County Welfare Director, State Welfare Director, and the County Board of Supervisors, to get her benefits placed back on her card. But what happens if a family with small children is not able to contact an advocate? Why doesn’t the county have to comply with the requirements of ACL 21-133? Bad NOA in Sacramento County – Sacramento County issued a Notice of Action to Mr. & Mrs. 1BBCY58 that said Effective 01-01-22, your CalFresh benefits are changed from $206 to $168 each month because: Your income has changed. When your income changes, the amount of CalFresh benefits you are eligible to receive changes. However, Sacramento County failed to identify the source and amount of income as required by ACIN I-151-82. ACIN -I-151-82 explains the meaning of adequate notice is: ln broader terms, the recipient needs to know and understand what is happening to the family’s aid. The recipient needs enough information to be able to judge whether or not the action is correct\u2014including the detail of computation affecting the amount of aid. This notice, and thousands of similar NOAs issued by CalWIN, does not provide adequate notice and are therefore in viola- tion of the US and California Due Process provisions of their respective Constitutions. 5 CCWRO Welfare News December, 2021 2021-11 6 CCWRO Welfare News July 20, 2021 2021-07 7 CCWRO Welfare News July 20, 2021 2021-07 CCWRO Welfare News June 29, 2021 2021-06 8 ”

” CCWRO Welfare News-2022-01 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. (cont’d on page 2) CalSAWS Updates CalSAWS neglects GA\/GR data: At a February 2022 CalSAWS board meeting, the CalSAS JP Meet- ing Slide Deck 2\/18\/22 Final-updated slide #13 showed the number of active Medi-Cal, CalFresh and CalWORKs cases in CalSAWS as of 2\/6\/22. How- ever, the slide did not provide any data regarding over 100,000 General Assis- tance\/General relief cases that are also in CalSAWS. Why? CalSAWS has capacity to make changes requested by the coun- ties – but lacks capacity for new changes implemented by the Legislature. At the February 18, 2022 JPA CalSAWS board meeting presentation of CalSAWS JPA Meeting Slide Deck Final-updated # 30 states that future legislation intended to immedi- ately improve public social services for beneficiaries won’t be implemented until 2024. Social services beneficiaries could see severe impacts from this fail- ure to prioritize future policy and enact the the leg- islative changes to imrpove the lives of California’s needy. Contemporaneous to this statement of priorities of migration and existing policy commitment from CalSAWS, the following hours were reported as al- located. According to CalSAWS the work represented by these hours does not appear related to CalSAWS migration but implements requests by counties that are not migration related: 400 hours No Migration according the CalSAWS document CA-214754. Create a new endpoint to retrieve the reception logs for a specified case or of- fice, date, and status. 365 hours – No Migration according the CalSAWS document CA 232018. CalSAWS change control board documents admit. 1001 hours – No Migration according the CalSAWS document CA224771. GA\/GR fiscal changes for Los Angeles County. 2,573 hours – No Migration according the Cal- SAWS document CA 233488. The GA\/GR solution in the CalSAWS system is designed to automate the rules for the Los Angeles county’s implementation as well as the automation and monitoring of their GROW program. Currently, CalWIN manages their General 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 MigratiobnnHours – 4,150 Non-Migrat ikon Hours – 38, 724 Thousands CalSAWS publicly claims that \”Our top priorities are migration and existing piolicy committmemnts. We anticipate having space for new poilicy chages beginning in mid-2024.\” Really? 11% migration and 89% not migration. CCWRO Welfare News March 2022 2022-01 (cont’d from page 1) 2 Assistance GR program logic by using a Rule Matrix which can be accessed by the county to allow each county adminis- trator to customize the behavior to their specific county. 1,135 hours – No Migration according the CalSAWS document CA 214916 . Update the CalSAWS System Task Management functionality to allow authorized users to define and schedule a periodic sampling of Tasks. The periodic Task sample results will be accessible for review. 5,066 hours – No Migration according the CalSAWS document CA 234211. Update the CalSAWS System Task Management functionality to allow authorized users to define and schedule a periodic sampling of Tasks. The periodic Task sample results will be accessible for review. 5,146 hours No Migration according the CalSAWS docu- ment CA 233488 & CA 233489. The GA\/GR solution in the CalSAWS system is designed to automate the rules for the Los Angeles county’s implementation as well as the automa- tion and monitoring of their GROW program. Currently, CalWIN manages their General Assistance GR program logic by using a Rule Matrix which can be accessed by the county to allow each county administrator to customize the behavior to their specific county. 