Documents – Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.

Folder Documents

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-07.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1786 downloads

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-07.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-06 February 19, 2002 HEADLINES – IN BRIEF — PROPOSED STATE ASSEMBLY BUDGET HEARING DATED — TANF UPDATE – — CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK –STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – _______________________________________________________ – IN BRIEF — Counties are very concerned with the State’s reduction in administrative costs. The days when counties could use eligibility workers to do unannounced KGB type home vis- its terrorizing poor women with children are coming to an end hopefully. Many commu- nity based organizations are also concerned about the cutbacks because counties are planning to do away with contracts they had with community based organizations. How- ever, the caseload has gone down by 50%, thus the administrative costs should also be going down. –The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) is interested in revising the WtW25 report to capture information relative to welfare to work program progress and outcomes. They believe that the current reporting system does not capture enough infor- mation regarding outcomes of the welfare to work program. — DSS is going to recover the interest that county welfare departments have made on in- centive funds received from DSS. As we reported in #2002-06, the State has been in- formed by the federal government that advancing money to counties in the form of incen- tive payments is a violation of the Federal Cash Management Act and now the State is planning to recover these overpayments from the county quarterly reimbursements. This has caused concern by counties that such recovery of an overpayment can hurt their cash flow. Well, guess how a welfare mom living on $600 a month feels when the counties takes away %5 of the meager grants for mistakes that the county made? _______________________________________________________ — PROPOSED STATE ASSEMBLY BUDGET HEARING DATED All hearings are held in Room 444, which is in the old building of the capitol at 1:30 P.M., or soon thereafter. Often the hearings start after the floor session is over. To get more information you can call CCWRO or the Committee at Phone: (916) 319-2046 2 Fax: (916) 322-9208 March 13 – Health and Human Services Agency Data Center, Department of Social Services (Automation) March 20 – Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing and Adult Pro- grams (IHSS, Special Circumstances, Adult Protective Services, Cash Assistance Pro- gram for Immigrants), DSS Food Programs April 3 – Department of Child Support Services. April 10-Department of Community Services and Development, Department of Social Services (Child Welfare, Foster Care, Adoptions) April 24-Department of Social Services (CalWORKs program), California Department of Education (Child Care) May 8-Open Issues May 14 -24 May Revise Subcommittee Members Committee Member Gil Cedillo, Chair Dem-46 (916) 319-2046 Keith Richman Rep-38 (916) 319-2038 Assemblymem- [email protected] Darrell Steinberg Dem-9 (916) 319-2009 Assemblymem- [email protected] Samuel M. Aanestad Rep-3 (916) 319-2003 Assemblymem- [email protected] Dion Aroner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Assemblymem- [email protected] Tony Cardenas, Dem. Alternate Dem-39 (916) 319-2039 Assemblymem- [email protected] Juan Vargas, Dem. Alternate Dem-79 (916) 319-2079 Assemblymem- [email protected] George Runner, Rep. Alternate Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymem- [email protected] 3 _______________________________________________________ — TANF UPDATE – FOOD STAMP REAUTHROIZATION PASSES SENATE On 2\/13\/02 the United States Senate passed Senate Bill 1731 by a vote of 58-40 authoriz- ing $8.9 billion for nutrition programs for 10 years, including food stamps. The House bill, H.R. 2646 authorizes $3.6 billion for 10 years. The next step is the convening of a conference committee to work out the differences be- tween the Senate and the House. The Senate bill has more money, and it includes the restoration of food stamp benefits for immigrants and other positive provisions. A more detailed report will be in our next re- port. -=-=-=-=- TANF ACTION- The National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support (NCJIS), a network of over 1000 grassroots organizations from across the country organizing to impact federal legislation from a low-income perspective, is getting ready for the TANF Campaign Roll-Out in Washington, DC. NYC-based organizing groups such as Community Voices Heard (CVH), Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and Make the Road by Walking (MTRBW) are all organizing buses of members to join with others from across the coun- try to push the federal debate in the direction low-income people want it to go. It’s time for our federal representatives to hear straight from the people who their policies impact…the real experts on welfare reform, welfare recipients! We’re excited about the accountability session, march, and action that we’re organizing in DC for Tuesday, March 5th and we’d like you to join us! WHO? Low-income Individuals & Allies WHAT? Accountability Session, March & Action To Influence Federal TANF Reauthorization Debate WHEN? Tuesday, March 5th, 2002 Buses leave NYC at 6AM and return around 10PM WHERE? CVH is Planning to Send Two-Three Buses to DC: One will leave from the Bronx, One from East Harlem (the CVH Office), and One from a to-be-announced location. [Please call CVH to find out exact locations.] 4 WHY? We will be demanding and marching for: ** A suspension of time limits for people complying! ** An end to workfare for mothers with young kids! ** Increased education & training, not workfare! ** Public jobs for people on welfare! …and more… INFO\/TKTS? Call Community Voices Heard 212-860-6001 If you, members\/clients that you have contact with, or other people you know aligned with our cause, would like to join us for a DAY OF ACTION…CALL NOW TO RE- SERVE A BUS SEAT or find out more information! To help us confirm numbers and cover costs, tickets cost: $10.00 for low-income individuals, $ 3.00 for children, and $25.00 for non-low-income individuals Included in the price is: your seat on the bus, snacks & meals, a CVH cap and more! Hope you’ll join groups from all around the country to make a stand and move the de- bate! Sondra Youdelman, Public Policy Coordinator, Community Voices Heard 170 East 116th Street, Suite #1E, New York, New York 10029 Tel. 212-860-6001 x 108 Fax 212-996-9481 – Email [email protected] Web www.cvhaction.org ___________________________________________________________________ NEW ANNUAL FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES – 2002 (0ther than Hawaii and Alaska) Famly Size 100% 125% 1- $8,860 $11,075 2 11,940 14,925 3 15,020 18,775 4 18,100 22,625 5 21,180 26,475 6 24,260 30,325 7 27,340 34,175 8 30,420 38,025 5 ______________________________________________________ STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – _______________________________________________________ CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK Mr. 2001032221, was forced to sign a release of information form so San Bernardino County could contact his child’s school and verify attendance. This is a blatant violation of MPP 19-007.11 that reads: 19-007.1 Collateral Contacts in AFDC and APSB 19-007.11 Permission If the applicant or recipient does not wish the county to contact a private or public source in order to determine eligibility, the applicant or recipient shall have the op- portunity to obtain the desired information or verification himself or herself. It appears that the county wants to make sure that school administrators know who is on welfare and who is not. Moreover, when Mr. 2001032221 started getting SSI, San Bernardino County for five months did not delete him from the budget. Thus, because the incompetence of San Bernardino County, Mr. 2001032221 was overpaid. The county proposed to collect this overpayment from the children’s share of the CalWORKs grant. Mr. 2001032221 filed for a hearing seeking relief under equitable estoppel because the county erred and now his family is being punished for the county’s incompetence. But as we have heard, \”government could do not wrong\”, even though the county was fully aware that Mr. 2001032221 was getting SSI and was not entitle to a CalWORKs grant, not only did San Bernardino ignorantly overpay Mr. 2001032221 in June, but they did the same stupid thing in July, August, September and October of 2001. The decision holds that the \”county’s error was not egregious or grossly negligent, and was discovered in a reasonable period of time. \” So now Mr. 2001032221 has to pay this money back from his children’s CalWORKs grant, which is less than 75% of the poverty level. Now that is egregious to say the least. But then they call that Justice DSS style. _____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. 6 Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacra- mento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-08.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1808 downloads

Download (pdf, 91 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-07.pdf

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-09.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1962 downloads

