Search Demo

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 1 In This Issue Capital Report State Budget Report CWD Victim Report\ufffd \ufffd \ufffd would be a revolt. However, poor women and children have always been easy targets and Gov- ernor Schwarzenegger is no exception. ASSAULT # 2. Decline the Ronald Reagan Cost of Living Increase for impoverished families. Savings of $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: Currently, CalWORKs fixed incomes are at the level that similarly situated families received in 1990. The continuation of the erosion of the fixed in- come for low income families not only effects their basic survival needs, but forces them deeper into poverty. The CalWORKs cost-of-living ajjustment (COLA) was put into effect in 1971 by then Governor Ronald Reagan. Table #1 (Page 3) sets forth the COLA that famlies should receive on July 1, 2005 assuming that the Democratic Legislature does not agree to Schwarzanegger’s demands. ASSAULT # 3. Proposes to reduce the work in- centives enacted by the State Legislature in 1996. Savings of $80.4 million Current Work Deductions Take the gross Income and deduct $225 plus 50% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. Proposed Work Deductions Deduct $200 from the gross income plus 40% of the remainder. What is left would be countable income. State Capital News 2005 STATE 2005 LEGISLATIVE SESSION BEGINS 2005-2006 State Budget News On January 5, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger delivered his second State of the Union speech. His main attack was aimed at Democrats by calling to change the way legislative districts are drawn. Democrats criticized the Governor for fail- ing to bring California money back to Cali- fornia as he suggested during his campaign for Governor. It is estimated that over $50 billion of California’s money goes to Wash- ington and never comes back. While this money could be used to supplement pro- grams like CalWORKs and it’s participants, the fact is that this money is used to subsi- dize other red States. These states con- tribute less than California but get more back from the Federal Government than Califor- nia. On January 10, 2005, the Governor unveiled his 2005-2006 proposed state budget. The former Terminator launched several assaults on impoverished California families with chil- dren in his proposed budget. ASSAULT #1- Reduce CalWORKs benefits for impoverished families by 6.5%. Savings $210 million. RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: This will lower the fixed incomes of CalWORKs fami- lies to 1988 levels. Remember, many these are working families. If any other workers salaries were reduced to 1988 levels, there CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 RECIPIENT IMPACT STATEMENT: The cur- rent system makes work hardly beneficial. The current $225 standard deduction is deducted from the gross rather than the net. The count- able income is not deducted from the Mini- mum Basic Standard of Assistance Care (MBSAC), which is the minimum amount a family can live on, rather it is deducted from the maximum payment level, which reflects a starvation cap between what families need of the basic survival needs and the lesser amount they are given to survive. At least working parents should have their income de- ducted from the MBSAC. RECOMMENDATION: Yes, the work incen- tive needs reforming to make work pay; de- duct the standard deduction of $225 from the net income and the countable income from the MBSAC. ASSAULT # 4. Strengthen of the current sanc- tion process. Savings $12 million. Under the current sanction system more than 40% of the unduplicated welfare to work par- ticipants are sanctioned, however, most of the sanctions are unlawful. The budget has no legislative language for this proposal. After a few telephone calls we found out that CDSS has contracted with the Rand Corporation to study sanctions in California and to make recommendations. The specific proposals from DSS will be unveiled at bud- get hearings in April of 2005. SUMMARY OF THE 2005-2006 SCHWARZENEGGER ASSAULTS ON POOR FAMILIES (In Millions) 6.5% Benefit Reduction $210.7 No COLA $210.2 Reduction of Work Incentives $ 80.4 Sanctions Changes $ 12. TOTAL 513.3 The TANF Christmas Tree- CalWORKs Money Not Being Used for Payment to Families The total amount of money available for CalWORKs is $5.05 billion. $2.9 billion, is used for payments to poor fami- lies. Meanwhile 43% is used for purposes other than payments to families. The TANT block grant has been a Christmas tree for many years. Millions have been spent while poor families have been forced to suffer on fixed incomes at times, less than1990 lev- els. The 2005-2006 budget has again proposed to take money out of the mouths of poor chil- dren and give it to foster care programs and social services. The budget even proposed a $136 million reserve while sentencing poor families into deeper poverty. Moreover, the proposed budget will take $179 million CalWORKs money and give it to so- cial services. Another $49.9 million will be used for Foster Care Emergency Assistance grant and admin- istration. $138,4 million will be used for child welfare services. Another $201.4 million will be given to proba- tion departments. This is money that should be used to pay for Payment to Families. SUMMARY OF MONIES FOR NON-CalWORKs PROGRAMS (In Millions) Foster Care EA $188.3 Transfer to Title XX $179. Probation Facilities $201.4 Reserve $136. TOTAL $704.7 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-1- January 10 , 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The VICTORS AND LOSERS IN THE 2005-2006 BUDGET The 2005-2006 Budget is a clear cut assault on poor families with children. CalWORKs children not only get the least amount of assistance from the budget, but they are the only ones who receive less benefits in ’05-’06 than they received in ’04-’05. The average child in CalWORKs received $214 a month in ’04-’05, while in ’05-’06 the same child is scheduled to receive $197 a month. On the other hand, if that same child was in a foster care home, that child would receive $1,819 in ’05-’06, while receiving $1,805 in ’04- ’05. What is the difference? The CalWORKs child is living in a poor household, while the foster care child is generally in a middle class home. And if a middle class family decides to adopt a child will receive $765 for each adopted child in what is called adoption assistance in 2005- 2006, while the same adopted child received $744 in 2004-2005. Yes, CalWORKs children getting 10-25% of what foster and adopted children get will have their benefits reduced even further. 2004-2005 2005-2006 CalWORKs Child $214 $197- \ufffd Foster Care Child $1805 $1819 Adoption Child $744 $765 CWD Victim Report Ms. C.M. is a Sacramento mother of four chil- dren who received a vocational certificate with the help of the WtW program. In October she finally found a job but needed child care. She was referred to Child Action, the local child care dispensing agency, which is the only 2004-2005 2005-2006 Benefits Statutory Levels Benefit Levels $359 $331 $376 $346 $584 $540 $611 $565 $723 $671 $756 $702 $862 $799 $902 $836 $980 $909 $1,025 $951 $1,101 $1,021 $1,152 $1,068 $1,210 $1,119 $1,266 $1,170 $1,318 $1,221 $1,379 $1,277 $1,424 $1,230 $1,490 $1,287 $1,530 $1,417 $1,600 $1,482 Table #3 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 1 REGION 2 place WtW participants can receive child care services in Sacramento. Child Action de- mands that working moms come to the Child Action offices during regular working hours to attend an orientation class. Many working moms cannot take off from work. Ms. C.M. found a service provider, however, in December Ms. C.M. had yet to receive any child care assistance, thus, her hard to find child care provider quit. The county also failed to provide her with the transportation assis- tance that she was entitled to. Once her child care stopped, she had to stop working and stay home to take care of her children. Had she continued to work without child care, she would have been committing a FELONY – abandoning her children by leaving them home alone. Finally, Ms. C.M. received a letter in Decem- ber stating that her benefits would be lowered because she failed to keep an appointment with the WtW job club during November of 2004. She did not attend job club in Novem- ber of 2004, because she was working. In fact the county was aware that she was working and still scheduled a job club appointment. Ms. C.M. has now contacted a welfare advo- cate and has filed for a fair hearing to assure that her benefits are not being terminated. Average Monthly Aid to Children \ufffd \ufffd ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 1 In This Issue In Brief Capital Report 2005-2006 State Budget News A Look at CAPI CWD Victim Report \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd recipient to pay in cash. \ufffd School Attendance Penalty and Inter County Transfer. On 11\/4\/04 Riverside County asked CDSS whether or not the school atten- dance penalty crosses county lines when the family transfers from one county to another. Charlotte Doisy of CDSS responded the next day that The school penalty is not transferred. School attendance at the new school must be verified in accordance with MPP 40-105.5. \ufffd Negative Actions During Annual Redeter- mination v. QR. On 10\/28\/04 a county asked whether or not the county can take negative action as a result of a annual redetermination (RD) that has negative consequences? CDSS responded that CWDs are encouraged to align the RD process with the FS recertification and the QR 7 data month. However, if the RD pro- cess date is established outside the QR data month, the county shall act mid-quarter on all information to increase, decrease, or discon- tinue cash aid as appropriate (MPP 40- 181.217) \ufffd CalWIN implementation. A number of coun- ties are planning to implement the new com- puter system known as CalWIN. Some of the counties have been planning to have a morato- rium on complying with the CalWORKs Imme- diate Need and Food Stamp Expedited Service statutes and regulation. Watch and see what your county is doing. \ufffd Stage 1 Child Care Cannot be Stopped for Failure to Pay Family Fees – Ventura County asked DSS if they could terminate Stage 1 child care to a family for failure to pay the family fees , which is a fee the fam- ily pays the child care provider. DSS re- sponded on 10\/22\/04 that Ventura County cannot terminated Stage 1 child care for failure to pay the family fee . See MPP 47.220. \ufffd CDSS States that Alcoholic Parent in the House Has to Watch Child – On No- vember 24, 2004, Imperial County asked DSS whether or not they could pay child care for a participant whose husband is an alcoholic and not able and available to pro- vide child care for her children. On 12\/2\/04 CDSS responded that as long as there is a husband in the house, then the spouse is not eligible for child care. \ufffd Rand Corporation to Study WtW Sanc- tions – One of the trailer bills last year re- quires DSS to examine its sanction policies and report to the budget committee on April 1, 2005. CDSS has contracted with RAND to do a survey. RAND has been talking to county staff of Los Angeles, Orange, Sac- ramento, San Diego, San Jouquin and Santa Clara. RAND has mailed out a ques- tionnaire to all 58 counties to gather infor- mation for this survey. The final report should be available 4\/1\/05. \ufffd Riverside County Not Able to Collect Overpayments Legally. On October 10, 2004 Riverside Country posed the follow- ing question to CDSS: Client has an overpayment. Riverside is on C4 system and cannot adjust her grant be- cause of computer glitches. Since her grant cannot be adjusted to accommodate the overpayment, Riverside wants her to pay back overpayment in cash. CDSS re- sponded that the … County cannot force In Brief \ufffd \ufffd CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 State Capital News The State Legislature is in full session. As the new legislative session starts, new committee assignments are un- veiled. Membership for Committees having ju- risdiction over welfare matters have been pub- lished. Senate Human Services Committee D-Simitian (Chair), (916) 445-6747 R-Maldonado (Vice-Chair) (916) 445-5843 R-Aanestad, (916) 445-3353 D-Alarcon, (916) 445-7928 D-Alquist, (916) 445-9740 D-Chesbro (916) 445-3375 D-Florez. (916) 445-4641 Consultants: Jack Hailey and Sue North. Assistant: Joy Traylor. Phone: (916)445-8741. Room 2195 Health and Human Services Subcommit- tee of the Assembly Budget Committee D-Hector De La Torre, Chair(916) 319-2050 R-Dave Cogdil (916) 319-2025 D-Loni Hancock (916) 319-2014 R- Rick Keene (916) 319-2003 D-Gene Mullin (916) 319-201 Staff: Christian Griffith (916) 319-2099 Room 6026 – christian.griffith@asm.ca.gov Assembly Human Services Committee D- Noreen Evans, Chair (916) 319-2007 R- Ray Haynes, Vice Chair(916) 319-2066 D- Joe Nation (916) 319-2006 D- Juan Arambula (916) 319-2031 D- Joe Coto (916) 319-2023 R-Todd SpitzerRep-71 (916) 319-2071 D- Karen Bass (916) 319-2047 Staff – Casey McKeever (916) 319-2089 2005-2006 State Budget News The 2005-2006 State budget launched an- other attack on California’s poor women with children. On January 12, 2005, the State leg- islative analyst released her preliminary analy- sis of the Governor’s budget. A more compre- hensive analysis will be forthcoming in Feb- ruary. While the budget denies COLA to CalWORKs families with children and proposes to reduce the benefits by 6.5%, the proposed budget includes a 3.39% COLA for education at the cost of $1.65 billion. The Governor has always supported educa- tion, however, his budget discriminates against poor kids by singling out CalWORKs for the biggest slash. See Figure #1 for more details. General Fund Spending by Major Program Area (Dollars in Millions) 2004-2005 Proposed for 2005-2006 Estimated Amount % of Change Education K-12 Prop- 98 $30,992 $33,117 6.9% CCC Prop. 98 3,036 3,321 9.4 UC\/CSU 5,212 5,413 3.9 Health & Welfare Medi-Cal $11,965 $12,948 8.2% CalWORKs 2,146 1,940 -9.6 SSI\/SSP 3,444 3,523 2.3 Other 7,988 8,297 3.9 Corrections $5,389 $7,014 1.2% BUDGET ACTIONS: At this time the Califor- nia Legislative leaders are planning to have budget hearings throughout the state. It is important that welfare recipients and their ad- vocates appear at these hearings and ques- tion the morality of denying COLA and cutting benefits for welfare parents and their kids who are now barely surviving on fixed incomes at 1990 levels. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2 – January 24 , 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 A Look At CAPI California Cash Assistance for Immigrants (CAPI) In 1998, led by then House Speaker Anto- nio Villaraigosa, the State Legislature enacted AB 2779. This bill contained Welfare and Insti- tution Code Section 18937, et.seq. which estab- lished the CAPI program. This section was enacted over the objections of the state welfare bureaucracy, thus, statisti- cal information is kept by the Department of Social Services to keep on eye on the program. This week we are looking at the CA 1037 reports which can be viewed at the CDSS web page: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/ CA1037-Cas_433.htm We looked at the latest report – November, 2004. The data shows that at the beginning of November 1, 2004, counties had 2,817 applica- tions that had not been acted upon. STATEWIDE 2,817 781 788 22% 4.6 218 28% 511 65% 2,844 Alameda 159 41 62 31% 3.2 12 19% 45 73% 140 Butte 2 0 2 100% 0 0% 2 100% 1 Contra Costa 28 17 14 31% 3.2 3 21% 9 64% 31 Fresno 24 12 18 50% 2.0 8 44% 9 50% 18 Imperial 3 2 4 80% 1.3 0 0% 4 100% 1 Kern 2 0 1 50% 2.0 0 0% 1 100% 1 Kings 0 1 0 0% 0 0 1 Lake 1 0 0 0% 0 0 1 Los Angeles 1,747 383 317 15% 6.7 94 30% 221 70% 1,813 Marin 4 1 1 20% 5.0 0 0% 1 100% 4 Merced 4 0 1 25% 4.0 0 0% 1 100% 3 Mono 0 1 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 Napa 5 0 0 0% 0 0 5 Orange 181 78 85 33% 3.0 12 14% 61 72% 178 Placer 4 1 1 20% 5.0 0 0% 1 100% 5 Riverside 11 1 9 75% 1.3 3 33% 5 56% 3 Sacramento 185 55 63 26% 3.8 22 35% 37 59% 186 San Benito 1 0 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 San Bernar. San Diego 49 13 17 27% 3.6 6 35% 9 53% 45 San Fran. 37 33 35 50% 2.0 12 34% 16 46% 35 San Joaquin 33 9 9 21% 4.7 2 22% 3 33% 41 San Luis Ob. 1 0 0 0% 0 0 1 San Mateo 62 20 25 30% 3.3 3 12% 19 76% 57 Santa Clara 210 69 91 33% 3.1 27 30% 53 58% 193 Solano 17 7 9 38% 2.7 3 33% 5 56% 15 Sonoma 3 1 2 50% 2.0 0 0% 1 50% 2 Stanislaus 13 5 6 33% 3.0 2 33% 3 50% 12 Sutter 2 1 0 0% 0 0 3 Tulare 0 5 5 100% 3 60% 1 20% 0 Ventura 9 21 4 13% 7.5 3 75% 0 0% 26 Yolo 11 4 5 33% 3.0 1 20% 4 80% 14 Yuba 1 0 0 0% 0 0 1 Apps from 10\/04 Apps Received in11\/04 November 2004 Data Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 Apps from 10\/04 This county simply refused to submit a state required report CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Ms. C.W. had an infant four (4) months old when she applied for CalWORKs and Immediate Need (IN) in Ventura County on Monday, November 1, 2004. During the screening process she was told that she needed to apply for a so- cial security number for the baby and she needed to produce the birth certifi- cate for the baby before anything could be done on her case. She told the county worker that the child was born in Orange County and she did not have the resources to get there. The worker was adamant – no birth certificate – no welfare. The county told her to come back on November 4, 2004. Ventura County refused to schedule her for an IN interview on November 2, 2004 as required by law. This is a violation of MPP 40-129.41 which states: If the applicant indicates on the initial application or the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) that the family has an emergency situation as defined in MPP 40- 129.13, the county shall conduct an Immediate Need interview no later than the next working day following the date the Immediate Need request is received. She was not given a notice of action denying her IN on November 1, 2004. Another violation of MPP 40-129.531 which states: The Immediate Need payment re- quest shall be denied and the appli- cant notified in writing in accordance with MPP 22-001a.(1). Where noti- During the month of November only 788 ap- plications were acted upon statewide. During the same month counties received 815 applications. Clearly counties are getting more applica- tions each month than they are able to process. At the end of the month counties had 2,844 cases that had not been acted upon. One of the reasons that counties can get away with only processing 22% of the cases dur- ing the month needing processing is that there are no deadlines for processing CAPI applica- tions. Those who oppose regulations and sup- port county flexibility should understand that there are human consequences when giving counties flexibility – people suffer due to county abuse of discretion. At the end of November, 2004 there were 2844 applications remaining to be processed. Counties are processing about 700-800 cases a month. At this rate is takes over four (4) months to process an application statewide. Meanwhile the elderly, disabled and blind suffer because of the State of California’s refusal to do their job- provide CAPI benefits to those entitled to such benefits. During November, 2004, about 28% of the applications for CAPI were approved, while a whopping 65% were denied. This is a high de- nial rate. The highest caseload is in Los Angeles County. This county approved 30 of the appli- cation while denying 70%. The five (5) major counties with CAPI cases are Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Orange, Sacra- mento and Alameda Counties. The Table on page 3 provides more details based upon the 11\/ 04 CA 1037 published by CDSS SENIORS, THE BLIND AND DIS- ABLED NEED LEGISLATION: There is a need for legislation that provides CAPI applications be pro- cessed in 30 days and 60 days for disability cases. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-2- January 24 , 2005 – Page 5 fication is hand-delivered, a new Im- mediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) shall also be given to the applicant. Ms. C.W. rescheduled the 11\/4\/04 ap- pointment for 11\/9\/04 because she did not have the birth certificate demanded by Ventura County. She was able to get a ride to Orange County from a relative to wanted money for the ride and had to borrow $18 to pay for the birth certifi- cate. The county never told her that they would have paid for her third party fees in accordance with MPP 40-126.32. On November 9th Ms. C.W gave the county the birth certificate and proof of application for a social security number for her newborn. On November 9, 2004 she received a $200 IN payment. She told the county she broke up with the father of the child in October, 2004. She also told them that she was look- ing for work, however, the only time she could look for work was when the fa- ther could babysit. Father spending time with baby–fire- works erupted. How dare the father visit the baby. So a welfare fraud investiga- tion was launched. The case was re- ferred to the Ventura County District Attorney’s (DA) office. Father visiting and watching baby, something has got to be fishy here. The DA investigator came to her house and found no clothing belonging to the absent parent and no absent parent liv- ing there. The DA investigator then went to the absent parent’s workplace to in- terview him. The absent parent told the DA investigator that he does not live with Ms. C.W. The DA investigator also visited Ms. C.W. pastor to find out if the pastor re- ally loaned money to Ms. C.W. to pay for the rent. The absent parent attends the same church that Ms. C.W. does. Now that looks real fishy. How can two people who are separated be going to the same church? Finally, the pastor told the investigator that the absent parent and C.W. had talked to him about marital counseling during July and August. The DA investi- gator recommended that the case be denied because it was an intact family. The county admits that he does not live with her, but they do go to the same church and they have talked about rec- onciliation, thus it must be an intact fam- ily. During middle of December Ms. C.W. received a denial because the absent parent was not absent. This was a nice Christmas present from Ventura County – application denied. Ventura County, broke another welfare law in this case. MPP 40-129.91 pro- vides: When an Immediate Need payment has been issued, the county shall verify the applicant’s eligibility for aid within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the Immediate Need payment request. The IN was requested on 11\/1\/04 and by law the county was supposed to act on the application no later than Novem- ber 22, 2004, not mid December of 2004. This victim has filed for a fair hearing. Stay tune. ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd CWDA Children’s Committee has monthly meeting and monthly pre-meet- ing conference calls with CDSS. Accord- ing to the California Welfare Directors Asso- ciation (CWDA), its Services Committee will be having monthly meeting with Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director for Children Ser- vices and a monthly pre-meeting telephone call with Mr. Wagstaff. While DSS has time to hold two meetings a month with counties, no monthly meetings are being held with the representatives of the consumers of the CDSS programs. Right now consumers have three (3) meeting a year without any pre- meeting conferences. \ufffd Quarterly Reporting (QR) Data Being Collected. Several counties, including Riv- erside and San Bernardino Counties, are in- volved in QR data collection. The list of coun- ties collecting this data should be available from CDSS. \ufffd QR Task Force is back. Counties have been having problems with QR and have asked CDSS to reconstitute the QR task force. The first meeting of the Task force was held on February. The meeting was closed to the public, although it is financed with pub- lic funds. \ufffd Medi-Cal and QR. Department of Health Services is concerned about Medi-Cal ineli- gibility when cash linkage ends but the fam- ily remains on aid due to QR rules. This phe- nomenon occurs generally when a parent working over 100 hours returns home or the youngest child ages out. DHS wants coun- ties to provide them with estimates of how often this occurs. \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN News \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – DemocrDemocrDemocrDemocrDemocracy for acy for acy for acy for acy for TTTTTANF RANF RANF RANF RANF Recipients?ecipients?ecipients?ecipients?ecipients? \ufffd Statistical Analysis, CalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs DiscontinuancesCalWORKs Discontinuances \ufffd In-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used toIn-Kind Income can be used to meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost.meet IHSS Share of Cost. