Documents

” 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – #2002-21 June 6, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – IEVS DPA 482 reports STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – See attachment CWD Victim of the Week- ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary State Budget- Impoverished families and their children may be victimized again in the California budget fight. The budget takes over $500 million of TANF money, which should be used for CalWORKs recipients, and gives it to counties to run foster care and CPS systems. Most of the foster care kids are former CalWORKs recipients who have been taken away from their parents by county welfare department’s because their parents did not have enough money to provide for their needs. Now, each kid in the CPS system costs over $1,500 a month, while the average cost of a CalWORK’s child is about $150. The AFDC cost of living adjustment (COLA), now called CalWORKs COLA, was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. Now his Republican supporters make all kinds of po- litical hay out of the meager COLA that the poor families get. It is indeed a cowardly act to go after poor families and children while millions and mil- lions of their TANF dollars are being used for other programs having nothing to do with CalWORKs recipients. County Refuses to Obey Hearing Decision–DSS Supports This County’s Unlawful Action – On 10\/16\/01, Los Angeles County e-mailed DSS stating that an ALJ issued a decision ordering the county to restore food stamp benefits back to 1996. The county refers to 63- 802.141, which states, \”that when the judicial action is a review of a state hearing, bene- fits shall be restored for a period of not more than 12 months prior to the date of the state hearing \”L. Ventura of LA County DPSS asserts, \”Based on this information, the County should only restore benefits for the 12 months prior to the state hearing, correct. Please respond ASAP.\” DSS Response from Sandra Pierce is; \”Absolutely correct. This has not changed.\” CCWRO Commentary: \”Judicial Action\” is not a \”state hearing\”. It appears that Sandra Pierce and DPSS cannot tell the difference between judiciary and the ad- ministrative branches of the government. 2 Treatment of Work Study Income Beyond Academic Year Linda Parks of Shasta County asked DSS; \”We have some college students who are re- ceiving CalWORKs Work Study that continues beyond the academic year. How do we treat that income when the academic year is over?\” DSS Answer: Rosemary Akhidenor of DSS responded; \”Based on your scenario, you should continue to treat that income the same way you have always done.\” Treatment of Self-Employment for CalWORKs and Food Stamps Gaylin Bower of Merced County e-mailed DSS the following: \”The Food Stamp Program is adopting the same rules that currently apply to cash aid regarding Self-Employment Expenses. My question is: If an individual selects 40% for cash aid, may the select Actual for F\/S? Is it mandatory that both programs select the same option?\” (NOTE: This is an exact copy of the e-mail we received under the Public Records Act. There is no typo here.) DSS Rosemary Akhidenor responded to the e-mail on 11\/2\/01 @ 4:35PM as follows: \”Yes, the Food Stamp Program is adopting the same rules that currently apply to Cal- WORKs cash aid, regarding self-employment expenses, but to some degree – what you do in food stamps on the most part does not have any bearing on cash aid. Therefore, to answer your question, the client has an option to choose either the actual costs of produc- ing self-employment income or a standard deduction of gross earned income in food stamps (MPP 63-503.413). Food Stamp Dependent Care Age Limit – Up to 18 years Old On 10\/19\/02, Vicky O’Brien of Sacramento County e-mailed DSS asking; \”Is the age limit for child care in the FS program 18 years? MPP 63-502.34 doesn’t specify an age limit.\” On 11\/2\/01, Rosemary Akhidenor of DSS e-mailed the following message: \”Per FNS, there is no maximum age for a child in the Food Stamp Program. Final federal rules pub- lished on October 17, 1996 changed the term \”child care\” to \”dependent care\”. You may allow the child care payments for an 18-year old child, if the costs for the care of the child was necessary for a household member to accept or continue employment, etc. as specified in MPP 63-502.34 \” ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS – 3 In response to a Public Records Act Request, DSS has given us the IEVS reports for Oc- tober-December of 2001. Income and Eligibility Verification System is designed to show income and resources that have not been reported to the State. The system relies on the CalWOPKs or Food Stamp recipients’ social security number. The computer compares the income reported by the employer and the income reported to the welfare department by the same social secu- rity number. If there is a discrepancy, then the state prints an \”abstract\” which reveals the amount of income reported on the CW-7 and the income reported by the employer. This is a revised report that DSS has asked counties to submit pursuant to ACL01-80 – Income And Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Management Report [DPA 482 (10\/01)] http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-80.pdf A group of counties, who are allegedly supervised by DSS, refused to submit these re- ports. The counties who refused to be accountable and respect the rules established by DSS are Contra Costa, Del Norte, Lake, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Nevada, Sacramento and Sierra. Fortunately not all counties were so arrogant. 50 counties managed to submit their re- ports. The reports reveal that 79% of the IEVS abstracts found no discrepancies. Thus, many abstracts have no discrepancies, yet have to be processed. We also noticed that a number of counties are backlogged. This means they have reports showing earned in- come, but are doing nothing to stop the overpayments. We rated the performance of the counties by looking at how many abstracts they received during the quarter and what percentage of those abstracts were processed. Leading the pack was Lassen County. During October through December of 2001, Lassen County re- ceived 266 abstracts and they processed none. Maybe the EIVS worker was on strike, but still got a paycheck. Following Lassen County was Tuolumne County. This county received 72 abstracts from October through December of 2001, processed 5 abstracts and on 1\/1\/02 had 83 abstracts to process. At this rate they will never catch up. Plumas County managed to process 11% of their abstracts. Plumas County from October through December of 2001 received 57 abstracts, processed 6 of them and on 1\/1\/02 had 453 abstracts waiting for action. Only 83% of the abstracts processed by Plumas County had discrepancies. Monterey County processed only 26% of their abstracts received from October through December of 2001. They received 1,273 and processed only 337 abstracts. San Joaquin County, which is a large county, processed 33% of their abstracts during Oc- tober through December of 2001. This county received 2093 abstracts and processed 692 abstracts. At the beginning of 2002, they had 4,676 abstracts waiting to be processed. At 4 this rate, if San Joaquin County receives no new abstracts, they will need over 6 months to catch. Meanwhile people are being overpaid. Is DSS doing anything about it? RESULTS OF THE IEVS PROCESS: The reports reveal that number of abstracts re- vealing discrepancies. Statewide 79% of the abstracts revealed no discrepancies. San Bernardino showed 86% of the cases had discrepancies, Alameda showed 74% had dis- crepancies, while at the other end Tulare, Sutter, San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz Coun- ties showed 2% discrepancies, Butte, Tehama and Kern Counties showed 3% discrepan- cies, Stanislaus and Merced showed 5% discrepancies. San Bernardino County’s close neighboring counties Riverside and San Diego showed only 12% discrepancies. Alameda County’s closed neighbors San Mateo had 19% discrepancies and Santa Clara County had 13% discrepancies. Why. Something does not add up here. ______________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – See attachment to this e-mail. The attachment shows a county-by-county number of IEVS abstracts that each county received during the quarter of October through December of 2001. The table shows the number of abstracts processed during that same period; the number of abstracts that had no discrepancies, and the number of abstracts that remained at the end of the quarter. This attachment should be opened on a Microsoft Excel file for maximum benefits. ______________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK- In October of 1992, San Bernardino County overpaid Ms. M.E., $753. The County col- lected all aid for October 1992 through a child support court order in 1994. However, the County started to collect the $753 again from Ms. M.E. This is called, \”double dipping.\” Ms. M.E. did not understand how the County of San Bernardino would blatantly commit such highway robbery. She filed for a fair hearing. The County’s position was to pay back the absent parent, rather than Ms. M.E.; but they introduced no evidence showing they had paid back the absent parent with interest moneys the county claims they should not have collected. In a hearing decision #2002002268 San Bernardino County was ordered to pay back the over collected $753 to Ms. M.E. ______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE 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. 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-22 June 15, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – HOMELESS ASSISTANCE – See attachment TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary 1. The State Budget has trailer bill language that would deny retroactive child care benefits to CalWORKs recipients who sign a piece of paper, under duress, stating that they understand that if they do not claim child care within 30 days, then they can’t claim it at all. At this time, the language is limited to Los Angeles County, but there is a movement to impose this denial of underpaid child care benefits to all CalWORKs recipients in order to get more money for Stage III. This action can send people to jail because often overpayments are reduced by underpaid child care expenses, thus avoiding doing jail time. There is also widespread deception by counties against CalWORKs recipients, telling them that they cannot claim child care unless the pro- vider has been certified by Trustline, WtW participants are being told they cannot get child care, when they are eligible for child care. This new law would enhance the de- ceptive acts of county workers to discourage parents from getting child care. 2. Aged & Disabled Poverty Levels. Medi-Cal ACL 02-24 raises the A&D FPL to $989 for single persons and $1,352 for couples. This means that if a person is getting SSA and some pension money which together, is less than $989, then that person can get Medi-Cal with no share of cost. CCWRO will be adding to our next publication of our Public Assistance Tables. 3. Income From a Roamer is \”self-employment\”. On October 29, 2001, Sean McAd- ams of Santa Cruz e-mailed a question to DSS as follows: Since regulations state that income from a \”roomer\” is treated as earned self-employment, can the household elect the flat 40% self-employment income deduction instead of actual self- employment expenses. On November 2, 2001, Rosemary Akhidenor of DSS re- sponded as follows: \”Income from a roomer is considered self-employment income to the household; therefore, yes, the household can choose either the actual or standard deduction of 40% as specified in MPP 63-503.413.\” ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS – 1. Child Support Department Emergency Regulations Adopted 2 OAL FILE NUMBER: 02-0520-01E AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES TOPIC: Barnes Notice SECTION AFFECTED: California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 22, Section 119184 & Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP), Section 12-225.3 AGENCY CONTACT: Lucila Ledesma @ (916) 464-5087 APPROVED ON 5-29-02 ______________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – Homeless Assistance California started February 1, 2002, with 3,852 homeless assistance requests at hand that was carried over from January of 2002. During February of 2002, counties received 4,514 homeless assistance requests. During February of 2002, counties processed 4,362 requests. They granted 3,209 requests and denied 1,153 requests. Clearly the counties processed less requests than they received, and they never touched their backlog. It should be noted that state law and regulations require that homeless as- sistance requests shall be acted upon the date of application for temporary homeless as- sistance and no later than the next working day for permanent homeless assistance. Something seems very wrong. Clearly, the state laws are being violated if there are so many cases backlogged and not being processed timely. This week, we are going to take a look at counties that have the highest rate of denials. Leading the pack is San Francisco County at 89%; next is Glenn County at 77%, then San Bernardino county, at 72%. San Bernardino County has made a career of denying homeless assistance to families and children eligible for homeless assistance. They have figured out every trick in the book to deny homeless assistance to eligible families. Then there are counties like Riverside, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara and San Mateo, who have 0% of denials. One may wonder how do they get 0% of denials? It is amazing, if you think about that Riverside County had 165 requests and denied none, while neighbor- ing San Bernardino County had 863 requests. Santa Clara County had 36 requests and denied none, while little Santa Cruz County had 10 requests. The answer is very simple. Counties like Riverside, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara, et.al. are prescreening people before they are allowed to apply for homeless assistance. If the screener decides that the re- quester is eligible for HA, then he or she is allowed to request HA. Attached, in Microsoft Excel format is a table showing how many requests were re- ceived by each county during 2\/02, how many were denied, how many were pending at the end of 2\/02, and the percentage of denials sorted. 3 ______________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE The following is a list of various bills in the hopper for TANF reauthorization. 1. The bill introduced by Rep. Pryce (R-OH) that passed in House of Representatives (H.R. 4737) on May 16, 2002. This is the House TANF Reauthorization Bill. 2. The Democratic substitute to H.R. 4737 offered in the House of Representatives by Reps. Cardin (D-MD), Woolsey (D-CA), and Kind (D-WI). This can be found in the Congressional Record. 3. Tri-Partisan Consensus Provisions released by members of the Senate Finance Com- mittee in the form of a letter to Senators Baucus and Grassley. 4. Principles released by a group of Senators on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pen- sions (HELP) Committee and other Senators in the form of a letter to Senators Baucus and Grassley. 5. A bill (S. 2052) introduced by Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. 6. A bill (S. 2058) introduced by Sen. Lincoln and Rep. Levin (H.R. 4057), which in- clude the same provisions found in the Rockefeller bill related to partial credit toward participation rates for part-time work and an employment credit. 7. A bill (S. 2524) introduced by Sen. Bayh, Sen. Carper, and others, and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. 8. A bill (S. 2552) introduced by Sen. Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Baucus (D-MT), and Sen. Bingaman (D-NM. 8. A bill (S. 2548) introduced by Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) and Senator Wellstone (D-MN. As you can see there are a lot of bills floating around and most of them are anti-family and anti-child. None of them remove time limits on children. They all violate the princi- ple of Leave no Child Behind- They all leave thousands of Children Behind . They im- pose time limits, even on newly born babies. How cruel. ______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: 4 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-22 June 15, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – HOMELESS ASSISTANCE – See attachment TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary 1. The State Budget has trailer bill language that would deny retroactive child care benefits to CalWORKs recipients who sign a piece of paper, under duress, stating that they understand that if they do not claim child care within 30 days, then they can’t claim it at all. At this time, the language is limited to Los Angeles County, but there is a movement to impose this denial of underpaid child care benefits to all CalWORKs recipients in order to get more money for Stage III. This action can send people to jail because often overpayments are reduced by underpaid child care expenses, thus avoiding doing jail time. There is also widespread deception by counties against CalWORKs recipients, telling them that they cannot claim child care unless the pro- vider has been certified by Trustline, WtW participants are being told they cannot get child care, when they are eligible for child care. This new law would enhance the de- ceptive acts of county workers to discourage parents from getting child care. 2. Aged & Disabled Poverty Levels. Medi-Cal ACL 02-24 raises the A&D FPL to $989 for single persons and $1,352 for couples. This means that if a person is getting SSA and some pension money which together, is less than $989, then that person can get Medi-Cal with no share of cost. CCWRO will be adding to our next publication of our Public Assistance Tables. 3. Income From a Roamer is \”self-employment\”. On October 29, 2001, Sean McAd- ams of Santa Cruz e-mailed a question to DSS as follows: Since regulations state that income from a \”roomer\” is treated as earned self-employment, can the household elect the flat 40% self-employment income deduction instead of actual self- employment expenses. On November 2, 2001, Rosemary Akhidenor of DSS re- sponded as follows: \”Income from a roomer is considered self-employment income to the household; therefore, yes, the household can choose either the actual or standard deduction of 40% as specified in MPP 63-503.413.\” ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS – 1. Child Support Department Emergency Regulations Adopted 2 OAL FILE NUMBER: 02-0520-01E AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES TOPIC: Barnes Notice SECTION AFFECTED: California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 22, Section 119184 & Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP), Section 12-225.3 AGENCY CONTACT: Lucila Ledesma @ (916) 464-5087 APPROVED ON 5-29-02 ______________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – Homeless Assistance California started February 1, 2002, with 3,852 homeless assistance requests at hand that was carried over from January of 2002. During February of 2002, counties received 4,514 homeless assistance requests. During February of 2002, counties processed 4,362 requests. They granted 3,209 requests and denied 1,153 requests. Clearly the counties processed less requests than they received, and they never touched their backlog. It should be noted that state law and regulations require that homeless as- sistance requests shall be acted upon the date of application for temporary homeless as- sistance and no later than the next working day for permanent homeless assistance. Something seems very wrong. Clearly, the state laws are being violated if there are so many cases backlogged and not being processed timely. This week, we are going to take a look at counties that have the highest rate of denials. Leading the pack is San Francisco County at 89%; next is Glenn County at 77%, then San Bernardino county, at 72%. San Bernardino County has made a career of denying homeless assistance to families and children eligible for homeless assistance. They have figured out every trick in the book to deny homeless assistance to eligible families. Then there are counties like Riverside, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara and San Mateo, who have 0% of denials. One may wonder how do they get 0% of denials? It is amazing, if you think about that Riverside County had 165 requests and denied none, while neighbor- ing San Bernardino County had 863 requests. Santa Clara County had 36 requests and denied none, while little Santa Cruz County had 10 requests. The answer is very simple. Counties like Riverside, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara, et.al. are prescreening people before they are allowed to apply for homeless assistance. If the screener decides that the re- quester is eligible for HA, then he or she is allowed to request HA. Attached, in Microsoft Excel format is a table showing how many requests were re- ceived by each county during 2\/02, how many were denied, how many were pending at the end of 2\/02, and the percentage of denials sorted. 3 ______________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE The following is a list of various bills in the hopper for TANF reauthorization. 