Download (pdf, 103 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-09.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-09 March 5, 2002 HEADLINES — — CHILD SUPPORT AND TANF TIME LIMITS – IN BRIEF — STATE BUDGET ISSUES — STATE BUDGET – LEGISLATIVE ANALYST PROPOSES CALWORKS CUTBACKS — TANF UPDATE – — CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK –STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – WT. SANCTIONS VERSUS JOBS THAT RE- SULTED IN TERMINATION OF CALWORKS BENEFITS _______________________________________________________ — CHILD SUPPORT AND TANF TIME LIMITS The law provides that if a family received child support payment during any month that covered their CalWORKs payment, then that month is not counted as one of the 60 months. Soon, certain parents will be time-limited. Before they are taken off aid, the county is re- quired to determine how many months the family received child support payments that covered their CalWORKs payment. California State Department of Social Services (CDSS) has offered the counties three op- tions for deleting months from the 60-month time limits: OPTION #1 – Look at the average payment for 12 months divided into child support paid to decide how many months to \”un-tick\”; OPTION #2 – Use actual aid payments to determine how cumulative child support would un-tick months; OPTION #3 – Look at each month individually to determine if child support paid for that month repaid the entire cash aid payment; if so, that month would be un-ticked. 2 The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) states that \”There is some question about the ability of counties to look at individual months of child support paid, especially considering payments of arrearages. This whole process could be extremely costly to ad- minister.\” _______________________________________________________ –IN BRIEF — Previously, we reported that doctors were charging for completing welfare de- partment forms. If you have a client who is being charged by a doctor for the completion of medical forms, the doctors can contact 1-800-541-5555. We would also encourage you to file for a fair hearing, because the county is mandated to pay for the cost of documen- tation or information that the county is seeking to establish eligibility. — The Department of Health Services (DHS) is proposing a new inter-county- transfer (ITC) process for CalWORKs-based Medi-Cal cases. Under the proposed revised ITC process, when someone receiving CalWORKs moves to another county, there will be a separate ITC process. Under this process, if the receiving county does not pick up the case, then the case will go into \”38\” status until the next redetermination date. — DHS did not have an answer on how they would handle managed care ITC cases. _____________________________________________________ — STATE BUDGET ISSUES — The governor’s budget denies CalWORKs recipients a COLA for 02-03 for a sav- ings of $112 million; — The budget assumes that California will spend all TANF funds, except for $40 million during 2002-2003. In addition, the TANF money that was meant to meet the basic sur- vival needs of impoverished families of California, will be transferred over to the Social Services Block Grant in the amount of $373 million. This money is used for foster care programs and other social worker type programs. Why can’t $112 million of that money be towards a COLA for CalWORKs families? — The budget uses over $200 million in TANF money to instead pay for emergency shelters for children removed from their homes by social workers. Again, why can’t $112 million of that money be used to provide a COLA to CalWORKs families? –California counties, who are famous for imposing sanctions on 26% of unduplicated participants, while finding employment for only 8% of the participants during October, 2001 (see statistical report below), have made a claim for $1.2 billion in so-called \”county performance incentives\”. These incentives are: (1) exits due to employment; (2) increased earnings; and (3) providing grant diversion to applicants. There is no verifica- tion that the counties actually had anything to do with these performances, but because the performers were CalWORKs recipients, not county bureaucrats, the county bureau- crats get the \”incentive payments\” while the CalWORKs recipients get the sanctions and 3 the time limits. The governor’s budget proposes to redirect $189 million to CalWORKs grants, services and administration. Again, we ask, why can’t $112 million of that money be used for a COLA for CalWORKs families? _________________________________________________________ STATE BUDGET – Legislative Analyst Proposes CalWORKs Cutbacks The Governor puts the budget forth every year. Within days, the Senate and Assembly introduce what are called budget bills. In late February, the Legislative Analyst office publishes a document called Budget Analysis. To get a copy of this publication go to: http:\/\/www.lao.ca.gov\/ -Benefit Cut #1 – Eliminate CalWORKs Grant Payment Under $150 The AOL recommends the elimination of CalWORKs grant payments under $150. The AOL alleges that this will preserve their time on aid and will save $37 million annually. The AOL also argues that this will be offset by the same families receiving $68 addi- tional Food Stamp benefits. DISADVANTAGES OF THIS PROPOSAL- — Under this proposal the transitional child care benefits will end sooner and so will Medi-Cal transitional benefits. — Under this proposal, the number of families meeting the federal participation rates will go down. All of the families receiving CalWORKs benefits under $150 are meeting the federal participation rates. –The proposal does not give CalWORKs participants the option of going off aid to pre- serve their time limits, rather kicks them off aid. CCWRO POSITION- Oppose This proposal would hurt CalWORKs families. CalWORKs recipients can go off aid anytime they wish to preserve their time limits. It will also cause California not to meet the federal time limits. Benefit Cut #2 – Reinstate Senior Parent Deeming This proposal would reinstate the old policy where the senior parents’ income was deemed to be available to the minor parent, even if it was not actually available. CCWRO POSITION – Oppose This proposal would force senior parents to support the minor parents’ child who is sup- pose to be supported through child support payments. Thus, because the government is not able to collect child support, they will deem the senior parents income available to the 4 minor parents’ child, for whom the senior parent has no liability to support. For example, Mary has a child named Barry. Barry’s father is Gary. Mary does not have a father, but her mother Alice has a job and is working. Gary is not paying child support, Gary has a job, but the child support agency has not found time to collect child support from Gary. Thus Mary is forced to apply for CalWORKs. Currently, if Mary lives with Alice, she will receive welfare benefits for Barry. Under the AOL proposal Mary will be denied benefits, because Alice has income, thus, Alice’s income is assumed to be available not only for the support of Mary, but also for Barry, who is Gary’s responsibility, not Mary’s. This change will effect over 3,000 families in California. The savings is estimated at $11 million. CCWRO believes that rather than going after Alice to support Barry – Government should do it’s job and collect the child support from Gary, rather than forcing Alice to support Barry. -Counties Getting Less Services\/Administration Money The Governor’s budget addresses the issues of the declining amount of money for WtW services. The WtW program was designed to have all nonexempt persons participate in some WtW activity. The so-called welfare advocates agreed to this concept in 1998. CCWRO opposed this because it would enhance the number of families being sanctioned ( it is now at 26%) and once the caseload goes up, more money will be needed for pay- ments to families. Where would the money come from? This is the first year that the caseload has started to increase. This problem has barely surfaced. The caseload has not gone back to what is was in 1995. The budget proposes that each county be given a single allocation, which will be the same amount of money they got in 2001-2002 for WtW services, drug and alcohol and juvenile facilities. With the single allocation, each county can decide to how spend this money. _______________________________________________ — TANF UPDATE – George Bush’s proposal for TANF reauthorization would eliminate the requirement that unpaid labor be performed at minimum wage ______________________________________________________ STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – WtW Sanctions Versus Jobs That Resulted in Termina- tion of CalWORKs Benefits The alleged purpose of the CalWORKs program is to make families self-sufficient. How is this measured? Well, one way is to look at the WtW 25 reports. This report shows how many unduplicated participants were in WtW in each county, how many were sanctioned 5 and how many participants obtained employment that resulted in termination of Cal- WORKs benefits. The following is the percentage of participants who obtained jobs in October, 2001, that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits. Alpine 0% Plumas 0% Sierra 0% Imperial 2% Yuba 2% San Benito 2% Trinity 3% Butte 3% San Mateo 4% Santa Clara 4% Humboldt 4% Monterey 4% Lake 4% Sutter 4% Colusa 4% Siskiyou 4% San Joaquin 4% Nevada 5% Napa 5% San Francisco 5% Sacramento 5% Stanislaus 5% Alameda 5% Del Norte 6% Shasta 6% Kern 6% Mendocino 6% Ventura 6% Mariposa 6% Glenn 6% Tehama 7% San Bernardino 7% Kings 7% Lassen 7% El Dorado 7% Orange 8% Madera 8% Marin 8% Merced 8% Santa Cruz 8% Los Angeles 9% Tuolumne 9% San Diego 9% Inyo 10% Calaveras 11% Santa Barbara 11% Riverside 11% Tulare 11% Sonoma 12% Fresno 12% Amador 12% Contra Costa 13% San Luis Obispo 13% Yolo 15% Modoc 15% Solano 16% Placer 17% Mono 19% While statewide only 8% of the participants obtained employment that resulted in termi- nation of CalWORKs benefits, a whopping 26% were sanctioned during October, 2001. Below is a county-by-county table showing the percentage of persons sanctioned versus the percentage of persons who obtained employment that resulted in termination of cash aid. County Jobs Sanctions Alameda 5% 36% Alpine 0% 20% Amador 12% 5% Butte 3% 12% Calaveras 11% 60% Colusa 4% 9% Contra Costa 13% 31% Del Norte 6% 13% El Dorado 7% 4% Fresno 12% 62% Glenn 6% 47% Humboldt 4% 23% Imperial 2% 6% Inyo 10% 28% Kern 6% 23% Kings 7% 14% Lake 4% 25% Lassen 7% 6% Los Angeles 9% 31% Madera 8% 16% Marin 8% 35% Mariposa 6% 34% Mendocino 6% 37% Merced 8% 65% Modoc 15% 2% Mono 19% 15% Monterey 4% 19% Napa 5% 20% Nevada 5% 15% Orange 8% 10% Placer 17% 23% 6 Plumas 0% 23% Riverside 11% 34% Sacramento 5% 5% San Benito 2% 7% San Bernardino 7% 17% San Diego 9% 36% San Francisco 5% 12% San Joaquin 4% 44% San Luis Obispo 13% 30% San Mateo 4% 15% Santa Barbara 11% 24% Santa Clara 4% 12% Santa Cruz 8% 9% Shasta 6% 22% Sierra 0% 0% Siskiyou 4% 17% Solano 16% 13% Sonoma 12% 31% Stanislaus 5% 15% Sutter 4% 27% Tehama 7% 32% Trinity 3% 39% Tulare 11% 24% Tuolumne 9% 8% Ventura 6% 19% Yolo 15% 21% Yuba 2% 4% Statewide 8% 26% _____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacra- mento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-10.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 2251 downloads

Download (pdf, 113 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-10.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-10 March 13, 2002 HEADLINES –IN BRIEF — DSS NEWS — DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES NEW ALL COUNTY LETTERS — TANF UPDATE — CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK –STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – OCTOBER, 2001 TRANSPORTATION SUP- PORTIVE SERVICES RECEIVED BY CALWORKS RECIPIENTS ________________________ IN BRIEF Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director of Welfare Programs of DSS has formed a work group of persons appointed by Legal Services Project Directors and others to work on welfare issues. The first meeting is scheduled for 3\/22\/02 @ 1:30-3:30 P.M. _________________________ DSS NEWS — NEW ALL COUNTY LETTERS (ACLS) ACL 02-20 (February 25, 2002) – Instructions On Remedies Related To Improper County Policies Regarding California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Cal- WORKs) Welfare-To-Work (WTW) Program Assignments ACL 02-21 (February 25, 2002) – Changes To August 1, 2001, Recipient Claim Estab- lishment And Collection Standards- Effective January 14, 2002, And Clarification Of LOMELI V. SAENZ Court Case ACL 02-22 (February 25, 2002) – California Food Assistance Program, Effective October 1, 2001 ACL 02-23 (March 1, 2002) – Direct Deposit Of Public Assistance Benefits -NEW ALL COUNTY INFORMATION NOTICES 2 ACIN I-13-02 (February 20, 2002) – State Minimum Wage Increase And FSET Participa- tion Requirements ACIN I-14-02 (February 27, 2002) -The Treatment Of Child Support Arrearages In The Food Stamp Program ACIN I-16-02 (March 6, 2002) – Transmittal Of New Forms For Learning Disabilities Screening And Evaluation In The California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work (WTW) Program DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES NEW ALL COUNTY LETTERS ACWDL 02-11 (March 4, 2002) Medi-Cal Liaison List for the Disability Quarterly Status Report and Disability Issues ACWDL 02-12 (March 4, 2002) – Presumptive Eligibility (PE) Program ACWDL 02-13 (March 5, 2002) -New Federal Poverty Levels, Effective April 1, 2002 ACWDL 02-14 (March 8, 2002) – Questions and Answers Regarding Continuous Eligi- bility for Children _______________________________ \uf06e EMERGENCY REGULATION PROPOSED EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OAL ON: 03\/12\/02 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES TOPIC: Interstate Cases SECTION AFFECTED: California Code of Regulations, (CCR) Title 22, and Sections 110250 – 117600 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is 03\/18\/2002 OAL DECISION DUE: no later than 03\/22\/2002 AGENCY CONTACT: (916) 464-5087 _______________________________________________ TANF UPDATE The following is a memo from Bob Erlenbusch regarding TANF \”3\/12\/02 FROM: Bob Erlenbusch RE: Rep Herger position on TANF Reauthorization As you may know, the House Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on human resources held a hearing on TANF reauthorization yesterday. 3 The Senate Finance Committee has its hearing this morning (10 am) and the full House Ways and Means Committee has its hearing at 2:30 today (March 12, 1100 Long- worth Bldg). Herger Wants To Increase Numbers Working On Welfare House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Wally Herger, R- Calif., said Monday he wants to increase the percentage of welfare recipients who are working as part of this year’s welfare program reauthorization. Currently, 58 percent of people on the dole are not working at all, 25 percent are working up to 30 hours per week, and 17 percent are working more than 30 percent, Herger said, citing HHS data. Herger said he supports President Bush’s proposal for welfare program reauthorization to increase to 70 percent the welfare beneficiaries that states must have working. Bush has proposed increasing from 30 to 40 hours the number of hours a week that welfare re- cipients must work, while allowing them to spend 16 hours of that time in educational activities. Herger said he hopes that upcoming hearings will uncover ideas for increasing work activity. The subcommittee chairman said his goal is to produce a bill by April, then pass it through the full Ways and Means Committee and have it on the House floor for a vote by May. Herger said he hoped that a bill would get bipartisan support, but Republicans would not sit down with Democrats to write the legislation. He said he would include some De- mocratic ideas, but then he criticized some of the main components of a bill introduced recently by committee Democrats led by Rep. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md. Herger distributed to reporters a chart arguing that the Democratic bill would raise welfare spending by an estimated $30 billion to $40 billion over five years and dilute the \”successful work first\” approach of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Although Herger had told National Journal that he did not see any need to increase the state block grant funding child care, he said Monday that he was open to the possibility. Cardin proposed tripling the current block grant money for child care.\” ______________________________________________________ STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – WtW Transportation for October, 2001 Last week we revealed that more people are being sanctioned, than the number of indi- viduals who gets jobs that make them self-sufficient. This week we, again, expose the highway robbery of county welfare departments against WtW participants- robbing them of their transportation supportive services. If you think for a minute that the welfare fraud investigators will be checking this out, don’t hold your breath. It is not a crime to rob welfare recipients by welfare bureaucrats in California. 4 A classic comment was from Ms. Abbott, a CalWORKs recipient, who said \”What about equal justice? Why is it that when we are overpaid $400 it is a felony, but when the wel- fare workers steal over $400 from us, we can’t even get our money?\” She is absolutely right. Modoc County and Plumas county do not pay transportation – period. Stanislaus County, a large county, could only pay 3% of the participant’s transportation. This is about 97% rate of fraudulently denying benefits to WtW participants by Stanislaus County welfare bureaucrats. Napa County, which was one of the first counties to embrace welfare work programs, is unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to about 96% of the WtW partici- pants. The top 10 counties who are not paying transportation are: Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Napa, Imperial, Ventura, Sutter, San Mateo, Kern and Glen counties. Top 10 counties paying transportation are: Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Diego, Contra Costa, Marin, Fresno, San Fran- cisco, Yolo and Alameda. The following is county-by-county percentage of unduplicated participants receiving transportation assistance during October, 2001. Modoc 0% Plumas 0% Lassen 1% Siskiyou 3% Stanislaus 3% Napa 4% Imperial 8% Ventura 9% Sutter 10% San Mateo 10% Kern 11% Glenn 12% Madera 16% Lake 16% Tehama 16% Del Norte 18% Yuba 19% Sierra 20% El Dorado 21% Merced 21% Shasta 23% Inyo 23% Trinity 24% San Benito 24% Solano 26% Humboldt 26% Butte 27% Kings 28% Riverside 28% Mariposa 30% Tulare 30% Mono 31% Mendocino 31% Nevada 32% Santa Barb. 32% Amador 36% Monterey 38% Calaveras 39% Tuolumne 39% Alpine 40% Placer 41% Colusa 42% San Bernardino 43% San Luis Ob 43% San Joaquin 44% Los Angeles 44% Sonoma 45% Orange 46% Alameda 47% Yolo 48% San Fran- cisco 49% Fresno 50% Marin 62% Contra Costa 64% San Diego 65% Sacramento 67% Santa Cruz 74% Santa Clara 75% 5 _______________________________________________________ CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK \”Ms. Undocumented Mom\” applied for CalWORKs for her citizen child in Imperial County. The county welfare department referred her case to an \”early welfare fraud de- tection worker\”. The welfare fraud worker went to the house of \”Ms. Undocumented Mom\” and told her that if she did not withdraw her application, he would turn her and her citizen family members over to the INS Border Patrol. Being afraid of being turned over to the INS Border Patrol and having her child taken away and placed in foster care (cost- ing taxpayers over $25,000 a year) she signed the application withdrawal given to her by the welfare fraud goon. Luckily, her aunt, who is a US citizen, took her to California Ru- ral Legal Assistance (CRLA) where community worker\/director, Lupe Quintero jumped all over the welfare department. \”Ms. Undocumented Mom\” is now receiving the benefits to which her baby is entitled. Good work Lupe! ___________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-11.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1910 downloads