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-4- February 23, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS \ufffd CDSS will be revising BW 2166 (Work Pays) form. This form will be revised in order to be consistent with QR reporting. Counties are asked to provide input for changes they may want when revising the form. Representatives of the participants were not asked for input. \ufffd AB 205 being reviewed by Health & Hu- man Services Agency. AB 205, which took ef- fect January 1, 2005, related to registered do- mestic partners, has not been implemented yet. It is held up by agencies outside of CDSS. Coun- ties have been told by CDSS that they cannot implement AB 205 until told. DSS has also said that AB 205 may be retroactive, but they are not sure. \ufffd IEVS and QR. At a 1\/6\/04 CWDA meeting counties asked DSS how does QR interact with IEVS. A work group was set up on this issue and it has meet once. Advocates were again excluded from this workgroup. For more Maria Hernandez of CDSS of 916-654-1322. IN-KIND INCOME CAN BE USED TO MEET IHSS SHARE OF COST. In the IHSS program if the recipients income requires a share-of-cost (SOC), such cost can be meet through in-kind income. On 1\/7\/02, Alan G. Organ of Fresno County asked DSS: Where the provider and recipient, can a SOC obligation be meet through in-kind payment (e.g. room and board)? CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-4- February 23, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 On 8\/19\/02 Bruce Clark of DSS responded that A SOC payment may be met through in- kind payment. The answer goes on to elabo- rate that Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Order No. 15-2001 provides such a valuation. The IWC requires a written agreement be- tween the provider and recipient in order to credit room and board for wages. CalWIN News CalWIN is a new computer system that will be operating in 18 California County welfare depart- ments. Placer County was the first county to start a new computer system which was tried in Colorado. The system has major problems for the recipient, applicants and welfare workers. Colorado’s system version .3 was a disaster and not- withstanding all of the improvements that EDS has made. In a recent news release the Associated Press re- ported: Welfare application backlog grows since Decem- ber Friday February 11, 2005 DENVER (AP) The number of pending applications for welfare ben- efits has increased since December when a judge ordered the state to re- duce a backlog caused by a new com- puter system. Denver District Judge John Coughlin gave the state until Feb. 28 to reduced its backlog of 29,351 wel- fare cases by 40 percent. The backlog now stands at roughly 29,700. “We still have a way to go, but things are more positive than negative,” said Karen Reinertson, executive direc- tor of Health Care Policy and Financ- ing, one of two state agencies that dis- tribute benefits to the state’s needy. Public-interest lawyers sued the state over the $200 million Colorado Benefits Management System that went on-line in September and slowed payments to the state’s 600,000 people who receive some sort of assistance. Reinertson said the backlog has grown each day but 55 percent of the cases backlogged as of December have been processed. The number of new cases that missed federal deadlines fell from 12,000 in December to 9,000 in January. A call center set up to help those in emergency need of food, shelter or medications benefit emergencies logged 754 calls. Our sources in Placer County tell us that the com- puter was spitting out a bunch of notices and people were lined up at the office trying to find what do these notices mean? One says aid has been approved. The other one says it was denied. And another one says the benefits have been decreased. Yet another notice states that benefits have been increased – and all these no- tices went to one person. Many others had similar prob- lems. The implementation of CalWIN is causing wide- spread violations of state and federal laws. One of the most basic laws being violated will be the laws governing emergency assistance in the form of Food Stamp expedited services and CalWORKs Im- mediate Need. Sacramento will be going live 3\/3\/05. Advocates in Sacramento will be closely monitoring the county compliance with the law. PRACTICE TIP: Welfare advocates should start meeting with their counties to see how the county will implement CalWIN and comply with the law. One major lesson from Sacramento County is the fact that workers who went through the training program were really never trained in that there was no independent certification that the person was trained. All trainees certified that they were train- ing. There were no verification that the individual could operate the system. In February, 2005, Sacramento County did a mock CalWIN and it was a di- saster. Allegedly trained workers had no idea when they were doing. CCWRO has contacted CDSS about this looming problem. We hope somebody stops this disaster. Of course the victims will be the customers of the county wel- fare department. We have been told by county employees that Sacramento wel- fare department has instructed county staff not to talk to the press. One major lesson from Sacramento county is the fact that workers who went through the training program were re- ally never trained in that there was no indepdendent certification that the per- son was trained. CalWIN coming to your county 5\/05 – Santa Cruz\/Yolo 6\/05 Santa Clara 7\/05 Solano 8\/05 Contra Costa 9\/05 Sonoma 10\/05 San Mateo 11\/05 San Francisco 12\/05 Alameda 1\/06 Tulare 2\/06 Orange 3\/06 Santa Barbara 4\/06 San Luis Obispo 5\/06 San Diego 6\/06 Fresno CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-4- February 23, 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 conservative myths about welfare in America. She urged the committee to allow women to choose education and training as a means of becoming elf-sufficient rather than limiting their choices which are decided by the welfare bu- reaucrats as the current law and HR 240 would do. She urged the committee to enact legislation that empowers people rather than punishing them for being poor. The next person appearing was Wade Horn, who is the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families of HHS. He was representing the Bush Administration. His long testimony has nothing but good things to say about the TANF program and sang the praises for the Bush TANF proposal which punishes the poor as eloquently stated by Congresswoman Woolsey. Kevin McGurie. Maryland Department of Hu- man Resources appeared and sang the praises of the TANF program because over 76% of the TANF funds are now available for bureaucrats and only a meager 24% of the TANF grant goes to payments to families. No wonder they have 76% of the TANF funds for the bureaucrats to play with. A family of three only receive less than $500 a month in Mary- land. Mr. McGuire made supported state-flex dem- onstration program that would let States do whatever they want. Next up was the Robert Hector of the Heri- tage Foundation. Robert is one of the ardent supporters of the Terrorist Act on Needy Families also known as the TANF legislation. For years Heritage Foundation has been im- plying that government spends over $200 bil- lion a year on welfare recipients. Of course this is a bold face LIE insofar as the AFDC and TANF program are concerned. We have no idea how much money is given to bureau- crats and businesses under the disguise of helping welfare recipients. Mr. Rector’s testimony primarily supported the proposal of giving State bureaucrats $300 mil- lion to support marriage in the low-income community. The Heritage Foundation has been a longtime proponent of giving govern- TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE House Hearings on HR 240 On February 11, 2005, Congressman Wally Herger of Cali- fornia held hearings on his HR 240. As were reported in our previous Bulletin, in the Republican controlled democracy the people do not participate. Only the chosen ones were allowed to speak in the undemocratic House of Representa- tives. The people testifying were mostly supporters of HR 240. The hearing began with Wally Herger, Re- publican Chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee talking about what a great suc- cess TANF has been. The next speaker was Jim McDermott (D) from the State of Washington, who is the rank- ing member of the subcommittee. Mr. McDermott gave a more honest assess- ment of what is happening in America. He said that 44 million Americans do not have health care. Every 30 seconds in America, the rich- est, most powerful nation on earth, someone declares bankruptcy because they have sim- ply fallen sick. Mr. McDermott suggested that TANF should stand for Towards A New Future . He also said that the CBO has estimated that child care need for TANF is $18 billion and not $1 billion that HR 240 provides. Mr. McDermot announces that he is introduc- ing HR 751, which is the Democratic version of TANF reauthorization. The next speaker was Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey of California. She testified that she was 29 years old when her husband left her with three children ages 1,3, and 5. Although she was working, her employment did not yield enough income to provide for her family, thus, she had to rely on welfare. Her testimony rebutted many of the CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-4- February 23 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ment money to government bureaucrats and not the to the people. Not one penny of the $300 million is required to be spent on poor family trying to get married. How about giving the newly weds some seed money to start their family? Many marriages fall apart due to the economic status of the family. Living with your in-laws can take a toll. What Mr. Rector and his comrades need to do is to support having 75% of all of the money for Marriage Initiatives be provided directly to the families who are getting married and not to their beloved government and private en- terprise bureaucrats. Following Robert Rector was his comrade Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institute. Ron was the staffer for the subcommittee when TANF was enacted. Ron sang the praises of TANF alleging that is has reduced poverty rates in America. It ap- pears that terminating benefits after two years and leaving families only Food Stamps and Medical assistance reduces poverty. In real life it is a sentence to poverty . He also supported increasing the federal man- date on work participation. Next was another supporter to TANF, Jason Turner of the Center for Self-Sufficiency in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Jason use to be in charge of the Office of Family Assistance un- der former President Bush and Director of the New York welfare system. Jason Turner is compassionate person and he wants to make the bill better by adding Full Check Sanctions. This means that if a woman with three kids, 1,3, and 5 does not show up for her workfare duty because she did not have child care, she will be subject to Full Check sanctions. He also suggested that Food Stamp federal eligibility requirements should be consistent with the TANF federal eligibility requirement. This implies that TANF has federal eligibility requirements – it does not for all practical pur- poses. States can establish and do whatever they want to do. He also alleges that TANF recipients ..who are probably able to work are entering the SSI rolls from TANF… The key work is probably . The only way someone can qualify for SSI is by showing that they have a disability and are unable to work for more than 12 months any- where in the United States of America. His testimony also launches an attack on SSI recipients, mimicking George Bush’s attack on SSA recipients. Next to testify was Jeffrey Johnson, Presi- dent of the National Partnership for Commu- nity Leadership. Jeff represents a father- hood organization . They support the TANF program because they are using TANF money to operate a program that serves fathers who are 25 or older. They have served 700 fathers by helping them assume emotional, nurtur- ing, legal and financial responsibility for their children. The next panel started with the testimony of David Hansell, Chief of Staff, Department of Social Services. He also sang the praises of TANF stating that the caseload has decreased by 78 percent since 1995. His testimony did not have any mention of what happened to the 78 percent of families terminated from TANF. How many of the children terminated ended up in foster care? How many ended up homeless? Mr. Hansell stated that the people left on TANF today have ..significant clinical barriers to self-sufficiency. He asked for increased flex- ibility as to how the State can spend the TANF money. In 2003, only 42% TANF money went to payments for families. That means that a whopping 58% is used for the TANF bureau- cracy. Mr. Hansell wants to use more of the TANF money for payments to families for pay- ments to bureaucrats. Next, and finally, Lisalyn Jacobs appeared, representing Legal Momentum, formerly NOW Legal Defend Fund for Education. While TANF proponent Ron Haskins was al- leging that poverty has declined, Ms. Jacobs To use a medical analogy, H.R. 240 proposes a treatment for America’s most impoverished families that has an unacceptable risk benefit profile. The side effects of H.R. 240’s in- creased and unrealistic work require- ments are predictably the exposure of more families and children to man- dated full family sanctions and thus to food insecurity, ill health, and ex- cess hospitalizations. Deborah Frank – a Child Doctor 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-4- February 23 – Page 5 clarified that actually since 2000 to 2004, 4.3 million additional Americans fell into poverty. 56% of these are women. CCWRO NOTE: This increase in the poverty rates is tied to the time limits going into effect after 2 years. TANF took effect in 1998. The 2 year limit kicked in 2000. Since 2000 4.3 mil- lion have entered poverty. If the purpose of the TANF legislation was to dump families into poverty – it has been a great success for those who enjoy seeing people suffer like the pro- ponents of the evil TANF program. Ms. Jacobs also opposed the Marriage ini- tiative by stating that government should stay out of the family formation business. She also opposed increasing work hours for TANF and supported training and education for TANF recipients. Next was Kathleen Curran, Policy Advisor to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bish- ops. Mr. Curran started by stating that The Bishops are guided by consistent Catholic moral principles and traditional values; respect for human life and dignity’ importance of fam- ily and value of work; an option for the poor and the call to participation… Ms. Curran encouraged the committee to ex- pand the definition of work to include train- ing and secondary education. She also encouraged the committee to remove policies by states that deny TANF to 2-parent families. Deborah Frank, M.D., Pediatrician, Boston Medical Center, said that HR 240 has policies that entails unintended but grave risks to the health of TANF children. We are not sure that it is unintended. It is the position of CCWRO that these outcomes were carefully thought out and the supporters of the TANF legisla- tion and HR 240 know exactly what they are doing. She stated that food insecurity has increased among poor children. She is concerned that the TANF sanctions exasperates the food in- security among poor children of America. She also testified that her colleagues are con- cerned about the potential impact of increased work requirements on caregives of chronically ill children of any age. She stated that To use a medical analogy, H.R. 240 proposes a treatment for America’s most impoverished families that has an unac- ceptable risk benefit profile. The side effects of H.R. 240’s increased and unrealistic work requirements are predictably the exposure of more families and children to mandated full family sanctions and thus to food insecurity, ill health, and excess hospitalizations. Deborah Frank – a Child Doctor The final person to testify was Peter Goldberg of the Alliance for Children and Families. In his testimony he pointed out that one of the major barriers to self-sufficiency is the lack of having a car to apply and work at job location that do not have public transportation. Mr. Goldberg also urged the committee to al- low TANF recipients to allowed to use training and education as a means of preparing them- selves for self-sufficiency. CCWRO send an e-mail asking to appear before the committee, but no response was received from the Committee. Of course, given the fact that the 2\/11\/05 hear- ing was announced on 2\/1\/05 and a person would have to first ask may I testify , then get 200 copies of his or her testimony to the com- mittee by 2\/8\/05, it is clear that Democracy does not exist in the United States of America for the common People – only the selected are allowed to participate in Democracy. Thus, what we have in the United States Congress is limited democracy . New Federal Poverty Guidelines Persons Monthly Annual 1 $797.50 $9,570.00 2 $1,069.17 $12,830.00 3 $1,340.83 $16,090.00 4 $1,612.50 $19,350.00 5 $1,884.17 $22,610.00 6 $2,155.83 $25,870.00 7 $2,427.50 $29,130.00 8 $2,699.17 $32,390.00 SOURCE: 2\/18\/05 Federal Register, Vol. 70. No. 33, Page 8373 ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffdABAWDS Waivers End 3\/31\/05 – Waiver Renewals Needed. DSS has informed coun- ties with ABAWDS waivers that the waivers are ending 3\/31\/05. In order to continue the waiver, counties must give DSS a new reso- lution from the county board of supervisors reaffirming their request for the waiver. ACTION: If your county had a waiver, make sure that the county asks for an extension. \ufffdCombat Pay Exempt for Food Stamps. DSS will shortly be issuing an ACL stating that additional combat pay issued to mili- tary members during deployment will be ex- empted as income for food stamp purposes. \ufffdMore Food Stamp Changes Coming. DSS is working on implementing several state options allowed by federal law which include: 1. Count child support payments made by the household as an income exclu- sion instead of a deduction; 2.Allowling income & resources exclu- sions to CalWORKs; exempt restricted accounts; 3. Use optional utility allowance – Lim- ited Utility Allowance for water & sewer, garbage & trash; 4. Doing a statewide waiver for ABAWDS. \ufffdCharLee Metsker appointed Deputy Director – On January 24, 2005, CharLee Metsker was appointed Deputy Director for CDSS’s Welfare to Work Division. She has been acting director for several months. \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN NewsCalWIN News \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – \ufffd State LegislationState LegislationState LegislationState LegislationState Legislation \ufffd State Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget Update Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and GracePublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and DianeA. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian.Aslanian.Aslanian.Aslanian.Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-5- March 7, 2005, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS \ufffdCWDA to Establish Their Own Policy In- terpretation System – The County Welfare Di- rectors Association members, who are county welfare department employees, have decided to set up their own policy interpretation process. Currently, policy interpretations are mailed to CDSS analysts, who then respond to the ques- tions from various counties. The CWDA 2\/3\/05 meeting minutes state: Questions from individual counties would be shared and discussed at regional meetings. If regional representatives cannot arrive at the an- swers, the question will be elevated to the CAT. (CAT is another CWDA committee). Questions will be shared between regions for discussion as well. Counties are encouraged to utilize the regional approach and not contact the State di- rectly with their questions unless they cannot be resolved at that level. CCWRO COMMENT: This is policy being pro- mulgated without going through the APA pro- cess and it is not even available to the general public in any way, shape or form. \ufffdDraft Rand Report Withheld from Advo- cates – A draft Rand report has been made avail- able to counties to review and comment. This draft report has not been made available to advocates for review or comment. Counties were asked to look at the report to make sure the report correctly reports the number of sanc- tions they inflict upon CalWORKs recipients. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 On February 10, 2005, Congressman Jim McDermott and four other democratic mem- bers of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and means committee in- troduced H.R.751 This bill would reauthorize and improve the Tem- porary Assis- tance for Needy Families (TANF) Program by pro- moting work, family, and op- portunity, and for other purposes is how the bill is described by the House Clerk’s Office. This bill represents the Democratic spin on welfare deform, but in essence buys into the same anti-family concept as Republican wel- fare deform. When it comes to poor families, women must work in lieu of parenting because of the incompetency of the government in not being able to collect child support and provide jobs to fathers so they can pay child support. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker. This could mean it will never get a fair hearing by the republican democracy of the House of Representatives. Our sources inform us that the House will move H.R. 240, which is the Republican TANF re- TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE authorization bill, through the House in a typi- cal Republican undemocratic fashion, then wait for the Senate to act. The Republican- controlled House rarely allows for meaningful minority participation in the passage of legis- lation on the House floor. The House Repub- licans completely reject and refuse to prac- tice the type of Democracy Republicans pro- mote in Iraq, give the minority a voice in the government. A recent letter sent by Congresspersons Den- nis Kucinich, George Miller, Fortney ‘Pete’ Stark, Jim McDermott, Donald Payne, Major Owens, Hilda Solis, John Lewis, Gerald Kleczka, Lynn Woolsey and Stephanie Tubbs Jones to Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Chairmen of the Education and Workforce and Ways and Means Commit- tees urges them to hold full hear- ings on legisla- tion to reautho- rize the Tempo- rary Access to Needy Families Act (TANF). The letter states in part: It has been publicly reported that legislation to reauthorize the Temporary Access to Needy Families Act (TANF) will be brought directly to the floor in the next several months, bypassing both the Committees on Ways and Means and Edu- cation and the Workforce. We urge you to reconsider this plan and instead hold hear- ings and markups on TANF legislation in both committees. HR 240 WILL COST STATES BILLIONS On February 9, 2005, The Congressional Bud- get Office issued a report concluding that H.R. 240 by House Republicans would require This bill represents the Democratic spin on welfare deform, but in essence buys into the same anti-family concept as Republican welfare deform. When it comes to poor families, women must work in lieu of parenting because of the incompetentcy of the gov- ernment in not being able to collect child support and provide jobs to fathers so they can pay child support. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 states to engage an increasing proportion of families receiving TANF in work activities. CBO estimates that the potential additional cost to states (including child-care expenses) of a work program that meets the proposed re- quirements would reach $2.9 billion in 2010 and total $8.3 billion over the 2006-2010 pe- riod. A copy of the estimate can be down- loaded from http:\/\/www.cbo.gov\/ showdoc.cfm?index=6095&sequence=0. STATE LEGISLATION ROUND-UP The 2005-2006 Legislative session has kicked off and there are several welfare bills in the hopper this year. There are, of course, good bills and bad bills. The leading bad bill is AB 1071 by Republican Senator Tom McClintock. This bill proposes to eliminate the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1971. There are a whole host of other statutory COLAs in the law, but this bill only singles out of the easy target – welfare moms and children. It is a shameless act. Of course this is not the first time that Republicans have launched attacks on needy children in California. Mr. McClintock has also introduced SB 786, which is a 100% home visit bill. This bill would require the district attorney’s of- fice in the county of residence of an applicant for aid, within 10 days of the applicant’s preliminary approval, to arrange for an authorized investigator to conduct a home call, consisting of a brief inter- view with the applicant and walkthrough of the applicant’s residence. It appears that the Senator has been told that CalWORKs has a preliminary approval process, then a final approval process. There is no preliminary approval of an applica- tion for CalWORKs in the law today. The bill does not establish a preliminary approval and a final approval process. The bill also fails to appropriate money for the district attorney visits to every applicant in the State of California. The SB 786 home visit will be designed to deter- mine: (1) Whether the applicant actually lives at the resi- dence; (2) Whether there are paycheck stubs or other evi- dence of unclaimed income present in the resi- dence. [CCWRO Comment: How does the in- vestigator determine this. They would have to search every inch of the house. They would have to examine all clothing. Do they go through every piece of paper in the house? Do they tear down the walls because the applicant may have hidden $20 in the wall? This search could take hours, if not days.]; (3) Whether there are other assets at the residence; (4) Whether the applicant has any residency or criminal history problems that would prohibit the receipt of aid; (5) Whether a claimed absentee parent is actually living at the residence; (6) Whether there is evidence, such as diapers or other child care items, to confirm the presence of children claimed to reside with the applicant; (7) Whether collateral contacts with landlords, neighbors, and school officials corroborate the in- CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The proposed budget is an 11% reduction from the 2004-2005 CalWORKs budget – or a re- duction of $551 million. In order to qualify for TANF $3.5 billion, Cali- fornia has to match $2.7 billion expenditures for what is called Maintenance of Efforts (MOE). The idea was the States would match the federal money and use it for needy fami- lies. But States have traditionally been huge abus- ers of federal funds by manipulating the law to enhance their coffers. The 2004-2005 state budget TANF money was used for: Child Welfare Services $138 million Foster Care $ 51 million Juvenile Probation $ 67 million Child Care – Stage 2- $315 million Title XX Block Grant $ 63 million _______________________________ TOTAL $634 million The 2005-2006 Budget raids TANF funds again for non-CalWORKs programs. They are: Child Care $ 57.1 million Juvenile Probation $201.4 million Stage 2 Child Care $ 69 million Title XX Block Grant $ 60 million Foster Care $ 55.1 million _________________________________ TOTAL $442.6 million The 2005-2006 COLA will be 4.07%. The State budget assumes that the COLA for 2005- 2006 would have been 4.6%. The Legislative Analyst reports that the actual COLA based on the CNI would be 4.07%. In October 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger refused to issue the October, 2003 COLA mandated by law. When the governor breaks the law you cannot call the police and have him arrested for his unlawful behavior. Rather you have to file a lawsuit, which was done. The attorneys representing CalWORKs recipi- formation provided in the application; (8) Any other relevant criteria established by the district attorney. [CCWRO Comment: This is big loophole that allows the district attorney to do whatever he or she wants to do at their whim] This bill is an attempt to have statewide imple- mentation of the San Diego County home visit pro- gram. FISCAL COST OF SB 786 In California, there are 40,000 applications a month. The way most home visit programs have been operated is that the home visit is done before the application is approved. This means 480,000 home visits a year. Given the extensive search mandated by the law, the home visits can take several hours. It is estimated that the average home visit with administrative costs and personnel will be $500 per visit. This is an underestimate. The annual cost of this bill would be $240 million a year. A more detailed report of welfare legislation will be forth coming. California State Budget UPDATE On February 22, 2005, the California Legisla- tive analyst released its analysis of the State Budget. A complete copy of the report can be found at www.lao.ca.gov. The 2005-2006 CalWORKs budget proposes an appropriation of $5.1 billion. Annually Cali- fornia receives $3.5 billion for CalWORKs. Federal Funds $ 2.9 billion – Annually California receives $3.5 billion for CalWORKs. But not all of that money is used for needy families with children receiv- ing CalWORK. Only $2.9 is used and $.6 billion is used for other purposes. General Fund $1.9 billion County Funds $153 million ETP $40 million- (This is the Employ- ment Training Fund that is used for CalWORKs for some reason.) 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-5- March 7, 2005 – Page 5 ents prevailed and the Schwarzenegger ad- ministration decided to file an appeal – a frivo- lous lawsuit as it becomes evident looking at Schwarzenegger’s budget. The Schwarzenegger 2005-2006 State bud- get proposes a trailer bill to delete the 2003 October COLA in the event that the state loses it’s appeal – this is a $222 million issue. $407 Million TANF funds Found- The Governor’s budget includes $407 million un- spent TANF funds from previous years. The Budget Overstates Costs by $118.5 million – The Schwarzenegger budget has overstated the cost of CalWORKs by $188.5 million. The budget numbers were based on June, 2004 caseload data while the Analysts review of more recent caseload data through October of 2004 found that the caseload will be lower in 2005-2006. Schwarzenegger’s Major Assaults on Im- poverished Families with Children. The Schwarzenegger Budget for 2005-2006 proposes the following major assaults on CalWORKs recipients, over 50% are working poor: 1. No 4.07% COLA $143 M 2. 6.5% grand reduction 212 M 3. Reduction of Work Incentives 80 M __________________________________ TOTAL $ 435 M WHERE TO FIND THE MONEY FOR PROPOSED CALWORKS CUTS? The total savings from reducing current ben- efits and denying COLA plus reducing work incentives will save $435 million. However, the Governor has found $407 mil- lion unspent TANF money. Why can’t that money be used to pay for the COLA? Schwarzenegger also proposes to take $442 million TANF funds that should be used for impoverished families with needy children and use it for non-impoverished families with needy children of California as MOE. That is not FAIR. RECIPIENT IMPACT OF CUTS The legislative analyst report does a valiant attempt to rationalize the Schwarzenegger attack on impoverished families with needy children. The report alleges that the average AFDC family of 3 receives $303 a month. Most of the family three cases we have seen do not receive $303 of food stamp a month. The maximum amount of food stamps that a fam- ily of three could get with no income is $393 a month. According to the CDSS last report the average family was getting about $200 in food stamps. When one considers that 50% of the households are working, those households get less than $100 a month on the average. The Legislative Analyst report failed to men- tion the cost of housing, food, utilities and transportation costs which are steadily rising. Gas prices have doubled since 2000 and cur- rent CalWORKs benefits are at the same level that families on AFDC received 14 years ago – 1990. The proposed benefit levels will bring back benefit levels below what AFDC families were receiving in 1989. Maybe Governor Schwarzenegger and his Finance Director Campbell have the illusion that expenses for welfare families have been frozen – they have not. Most kids on welfare do not eat properly the last 2 week of the month while Schwarzenegger and Campbell dump food. ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/290): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/291): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd DSS COVER UP ALLEGED – A former DSS employee alleges in a complaint filed with the State Personnel Board last month that when ACIN#I-56-03 was drafted by staff, it cited W&IC Section 11453 verba- tim. The draft ACIN went to DSS Legal Af- fairs for clearance. Attorney Karlen Harmison, who is now an Administrative Law Judge, revised the ACIN by changing the language of the statute from any to an . When asked by the DSS staff why at- torney Harmison is changing the ACIN, at- torney Harmison retorted We can’t tell them (the advocates) everything . The cover-up did not work and advocates have won a law suit, but CDSS has filed a frivolous appeal to delay obeying the Court’s Decision to pay the COLA that was unlawfully denied to CalWORKs recipients by Arnold Shwarzenegger. \ufffd Quarterly Reporting (QR) Data Be- ing Collected. Several counties, including Riverside and San Bernardino, are involved in QR data collection. The list of counties collecting this data should be available from CDSS. \ufffd QR Task Force is back. Counties have been having problems with QR and have asked CDSS to reconstitute the QR task force. The first meeting of the Task force was held in February. The meeting was closed to the public, although it is financed with public funds. \ufffd Medi-Cal and QR. Department of Health Services is concerned about Medi- Cal ineligibility when cash linkage ends but the family remains on aid due to QR rules. This phenomenon occurs generally when a parent working over 100 hours returns home or the youngest child ages out. DHS wants \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known as CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL) \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – \ufffd IHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS News CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-7- April 12, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS counties to provide them with estimates of how often this occurs. CalWIN Blues (also known as CalHELL) CalHELL, a new computer system now opera- tional in Placer and Sacramento County is a true disaster. Many families have suffered because the sys- tem did not issue their benefits in violation of state law. Of course the computer cannot be prosecuted for persecuting poor families. Wel- fare workers are also suffering. \ufffd The Sacramento Bee reported on March 31, 2005 that welfare workers have been taken out of the welfare department by ambulance due to extreme stress that CalHELL has caused. \ufffd County workers literally have to LIE to the computer to get the benefits issued. The com- puter demands verification that is not required. So the worker states that he or she has received the verification. \ufffd In one case a clerical staff mistakenly punched in an incorrect worker number into the computer. The computer automatically trans- ferred all 250 cases to the new worker. 250 notices were mailed out to inform recipients that they have a new worker. The clerical staff could not correct the worker code, so somebody had to. When the worker code was corrected, an- other 250 notices were mailed out informing the recipients that they have their old worker back. Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanian….. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 7, April 12 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 \ufffd In another case the computer terminated the case for not turning in the quarterly report. The worker has the Q-7 in her hand and has told the computer that she has the QR-7, but the computer continues to keep the case closed. \ufffd One sunny day at the Sacramento down- town office a high level expert from EDS, the authors of this demented system, came to met with the staff and helped welfare workers with CalHELL. A worker, who had been trying to grant a General Assistance case for weeks asked if the expert could fix the case. After going through all of the screens, the EDS employee could not fix teh problem. The GA worker snatched the case from the alleged expert and headed to see the director of the office. Due to CalHELL hundreds of children are be- ing denied emergency assistance. Litigation is being prepared to protect children and fami- lies of Sacramento County. In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) REPORT SB 1104, also known as the 2004-2005 budget trailer bill, contains provi- sions regarding quality assurances in the IHSS program. The goal of the legislation, accord- ing to Legislative staffer Christian Griffith is to assure that a person applying in Yolo County or Alameda County with the same set of facts get the same services. Under the current sys- tem the hours one gets depends upon which county you apply in and what worker you get. The statute, California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12305.7 through .82 provide for the development of policies and procedures to ensure that caseworkers appropriately ap- ply the supportive services uniformity system and other supportive services rules and poli- cies for assessing recipients’ need for services to the end that there are accurate assessments of needs and hours. There is an IHSS Stakeholders group and then there are subgroups, such as the (1) fraud de- tection workgroup; (2) state\/county proce- dures workgroup; (3) regulation workgroup; (4) hourly task guidelines workgroup; (5) forms workgroup; and (6) social worker training workgroup. The workgroups will convine in Sacramento at various locations. CDSS has said they will post the meeting locations on the CDSS web page which has yet to be done. Thus, to find out the location of the meetings, simply call CDSS at 916-229-4583 or contact Kevin Aslanian at CCWRO at 916-712-0071. IHSS SB 2014 WORKGROUP MEETING LIST Fraud detection 4\/7\/05 State\/county procedures 4\/12\/05 Regulation 4\/15\/05 IHSS Stakeholders 4\/22\/05 Hourly task guidelines 4\/26\/05 Forms 4\/29\/05 Fraud detection 5\/6\/05 State\/county procedures 5\/10\/05 Hourly task guidelines 5\/20\/05 Forms 5\/24\/05 State\/county procedures 6\/7\/05 Fraud detection 6\/17\/05 Forms 6\/24\/05 Hourly task guidelines 6\/28\/05 Social worker training 6\/29\/05 The first workgroup to meet was FRAUD. The room was filled with fraud investigators hop- ing to get a lot of money to hire welfare fraud investigators. Alameda County had a district attorney present who gave a 20 minute speech talking about IHSS fraud by recipients, but was totally silent on the widespread and systematic fraud being perpetrated upon IHSS recipients by county welfare workers who au- thorize IHSS recipients less hours than they are entitled to. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-7, April 12 , 2005 – Page 2 CDSS made a presentation about overpay- ment which was very dismissive of the un- derpayment problem. A number of persons in the group spoke up about overpayments and underpayments not getting equal attention. CDSS agreed to consider underpayments. In Butte County window washing is not con- sidered an eligible IHSS activity. If an IHSS provider claims time for washing windows, this could be fraud and the IHSS provider could be prosecuted for IHSS fraud. There was a discussion whether or not an IHSS provider could be paid for accompany- ing an IHSS recipient to the doctor. Most coun- ties pay only transportaton for the person to the doctors office and only for bringing the per- son back. There is no payment for time spent with the IHSS client with translation assistance during the medical appointment, ambulating during the medical appointment or assistance with going to the toilet. CDSS staff stated that time spent with the IHSS client can be paid if the services of the provider is needed while waiting in the doctors office. A Marin County representative urged DSS to promulgate statewide uniform standards. At the end of the meeting the group was in- formed by a legislative staffer, Christian Griffith, that the purpose of this effort is not fraud detection , rather it is to establish a statewide system to assure uniform treatment of IHSS applicants and recipients throughout the State of California. Some of the county welfare fraud staff disagreed and were under the impression that the major purpose of this effort is fraud detection . CCWRO will be reporting on these meeting in our future bulletins TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE It is anticipated that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) reauthorization will be debated on the Senate floor as early as this week. The Senate bill includes $6 billion in additional funding for child care; a transi- tional jobs program; and the replacement of the caseload reduction credit with an employ- ment credit to the states. The House bill has cleared the Ways and Means Committee subcommittee on Human Resources. However, the House of Represen- tatives is Tom DeLay land, where anything can pass the House notwithstanding committees. The TANF legislation has been extended un- til June 30, 2005. Stay tuned for more BAD news. TANF reauthorization will only bring misery to impoverished families with babies and children and happiness for the welfare\/ worker bureaucrats – the darlings of the con- gressional Republicans. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hear- ing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, In- formational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd DSS COVER UP ALLEGED – A former DSS employee alleges in a complaint filed with the State Personnel Board last month that when ACIN#I-56-03 was drafted by staff, it cited W&IC Section 11453 verba- tim. The draft ACIN went to DSS Legal Af- fairs for clearance. Attorney Karlen Harmison, who is now an Administrative Law Judge, revised the ACIN by changing the language of the statute from any to an . When asked by the DSS staff why at- torney Harmison is changing the ACIN, at- torney Harmison retorted We can’t tell them (the advocates) everything . The cover-up did not work and advocates have won a law suit, but CDSS has filed a frivolous appeal to delay obeying the Court’s Decision to pay the COLA that was unlawfully denied to CalWORKs recipients by Arnold Shwarzenegger. \ufffd Quarterly Reporting (QR) Data Be- ing Collected. Several counties, including Riverside and San Bernardino, are involved in QR data collection. The list of counties collecting this data should be available from CDSS. \ufffd QR Task Force is back. Counties have been having problems with QR and have asked CDSS to reconstitute the QR task force. The first meeting of the Task force was held in February. The meeting was closed to the public, although it is financed with public funds. \ufffd Medi-Cal and QR. Department of Health Services is concerned about Medi- Cal ineligibility when cash linkage ends but the family remains on aid due to QR rules. This phenomenon occurs generally when a parent working over 100 hours returns home or the youngest child ages out. DHS wants \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known asCalWIN BLUES (also known as CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL)CalHELL) \ufffd TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update -TANF Reauthorization Update – \ufffd IHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS NewsIHSS News CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-7- April 12, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS counties to provide them with estimates of how often this occurs. CalWIN Blues (also known as CalHELL) CalHELL, a new computer system now opera- tional in Placer and Sacramento County is a true disaster. Many families have suffered because the sys- tem did not issue their benefits in violation of state law. Of course the computer cannot be prosecuted for persecuting poor families. Wel- fare workers are also suffering. \ufffd The Sacramento Bee reported on March 31, 2005 that welfare workers have been taken out of the welfare department by ambulance due to extreme stress that CalHELL has caused. \ufffd County workers literally have to LIE to the computer to get the benefits issued. The com- puter demands verification that is not required. So the worker states that he or she has received the verification. \ufffd In one case a clerical staff mistakenly punched in an incorrect worker number into the computer. The computer automatically trans- ferred all 250 cases to the new worker. 250 notices were mailed out to inform recipients that they have a new worker. The clerical staff could not correct the worker code, so somebody had to. When the worker code was corrected, an- other 250 notices were mailed out informing the recipients that they have their old worker back. Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian andPublisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve GoldbergGrace A. Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanianand Diane Aslanian….. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 7, April 12 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 \ufffd In another case the computer terminated the case for not turning in the quarterly report. The worker has the Q-7 in her hand and has told the computer that she has the QR-7, but the computer continues to keep the case closed. \ufffd One sunny day at the Sacramento down- town office a high level expert from EDS, the authors of this demented system, came to met with the staff and helped welfare workers with CalHELL. A worker, who had been trying to grant a General Assistance case for weeks asked if the expert could fix the case. After going through all of the screens, the EDS employee could not fix teh problem. The GA worker snatched the case from the alleged expert and headed to see the director of the office. Due to CalHELL hundreds of children are be- ing denied emergency assistance. Litigation is being prepared to protect children and fami- lies of Sacramento County. In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) REPORT SB 1104, also known as the 2004-2005 budget trailer bill, contains provi- sions regarding quality assurances in the IHSS program. The goal of the legislation, accord- ing to Legislative staffer Christian Griffith is to assure that a person applying in Yolo County or Alameda County with the same set of facts get the same services. Under the current sys- tem the hours one gets depends upon which county you apply in and what worker you get. The statute, California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12305.7 through .82 provide for the development of policies and procedures to ensure that caseworkers appropriately ap- ply the supportive services uniformity system and other supportive services rules and poli- cies for assessing recipients’ need for services to the end that there are accurate assessments of needs and hours. There is an IHSS Stakeholders group and then there are subgroups, such as the (1) fraud de- tection workgroup; (2) state\/county proce- dures workgroup; (3) regulation workgroup; (4) hourly task guidelines workgroup; (5) forms workgroup; and (6) social worker training workgroup. The workgroups will convine in Sacramento at various locations. CDSS has said they will post the meeting locations on the CDSS web page which has yet to be done. Thus, to find out the location of the meetings, simply call CDSS at 916-229-4583 or contact Kevin Aslanian at CCWRO at 916-712-0071. IHSS SB 2014 WORKGROUP MEETING LIST Fraud detection 4\/7\/05 State\/county procedures 4\/12\/05 Regulation 4\/15\/05 IHSS Stakeholders 4\/22\/05 Hourly task guidelines 4\/26\/05 Forms 4\/29\/05 Fraud detection 5\/6\/05 State\/county procedures 5\/10\/05 Hourly task guidelines 5\/20\/05 Forms 5\/24\/05 State\/county procedures 6\/7\/05 Fraud detection 6\/17\/05 Forms 6\/24\/05 Hourly task guidelines 6\/28\/05 Social worker training 6\/29\/05 The first workgroup to meet was FRAUD. The room was filled with fraud investigators hop- ing to get a lot of money to hire welfare fraud investigators. Alameda County had a district attorney present who gave a 20 minute speech talking about IHSS fraud by recipients, but was totally silent on the widespread and systematic fraud being perpetrated upon IHSS recipients by county welfare workers who au- thorize IHSS recipients less hours than they are entitled to. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-7, April 12 , 2005 – Page 2 CDSS made a presentation about overpay- ment which was very dismissive of the un- derpayment problem. A number of persons in the group spoke up about overpayments and underpayments not getting equal attention. CDSS agreed to consider underpayments. In Butte County window washing is not con- sidered an eligible IHSS activity. If an IHSS provider claims time for washing windows, this could be fraud and the IHSS provider could be prosecuted for IHSS fraud. There was a discussion whether or not an IHSS provider could be paid for accompany- ing an IHSS recipient to the doctor. Most coun- ties pay only transportaton for the person to the doctors office and only for bringing the per- son back. There is no payment for time spent with the IHSS client with translation assistance during the medical appointment, ambulating during the medical appointment or assistance with going to the toilet. CDSS staff stated that time spent with the IHSS client can be paid if the services of the provider is needed while waiting in the doctors office. A Marin County representative urged DSS to promulgate statewide uniform standards. At the end of the meeting the group was in- formed by a legislative staffer, Christian Griffith, that the purpose of this effort is not fraud detection , rather it is to establish a statewide system to assure uniform treatment of IHSS applicants and recipients throughout the State of California. Some of the county welfare fraud staff disagreed and were under the impression that the major purpose of this effort is fraud detection . CCWRO will be reporting on these meeting in our future bulletins TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE It is anticipated that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) reauthorization will be debated on the Senate floor as early as this week. The Senate bill includes $6 billion in additional funding for child care; a transi- tional jobs program; and the replacement of the caseload reduction credit with an employ- ment credit to the states. The House bill has cleared the Ways and Means Committee subcommittee on Human Resources. However, the House of Represen- tatives is Tom DeLay land, where anything can pass the House notwithstanding committees. The TANF legislation has been extended un- til June 30, 2005. Stay tuned for more BAD news. TANF reauthorization will only bring misery to impoverished families with babies and children and happiness for the welfare\/ worker bureaucrats – the darlings of the con- gressional Republicans. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hear- ing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, In- formational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems You can reach CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd COUNTY WtW 25 REPORTS QUES- TIONED BY COUNTIES. At a CWDA meet- ing of March 23, 2005, the subject of coun- ty statistical reporting was discussed again. It appears that data included in the WtW 25 reports depends on the business model that a county uses. The counties blame the State for not clearly defining what has to be re- ported. This is quit outrageous, for the coun- ties were at the table each time the WtW 25 has been modified, often at the request of the counties. The problem is that not all of the stakeholders were at the table when the WtW 25 reporting system was developed or modified. \ufffd SB 786 by Senator McClintock op- posed by counties. Counties and advo- cates alike, have come out in opposition to SB 786, which would mandate that coun- ties have a home visit for all CalWORKs applicants. The bill was defeated in the Sen- ate Human Services by a vote of 5-0. The author asked and was granted reconsider- ation of the bill. That means the bill can be heard again provided the Committee voted to grant reconsideration, which is very un- likely. \ufffd WtW 30 Report to Be Revised. CDSS is planning to revise the WtW 30 form. This form is used for counties to report how many WtW participants are meeting the federal TANF participation rates. Counties have been invited to participate in this endeavor. Advocates have not yet been contacted for participation in this effort. \ufffd CWDA opposes IHSS Wage Rollback. The CWDA Board of Directors have voted to oppose the IHSS wage rollback proposed by the Schwarzenegger Administration. \ufffd Counties Breaking the Law – Accord- ing to ACIN No-1-84-04 dated October 20, \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd StatStatStatStatState Ce Ce Ce Ce Capitl Rapitl Rapitl Rapitl Rapitl Reporeporeporeporeporttttt AssembAssembAssembAssembAssembllllly Budgty Budgty Budgty Budgty Budgte He He He He Hearingearingearingearingearing \ufffd Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth.Counties do not tell the truth. Is that Lying?Is that Lying?Is that Lying?Is that Lying?Is that Lying? Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-8- April 19, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS 2004, only 11 counties use applications other than in English even though the translated form are available in Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Viet Namese to counties. The counties of Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt , Imperial, Inyo,Lake. Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa, Men- docino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa , Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara,Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Si- erra, Siskiyou, Solano,Sonoma, Sutter, Teha- ma Trinity, only Spanish, Tulare, Ventura only Tagalog, Yolo, Yuba were in violation of Civil Rights of Limited English speaking persons by only using English forms based on the state- ment made by the counties to CDSS. \ufffd Bruce Wagstaff, County Welfare Di- rector of Sacramento County. Bruce Wag- staff, who started with DSS in 1975 as an ana- lyst in the Food Stamp Bureau has been ap- pointed Director of the Department of Human Assistance. He was in charge of the implemen- tation of the GAIN program in California. He was then appointed Deputy Director for welfare to work program. In 2004 he was appointed Dep- uty Director of Children Services and now he a County Welfare Director and a member of the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA). CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 8, April 19 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ASSEMBLY STATE BUDGET HEARINGS On April 13, 2004 the As- sembly Budget Commit- tee’s subcommittee on Health and Human ser- vices held its hearing for CalWORKs. The first issue for the committee is the anticipated im- pact of TANF reauthorization on the Cal- WORKs program. While the administration is proposing to make changes in anticipation of unknown federal changes, most other agreed that making changes in state law before fed- eral law is enacted is premature. RAIDING OF THE CALWORKS BUDGET – The next issue was the raid on CalWORKs funding. Mike Herald of Western Center on Law and Poverty stated that CalWORKs has been a donor to the State budget for the past five (5) years. Previously the State Budget used over $1 billion CalWORKs dollars for non- CalWORKs programs. The 2004-2005 budget partially stopped the raid on the CalWORKs budget . The Schwarzenegger 2005-2006 proposed again to raid the CalWORKs budget by steal- ing $1.2 billion from TANF and using it for non- CalWORKs budget items. The taking of Cal- WORKs funds is made possible in the 2005- 2006 Schwarzenegger budget by cutting Cal- WORKs grants by 6.5%, denying CalWORKs COLA and cutting the earnings disregards. EARNED INCOME DISREGARDS: John Wallace of MDRC, which is a nonprofit orga- nization that is a research firm testified be- fore the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services regarding the Schwarzenegger Administrations proposal to reduce earnings disregards for working Cal- WORKs recipients. The studies show that chil- dren of parents who were receiving earnings disregards had positive effects on school achievement, but when the earnings disre- gards stopped, the positive achievements also stopped. The conclusion is that Schwarzeneg- ger’s proposed budget cuts will have a nega- tive impact on CalWORKs children, but it will not effect the children of Governor Schwarzenegger or his colleagues promoting these anti-family and anti child initiatives. Also testifying against the reduction of the earnings disregards was Liz Schott of the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities. Liz explained that many states have State Earned Income Tax Credit, which California does not have. She also rebutted the assertion of the Schwarzanegger administration that Califor- nia is most generous with the income disre- gards. CALWORKS BENEFIT REDUCTIONS : The Schwarzenegger Administration has singled out CalWORKs families and children for the most severe cuts of the Century – No COLA and 6.5% reduction of current benefits which at this time is what CalWORKs recipients re- ceived in 1989. A number of representatives from LIFETIME testified against being targets for Governor Schwarzenegger and explained how these cuts would effect their families. The Schwarzenegger Administration repre- sentatives argued that California has grants that are higher than most States. Opponents of the cuts argued that the cost of living in California is higher than in most states. As we have noted above, the Schwarzeneg- ger Administration has decided to use $1.2 billion CalWORKs dollars for nonCalWORKs recipients while proposing the following ma- jor cuts aimed at the basic survival needs of CalWORKs families: (millions) CalWORKs 6.5% grant reduction $212.3 CalWORKs COLA Deletion $ 163.8 Decrease of Earned Income disregard $82 PAY FOR PERFORMANCE: The Budget pro- posed to hold back 5% of the county annual administration allocation and give it to coun- ties who meet certain performance goals which are not defined. When the CalWORKS program was initially 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005-8, April 19 , 2005 – Page 3 CalWORKs COLA and restore the proposed 6.5% reduction- cuts which the counties did not oppose during the hearing. Phil did not express any problem of budgeting and spend- ing these suggested millions that are at best, iffy. Curt Child testifying for the advocates stated that he agreed with Los Angeles County, but suggested that this issue should be taken up next year. Chairman Hector de La Torre urged the department to work with the county and legislative staff to come up with an agreement for Pay for Performance proposal. It is the view of CCWRO that counties should not be given incentives for doing their job – especially when counties sanction over 50% of the unduplicated WtW participants. If the county does not do their job, they should be sanctioned just like they sanction CalWORKs recipients without mercy. SANCTIONS: The budget last year asked DSS to do a study on sanctions by April 1, 2005. DSS contracted with the Rand Corpo- ration who was supposed to present a study. The Rand Corporation failed to deliver the sanction report. CDSS testified that the Rand Corporation was sanctioned for failure to sub- mit the report on time. However, DSS did not indicate that they will not contract with Rand in the future. California sanctioned over 50% of the undu- plicated participants during December of 2004. A LIFETIME Board Member Tammy Marquez testified that although she has a spe- cial needs child, she works and gets Cal- WORKs. One Monday she was scheduled for participation in the WtW program, but could not attend the WtW assignment because she was working. Well that did not sit well with the WtW sanction machine. She was sanctioned and her benefits were reduced by 25% for daring to go to work and not obeying the com- enacted, the statute provided for county incen- tive payments for counties doing their job – making families self-sufficient. Millions were given to counties who used the money to pay for projects as: WtW Core Services, funding workers to sanction WtW clients – $53 million Child Welfare Services – $57 million Teen services – $47 million Home visits – $24 million Health care – $15 million Child care – $15 million Law enforcement – $14 million Planning and evaluation – $6 million Prop 10 – $1 million Library $570,000 Housing and motel assistance$ $4 million This is a partial list of what the money was used for. We have mailed a Public Records Act request to DSS requesting copies of all documents regarding what happened to the Incentive Monies, but have not received a re- sponse within the statutory 10 day time limit for the response. Most of the money was used for programs that do not meet the basic survival needs of Cal- WORKs recipients, i.e. housing, food, utilities and clothing. The counties were represented by Phil Ansel of Los Angeles County. Phil testified that the counties oppose holding back money from their regular CalWORKs allocation because they cannot plan an operation without know- ing exactly how much funds will be forthcom- ing. However, Phil turned around and suggested that the county would support giving counties performance incentive money beyond the reg- ular county annual allocation. He suggested that $300 million be set aside for this purpose. Of course $300 would be enough to fund the CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2005-8- April 19 – Page 4 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 have a county form that applicants have to complete. The fact is they do. It is known as county form Stangen-108.B. CCWRO has mailed a letter to Stanislaus stat- ing: We have information from reliable sources that Stanislaus County uses a forms known as Stangen108.B , which solicits prescreen- ing information. Your transmission of this form would be ap- preciated. Failure to comply promptly would force us to file litigation to assure that the county of Stanislaus is obeying the laws of California. Below is the actual text of W&IC 11052.5 11052.5. No applicant shall be grant- ed public assistance under Chapters 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and 5 (commencing with Section 13000) of this part until he or she is first person- ally interviewed by the office of the county department or state staff for pa- tients in state hospitals. The personal interview shall be conducted promptly following the application for assistance. If an applicant is incapable of acting in his or her own behalf, the county de- partment shall verify this fact by per- sonal contact with the applicant before aid is authorized. As used in this sec- tion, the term public assistance does not include health care as provided by Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000). The interview conducted pur- suant to this section shall oc- cur within seven days after the time of application unless there are extenuating circumstances that justify further delay. (Our emphasis added) mands and demands of the county WtW Gods. Many of these issues will be discussed again during early May when the Schwarzenegger Administration releases it’s May Revised Bud- get, also known as the May Revise . STANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOTSTANISLAUS COUNTY NOT TELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTHTELLING THE TRUTH On March 14, 2005 CCWRO mailed a Public Act Records request to all California counties asking for copies of county forms that appli- cants for CalWORKs and food stamps are required complete prior to their face-to-face interview. For CalWORKs this interview is re- quired to be conducted within 7 working days of the date of application pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11052.5 State law requires that the county respond within 10 days from receipt of the letter. See California Government Code Section 6253 (c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determina- tion and the reasons therefor. In unusual cir- cumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dis- patched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. Stanislaus County responded on April 1, 2005, admitting that they received our letter on 4\/ 17\/05. The letter then goes on to assert that Stanis- laus County does not have any county forms that applicants for CalWORKs and Food Stamps are required to complete. We questioned the truthfulness of their letter. Our suspicion had merit. We discovered that Stanislaus County has made a false statement in their 4\/1\/05 letter alleging that they do not ”

” 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 In Brief \ufffd CalWIN Update. On April 18th, an eligibility worker did a face to face inter- view with a CalWORKs applicant and found the family to be eligible for benefits. The computer issued benefits for the month of April, 2005 but refused to authorize the is- suance of benefits for May because accord- ing to the computer, the applicant had failed to keep a scheduled appointment. There had been no appointment scheduled. \ufffd IHSS Protective Supervision News. At a DSS sponsored workshop re- garding IHSS it was revealed that 23 coun- ties require the providers of protective su- pervision to complete a 24 hour form. The providers, who provide services 24 hours a day while being paid for less than 10 hours a day, are being asked by the counties to prove how they pro- vide protective super- vision for the 14 hours a day that they are not compensated. Coun- ties say it is voluntary, but in reality they threaten to terminate protective supervision. NOTE: The regula- tions only require that the IHSS recipient have a need for 24 hours. There is no reg- ulation that states the IHSS recipient shall have 24 hour care. Why? Because the state\/ county does not pay for 24 hour care. CalWIN UPDATE \ufffd In BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn BriefIn Brief \ufffd CCCCCalWIN UalWIN UalWIN UalWIN UalWIN Updatpdatpdatpdatpdateeeee \ufffd County Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse ReportCounty Client Abuse Report \ufffd State Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget UpdateState Budget Update Publisher: CCWRO. Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher. Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 9, May 16, 2005 – Page 1 CCWRO New Welfare NEWS Sacramento County’s CalWIN com- puter system \”went live\” on March 1, 2005. After two months of living with CalWIN, there are a few pointers that we advocates in Sacramento County can provide to the other 17 CalWIN counties. One of our most useful tools to get through CalWIN implementation is to have a county contact person; a specific county intermediary whom we can email problem cases in order to remedy. Advocates are used to dealing with the work- er or the worker’s supervisor. After CalWIN, all bets are off. Most of our clients have talked to their workers, supervisors, bureau chiefs, etc. At each level the worker knew there was a prob- lem with the case. But none of these people knew how to get CalWIN to work. The CalWIN IHSS PLUS INFORMATION If you want to come to the IHSS Plus Workshop to participate in the formu- lation of state policy to implement the federal medicaid waiver for the IHSS Plus Program, just go to http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/dapd\/SB1104- IHS_2097.htm. This web page has dates and times for all of the meetings, including minutes of previous meetings. The meetings are open and acces- sible. For more information on the waiver you can go to a federal web page http:\/ \/www.cms.hhs.gov\/medicaid\/1115\/ihss.asp and read all about the waiver and the conditions of this waiver. CCWRO New Welfare News #2005 – 9 – May 16, 2005 – Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 technical people had to either correct the ac- tion or find a way around the system by a pa- per process or \”work around\”. Some GA\/GR clients did not receive their March and April food stamps until mid-April. Workers told folks to be patient because its a computer problem, and they were right. When LSNC and CCWRO went to Loaves and Fish- es, a nonprofit which provides shelter, free meals, showers, and counseling, we were asked if we could help get their benefits. When we emailed the clients names to the welfare department, they got their benefits within 2-3 days. Food Stamp aid paid pending has also been a problem, primarily for GA\/GR clients. Some clients did not get their March aid pending until mid-April. Sacramento County admitted to us that there are some CalWIN system problems with aid paid pending and the vendor is trying to solve the problems. Again, contacting the interme- diary with specific cases is the most effective means of getting the clients aid. Pre CalWIN, an application interview took about one hour. Now, it can take as long as five hours to complete, with most interviews being between three and four hours long. As such, expedited food stamps were not being process within three days, because there were insufficient staff to conduct the interviews. We have almost sued them twice within the last three months and are closely monitoring the County now. CCWRO is now beginning to see the Cal- WIN forms. CalWIN is printing obsolete forms for Quarterly Reporting and the Food Stamp Repayment Notice for Admin Errors (after 3\/ 1\/00). The Food Stamp Repayment Notice for Admin Errors form was made obsolete as a result of Lomeli v. Saenz for which there is a mandatory, no substitute permitted form. The next headache, I mean problem, is the translation of forms. CalWIN can print up to nine languages. Advocates would assume that the 18 CalWIN counties will be able to print all of the DSS mandated languages. Not true. San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Cruz (which went live 5\/2) and Sonoma Counties opted to print forms in English and Spanish. Yolo County (which went live on 5\/2) will print forms in English, Spanish and Russian. Orange County will print forms in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. San Francisco County will print the forms in English, Spanish, Chi- nese, Vietnamese and Russian. Contra Costa will print the forms in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian, Farsi and Laotian. Placer County (which went live January) said it can print the forms in all of the mandated languages. Assuming arguendo that counties could opt out of providing forms which have been trans- lated by CDSS, one would assume that coun- ties would use the translated paper forms that CDSS provides to the counties. Not neces- sarily true. In Yolo County’s case if a person whose pri- mary language is Chinese enters the welfare department, the County will not use a paper form. Instead, they will issue all forms and notices in English and \”will make a translator available\” to the Chinese speaker. For ex- ample, after completing a four hour applica- tion interview for CalWorks and Food Stamps, Yolo County would have us believe that the translator will fully and completely translate the 24 page Statement of Facts verbatim to the Chinese client who will then sign an En- glish form under penalty of perjury. The counties that I did not mention did not respond to my request for information. You should contact your county to find out what it plans to do. CCWRO is talking to Civil Rights about this problem. Hopefully this particular problem will be corrected before many more counties come on line. For Sacramento, a CalWIN translated form is not necessarily what you think. The Rus- sian translated forms are bi-lingual with both Russian and English. Unfortunately, the En- 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO New Welfare News #2005- 9 – May 16, 2005 – Page 3 State Budget UPDATE On May 9, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger released his May Revise State Budget. This is the May revision to his January 10, 2005 pro- posed budget. The revised budget continues the unprece- dented attack on the poor by proposing to re- peal the CalWORKs COLA and reduce bene- fits by 6.5%. The Budget also includes the pro- posal to reduce the wages of IHSS providers down to minimum wage – a Schwarzenegger attack on the working poor. The Governor did delete his proposal to re- duce the earned income disregards for work- ing CalWORKS recipients. The Governor’s January budget assumed that the State Legislature would change the law to impose full family sanctions and save $12 mil- lion a year. The Governor now states that he will restore that money and wait for the Ad- ministration to …work with advocates, coun- ties, and the Legislature to develop a revised policy that better promotes personal respon- sibility and self-sufficiency. The Governor’s budget proposes to hold back 5% of the county allocations then give it back to those counties that meet certain outcomes in their employment programs. This was op- posed by counties. The Governor’s May re- vise also proposes to set aside $30 million for counties in the form of so-called Pay-for-Per- formance . Counties are sanctioning about 50% of the unduplicated participants in the Welfare to Work program, and often not pay- ing 50% of the participants transportation ser- vices. 