1. The bill introduced by Rep. Pryce (R-OH) that passed in House of Representatives (H.R. 4737) on May 16, 2002. This is the House TANF Reauthorization Bill. 2. The Democratic substitute to H.R. 4737 offered in the House of Representatives by Reps. Cardin (D-MD), Woolsey (D-CA), and Kind (D-WI). This can be found in the Congressional Record. 3. Tri-Partisan Consensus Provisions released by members of the Senate Finance Com- mittee in the form of a letter to Senators Baucus and Grassley. 4. Principles released by a group of Senators on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pen- sions (HELP) Committee and other Senators in the form of a letter to Senators Baucus and Grassley. 5. A bill (S. 2052) introduced by Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. 6. A bill (S. 2058) introduced by Sen. Lincoln and Rep. Levin (H.R. 4057), which in- clude the same provisions found in the Rockefeller bill related to partial credit toward participation rates for part-time work and an employment credit. 7. A bill (S. 2524) introduced by Sen. Bayh, Sen. Carper, and others, and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. 8. A bill (S. 2552) introduced by Sen. Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Baucus (D-MT), and Sen. Bingaman (D-NM. 8. A bill (S. 2548) introduced by Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) and Senator Wellstone (D-MN. As you can see there are a lot of bills floating around and most of them are anti-family and anti-child. None of them remove time limits on children. They all violate the princi- ple of Leave no Child Behind- They all leave thousands of Children Behind . They im- pose time limits, even on newly born babies. How cruel. ______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: 4 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-23 June 17, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS CWD Victim of the Week- ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary CCWRO COMMENTARY: California Republicans continue to attack immigrants. During the 2002-2003 budget process, Republicans have suggested that the California Food Assistance Program for immigrants be repealed while over 500 million dollars are going to the foster care\/child welfare system. This money should be used to provide for California’s TANF families. Meanwhile, the new budget, at the urging of Republicans, and the concurrence of Democrats, denies cost-of-living to CalWORKs and SSI recipi- ents. Actually SSI recipients may get their COLA effective 1\/1\/03, while the children will get screwed – no COLA, until maybe June, 2003. ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS #1. Representatives of Legal Services and other advocates statewide are meeting with Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director of the State Department of Social Services to discuss issues facing welfare advocates. The agenda items raised by legal services programs and other advocates were: LEGAL SERVICES ISSUES FOR THE 5\/28\/02 MEETING a. Policy for granting county rehearing requests while denying representative\/recipient requests. (Riv., SB, SD, & LA counties) b. Failure to provide Immediate Need Cash, Food Stamps & Medi-Cal w\/in regulatory time lines. (Riv., SB & SD counties) c. Termination of Medi-Cal for categorically linked recipients in the midst of medical procedures on change of link status. (SB County) 2 d. Requiring a 3- day stay in a shelter, a Marshall’s Notice of eviction before a homeless client is allowed to apply for Homeless Assistance. (SB County) e. Suspension of benefits while a change in household composition or category takes place. (SB County) f. The failure of San Diego County to provide notices in languages other than English or Spanish that are available by the state (e.g. Vietnamese). g. Whether or not the state has the list of forms that San Diego County is currently using. The reason for this is that it appears that San Diego County is using a mandatory participant W2W sanction notice that is not approved by the state. (the state has a required, non-modified form to be used). h. volunteer\/exempt and support services (denials of being a volunteer and\/or allowing to be a volunteer, but denying support services) i. Support services aid paid pending issues (non-provision thereof because of lack of state guidance and\/or misinformation on the back of the notices of action…) j. Retroactive process for claiming income exclusion for CalWORKs work study, since workers were not informing recipients of their right to exclude educational expenses (which are not excludable unless verified, but no one knows that they are to verify this!) k. Compliance with the Welfare-to-Work review process (ACL 02-20). l. Compliance re learning disabilities (deadline 09-03-02). m. State hearings experience. (L.A. – DPSS- cites 25,000+ requests in 2001, 90% handled w\/o hearing, 7% of decisions favored clients.) [DCFS is separate.] n. Withdrawal application-county form v. DSS form and usage. o. The Notice of Action back page has some incorrect information regarding aid paid pending for supportive services. In addition, in the Sanction Workgroup Jody, Kate and Kevin did a lot of work on the back to make more user friendly. The back needs to be updated. (SHD Issue) p. Counties mandate that both parents be present at the intake and redetermination interview. If only one parent appears, the application is denied or the case is closed for not having both parents present at the 3 redetermination. There is no regulation that requires both parents be present at the interview. In fact, there is no regulation or statute that requires both parents sign the application. Yet applications are denied and cases are closed daily around the state for this reason. REMEDY: An ACL stating that there is no legal authority for this requirement and stop denying applications or closing cases for failure of the other parent to show up for the interview or sign the various application forms. q. Homeless Assistance. It appears that some counties are not allowing homeless people to apply for HA, unless the county prescreens then and makes sure they are eligible. This is how it works. A homeless person comes to the local office. States he or she is homeless. Is told by the receptionist \”you have wait and see your worker\”. Then the worker comes out. \”Do you have a Marshall notice?\” Answer \”NO, we are sleeping in the car.\” CWD Worker. \”Without a Marshall’s Notice we cannot give you homeless assistance. When you get a Marshall’s Notice, come back and I’ll give you HA.\” r. Update on Supportive Services Workgroup s. Discussion of Implementation of the Child Care Retroactive Limitations provisions t. Discussion of the implementation of other CalWORKs provisions in the trailer bill, if there is one enacted by 6\/28\/02. #2. DSS regulations implementing ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER (EBT) REGULATIONS ORD# 0202-04 is available on the DSS webpage at http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/CDSSPropos_366.htm. The public comment period for this package will close on June 21, 2002 at 5:00p.m. These regulations will effect all CalWORKs participants. It is important for advocates to comment on these regulations. #3. On 5\/21\/02 DSS published ACIN I-37-02 announcing that persons whose unemploy- ment insurance benefits ran out on or after 3\/15\/01 are eligible for another 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. This extension ends on 12\/31\/02. http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_581.htm #4. NEW DSS ALL COUNTY LETTERS- * ACL 02-31 (April 2, 2002) Participation Requirements For Two-Parent Assistance Units (AU) * ACL 02-33 (May 1, 2002) California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Regulations For 60-Month Time Limit Procedures * ACL 02-34 (May 3, 2002) 4 California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program County Post Assessment Policies And Procedures Remedy Notices Of Action * ACL 02-35 (May 8, 2002) Extended Implementation Date For Learning Disabilities Screening And Evaluation In The California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program * ACL 02-36 (May 9, 2002) Changes To The California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program To Allow Parents To Receive CalWORKs Services When Their Child Is Re- ceiving Out-Of-Home Care * ACL 02-37 (May 13, 2002) Release Of Refugees And Other Non-Citizens Previously Held In Indefinite Detention * ACL 02-38 (May 22, 2002) Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) * ACL 02-38 (REVISED)(June 5, 2002) Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) * ACL 02-39 (June 3, 2002) County Status Report On Assembly Bill (AB) 1682 Implementation To download any of these ACLs, go to http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_584.htm #4. DSS State hearing division issued Item 02-04-03A entitled Equitable Estoppel Up- date. This memo presents DSS policy that equitable estoppel does not apply to Food Stamps due to the recently issued Vang v. Saenz Third Appellate District Court decision that reversed the 1993 Superior Court decision holding that equitable estoppel does apply to food stamps. This is an unpublished decision. DSS tried to get it published, but was not successful. This document also analysis some court cases that support the departments’ efforts to deny equitable estoppel relief to CalWORKs recipients. A copy of this docu- ment is attached hereto for your convenience. ______________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – WtW Sanction During February, 2002, 24% of the unduplicated participants statewide were sanctioned by the county welfare departments. The purpose of the WtW program is to allegedly make families on welfare self-sufficient. Interestingly, only 3% of the participants found employment that resulted in termination of public assistance; 14 counties, including Marin, Sutter and Yuba achieved 0% success in finding employment that resulted in the termination of WtW participants. At one percent are San Bernardino, Kern, Madera, Butte, Shasta, Orange. These counties spend millions of dollars to assist participants in becoming self-sufficient. The data shows a colossal failure, but the money keeps flowing. 5 The sanction leaders are Merced at 83%, Fresno at 73%, Calaveras at 63%. If you want a copy of the hard data, please ask for the 2\/02 WtW data, and we will be glad to e-mail it to you in Microsoft excel format. ______________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE On June 17, 2002, the Senate Finance Committee will be marking up the TANF reauthorization legislation. It is not clear at this time what will happen. Even if it passed, it has to go to conference. Moreover, Bush now has \”homeland security\” on the agenda. Whatever passes, there is going to be more sadistic attacks on impoverished families and children. Republicans may be hoping that TANF reauthorization will not pass this year so they can make it a campaign issue. Democrats may be so excited to pass something that they will give the store away just to get the issue of \”welfare\” of the radar screen. WHO ARE THE VICTIMS? Impoverished families, babies and children are the victims again, thanks to the political games of politicians starting with Bill Clinton, George Bush, the Republican and Democratic parties. ______________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK- On December 20, 2001, San Diego County attempted to impose a 6 month sanction for CalWORKs and 12 month sanction of Food Stamps. Allegedly, Ms. C.H., a mother of four (4) children, had the father of one of the children, Mr. B, living with her from 9\/98 through 10\/99. The only evidence presented by San Diego County was a report done by their welfare fraud workers. The evidence introduced reveals that Mr. B. told San Diego County wel- fare fraud investigator that during ’98 and ’99, he was living in Las Vegas. He did visit Ms. C.H. now and then, but did not live there. The report also showed that Ms. C.H. indi- cated that he did visit her, but he did not live with her during 98 and 99. Luckily, she had a hearing and Administrative Law Judge, Deborah Smaller, found in favor of Ms. C.H. concluding that the county failed to prove that Mr. B. was living with Ms. C.H. during 9\/98 through 10\/99. There is justice now and then. ______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS 6 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-23 June 17, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS CWD Victim of the Week- ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary CCWRO COMMENTARY: California Republicans continue to attack immigrants. During the 2002-2003 budget process, Republicans have suggested that the California Food Assistance Program for immigrants be repealed while over 500 million dollars are going to the foster care\/child welfare system. This money should be used to provide for California’s TANF families. Meanwhile, the new budget, at the urging of Republicans, and the concurrence of Democrats, denies cost-of-living to CalWORKs and SSI recipi- ents. Actually SSI recipients may get their COLA effective 1\/1\/03, while the children will get screwed – no COLA, until maybe June, 2003. ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS #1. Representatives of Legal Services and other advocates statewide are meeting with Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director of the State Department of Social Services to discuss issues facing welfare advocates. The agenda items raised by legal services programs and other advocates were: LEGAL SERVICES ISSUES FOR THE 5\/28\/02 MEETING a. Policy for granting county rehearing requests while denying representative\/recipient requests. (Riv., SB, SD, & LA counties) b. Failure to provide Immediate Need Cash, Food Stamps & Medi-Cal w\/in regulatory time lines. (Riv., SB & SD counties) c. Termination of Medi-Cal for categorically linked recipients in the midst of medical procedures on change of link status. (SB County) 2 d. Requiring a 3- day stay in a shelter, a Marshall’s Notice of eviction before a homeless client is allowed to apply for Homeless Assistance. (SB County) e. Suspension of benefits while a change in household composition or category takes place. (SB County) f. The failure of San Diego County to provide notices in languages other than English or Spanish that are available by the state (e.g. Vietnamese). g. Whether or not the state has the list of forms that San Diego County is currently using. The reason for this is that it appears that San Diego County is using a mandatory participant W2W sanction notice that is not approved by the state. (the state has a required, non-modified form to be used). h. volunteer\/exempt and support services (denials of being a volunteer and\/or allowing to be a volunteer, but denying support services) i. Support services aid paid pending issues (non-provision thereof because of lack of state guidance and\/or misinformation on the back of the notices of action…) j. Retroactive process for claiming income exclusion for CalWORKs work study, since workers were not informing recipients of their right to exclude educational expenses (which are not excludable unless verified, but no one knows that they are to verify this!) k. Compliance with the Welfare-to-Work review process (ACL 02-20). l. Compliance re learning disabilities (deadline 09-03-02). m. State hearings experience. (L.A. – DPSS- cites 25,000+ requests in 2001, 90% handled w\/o hearing, 7% of decisions favored clients.) [DCFS is separate.] n. Withdrawal application-county form v. DSS form and usage. o. The Notice of Action back page has some incorrect information regarding aid paid pending for supportive services. In addition, in the Sanction Workgroup Jody, Kate and Kevin did a lot of work on the back to make more user friendly. The back needs to be updated. (SHD Issue) p. Counties mandate that both parents be present at the intake and redetermination interview. If only one parent appears, the application is denied or the case is closed for not having both parents present at the 3 redetermination. There is no regulation that requires both parents be present at the interview. In fact, there is no regulation or statute that requires both parents sign the application. Yet applications are denied and cases are closed daily around the state for this reason. REMEDY: An ACL stating that there is no legal authority for this requirement and stop denying applications or closing cases for failure of the other parent to show up for the interview or sign the various application forms. q. Homeless Assistance. It appears that some counties are not allowing homeless people to apply for HA, unless the county prescreens then and makes sure they are eligible. This is how it works. A homeless person comes to the local office. States he or she is homeless. Is told by the receptionist \”you have wait and see your worker\”. Then the worker comes out. \”Do you have a Marshall notice?\” Answer \”NO, we are sleeping in the car.\” CWD Worker. \”Without a Marshall’s Notice we cannot give you homeless assistance. When you get a Marshall’s Notice, come back and I’ll give you HA.\” r. Update on Supportive Services Workgroup s. Discussion of Implementation of the Child Care Retroactive Limitations provisions t. Discussion of the implementation of other CalWORKs provisions in the trailer bill, if there is one enacted by 6\/28\/02. #2. DSS regulations implementing ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER (EBT) REGULATIONS ORD# 0202-04 is available on the DSS webpage at http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/CDSSPropos_366.htm. The public comment period for this package will close on June 21, 2002 at 5:00p.m. These regulations will effect all CalWORKs participants. It is important for advocates to comment on these regulations. #3. On 5\/21\/02 DSS published ACIN I-37-02 announcing that persons whose unemploy- ment insurance benefits ran out on or after 3\/15\/01 are eligible for another 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. This extension ends on 12\/31\/02. http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_581.htm #4. NEW DSS ALL COUNTY LETTERS- * ACL 02-31 (April 2, 2002) Participation Requirements For Two-Parent Assistance Units (AU) * ACL 02-33 (May 1, 2002) California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Regulations For 60-Month Time Limit Procedures * ACL 02-34 (May 3, 2002) 4 California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program County Post Assessment Policies And Procedures Remedy Notices Of Action * ACL 02-35 (May 8, 2002) Extended Implementation Date For Learning Disabilities Screening And Evaluation In The California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program * ACL 02-36 (May 9, 2002) Changes To The California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program To Allow Parents To Receive CalWORKs Services When Their Child Is Re- ceiving Out-Of-Home Care * ACL 02-37 (May 13, 2002) Release Of Refugees And Other Non-Citizens Previously Held In Indefinite Detention * ACL 02-38 (May 22, 2002) Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) * ACL 02-38 (REVISED)(June 5, 2002) Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) * ACL 02-39 (June 3, 2002) County Status Report On Assembly Bill (AB) 1682 Implementation To download any of these ACLs, go to http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_584.htm #4. DSS State hearing division issued Item 02-04-03A entitled Equitable Estoppel Up- date. This memo presents DSS policy that equitable estoppel does not apply to Food Stamps due to the recently issued Vang v. Saenz Third Appellate District Court decision that reversed the 1993 Superior Court decision holding that equitable estoppel does apply to food stamps. This is an unpublished decision. DSS tried to get it published, but was not successful. This document also analysis some court cases that support the departments’ efforts to deny equitable estoppel relief to CalWORKs recipients. A copy of this docu- ment is attached hereto for your convenience. ______________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – WtW Sanction During February, 2002, 24% of the unduplicated participants statewide were sanctioned by the county welfare departments. The purpose of the WtW program is to allegedly make families on welfare self-sufficient. Interestingly, only 3% of the participants found employment that resulted in termination of public assistance; 14 counties, including Marin, Sutter and Yuba achieved 0% success in finding employment that resulted in the termination of WtW participants. At one percent are San Bernardino, Kern, Madera, Butte, Shasta, Orange. These counties spend millions of dollars to assist participants in becoming self-sufficient. The data shows a colossal failure, but the money keeps flowing. 