Download (pdf, 98 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-11.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-11 March 18, 2002 HEADLINES –EDITORIAL — USDA FOOD STAMP NEWS — DSS NEWS — TANF UPDATE — CWD VICTIMS OF THE WEEK –STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – NOVEMBER, 2001 CALWORKS APPLICATIONS DENIED ________________________ EDITORIAL In a press release dated 3\/6\/02, Tommy Thompson, Secretary of HHS states: \”President Bush and I will insist that welfare recipients receive at least minimum wages for the hours that they work, including community service jobs.\” Welfare recipients who provide vital child care services for TANF participants, must also be paid minimum wages with TANF funding. Without this inclusion, we cannot accept Tommy Thompson’s statement to be credible. __________________________ IN BRIEF At the latest National Governors Association meeting, South Dakota Governor, Bill Jank- low suggested using welfare reform as a model for homeland security. By this, he means giving the states billions of dollars and letting them do whatever they want to do with the money, short of putting it in their own bank accounts. It appears that some Governors, after fleecing the TANF program funds since 1996, would like to get their itchy fingers on Homeland Security money so they can fleece that money also. Fat chance. _________________________ USDA FOOD STAMP NEWS USDA has released a new policy, dated 3\/12\/02- Administrative Notice (AN) 02-25 rela- tive to request for contact (RFC). The problem is that many states and counties schedule food stamp recipients for frivolous appointments, hoping they will fail to appear. This \”set up\” results in the termination of food stamp benefits, which ultimately subjects the children to undue suffering. 2 This AN -02-25 clarifies that the regulations prevent State agencies from terminating re- cipients who fail to appear for an in-office interview during the certification period. The AN further states that if the food stamp office needs clarification, they can mail a RFC (request for contact) asking the recipients to call or write the answer to the food stamp worker’s questions. This same policy also applies to Intentional Program Violation interviews in the middle of the certification period. _______________________________ DSS NEWS — ACL 02-27 (March 8, 2002) – CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program Monthly Statistical Report [CA 237 HA (2\/02)] In this ACL DSS proposes to modify the monthly homeless assistance reports. –ACIN I-17-02 (March 14, 2002) -Vehicle Valuation Questions and Answers Highlights: \uf06e When does the car have to be evaluated? Only at certification or annual recertifica- tion. The county cannot evaluate the value of the car just because the worker has a gut feeling that the value has increased. \uf06e Is a leased car counted as a resource? No, per MPP 63-501.3(I) a leased car is not a resource. Also see Cal Vehicle Code Section 4453.5. \uf06e Does the encumbrance on the vehicle include the principal and the interest? \”The en- cumbrance would be the amount it would take to \”pay-off\” the vehicle.\” \uf06e When does a personal loan to buy the car count as an encumbrance? \”If a personal loan agreement does not specify the lender’s lien or claim to be a vehicle, it cannot be considered an encumbrance against the vehicle.\” CCWRO COMMENT: The reverse will be \”if the personal loan specifies the lender’s claim to the vehicle, then the loan would be considered an encumbrance on the car? –ACIN I-20-02 (March 15, 2002) New Assignments For Food Stamp (FS) Policy Im- plementation Unit – Effective March 1,2002 _______________________________________________ TANF UPDATE HHS has published a notice of collecting data conduct a multi-site evaluation entitled employment retention and advancement (ERA) evaluation 12 month survey that studies the net impact and cost-benefits of programs designed to help Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients, former TANF recipients, or families at-risk of need- 3 ing TANF benefits retain and advance in employment.” \\2\\ The ERA Evaluation involves up to 15 random assignment experiments in 9 states, testing a diverse set of strategies designed to promote stable employment and\/or career advancement for current and for- mer welfare recipients and other low- income parents. HHS will release several reports based on this survey. http:\/\/frwebgate.access.gpo.gov\/cgi- bin\/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-6121-filed Bush’s TANF Reauthorization Proposal Define only cash aid as assistance. All other forms of assistance programs will be de- fined as \”non-assistance programs\” Allows states to place some or all of their unspent money on what is called \”Rainy Day Funds\”. Meanwhile, States are reducing benefits and not giving TANF recipients annual COLAs, which should be done before the States save money for a rainy day. Currently states can only use the carry-over money for cash assistance. Bush proposes to allow States to use carry-over and the proposed \”rainy day funds\” for any other pur- pose, which is a blank check to fleece the program. Bush proposes to require 70% of all TANF recipients to meet the participation rates by 2007. Bush proposes to require all TANF recipients to participate 40 hours a week. This in- cludes mothers with babies over 12 weeks old. 24 hours of the 40 hours has to be per- forming unpaid labor (also known as workfare\/community service) or working at a job. The 40- hour rule would apply to a teen mom school, with a less than one-year-old baby, who has finished school. Bush will stop all of the Clintonian Waivers and allow more waivers that will allow States to align programs to the lowest common denominator. Require States to describe efforts they will make to promote marriage as a part of the State plan. Will States have honeymoon allowances? How about bar stamps? – Provide federal matching for child support pass-through payment to families that cur- rently receive TANF. This proposal will provide federal matching to States who pass through up to $100 or $50 over the current stated pass through starting 2003. ______________________________________________________ STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – CalWORKs applications denied 4 Today we look at which counties deny applications. Many counties have devised innova- tive ways of denying benefits to impoverished families with children, who are entitled to such benefits. The leading county in denying applications for November, 2001 is San Mateo County with 6 cases out of every 10 being denied. San Mateo is followed by Riv- erside County at 55%, Stanislaus at 53%, and Santa Cruz at 52%, and Contra Costa at 50%. San Mateo County’s neighbor, Santa Clara County, denied 24% of the applications. The population is about the same in these neighboring counties. Santa Cruz county denied 50%, while its neighbor, San Benito County denied 15%. Stanislaus County denied 53%, while Sacaramento County denied 12%. Riverside County denied 55% and San Diego denied 449%, while their neighboring San Bernardino County denied 38%, which is one percent below the State average. The dis- crepancies can be found in the way the county handles applications given the fact that the populations are similar in the compared counties. The table #1 rates the percentages of denials of CalWORKs applications county-by- county. TABLE #1 1 San Mateo 60% 2 Riverside 55% 3 Stanislaus 53% 4 Santa Cruz 52% 5 Santa Barbara 51% 6 Contra Costa 50% 7 Solano 49% 8 San Diego 49% 9 Yolo 43% 10 Alameda 43% 11 San Francisco 42% 12 Los Angeles 42% 13 Ventura 42% 14 San Luis Obispo 42% 15 Placer 41% 16 Orange 39% 17 Sonoma 39% 18 San Bernardino 38% 19 Tehama 38% 20 Trinity 38% 21 Humboldt 37% 22 Monterey 36% 23 Kings 36% 24 Fresno 35% 25 Marin 35% 26 El Dorado 33% 27 Colusa 32% 28 San Joaquin 31% 29 Tuolumne 31% 30 Tulare 30% 31 Amador 30% 32 Modoc 29% 33 Yuba 29% 34 Calaveras 29% 35 Mono 29% 36 Plumas 29% 37 Imperial 28% 38 Merced 28% 39 Mariposa 27% 40 Butte 26% 41 Santa Clara 24% 42 Glenn 24% 43 Lassen 24% 44 Shasta 24% 45 Madera 24% 46 Kern 23% 47 Del Norte 22% 48 Mendocino 21% 49 Sutter 21% 50 Siskiyou 19% 51 Nevada 16% 52 Napa 15% 53 San Benito 15% 54 Sacramento 12% 55 Inyo 10% 56 Lake 7% 57 Alpine 0% 58 Sierra 0% Statewide 39% _______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS 5 Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-12.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous

Download (pdf)

CCWRO New Welfare #06-12.pdf

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/162): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-13.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 2256 downloads