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 123456789012345678901234567 glish part of the form contains important infor- mation to the client that is not repeated in Rus- sian. Sacramento County had a primary-Spanish speaking applicant for food stamps sign and receive a copy of the English language SAWS1 even though CalWIN showed his ap- plication on the computer to be in Spanish. Subsequently, he received English notices. Sacramento County had assured us that once Spanish or some other mandated language had been identified as the primary language of the client, notices would be issued only in that primary language. If you have questions or need assistance concerning CalWIN, let us know. Call Grace Galligher at CCWRO. County Client Abuse Report Ms. O.T of Sacramento County is dis- abled. On 5\/6\/05 she applied for CAPI, the State program for the elderly, blind and disabled. She is not client over 65 years old, thus, she applied as a dis- abled person. On the application she did clearly state that she was DISABLED. On her application she clearly stated that she did not speak English and re- quested forms in the Russian language. On May 11, 2005, she received a letter in English from her CAPI worker stat- ing, You are not age 65 or older, blind, or disabled. Needless to say, Ms. O.T. could not read the notice. Ms. O.T has filed for a state hearing to find out why the CAPI application was denied without even making a disability evaluation. ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/300): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/302): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/303): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/305): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/308): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/310): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/314): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/315): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/316): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/318): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/320): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/322): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/324): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” 1 New Welfare NEWS Bulletin Bulletin # 07-06 May 25, 2007 In This Issue In Brief County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian —— IIInnn BBBrrriiieeefff — \u2714 Fabian Nunez, Speaker of the Assembly, promises to stop the Gov- ernor’s CalWORKs COLA cut On March 9, 2007, a group of organizations concerned with the plight of impoverished families meet with Fabian Nunez re- garding the plight of welfare families in California. During that meeting the Speaker expressly stated that the Democratic Caucus voted to reject the Gover- nor’s CalWORKs cuts, and the COLA cut was one of the cuts that they voted too reject. Present at the meeting were Cynthia Anderson of the Lawyers Guild, Nancy Berlin of California partnership, Saira Soto of SEIU, Frank Tam- borello of Los Angeles Hunger Action, Ms. Villela of CHIRLA and Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. \u2714 Senate and Assembly approve no COLA for CalWORKs On May 21, 2007, the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees accepted the Governor’s proposed trailer bill language suspending the CalWORKs COLA for the third straight year. The Democrats refuse to give a COLA for poor CalWORKs families living on a fixed income of 1989 that would only cost $124 million. On May 21, 2007, they approved $40 million for county performance bonuses, $200 million of PORK for Los Angeles County to build their own computer system rather than using a perfectly good computer system already in use and $140 million as a re- serve . Finally the budget makes a $1.9 billion CalWORKS money contribution to 2 the General Fund. Yes, money for computers and no money for CalWORKs COLA is the actions of the California State Legislature \u2714 Counties have more people in sanctions and non-compliance after getting $230 million to reduce these numbers Counties just can’t help themselves. They are punitive and there is no two ways about it. Last year while Democrats in the State legislature denied the statutory COLA to welfare families that would have cost little over $100 million and gave $230 million to counties to increase Welfare-to-Work participation rates and reduce the number of families in sanctions and non-compliance. The new money started t flow in late 2006. With welfare families suffering and counties swimming in new money one would assume that the number of sanc- tions and non-compliance is going down. The facts show that sanction rates and noncompliance rates are on the rise. October, 2006 March, 2007 Sanction Rate 35% 37% Noncompliance Rate 22% 24% Has the increased funding has yielded desired results? The result is more people in sanctions and more people being sanctioned. Did the Democrats do anything about this? No. The 2007-2008 budget rewards counties by giving them another $40 million on top of the $230 million entitled Pay for Performance . That is money that could have given CalWORKs recipients a COLA. But no children go hungry so welfare bureaucrats can flourish in pork. \u2714 Of 112,748 WtW participants 57,075 persons did not get transporta- tion in March of 2007 The gross violation of welfare recipients basic rights are clearly illustrated in the number of persons not getting transportation assis- tance for participating in welfare-to-work activities. The law is clear the county shall issue advance transportation money to participants in need thereof to assure that they do not use their welfare check money to cover welfare-to-work related transportation expenses. Who does not have transportation expenses in California? With the gasoline prices getting close for $4 a gallon one would assume that this would be a big cost item. Yes, theo- retically it would be. But then that would mean money that the county could use for their own salaries, benefits, travel to Sacramento and Washington would 3 have to be given to welfare recipients. That is not fair as far as county welfare departments are concerned. Thus, about 50% of the welfare-to-work partici- pants do not get transportation. Some ignorant people say that welfare recipi- ents living on a fixed income of 1989 level simply do not need the money. That is not true reveals how out of touch some may be from reality. The fact is that the state and county welfare bureaucrats have created a system where WtW partici- pants do not even have a form to ask for transportation. On the other hand the state and county welfare bureaucrats have a travel claim form for their Sacra- mento\/Washington escapades and they get much more than welfare recipients. \u2714 Orange CWD unhappy that WtW participants have a support system On March 13, 2007, Nancy McBride of Orange County Welfare Department (CWD) e-mailed a request for policy interpretation to DSS. A welfare-to-work (WtW) participant has a friend who is accompanying her when she has appoint- ment with the CWD WtW workers. Orange County is requiring the WtW partici- pant to complete a release form before every meeting. This person also happens to be working for an agency that provides educational services to WtW partici- pants. This provider employee is disrupting the day to day operations, consults with the Western Center on Law & Poverty on every issues and gets involved in issues not related to the services being provided. This provider has consulted the legal department and states that the AR form is good for one year and it shouldn’t have to be signed prior to every meeting, in addition, the provider employee is stating that since the client and AR are both at the meeting, a verbal consent is all that is required for the provider to attend the meeting. The proposed answer of Orange CWD to this question was: Restrict the ART to information related to the services that are provided by the provider On March 29, 2007 this issue was referred from the CalWORKs eligibility bureau to the DSS Employment Bureau. As to what the answer was is unclear. The an- swer is in the state regulations. An authorized representative form is good for one year. .2 Authorizations For purposes of this section, an authorized representative is a person or group who has authorization from the applicant\/recipient to act for him\/her. .21 Written Authorizations Except, as otherwise provided, all authorizations are to be written. Written authorizations shall be dated and shall expire one year from the date on which they are given unless they 4 are expressly limited to a shorter period or revoked Moreover, this is still a free country and any resident of the United States of America, even those involuntarily participating in the WtW program have not given up their minimal basic human rights afforded to them by the U.S. constitu- tion to the chagrin of county welfare bureaucrats in Orange County. \u2714 Maximum Family Grant (MFG) Child Defined On March 6, 2007, FIna Perez of Orange County asked DSS what circumstances does MFG rul,e apply. The March 20, 2007 e-mail answer from DSS was: Legal has concurred that we need the CW 2102 signed at application and the most recent rede- termination that is at least 11 months prior to the birth of the child. The CW 2101 is the MFG notification notice. County Welfare Department County Welfare Department ClCl iient Abuse Reportent Abuse Report A parent living in Riverside County applied for IHSS benefits in early 2007. She has three severely disabled children. Initially the applications was denied because they did not have evidence that there were disabled even though they had Medi-Cal, which made them eligible for the IHSS-Plus program. The second time applications were denied by Riverside County because accord- ing to the notice of action mailed by Riverside County You have not provided sufficient information to establish eligibility or need for services. The notice fails to show what information the applicant was asked to provide. The applicant provided all of the county requested verification. This notice is ei- ther a fraudulent statement or an intentional county denial of benefits to an eli- 5 gible person. It is not a crime for the county to fraudulently deny benefits to an eligible person, but it is a crime if the person fraudulently receive IHSS benefits a felony if the benefits received exceeds $400, but nothing if the benefits denied exceeded $400, $4,000 or $40,000. Conspiracy to fraudulently deny aid is com- mon behavior in many of the California County welfare departments. It appears that Riverside County does not want to authorize IHSS, thus, has decided to em- ploy unlawful means to deny benefits that applicants are eligible for. The appli- cant does plead guilty for not reading the minds of Riverside County bureaucrats who maybe needed information from her than she did not provide to them be- cause they never asked for such information. Mr. L. from San Bernardino County called to say that he wants to apply for CAPI on March 1, 2007. The county mailed out an application packet and gave him until March 12 to turn in the application packet. On March 16, 2007 San Bernardino County issued a notice of action denying Mr. L. CAPI application that they never received. On March 19, 2009, San Bernardino County receives the application but refuses to process it because it was denied. The notice of ac- tion was mailed to a wrong address. As of May 25, 2007, San Bernardino County has unlawfully been sitting on Mr. L. application and refusing to process the application. San Bernardino County a place where applications are denied even if not received. And poor people suffer immensely given the County’s indifference to human being in need. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem ”

” IIInnn BBBrrriiieeefff New Welfare NEWS Bulletin # 07-07 July 2007 In This Issue In Brief Contract Dispute May Be Prelude to County Department Budget CalWORKS Is A Goldmine For The Counties County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 CalWIN Does It Again According to our advocate friends in Alameda County, a corrective action notice is being drafted by the county to inform 3,612 CalWORKs participants, who were impacted by six erroneous notices in the mail, that the notices will not impact eligibility for CalWORKs, Food Stamps or Medi-Cal. The corrective action notices to participants will be identified in a letter by NOA title and number. We are targeting June 6, 2007 as the mailing date for the corrective action NOA. \u2714 Free Medi-Cal for SSI? Participants living in County Organized Health System (COHS) Counties Napa, Orange, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Solano, are forcibly enrolled in the local HMO program. If they move to a neighboring county, they will be able to receive free Medi-Cal which means they can see a doctor or a service provider of their choice. So far, there is no law against moving, but you never know what tomorrow will bring. \u2714 Solano County Won’t Let Applicant Complete the SAWS 1 In Full The regulations are very clear, applicants shall be given an opportunity to complete the SAWS 1. An applicant was required to go through what is called an interactive process. This means the welfare worker asks questions and completes the SAWS-1. After the county worker completes the SAWS-1, the applicant is instructed to sign it. If the applicant does not sign the SAWS-1, the application is denied. 40-129 states: CCWRO .32 At the time of application, every applicant shall be given the opportunity to request an Immediate Need payment by completing the Immediate Need section of the application. .321 The county shall encourage applicants who indicate that they are in an emergency situation to complete the Immediate Need section of the application. .322 If an applicant indicates verbally or in writing that he\/she has an emergency situation, after the application has been submitted, the county shall provide the applicant with the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90). Additionally, subsection 321 provides that the county shall encourage the applicant to complete the Immediate Need section of the SAWS-1. In this case, the applicant was not allowed to complete the form. Completing the Immediate Need section of the SAWS-1 was never an option for this applicant – a violation of 40-129.321. \u2714 San Bernardino County Violates CFR Title 7, Section 274.12(g)(6)(i) On 2\/28\/07 San Bernardino County mailed a notice of action to Mr. T.A., terminating his food stamp benefits because he used his EBT card in neighboring Nevada, which he is entitled to do under 7 CFR 274.12(g))(6)(i). San Bernardino County, as a practice, monitors San Bernardino County food stamp recipients’ usage of their EBT cards. If anyone uses the EBT card outside of San Bernardino, while living in San Bernardino County, swift action is taken food stamp benefits are terminated. The county alleges that the person who uses the EBT card in another state must be living outside of San Bernardino County. Prior to terminating benefits, there is no inquiry to find out why the food stamp program participant is using his\/her food stamps in another county or state. In fact, San Bernardino County mails the terminating benefits letter to the recipient’s San Bernardino address and not an address in another county or state. 7 CFR 274.12(g))(6)(i) states: 274.12 Electronic Benefit Transfer issuance system approval standards. * * * * * (g) * * * (6) * * * (i) * * * States must provide a means for a client to be able to use their benefits upon relocation. A State agency may convert electronic benefits to paper coupons if a household is relocating to a State that is not interoperable and where electronic benefits are not portable from the household’s current State of residence, or assist clients in finding an authorized retail location where out-of-State electronic benefits can be used. This requirement is in accordance with the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interope ability and Portability Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106 171, (hereinafter ”Pub. L. 106 171”) which amended Section 7(k) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2016(k), to mandate nationwide interoperability of FSP EBT systems and portability of electronically issued benefits and directs the Secretary to establish standards to accomplish this. In accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Department will pay one hundred percent of the costs incurred by a State agency for switching and settling transactions. On June 25, 2003, the final rule implementing legislation requiring interoperability of Food Stamp Program EBT systems and portability of electronically-issued benefits nationwide was published in the Federal Register (vol. 69; no. 122; pp. 37693-37697). \u2714 EBT Card Users Losing Food Stamp Benefits While Unlawfully Being Charged With Overpayments A food stamp recipient in San Bernardino County informs us that the county regularly monitors the usage of food stamp recipients’ EBT cards. Recipients who use their EBT cards out of the county or out of state are terminated from the program and charged with an over issuance. People living in Red Rock or Porona would rather shop in Rich Crest or Kern County, but San Bernardino County tells recipients they cannot do that. The City of Baker in San Bernardino County, has two stores that do not have a Quest machine, thus, food stamp recipients in Baker cannot use their EBT cards. They must travel 60 miles to Barstow and pay over $3 for gasoline in order to use their EBT card. People in Needles are not allowed to shop in Bull Head, Arizona, even though it is cheaper in Arizona. EBT has been a terror to some people living in rural America. Quest\u00aeMark – The Quest\u00aeMark is the sign seen on store doors, check-out lanes, and POS machines that tells recipients that EBT Cards can be used at that store. _________________________________________________________________ Contract Dispute May Be Prelude To County Department Budget Battle By ROGER H. AYLWORTH – Staff Writer Article Launched: 06\/13\/2007 12:14:19 AM PDT OROVILLE — In what may be a prelude to a heated budget session, Butte County’s District Attorney and the director of the Department of Employment and Social Services squared off Tuesday in a battle over office security. Cathi Grams, director of DESS, went before the Board of Supervisors seeking approval for $212,000 contract with Elite Universal Security of Marysville to provide unarmed, uniformed guards at the department’s offices in Chico and Oroville. Previously, security in the two facilities was provided by District Attorney’s Office investigators who are sworn peace officers and armed. Grams told the board unarmed private security guards are the norm in the vast majority of facilities like hers. However, District Attorney Mike Ramsey said security guards weren’t the real issue at Tuesday’s meeting. He said the key point was whether Butte County was going to be fighting welfare fraud or not. In the hard-to-explain logic of government funding, while welfare fraud investigators answer to Ramsey, their positions are funded through the DESS budget. Up until a few years ago, there were 12 people in the welfare fraud unit. Currently there are seven. Ramsey said, besides investigating fraud, the officers also provided an armed, law-enforcement presence in the offices. Ramsey said investigators are scheduled so there is always one in each building. However, Grams’ budget calls for cutting those seven positions to 2.5 in the 2007-2008 budget, and moving all of the remaining investigators to Oroville. She explained having the private guards in place would increase security because there would always be three guards at each facility. Ramsey scoffed at the suggestion private guards could provide better security than his investigators. While saying he didn’t want to show any disrespect to anybody, Ramsey said, \”The people on this contract are rent-a-cops. They are hired. They are $7.50-a-hour people.\” He said there are genuine law enforcement problems that crop up every week at the welfare facilities. Ramsey said guns and knives had been brought into the buildings, and recently one of his investigators had been stabbed with a sharpened pencil before the problem subject was subdued. Bad guys don’t respect private security, claimed Ramsey. \”It is a matter of safety for your employees and that is personal for all of us. We have friends in all of the departments,\” he said. Then he asked the supervisors to delay any action on the contract until the panel’s June 26 meeting when the whole county budget will be up for review. Michael Hahn, operations manager for Elite Universal, clearly took umbrage at Ramsey’s suggestion his firm couldn’t do the job. \”My people are not minimum wage,\” he said. He explained, under state law, security guards have to undergo a minimum of 40 hours of training and must have continuing training. He also told the board his staff are uniformed and wear badges, and they are currently providing this same sort of security for the Yuba City welfare office. Grams said her plan will relieve the investigators from guard duty. She also said she had been in contact with the Chico and Oroville police departments and both agencies assured her, if there was a serious problem, they could respond expeditiously. Ramsey said both departments are understaffed and speedy responses are not going to happen. County Chief Administrative Officer Paul McIntosh said safety is not an issue. \”If we had any concern about employee safety we wouldn’t have brought this issue to you,\” he said. Ramsey said the vote on the guard contract was about more than building security. \”What we see in this situation is the first step to saying there will be no further welfare fraud investigations in Butte County,\” he said. He told the board Grams’s request was actually a policy decision that should be put off for the full budget consideration. Gram said if the security contract was approved Tuesday it could take a month after the June 26 meeting to get things back in line. That could cost the county more than $100,000 out of the general fund. Chico Supervisor Maureen Kirk moved to approve the contract. It passed 4-1, with Oroville Supervisor Bill Connelly saying he was uncomfortable voting for the contract in the absence of more detail about the budget. Staff writer Roger H. Aylworth can be reached at 896-7762 or raylworth@chicoer.com. REPRINTED FROM THE CHICO ENTERPRIZE RECORD Editor’s Note: In a subsequent Board meeting the Butte County Board of Supervisors voted in favor of the County8 Welfare Department. CalWORKs is a Goldmine for Counties and the State The poor are the means for counties to get money from the state and federal government that can be used for operating expenses, salaries and other county employee needs. County needs includes using state and federal welfare funds to pay for county costs. For example, when state and federal dollars are used to set up a computer system for the federal and state programs, that same system is often used to run the county general assistance program, which is solely a county funded program. Counties do not contribute their fair share for the development and operation of the system. They also often use food stamp administrative dollars to pay for General Assistance administrative costs. It’s just a regular county business practice, using state and federal money to cover county costs . County employees who master the art of using state and federal funds to cover county costs are often promoted. Counties have never promoted the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the poor because it will mean less money for counties. They understand the hardship that families and kids suffer as a result of no COLA, it causes irreversible harm to children (it may very well be child abuse) and reduces their plight to self- sufficiency, but COLA means less money for counties, thus, no COLA for 2005- 2006, 2006-2007 and now 2007-2008. The State has been using TANF federal dollars as a contribution to the General Fund since 1989. To date, CalWORKs has contributed $9.5 billion to the General Fund. In 2007-2008, CalWORKs will contribute $1.9 billion, according to the Schwarzenegger Administration; yet, they can’t spare a mere $124 