5 The sanction leaders are Merced at 83%, Fresno at 73%, Calaveras at 63%. If you want a copy of the hard data, please ask for the 2\/02 WtW data, and we will be glad to e-mail it to you in Microsoft excel format. ______________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE On June 17, 2002, the Senate Finance Committee will be marking up the TANF reauthorization legislation. It is not clear at this time what will happen. Even if it passed, it has to go to conference. Moreover, Bush now has \”homeland security\” on the agenda. Whatever passes, there is going to be more sadistic attacks on impoverished families and children. Republicans may be hoping that TANF reauthorization will not pass this year so they can make it a campaign issue. Democrats may be so excited to pass something that they will give the store away just to get the issue of \”welfare\” of the radar screen. WHO ARE THE VICTIMS? Impoverished families, babies and children are the victims again, thanks to the political games of politicians starting with Bill Clinton, George Bush, the Republican and Democratic parties. ______________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK- On December 20, 2001, San Diego County attempted to impose a 6 month sanction for CalWORKs and 12 month sanction of Food Stamps. Allegedly, Ms. C.H., a mother of four (4) children, had the father of one of the children, Mr. B, living with her from 9\/98 through 10\/99. The only evidence presented by San Diego County was a report done by their welfare fraud workers. The evidence introduced reveals that Mr. B. told San Diego County wel- fare fraud investigator that during ’98 and ’99, he was living in Las Vegas. He did visit Ms. C.H. now and then, but did not live there. The report also showed that Ms. C.H. indi- cated that he did visit her, but he did not live with her during 98 and 99. Luckily, she had a hearing and Administrative Law Judge, Deborah Smaller, found in favor of Ms. C.H. concluding that the county failed to prove that Mr. B. was living with Ms. C.H. during 9\/98 through 10\/99. There is justice now and then. ______________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS 6 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2002-24 July 1, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF STATE WELFARE NEWS TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS CWD Victim of the Week- ATTACHMENT OF LAST WEEK THE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL POLICY FOR STATE HEARINGS ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary Welfare Deform is in full bloom in Washington D.C. The house has passed the Bush- House Republican-anti-child-anti-humane TANF reauthorization bill and the Senate is now working on their version of the bill. There is nothing in these bills that help human beings. It is all bad. The opponents of the bill want more money for the State Welfare Administrators who impose mean-spirited sanctions and refuse to give poor families a simple cost-of-living increase. In fact, some States reduced benefits. The debate is filled with LIES that TANF has been a success. While the number of fami- lies kicked off aid are about 50%, the child poverty rate has gone down by 0.7% accord- ing to some studies. This means that 49% of those kicked off of continue to suffer in pov- erty, while the welfare bureaucrats continue to swim in welfare money that should go to families in need. Recent reports by Manpower Demonstration Research Center (MDRC) reveal that ado- lescent children of parents doing TANF work requirements duty have more behavioral problems than children of parents who are not participating in work requirement duties. Thus, work requirements HURT CHILDREN Bush wants to hurt children more. The proponents of increased work requirements want to leave more and more children behind, while hypocritically and without any shame, talk about leaving no child behind . ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS Welfare Advocates Meet with DSS On June 28, 2002, advocates from legal service organizations met with DSS to discuss welfare issues. Present was; Julia Aguilar of LSNC. Dora Lopez of NLS, Daniel Benson 2 of LASS, Eve Hershcopf of the Child Care Law Center, Joseph Ramos of ICL, Michelle Morrow of CRLA, Amy Lee and Robert Capistrano of BALA, Jodie Burger of the Em- ployment Law Center and Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. Welfare Checks and the Budget-Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director for Welfare pro- grams, informed the group that counties would be mailing out welfare checks. By way of background, Bruce said that DSS had mailed an All County Letter (ACL) stating that the State will not be giving the counties advance money to issue welfare payment checks. Some counties balked at mailing out welfare checks on July 1, 2002. Thursday night (6\/27\/02), the State Department of Finance talked to the Controller’s office about this problem. The Controller’s office agreed to issue advances to counties. DSS has informed the counties that they are going to get their advances and another ACL is going out to this effect to the counties. Time Limits Start 1\/1\/03 – Bruce stated that there are 93,000 cases where the adult or adults will time out on January 1, 2003. After that, DSS estimates that each month about 1,300 cases will time out. Bruce explained that emergency regulations were published regarding time limits. The regulations provided that counties will send individualized no- tices of action (NOAs) to current recipients at the 54th and 58th months, and a 10-day NOA before 1\/1\/03 explaining that their 60 months have expired with the reasons setforth in the NOA. The 54th month was supposed to be July 2002. Counties have complained that they are unable to do the comprehensive NOA, thus DSS will be publishing final regulations, which provide that the 54th month will be the notification and not a NOA. At this time 55 counties have a computer system that tracks the time that an individual has been on aid. Monthly Reporting System Effective April 2003, DSS will be implementing a quar- terly reporting system. During the quarter a recipient has to report income that would make then ineligible. The details of how this system will be worked during now and 4\/03. Learning Disabilities The implementation of the learning disabilities evaluation was supposed to be 3\/5\/02, which was moved to 5\/1\/02. Well, 5\/1\/02 has come and gone. The new date is now 9\/3\/02. According to this policy all applicants will be screened for learn- ing disabilities at assessment. Any individual can ask to be screened and the CWD has to do the screening. In addition, mandatory screening will be offered before a sanction is imposed or a person has been determined not to have made satisfactory progress in their WtW assignment. Language problems with NOAs and welfare forms A discussion regarding the fail- ure to issue DSS-translated forms were discussed. This is a widespread problem through- out the State of California. Counties do not issue NOAs in languages other than English and Spanish because their computer system does not generate NOAs in languages other than English and Spanish. Often, Spanish NOAs are not issued to persons designated as a Spanish-speaking case. Another suggestion made was that DSS NOT issues NOAs and forms before such forms and NOAs are available in all of the threshold languages. 3 DSS stated that it takes time to get the forms translated, so they issue the English ver- sions, then send out the translated versions. The advocates suggested that the reason counties to do not use translated forms is because they get the translated ones well after the English forms have been in place for several months and in some cases, over a year. RECOMMENDATION: (1) The DSS establish a policy of releasing no Forms or NOAs unless they are ready in all required languages. (2) That counties be required to modify their computer system to issue NOAs in all required languages. Volunteers Not Getting Supportive Services This was an issue of WtW volunteers not being able to secure supportive services because they are unable to access the WtW Volunteer Plan to get such supportive services. Another problem was that counties have no time limit for acting on the request from an exempt person to volunteer for WtW. DSS will inform us of what can be done about assuring that volunteers are able to volun- teer, participate and receive supportive services. 2-Parents Required to Attend Application Interview and Annual Redetermination Most counties deny a CalWORKs application if both parents do not attend the face-to- face interview. There is nothing in the CalWORKs regulations that require both parents to be present for the face-to-face interview or the face-to-face interview during annual redetermination. Yet counties deny applications and refuse to conduct redetermination if both parents are not present. Often one of the parents’ is working. CalWORKs recipients have lost their jobs because they had to keep these appointments rather than being at work. Advocates would like an ACL on this issue. DSS stated that they are researching this issue at this time and will respond at the next meeting. Homeless Assistance Advocates stated that counties are not administering the home- less assistance in accordance with the regulations. Many counties will not give the HA application form to applicants who go to the welfare office seeking homeless assistance. They are told to see their worker, who will give them a HA application. If the worker is not in, some counties tell the applicant come back tomorrow , which is illegal. Advocates suggested that DSS do another ACL explaining that applicants and recipients have a right to apply for HA without seeing their worker. Immediate Need (IN) for CalWORKs Advocates complained that counties are not issuing immediate need as required by state law. It was also pointed out that DSS used to have a reporting system of IN, but that was stopped, thus, DSS has no idea what is hap- pening in the area of IN. 4 RECOMMENDATION: In light of the fact that Bruce Wagstaff had stated in the first meeting that DSS wants to be proactive, rather than reactive, advocates suggested that the IN reporting system be reinstated. The next meeting will be Thursday, Sept 26th (9\/26\/02. Persons who have issues that they would like to raise can do so by mailing them to CCWRO. ______________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE PASSES ITS WELFARE DEFORM BILL On June 26, 2002, the Senate Finance Committee passed what is called the Work Act , HR 4737. The bill passed 13 yeas and 8 no votes. Yes: Baucus, (D) Rockefeller (D), Breaux (D), Conrad(D), Graham (D), Jeffords(I), Bingham(D), Kerry(D), Torricelli(D), Lincoln (D), Hatch (R), Snowe (R), Murk- owski(R). No: Daschle (D), Grassley (R), Nickles (R), Gramm (R), Lott (R), Thompson (R), Kyl (R), Thomas (R). WELFARE RIGHTS ADVOCACY On May 31, 2002, a group of welfare recipients gathered before the Office of Congress- woman Jennifer Dunn protesting the Republican Marriage Incentive. The following are the Wedding vows: The Wedding Vows Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the welfare office of the future – envi- sioned for us by the House Republicans and Representative Dunn- to enjoin these women into the state of holy matrimony. Marriage, my dear friends, is a time-honored institution by which two people who love one another deeply bind their lives together, pledging their fidelity and their lifelong support for one another. That is, unless the woman is poor. Here in the welfare system of the Republican Congress, marriage is the answer to pov- erty, and women MUST wed to secure the financial future of their children. Today, these women will wed for welfare. They will make a holy pledge to love, honor and obey someone till death do them part. Together with someone, they will take a vow 5 for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, foresaking all others as long as they both shall live. Umm .. Will some of you gentlemen kindly come forward and marry these women, and relieve the government of its role in providing real support for women on welfare? (Uncle Same coaxes men forward) Now that we have some grooms . Let us proceed. Now if anyone here can show just cause as to why they should not be married, speak now or forever hold your peace. (Women voice objections) By the power vested in me by the Bill of Rights and the American public, I pronounce these marriage incentives unfair and unjust! – Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition 820 E. Pine Seattle, WA 98122 206\/324-3063 1-877\/330-3063 www.wroc.org ______________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK- San Bernardino County Victim – Ms. 2001144820 was mailed a notice of action impos- ing a 12 month food stamp and 6 month CalWORKs Intentional Program Violation (IPV) sanction for allegedly not telling San Bernardino County that she had a 1995 Honda. Val Silva of San Bernardino alleged that Ms. 2001144820 was the registered owner of the 1995 Honda during March, 2001, because they witnessed her drive away from the wel- fare office in a 1995 Honda and the DMV records showed that she was the registered owner of the car. Ms. 2001144820 testified that in January of 2001, she transferred own- ership of the 1995 Honda to her sister and that she had reported this fact to her welfare worker. She also testified that she was not informed at the time of application what the resource limits were for automobiles. She first found out about the resource limits when the San Bernardino welfare fraud investigators contacted her. She fully cooperated with the investigators, according to the fair hearing decision. In this case, Administrative Law Judge, James Beall found that the county had failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that Ms. 2001144820 had committed an intentional program violation. Riverside County Tries to Collect Overpayment Alleging Fleeing Felon Ms. 2001218050 was mailed a letter stating that she had been overpaid because the father of her child was a fleeing felon and they failed to tell Riverside County of this fact. The fair hearing reveals that on October 23, 1998 police visited her house because her nephew ran away. Ms. 2001144820’s common law spouse spoke to the police officers and gave them his true identity. The officers left and then returned to arrest Ms. 2001144820’s common law spouse, because he had a warrant out for his arrest issued on 9\/10\/02. Neither he nor 6 she knew about it. This was all explained to the Riverside County, but Riverside County still insisted that Ms. 2001144820 was overpaid for 9\/98 and 10\/98, because he was a fleeing felon. A fleeing felon is a person who is running away to avoid a felony prosecu- tion. (See 82-832 et.seq.) In this case, neither Ms. 2001144820 or her common law spouse knew that he had a felony warrant out for his arrest. Moreover, Riverside County could not even prove that he knew about the warrant. In fact, Riverside reasonably knew that the victims had no knowledge of the warrant, but proceeded to try to intentionally take money away from Ms. 2001144820 to which they had no right to do so. The county’s action amounted to an attempted theft, but to date, there are no warrants issued against Riverside County for this attempted theft and no Intentional Program Violation Sanctions for trying to rob Ms. 2001144820 of $78. ______________________________________________________ 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 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2002-24 July 1, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF STATE WELFARE NEWS TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS CWD Victim of the Week- ATTACHMENT OF LAST WEEK THE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL POLICY FOR STATE HEARINGS ______________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary Welfare Deform is in full bloom in Washington D.C. The house has passed the Bush- House Republican-anti-child-anti-humane TANF reauthorization bill and the Senate is now working on their version of the bill. There is nothing in these bills that help human beings. It is all bad. The opponents of the bill want more money for the State Welfare Administrators who impose mean-spirited sanctions and refuse to give poor families a simple cost-of-living increase. In fact, some States reduced benefits. The debate is filled with LIES that TANF has been a success. While the number of fami- lies kicked off aid are about 50%, the child poverty rate has gone down by 0.7% accord- ing to some studies. This means that 49% of those kicked off of continue to suffer in pov- erty, while the welfare bureaucrats continue to swim in welfare money that should go to families in need. Recent reports by Manpower Demonstration Research Center (MDRC) reveal that ado- lescent children of parents doing TANF work requirements duty have more behavioral problems than children of parents who are not participating in work requirement duties. Thus, work requirements HURT CHILDREN Bush wants to hurt children more. The proponents of increased work requirements want to leave more and more children behind, while hypocritically and without any shame, talk about leaving no child behind . ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS Welfare Advocates Meet with DSS On June 28, 2002, advocates from legal service organizations met with DSS to discuss welfare issues. Present was; Julia Aguilar of LSNC. Dora Lopez of NLS, Daniel Benson 2 of LASS, Eve Hershcopf of the Child Care Law Center, Joseph Ramos of ICL, Michelle Morrow of CRLA, Amy Lee and Robert Capistrano of BALA, Jodie Burger of the Em- ployment Law Center and Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. Welfare Checks and the Budget-Bruce Wagstaff, Deputy Director for Welfare pro- grams, informed the group that counties would be mailing out welfare checks. By way of background, Bruce said that DSS had mailed an All County Letter (ACL) stating that the State will not be giving the counties advance money to issue welfare payment checks. Some counties balked at mailing out welfare checks on July 1, 2002. Thursday night (6\/27\/02), the State Department of Finance talked to the Controller’s office about this problem. The Controller’s office agreed to issue advances to counties. DSS has informed the counties that they are going to get their advances and another ACL is going out to this effect to the counties. Time Limits Start 1\/1\/03 – Bruce stated that there are 93,000 cases where the adult or adults will time out on January 1, 2003. After that, DSS estimates that each month about 1,300 cases will time out. Bruce explained that emergency regulations were published regarding time limits. The regulations provided that counties will send individualized no- tices of action (NOAs) to current recipients at the 54th and 58th months, and a 10-day NOA before 1\/1\/03 explaining that their 60 months have expired with the reasons setforth in the NOA. The 54th month was supposed to be July 2002. Counties have complained that they are unable to do the comprehensive NOA, thus DSS will be publishing final regulations, which provide that the 54th month will be the notification and not a NOA. At this time 55 counties have a computer system that tracks the time that an individual has been on aid. Monthly Reporting System Effective April 2003, DSS will be implementing a quar- terly reporting system. During the quarter a recipient has to report income that would make then ineligible. The details of how this system will be worked during now and 4\/03. Learning Disabilities The implementation of the learning disabilities evaluation was supposed to be 3\/5\/02, which was moved to 5\/1\/02. Well, 5\/1\/02 has come and gone. The new date is now 9\/3\/02. According to this policy all applicants will be screened for learn- ing disabilities at assessment. Any individual can ask to be screened and the CWD has to do the screening. In addition, mandatory screening will be offered before a sanction is imposed or a person has been determined not to have made satisfactory progress in their WtW assignment. Language problems with NOAs and welfare forms A discussion regarding the fail- ure to issue DSS-translated forms were discussed. This is a widespread problem through- out the State of California. Counties do not issue NOAs in languages other than English and Spanish because their computer system does not generate NOAs in languages other than English and Spanish. Often, Spanish NOAs are not issued to persons designated as a Spanish-speaking case. Another suggestion made was that DSS NOT issues NOAs and forms before such forms and NOAs are available in all of the threshold languages. 3 DSS stated that it takes time to get the forms translated, so they issue the English ver- sions, then send out the translated versions. The advocates suggested that the reason counties to do not use translated forms is because they get the translated ones well after the English forms have been in place for several months and in some cases, over a year. RECOMMENDATION: (1) The DSS establish a policy of releasing no Forms or NOAs unless they are ready in all required languages. (2) That counties be required to modify their computer system to issue NOAs in all required languages. Volunteers Not Getting Supportive Services This was an issue of WtW volunteers not being able to secure supportive services because they are unable to access the WtW Volunteer Plan to get such supportive services. Another problem was that counties have no time limit for acting on the request from an exempt person to volunteer for WtW. DSS will inform us of what can be done about assuring that volunteers are able to volun- teer, participate and receive supportive services. 