Download (pdf, 120 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-13.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-13 April 8, 2002 HEADLINES — IN BRIEF — REVISED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TABLES EFFECTIVE 4\/02 — DSS NEWS STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – Expedited Food Stamps Data for October- December, 2001 DFA 296X reports. — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK – __________________________ IN BRIEF — Governor Davis has proposed to decrease the payment rates for exempt child care pro- viders. These are mostly low income providers who are not even getting minimum wage. The child care industry composed of the organized child care providers, support this mean-spirited attack on the lowest paid child care providers in California. Fortunately, MALDEF and the Latino Caucus in the State Legislature OPPOSE this ill-conceived proposal. CCWRO also opposes this proposal. — The California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) reports that Kurt Childs \” made a lengthy presentation on changes in child support procedures. He stressed that non-custodial parent must be linked to the welfare to work plan so he\/she is not an im- pediment to the overall plan. When a child support payment is set at the amount of the grant, it becomes so overwhelming to the non-custodial parent that he\/she withdraws from the family in order not to pay.\” CCWRO OBSERVATION: Is this a proposal to have non-custodial parents do job search\/workfare duty for the counties? And what does it mean that the \”non-custodial parent withdraws from the family\”? If the non-custodial parent was part of the family, then he\/she would not be a non-custodial parent. — CWDA offers some administrative workload relief options. One of them is that \”Fin- gerprint imaging has not saved money and should be eliminated.\” Well praise the Lord. They have seen the light. — Some counties would like to abolish the 18\/24 month clock for services because the counties are working with a more difficult population that needs more services. CWDA states \”There is an administrative burden of tracking time limits, it limits counties being 2 able to engage participants, and creates urgency for everyone. Eliminating 18\/24-month limits would relieve counties from dealing with community services\” CCWRO Support the Elimination of the 18\/24 month time limits. It is a sick idea. __________________________ — REVISED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TABLES EFFECTIVE 4\/02 We received a e-mail from Kim Lewis, attorney with Western Center on Law and Pov- erty pointing out that the 133%; 185% and 200% of our recent public assistance tables did not reflect the new amounts. She is correct. Thank you Kim. I revised the 1\/02 tables at the office in Pagemaker, then brought it home on a disk to turn it into Adobe Acrobat. In this process, the changes in 133,185 and 200%% did not reflect the correct numbers. We apologize. Kevin Aslanian _______________________________ DSS NEWS — ACIN I-23-02 ( March 21, 2002) Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Governor’s Budget – California Work Opportunity And Re- sponsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program – – This notice describes the CalWORKs budget from the perspective of the Davis Administration. ACIN I-25-02 (April 4, 2002) Food Stamp Questions And Answers ACIN I-26-02 (April 3, 2002) Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Governor’s Budget – Food Stamp Employment And Training Program – This notice describes the CalWORKs budget from the perspective of the Davis Administration. http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/dat_acin\/showfaq.asp?fldAuto=39&ctx=&catnm=20 02%20All%20County%20Information%20Notices ACL 02-31 (April 2, 2002) Participation Requirements For Two-Parent Assistance Units (AU) http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_584.htm — DSS State Hearings Division Notes. Item 02-02-02A – Welfare to Work – Exemption, Time Limit and Jurisdictional Issues This memo describes how the 18\/24month clock works. — DSS SHD meets with DHS- 3 Item 02-01-01D Quality Circle Meeting With DHS \” Representatives of the State Hearings Division (SHD) met with representatives of the DHS on January 7, 2002 in a Quality Circle. This was the first in a series of meetings scheduled to try and improve the hearing process in cases where the DHS is a party. The SHD and DHS discussed the Interagency Agreement and each side presented an introduc- tory list of issues to be addressed. Issues raised by the SHD among other issues include: * DHS providing a representative for all hearings when DHS is the party. * DHS providing a liaison responsible for a variety of functions including transmitting proposed decisions to the appropriate person for review by DHS and forwarding hearing requests to the appropriate entity within DHS so that the DHS is prepared to submit a po- sition statement or resolve the issue in each case. * The need for DHS and SHD to establish a regular meeting process for problem resolu- tion. The DHS list of issues includes the following: * While DHS will attempt to improve in providing complete and timely position state- ments, DHS is not required to make a position statement available to the claimant two working days in advance of the hearing. Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC) 10952.5 and MPP 22-053.165 and 22-073.252 require the county to make a position statement available to the claimant at least two working days in advance of the hearing. W&IC 10952.5 and MPP 22-001c.(4) specifically exempt the DHS from this requirement. * Many DHS issues are mandatory proposed decisions. These issues include managed care cases, orthodontic issues, EPSDT cases and others. Judges should check their dele- gation document and write a proposed decision when final decision authority has not been delegated. * Senate Bill 87 mandated new requirements for counties regarding the Medi-Cal eligibil- ity determination process that became effective July 1, 2001. There is an All County Wel- fare Director’s Letter (ACWDL) No. 01-36, June 19, 2001, that explains the county re- sponsibility in evaluating Medi-Cal eligibility on another basis for a person who is being discontinued from CalWORKs or Medi-Cal. Decisions that follow this ACWDL may be written as final decisions. However, this ACWDL does not address SSI\/SSP-linked Medi-Cal discountenances. The DHS has not yet determined if SB 87 applies to persons discontinued from SSI\/SSP-linked Medi-Cal. If a judge applies SB 87 to an SSI\/SSP dis- continuance case, he\/she must write the case as a proposed decision. * The DHS position is that there is no jurisdiction for an Administrative Law Judge to review an issue that involves a billing dispute. Administrative Law Judges should write 4 these cases as dismissals. Any decision finding jurisdiction on a billing dispute is a man- datory proposed decision.\” DHS has also requested that all decisions involving the drug serostim be sent to DHS as proposed decisions. http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/shd\/item.html ___________________________________ OTHER DSS NEWS: DSS\/CWDA are reformatting the CW 7. The form is a total nightmare. There is no place to report additional changes, such as need transportation, \”want child care\”, or just to leave a note for the worker. There should be a place where CalWORKs participants can communicate with their workers. — DSS is proposing to add up all child support collected by the counties, then use it to un-tick months from the 60 month clock. CWDA is unhappy with this proposal and they propose \”using the child support obligation paid against the corresponding month of CalWORKs assistance payment made.\” This means that counties would have to figure out which month the payment was meant for, then un-tick that month. Off course this will be an administrative nightmare, but it would provide CWDA bureaucrats with more job security. — Suzanne Nobles, Chief of Employment Bureau suggested that CWDA form a workgroup to consider new regulations that DSS was developing regarding (1) expand the definition of who can provide medical\/psychological verification for exemption pur- poses; (2) clarify the differences between satisfactory progress and satisfactory participa- tion when hours are split between two parents, (3) self-employment and hours; (4) work- study is subsidized income; (5) notifying participants of the expiration of the 18\/24 month period; (6) clarify work participation rules for 2-parent families when there is a child in common rules; and (7) third-party assessment. The counties rejected DSS request for a workgroup and suggested that DSS submit these proposals to CWDA CAT commit- tee, which would assure that the workgroup would be solely composed of the county wel- fare bureaucrats only. This guarantees no equitable input from the people and their repre- sentatives that these new policies will effect. _____________________________________________ DSS ESTABLISHES UNLAWFUL POLICY – DSS State Both Parents Have to Attend the Face to Face Interview – There is no regulation supporting this DSS underground Pol- icy. On September 25, 2001, 8:08 AM, Marcia Greene of Shasta County asked DSS \”If an applicant AU contains both mother and father and only one of them comes in to make the interview, may we send the paper work home with the one parent and then conduct a telephone interview at a later time with the other parent to go over the SAWS 2? 5 DSS ANSWER: \”No.. Both parents are applicants, therefore both are required to partici- pate in a face to face interview unless the parent is unable to because of a physical or mental condition (See 40-131). In addition, SFIS requirements must also be met, which would require the parent to come in to be fingerprinted or photo imaged anyway (again, unless unable to do so). See 40-105.3 for SFIS requirements. \” Section 40-131.1 states: \”.1 Interview Required Prior to Granting Aid .11 A face-to-face interview with the applicant is required prior to the granting of aid. For the home visit requirement in AFDC, see Section 40-161.\” There is nothing in this section that states both parents have to participate in the inter- view. On the other hand 40-105.3 does require both parents to be fingerprinted. The other parent may not be able to attend the face-to-face interview because of work. The application process can take two (2) working days. Just because you have an ap- pointment at 8:00 AM, does not mean you will be seen at 8:00 AM. Sometimes you may be seen after lunch. Then you may have to come back again the next day to be finger- printed and have your picture taken for the welfare department. But \”working\” is not a good reason for DSS. The fact that someone may lose his\/her job for attending tan inter- view for application does not even phase DSS. This is clearly an underground policy, which is inconsistent with DSS’s own regulations and anti-work. CCWRO will be sending DSS a letter demanding the retraction of this unlawful policy in an All County Letter. ______________________________________________________ STATISTICS OF THE WEEK – Expedited Food Stamps Data for October- December, 2001 DFA 296X reports. The top 10 counties in denying expedited services to persons who the county considered for expedited service food stamps were lead by Imperial county who leads with a perfect 100% record. \”Not in our County\” is what Imperial County believes. Santa Clara has a 82% denial rate, Santa Barbara 80%, San Diego 76%. These are high cost counties, while Kern at 72%, Yuba at 72% and Stanislaus at 69% are low cost coun- ties. Yuba County’s neighbor, Sutter County has 41% denial rate. Thus, a hungry family with children will have a 50% chance of meeting the emergency needs of their hungry children in Sutter County, rather than Yuba County. Why should children suffer depend- ing on which county one lives in? 6 The counties with the lowest rate of denials are Trinity, El Dorado, Solano, Fresno, San Luis Obispo, Nevada and San Mateo. But these low rates should not lead someone in is thinking that these counties are more compassionate that other counties. A careful exami- nation of the data will show that these counties screen applicants and only those who would be eligible for FS-ES are considered for FS-ES. We were going to show how many applications the counties received during the months of October, November and December of 2001, but that information is not available to the public yet. The last report available to the public as of 4\/7\/02 is the September, 2001 Food Stamp Caseload Movement Report also known as DFA 296 reports. Once the data is available, we will report the percentage of applicants considered for FS-ES by various counties. Imperial 100% Santa Clara 82% Santa Barbara 80% San Diego 76% Alpine 75% Tuolumne 73% Kern 72% Yuba 72% Stanislaus 69% Contra Costa 68% Sacramento 67% Riverside 65% Monterey 64% Lassen 61% Napa 60% Tehama 59% Santa Cruz 58% Kings 52% Madera 45% Los Angeles 42% Sutter 41% San Benito 41% Placer 38% Sonoma 38% San Francisco 37% Inyo 34% Plumas 30% Ventura 30% Tulare 29% Mariposa 28% Yolo 26% Alameda 26% Marin 24% Butte 24% Merced 23% San Joaquin 23% Siskiyou 22% San Bernardino 22% Glenn 20% Del Norte 19% Orange 19% Lake 18% Calaveras 17% Humboldt 17% Nemdocino 15% Colusa 12% Shasta 12% Amador 10% Trinity 10% El Dorado 10% Solano 10% Fresno 9% San Luis Obispo 8% Nevada 7% San Mateo 2% Modoc 0% Mono 0% Sierra 0% Statewide 44% ______________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK – Sacramento County mailed a letter to Mr. A.G. asking for additional in response to a re- quest for retroactive transportation payment. Mr. A.G. has been working since 1998, but the county did not give him his transportation money. The letter was dated 11\/14\/01 and requested that the information be submitted by 11\/14\/01. Naturally Mr. A.G. not being a person who could read the mind of his eligibility worker, James Kok, failed to submit the requested information. During the month of 12\/01, Mr. Kok mailed a letter denying the request for retroactive transportation for failing to submit the requested information by 11\/14\/01. What was Mr. Kok requesting? Mr. Kok wanted the check stubs that were readily available to Mr. Kok in the casefile. 7 Mr. A.G. filed for a fair hearing. The county representative agreed to a conditional with- drawal and stated that the county will process the retroactive transportation request. 30 passed and still – no money. Mr. Kok simply does not want to issue the benefits that was unlawfully denied to Mr. A.G. Now Mr. A.G. has requested that the hearing be reopened. The sad thing is that the hearing will cost more than the amount of transportation that is owed to Mr. A.G. _______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-13.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1374 downloads