million for the 07-08 COLA for the poor. Flexibility for Counties-Zero Flexibility for Customers – County welfare officials want to do their job in a way that suits their needs, which are often at odds with the needs of our clients. County welfare officials insist that they shall have flexibility in operating the welfare program because one size does not fit all, but they offer little flexibility to welfare recipients. Little flexibility is one of the reasons for the high sanction rates in the Welfare-to-Work program. During March of 2007, out of 112,748 unduplicated participants, 41,985 individuals were being sanctioned and 27,378 were being considered for sanction. CalWORKs Violating Recipient Rights By Taking Money Away From the Poor to Pay for the Bureaucracy – The gross violation of welfare recipients’ basic human rights are clearly illustrated in the number of persons not getting transportation assistance for participating in welfare-to-work activities. The law is clear, the county shall issue advance transportation money to participants in need thereof to assure that they do not use their welfare check money to cover welfare-to-work related transportation expenses. Yet, 50% of recipients do not receive transportation money. With the gasoline prices rising up to $4 a gallon, one would assume that this would be a big cost item for families. Yes, theoretically there could a few families getting free transportation from neighbors or friends, but 50%? Paying regional transportation rates to those who need it would mean less money for county salaries, benefits, and travel to Sacramento, Washington, DC, etc. State and county welfare bureaucrats have created a system where WtW participants do not even have a form to ask for transportation. According to one county welfare official from San Joaquin County, It would cost us over a million dollars to increase the payment to 44.5\u00a2 per mile . Participants are paid 17.5\u00a2\/mile while counties pay 44.5\u00a2\/mile to themselves. Poor families want to be self-sufficient and the law requires that counties use the regional market rates for setting travel reimbursements. County Welfare Department ClCounty Welfare Department Cl iient Abuse Reportent Abuse Report A parent living in Riverside County applied for IHSS benefits in early 2007. She has three severely disabled children. Initially, the applications were denied because the county did not have evidence that the children were disabled even though they received Medi-Cal, which made them automatically eligible for the IHSS-Plus program. The second round of applications were denied by Riverside County because, according to the county You have not provided sufficient information to establish eligibility or need for services. The notice of action fails to identify the information that the applicant needed to provide. The applicant provided all of the county requested verification. This notice is either a fraudulent statement or an intentional county denial of benefits to an eligible person. It is not a crime for the county to fraudulently deny benefits to an eligible person, but it is a crime if the person fraudulently receive IHSS benefits, a felony if the benefits received exceeds $400. It appears that Riverside County does not want to authorize IHSS, thus, has decided to employ unlawful means to deny benefits to applicants who are eligible. Mr. L. from San Bernardino County called San Bernardino welfare department to apply for CAPI on March 1, 2007. The county mailed him an application packet and gave him until March 12 to turn it in. On March 16, 2007, before the application was received, San Bernardino County issued a notice of action denying Mr. L.’s CAPI application. On March 19, 2007, after San Bernardino County received the application, they refused to process it because it was denied. The notice of action was mailed to a wrong address. As of May 25, 2007, San Bernardino County still sits on Mr. L’s application and refuses to process it. It seems San Bernardino County is a place where applications are denied even when they are not received. Notice of Action from Sacramento County. Mr. A.C. received a notice of action (NOA) from Sacramento County on July 13, 2007 stating that her CAPI benefits were changed from $741 to $375. Here’s why: Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor changed. Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor changed. This is a NA 692 (9\/98) Benefit Change-CAPI-Various reasons Rules: Welfare and Institutions Code: 18937- 18944. Why does the NOA have the same sentence twice? Whose income is it? How much was the income? What kind of income? Earned income? In-kind income? Unearned income? This notice may meet the due process standards in the year 1599 but not in 2007. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem TRANING PROVIDED FOR 1. WTW Sanction Defense 2. Welfare State Hearings 3. Administrative Writ 4. CalWIN 5. CalWORKS Cutting Edge Issues 6. CalWORKS Basics 7. County and State Advocacy 8. Citizenship Verification ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 6, 2009 Issue 09-18 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Administration for Children and Families. She worked for the Clinton Administra- tion and has a master’s in social work. l Eskinder Negash has been appointed to be Direc- tor of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the HHS, ACF. He worked on behalf of refugees and immigrants for over thirty years. He currently serves as Vice President and Chief Op- erating Officer of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI). l On May 14, 2009, Charr Lee Metsker, Deputy Director for the DSS WtW Division requested a new food stamp waiver USDA, FNS. This waiver would allow a household (HH) to provide any needed in- formation and\/or verifica- tion within the month fol- lowing discontinuances to have their benefits resored without a new application and the certification period would not change. A similar waiver was granted to Wis- consin in August of 2007. worked in the welfare sys- tem for Virginia, Delaware and Puerto Rico. She re- ceived her Master in Social Work in 1973. l David A. Hansell, worked as the Commis- sioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance has been named Principal Secretary of HHS Admin- istration of Children and Families (ACF). He worked for Gay Men’s Health Cri- sis. He also worked as As- sociate Commissioner for HIV Services at the New York Department of Health. He was an Adjunct Assis- tant Professor at the New York University Wagner School of Public Services. He graduated from Yale Law School. l Joan Lombardi, who worked for the Clinton Ad- ministration, has been ap- pointed Deputy Assistant Secretary and Inter-De- partmental Liaison for Ear- ly Childhood Development for HHS, ACF. l Shannon Rudisill has been appointed to be Asso- ciate Commissioner of the Child Care Bureau in the IN BRIEF l State offices will be closed every first, second and third Friday of the month – a new Order by millionaire Arnold Schwarzenegger. This means state employees will face a 14% wage cut, but he can continue to raise money and swim in his mil- lions. Why should he care? He’s a millionaire. l According to the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman Medicare spends 3% on the administrative costs, while the free enter- prise, capitalistic profit mak- ing health care companies spend 14%. It is clear that profit making medical pro- viders spend more on bu- reaucracy- which is why Republicans support the bu- reaucracy. l Carmen Nazario has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary for HHS, ACF. Her nomination is sub- ject to Senate approval. She worked for the Clinton Administration. She also CCWRO Welfare News \u2029 \u2029 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 www.ccwro.org July 23, 2010 Issue #2010-18 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Thousands of childcare providers are being denied payments for their labor because their employers sub- mitted the childcare claim form be- yond the 30-day time lines imposed by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1323.3. The State condi- tions child care payments upon the submission of a claim form that is not even readily accessible to the child care provider or the welfare recipient. W&IC 11323.3(b)(4) states that DSS shall have a form which pro- vides the following information to the applicant or recipient: (4) The recipient is required to request a child care subsidy from the county within 30 days from the first day child care services are received from each different provider, to be fully reimbursed for child care services. The form provides: I understand that I need to request paid child care within 30 calendar days from the first day I received services from my provider. This way, my child care provider can be paid for the services s\/he provides to me. The statute does not require DSS to inform child care recipients on how to request child care. In fact, there is a form (CCP-2145) that is used to request child care, but it is not easily accessible to welfare parents. There are immense barriers between form CCP-2145 and the childcare window and was told to wait. She continued waiting. After 4-5 hours she went home. She never received a Notice of Action about the dis- position of her entitlement to Cal- WORKs Immediate need or Expe- dited Service Food Stamps. Finally, on 7\/21\/10, she had a face-to-face interview. Sacramento County denies a 2008 Medi-Cal application in 2010. Mr. B3004524 received a Notice of Action from Sacramen- to County on 5\/8\/10 denying his 06\/26\/2008 Medi-Cal application. The notice even explained why it was denied. Your property is above the allowable limit. The limit is $3,600 Los Angeles County refuses to conduct an annual rede- termination of a working mom, then terminates her benefits. Ms. T48559D, of Los Angeles County, came in for her yearly redetermination on 6\/2\/10. She took the day off of work to make this appointment. After wait- ing four hours she was told her worker wasn’t in. A new appoint- ment for June 24th was given. On June 24th Ms. T48559D took an- other day off work and waited four hours only to be told her worker, once again, wasn’t there. On this day, a worker of the day (WOD) took pity on her, helped her com- plete her yearly redetermination and placed it on her worker’s desk. recipient. First you must reach your worker during their phone hours (usually during the recipient’s work hours and the calls are often not re- turned). When the recipient does reach the worker he\/she is given an appointment to meet with the work- er. Then the recipient must take time off work to go to the appointment. There is no regulation that provides for three (3) months of child care request forms if a person identifies their need for child care, The system was never meant to help people get child care, it was designed to find ways to pay child care providers as little as possible. Many are denied child care because they failed to attend their child care orientation. Often, these orientations conflict with their work schedules. If they want child care, they must take time off of work endangering their employment. Applicants in need of emer- gency assistance get an in- terview after 47 days. Ms. C.L. who was homeless, penniless and foodless, applied for welfare in Sacramento County on 6\/4\/10. After waiting 2 hours, she went up to the Making Less than Minimum Wage Child Care Provider Is Denied Payments County Client Abuse Report Ms. T48559D thought she had fi- nally assured her continued aid in July. LA County thought otherwise. Ms. T48559D was discontinued on July 1st for failure to complete her yearly redetermination. After two appointments where her work- er failed to appear, after waiting four hours on two occasions, after missing two days of work and af- ter completing the redetermination anyway, Ms. T48559D was ille- gally discontinued. Ms. T48559D attempts to clear up this situation were useless as South Family Dis- trict #31 refused to communicate with her. The Deputy District Di- rector went so far as to claim Ms. T48559D had been contacted on July 8th to set up a third redeter- mination appointment. No call was placed to Ms. T48559D on July 8th nor were the multiple messages left on her workers phone responded to. Eventually, the completed redeter- mination was found on the work- ers desk after two weeks of ignored phone calls and no July aid for Ms. T48559D. Perhaps if South Family District #31 showed more concern about the time and needs of their recipients Ms. T48559D would not have been made to suffer need- lessly in this manner. Ms. T48559D is very fortunate that she has an understanding boss who did not fire her for spending so much at the welfare office needlessly. Welfare to Work is a program designed to CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org July 23, 2010 #2010-018 Page 2 make welfare recipients self-suffi- cient endangering their continued employment when we have 5 people for one job in California is not pro- moting self-sufficiency. Sacramento County refuses to Issue Emergency Assistance- has the security guard remove the victim from the welfare of- fice. Ms. L.C., of Sacramento Coun- ty, applied for cash aid, food stamps and Medi-Cal on 7\/9\/10 and was giv- en an appointment for July 12th. On the 12th she had most of the required verification. She did not have her birth certificate or her son’s. However, the county was in possesion of these birth certificates when she was previously on aid. Moreover, the Medi-Cal sys- tem had her birth certificates through the SSN Match system. She also did not have her SSN card, but had the number. On the 7\/12 she was told that her food stamps had been approved. Yet, to date, she has not received them. She returned to DHA V-100 on July 20th. She was handed a Notice of Action denying Immediate Need. The IN denial was due to a failure to coop- erate with child support (she claims good cause due to domestic violence) and for not having proof that she ap- plied for a SSN. She already had so- cial security numbers and the county is more than capable of verifying her SSN on the applicant IEVS screen. She is ill and needs Medi-Cal to get medical treatment, but DHA refuses to give her a Medi-Cal Card or ap- prove her Medi-Cal. When she went to the window to complain that the County was violating her rights she was escorted out of V-100 of by the sheriffs. Who we are The Coalition of California Wel- fare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) has been providing ad- vocacy in the public benefits field since the early 1980s. CCWRO is a statewide nonprofit organization that provides back-up services to qualified legal service field pro- grams funded by the Legal Ser- vices Trust Fund Commission and and pro-bono attorneys referred to CCWRO by such legal services field programs. CCWRO provides consultation, information, training and represen- tation on issues relating to public benefit programs such as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) aka CalWORKs\/TANF, Refugee Assistance, Medi-Cal, Welfare Employment Programs, Food Stamps, General Assistance, Cash Assistance Program for Im- migrants (CAPI) and SSI. Attached is a pdf copy of the latest CCWRO 2010 Public Assistance Table. You can also find a copy at: ccwro.org ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 August 26, 2010 Issue # 2010-21 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg, David and Diane Aslanian. In an August 19, 2010 memo from FNS a new policy has been re- vealed regarding student eligibility for Food Stamps. This FNS memo is in response to questions raised through Quality Control (QC) reviews related to student eligibility for SNAP ben- efits. Section 6(e) of the Food and Nutrition Act (the Act) of 2008 and Federal regulations at 7 CFR 273.5(a) prohibit students enrolled at least half-time in an institution of higher education from receiving SNAP benefits unless specific ex- emptions are met. These exemp- tions include students who are assigned to, or placed in, an insti- tution of higher education through the SNAP Employment and Train- ing (E&T) Program or an employ- ment and training program for low- income persons operated by a State or local government. Under Federal regulations, an accept- able local or State employment and training program must be at least equivalent to an acceptable SNAP E&T program component. http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/snap\/ rules\/Memo\/2010\/081910.pdf Thus, counties can certify com- munity college attendance as an FSET activity and allow student to receive food stamps. .511 State Hearing (b) Procedures for a state hear- ing are specified in MPP Division 22. Ms. 2010147089 followed the law and asked for a hearing because she disagreed with the county ac- tions proposing the sanction and the terms of the compliance plan. The ALJ dismissed the hearing holding that there was no issue because the county had rescind- ed the proposed sanction. The ALJ was wrong. The regula- tion clearly states that a welfare recipient is entitled to a state hearing anytime he or she be- lieves that any program require- ment or assignment is in viola- tion of, or inconsistent with, state law and regulations governing the Welfare-to-Work Program. MPP 42-721.51. This regulation does not exclude cases where the sanction has been rescinded by the county. Moreover, the only reason the sanction was rescind- ed is because the victim was eco- nomically coerced into agreeing to a compliance plan that she clearly told the ALJ she did not agree with. MPP 42-721.51 does not exclude contesting compli- ance plans in a hearing once the claimant has agreed to the com- pliance plan. Moreover, W&IC 11327.8 also provides a W&IC 10950 hearing to any participant contesting any WtW action or inaction. Ms. 2010147089 requested a timely hearing because she dis- agreed with the proposed sanc- tion and the compliance plan that she signed for Humboldt County. The county proposed to sanction Ms. 2010147089 and scheduled her for a good cause determina- tion appointment. At the appoint- ment she was told that the only way she could avoid the sanction would be to agree to a county drafted compliance plan. Living on a fixed income equal to what CalWORKs recipients received in 1989, and facing more than a 25% cut in that meager fixed income, she signed the com- pliance plan not because she agreed with it, but because the economic consequences were life threatening. She then requested a state hear- ing stating that she disagreed with the proposed sanction and the compliance plan. MPP 42-721.51 states: Except as specified in Section 42- 721.512(b), .512(c), or .512(d), when a participant believes that any program requirement or as- signment is in violation of, or inconsistent with, state law and regulations governing the Wel- fare-to-Work Program, the CWD shall inform him\/her of the right either to request a state hear- ing or to file a formal grievance based on the procedures estab- lished by the county board of su- pervisors. USDA, FNS Policy States Students in Community College May Get Food Stamps DSS Denies Due Process of Law to a Welfare-to-Work Participant Ms. 2010075330’s CalWORKs was terminated due the alleged failure to submit a QR-7 to Kern County. The claimant testified under oath she went Kern County Wel- fare Dept. and personally turned in the QR-7. The county stated that they never received the QR- 7. The county also stated that on 12-12-09 they mailed a Notice of Action terminating benefits for failure to submit the QR-7. The county also testified that they mailed the claimant the Balderas Notice. The county also mailed another notice dated 12\/24\/09. The county presented no evi- CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org August 26, 2010 #2010-021 Page 2 MPP 22-073.36 Moreover, there was no evidence in the hearing decision that Kern County had the proper signage in- forming clients that they can obtain a receipt for verification submitted. The ALJ held that the claimant presented insufficient evidence she turned in her November QR- 7. What is sufficient evidence? She is under oath. She testified under oath that she turned in the November QR-7 in December. There were no findings that her testimony was not credible. Yet she lost. Could it be welfare recipients are guilty until proven innocent? dence that they met the require- ments of MPP 40-181.221 which provides: (QR). MPP 40 181.221 pro- vides When a QR 7 has not been received at the county after the notice of discontinuance has been sent, the county shall at- tempt to make a personal contact with the recipient either by tele- phone or in a face-to-face meet- ing. During the personal contact the county shall remind the recip- ient that a complete QR 7 must be received by the county no later than the first working day of the next QR Payment Quarter. The county failed to provide any evidence that a phone call was made. Thus, the county failed to meet their burden of proof . See County Fails to Meet Its Burden of Proof and Still Prevails Earl Johnson Appointed as Director, Office of Family Assistance, HHS Earl Johnson has been appointed as Director of the Office of Family Assistance, which overses the TANF program. Prior to joining ACF, Earl was senior Policy Advisor to Oakland, California Mayor Ron Dellums, where he was responsible for helping set policy and program goals for the city in the areas of workforce, health and urban affairs. He also worked with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbor- hood Partnerships on fatherhood initiatives. Before serving in Oakland he had significant state and non-profit sector experience, having served as Associate Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the California Health and Human Services Agency, as Associate Director, Working Communities for the Rockefeller Foundation, and as Senior Program Officer for The California Endowment, a private statewide health foundation. Dr. Johnson graduated from the American University in Washington and earned a Master of Arts in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D in Social Welfare from the University of California. He is widely known for his work in developing programs and policy on matters related to TANF and has authored articles on needy family issues. His areas of expertise include poverty and fatherhood, both high priority issues for the Administration and HHS. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 January 18, 2010 Issue # 2011-01 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian DSS Director Appointment Up- date Our sources tell us that there are three people being considered for Director of DSS by Jerry Brown. (1) Current Director John Wagner. John has been the first state welfare director in the past 40 years who has made a significant effort to consider the views of the poor and their advo- cates when formulating state policy. Past Directors only considered the views of the providers of the welfare services the County Welfare Direc- tors and their lobbying organization known as CWDA. The Governor is reported to also be considering Will Lightbourne, current County Welfare Director of Santa Clara County and Rita Saenz, former DSS Director in the Gray Davis Administration. DSS Wants a Three-Year FNS Waiver for Quarterly Reporting- DSS has decided to ask for a three- year extension of its current quar- terly reporting waiver. DSS has been getting waivers for the past three or more years promising to implement Semi-Annual reporting but has not done so. Despite this failure, Cali- fornia has continued to successfully convince the federal government to approve its quarterly reporting waiv- ers. Stay tuned to see if DSS can con- vince FNS again. DSS is Seeking A Waiver of Set In- terview Date and Time for Annual Redetermination- A county has asked DSS to seek a waiver so the county will not have to give the Food Stamp recipients a date and time for their annual redetermination. DSS has asked if there are other counties to would like to get a waiver of giv- ing food stamp recipients a date and In Brief tions would allow recoupment of child support when the payment was not honored by the bank, or if the wrong amount of child support was paid to the parent. Additionally, the emergency regula- tions required repayment of alleged overpayments by voluntary con- sent, presuming consent if the cus- todial parent does not respond to one of three demand letters or by collec- tion action if the custodial parent af- firmatively withholds consent. Without informing the custodial par- ents that they are legally entitled to choose not to agree to recoupment of the alleged overpayment, these let- ters demand that the parent agree to immediate repayment in full, or repayment at rates of 25% or 100% of future child support payments un- til the overpayment is fully repaid. If the custodial parent affirmatively refused to consent to the recoup, DCSS would take other measures to involuntarily recoup an alleged overpayment. After the emergency regulations were approved, DCSS submitted a permanent regulations package. The regulations package was amended to permit the recoupment of spousal support as well as child support. Since DCSS had no such statutory authority to recoup overpayment of child support or spousal support, CCWRO, Legal Services of North- ern California and Public Interest Law Project sent demand letters to DCSS regarding the collection poli- cies and after negotiating for over two months, DCS agreed to with- draw the request for permanent reg- ulations and rescind the emergency regulations. DCSS is now in the process of determining the process to refund the money collected. Department of Child Support Services to Repeal Overpayment Regulations Food Stamp Applications Not Processed in 30 Days time for their annual redetermina- tion. Counties want to use a block time rather than a fixed time. We are not sure how this would work, but one thing we know for sure, this block time is not designed to ac- commodate food stamp recipients. Rather it would result in many re- cipients being terminated from Food Stamps for failure to recertify and be forced to reapply for food stamps. Federal and State law requires that Food Stamp applications be pro- cessed within 30 days. Counties are required to submit quarterly reports of their application processing times. However, from July 2009 through June 2010 Los Angeles County ap- proved 27, 658 application, but re- fused to report how many cases were approved after the 30 days because Los Angeles County system can- not produce the information. There were many counties to reported the percentage of applications approved after 30 days. These delays caused by the county and not by the recipi- ent. Contra Costa 25% late San Diego 24% late Santa Clara 21% late Santa Cruz 21% late On August 2, 2010 Department of Child Support Services submitted a request for emergency regulations allowing the Department of recoup overpayments for child support on the basis of a fiscal computer system emergency. The emergency regula- ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 March 28, 2011 Issue # 2011-04 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. Stage 3 Child Care – Last year, the Legislature terminated Stage 3 childcare. The court stopped the cut, but according to county officials many families never got back on Stage 3. Moreover, many families were unable to afford childcare and have ended up on welfare. The State Department of Education is crafting new regulations regarding a va- riety of programs including: Latch Key, Attendance, Timely Payments and Trust line. CDE has a long-standing policy of operating in secrecy and without trans- parency. They have intentionally re- fused to work with representatives of the childcare program consumers, choosing instead to cooperate only with providers. CalFRESH (Food Stamps) At the 2-3-11 CWDA CalFresh Com- mittee Meeting, DSS stated that if the food stamp recipient fails to check the resource box on the QR-7, it is not in- complete for CalFresh. The big ques- tion is how this would affect CalWORKs recipients. Would a failure to check the resource box also mean the QR-7 is not incomplete for CalWORKs? Food Stamp NOA Waiver – Utah received a FNS waiver to send Food Stamp Notices of Action by email. DSS has agreed to distribute the Utah waiver to counties throughout California that are interested in pursuing similar waiv- ers to enable them to send Food Stamp NOAs by email. This is not being al- lowed in California, yet. For advocates, one county that has expressed an interest in the waiver is Los Angeles. Voter Registration – Voter Regis- tration is a hot topic in the office of the Secretary of State. They are revising a manual designated for public agencies. There is a workgroup that is working on this issue. The law provides that voter registration must be offered to all house- holds at application, recertification and when there is a change in address. In Brief Was it necessary to take $690 million out of the mouths of poor women and children? Again, the short answer is no. But it certainly was politically expedi- ent. Simply aligning the CalWORKs work requirement exemption age with the food stamp program work require- ment (e.g. families with children over the age of six (6)) could have saved the $690 million. Amazingly, this seem- ingly reasonable approach was rejected. One can’t help but wonder at the pro- priety of treating the resources used to support the poor as bargaining chips for political popularity. But perhaps that’s the legacy we will leave for future gen- erations. The budget battle is not over. Califor- nians needs to mobilize to protect their most fragile citizens. Currently before state legislators is an initiative to create a June ballot to raise $12 billion in taxes. If this initiative fails, the budget battle will begin anew in June 2011. On the positive side, the ill-conceived CalWORKs so-called long-term re- forms enacted in 2009 were repealed. 2011- 2012 State Budget News The Legislature recently voted to cut CalWORKs benefits to families in need to 1984 levels, without any adjustment for inflation. Both Democrats and Re- publicans voted for this cut. In fact, Governor Jerry Brown proposed reduc- ing benefits to families in need by 13%. Through the serious efforts of the pub- lic benefits advocate community and Democratic Legislators we were able to persuade the Governor, and his to team, to limit the cuts to 8%. The recent CalWORKS cuts ensure that families in need are worse off today than they were 35 years ago. No one can ar- ticulate why, including the Governor, welfare recipients should suffer greater hardship simply because the State of California has mismanaged its fiscal affairs. If we really propose to protect liberty and equality for the citizens of this state, perhaps the employees of the Department of Finance, the Gover- nor’s Office, and the Legislature should have their paychecks reduced to levels present in the mid-1980s. Would they lead by example? The short answer, of course, is no. In contrast to negative stigma of welfare recipients in our state Capital, is the fact that children living in impoverished families contributed $2 billion worth of CalWORKs funds to the California State General Fund is frequently overlooked. Similarly over- looked is the fact that welfare recipients, since 1998, have contributed about $20 billion to the General Fund while living on a fixed income that hasn’t changed in over 20 years. Yet, the California Government has made the assessment the easiest route to financial health and freedom is to write off the poor. As we tighten our belts families in need will go without food, shelter, or even the most basic protections that were previ- ously afforded them. W a s h i n g t o n D. C. N e w s The U.S. House of Representa- tives passed HR 1, which would significantly cut programs serv- ing the poor. Women Infants and Children (WIC) was cut by 10%, the Low Income Energy Assis- tance Program (LIEAP) by 7%, family planning was cut 100%, and Headstart was cut by $1 bil- lion. Meanwhile, those persons falling in the top tax bracket will continue to get their tax relief of $700 billion over the next five (5) years. ”

” amounts will be rolled back even further to 1984 levels. Bank fees and surcharg- es extract about $21 million annually from poor families through EBT cards, thereby giving the banks with about $18 billion dollars in profits. During January of 2011 welfare recipi- ents were charged $44,268.50 just to find out how much money they had in their EBT accounts. Poor families also paid banks $61,846 dollars in transac- tion fees in January of 2011. Finally, banks that made $6 billion in profits during January of 2011 extract- ed $1.5 million from welfare recipients in the form of surcharges. Table #1 shows the money that banks extracted from the California impoverished dur- ing January 2010 and January 2011. Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization have sponsored AB 759 by Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell that would prohibit using surcharges and other fees for using public benefits EBT cards. The banks have vigorously op- posed this bill. The banks believe that they are entitled to take money out of the mouths of children living in impov- erished families to enhance their already bloated profits. On April 26, 2011, the banks prevailed. AB 759 was defeated in the Assembly Human Services Committee. The poor will have to continue to pay about $20 million a year to the banks. But As- sembly Member Holly Mitchell and the sponsors of this bill will keep on fight- ing. Stay tuned. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 May 2, 2011 Issue # 2011-05 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On April 29, 2011, the Brown ad- ministration appointed Will Light- bourne Director for the State De- partment of Social Services. Lightbourne has been hired as an executive-on-loan as part of an agreement between Santa Clara County and the state. This means Lightbourne will retain his $216,611 salary and remain a county employee, but the state will reimburse the county for his salary and benefits package. Lightbourne, 61, has served as Di- rector of the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency since 2000, and was Executive Director of the San Francisco City and County Hu- man Services Agency from 1996 to 2000. Previously, he was the Di- rector of the Santa Cruz County Human Services Agency from 1990 to 1996. From 1975 to 1990, Lightbourne held a number of posi- tions with Catholic Charities in San Francisco, including Chief Execu- tive Officer and General Director. Lightbourne stated his new mis- sion in a recent article in the San Jose Mercury News; Clearly, the Brown administration is serious about doing structural financial re- NEW CDSS DIRECTOR form, without doing the smoke-and-mirrors games, said Lightbourne. He added that he needs to ensure that the ever-growing budget cuts do not threaten the lives of the state’s most vulnerable residents. Another major part of his job, Lightbourne said, will be creating the most ef- fective system of services that peo- ple are going to be able to count on in the future. Lightbourne replaces John Wagner, who on April 29, 2011 was named Acting Director of the Community Services and Development Depart- ment. It used to that be that welfare recipients got a check in the mail and were able to use all of that money to meet the basic survival needs of their families. In the early 2000’s the welfare bu- reaucracy decided that issuing checks was costly, thus, they would distribute benefits on Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. This saved the welfare systems millions of dollars. However, the EBT system also forces welfare re- cipients to pay fees and surcharges to use this new method of accessing their limited fixed public benefits income. Currently, welfare recipients in Cali- fornia are living on 1989 fixed income levels. Effective July 1, 2011 these Report Period Balance Inquiry Fee ATM Transaction Fee ATM Charge January 2010 $45,143 $54,946 $1,517,157 January 2011 $44,268 $61,846 $1,695,983 Percentage of Increase -2% 13% 12% TABLE #1- Money Extraced From Welfare Recipients by Banks BANKS TAKE $21 MILLION FROM WELFARE FAMILIES ”

” STATE BUDGET UPDATE FROM SACRAMENTO The budget battle in Sacramento goes on. The budget conference committee has shut down, but the budget has a long way to go. The conference committee reconciles the differences between the Assembly version of the budget and the Senate version. Below is a description of what the conference committee did that is public in the CalWORKs program. In the final analysis the budget denies impoverished families with needy children a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) enacted into law with the signature of Ronald Reagan for the fourth year in a row. Was denying a COLA to needy children nec- essary to balance the budget? Not really. The 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Bill (also known as TANF) gives California $3.7 billion and required California to put up 80%, which is $2.9 billion, to qualify for the $3.7 billion federal money in 2008-2009. The Republican Congress did not mandate that this money be used for the poor. States do have the option to use it for the non poor under the guise of state flexibility. The 2008-2009 state budget proposes that California will only spend $5.2 billion on poor children living with their parents on CalWORKs. That means a significant amount – $1.4 billion – will not be spent on CalWORKs children and families in 2008-2009. What happens to that money that by all moral standards should be used for impoverished families with children receiving CalWORKs. It goes many places except to the kids who go hungry in the last two weeks of most months in California. Yes. Americans love kids – who are not poor. The Budget does not include any of the mean-spirited Schwarzenegger proposals for anti-family and anti-child full family sanctions. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 14, 2008, Issue #08-07 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Description Assembly Senate Difference Final Action 1. In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) County Admin. Reduction 0 7,700,000 7,700,000 Senate Version 2. Food Stamp Program County Administration Reduction 0 14,371,000 14,371,000 Senate Version 3. Child Welfare Services: Resources Family Pilot Program (AB 340) -179,000 -608,000 429,000 Assembly version of 187 million reduction 4. Suspension of the June 2009 State SSP COLA 0 23,700,000 23,700,000 Assembly Version 5. CalWORKs Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement (WINS) 0 -8,387,000 8,387,000 $2 million in few counties 6. CalWORKs Pre-Assistance (PEARS) 0 691,000 691,000 Conf. Compromise*. 7. CalWORKs Self-Sufficiency Reviews for Sanctioned Cases 0 691,000 691,000 Assembly Version 8. CalWORKs Revised Income Disregard 0 -15,532,000 15,532,000 Assembly Version 9. Eliminate CalWORKs Pay for Performance Incentive Funding 0 10,000,000 10,000,000 Senate Version 10. Reduce County CalWORKs Single Allocation Funding 0 10,300,000 10,300,000 Assembly Version 11. CalWORKs Funding for the CA Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs -5,000,000 0 5,000,000 Assembly Version 12. Eliminate the TANF Reserve 0 0 50,000,000 50,000,000 * – The conference compromise language is still being worked on. The language is intented to provide for a pro- gram that would be agreed to by all stakeholders and comport with federal law. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” State Form CW-61 Unlawfully Used By Counties State form CW-61 can be found at http:\/\/www.dss.cah- wnet.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/CW61.PDF. This is a state form that CalWORKs applicants or recipients can use to prove they are disabled for eligibility and Wel- fare-to-Work (WtW) purposes. Section 1 of the form requires the applicant or recipi- ent to sign a release of information exposing all medical conditions to county welfare department personnel which is contrary to state law. Applicants and recipients are not given a choice. They are required to sign Section 1 of this form. Often, we have been told, that county personnel who re- ceive a CW-61 from an applicant or recipient will call the doctor and question the diagnosis. Sometimes CalWORKs families are dropped by their doctor as a patient because the doctor was harassed by the county welfare department WtW worker or the Special Investigative Unit, also known as the welfare fraud unit. The second part of the form is the part that the doctor has to complete. Some doctors will only complete forms for a fee. As a result, some applicants or recipients are forced to pay $25 to $75 to have the form completed. Recently, under the public records act request, we re- ceived a written document representing the state policy from DSS which states: In order to qualify for a disability exemption under 42-412.44 the individual must obtain a doctors verifi- cation (in the form of a CW 61) and actively seek treat- ment. If both conditions are not met, the individual would not qualify for the WtW exemption. It also states If the physician will not complete the form, the county may send the client to another doctor There are a number of problems with this policy state- ment. First, there is no 42-412.44. It is 42-712.44 and it provides as follows: .44 Exemption Based on Disability .441 An individual who has a disability is exempt from welfare-to-work participation when the follow- ing conditions exist: (a) The disability is expected to last at least 30 cal- endar days; and (b) The disability significantly impairs the individu- al’s ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. .442 To qualify for this exemption, the individual CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 10, 2008, Issue #08-10 shall do all of the following: (a) Provide verification from a doctor as defined in Section 42-701.2(d)(2) that includes the disability, the expected duration of the disability, and the extent to which the disability impairs employment and\/or par- ticipation in the welfare-to-work activities; and (b) Actively seek appropriate medical treatment, as verified by a doctor as defined in Section 42- 701.2(d)(2). .443 The exemption may be reviewed at the time the condition is expected to end, or sooner if there is rea- son to believe that there has been a change in the con- dition. There is no mention of a CW-61 in this regulation. Yet, DSS mandates that counties deny a disability exemption even if the doctor states the person is disabled, however, not on the State’s form CW-61. This policy is unlawful as stated above. It is unlawful to coerce or force impoverished individuals to sign releases of information against their will so that they may receive income to feed, cloth and house their children as provided in MPP 19-007.11 below. MPP 19-007.11 Permission If the applicant or recipient does not wish the county to contact a private or public source in order to deter- mine eligibility, the applicant or recipient shall have the opportunity to obtain the desired information or verification himself or herself. This regulation is supported by ACIN I-91-88 which can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersno- tices\/entres\/getinfo\/acin88\/I-91-88.pdf and it provides … Through legislative process, it has been brought to the at- tention of the Department that there is a potential problem in this area. The authority on this subject is found in MPP 19- 007.1 and 40-157.22. It states that collateral contact should NOT be the first option. An applicant or recipient must first have the option of obtaining the desired information or veri- fication himself or herself without any requirement to use county forms or form letters. If the person does not want to obtain the information, then he or she can request assistance from the county in obtaining the information by signing the county consent form. ( MPP 40-107(a)) In some cases these contacts have had adverse effects on recipients, rang- ing from embarrassment to loss of job. The CW-61 should inform individuals clearly about the choices available when signing the form. Moreover, appli- cants and recipients should be told that the CW-61 is not the only way to provide disability. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” TANF Update – How much Goes to the Poor? In 1996, the Republican Congress passed and then Pres- ident Clinton signed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). This program was sold as a way to self-sufficiency for welfare families; however, it was actually an historic attack on poor families and chil- dren. How was it supposed to help the poor? Benefits were limited to a five (5) year time limit. It also provided for full family termination of benefits for allegedly not obeying welfare bureaucrats. Women who had just given birth had to enroll their infants in day care centers and forced to join millions of others also looking for the same non- existent jobs that migrated to China. Newborns need their moth- ers and breast-feeding is good for babies, but according the President Clinton and the Republicans, poor babies did not deserve this nurturing care because their mothers were forced into the job market too early. Of course having more people looking for work does benefit a certain segment of our society the corporations, like WallMart, etc. More people in the job pool means more people available for lower paying jobs. Mr. Clinton and those who voted for TANF five (5) year limit were hypocrites in that they never voted to limit CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 20, 2008, Issue #08-011 their own public assistance to a five-year limit. Mr. Clin- ton still gets his thousands of dollars in public assistance as a former President, notwithstanding the fact that he is a millionaire. The same is true for all of the Senators and Congresspersons who voted for this TANF bill they are all getting their public assistance in the form of pensions, congressional retirement, etc. States were very excited about having the TANF block grants. They alleged it would give them the flexibility to help poor people. We decided to visit the TANF program ten years later to see how are States helping the poor. In 1996, 84% of the welfare funds were used for payment to families. Ten years later only a meager 29% of the TANF money is used for basic assistance\/paymentgs to families. Where does the money go? The remainder is used for the welfare bureaucracy and to subsidize the general fund of the various states. In California, in the last 10 years TANF has contributed over $10 billion to the General Fund. No won- der States love TANF and the poor hate it. States have harvested billions from the TANF program given the fact that California is the second highest in the country of percentage of the TANF money being used for payments to families. Below is a state-by-state list of percentage of TANF funds used for basic assistance, which is payments to families. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. * Percentage of total TANF funds used for Basic Assistance\/Payments to Families. 