2-Parents Required to Attend Application Interview and Annual Redetermination Most counties deny a CalWORKs application if both parents do not attend the face-to- face interview. There is nothing in the CalWORKs regulations that require both parents to be present for the face-to-face interview or the face-to-face interview during annual redetermination. Yet counties deny applications and refuse to conduct redetermination if both parents are not present. Often one of the parents’ is working. CalWORKs recipients have lost their jobs because they had to keep these appointments rather than being at work. Advocates would like an ACL on this issue. DSS stated that they are researching this issue at this time and will respond at the next meeting. Homeless Assistance Advocates stated that counties are not administering the home- less assistance in accordance with the regulations. Many counties will not give the HA application form to applicants who go to the welfare office seeking homeless assistance. They are told to see their worker, who will give them a HA application. If the worker is not in, some counties tell the applicant come back tomorrow , which is illegal. Advocates suggested that DSS do another ACL explaining that applicants and recipients have a right to apply for HA without seeing their worker. Immediate Need (IN) for CalWORKs Advocates complained that counties are not issuing immediate need as required by state law. It was also pointed out that DSS used to have a reporting system of IN, but that was stopped, thus, DSS has no idea what is hap- pening in the area of IN. 4 RECOMMENDATION: In light of the fact that Bruce Wagstaff had stated in the first meeting that DSS wants to be proactive, rather than reactive, advocates suggested that the IN reporting system be reinstated. The next meeting will be Thursday, Sept 26th (9\/26\/02. Persons who have issues that they would like to raise can do so by mailing them to CCWRO. ______________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE PASSES ITS WELFARE DEFORM BILL On June 26, 2002, the Senate Finance Committee passed what is called the Work Act , HR 4737. The bill passed 13 yeas and 8 no votes. Yes: Baucus, (D) Rockefeller (D), Breaux (D), Conrad(D), Graham (D), Jeffords(I), Bingham(D), Kerry(D), Torricelli(D), Lincoln (D), Hatch (R), Snowe (R), Murk- owski(R). No: Daschle (D), Grassley (R), Nickles (R), Gramm (R), Lott (R), Thompson (R), Kyl (R), Thomas (R). WELFARE RIGHTS ADVOCACY On May 31, 2002, a group of welfare recipients gathered before the Office of Congress- woman Jennifer Dunn protesting the Republican Marriage Incentive. The following are the Wedding vows: The Wedding Vows Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the welfare office of the future – envi- sioned for us by the House Republicans and Representative Dunn- to enjoin these women into the state of holy matrimony. Marriage, my dear friends, is a time-honored institution by which two people who love one another deeply bind their lives together, pledging their fidelity and their lifelong support for one another. That is, unless the woman is poor. Here in the welfare system of the Republican Congress, marriage is the answer to pov- erty, and women MUST wed to secure the financial future of their children. Today, these women will wed for welfare. They will make a holy pledge to love, honor and obey someone till death do them part. Together with someone, they will take a vow 5 for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, foresaking all others as long as they both shall live. Umm .. Will some of you gentlemen kindly come forward and marry these women, and relieve the government of its role in providing real support for women on welfare? (Uncle Same coaxes men forward) Now that we have some grooms . Let us proceed. Now if anyone here can show just cause as to why they should not be married, speak now or forever hold your peace. (Women voice objections) By the power vested in me by the Bill of Rights and the American public, I pronounce these marriage incentives unfair and unjust! – Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition 820 E. Pine Seattle, WA 98122 206\/324-3063 1-877\/330-3063 www.wroc.org ______________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK- San Bernardino County Victim – Ms. 2001144820 was mailed a notice of action impos- ing a 12 month food stamp and 6 month CalWORKs Intentional Program Violation (IPV) sanction for allegedly not telling San Bernardino County that she had a 1995 Honda. Val Silva of San Bernardino alleged that Ms. 2001144820 was the registered owner of the 1995 Honda during March, 2001, because they witnessed her drive away from the wel- fare office in a 1995 Honda and the DMV records showed that she was the registered owner of the car. Ms. 2001144820 testified that in January of 2001, she transferred own- ership of the 1995 Honda to her sister and that she had reported this fact to her welfare worker. She also testified that she was not informed at the time of application what the resource limits were for automobiles. She first found out about the resource limits when the San Bernardino welfare fraud investigators contacted her. She fully cooperated with the investigators, according to the fair hearing decision. In this case, Administrative Law Judge, James Beall found that the county had failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that Ms. 2001144820 had committed an intentional program violation. Riverside County Tries to Collect Overpayment Alleging Fleeing Felon Ms. 2001218050 was mailed a letter stating that she had been overpaid because the father of her child was a fleeing felon and they failed to tell Riverside County of this fact. The fair hearing reveals that on October 23, 1998 police visited her house because her nephew ran away. Ms. 2001144820’s common law spouse spoke to the police officers and gave them his true identity. The officers left and then returned to arrest Ms. 2001144820’s common law spouse, because he had a warrant out for his arrest issued on 9\/10\/02. Neither he nor 6 she knew about it. This was all explained to the Riverside County, but Riverside County still insisted that Ms. 2001144820 was overpaid for 9\/98 and 10\/98, because he was a fleeing felon. A fleeing felon is a person who is running away to avoid a felony prosecu- tion. (See 82-832 et.seq.) In this case, neither Ms. 2001144820 or her common law spouse knew that he had a felony warrant out for his arrest. Moreover, Riverside County could not even prove that he knew about the warrant. In fact, Riverside reasonably knew that the victims had no knowledge of the warrant, but proceeded to try to intentionally take money away from Ms. 2001144820 to which they had no right to do so. The county’s action amounted to an attempted theft, but to date, there are no warrants issued against Riverside County for this attempted theft and no Intentional Program Violation Sanctions for trying to rob Ms. 2001144820 of $78. ______________________________________________________ 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 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] ”

” 1 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-25 July 8, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – NEW LITIGATION ALERT SEEKING PLAINTIFF IN CHILD SUPPORT FAIR HEARING CASE STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS 6\/19\/02 Food Stamp Program: Work Provisions CWD Victim of the Week- ____________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary On the third of July, 2002, Secretary of State Powel announced that in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, I hereby determine that Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation have committed, or pose a serious risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. na- tionals or the national security. We wonder how many rogue Child Protective Services workers meet this criterion of posing a serious risk of committing terror against families of poor people of America. But they will never get this recognition, even though they richly deserve it. STATE BUDGET STATUS While denying TANF recipients a meager cost-of-living increase, which saves the budget about $130 million, the California State Budget gives over $500 million TANF dollars to foster care programs. These foster care programs spend about $25,000 a year per child in foster care. The average CalWORKs recipient costs less than 15% of the $25,000 spent on one foster child. There are several other inhumane cuts in the 2002-2003 budget, which are totally unnec- essary, given the fact that while the TANF funding has remained the same, the caseload has gone down by 50%. TANF money was used to reward other more influential con- stituencies, such as community colleges, foster care group homes, who make huge con- tributions in the state Legislature, and other programs having nothing to do with meeting the day-to-day needs of impoverished families receiving CalWORKs. ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS —–Medi-Cal Inter County Transfer (ITC) – Department of Health Services (DHS) is circulating the third draft of an All County Letter (ACL) regarding Medi-Cal ITC. After three (3) drafts the unresolved issues according to California Welfare Directors Associa- tion (CWDA) are (1) when is the case transferred?; (2) when does the county to an an- nual redetermination?; (3) what happens if CalWORKs is denied?; (4) what is there is a change of address? In June there should be another draft circulating. Stay tuned. 2 ——Mail-In Applications At a 5\/202 CWDA meeting counties asked DHS if county workers can write on main-in applications? DHS told counties that then can do so, but it would have to be in different color ink. —–Estate Recovery Notice At this time Medi-Cal recipients get a half-page yellow notice about recovery twice a year developed by DHS ten (10) years ago. In July, 2002, a new notice will be mailed out. Los Angeles County has requested that the notice be done in all threshold language. —–DSS Conceals Public Information from the Public At a 5\/2\/02 meeting of CWDA DSS distributed an ACL\/ACIN summary. At this time, DSS is not making this public document public DSS is claiming that when DSS meets with counties at a CWDA meeting, they are simply meeting with their agents, and not a non-profit organi- zation that lobbies and represents the counties that often is opposed to action taken by DSS. —–Food Stamp In-Kind Income Policy At a 5\/2\/02 meeting of CWDA decided that they do not need an in-kind income policy because the counties make their own policy. Some use the fair market value to establish in-kind income values. Counties will be able to contact Varaneice of the DSS Food Stamp Policy Bureau to get underground di- rection for establishing a in-kind income policy. —–NEW DSS ACLs & ACINs ACL 02-41 (June 13, 2002) – Annual Food Stamp Program Participants By Ethnic Group Reports [DFA 358F (7\/02) And DFA 358S (7\/02)] ACL 02-42 (June 14, 2002) – Use Of The Work Number For Employment Verification In California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Program ACL 02-44 (June 24, 2002) – Providing California Work Opportunity And Responsibil- ity To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work (WTW) Services To Recipients Who Have Reached The Temporary Assistance To Needy Families (TANF) Time Limit ACLs can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_584.htm ACIN I-45-02 (June 26, 2002) – Annual County Food Stamp Program Questionnaire and Review of Hours of Operation, Access, And Awareness Activities This report shows what offices are available servicing food stamp recipients in California county-by-county. ACIN I-46-02 (June 28, 2002) – Food Stamp Work Requirement and Sanction Questions and Answers 3 ACIN I-47-02 (June 28, 2002) – California Work Opportunity And Responsibility To Kids (Calworks) 60-Month Time Limit Procedures For Informing Recipients Of Their Time On Aid ACINs can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/2002AllCou_581.htm ______________________________________________________ NEW LITIGATION ALERT SEEKING PLAINTIFF IN CHILD SUPPORT FAIR HEARING CASE CCWRO has obtained information that the State Department of Child Support Services is not scheduling child support fair hearings within the statutory 30 day time limits. (See Family Code Section 17801) This is a violation of State law. CCWRO has mailed a letter to the Director of the State Department of Child Support Services informing the Director to rectify the problem, otherwise CCWRO will be forced to seek relief elsewhere. NEED MORE PLAINTIFFS : If you have a victim of the failure of the State Department of Child Support Services to schedule a fair hearing within 30 days of the fair hearing request, please contact Grace A. Galligher at CCWRO or drop us an e\u2014mail. NEW CCWRO LITIGATION Kiselev v. Saenz CCWRO filed a new CCP 1985 law suit against DSS entitled Kiselev v. Saenz. In this case, the department has adopted an underground rule that a notice of action issued by the county that is not on the state prescribed notice can still be valid, if it was an effective notice The State regulations provide for Limited English Proficient recipients, the county shall use the state prescribed notice. See MPP 22-071.3) If the county fails to do so, then the notice in inadequate. Notwithstanding this clear regulation, DSS has a underground policy that the notice is not necessarily inadequate, if it was effective. The regulations do not provide such an exception, but then that has never stopped DSS from enacting and carrying out an underground rule. ______________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE George Bush is running around the country talking up welfare deform. Every time he opens his mouth, he is spitting out the word welfare . It appears that his pollsters have instructed him to say the word welfare whenever he gets a chance. Off course, no men- tion of corporate welfare. The talk these days is corporate responsibility without touching corporate welfare . No work requirements for the CEOs getting billions in corporate welfare. No time limits for corporate welfare. ______________________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK Food Stamp Expedited Services 4 The DFA 269X quarterly reports show how many food stamp applicants were considered for immediate need Food Stamps and how many were issued such benefits within the federal three day period. This report can be found at http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/DFA296X-Fo_424.htm The first quarter of 2002, there were 344,260 applications filed in California. Only 136,252 of those applications were considered for expedited food stamps. 52,195 we found to be entitled to expedited service food stamp benefits. In 39,275 cases the expe- dited food stamp benefits were issued in 3 days, while 12, 920 cases, in blatant violation of the state law, the applicants in dire need of food stamps were issued benefits after three days. There are no consequences for such county welfare department irresponsibility. There are no speeches by anyone holding county welfare directors responsible for their unlawful actions. And who are leading violators of the law this time? The top five awards go to Humbloldt at 44%; Tehama at 42%; Los Angeles County at 40%; Stanislaus at 34% and San Joaquin at 33%. The Second Top Five law violators of California are Ventura at 31%; Nevada at 27.5%; Mono at 25%; Sutter at 23% and Merced at 27%. County welfare officials unlawfully deny expedited Food Stamp statewide 25% of the cases. Attached is a Microsoft Excel file the statewide rankings. _______________________________________________________________________ _ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK This Sunday, July 7, 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle had a number of stories about victims of the current mean-spirited welfare deform. In one case, a San Jose woman, with two children, went on welfare, then went to Job Search and found a job at Costco. She started at $8 an hour and now gets $13 an hour. She does not qualify for welfare because of her high income. Although she is able to pay the rent, since March of 2002, her fam- ily has been without any electricity. She just could not afford to pay her PG&E bill. They have been utilityless for several months. Another success story of welfare deform. In another case, an Alameda woman, was attending college when she was ordered by the Alameda County welfare department to stop going to college and start attending job club. They teach folks how to write resumes. She has not phone and not car. One job she lost because she was told to appear at the welfare office to talk to her worker. She told her boss that her welfare worker said she has to go to the welfare office or face the loss of her welfare benefits. The job paid minimum wage and had no medical coverage. She obeyed the welfare worker and lost her job. 5 There are thousands of victims in California like the Alameda woman. And the torture continues on and on. ______________________________________________________ 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 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] ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-26 July 15, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – NEW LITIGATION ALERT STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS ____________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary — Privation of Social Security? Amnesia has accented upon the Republican Party. What privatization? Corporate responsibility is the theme now. It’s nice not to hear about immigrants and welfare recipients for a while. — Another week and the California State Budget is still stalled. Republicans want more cuts, but the cuts they have proposed will not even balance the budget. Meanwhile the budget before the State Legislature takes money away from children living with impoverished families and giving over $500 million to foster care group homes and middle class and upper class foster care parents, social workers and other professionals. NEW ACL 02-47 July 8, 2002 Applicants and Recipients who join or are called back to active military duty. America is at war. War means one of the parents go to war to fight the enemy. While mom or dad are fighting for their country, some have a family living on welfare and have to follow the welfare rules. It is comforting to know that while one is fighting for his or her country, his or her time clock continues to tick, because he or she is temporarily absent fighting for his or her country. At least this is what ACL 02-47 states. \”What happens if papa goes to war and mom and the babies can’t pay the rent. Can they qualify for CalWORKs? ACL 02-47 poses the question this way: \”Can deprivation be established for an applicant family when the parent is recalled to active duty? Answer: For an applicant family, the absence of the parent due solely to military service is not a basis of deprivation. MPP 41-450.13 and W&IC 11250(c) excludes active military duty as a basis for deprivation.\” This means that because papa is the Army fighting a War on America for at least 8 hours a day is working over 100 a month, mama and the babies are not eligible for CalWORKs. What can mama do? Well, she can file for a divorce. Now she is eligible. There are several questions about what is considered \”temporary absence\” for the purposes of continuing the CalWORKs benefits of recipients called into active duty. In order to be considered \”temporarily absent\”, the parent in military services has to show that he or she still maintain care and control of the children, and he\/she must intend to return home and there must be no severance of family ties. All in all this is just another example of how the United State of America treats the people who fighting for their country like criminals. ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS MDRC REPORT SHOWS WORK REUIREMENTS ARE BAD FOR ADOLESCENT CHILDREN. In May of 2002, the Manpower Demonstration Research Center (MDRC) released a report entitled \”How Welfare and Work Policies for Parents Affect Adolescents\” The report is funded by the Packard Foundation, the William T.Grant Found and the MacArthur Foundation. The issue of this research is what impact do work requirements have on kids. The answer was clear to most poor families in America negative. Common sense would dictate that a single parent working and not parenting the child, and living in poverty would have a negative impact on the children. But the answer is in the study. In this case MDRC followed parents who were not subject to work requirements and compared their children to those parents who were subject to the work requirements. The conclusion is that children of parents in work requirements had worse school performance, higher rate of grade repetition, and more use of special education services that the children whose parents were not subject to the work requirements. Adolescents with younger siblings experienced the most troubling effects. The adolescent children with younger siblings were more likely to be suspended or expelled from school compared to adolescent children with younger siblings whose parents were not subject to work requirements. Copies of this report may be found at www.mdrc.org\/NextGeneration Food Stamp Child Support Deductions arrearages On 12\/5\/01 Patricia Jaskier of Nevada County presented an issue to DSS. A Nevada county food stamp recipient had her child snatched from her by CPS. The child was put in foster care. This was all done by the county. The county picked up the kid and put the kid in foster care. This mom was lucky, she get her child back, which is rare in California. Now the welfare department is collecting child support from this mom. The question that the county had is whether or not the county can allow a child support deduction for the payment of arrearages child support. DSS Answer: On 12\/10\/02 Rosemary Akhidenor responded that if the child support payment is a legally obligated payment, then per CFR 7, 273.9(d)(7) it is to be considered a food stamp deduction. CCWRO COMMENT: The real question should be how can a person eligible for Food Stamps end up being liable for child support payment for a child that was taken away from the parent without her consent by the State. What happened to \”county responsibility\”. If the county wants to snatch children from their parents, then they should pay for their \”snatching\”. Lease Vehicle as Resource Terri Ruggiero of Sacramento County asked DSS if a leased vehicle can be counted as a resource? DSS Answer: F. Hodges III answered: \”No, a vehicle which is leased or a lease\/purchase option shall not be regarded as a resource until a transfer of ownership has occurred. A leased vehicle remains the property of the leasing firm \” Household Concept for former Stepchild Teresa Baker of Stanislaus county asked DSS if a 19 year child who is living with his former stepfather (his mother divorced the guy) can establish a separate household? DSS Answer: F. Hodges III answered that \” the 19 year old can be a separate household. When the mother of the 19 year old got a divorce from the former step-dad, this dismiss all legal ties the former step-dad had with the 19-year-old \” ______________________________________________________ NEW LITIGATION ALERT Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) The National Senior Citizens law Center is planning litigation relative to the CAPI program. CAPI is the State SSI program for immigrants who are not eligible for federal SSI. CAPI recipients and applicants whose date of admission was prior to 8\/22\/96 are eligible for more liberal CAPI eligibility requirements. The date of admission according to INS law is the day that a person was inspected upon entry of the United State of America. The State Department of Social Services has adopted an underground policy which states that the date of entry is the date that the individual’s status was adjusted to that of the Legal Permanent Resident (LPR). Jeanny Finberg, Staff attorney of the Center’s Oakland office is looking for victims of this policy. She can be reached at 510-663-1132. ______________________________________________________ TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE — BUSH URGES THE PASSAGE OF HR 4737 TANG REAUTHORIZATION – In his press conference on 7\/9\/02 Bush listed his priorities for Congress and TANF reauthorization was the last item on hit list. — WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS WANT FOLKS TO LOBBY THE US SENMATE TO PASS HR 4737. Washingtonian advocates has send out the word urging advocates to lobby United States Senators to act on the TANF bill that has passed the Senate Finance Committee. Some advocates find it hard to lobby for the mean-spirited bill that would treat women and men with children like subhumans. However, the bills rejected by the Clinton Administration before TANF was passed where much better than TANF. Thus, the thought is that a worse bill can emerge next year. WISCONSIN GETS 14.3 MILLION DUE TO THE ALLEGED SUCCESS OF W-2 Tommy Thompson, the former Governor of Wisconsin, whose claim to fame is that he terrorized welfare recipients in Wisconsin, announced a $14.3 million payment to the State of Wisconsin for allegedly its outstanding record in implementing \”welfare deform\” they call it \”reform\” for some misguided reason. Wisconsin State Senator G. Moore said in a letter to the current Governor McCallum, who received the $14.3 million from the former Governor that many jobs given to W-2 participants were marginal positions that offered little if any skill building. The letter also stated success was measured based on the reduction of the caseload and not reduction of poverty. Senator Moore stated that the caseload has gone up 42% in Wisconsin as the economy tanked. The Senator urged the Governor to use the money for W-2 families. ______________________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK Food Stamp Expedited Services Considered When a household (HH) applies for food stamps, the county is required to make a determination of expedited services (ES) food stamps benefits immediately. Given the fact that county welfare administrators are not \”responsible\” like \”corporate America\”, often the counties do not even consider an applicant for ES. For example, during February of 2002, 7% of the applicants in Orange County were considered for ES. On the other hand, neighboring Los Angeles County considered 61% of the applicants for ES and San Diego County considered 62% for ES. Could it be that the applicants in Orange County all had income that made them ineligible for being considered for ES? Other irresponsible counties are Imperial at 1.59%; Stanislaus at 6%, San Joaquin at 7%,Nevada at 8%; ElDorado at 10%; Sacramento at 11.56%, Alameda at 14%. Statewide 40% of the applicants were considered for ES. Interestingly, there were only 10 counties that were above the 40%. The top 10 counties considering food stamp applicants for ES are: San Diego 62.08% Los Angeles 60.88% Sonoma 60.20% Tuolumne 59.05% Santa Cruz 53.46% San Francisco 49.21% Santa Clara 48.41% Napa 42.13% San Luis Obispo 40.38% Riverside 39.61% All other counties are below the statewide average. Attached is a Microsoft excel documents which has a table that are the basis of this report from the State Department of Social Services DFA 296 reports. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-26 July 15, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF DSS News – NEW LITIGATION ALERT STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS ____________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary — Privation of Social Security? Amnesia has accented upon the Republican Party. What privatization? Corporate responsibility is the theme now. It’s nice not to hear about immigrants and welfare recipients for a while. — Another week and the California State Budget is still stalled. Republicans want more cuts, but the cuts they have proposed will not even balance the budget. Meanwhile the budget before the State Legislature takes money away from children living with impoverished families and giving over $500 million to foster care group homes and middle class and upper class foster care parents, social workers and other professionals. NEW ACL 02-47 July 8, 2002 Applicants and Recipients who join or are called back to active military duty. America is at war. War means one of the parents go to war to fight the enemy. While mom or dad are fighting for their country, some have a family living on welfare and have to follow the welfare rules. It is comforting to know that while one is fighting for his or her country, his or her time clock continues to tick, because he or she is temporarily absent fighting for his or her country. At least this is what ACL 02-47 states. \”What happens if papa goes to war and mom and the babies can’t pay the rent. Can they qualify for CalWORKs? ACL 02-47 poses the question this way: \”Can deprivation be established for an applicant family when the parent is recalled to active duty? Answer: For an applicant family, the absence of the parent due solely to military service is not a basis of deprivation. MPP 41-450.13 and W&IC 11250(c) excludes active military duty as a basis for deprivation.\” This means that because papa is the Army fighting a War on America for at least 8 hours a day is working over 100 a month, mama and the babies are not eligible for CalWORKs. What can mama do? Well, she can file for a divorce. Now she is eligible. There are several questions about what is considered \”temporary absence\” for the purposes of continuing the CalWORKs benefits of recipients called into active duty. In order to be considered \”temporarily absent\”, the parent in military services has to show that he or she still maintain care and control of the children, and he\/she must intend to return home and there must be no severance of family ties. All in all this is just another example of how the United State of America treats the people who fighting for their country like criminals. ______________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS MDRC REPORT SHOWS WORK REUIREMENTS ARE BAD FOR ADOLESCENT CHILDREN. In May of 2002, the Manpower Demonstration Research Center (MDRC) released a report entitled \”How Welfare and Work Policies for Parents Affect Adolescents\” The report is funded by the Packard Foundation, the William T.Grant Found and the MacArthur Foundation. The issue of this research is what impact do work requirements have on kids. The answer was clear to most poor families in America negative. Common sense would dictate that a single parent working and not parenting the child, and living in poverty would have a negative impact on the children. But the answer is in the study. In this case MDRC followed parents who were not subject to work requirements and compared their children to those parents who were subject to the work requirements. The conclusion is that children of parents in work requirements had worse school performance, higher rate of grade repetition, and more use of special education services that the children whose parents were not subject to the work requirements. Adolescents with younger siblings experienced the most troubling effects. The adolescent children with younger siblings were more likely to be suspended or expelled from school compared to adolescent children with younger siblings whose parents were not subject to work requirements. Copies of this report may be found at www.mdrc.org\/NextGeneration Food Stamp Child Support Deductions arrearages On 12\/5\/01 Patricia Jaskier of Nevada County presented an issue to DSS. A Nevada county food stamp recipient had her child snatched from her by CPS. The child was put in foster care. This was all done by the county. The county picked up the kid and put the kid in foster care. This mom was lucky, she get her child back, which is rare in California. Now the welfare department is collecting child support from this mom. The question that the county had is whether or not the county can allow a child support deduction for the payment of arrearages child support. DSS Answer: On 12\/10\/02 Rosemary Akhidenor responded that if the child support payment is a legally obligated payment, then per CFR 7, 273.9(d)(7) it is to be considered a food stamp deduction. CCWRO COMMENT: The real question should be how can a person eligible for Food Stamps end up being liable for child support payment for a child that was taken away from the parent without her consent by the State. What happened to \”county responsibility\”. If the county wants to snatch children from their parents, then they should pay for their \”snatching\”. Lease Vehicle as Resource Terri Ruggiero of Sacramento County asked DSS if a leased vehicle can be counted as a resource? DSS Answer: F. Hodges III answered: \”No, a vehicle which is leased or a lease\/purchase option shall not be regarded as a resource until a transfer of ownership has occurred. A leased vehicle remains the property of the leasing firm \” Household Concept for former Stepchild Teresa Baker of Stanislaus county asked DSS if a 19 year child who is living with his former stepfather (his mother divorced the guy) can establish a separate household? DSS Answer: F. Hodges III answered that \” the 19 year old can be a separate household. When the mother of the 19 year old got a divorce from the former step-dad, this dismiss all legal ties the former step-dad had with the 19-year-old \” ______________________________________________________ NEW LITIGATION ALERT Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) The National Senior Citizens law Center is planning litigation relative to the CAPI program. CAPI is the State SSI program for immigrants who are not eligible for federal SSI. CAPI recipients and applicants whose date of admission was prior to 8\/22\/96 are eligible for more liberal CAPI eligibility requirements. The date of admission according to INS law is the day that a person was inspected upon entry of the United State of America. The State Department of Social Services has adopted an underground policy which states that the date of entry is the date that the individual’s status was adjusted to that of the Legal Permanent Resident (LPR). Jeanny Finberg, Staff attorney of the Center’s Oakland office is looking for victims of this policy. She can be reached at 510-663-1132. ______________________________________________________ TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE — BUSH URGES THE PASSAGE OF HR 4737 TANG REAUTHORIZATION – In his press conference on 7\/9\/02 Bush listed his priorities for Congress and TANF reauthorization was the last item on hit list. — WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS WANT FOLKS TO LOBBY THE US SENMATE TO PASS HR 4737. Washingtonian advocates has send out the word urging advocates to lobby United States Senators to act on the TANF bill that has passed the Senate Finance Committee. Some advocates find it hard to lobby for the mean-spirited bill that would treat women and men with children like subhumans. However, the bills rejected by the Clinton Administration before TANF was passed where much better than TANF. Thus, the thought is that a worse bill can emerge next year. WISCONSIN GETS 14.3 MILLION DUE TO THE ALLEGED SUCCESS OF W-2 Tommy Thompson, the former Governor of Wisconsin, whose claim to fame is that he terrorized welfare recipients in Wisconsin, announced a $14.3 million payment to the State of Wisconsin for allegedly its outstanding record in implementing \”welfare deform\” they call it \”reform\” for some misguided reason. Wisconsin State Senator G. Moore said in a letter to the current Governor McCallum, who received the $14.3 million from the former Governor that many jobs given to W-2 participants were marginal positions that offered little if any skill building. The letter also stated success was measured based on the reduction of the caseload and not reduction of poverty. Senator Moore stated that the caseload has gone up 42% in Wisconsin as the economy tanked. The Senator urged the Governor to use the money for W-2 families. ______________________________________________________ STATISTIC OF THE WEEK Food Stamp Expedited Services Considered When a household (HH) applies for food stamps, the county is required to make a determination of expedited services (ES) food stamps benefits immediately. Given the fact that county welfare administrators are not \”responsible\” like \”corporate America\”, often the counties do not even consider an applicant for ES. For example, during February of 2002, 7% of the applicants in Orange County were considered for ES. On the other hand, neighboring Los Angeles County considered 61% of the applicants for ES and San Diego County considered 62% for ES. Could it be that the applicants in Orange County all had income that made them ineligible for being considered for ES? Other irresponsible counties are Imperial at 1.59%; Stanislaus at 6%, San Joaquin at 7%,Nevada at 8%; ElDorado at 10%; Sacramento at 11.56%, Alameda at 14%. Statewide 40% of the applicants were considered for ES. Interestingly, there were only 10 counties that were above the 40%. The top 10 counties considering food stamp applicants for ES are: San Diego 62.08% Los Angeles 60.88% Sonoma 60.20% Tuolumne 59.05% Santa Cruz 53.46% San Francisco 49.21% Santa Clara 48.41% Napa 42.13% San Luis Obispo 40.38% Riverside 39.61% All other counties are below the statewide average. Attached is a Microsoft excel documents which has a table that are the basis of this report from the State Department of Social Services DFA 296 reports. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-27 July 22, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF WELFARE NEWS STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK _______________________________________________________________________ _ IN BRIEF – Commentary Ellen Goodman, a Boston Globe columnist, correctly points out that finally, folks are talking about corporate fraud and not welfare fraud. It is about time. However, given the fact that we have a big business government, we believe the whole thing will be swept under the rug and forgotten. In the meantime, welfare fraud prosecutions up to and over $400 will continue in California, while corporate bosses who defrauded in the millions will go scott free. This is equal justice American style. _______________________________________________________________________ _ STATE WELFARE NEWS ACL 02-49 Food Stamp Program This ACL eliminates the $25 limit on Food Stamp work program reimbursement for transportation and ancillary services based on the 2002 Food Stamp Reauthorization Act, Public Law 107-171. 60-Month Notices Mailed Out This month CalWORKs recipients received notices that that their 60 months will expire effective January 1, 2003. The notice fails to notify the family that only the parents will be taken off aid and that the aid of the children will continue to be paid. In addition, the notice fails to inform the parents that even though they will be deleted from the assistance unit, they will continue to get the $225 and 1\/2 work deductions if they have earned income. 60-month time limit NOAs are being prepared for an October 2002 mailing. DSS has mailed a copy of the proposed NOA to the Turner Review Committee. The NOAs perpetuate the myth among many CalWORKs recipients that at the end of the 60 months, all benefits will be terminated. The Notice fails to state that the benefits for the assistance unit will be reduced by a certain amount. Thus, this is not an adequate notice of action. Secondly, the NOA fails to state that the minor children will continue to be aided, even after the 60 months. The NOA also fails to inform working CalWORKs recipients that the adults will continue to receive their work incentives of $225 plus 1\/2. This is important for working parents to know that not all of their earned income will be counted against the kid’s grant. Many may stop working because often the work incentives barely cover their actual work related expenses. –OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMERGENCY REGULATIONS Child Support EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OAL ON: 07\/16\/2002 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES TOPIC: Bonding of Employees SECTION AFFECTED: California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 22, Section: 111550 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is 07\/22\/2002 OAL DECISION DUE: no later than 07\/26\/2002 AGENCY CONTACT: Lucila Ledesma @ (916) 464-5087 _______________________________________________________________________ _ TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE Brookings Forum: Living On and Off Welfare On August 1, 2002, from 9:30 – 11:45 a.m. at 1775 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. in Washington D.C., the Brookings Institute will make a presentation on living on welfare a family experience and ethnographic research . To attend you must RSVP by calling 202-797-6105. Hilary Clinton and TANF Hilary Clinton, the alleged advocate for the poor, ended up supporting the punitive Senate Bill by Senator Bayh and others. Folks in New York picketed her house and now, she has come out in support of more childcare. _______________________________________________________________________ _STATISTIC OF THE WEEK CalWORKs Transportation Supportive Services Statewide 56.5% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied transportation supportive services by county welfare departments. Statewide only 10 counties issued transportation benefits above the statewide average. They are Santa Clara-80%; San Diego-69%; Marin 67%; Contra Costa 63%; Sacramento 62%; Santa Cruz 57%; Los Angeles 50%; Orange 47%; Monterey 45% and Alameda 44%. Even the counties above the statewide average are blatantly denying eligible WtW participants transportation assistance to which they are entitled. In Los Angeles County, 50% of the participants are denied benefits. That is 28,219 what Los Angeles County calls GAIN participants who are being unlawfully underpaid. Siskiyou County only provided 1.44% of the CalWORKs participants with transportation supportive services. This means that out of a total of 277 participants-only 4 of them were lucky enough to get transportation supportive services. Lassen county had 209 participants, and they only gave transportation to four (4) lucky persons. What happened to the other 205? Napa County had 129 participants and only 3 individuals received transportation from Napa County. Stanislaus County only provided transportation to 5% of their participants. Stanislaus County had 3,388 participants during the month of March, 2002, and only 181 were provided with transportation. During March, 2002, Stanislaus County welfare bureaucrats unlawfully denied 3,207 individuals transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County neighboring County of San Jouquin provided transportation to 41% of its participants. In San Mateo County, 445 individuals were required to participate in WtW activities during March, 2002. Only 10% of its participants (46 persons) received transportation supportive services, while 399 persons were unlawfully denied these services. Comparatively, San Mateo’s neighboring county of Santa Clara issued transportation to 80% of its participants. Attached is a Microsoft Excel worksheet of the march , 2002 WtW25 and WtW25A reports showing the unduplicated WtW participants in each county and the number of participants who received transportation. _______________________________________________________________________ _ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK Don’t Know Where You are Living Now San Bernardino County Terminates Benefits – Ms. C.R. received a notice of action (NOA) from her worker in San Bernardino County stating that her CalWORKs benefits were being terminated because she allegedly failed to tell them what her address was. The NOA was received by Ms. C.R., so the county must have had a way to reach her. Ms. C.R informed her welfare worker that she had moved and was receiving housing assistance from HUD since 11\/01. Again, on 4\/30\/02, she provided her worker with the verification of the housing assistance. Then, on 7\/15\/02, out of the blue sky, she gets a NOA stating that her benefits were terminated for failing to tell the county where she was living. Ms. C.R. is only guilty of not being able to provide San Bernardino County with a hologram of her family living at their current residence, but unfortunately there is no such technology at this time. Los Angeles County Underpays and Refuses to Rectify Their Mistakes Ms. B.A. ‘s family consists of three children on CalWORKs and herself. The only reason she is on welfare is because the government has failed to do their job collect child support. Had government done their job and collected the child support, she would have never been on welfare. She is participating in GAIN where she is told that work is more important than her family and her parental duties. A family of four (4) in Los Angeles County receives $809 a month. Ms. B.A received $679 on 4\/02; $769 on 5\/02; $646 on 6\/02 and $646 on 7\/02. She has talked to her worker about the fact that she is being ripped off by the county. This fraud committed by the county against her is sociopathic behavior that goes unchecked. Her worker promised her weeks ago to release the unlawfully withheld money, but as of 7\/22\/02, she has been deprived of $496. Now that would have been a felony crime for a welfare recipient. For the county? Nothing. A mistake. Oversight. Overworked. Too many cases. Just bureaucratic excuses. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-27 July 22, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF WELFARE NEWS STATISTIC OF THE WEEK – TANF REAUTHORIZATION BILLS IN CONGRESS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK _______________________________________________________________________ _ IN BRIEF – Commentary Ellen Goodman, a Boston Globe columnist, correctly points out that finally, folks are talking about corporate fraud and not welfare fraud. It is about time. However, given the fact that we have a big business government, we believe the whole thing will be swept under the rug and forgotten. In the meantime, welfare fraud prosecutions up to and over $400 will continue in California, while corporate bosses who defrauded in the millions will go scott free. This is equal justice American style. _______________________________________________________________________ _ STATE WELFARE NEWS ACL 02-49 Food Stamp Program This ACL eliminates the $25 limit on Food Stamp work program reimbursement for transportation and ancillary services based on the 2002 Food Stamp Reauthorization Act, Public Law 107-171. 60-Month Notices Mailed Out This month CalWORKs recipients received notices that that their 60 months will expire effective January 1, 2003. The notice fails to notify the family that only the parents will be taken off aid and that the aid of the children will continue to be paid. In addition, the notice fails to inform the parents that even though they will be deleted from the assistance unit, they will continue to get the $225 and 1\/2 work deductions if they have earned income. 60-month time limit NOAs are being prepared for an October 2002 mailing. DSS has mailed a copy of the proposed NOA to the Turner Review Committee. The NOAs perpetuate the myth among many CalWORKs recipients that at the end of the 60 months, all benefits will be terminated. The Notice fails to state that the benefits for the assistance unit will be reduced by a certain amount. Thus, this is not an adequate notice of action. Secondly, the NOA fails to state that the minor children will continue to be aided, even after the 60 months. The NOA also fails to inform working CalWORKs recipients that the adults will continue to receive their work incentives of $225 plus 1\/2. This is important for working parents to know that not all of their earned income will be counted against the kid’s grant. Many may stop working because often the work incentives barely cover their actual work related expenses. –OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMERGENCY REGULATIONS Child Support EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OAL ON: 07\/16\/2002 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES TOPIC: Bonding of Employees SECTION AFFECTED: California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 22, Section: 111550 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is 07\/22\/2002 OAL DECISION DUE: no later than 07\/26\/2002 AGENCY CONTACT: Lucila Ledesma @ (916) 464-5087 _______________________________________________________________________ _ TANF REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE Brookings Forum: Living On and Off Welfare On August 1, 2002, from 9:30 – 11:45 a.m. at 1775 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. in Washington D.C., the Brookings Institute will make a presentation on living on welfare a family experience and ethnographic research . To attend you must RSVP by calling 202-797-6105. Hilary Clinton and TANF Hilary Clinton, the alleged advocate for the poor, ended up supporting the punitive Senate Bill by Senator Bayh and others. Folks in New York picketed her house and now, she has come out in support of more childcare. _______________________________________________________________________ _STATISTIC OF THE WEEK CalWORKs Transportation Supportive Services Statewide 56.5% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied transportation supportive services by county welfare departments. Statewide only 10 counties issued transportation benefits above the statewide average. They are Santa Clara-80%; San Diego-69%; Marin 67%; Contra Costa 63%; Sacramento 62%; Santa Cruz 57%; Los Angeles 50%; Orange 47%; Monterey 45% and Alameda 44%. Even the counties above the statewide average are blatantly denying eligible WtW participants transportation assistance to which they are entitled. In Los Angeles County, 50% of the participants are denied benefits. That is 28,219 what Los Angeles County calls GAIN participants who are being unlawfully underpaid. Siskiyou County only provided 1.44% of the CalWORKs participants with transportation supportive services. This means that out of a total of 277 participants-only 4 of them were lucky enough to get transportation supportive services. Lassen county had 209 participants, and they only gave transportation to four (4) lucky persons. What happened to the other 205? Napa County had 129 participants and only 3 individuals received transportation from Napa County. Stanislaus County only provided transportation to 5% of their participants. Stanislaus County had 3,388 participants during the month of March, 2002, and only 181 were provided with transportation. During March, 2002, Stanislaus County welfare bureaucrats unlawfully denied 3,207 individuals transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County neighboring County of San Jouquin provided transportation to 41% of its participants. In San Mateo County, 445 individuals were required to participate in WtW activities during March, 2002. Only 10% of its participants (46 persons) received transportation supportive services, while 399 persons were unlawfully denied these services. Comparatively, San Mateo’s neighboring county of Santa Clara issued transportation to 80% of its participants. Attached is a Microsoft Excel worksheet of the march , 2002 WtW25 and WtW25A reports showing the unduplicated WtW participants in each county and the number of participants who received transportation. _______________________________________________________________________ _ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK Don’t Know Where You are Living Now San Bernardino County Terminates Benefits – Ms. C.R. received a notice of action (NOA) from her worker in San Bernardino County stating that her CalWORKs benefits were being terminated because she allegedly failed to tell them what her address was. The NOA was received by Ms. C.R., so the county must have had a way to reach her. Ms. C.R informed her welfare worker that she had moved and was receiving housing assistance from HUD since 11\/01. Again, on 4\/30\/02, she provided her worker with the verification of the housing assistance. Then, on 7\/15\/02, out of the blue sky, she gets a NOA stating that her benefits were terminated for failing to tell the county where she was living. Ms. C.R. is only guilty of not being able to provide San Bernardino County with a hologram of her family living at their current residence, but unfortunately there is no such technology at this time. Los Angeles County Underpays and Refuses to Rectify Their Mistakes Ms. B.A. ‘s family consists of three children on CalWORKs and herself. The only reason she is on welfare is because the government has failed to do their job collect child support. Had government done their job and collected the child support, she would have never been on welfare. She is participating in GAIN where she is told that work is more important than her family and her parental duties. A family of four (4) in Los Angeles County receives $809 a month. Ms. B.A received $679 on 4\/02; $769 on 5\/02; $646 on 6\/02 and $646 on 7\/02. She has talked to her worker about the fact that she is being ripped off by the county. This fraud committed by the county against her is sociopathic behavior that goes unchecked. Her worker promised her weeks ago to release the unlawfully withheld money, but as of 7\/22\/02, she has been deprived of $496. Now that would have been a felony crime for a welfare recipient. For the county? Nothing. A mistake. Oversight. Overworked. Too many cases. Just bureaucratic excuses. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-28 July 29, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF WELFARE NEWS TANF UPDATE STATISTIC OF THE WEEK Child Care COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK _______________________________________________________________________ _ IN BRIEF – Commentary — Millions in Poverty Don’t Get Welfare – The Gannett News Services reports that the Department of Health and Human Services reports what a success the TANF program has been. HHS reports that in year 2000, there were 31 million Americans living in poverty. Only 5.8 million were able to get any welfare benefits. The rest must have been timed-out or dumped from the welfare rolls by the administrators of the Terrorist Acts on Numerous Families Act of 1996 otherwise known as TANF. — STAY AT HOME NOT FOR WELFARE MOMS: A new study reports that kids do better when mom stays home. A conservative group did this study and it is being touted around as a pro-family idea urging women to stay home with the kids. When the authors of the study were asked about forcing welfare moms with newborns to go back to their unpaid labor jobs involuntary servitude work the response was, States have an option to exempt moms from work up to the age of 1 year. The author refused to agree that welfare moms should be exempted from involuntary work servitude work until the baby is one year old. Family Values for the Middle and Upper Class slavery for the poor. In America this is called compassionate conservatism. _______________________________________________________________________ _ STATE WELFARE NEWS — Child Care Overpayments: Marin County asked DSS if a participant had submitted child care claims that had some correct and some incorrect child hours that have already been paid, can the county consider the entire claim an overpayment. DSS Response: Blaise Keene responded that per Karlen Harmison (our bureau’s legal advisor), Marin County must go through all the timesheets , determine which hours are fraudulent and which are not, and base the overpayment on the fraudulent hours. –ABAWDS Clock Starts the Month Following the Month of Approval: On December 19, 2001, J. Acedo inquired from DSS that if a food stamp recipient applied on 8\/1\/01 and the worker did not approve the aid until 9\/15\/01, when would the ABAWDS three- month clock start? DSS Response: Robert Nevins of DSS responded on 12\/20\/01 as follows: Regulations at 63-410.11 say the 36-month clock begins with the first day of the first full calendar month than an individual is subject to the ABWDS work requirement. To be safe, I would wait util October 1 to begin the clock. I hope your Christmas is truly joyful. — All County Letter (ACL) 02-55 Changes in Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) Recently FNS has informed DSS that MPP 63-502.37, which provides for proration of SUA when household members live with an excluded member due to ineligibility, is in violation of federal law. FNS released Administrative Notice (AN) 02-23 clarifying that states do not have the option to prorate the SUA in this instance. This new policy goes into effect October 1, 2002 for applicants. For recipients already on food stamps it goes into effect December 1, 2002. CWCRO COMMENT: It appears that welfare administrator responsibility does not warrant immediate compliance with the law and DSS has decided to continue the fleecing of food stamp recipients in California, even though it violates state law which requires the maximum amount stamps to be paid to food stamp recipients. — All County Information Notice (ACIN) I-55-02.- This ACIN provides modifications of the SAWS 1, SAWS2 and SAWS 7. SAWS 1 is the initial application form. The SAWS 2 is the Application for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal. The SAWS 7 is the monthly income report, which started as WR 7, (Welfare Reform 7 under Ronald Reagan), then CA-7, and now SAWS 7. Soon this will be a quarterly report, this the form will be changed again. Stay tuned. ACIN I-51-02- Recipient Claims Collection Performance- In this ACIN, DSS is telling counties to jack up their collection performance on food stamp overissuance claims established against households . It appears that the Bush Administration has developed a national claims performance standard that California has not met. We are very concerned with our overall performance in this area. Therefore, counties are strongly urged to increase claims collection. CCWRO COMMENT: There is no concern at the federal or state level about the high rate of underissuance’s not paid back to the victims of county underissuance actions. Is anyone looking at the county’s returning the underissued food stamp benefits to food stamp households? You’ve got to be kidding. Return money to its rightful owners? No way. Welfare Administrators take and do not return for most part. — ACIN I-56-02 – Public Law 107-171 makes changes in Standard Deductions for Food Stamps and provides food stamps to noncitizens incrementally. #1 -October 1, 2002- Legal noncitizens who are disabled will be restored to federal food stamp benefits regardless of the date of entry; April 1, 2003 – Legal noncitizens who have been in the United States for five or more years will be restored to federal food stamp benefits; October 1, 2003 – Legal noncitizens will restored to federal food stamp benefits regardless of date of entry into the United States. #2 -Increase in Resource test for households with a disabled member Up from $2000 to $3000 effective October 1, 2002. #3- Changes in Standard Deductions effective October 1, 2002. 1- 4 persons – $134.00 5 persons – $147 6 persons or more – $168 _______________________________________________________________________ _ TANF UPDATE On July 25, 2002, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled that the State of Louisiana violated the Constitution by using federal funds to promote religion in its abstinence-only sex education program, funded by the Bush Administration. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in May. The project was using federal funds to distribute Bibles; conduct prayer rallies in front of abortion clinics, etc. — George Bush continues to beat up on welfare moms by going around the country and talking about passing his ill-conceived, anti-child and anti-family welfare deform proposal that forces single parents to abandon their parental duties and perform 40 hours of work, which can be unpaid labor, if the welfare mom is not able to find a paying job. Bush’s plan is build on the premise that work is more important than the family and that working is more important than parenting . Under the Bush plan a mom with a newborn can be sanction and can loose all of her welfare benefits if she fails to come to her 40 hour a week unpaid labor job because she did not have any type of child care. If she goes to perform her unpaid labor and leaves her newborn home alone, then she is guilty of a felonious crime neglecting her newborn. Now that is the Bush-Republican compassionate conservatism. _______________________________________________________________________ _STATISTIC OF THE WEEK CalWORKs Transportation Supportive Services Less than 20% of Families Received Child Care Source CW115 and CW115A reports. During March of 2002, there were 223,024 unduplicated participants in the California welfare to work program. When California started its comprehensive work program, the county’s conducted surveys showing that over 50% of the participants will need childcare. In March of 2002, only 43,683 families received childcare. That is less than 20% statewide. Statewide, 32 counties are below the statewide average. Leading the pack of the lowest provider of childcare is one of the first counties to start the old GAIN program, Stanislaus County at 4%. Los Angeles County is 15%, Orange is 17% and San Francisco is 17%. While Stanislaus County only provides childcare to 4% of its participants, neighboring Fresno County is providing childcare to 47% of its participants. Could it be that all of the WtW participants in Stanislaus County have kids over the age of 6 and Fresno has 47% kids below the age of 6? No, the simple conclusion is that Stanislaus County is unlawfully denying child care benefits to people entitled thereto based on their own statistical reports. The top ten worse counties in California not providing child care in March 2002 are: 1 Stanislaus 3.80% 2 Colusa 4.90% 3 El Dorado 5.99% 4 Trinity 6.00% 5 Lake 6.69% 6 Tuolumne 7.34% 7 Imperial 9.73% 8 Shasta 10.18% 9 Modoc 10.64% 10 Humboldt 11.33% _______________________________________________________________________ _ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK San Bernardino County Fails a WtW Participant – Ms. M. was a recipient living in San Bernardino County. She went to the county’s WtW program that urged her to get a job-get a career. The WtW worker explained how they were going to remove barriers to assure that she got a job and a career. Well, she got a job managing a Hotel 6 in Southern California. Before she could start working, she had to go through training in Thousand Oaks. Ms. M’s first barrier was that she needed a car for work. The county agreed to help her repair her car, but at the last minute only agreed to rent a U-Haul to move her belongings to Thousand Oaks. This happened in late April of 2002. The second barrier occurred when she moved to Ventura County and inquired about her May check. The welfare office in San Bernardino informed her on April 29, 2002, that she could not get her check until May 9, 2002, even though the law in California requires that the check be delivered on the designated date, which was May 1, 2002. Given these barriers, including the lack of transportation, San Bernardino County has insured that Ms. B.M. is now jobless and homeless. The welfare to work system is hard at work creating barriers-not removing them, insuring that families are homeless, jobless and living in misery. — Sacramento County Child Welfare Workers Break the Law with Zero Consequences – Children Stolen by Social Workers in Sacramento County- On July 23, 2002, a Sacramento County social worker came into the house of Ms. T. and walked out with her three children, aged 7, 4 and a newborn. The reason given was that Ms. T. was busted for driving under the influence. The kids were not in the car at the time of the incident. By July 29, 2002, Ms. T. had not seen her children and had no idea where they were. California law mandates that if a child welfare worker steals a child from their natural parents, a court appearance must be scheduled within 72 hours. 72 hours came and went, with no court appearance. There are no penalties for social workers who do not obey the law, why should they? Like corporate CEO’s, they can break the law with zero consequences. When her advocate called child welfare officials to determine if the three children were in the child welfare system, the answer was no. County child welfare officials did not seem concerned that three little human beings were stolen from their mother and were not even in the system. It appears this is common in Sacramento County. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-28 July 29, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF WELFARE NEWS TANF UPDATE STATISTIC OF THE WEEK Child Care COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK _______________________________________________________________________ _ IN BRIEF – Commentary — Millions in Poverty Don’t Get Welfare – The Gannett News Services reports that the Department of Health and Human Services reports what a success the TANF program has been. HHS reports that in year 2000, there were 31 million Americans living in poverty. Only 5.8 million were able to get any welfare benefits. The rest must have been timed-out or dumped from the welfare rolls by the administrators of the Terrorist Acts on Numerous Families Act of 1996 otherwise known as TANF. — STAY AT HOME NOT FOR WELFARE MOMS: A new study reports that kids do better when mom stays home. A conservative group did this study and it is being touted around as a pro-family idea urging women to stay home with the kids. When the authors of the study were asked about forcing welfare moms with newborns to go back to their unpaid labor jobs involuntary servitude work the response was, States have an option to exempt moms from work up to the age of 1 year. The author refused to agree that welfare moms should be exempted from involuntary work servitude work until the baby is one year old. Family Values for the Middle and Upper Class slavery for the poor. In America this is called compassionate conservatism. _______________________________________________________________________ _ STATE WELFARE NEWS — Child Care Overpayments: Marin County asked DSS if a participant had submitted child care claims that had some correct and some incorrect child hours that have already been paid, can the county consider the entire claim an overpayment. DSS Response: Blaise Keene responded that per Karlen Harmison (our bureau’s legal advisor), Marin County must go through all the timesheets , determine which hours are fraudulent and which are not, and base the overpayment on the fraudulent hours. –ABAWDS Clock Starts the Month Following the Month of Approval: On December 19, 2001, J. Acedo inquired from DSS that if a food stamp recipient applied on 8\/1\/01 and the worker did not approve the aid until 9\/15\/01, when would the ABAWDS three- month clock start? DSS Response: Robert Nevins of DSS responded on 12\/20\/01 as follows: Regulations at 63-410.11 say the 36-month clock begins with the first day of the first full calendar month than an individual is subject to the ABWDS work requirement. To be safe, I would wait util October 1 to begin the clock. I hope your Christmas is truly joyful. — All County Letter (ACL) 02-55 Changes in Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) Recently FNS has informed DSS that MPP 63-502.37, which provides for proration of SUA when household members live with an excluded member due to ineligibility, is in violation of federal law. FNS released Administrative Notice (AN) 02-23 clarifying that states do not have the option to prorate the SUA in this instance. This new policy goes into effect October 1, 2002 for applicants. For recipients already on food stamps it goes into effect December 1, 2002. CWCRO COMMENT: It appears that welfare administrator responsibility does not warrant immediate compliance with the law and DSS has decided to continue the fleecing of food stamp recipients in California, even though it violates state law which requires the maximum amount stamps to be paid to food stamp recipients. — All County Information Notice (ACIN) I-55-02.- This ACIN provides modifications of the SAWS 1, SAWS2 and SAWS 7. SAWS 1 is the initial application form. The SAWS 2 is the Application for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal. The SAWS 7 is the monthly income report, which started as WR 7, (Welfare Reform 7 under Ronald Reagan), then CA-7, and now SAWS 7. Soon this will be a quarterly report, this the form will be changed again. Stay tuned. ACIN I-51-02- Recipient Claims Collection Performance- In this ACIN, DSS is telling counties to jack up their collection performance on food stamp overissuance claims established against households . It appears that the Bush Administration has developed a national claims performance standard that California has not met. We are very concerned with our overall performance in this area. Therefore, counties are strongly urged to increase claims collection. CCWRO COMMENT: There is no concern at the federal or state level about the high rate of underissuance’s not paid back to the victims of county underissuance actions. Is anyone looking at the county’s returning the underissued food stamp benefits to food stamp households? You’ve got to be kidding. Return money to its rightful owners? No way. Welfare Administrators take and do not return for most part. — ACIN I-56-02 – Public Law 107-171 makes changes in Standard Deductions for Food Stamps and provides food stamps to noncitizens incrementally. #1 -October 1, 2002- Legal noncitizens who are disabled will be restored to federal food stamp benefits regardless of the date of entry; April 1, 2003 – Legal noncitizens who have been in the United States for five or more years will be restored to federal food stamp benefits; October 1, 2003 – Legal noncitizens will restored to federal food stamp benefits regardless of date of entry into the United States. #2 -Increase in Resource test for households with a disabled member Up from $2000 to $3000 effective October 1, 2002. #3- Changes in Standard Deductions effective October 1, 2002. 1- 4 persons – $134.00 5 persons – $147 6 persons or more – $168 _______________________________________________________________________ _ TANF UPDATE On July 25, 2002, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled that the State of Louisiana violated the Constitution by using federal funds to promote religion in its abstinence-only sex education program, funded by the Bush Administration. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in May. The project was using federal funds to distribute Bibles; conduct prayer rallies in front of abortion clinics, etc. — George Bush continues to beat up on welfare moms by going around the country and talking about passing his ill-conceived, anti-child and anti-family welfare deform proposal that forces single parents to abandon their parental duties and perform 40 hours of work, which can be unpaid labor, if the welfare mom is not able to find a paying job. Bush’s plan is build on the premise that work is more important than the family and that working is more important than parenting . Under the Bush plan a mom with a newborn can be sanction and can loose all of her welfare benefits if she fails to come to her 40 hour a week unpaid labor job because she did not have any type of child care. If she goes to perform her unpaid labor and leaves her newborn home alone, then she is guilty of a felonious crime neglecting her newborn. Now that is the Bush-Republican compassionate conservatism. _______________________________________________________________________ _STATISTIC OF THE WEEK CalWORKs Transportation Supportive Services Less than 20% of Families Received Child Care Source CW115 and CW115A reports. During March of 2002, there were 223,024 unduplicated participants in the California welfare to work program. When California started its comprehensive work program, the county’s conducted surveys showing that over 50% of the participants will need childcare. In March of 2002, only 43,683 families received childcare. That is less than 20% statewide. Statewide, 32 counties are below the statewide average. Leading the pack of the lowest provider of childcare is one of the first counties to start the old GAIN program, Stanislaus County at 4%. Los Angeles County is 15%, Orange is 17% and San Francisco is 17%. While Stanislaus County only provides childcare to 4% of its participants, neighboring Fresno County is providing childcare to 47% of its participants. Could it be that all of the WtW participants in Stanislaus County have kids over the age of 6 and Fresno has 47% kids below the age of 6? No, the simple conclusion is that Stanislaus County is unlawfully denying child care benefits to people entitled thereto based on their own statistical reports. The top ten worse counties in California not providing child care in March 2002 are: 1 Stanislaus 3.80% 2 Colusa 4.90% 3 El Dorado 5.99% 4 Trinity 6.00% 5 Lake 6.69% 6 Tuolumne 7.34% 7 Imperial 9.73% 8 Shasta 10.18% 9 Modoc 10.64% 10 Humboldt 11.33% _______________________________________________________________________ _ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK San Bernardino County Fails a WtW Participant – Ms. M. was a recipient living in San Bernardino County. She went to the county’s WtW program that urged her to get a job-get a career. The WtW worker explained how they were going to remove barriers to assure that she got a job and a career. Well, she got a job managing a Hotel 6 in Southern California. Before she could start working, she had to go through training in Thousand Oaks. Ms. M’s first barrier was that she needed a car for work. The county agreed to help her repair her car, but at the last minute only agreed to rent a U-Haul to move her belongings to Thousand Oaks. This happened in late April of 2002. The second barrier occurred when she moved to Ventura County and inquired about her May check. The welfare office in San Bernardino informed her on April 29, 2002, that she could not get her check until May 9, 2002, even though the law in California requires that the check be delivered on the designated date, which was May 1, 2002. Given these barriers, including the lack of transportation, San Bernardino County has insured that Ms. B.M. is now jobless and homeless. The welfare to work system is hard at work creating barriers-not removing them, insuring that families are homeless, jobless and living in misery. — Sacramento County Child Welfare Workers Break the Law with Zero Consequences – Children Stolen by Social Workers in Sacramento County- On July 23, 2002, a Sacramento County social worker came into the house of Ms. T. and walked out with her three children, aged 7, 4 and a newborn. The reason given was that Ms. T. was busted for driving under the influence. The kids were not in the car at the time of the incident. By July 29, 2002, Ms. T. had not seen her children and had no idea where they were. California law mandates that if a child welfare worker steals a child from their natural parents, a court appearance must be scheduled within 72 hours. 72 hours came and went, with no court appearance. There are no penalties for social workers who do not obey the law, why should they? Like corporate CEO’s, they can break the law with zero consequences. When her advocate called child welfare officials to determine if the three children were in the child welfare system, the answer was no. County child welfare officials did not seem concerned that three little human beings were stolen from their mother and were not even in the system. It appears this is common in Sacramento County. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO Bi-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-29 August 26, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF WELFARE NEWS TANF UPDATE STATISTIC OF THE WEEK COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK CCWRO Bi-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-29 August 12, 2002 HEADLINES oo IN BRIEF oo WELFARE NEWS oo TANF UPDATE oo STATISTIC OF THE WEEK oo COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK ________________________________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary — BUSH RAISES MILLION TRASHING WELFARE MOMS – On July 30th, George Bush went to Charleston, North Carolina for a $500-a-pop fundraiser for Governor Sanford. Rather than talking about Governor Sanford, he launched an attack on welfare recipients saying that the Senate should pass his anti-family and anti-child welfare deform plan designed to decimate poor families of America. His plan is fueled with anti-family outcomes, such as work is more important than family and working is more important than parenting for single parents. BUSH REBUFFED FOR ALLEGING COLLEGE EDUCATION A WELFARE LOOPHOLE – A Portland Press Herald editorial rebuffed Bush’s assertion that attending college is a welfare loophole. We suppose, by loophole, Bush meant like when he signed up with the reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam conflict. It appears that there are bad loopholes, like being in college and good loopholes like joining the reserves, which kept Bush alive. Now he’s trashing welfare moms for trying to get an education and calls it a \”loophole\”. Bush should try to imagine what it must be like for a single parent with two kids, and a welfare check to try to go to college. It may be hard to imagine with a silver spoon in your mouth. ________________________________________________________________________ STATE BUDGET STATUS- Needy, Aged, Blind, Disabled and Families Denied COLA While Counties Get $300 Million In Incentive Money to Play With – The California proposed State budget, which deprives the needy, aged, blind, disabled and impoverished families of their annual cost-of-living increase enacted into law in the 1970s by a Democratic legislature and signed by Ronald Reagan, will not be available this year. On the other hand, this same budget includes $300 million for county welfare departments to play with in the form of \”incentive payments\”. This is money given to the counties for allegedly helping CalWORKs recipients get jobs. For example, during the month of May, 2002, the 58 counties with thousands and thousands of welfare to work employees, whose mission is to make families self-sufficient, were only successful in finding 7,070 families employment that made them ineligible for CalWORKs. That is a 4% success rate and a huge 96% failure rate. In fact, during May 2002, these same workers were far more successful in sanctioning CalWORKs recipients they sanctioned 52,831 individuals a 40% sanction rate of the unduplicated participants. This is what the counties are getting $300 million in incentive money for to sanction participants. By getting 7,070 persons jobs during the month means that each county welfare worker failed to get a job for more than one person and their mission is to make persons employed. Now that certainly deserves a $300 million bonus while letting the needy, aged, blind, and impoverished families go without a COLA. ________________________________________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS — San Bernardino County Reduces Transportation Supportive Services. The current transportation supportive services payment rates for mileage in San Bernardino is capped at $5 a day. Previously San Bernardino County had a $6 a day cap. The law also states that the county transportation reimbursement rates shall be based upon the regional market rates or the county mileage reimbursement rate. San Bernardino County’s Welfare Director is not given reimbursement of $5 a day when he travels, thus it must have been based upon the \”regional market rates\”. Could it be that in the San Bernardino region the cost of transportation is going down while everything is going up? This is a violation of the \”no cap\” rule for transportation supportive services issued by the State Department of Social Services. But what does San Bernardino County, who has been terrorizing welfare families with their welfare fraud investigators for years by running a very vigorous welfare fraud enforcement program, care about the law? Laws are only applicable to impoverished families on welfare and not welfare administrators. They are above the law. DSS Issues County Fiscal Letter 01-02-58- Not to Accept Late County Fiscal Claims The State has to get claims from the counties so they can submit their claims timely to the federal government. There is a group of counties who have decided that submitting late fiscal claims is the \”norm\” rather than the exception. Thus, DSS has decided not to accept late claims in CFL 02-02-58. Off course, some counties, who terminate cash aid for late submission of CA-7 and force working parents to take time off from work and reapply for CalWORKs, were not very happy with the idea of responsibility and accountability. Responsibility? Accountability? They simply do not believe what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. At the 6\/12\/02 CWDO fiscal committee meeting, some CWDA members suggested a penalty rather than a complete rejection of the claim. We are not aware of DSS rejecting any late claims yet. — Child Care Payment for Children not in the AU Riverside County Tammy Ledbedder of Riverside County asked DSS on 3\/5\/02 if an assistance unit (AU) \”consists of a mother and her two children. She is living with a partner and has a mutual child. The father is working. Because there is no deprivation, both the father and the common child are not in the AU. Could the county force the father to pay for some childcare for the common child? DSS Answer by Hilva Chan \”No, our regulations do not give the county the authority to make the father pay for child care. County could pay childcare for the mutual child because without childcare, mother could not work. MPP 47- 201.22 specifics that child care could be paid for a child not in the AU when lack of child care would result in mother not being able to work or participate in WtW activity. However, the father’s money can be considered to determine if there is a family fee.\” — Retroactive Child Care Paid after TrustLine Denial Received Fresno County MPP 47-620.3 Christine from Fresno County asked DSS on 3\/14\/02 the following question: \”County has a parent who chose a license-exempt provider for her child care, and the provider submitted fingerprints as required for TrustLine. The county intended to pay the provider while waiting for the TrustLine clearance, but the payment was held up for some reason and was never paid to the provider. While the county was trying to clear up the problem with this payment, the provider’s TrustLine came back denied. Is the county now obligated to pay the provider for those few months prior to the TrustLine response? DSS Response: Jackie Dailly of DSS responded: \”After reviewing our regulations and conferring with our Legal Department, I called Christine back and told her that the county must pay for the period prior to when they received the denial TrustLine notice. There cannot be retroactive denials of childcare for any reason. If there were, it would create a significant unanticipated debt for the parent (as provider can still charge for the service), and it would create an advantage for the county to delay payments. The provider has provided the service for which they were informed that they would be paid. They did not know they would be TrustLine denied, since those standards are not widely available. — New ACIN dated July 22, 2002, ACIN I-52-02 provides that the three-year clock starts from the time that the food stamp overissuance occurred, rather than from the time the welfare fraud investigators awaken from their several years of deep sleep and discover an overpayment. \”QUESTION #1a: Please provide further clarification on the three-year time frame for establishing an overissuance (OI) discussed in OI Q&A #1 on pages six and seven of ACIN I-03-02. For example, an IEVS report may cause a case to be referred to an investigative unit for potential fraud and OI computation. When does the three-year clock get started? Is it the date the IEVS worker refers the case to investigations or the date the investigative staff uses the information on IEVS and other verifications (from an employer for example) to calculate the OI? ANSWER: The three-year time frame does not begin with the date of discovery, the date the case is referred to investigations, or the date the investigative staff uses the information on IEVS and other verifications to calculate the OI. The three-year time frame begins with the date of the occurrence of the OI [Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) 63-801.11; ACIN I-03-02]. OI Q&A #1 in ACIN I-03-02 provides an example of how the three-year time frame works. It also explains the six-year calculation time frame.\” ________________________________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits, from the U.S. General Accounting Office, July 5, 2002. Available at http:\/\/www.gao.gov\/cgi-bin\/getrpt?GAO-02-770 Because of the dramatic declines in welfare caseloads that have occurred since 1996, states have generally faced greatly reduced participation rate requirements for their TANF programs. For example, in fiscal year 2000, caseload reduction credits reduced required rates from 40 percent (the required rate) to 0 in 31 states. As a result, states have increased flexibility to determine the numbers of adults required to be involved in work or work activities. Almost all states met or exceeded their adjusted required rate in fiscal year 2000. However, the fiscal year 2000 federal participation rates varied tremendously among the states, ranging from about 6 percent to more than 70 percent. States excluded about 154,000 families from federal or state time limits. This number represents 11 percent of the 1.4 million families with an adult receiving cash assistance. By using the 20 percent time limit extension or their MOE funds, states generally targeted time limit exclusions to families they considered hard to employ, families who were working but not earning enough to move off of TANF, and families that were cooperating with program requirements but had not yet found employment. The number of families excluded from time limits may increase in the future because most families have not yet reached their federal or state-imposed cash assistance time limit. Only about one- third of the states have begun using the federal 20 percent time limit extension for families who reached the 60-month federal time limit. In addition to the 20 percent extension, state officials GAO spoke with said that they would rely more heavily on state MOE to extend families’ time on assistance in the future. ________________________________________________________________________STATISTIC OF THE WEEK Welfare Report of May, 2002 DPA 266 — In Sacramento County during July, 2002, there were 598 individuals who were sanctioned. 