Download (pdf, 120 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-13.pdf

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-14.pd

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1540 downloads

Download (pdf, 93 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-14.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-14 April 15, 2002 HEADLINES — IN BRIEF — APRIL, 2002 DSS TELEPHONE LIST FOR BUREAU CHIEF AND ABOVE — CCWRO PRACTICE TIP – SPONSORED ALIEN CAN RECEIVE CALWORK IF INDIGENT — DSS NEWS — FEDERAL ISSUES – TANF & FOOD STAMP REAUTHORIZATION — STATISTICS OF THE WEEK __________________________ IN BRIEF — Does Income Received During the Month that has been exhausted make the family in- eligible for Immediate Need? Rosie Reed of LADPPS asked about an applicant seeking Immediate Need. The appli- cant \” had income of $800 that was exhausted by the date of application.\” Is this family eligible for CalWORKs Immediate Need? DSS ANSWER: Yes. — SSA Income Being Paid to someone else cannot be used as income There an is assistance unit (AU) of a brother and a 17 year old child who is getting $121 in SSA benefits. The payments are going to grandma who does not live with the AU. Can this income be counted against the AU of the 17 year old his brother. DSS ANSWER: MPP 44-101 states that the income \” must, in fact be currently avail- able \” and 44-102 states that the income is to be counted in the month received. Under the circumstances outlined, the income cannot be considered as nether received nor available to the recipient.\” — Exempt from WtW and Working CalWORKs recipients are eligible for Child Care. 2 Gail Taylor of Siskiyou County asked DSS \”…if a cash aided client is exempt from WtW activities (due to health reasons) but they choose to work, are they entitled to subsidize child care? DSS ANSWER: \” cash aid client who is exempt from WtW activities due to health rea- sons, but who chooses to work anyway – yes, thus client does qualify for CalWORKs child care subsidy.\” — 2001 Directory of County Welfare Fraud Investigative Staff is available through e-mail form DSS. This directory can be obtained from Jenny Roberts at : [email protected] __________________________ — APRIL, 2002 DSS TELEPHONE LIST FOR BUREAU CHIEF AND ABOVE ___________________________ — CCWRO PRACTICE TIP – SPONSORED ALIEN CAN RECEIVE CALWORK IF INDIGENT A sponsored aliens are subject to the deeming of income rule with a few exceptions, in- cluding the indigency exception. See Section 43.119.22 et.seq. \”43-119.22 All the income and resources of the sponsor who is not receiving Cal- WORKs, SSI or other public cash assistance payments (such as General Assistance) and the income and resources of the sponsor’s spouse who lives with him\/her and who is not receiving such public assistance payments shall be deemed to be the income and re- sources of the sponsored noncitizen. See Section 44-133.7 for the determination of the amount of this income, and Section 42-205.5 for the determination of the amount of re- sources. The following are exceptions to the deeming provisions: 43-119.221 If a determination is made by the county that a sponsored noncitizen would go hungry and homeless without aid, the sponsored noncitizen is determined to be indi- gent. 43-119.221(c) When a sponsored noncitizen is unable to provide the necessary informa- tion regarding their sponsor and the county can not establish contact with the sponsor and it is determined the sponsored noncitizen would go hungry and homeless without aid, the sponsored noncitizen is ruled indigent.\” Thus sponsored aliens who will be homeless and foodless without public assistance are deemed to be indigent and shall be eligible for CalWORKs. If you have a sponsored alien issue, call Kevin at CCWRO. _______________________________ DSS NEWS 3 _______________________________ NEW DSS PROPOSED REGUALTIONS RELEASE OF CALWORKS AND FOOD STAMP CASE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS; DATE CORRECTION FOR FOOD STAMP INTENTIONAL PROGRAM VIOLATION PENALTIES ORD# 0701-14 The public comment period for this package will close on May 23, 2002 at 5:00p.m. NONCITIZEN ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION PROVISION AMENDMENTS ORD# 0102-02 The public comment period for this package will close on May 23, 2002 at 5:00p.m. http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/CDSSPropos_366.htm DSS New All County Letter ACL 02-31 (April 2, 2002) Participation Requirements For Two-Parent Assistance Units (AU) This ACL explains that the county cannot suggest or allow the WtW participant to do more unpaid labor hours than those required by the regulations 42-711.421 which ex- plains how many hours a family can be forced to work without pay after their 18\/24 month period has expired. It appears that some counties are forcing parents to work more than the hours allowed under these regulations to get more free labor for the county. http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_584.htm _______________________________ FEDERAL ISSUES – TANF & FOOD STAMP REAUTHORIZATION On April 11, 2002 at 3:00 P.M. the subcommittee on human resources Committee on Ways & Means held a hearing on TANF reauthorization. The committee hearings are ba- sically staged presentations of persons invited by the Committee staff. The citizenry of the United States of America is prohibited from participating in this process as a member of an alleged Free Country. Unlike the State Legislative process where any person can testify on a bill, in Congress you have to have connections to testify. The names and copies of their testimony is available at: http:\/\/waysandmeans.house.gov\/humres\/107cong\/hr-14wit.htm 4 — Rep. Howard P. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of a House subcommittee with jurisdiction over federal welfare programs, today formally introduced the Working To- ward Independence Act (H.R. 4092), which reauthorizes the 1996 welfare reform law. The bill represents President George W. Bush’s welfare reform proposal, which would increase work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and make changes to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program. The bill would require recipients to be engaged in work activities for 40 hours a week, 16 of which could be spent in constructive activities such as education or job training. Con- sistent with a House Ways & Means Committee companion bill, the measure would al- low welfare recipients to spend part of those 16 hours with their children – in activities such as boys-and-girls programs, Scouting, or educational programs. — Senate Finance Committee Holds TANF hearings on April 10, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building regarding TANF reauthorization. The committee witnesses were: The Honorable John Engler, Governor, East Lansing, MI The Honorable Howard Dean, Governor, Montpelier, VT Lawrence Mead, Professor, New York University, New York City, NY Arlene McNamee, Executive Director, Catholic Social Services, Fall River, MA Cynthia Fagnoni, Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security, U.S. General Ac- counting Office, Washington, DC Steve Savner, Senior Staff Attorney, Workforce Development and Welfare Reform, Cen- ter for Law and Social Policy, Washington, D.C. Wendy Ardagna, Director of Government and Community Relations, Save-A-Lot, Ltd., Lindenhurst, IL -Food Stamp Update- Farm Bill Status – \”The Farm Security Act\”-HR 2646 SATURDAY, APRIL 13, 2002 Conference Committee Members will reconvene Tuesday, April 16 at 1pm Eastern Time in the House Longworth Building, Room 1300 ______________________________________________________ STATISTICS OF THE WEEK DSS just released a publication CalWORKs Characteristics Survey -Federal Fiscal Year 2002 A copy of this 181 page report can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/res\/pdf\/CalWKsCharFFY2000.pdf 5 The report reveals that about 85% of the CalWORKs cases have no car. Without a car the chances of becoming self-sufficient is a major barrier that policy makers should ad- dress. The number of CalWORKs families working in California has been going up since Fed- eral Fiscal Year (FFY) 1998 1998- 38.2% 1999 – 41.4% 2000 – 49..7 % _______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-14.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1811 downloads

Download (pdf, 93 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-14.pdf

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-15.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1952 downloads