1 ARKANSAS 8.11% * 18 S. CAROLINA 20.51% 35 MISSOURI 29.39% 2 OKLAHOMA 8.75% 19 WISCONSIN 20.63% 36 IOWA 30.74% 3 NEW JERSEY 9.08% 20 LOUISIANA 20.70% 37 PENNSYLVANIA 31.10% 4 ILLINOIS 10.66% 21 MINNESOTA 21.16% 38 KENTUCKY 31.44% 5 GEORGIA 12.11% 22 TENNESSEE 22.42% 39 NEW YORK 31.59% 6 IDAHO 12.46% 23 W. VIRGINIA 22.47% 40 NEVADA 32.98% 7 TEXAS 13.42% 24 UTAH 22.79% 41 MASSACHUSETTS 33.88% 8 WYOMING 13.49% 25 S. DAKOTA 22.84% 42 KANSAS 33.92% 9 FLORIDA 14.77% 26 CONNECTICUT 24.39% 43 RHODE ISLAND 35.78% 10 OHIO 15.43% 27 HAWAII 24.86% 44 ARIZONA 37.12% 11 MISSISSIPPI 15.48% 28 DIST.OF COl. 25.08% 45 WASHINGTON 38.19% 12 N. CAROLINA 15.69% 29 INDIANA 25.63% 46 VIRGINIA 39.47% 13 ALABAMA 17.79% 30 DELAWARE 26.90% 47 NEW MEXICO 40.31% 14 MONTANA 18.34% 31 NEW HAMP. 26.94% 48 VERMONT 42.47% 15 MARYLAND 18.56% 32 ALASKA 27.00% 49 CALIFORNIA 45.60% 16 COLORADO 18.66% 33 OREGON 27.20% 50 MAINE 48.80% 17 N . DAKOTA 19.41% 34 MICHIGAN 29.21% TOTAL 28.99% ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 24, 2008, Issue #08-12 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. San Bernardino County’s Apparent Vio- lation of Food Stamp-Expedited Service Rules. Interim Instruction Notice, IIN #08-062, a county policy issuance instrument of San Bernardino County, has instructed its staff to issue a trouble tick- et and call the matter into the so-called Help Center when the computer incorrectly denies expedited ser- vice food stamps. There is no mention of how to make sure that the three-day expedited service food stamp issuance time line is obeyed. DSS Federal Data Reporting and Analysis Bureau Office Moves. The Federal Data Report- ing and Analysis Bureau has moved to 2450 Del Paso Road, Suite 250, M.S. 20-57, Sacramento, CA 95834. The main number is (916) 515-3525. There are three units located at this new address: Data Transmission and Validation Unit headed by Lee Macias, Trend Analysis headed by Trish Rodriguez and Work Partici- pation Rate Unit headed by Karen Kennedy. County 2006 Federal Work Participation Rates (FWPR) Coming Soon. In a June of 2008 meeting with counties, DSS said that, in July, they would be mailing to counties their annual participa- tion rates for 2006. July has come and gone and still no FWPR numbers from DSS; maybe in September we will find out. DSS will be mailing each county a preliminary FWPR to see what they think before it is final. Someday clients will be able to mail their work- ers a preliminary QR-7 before a final version is mailed. Yeah. Nice dreaming. SB 1569 Clients Eligible For Child Care. On July 10, 2008, Sheila Early of DPSS asked DSS if a family receiving CalWORKs under SB 1569, which is a state-only program, are eligible for Stage One Child Care. On July 22, 2008 DSS responded Yes. If a cli- ent is eligible for, and receiving CalWORKs based on the rules in SB 1569, the client may also be eligible for Stage One child care services. Special Rates for Non-Potty Trained Kids OK. On June 17, 2008, Susan West of Monterey County asked DSS if a provider could have a different rate for children between 3-5 who are not potty trained. On July 23, 2008, DSS responded; There is nothing in the regulation that prohibits a provider from establish- ing a special rate for a child who is not potty trained, as long as the provider is charging other members of the public the same established special rates and it does not exceed the regional market rates. Santa Clara County Does Not Process IEVS Hits on Time. Based on a letter from DSS on 6\/13\/08, Will Lightbourne of Santa Clara County was informed that since April 2006, the county had failed to process 4,172 cases per quarter for six con- secutive quarters. Thus, Santa Clara County is failing to inform clients of potential overpayments within the 45-day time lines established by state and federal regulations. Counties Make Errors in Refugee Cash As- sistance Program. DSS periodically reviews the county refugee assistance programs. In a June 13, 2008 letter, Sacramento County was informed that 8 of the 10 case files reviewed were out of compliance with the state and federal rules. In one case, a refugee who was over 60 years old was forced to register for work when he\/she was exempt. Orange County had 11 cases reviewed and in 5 cases there were problems, such as, not providing applicants with RCA rights and responsibilities in their own language. In another case there were 32 notices of action issued and only two (2) were in the language of the RCA recipient. Statistical Fact The law requires that expedited service Food Stamp benefits (ES-FS) be issued in 3 days. These are house- holds in need of emergency assistance for food. They are hungry kids in many cases and need food to eat. During April 1 through June 30, California counties disposed of 162,995 requests for ES-FS. 92,877 of those requests were denied. 70,118 were granted, but 10,138 those found eligible for emergency food as- sistance were issued such food assistance beyond the three-day time line established by law. That is a 14% violation of the law by counties. There are no penal- ties in the law for counties not providing emergency food to hungry kids. In Brief Source: DSS Documents ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 24, 2008, Issue #08-12 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. San Bernardino County’s Apparent Vio- lation of Food Stamp-Expedited Service Rules. Interim Instruction Notice, IIN #08-062, a county policy issuance instrument of San Bernardino County, has instructed its staff to issue a trouble tick- et and call the matter into the so-called Help Center when the computer incorrectly denies expedited ser- vice food stamps. There is no mention of how to make sure that the three-day expedited service food stamp issuance time line is obeyed. DSS Federal Data Reporting and Analysis Bureau Office Moves. The Federal Data Report- ing and Analysis Bureau has moved to 2450 Del Paso Road, Suite 250, M.S. 20-57, Sacramento, CA 95834. The main number is (916) 515-3525. There are three units located at this new address: Data Transmission and Validation Unit headed by Lee Macias, Trend Analysis headed by Trish Rodriguez and Work Partici- pation Rate Unit headed by Karen Kennedy. County 2006 Federal Work Participation Rates (FWPR) Coming Soon. In a June of 2008 meeting with counties, DSS said that, in July, they would be mailing to counties their annual participa- tion rates for 2006. July has come and gone and still no FWPR numbers from DSS; maybe in September we will find out. DSS will be mailing each county a preliminary FWPR to see what they think before it is final. Someday clients will be able to mail their work- ers a preliminary QR-7 before a final version is mailed. Yeah. Nice dreaming. SB 1569 Clients Eligible For Child Care. On July 10, 2008, Sheila Early of DPSS asked DSS if a family receiving CalWORKs under SB 1569, which is a state-only program, are eligible for Stage One Child Care. On July 22, 2008 DSS responded Yes. If a cli- ent is eligible for, and receiving CalWORKs based on the rules in SB 1569, the client may also be eligible for Stage One child care services. Special Rates for Non-Potty Trained Kids OK. On June 17, 2008, Susan West of Monterey County asked DSS if a provider could have a different rate for children between 3-5 who are not potty trained. On July 23, 2008, DSS responded; There is nothing in the regulation that prohibits a provider from establish- ing a special rate for a child who is not potty trained, as long as the provider is charging other members of the public the same established special rates and it does not exceed the regional market rates. Santa Clara County Does Not Process IEVS Hits on Time. Based on a letter from DSS on 6\/13\/08, Will Lightbourne of Santa Clara County was informed that since April 2006, the county had failed to process 4,172 cases per quarter for six con- secutive quarters. Thus, Santa Clara County is failing to inform clients of potential overpayments within the 45-day time lines established by state and federal regulations. Counties Make Errors in Refugee Cash As- sistance Program. DSS periodically reviews the county refugee assistance programs. In a June 13, 2008 letter, Sacramento County was informed that 8 of the 10 case files reviewed were out of compliance with the state and federal rules. In one case, a refugee who was over 60 years old was forced to register for work when he\/she was exempt. Orange County had 11 cases reviewed and in 5 cases there were problems, such as, not providing applicants with RCA rights and responsibilities in their own language. In another case there were 32 notices of action issued and only two (2) were in the language of the RCA recipient. Statistical Fact The law requires that expedited service Food Stamp benefits (ES-FS) be issued in 3 days. These are house- holds in need of emergency assistance for food. They are hungry kids in many cases and need food to eat. During April 1 through June 30, California counties disposed of 162,995 requests for ES-FS. 92,877 of those requests were denied. 70,118 were granted, but 10,138 those found eligible for emergency food as- sistance were issued such food assistance beyond the three-day time line established by law. That is a 14% violation of the law by counties. There are no penal- ties in the law for counties not providing emergency food to hungry kids. In Brief Source: DSS Documents ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 September 28, 2008, Issue #08-16 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. In Brief DSS to move. DSS located at 744 P Street will be moving next door to 714 P Street in mid-October. The 714 P Street building has housed the Department of Health Ser- vices which has relocated to 15th Street and Capitol Ave. AB 1808 second report delayed. AB 1808 man- dating that DSS submit a second report regarding how to meet the federal participation rates has been delayed. DSS has transmitted a letter informing the Legislature of this de- lay. Stay tune. More people working, but no increase in child care. DSS estimates staff is working on the state budget for 2009-2010. In formulating their estimates they have noticed the number of CalWORKs recipients who are working has increased, while the number of families receiving child care has not increased. County justification was that the increase could be two-parent families, etc. The real reason is that child care is not accessible. There are a number of barriers to child care called, Trustline, a fingerprinting requirement for providers before they get paid. Thus, the word is out that the welfare department may not pay for child care. We are concerned that as a result of this Trustline, some children may be left home alone. Child care agencies also hassle exempt providers who want to do child care for less than minimum wage. These kinds of Trustline and refusal to pay retroactive child care legislation have erected barriers to de- prive families access to child care. When would a drug felon convicted after 12\/31\/97 ever be eligible for cash aid again? This is a question posed by a county. DSS issued a policy interpre- tation, dated July 14, 2008, stating that per MPP 40-034, ACL 04-59 and ACIN I-71-99 such person would only be eligible for cash aid again if their record has been ex- punged or the charge has been reduced to a misdemeanor. Vendor\/voucher problems in homeless assistance and WtW sanctions- Some counties have been using ven- dor\/voucher payments for issuing permanent homeless as- sistance directly to landlords and in cases where the family has been in sanction for more than three months. Counties have been in violation of certain IRS rules for a long time. Counties have been chronically violating the IRS Code that requires counties to request a Taxpayer Identification N um- ber (TIN) before issuing rent payments in excess of $600 a year. According to DSS, IRS regulations also provide that rents are subject to a 28% withholding when there is a miss- ing TIN. Check your county to make sure your county is not violating the IRS laws. AB 98 Subsidized Employment Reporting form. DSS is going to publish a reporting form for counties to report AB 98 subsidized Employment Claimed Under AB 98. This is a form regarding a program that was added to the statute in 2007. See W&IC 11322.63. Under this program, the state would reimburse counties 50% of the wages paid to recipients in subsidized employment outside of the county single allocation. The single allocation is the amount of money each county receives annually to operate their WtW program. Yolo County no longer eligible for refugee So- cial Services (RSS) Money. On August 28, 2008, DSS has informed Yolo County that they are no longer eligible for RSS money because of the county’s decreased number of new refugee arrivals. However, the county does not have to return the money they received for 2007-2008 that has not been spent. They have until September 30, 2009 to find a way to spend that money. California asks for $13.6 million for refugee pro- grams in FY 2009. On August 20, 2008, DSS informed HHS that California would need $13,646,996 for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 to serve 1,900 persons and 63 unaccom- panied minors. There are only 23 unaccompanied minors being served today, but California has decided to open an- other site in Southern California to download $4,216.25 for each minor. This includes $1,865 that would be provided to the foster care parents taking care of each unaccompanied minor. $2,351 would be going to people other than the fos- ter care parent. Who may that be? CWD Client Abuse Report LA DPSS Client Abuse: Ms. T.K. mailed a letter to her worker asking to close her case because she was being harassed by welfare fraud workers. She then changed her mind and wanted to continue to receive her cash aid. She tried to reach her worker to no avail before the end of the month. She then filed for a state hearing before the end of the month and is getting aid paid pending. DPSS is now insisting that the termina- tion of CalWORKs should go into effect, even if she changed her mind, and if she wants CalWORKs she needs to reapply. DPSS is trying to saddle her with an Aid Paid Pending overpayment. ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/402): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 October 29, 2008 Issue #08-20 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Food Stamp Expedited Service in California On July 21, 2006, legal services attorneys Julie Aguilar, Jodie Berger and Bill Kennedy of LSNC, and Grace Gal- ligher of CCWRO filed a CCP 1085 Writ of Mandate action against the Department of Social Services and the Sacramento County Welfare Department (DHA) for not issuing expedited service food stamp benefits on time as required by MPP 63- 301.5. Prior to filing the litigation LSNC and CCWRO had mailed several letter complaining about the fact that DHA is not meeting the state law mandating that food stamp expe- dited service (FS-ES) benefits be issued in three days. Expedited Services for Food Stamps is available to any household who at the time of application: (1) has less than $150 of regular income; (1) less than $100 in liquid resourc- es; (3) who combined income and resources is less than their monthly rent and utility costs. Such households are entitled to food stamp benefits within three (3) calendar days. See State Regulation MPP 63-301.5. Each time DHA got a letter they would write and say that they going to take certain measures that never resulted in long-term compliance with the law. At the insistence of the eligible clients and the primary local charity known as Sacramento Loaves and Fishes, a law suit was filed. After the lawsuit DHA started to take effective and mean- ingful steps to resolve this problem. The county started to schedule appointments for FS-ES households the next working day and issuing ES. FS-ES is identified at the window. There are some applica- tion assistants who help the applicants with their applications. Sacramento County has also decided to get new scheduling software to meet the FS-ES and CalWORKs immediate need standards. At this time Sacramento is barely at 95%. The major force behind this lawsuit was the lead attorney Julie Aguilar with the invaluable support of Jodie Berger and Grace Galligher. DSS published quarterly reports showing how each county and the state are meeting the FS-ES standards as required by state law. Some of the large counties that are way out of compliance and crying for litigation are Alameda, Los An- geles, Sonoma, Tulare, Fresno, Santa Clara, and the State of California. CCWRO is willing to work with any Legal Services Of- fice contemplating doing litigation to bring their county into compliance and assure that people do not suffer from hunger due to county violation of state law. The data can be found at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG354.htm. The table below reveal the percentage of households whose FS-ES benefits for Public Assistance households were issued beyond the three (3) day time frame for timely issuance of FS-ES ben- efits. January – April, 2008 Statewide 40.08% Alameda 75.59% Humboldt 80.00% Shasta 74.42% Sonoma 73.68% Los Angeles 61.08% Solano 60.67% Tulare 56.92% Santa Barb. 50.00% Fresno 49.32% San Luis Ob 48.00% San Fran. 47.83% Yolo 47.37% Santa Clara 46.05% Imperial 41.38% Orange 39.29% Santa Cruz 38.33% Placer 35.14% October-December, 2007 Statewide 42.92% Alameda 69.59% Humboldt 90.00% Los Angeles 64.01% Tulare 61.68% Solano 60.00% Sonoma 58.49% Placer 56.76% Santa Clara 47.67% Fresno 45.95% Santa Barbara 40.00% San Mateo 37.93% Contra Costa 37.86% Imperial 37.50% Orange 35.85% Shasta 31.25% San Luis Ob. 31.03% Sacramento 30.86% April-June, 2008 Statewide 36% Shasta 90% Sonoma 84% Alameda 74% Imperial 67% Los Angeles 62% Solano 57% Tulare 53% Nevada 50% Santa Barbara 50% Santa Cruz 49% Santa Clara 44% San Luis Ob. 41% Fresno 40% San Francisco 38% Yolo 38% San Mateo 36% July-September, 2007 Statewide 47.65% Alameda 71.65% Sonoma 80.43% Humboldt 80.00% Tulare 69.16% Los Angeles 68.67% Solano 59.78% Imperial 54.24% Kings 53.33% Sacramento 50.89% Placer 46.84% Yolo 46.15% Contra Costa 42.64% Santa Barbara 40.00% Orange 38.30% Santa Clara 37.76% Shasta 36.84% Fresno 33.71% San Luis Ob. 33.33% San Mateo 30.77% ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 November 24, 2008, Issue #08-23 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Ser- vices, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance & Refugee (RCA)\/Immigrant Eligibility. By Kevin Aslanian & Grace Galligher. Contributing editors Stephen Goldberg & Diane Aslanian. In Brief l Santa Clara County imposes an IPV penalty for an overpayments caused by the county. – On 6-4-08 Santa Clara County issued a Notice of Action (NOA) against Ms. E.R. stating that she cannot get food stamps for three months due to an alleged Intentional Program Violation (IPV) act. It turns out that CalWIN created the IPV. The overissuance was a combined agency error and inadvertent household error. The question is, how can a computer create an IPV? l Los Angeles Client Sanction for Working and County Won’t Pay APP – Los Angeles County Appeals Representative Rutha Om informed us that if Ms. B003501, who filed for a state hear- ing before the effective date of the GAIN sanc- tion, will still be sanctioned, unless she cooper- ates with the welfare department. The reason she is being sanctioned is because she did not keep her 8:30 am appointment with GAIN because she was working and did not get money for transpor- tation. It appears that Los Angeles County DPSS does not believe in Due Process of Law and op- erates a program that forces CalWORKs recipi- ents to show up at the welfare department rather than their job. GAIN is the LA version of WtW pro- gram. l HHS Rumored Not to Issue Final Regula- tions on Caseload Reduction Credit Proposed Regulations. The Notice of Proposed Rulemak- ing in the Federal Register on August 8, 2008 (73 FR 46230-32) announced that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be re- pealing 45 CFR 261.43 (b). This section pertains to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families excess maintenance-of-effort provision (MOE). Caseload Reduction Credit is where states take credit for spending money that doesn’t go directly to families on welfare, eg. grants to college stu- dents and other gummicks used by states. HHS has stated that they would not be filing a final rule before January 20, 2009 and would let the Obama Administration decide faith of these regu- lations. Thus, states can continue to claim they are spending money on the poor when they are not. Stay tuned for further developments. Study Time As a WtW Activity & It Applies To SIPs California is now considering homework called study time as a Welfare-to-Work activity because it is al- lowable under federal law. According to DSS, study time does not apply to stu- dents going to school as a self-initiated program (SIP). DSS contends that the current statute prevents the State from counting study hours for SIPs. Thus, many SIPs who would otherwise meet the federal work par- ticipation rates (WPR), are not counted as meeting the federal participation rates. Thus, DSS policy handi- caps the WPR rates. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11325.23. (a) (3)(C) states: If participation in educational or vocational train- ing, as determined by the number of hours required for classroom, laboratory, or internship activities, is not at least 32 hours, the county shall require concur- rent participation in work activities pursuant to sub- divisions (a) to (j), inclusive, of Section 11322.6 and Section 11325.22. This section does not prohibit DSS from counting study time of SIPs. It simply states that the class- room, laboratory, or internship activities shall add up to 32 hours. In fact study time is authorized under W&IC 11322.6(r) that states: Other activities necessary to assist an individual in obtaining unsubsidized employment. Study time qualifies as an other activity . State law authorizes unsupervised or supervised study time for SIPs in California. Unsupervised study time is available for 1 hour for each hour of class room time. Supervised study time includes time spent with a tutor or studying under the supervision of the educational institution. The number of hours for supervised study time is determined by the educational institution. Study time can potentially increase the California work participation rate more than the WINS program that was recently enacted by the State Legislature. Tom Daschle Selected as Secretary of Health and Human Services Barack Obama has chosen former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tom Daschle will also wear another hat as White House Health Czar, in charge of getting Obama’s health care reform enacted into law. Below is a brief background on Daschle on Welfare. Twice, Daschle voted against the original TANF leg- islation that changed the AFDC program into the TANF block grant. On the third vote, Daschle voted in favor of the TANF legislation. Daschle voted in favor of eliminating the food stamps block grant. Daschle opposed a procedural motion that encour- aged President Clinton to allow punitive waivers which the States wanted to implement pursuant to TANF. USDA ALLOWS CALIFORNIA TO DENY FOOD STAMP BENEFITS TO ABOUT 50% OF THE ABLE-BODIED ADULTS California received a statewide waiver of the ABAWDS requirements that limits food stamp ben- efits to 3 months out of any 36-month period. Under the waiver, the 3-month time limit would not apply to able-bodied adults who are nutritionally challenged. However, about 50% of California’s able bodied adults may not be able to benefit from this waiver because the counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Or- ange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura do not believe in helping the nutritionally challenged hu- man beings in their community. San Diego has the lowest food stamp participation rates in the United States. We have been informed by reliable sources that these counties are going to go to their Board of Supervi- sors and back out of the waiver. Many of these poor people would have to depend on the already over burdened food banks in their community or eat out of garbage cans. DSS requested a statewide waiver of the ABAWDS requirements pursuant to 7 CFR 273.24(f)(3)(i),(ii) ,(iii) because the State of California has qualified for extended unemployment insurance benefits, thus, the state is eligible for an ABAWDS waiver. The official waiver provides for no conditions. This ABAWDS waiver was approved by the FNS na- tional office on October 14, 2008. The regional office transmitted this waiver to DSS on 10-28- 08. The transmittal of this statewide waiver of the ABAWDS waiver, contrary to the waiver approved by the national office, allows the state to allow cer- tain counties not to participate in this waiver. There is a statewide administration of the Food Stamp program mandate in the federal regulations. If California wanted a waiver for 50% of the State and not for the whole state, then they should have filed a 52 county application for a waiver and not the statewide waiver. Finally, we wonder who is in charge? The National Office approves a statewide waiver and then the regional office does a transmittal that changes the scope of the waiver by making it possible for 50% of the California’s able-bodied adults to not benefit from the waiver. Why does the waiver application go to the National Office? California is a Needy State Federal TANF provides a $1.7 billion TANF contin- gency fund for needy states. A needy state is defined as one whose average unemployment rate for the most recent three month period is at least 6.5% or has a high food stamp participation rate. After spending 100% of the Maintenance of Need, California would be eligible to download 20% of state federal TANF block grant, which is about $700 million. However, in addition to the 100% MOE match, the State would have to match the $700 million, dollar for dollar. So far, California has to put up 80% of the $3.7 billion TANF Block grant as a MOE. HOW TO DEFINE A NEEDY STATE? There is talk to change the definition of a needy state. A needy state should be redefined to mean (1) any state that meets the unemployment standard and\/ or the food stamp standard; (2) spends all of it’s TANF funds on actual TANF recipients, and (3) at least 70% of the TANF funds is paid in the form of payments to families should qualify as a needy state. All other states should be known as Greedy States who take from the poor to balance their general funds like California. The Outrage 2008 – For 2008-2009 California budget appropriated $5.2 billion of the $6.6 billion TANF allocation for welfare families and used the remaining $1.4 billion in the general fund in or- der to balance the State budget. How about needy families? CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – 08-23 – November 24, 2008, Page 2 ”