786 hours In a closed CalSAWS CalWORKs\/CalFresh committee meeting with county leadership, the committee approved work that would automatically impose CalFresh sanctions on currently sanctioned CalWORKs beneficiaries. This is a total of 16,472 hours just from January 20, 2022 CalSAWS Change Control Board Approvals. They do not represent the total number of hours approved that are not migration related. These numbers caught our attention, but, there are more. During this meeting, the Change Control Board acted on 84 change requests, only 11 were related to migration. The Control Board approved 38,724 hours and only 4,150 were for migration. This represents 11% for migration. See table below: System Change Request Hours Migration? CA-214754 400 No CA-214756 292 No CA-228869 12 No CA-233089 22 No CA-236661 9 No CA-236662 15 No CA-229301 240 Yes CA-229302 240 Yes CA-232018 365 No CA-235360 133 No CA-235989 20 No CA-236077 134 No CA-236079 190 No CA-236357 22 No CA-236793 124 No CA-236882 80 No CA-236926 40 No CA-237721 61 No CA-237821 86 No CA-237845 24 No CA-237997 22 No CA-238141 25 No CA-238169 61 No CA-238187 20 Yes CA-238312 10 No CA-238387 5 No CA-238523 2 Yes CA-224771 1001 No CA-225255 355 No CA-230192 201 No CA-233487 702 No CA-233488 2573 No CA-233489 2573 No CA-235297 220 No CA-236010 169 No CA-236997 274 No CA-237932 67 No CA-237357 0 CA-47290 429 No CA-214918 426 No CCWRO Welfare News March 2022 2022-01 3 CA-214919 335 No CA-224269 1126 Yes CA-231970 684 No CA-232069 133 No CA-233027 229 No CA-235060 20 No CA-235353 10 No CA-235422 205 No CA-236300 10 No CA-236371 63 No CA-236451 370 Yes CA-236766 123 No CA-237360 0 No CA-237606 7 Yes CA-238011 10 Yes CA-238325 280 No CA-210330 158 No CA-211362 204 No CA-234997 169 No CA-235292 52 No CA-214269 104 No CA-221703 115 No CA-233919 23 No CA-229461 1131 Yes CA-232562 110 No CA-236204 274 No CA-236577 324 No CA-237144 376 No CA-49395 154 No CA-203793 590 No CA-214912 256 Yes CA-214916 1135 No CA-225639 1045 No CA-229096 1066 No CA-235285 348 No CA-217717 74 No CA-232065 719 No CA-202818 114 No CA-216757 748 Yes CA-221357 257 No CA-226844 7700 No CA-231511 273 No CA-234211 5066 No CA-207127 890 No CalWORKs Earned Income Disregards Punish Low Wage Working Families The 2022 CalWORKs earned income disregards are set too low. Most families working full-time and earning minimum wage who apply for CalWORKs have their applications denied for earning too much. CalWORKs recipients who start working full-time earn- ing minimum wage are generally terminated from CalWORKs for excess income. The majority of CalWORKs families are families of 2 and 3 persons. Today, if a mom with 2 or 3 kids works full- time and gets minimum wage, they are ineligible for CalWORKs. History of Earned Income Disregards in California – In 1970s, when CalWORKs (then AFDC) single beneficiaries worked, they were entitled to an earned income disregard of $30, then anoth- er third of the remainder. The actual costs of childcare and trans- portation were deducted from the net income. The remainder was known as countable income. The countable income was deducted from the Minimum Basic Standard of Adequate Care (MBSAC) to calculate the payment amount. For two-parent families, work- ing over 100 hours a month made the family ineligible for AFDC. In the 1972 case, Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535 (1972), the Supreme Court allowed states to deduct the countable income from the maximum aid payment rather than the MBSAC, up- holding the only part of the Reagan 1971 Welfare Reform Act. President Reagan proposed limiting earned income disregard 1\/3 deduction from the gross income to 4 months and the $30 deduc- tion to 12 months. Within a year, however, California’s Gover- nor Deukmejian received a federal waiver to remove the 4 month and 12-month limitations on AFDC earned income disregards. In 1998, the CalWORKs program was created, implementing the 1996 Clinton Welfare Deform Act, where the earned disre- gard formula was changed to gross earned income minus $225 earned income disregard and 50% of the remainder deduction. In 2020, Jessica Bartholow of Western Center on Law & Poverty se- cured a provision in SB 80 (Chapter 27, Statutes of 2019) that increased the earned income disregard (EID) to $500 for 2020 and $550 for 2021. CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS: a) Increase the earned income disregard from $550 to $1,000 a month and make sure it is adjusted for inflation either every year or every three (3) years; b) Use the recipient earned income deduc- tion method to determine eligibility for CalWORKs ap- plicants that would not only benefit the working poor, but it would also simplify the program for county workers. ”