Download (pdf, 79 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-15.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-15 April 22, 2002 HEADLINES — EDITORIAL — IN BRIEF — DSS NEWS — TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE — STATISTICS OF THE WEEK — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK _________________________________ EDITORIAL The Bush TANF Reauthorization plan passed the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee and the Education and Workforce Committee’s Workforce Subcommittee. Both Democrats and Republicans have been raving about the TANF plan. While Bush touts \”we shall leave no child behind\”; the plan does just that. Politicians point out that the caseload has been reduced by 50%, while child poverty has been reduced by 3%. We are not sure how true those numbers are, but even if they are correct, that means that 47% of the people forced off public assistance are still in poverty. Meanwhile, George Bush invited a few of the 3% who escaped poverty since the passage of TANF and paraded them among the press to get support for his \”evil-doing\” TANF proposal. __________________________ IN BRIEF — According to DSS, Alameda County is not processing IEVS abstracts as required by State regulations. On December 11, 2001, DSS informed Chet0 Hewitt, Agency Director of Alameda County Social Services Agency, that \”The county must process the FTB, IRS and BEER responses within the 45-day timeframe.\” This is not the first time that Alameda County has been busted for breaking the law. The counties don’t care and DSS does nothing to them. They keep on getting their big welfare checks (they call them pay- checks) while intentionally violating the law. Life is good for the Government – break the law with no consequences. — The Nationwide Prisoner Match Program reveals the names of persons incarcerated, but it does not state when they were released. Thus, the list can have people on it who are no longer incarcerated. On November 1, 2001, Chief Welfare Fraud Investigator of Riv- erside County Lauri Vivion asked DSS if the reports could show the release date. DSS responded in a letter dated December 20, 2001 that the system was designed for the So- cial Security Administration and it does not show when a person is released. 2 — Sonoma County Interim Chief Welfare Fraud Investigator Robert Evans received some draft changes of Intentional Program Violation Hearings forms from DSS, the supervis- ing agency of the Sonoma County Welfare Department. Mr. Evans did not like the changes in the forms. Thus, on 11\/14\/01 he wrote to State Welfare Fraud Chief stating that the changes that the State was making in the forms for IPV hearings \” are not nec- essary.\” After 45 days, Mr. Evans was informed by Gayle Wright that \”While we don’t agree with all of the proposed changes, we do think that some sections of the current forms need to be updated.\” It appears that the supervisors prevailed over their agents. What a relief. _______________________________ DSS NEWS — DSS EMERGENCY REGULATIONS \”OAL FILE NUMBER: 02-0419-07EP EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OAL ON: 04\/19\/2002 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TOPIC: Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) SECTION AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP), Sections 16-001 — 44-304 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is 04\/24\/2002 OAL DECISION DUE: no later than 04\/29\/2002 AGENCY CONTACT: Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586\” SOURCE: http:\/\/www.oal.ca.gov\/emergency_now.htm — Partial Exemptions Stops the Clock QUESTION: Napa County asked DSS \”If a mandatory WtW participant provides verifi- cation (CW61) that they can only participate in WtW activities for 20 hours: would they be considered fully exempt and not have the \”clock\” tick OR would they be required to participate for the 20 hours and the clock continues to tick? I think they should participate for the 20 hours and their clock continues to tick \” DSS ANSWER: DSS answered: \” . our regulations do not allow for partial exemptions. The participant would be exempt and the clock would stop If you would like to discuss this further, please call me at 916-654-1394.\” — Verifying Unfitness for Exemption from Food Stamp ABAWDS On 11\/26\/01, FNS asked DSS: \”A county wants to know if a statement from a chiroprac- tor can be used to verify the work registration and\/or ABAWDS unfitness exemption. 7CFR 273.7(b)(1)(ii)\” 3 DSS ANSWER: \”I based my interpretation of the regulations mentioned, I would say yes; a statement from a chiropractor can be used to verify the work registration and\/or ABAWD unfitness exemption.\” _______________________________ TANF REAUTHORIZATION – House Subcommittees Move the Bush Mean- Spirited Plan Forward April 18, 2002 H.R. 4092, Working Toward Independence Act of 2002 moved to the Full Committee, as amended by a vote of 9-7. The Committee bill, supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, would tell States what they can and cannot do. These same Republicans yell \”Get government off the people’s back\”- except when it comes to im- poverished families where they say, \”Papa government knows what’s best for you\”. As far as they’re concerned, \”One size fits all– 40 hours a week and 70% participation.\” The Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Ways and Means Committee marked up H.R. 4090, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002 on Thursday, April 18, at 11:00 am. The Bill was passed with Republican votes along parti- san lines as it passed the Workforce Subcommittee. Both bills will go to their full committees. ______________________________________________________ STATISTICS OF THE WEEK — Time on Aid New data published by DSS entitled, CalWORKs Characteristics Report for 2000 (Table 33a), reveals that 60% of the cases have been on aid for more than 5 years. 56% of the single-parent families were on aid for more than 5 years, while 65% of the child-only cases where on aid for more than 5 years. — Ethnicity of Caseload Over Five Years and Less than Five Years (Table 38a) MORE than five years: Hispanic – 29.2% White- 28.9% African – 20.9% Asian- 19.7% Other – 1.3% LESS than five years: Hispanic – 36.3% White- 32.1% African – 21% Asian- 8.9% Other – 1.7% Source: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/res\/pdf\/CalWKsCharFFY2000.pdf — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK 4 Ms. S. from Sacramento County has a family of six. In April she received a letter from her eligibility worker stating that her food stamps would be reduced. The notice showed the computation of the food stamps, included Ms. S’s income for her family size, and showed the allowance for a standard deduction of $134. The remaining amount was used as income. The worker did not allow housing deductions or homeless assistance deduc- tions. Ms. S. did have an address and obviously paid rent, otherwise her income would have reflected in-kind income for Ms. S’s household size. ( CalWORKs provides that if a family receives free rent, then the welfare check goes down because the free rent is con- sidered \”in-kind income\”). Given the fact that there was no in-kind income, then the as- sistance unit either has housing costs or is homeless. It appears that this was too much thinking for this worker, thus, she took the easy way out and didn’t allow any housing deductions. And now you know why California has a high food stamp error rate. _______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-15.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1439 downloads

Download (pdf, 79 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-15.pdf

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-16.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1869 downloads

Download (pdf, 78 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-16.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-16 April 30, 2002 HEADLINES — IN BRIEF — DSS NEWS — EMERGENCY REGULATION PROPOSED BY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT — TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK _________________________________ IN BRIEF — In a national study of TANF recipients, the General Accounting Office found that 44 percent of TANF recipients nationally had at least one physical or mental health impair- ment, three times higher than the rate of such impairments among adults not receiving TANF benefits: U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and Localities Move TANF Recipients With Impairments Toward Employment, October 2001. GAO reports can be found at www.gao.gov. — A recent report by the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities reveals that in New York, California, Ohio, Arizona and Wyoming \u2014 high-income families got richer while the poor got poorer. In the vast majority of the remaining states, although incomes of families at both ends of the income scale grew, the incomes of high-income families grew faster than the incomes of low-income families. It just proves that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in this land of alleged compassion. http:\/\/www.cbpp.org\/4-23- 02sfp.htm _______________________________ DSS NEWS Nevada County informed DSS \”We have a participant here in Nevada County who has timed off her 24 month clock. Her participation now requires Community Service and\/or unsubsidized employment. She started a business called \”Fold and Fluff\” at the local Laundromat. Her job is to do other people’s laundry, including pick up and delivery, for a set price per load. In order for her to have office space at the Laundromat, the owner has agreed to waive the rent (which would be $500.00 per month according to him) in return for her being there 56 hours per week assisting customers and cleaning the Laundromat. Meanwhile, she can run her fold and fluff out of the Laundromat. 2 So far she has earned approximately $1.00 per hour by working 56 hours per week. Is there anything in the regulations that says she must be earning minimum wage? Would this be considered \”subsidized employment\”? She is determined to continue and is cur- rently sanctioned. I feel she is being exploited. I would like your advice on this. Thank you.\” DSS ANSWER: Audrey King of DSS responded on 12\/5\/01 as follows: \”Minimum wage requirements are applicable for individuals wishing to become self-employed. While self- employment is not in State statutes and regulations, CDSS policy is that it falls within the definition of employment. Employment is defined in MPP Section 42-701(e)(1) as an activity \”that is compensated at least at the applicable state or federal minimum wage. If either wage rate applies, the work must be compensated in an amount equivalent to the lesser of the two.\” A recipient, who is not making at least minimum wage per hour, can- not be considered employed for those hours. Although not applicable to your specific question, please read the following for pre time limit self employment information. Because obtaining true self employment is difficult and that it takes time to get a business off the ground, in order to assist pre l8- or 24 month time limit recipients who want to become self- employed, we have suggested counties offer \”self employment training\” as a welfare to work (WTW) activity. If a recipient is in self employment training, they do not have to meet the minimum wage requirement necessary under self employment. Par- ticipation in self employment training can allow a recipient to continue to try to become self employed, even if making less than minimum wage, if it is determined that the individual’s business has the potential to succeed in assisting the individual in becoming self sufficient. Self employment training falls under MPP Section 42-716.111(r) \”other activities necessary to assist an individual in obtaining unsubsidized employment.\” Counties have flexibility in determining the content of this training and the number of hours per week spent in this activity. Elements of this training may include guidance to do the following: developing a viable business plan, implementing efficient and effective production and marketing strategies, identifying additional financial resources, including small business grant and loans, learning basis business and bookkeeping skills, etc. The 32\/35 hours per week participation requirement continues to apply to these individuals. Self employment is allowed pre and post time limit, as long as a least minimum wage is earned, however, self employment training is only an allowable pre time limit WTW ac- tivity.\” CCWRO COMMENT: This is an underground rule by DSS that is in direct conflict with the state law which does not even mention the words \”minimum wage\”. — Fresno county has imposed Food Stamp Sanctions on persons who do not participate in Community Services (also known as unpaid labor, involuntary servitude duty) in order to remain eligible for CalWORKs, even through the individual was not assigned to this ac- tivity. This is wrong said DSS – \” a food stamp sanction is only imposed when, follow- 3 ing the expiration of the 18\/24 month period, a client fails to participate in community service when assigned.\” ________________________________ EMERGENCY REGULATION PROPOSED BY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT OAL FILE NUMBER: 02-0424-01E EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OAL ON: 04\/24\/2002 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES TOPIC: Local Plan of Cooperation SECTION AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) and Title 22, Sec- tions 12-000 – 111230 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is 04\/29\/2002 OAL DECISION DUE: no later than 05\/06\/2002 AGENCY CONTACT: Lucila Ledesma @ (916) 464-5087 _______________________________ TANF REAUTHORIZATION NEWS- — In a 3\/12\/02 congressional hearing on welfare reform, Congressman Charles Rangel of New York stated, \”I would want you to know that it is my belief, especially after listen- ing to the Chair and Ranking Member, that the Administration might do better in reach- ing a bipartisan accord on this issue by working with us and seeing what we can come up with because I am afraid my Republican friends are looking for some rhetoric for the campaign and we are just looking for a solution to the problem.\” It is true that the Republicans are looking for rhetoric for the 2002 campaign, but so are the Democrats for the Democrats are not looking for a solution to poverty. For of all the problem is poverty and the Democratic answer has been \”let them do unpaid labor\”. There is no Democrat challenging the Republicans for \”leaving poor children behind\”. It appears that Democrats are on the defensive and Republicans are on the offensive. Re- publicans are attacking poor families and children while Democrats are simply defending the evil forces that have caused increased poverty in America among impoverished fami- lies and poor babies. — The Center on Budget Policies and Priorities has found that a very conservative esti- mate based on the limited data available from most states is that more than one million working families receive TANF-funded services without being counted in the caseload. Thus, propaganda that caseloads have gone down is not completely true as most propa- ganda has a shade of untruth. You cab find this report at: http:\/\/www.cbpp.org\/4-24- 02tanf.htm ___________________________________ — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK 4 Grandma was taking care of three of her teenaged grandchildren in Alameda County. She moved to Contra Costa County. As many other people do to make sure their kids get a good education, she enrolled the children in good schools by using addresses of friends and acquaintances When she moved to Contra Costa County, the County forced her to reapply for CalWORKs, which was totally unlawful. According to Ellen Tabachnik of Bay Area Legal Services, this has been a long time practice in Contra Costa County. In February, Grandma got her last check from Alameda then Contra Costa informed her that her application was denied based on a report from the District Attorney. We did an ex- haustive search on Westlaw, the Internet, and DSS’s webpage and could not find any authority for denying an application based on the district attorney’s report, but Contra Costa County has their own rules, even if they are in conflict with the state law and regu- lations. The county refused to release the report to Ellen Tabachnik, who needed it for fair hear- ing purposes, even though it was used to unlawfully terminate benefits to this family. The law states that inter-county transfers are not applicants, they are recipients. See MPP 40- 188.16, which states what is the transfer period: \”The period of time in which the second county determines eligibility and the first county remains responsible for the payment of aid.\” The regulations are clear – Grandma is a \”recipient\” not an \”applicant\”, thus, Contra Costa County cannot deny her application. _______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] 5 ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-16.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1434 downloads

Download (pdf, 78 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-16.pdf

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-17.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1811 downloads

Download (pdf, 81 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-17.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-17 May 6, 2002 HEADLINES — IN BRIEF — DSS NEWS — STATISTIC OF THE WEEK — TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK _________________________________ IN BRIEF On September 4, 2001, a final report by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for USDA on Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs), a study about the impact of three- month time limits for food stamps during a 36 month period, was released. The report concluded that half of all participants subject to time limits were meeting the work re- quirement. Half of them were getting a pay check, in that they were performing \”paid work\”, while the other half were performing \”unpaid labor\” or what is more commonly known as \”involuntary servitude duty\” or \”slavery for food stamps.\” _______________________________ DSS NEWS — NEW DSS REGULATION PROPOSED Electronic benefits transfer (EBT) regulations – ORD #0202-04 -These are emergency regulations to implement electronic benefits transfer of cash aid. The public comment period for this package will close on June 21, 2002 at 5:00p.m – You can get a copy of the regulations by going to: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/Electronic_637.htm Written testimony can be submitted through e-mail at the web address above. — SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WORKGROUP MEETS ON 5\/2\/02 Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director of Welfare programs for DSS has set up a workgroup of advocates and county representatives. The goal of the group is to ensure that necessary supportive services are offered and made available in a timely fashion to eligible clients. The group will be meeting again on 7\/9\/02 and 9\/6\/02 from 10:00 AM until 3:00 PM in Sacramento. 2 The next meeting of the group will focus on the best way to inform Welfare to Work par- ticipants of the availability of supportive services and will look at transportation. CCWRO will be setting up a conference call with interested welfare advocates during June, 2002. Those interested in participating in the conference call please e-mail CCWRO ([email protected]) indicating your desire to be on the Supportive Services Workgroup Conference Call. The advocates on the workgroup need and want to get input from other folks. ________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK This week we are looking at the sanction rate in California. Yes, California’s welfare sys- tem had a nice Christmas present for CalWORKs recipients this year – a 10% increase in sanctions from the previous year. The 1998 changes in the sanction system, which were carefully designed by the Califor- nia Welfare Directors Association (CWDA), and OPPOSED only by CCWRO, are bring- ing joy to CWDA and sadness to poor families and children of California with a 25% to 40% reduction in already low welfare benefits. This week we will give you the county-by-county numbers. Month\/Year Total Up Total Sanctions % of Sanctions Unduplicated upon undupl. Participants Participants Jan-00 190502 41167 22% Jan-01 185452 37309 20% Jan-02 184115 54992 30% _______________________________ TANF REAUTHORIZATION NEWS- — OVERVIEW : TANF reauthorization legislation is moving. To date there are six (6) bills and the Bush Proposal. H.R. 4090\/4092 (Herger, R-CA; McKeon, R-CA) H.R. 3625 (Cardin, D-MD) H.R. 3113 (Mink, D-HI) S. 2052 (Rockefeller, D-WV) H.R. 4210 (Roukema, R-NJ; Tierney, D-MA) The Bush Plan and the House Bills, HR 4090\/4092 will keep the funding at the current level. — COLA FOR TANF: The House Democratic Bill would provide the States with a cost- of-living adjustment (COLA) each year, but there is no requirement that the COLA trickle down to the poor families of America. As the TANF history over the six years has 3 shown, most States, even with millions of unspent money, do not give a COLA to the poor families, and some have even reduced benefits. — MORE MONEY FOR TANF: The Mink Bill, will give States an additional $2 billion over six (6) years without any requirement that the increased funding trickle down to the poor families and children of America. Most likely States will use it to hire more bureau- crats to sanction more poor families for alleged failure to perform unpaid labor duty for the local and state welfare bureaucrats. — TANF BONUSES FOR BUREAUCRATS: Most of the bills continue the High Per- formance Bonuses that States get, but there are no bonuses for any High Performance TANF participants. It looks the bosses get the big bucks while the little people perform- ing the unpaid labor for the State Welfare Bosses get no bonus and sometimes have their benefits reduced to save the State money. — MORE BONUSES FOR WELFARE BURAUCRATS: The Cardin and Mink bills give States $150 million for what is called \”poverty reduction bonuses\”. Again, no bonuses for the people, just the bosses. There is no requirement for States to VERIFY their reduced poverty numbers before money is generously poured into the pockets of the State Welfare bureaucrats. — MARRIAGE INCENTIVE – MORE MONEY FOR WELFARE BUREAUCRATS: The House Bills, the Bush Proposal and S2052 gives states $100 million annually to es- tablish research programs to promote the formation of two-parent families. How about giving the people a Marriage Bonus for getting married and then a bonus every year they stay together? Money in the pockets of poor people is an appalling thought to the propo- nents of Welfare Deform. — LIMITED ACCOUNTABILITY: Only one bill, HR 3625, takes a crack at the wide- spread fleecing of the TANF money by prohibiting States from using TANF funds to re- place state and local spending that does not meet MOE requirements, but there are no penalties to enforce this rule– no jail time, no sanctions, nothing. — CHILD CARE: The Bush plan and the House Bills would freeze the child care block funding, while the other bills would increase child care funding. — TIME LIMITS: Time limits stay the same except for HR3113 by Congresswoman Mink of Hawaii. This bill would prohibit time limits below 5 years and exclude the months that the family works from the time limits. — ALL BILL LEAVE CHILDREN BEHIND – Time limits imposed on children continue undeterred without shame by the same people who rant and rave about \”leaving no child behind\”. — Senators jockey for TANF position: Senators Breaux of Louisiana, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus of Montana and some other Republican and Democratic 4 Senators on the Senate Finance Committee will be coming out with a bill that would re- quire 70% of the caseload to participate in TANF. The hours of participation would be 30 hours a week for parents with children over 6, of which 20-24 hours has to be paid or un- paid labor and 20 hours a week for parents with children under 6 years old. More details of this proposal will be on their website at http:\/\/www.senate.gov\/~breaux\/ ___________________________________ — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK Ms. X from Los Angeles County was asked to come to Orientation on January 17, 2002. She did. She has three small children. She was told by the welfare department that they would pay for child care. She found a child care provider who watched her kids while she went to GAIN orientation from 7:30 to 3:30p.m. She submitted the child care forms given to her by the county to get the child care paid. The county refused to pay the child care. She was then asked to come to Job Club on 4\/17\/02. After not being paid the last time, the child care provider refused to watch her kids again. Because she did not have child care and would have been forced to leave her children alone for several weeks in order to attend Job Club, she did not go to the Job Club ap- pointment. She called her GAIN worker several times and left messages but never got a call back. Subsequently, the county has started the sanction process. We had hoped that this was the only problem this family had, but, she does live in Los Angeles County, so there were more problems. She has three kids and only gets $560 a month, when she should be getting $819 a month. She has been on aid since 11\/01. Why is the county stealing $259 a month from her? We have contacted the District Director to ask that they stop stealing money from this family. We wonder how many other families are similarly situated in Los Angeles County. _______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems 5 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-17.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1365 downloads

Download (pdf, 81 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-17.pdf

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-18.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 2080 downloads

Download (pdf, 78 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-18.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-18 May 13, 2002 HEADLINES — IN BRIEF — NEW COURT CASE – FRY V. SAENZ — STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – San Diego County sanctions more people than there are people participating in WtW activities. — TANF REAUTHORIZATION UP- DATE — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK _________________________________ IN BRIEF — Tom Bates, former chairperson of the Assembly Human Services Committee and a good friend of poor families, is running for Mayor of Berkeley. His wife, former Mayor of Berkeley, Lori Hancock, is running for the Berkeley Assembly seat formerly held by Tom Bates, replacing the termed out Dion Aaroner, the current chair of the Assembly Human Services Committee. — On April 4, 2002, advocates were scheduled to meet with DHS and CWDA TRT Medical Care Committee to discuss a draft All County Letter regarding Inter-County Transfers. Advocates were a \”no show\”. The next meeting with the advocates will discuss this issue at the May TRT meeting. Anybody wanting information about the ITC Draft ACL can contact Alice Mak of DHS at 916-654-0573. — Stanislaus County did an alleged study to see how many persons they could contact by phone for SB 87 purposes. (SB 87 requires that the county try to contact a person by phone before they terminate Medi-Cal benefits.) It appears that counties are appalled that they have to \”try\” to contact a person by phone before they take away the persons’ or family’s medical benefits. Thus, they came up with a county survey that states very few successful attempts resulted in reaching the person being called. It appears that the coun- ties now want to use this unscientific, manipulated survey to prove that calling a person before their benefits are terminated is futile. How dishonest! — The CWDA Medical Care Committee states that \”advocates think we are not comply- ing with the process.\” (SB 87) Well dah, off course counties are not complying with the process. But DHS will be coming out with a new All County Letter containing Questions and Answers. Meanwhile, Bill Walsh of DHS is collecting County instruction on SB 87. \uf06e CWDA CalWORKs committee suggested the elimination of vendor\/voucher pay- ments during sanctions and for fleeing felons, elimination of misuse of funds rules, and elimination of Unrelated Adult Male (UAM) rules. Good ideas. These are proce- dures that take up a lot of worker time for no sensible reason. \uf06e _______________________________ 2 NEW COURT CASE On May 10, 2002, the Third Appellate District published Fry v. Saenz at http:\/\/www.courtinfo.ca.gov\/cgi-bin\/opinions.cgi. In this case petitioners asserted that children under 19, but over 18 should continue to receive CalWORKs benefits, even if they are unable to complete their high school requirements because of their disability. The lower Court denied the Writ and petitioner appealed. The appellate Court held that ADA does apply to CalWORKs disabled students, but remanded the case back to the lower court to determine the fiscal impact that this case would have if the State is re- quired to pay aid to students between over 18 and under 19. A copy of the published case is attached hereto. ________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – San Diego County sanctions more people than there are people participating in WtW activities. DSS has finally published the first month of 2002 Welfare to Work (WtW) data. The sanction rate is determined by dividing the number of individuals sanctioned by the unduplicated participants. The law provides that only participants can be sanctioned. The source of this information is DSS’s WtW25 and WtW25A reports which are based on the monthly reports that DSS received from each county. The report shows that the average sanction rate in the State of California is 30%. The county-by-county sanction rate is set forth below: County Percent- age Sanctions San Diego 185% Calaveras 76% Merced 72% Fresno 72% Glenn 60% San Joaquin 51% Trinity 51% Marin 43% Alameda 41% Alpine 40% Riverside 37% Mono 35% Mendocino 35% Contra Costa 34% Sonoma 33% Tehama 30% Mariposa 30% San Luis Obispo 29% Shasta 28% Plumas 27% Yolo 26% Tulare 26% Sutter 26% Humboldt 25% Los Angeles 24% Lake 23% Inyo 22% Placer 22% Monterey 21% Siskiyou 19% Ventura 19% Napa 18% San Bernardino 17% Kern 16% Madera 16% Del Norte 15% Stanislaus 14% Solano 14% San Mateo 14% Nevada 14% San Francisco 13% Santa Barbara 13% Butte 13% Colusa 12% Amador 12% Santa Clara 11% Orange 11% Santa Cruz 11% Kings 10% Tuolumne 9% San Benito 8% Yuba 6% Lassen 6% El Dorado 5% Sacramento 5% Modoc 2% Imperial 0% Sierra 0% Statewide Aver- age 30% 3 The TOP TEN sanction counties are San Diego at 185%; Calaveras at 76%, Merced at 72%; Fresno at 72%; Glenn at 60%, San Joaquin at 51%, Trinity at 51%, Alameda at 41% and little Alpine County at 40%. One may wonder how can San Diego County have a 185% sanction rate? It is very simple. While San Diego County only has 7,096 individuals participating in the WtW activity, the county has 13,108 individuals who are being sanctioned. Thus, San Diego County has more people being sanctioned that they have people participating in a WtW activity. Proof that the Welfare to Work Program is all about SANCTIONS and not self-sufficiency . WHY you may ask? Very simple. How is a minimum wage job going to make a family self-sufficient? What do welfare workers know about JOBS anyhow. It’s all smoke and mirrors to make the public think something is happening. _______________________________ TANF REAUTHORIZATION NEWS- — There are rumors that while the House has passed their punitive TANF reauthorization bills, the Senate has several competing proposals. Thus, not having a proposal that all Senators can agree on, Senate Majority Leader Tom Dashle may opt for a simple one- year extension of the TANF program. — It is expected that the House will vote on HR 4900 called \”Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002\”, which is the House version of the TANF reauthorization. This bill is opposed by most people, including the TANF-fleecing National Governor’s Association and the National Council of State Legislators. CALL TO ACTION: People are being urged to call their Congressperson at the U.S. Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121. Ask for your member of Congress to vote on HR 4900 because it will hurt the poor. It is opposed not only by the poor, but also by the Governors and the State Administrators of TANF. ___________________________________ — CWD VICTIM OF THE WEEK A two-parent family applied for CalWORKs and was scheduled for an appointment. The father was working, thus, did not show up for the application interview. The county of Sacramento refused to conduct the interview and denied the application. The matter was elevated to the administration and the result was the attached memo from Sacramento County stating that both parents do not have to come to the appointments. The memo was written in consultation with the State Department of Social Services. 4 Off course the victim’s application was processed without the husband taking a day off of work. _______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WEL- FARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-19.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1858 downloads

Download (pdf, 103 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-19.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-19 May 20, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF Counties Practice Hypocracy ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF Hilary Clinton, when First Lady, was perceived to be against the ugly welfare re- form bill signed by Bill Clinton. Well her true colors have surfaced. She is as bad as her husband when it comes to the poor. Hilary Clinton is backing the Bush proposal to in- crease the hours of weekly participation from 30 to 40 hours a week. Hilary and some of her comrades are proposing 37 hours a week with $8 more billion for child care. Experts have testified that in order to meet the 40 hour a week participation rates Congress needs to appropriate another $11 billion for child care. Maybe they should give the money to the welfare moms for taking care of their own kids. But then that is a family value – I mean poor family value – vehemently opposed by Re- publicans and many Democrats like Hilary Clinton, et.al. Even Orrin Hatch of Utah and Olympia Snowe of Vermont, both Republicans, have lined up against George Bush and supporting maintaining the current 30 hours a week participation rates. The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) is having a an- nual conference in Los Angeles in Universal City. Not only will they have the Sheraton Hotel – compliments of the taxpayers – TANF funds – but they have so much money, that they have back-up Hotel no, not the Comfort-Inn, it is the Hilton. Off course most all of the conference cost is paid with TANF money, money that the should be going to feed the impoverished families of California. _____________________________________________________ _ COUNTIES PRACTICE HYPOCRACY 2 HHS TO VISIT COUNTIES – COUNTIES RESIST AND DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS THEY WILL BE ASKED – SAME COUNTIES THAT MAKE UNANNOUNCED HOME VISITS TO CALWORKS APPLICANTS The Federal HHS has advised DSS that they intent to visit nine counties on April 23-25. The counties are Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Alameda, San Francisco, Marin, So- noma, Napa and San Mateo. Many of these counties make home visits to CalWORKS and Food Stamps applicants without an appointment and if the applicant is not home to be subjected to a home search and interrogation by the county welfare bureaucrats, then their application is denied – the impoverished families and their babies and children may go hungry and homeless, but these welfare bureaucrats could care less. The feds have actually given counties notice and dates, but CWDA has asked DSS to ask the feds to: \”a. Reschedule as Directors and Children Managers may not be available on such short notice. (CCWRO Comment: The colossal nerve of CWDA. They do not even tell Cal- WORKs recipients when they going to invade their homes and here they cry like a baby that they did not have enough advance notice) b. Visit a different array of county that better represent how a statewide perspective would be more beneficial. (CCWRO Comment: The counties get money from the feds to run the CPS program. If they don’t want HHS to decide which counties to visit, then they should return all of the money that they get from the federal government – bunch of un- grateful ..\” c. Include state staff in the visits for background information. (CCWRO Comment. Now county welfare bureaucrats are telling the federal government who should be at the visit.) d. Provide counties in advance with questions. (CCWRO Comment: Now maybe these counties will provide CalWORKs recipients with questions that their early welfare fraud detection goons will be asking the welfare moms? We are surprised that counties did not ask for suggested answers to the questions.) CCWRO SERVICES CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: 3 Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-19.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1336 downloads

Download (pdf, 103 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-19.pdf

pdf CCWRO Bulliten #2002-20.pdf

Published on 16 August 2014 By Anonymous 1821 downloads

Download (pdf, 136 KB)

CCWRO Bulliten #2002-20.pdf

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-20 May 28, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE CWD Victim of the Week-Corporate Victims ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary Marriage Provisions of the TANF Reauthorization Battle One of the major bones of contention in Welfare Deform Reauthorization of 2002 is Bush giving $300 million to States to encourage marriage. Not one penny of this money will go to the poor; instead, bureaucrats will get the money. Now, this is a fine republican BIG GOVERNMENT idea; give money to welfare bureaucrats so poor people can get mar- ried. Moreover, the marriage incentive money will most likely be fleeced by the States because TANF has zero effective accountability, just as States are currently fleecing the TANF money by using the money for reasons other than direct benefits to the TANF eli- gible people. Maybe the politicians who are proposing marriage incentives should look at their own lives and fund another program to maintain marriages for the Legislative and Executive Branches of our government. We wonder what the divorce rate is for the United States Legislative and Executive Branches? Tommy Thompson, Secretary of HHS Lies On or about May 20, 2002, Secretary of HHS stated: \”Despite the soft economy and the tragic events of Sept. 11, the national welfare caseload did not increase. Our reformed welfare system rose to the challenge. It continued to help recipients move toward work, and it continued to provide aid when needed.\” This is a blatant LIE; and like a habitual liar, Thompson did not even blink an eye when uttering these false statements. To contend that a family who is off of welfare means they must be working is FALSE. The reason the caseload has not gone up is because many families with children, in dire need of assistance, are not allowed to get the aid needed because they have \”timed out\”. These families have been sentenced to a lifetime of pov- erty and misery by Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform of 1996. 2 Mr. Thompson should read the Joyce Foundation report which reveals that at least half of former welfare recipients were unable to buy food for a themselves and their children, could not pay for utilities and phone services where terminated on numerous occasions. ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS – TREATMENT OF RETROACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PAYMENTS On 9\/4\/01 Kern County asked DSS how to treat retroactive payments for transportation. Julie Kimura and Doris Bowers of DSS responded \”For purposes of the food stamp pro- gram, such payments are not counted as a resources or as income…\” CAR REPAIR – ANCILLARY SERVICE OR TRANSPORTATION? On 12\/19\/01, Monterey County asked DSS \”Are Car Repairs considered Transportation or Ancillary?\” DSS Response: On 12\/21\/01 Diamond Longjel stated: \”Car repairs are considered under transportation, not ancillary Attachment #8A of the PCAB (Director Employment Serv- ices Delivery Cost) stated that car repairs come under transportation.\” ______________________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – CalWORKs Applications Withdrawn & CalWORKs Application Procedural Denials 1\/02. State regulations provide that applicants can withdraw their application, if they wish to do so. This week we looked at the top 10 counties where applications are withdrawn and the top 10 counties where the least number of applications are withdrawn. This is based upon the DSS CA 237 CW report. The top 10 are: Inyo with 29%, Lassen at 26%, Plumas at 24%, San Benito at 20%, Sacramento at 20%, Imperial at 20%, Mono at 19%, Glenn at 16%, Madera at 16% and Santa Clara at 16%. Most of these are small counties, except Sacramento and Santa Clara. AT the bottom are Sierra and Alpine which have no applications withdrawn, then there is Merced with 2%, Fresno, Modoc, Santa Cruz and Sonoma at 3% withdrawals, then Riverside, Contra Costa, Yolo, Colusa, Alameda, Stanislaus and Mariposa at 4%. One may wonder why is that Sacramento has a 20% withdrawal rate, while Fresno has a 3% rate? It is ap- pears that there is something happening in Sacramento that should not be happening. The statewide with- drawal rate is 7%. 1\/02 CalWORKs Application Procedural Denials One of the oldest tricks used to deny eligible persons public assistance benefits is known as the \”procedural denial\”. These denials are tabulated in the monthly CA 255CW reports known as the CalWORKs Report on Reasons for Denials and Other Non-Approvals of Applications for Cash Grant. \”Procedural denial\” means there is no evidence that the applicant is ineligible, however, the application is denied because the applicant failed to comply with the variety of paperwork requirements that counties im- pose on applicants to deny benefits to families who are eligible for public assistance. The TOP 10 counties denying applications based on procedural requirements are: Modoc and Plumas at 100%; Humboldt at 94%; 3 Los Angeles at 92%, Imperial at 91%; Tuolumne at 85%; Kern at 84%; Alameda and Colusa at 83% and Lake at 80%. If you want to know how your county ranks, just e-mail us the question and we will give you your county rankings and the numbers we used to reach the rankings. At the bottom of the pack are counties that used \”procedural requirements\” the least to deny cases, they are; Alpine, Lassen and Sierra at 0%; Sacramento at 14%;Placer at 19%; Santa Clara at 20%; Merced and Santa Barbara at 21%; Orange County at 24% and Mono at 25%. ______________________________________________________ TANF REAUTHORIZATION NEWS- Senator Kennedy and 20 other Democrats have mailed a letter to the Democratic Chair- man of the Senate Finance Committee asking that, any bill passing the Senate Finance Committee include $11.3 billion for child care; opportunities for participants to engage in education and training programs to become self sufficient; benefits for legal immigrants; maintaining the current participation hours for families with children over six years old; and make the primary goal of the TANF program the reduction of poverty. Meanwhile, another group of Democratic and Republican Senators have proposed to maintain the 30 hours-a-week participation requirements, which conflicts with the Bush proposal of 40 hours-a-week, and the House Republican Bill, which also provides for 40 hours-a-week. — CWD Victim of the Week This time we have another kind of victim. It was reported that there is a widespread prac- tice in Corporate America where corporations buys life insurance for their employees (unbeknownst to the employee) and lists themselves as beneficiaries. It appears that when an employee dies, the corporation collects the life insurance. The family of the de- ceased cannot afford funeral expenses, while the corporation collects hundreds of thou- sands of dollars and gets a big tax break; the family never sees the money. Now that is corporate power. ______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Serv- ices, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems 4 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”