155 individuals have been sanctioned over 18 months. Thus, it is estimated that statewide 20% of the sanctioned individuals have been sanctioned over 18 months. — May, 2002 Welfare to Work Activity participation statewide. Clearly the highest number of WtW participants are those who are working in the component of unsubsidized employment at 57.8%. While the counties and the state take credit for their hours of participation, there is hardly any administrative cost to this portion of the caseload. Activity Number of participants Percentage of the Participants Appraisal 18,630 10.51% Assessment 4,882 2.75% Reappraisal 2,012 1.14% Job search & job readiness assistance 17,579 9.92% Unsubsidized employment 102,573 57.87% Self-employment 4,405 2.49% Subsidized private sector employment 763 0.43% Subsidized public sector employment 886 0.50% On-the-job training (OJT) 395 0.22% Grant-based on-the-job training (OJT) 35 0.02% Work-study 1,575 0.89% Supported work or transitional employment 25 0.01% Work experience 3,100 1.75% Community service 5,421 3.06% Job skills training directly related to employment 1,405 0.79% Vocational education training 24,259 13.69% Education directly related to employment 3,385 1.91% Adult basic education 9,979 5.63% Satisfactory progress in a secondary school 524 0.30% Other activities 3,549 2.00% Providing childcare to community services participants 18 0.01% Mental health services 10,345 5.84% Substance abuse services 2,652 1.50% Domestic abuse services 3,947 2.23% Granted waiver of program rules (Subset of 345 0.19% Number of individuals 6-29 (Unduplicated) 177,257 Self-Initiated program (SIP) 11,008 ________________________________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK Ms. M.C. of Los Angeles County is a mother of two (2) small children, ages 2 and 3. During the month of July she was under attack by Los Angeles County. The county tried to sanction her for not participating in the GAIN program. She informed the county that she did not have childcare. The GAIN worker found good cause, but the welfare worker did not know about it. Then she received a notice of action stating that all of her benefits would stop for failing to submit an income report. She promptly filed for a fair hearing before the 20th of July, then brought in another CA-7. It appears the County of Los Angeles, DPSS, lost the first one. She got a receipt. She filed for a fair hearing because the law states that if one files for a fair hearing prior to the effective date of the action, the benefits shall continue without change. She figured this would protect her from being foodless and moneyless beginning of August, 2002. Her welfare check is due on the 2nd day of each month. There was no check for her when she went to pick it up. For readers who do not live in Los Angeles, you should know that in LA, recipients must go to a \”check cashing location\” to pick up their checks. These check cashing locations pay Los Angeles County approximately one dollar per welfare check handed over to a welfare recipient. You may ask \”why?\” Good question. Simple answer. Many recipients also cash their checks at these check-cashing locations. In Ms. M.C.’s case, she has to find a ride and find someone to watch her kids, so she can go across town and wait in line to get her check. Then she must pay these leeches $10 to cash her welfare check. As of August 7, 2002, Los Angeles County had failed to provide Ms. M.C. with the benefits she was entitled to. She does not have money for food and diapers, but then why would DPSS care? There are at least three (3) counts, if not more, in which DPSS has violated the basic human rights of Ms. M.C.: COUNT ONE: Violation of MPP 44-305 which mandates that the welfare warrant be placed in the mail to be received on a regular date each and every month; COUNT TWO: Violation of MPP 22-072.5 which requires the county to continue benefits at the same level; and COUNT THREE\” Violation of MPP 22-073.122, which mandates that aid paid pending be issued within five (5) days from the date of the request. There are more counts, but after three, we’ve lost count. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO Bi-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-29 August 26, 2002 HEADLINES IN BRIEF WELFARE NEWS TANF UPDATE STATISTIC OF THE WEEK COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK CCWRO Bi-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – #2002-29 August 12, 2002 HEADLINES oo IN BRIEF oo WELFARE NEWS oo TANF UPDATE oo STATISTIC OF THE WEEK oo COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK ________________________________________________________________________ IN BRIEF – Commentary — BUSH RAISES MILLION TRASHING WELFARE MOMS – On July 30th, George Bush went to Charleston, North Carolina for a $500-a-pop fundraiser for Governor Sanford. Rather than talking about Governor Sanford, he launched an attack on welfare recipients saying that the Senate should pass his anti-family and anti-child welfare deform plan designed to decimate poor families of America. His plan is fueled with anti-family outcomes, such as work is more important than family and working is more important than parenting for single parents. BUSH REBUFFED FOR ALLEGING COLLEGE EDUCATION A WELFARE LOOPHOLE – A Portland Press Herald editorial rebuffed Bush’s assertion that attending college is a welfare loophole. We suppose, by loophole, Bush meant like when he signed up with the reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam conflict. It appears that there are bad loopholes, like being in college and good loopholes like joining the reserves, which kept Bush alive. Now he’s trashing welfare moms for trying to get an education and calls it a \”loophole\”. Bush should try to imagine what it must be like for a single parent with two kids, and a welfare check to try to go to college. It may be hard to imagine with a silver spoon in your mouth. ________________________________________________________________________ STATE BUDGET STATUS- Needy, Aged, Blind, Disabled and Families Denied COLA While Counties Get $300 Million In Incentive Money to Play With – The California proposed State budget, which deprives the needy, aged, blind, disabled and impoverished families of their annual cost-of-living increase enacted into law in the 1970s by a Democratic legislature and signed by Ronald Reagan, will not be available this year. On the other hand, this same budget includes $300 million for county welfare departments to play with in the form of \”incentive payments\”. This is money given to the counties for allegedly helping CalWORKs recipients get jobs. For example, during the month of May, 2002, the 58 counties with thousands and thousands of welfare to work employees, whose mission is to make families self-sufficient, were only successful in finding 7,070 families employment that made them ineligible for CalWORKs. That is a 4% success rate and a huge 96% failure rate. In fact, during May 2002, these same workers were far more successful in sanctioning CalWORKs recipients they sanctioned 52,831 individuals a 40% sanction rate of the unduplicated participants. This is what the counties are getting $300 million in incentive money for to sanction participants. By getting 7,070 persons jobs during the month means that each county welfare worker failed to get a job for more than one person and their mission is to make persons employed. Now that certainly deserves a $300 million bonus while letting the needy, aged, blind, and impoverished families go without a COLA. ________________________________________________________________________ STATE WELFARE NEWS — San Bernardino County Reduces Transportation Supportive Services. The current transportation supportive services payment rates for mileage in San Bernardino is capped at $5 a day. Previously San Bernardino County had a $6 a day cap. The law also states that the county transportation reimbursement rates shall be based upon the regional market rates or the county mileage reimbursement rate. San Bernardino County’s Welfare Director is not given reimbursement of $5 a day when he travels, thus it must have been based upon the \”regional market rates\”. Could it be that in the San Bernardino region the cost of transportation is going down while everything is going up? This is a violation of the \”no cap\” rule for transportation supportive services issued by the State Department of Social Services. But what does San Bernardino County, who has been terrorizing welfare families with their welfare fraud investigators for years by running a very vigorous welfare fraud enforcement program, care about the law? Laws are only applicable to impoverished families on welfare and not welfare administrators. They are above the law. DSS Issues County Fiscal Letter 01-02-58- Not to Accept Late County Fiscal Claims The State has to get claims from the counties so they can submit their claims timely to the federal government. There is a group of counties who have decided that submitting late fiscal claims is the \”norm\” rather than the exception. Thus, DSS has decided not to accept late claims in CFL 02-02-58. Off course, some counties, who terminate cash aid for late submission of CA-7 and force working parents to take time off from work and reapply for CalWORKs, were not very happy with the idea of responsibility and accountability. Responsibility? Accountability? They simply do not believe what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. At the 6\/12\/02 CWDO fiscal committee meeting, some CWDA members suggested a penalty rather than a complete rejection of the claim. We are not aware of DSS rejecting any late claims yet. — Child Care Payment for Children not in the AU Riverside County Tammy Ledbedder of Riverside County asked DSS on 3\/5\/02 if an assistance unit (AU) \”consists of a mother and her two children. She is living with a partner and has a mutual child. The father is working. Because there is no deprivation, both the father and the common child are not in the AU. Could the county force the father to pay for some childcare for the common child? DSS Answer by Hilva Chan \”No, our regulations do not give the county the authority to make the father pay for child care. County could pay childcare for the mutual child because without childcare, mother could not work. MPP 47- 201.22 specifics that child care could be paid for a child not in the AU when lack of child care would result in mother not being able to work or participate in WtW activity. However, the father’s money can be considered to determine if there is a family fee.\” — Retroactive Child Care Paid after TrustLine Denial Received Fresno County MPP 47-620.3 Christine from Fresno County asked DSS on 3\/14\/02 the following question: \”County has a parent who chose a license-exempt provider for her child care, and the provider submitted fingerprints as required for TrustLine. The county intended to pay the provider while waiting for the TrustLine clearance, but the payment was held up for some reason and was never paid to the provider. While the county was trying to clear up the problem with this payment, the provider’s TrustLine came back denied. Is the county now obligated to pay the provider for those few months prior to the TrustLine response? DSS Response: Jackie Dailly of DSS responded: \”After reviewing our regulations and conferring with our Legal Department, I called Christine back and told her that the county must pay for the period prior to when they received the denial TrustLine notice. There cannot be retroactive denials of childcare for any reason. If there were, it would create a significant unanticipated debt for the parent (as provider can still charge for the service), and it would create an advantage for the county to delay payments. The provider has provided the service for which they were informed that they would be paid. They did not know they would be TrustLine denied, since those standards are not widely available. — New ACIN dated July 22, 2002, ACIN I-52-02 provides that the three-year clock starts from the time that the food stamp overissuance occurred, rather than from the time the welfare fraud investigators awaken from their several years of deep sleep and discover an overpayment. \”QUESTION #1a: Please provide further clarification on the three-year time frame for establishing an overissuance (OI) discussed in OI Q&A #1 on pages six and seven of ACIN I-03-02. For example, an IEVS report may cause a case to be referred to an investigative unit for potential fraud and OI computation. When does the three-year clock get started? Is it the date the IEVS worker refers the case to investigations or the date the investigative staff uses the information on IEVS and other verifications (from an employer for example) to calculate the OI? ANSWER: The three-year time frame does not begin with the date of discovery, the date the case is referred to investigations, or the date the investigative staff uses the information on IEVS and other verifications to calculate the OI. The three-year time frame begins with the date of the occurrence of the OI [Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) 63-801.11; ACIN I-03-02]. OI Q&A #1 in ACIN I-03-02 provides an example of how the three-year time frame works. It also explains the six-year calculation time frame.\” ________________________________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits, from the U.S. General Accounting Office, July 5, 2002. Available at http:\/\/www.gao.gov\/cgi-bin\/getrpt?GAO-02-770 Because of the dramatic declines in welfare caseloads that have occurred since 1996, states have generally faced greatly reduced participation rate requirements for their TANF programs. For example, in fiscal year 2000, caseload reduction credits reduced required rates from 40 percent (the required rate) to 0 in 31 states. As a result, states have increased flexibility to determine the numbers of adults required to be involved in work or work activities. Almost all states met or exceeded their adjusted required rate in fiscal year 2000. However, the fiscal year 2000 federal participation rates varied tremendously among the states, ranging from about 6 percent to more than 70 percent. States excluded about 154,000 families from federal or state time limits. This number represents 11 percent of the 1.4 million families with an adult receiving cash assistance. By using the 20 percent time limit extension or their MOE funds, states generally targeted time limit exclusions to families they considered hard to employ, families who were working but not earning enough to move off of TANF, and families that were cooperating with program requirements but had not yet found employment. The number of families excluded from time limits may increase in the future because most families have not yet reached their federal or state-imposed cash assistance time limit. Only about one- third of the states have begun using the federal 20 percent time limit extension for families who reached the 60-month federal time limit. In addition to the 20 percent extension, state officials GAO spoke with said that they would rely more heavily on state MOE to extend families’ time on assistance in the future. ________________________________________________________________________STATISTIC OF THE WEEK Welfare Report of May, 2002 DPA 266 — In Sacramento County during July, 2002, there were 598 individuals who were sanctioned. 155 individuals have been sanctioned over 18 months. Thus, it is estimated that statewide 20% of the sanctioned individuals have been sanctioned over 18 months. — May, 2002 Welfare to Work Activity participation statewide. Clearly the highest number of WtW participants are those who are working in the component of unsubsidized employment at 57.8%. While the counties and the state take credit for their hours of participation, there is hardly any administrative cost to this portion of the caseload. Activity Number of participants Percentage of the Participants Appraisal 18,630 10.51% Assessment 4,882 2.75% Reappraisal 2,012 1.14% Job search & job readiness assistance 17,579 9.92% Unsubsidized employment 102,573 57.87% Self-employment 4,405 2.49% Subsidized private sector employment 763 0.43% Subsidized public sector employment 886 0.50% On-the-job training (OJT) 395 0.22% Grant-based on-the-job training (OJT) 35 0.02% Work-study 1,575 0.89% Supported work or transitional employment 25 0.01% Work experience 3,100 1.75% Community service 5,421 3.06% Job skills training directly related to employment 1,405 0.79% Vocational education training 24,259 13.69% Education directly related to employment 3,385 1.91% Adult basic education 9,979 5.63% Satisfactory progress in a secondary school 524 0.30% Other activities 3,549 2.00% Providing childcare to community services participants 18 0.01% Mental health services 10,345 5.84% Substance abuse services 2,652 1.50% Domestic abuse services 3,947 2.23% Granted waiver of program rules (Subset of 345 0.19% Number of individuals 6-29 (Unduplicated) 177,257 Self-Initiated program (SIP) 11,008 ________________________________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK Ms. M.C. of Los Angeles County is a mother of two (2) small children, ages 2 and 3. During the month of July she was under attack by Los Angeles County. The county tried to sanction her for not participating in the GAIN program. She informed the county that she did not have childcare. The GAIN worker found good cause, but the welfare worker did not know about it. Then she received a notice of action stating that all of her benefits would stop for failing to submit an income report. She promptly filed for a fair hearing before the 20th of July, then brought in another CA-7. It appears the County of Los Angeles, DPSS, lost the first one. She got a receipt. She filed for a fair hearing because the law states that if one files for a fair hearing prior to the effective date of the action, the benefits shall continue without change. She figured this would protect her from being foodless and moneyless beginning of August, 2002. Her welfare check is due on the 2nd day of each month. There was no check for her when she went to pick it up. For readers who do not live in Los Angeles, you should know that in LA, recipients must go to a \”check cashing location\” to pick up their checks. These check cashing locations pay Los Angeles County approximately one dollar per welfare check handed over to a welfare recipient. You may ask \”why?\” Good question. Simple answer. Many recipients also cash their checks at these check-cashing locations. In Ms. M.C.’s case, she has to find a ride and find someone to watch her kids, so she can go across town and wait in line to get her check. Then she must pay these leeches $10 to cash her welfare check. As of August 7, 2002, Los Angeles County had failed to provide Ms. M.C. with the benefits she was entitled to. She does not have money for food and diapers, but then why would DPSS care? There are at least three (3) counts, if not more, in which DPSS has violated the basic human rights of Ms. M.C.: COUNT ONE: Violation of MPP 44-305 which mandates that the welfare warrant be placed in the mail to be received on a regular date each and every month; COUNT TWO: Violation of MPP 22-072.5 which requires the county to continue benefits at the same level; and COUNT THREE\” Violation of MPP 22-073.122, which mandates that aid paid pending be issued within five (5) days from the date of the request. There are more counts, but after three, we’ve lost count. ______________________________________________________ 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 Services, 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] ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17 June 9, 2003 – California Judges Legislate and Ignore the Law – County Performance Incentive Funds Still Unspent – A Terrorized Single Mom in Sacramento County In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Analysis Smith v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2002. This is a case challenging Los Angeles County’s unlawful practice of forcing all welfare recipients applying for CalWORKs to submit to home visits by welfare fraud detection workers. The California Second Appellate Court ruled that home visits with- out cause were legal. The ruling was issued by the Epstein, Hastings and Curry trio. Los Angeles County, not knowing what to do with all of it’s TANF money, decided to institute a home visit program for all Cal- WORKs applicants. Applicants viewed this as pure harassment. They would have to wait all day at home, sometime for days, to make sure they were home when the home visit worker showed up to search their house. Even though the regulations limit when home visits can be made, and there was no authority for home visits without cause, that did not stop the Los Angeles County from implementing this unlawful program to ha- rass poor families with babies and children. A court case was filed by the victims of this unlawful program. The conservative judges, who are supposed to follow the law, have decided to take a time out especially when it does not achieve their conservative politi- cal objectives. All of a sudden judicial activ- ism becomes the norm for conservative judges. In this case, although the state regula- tions limit home visits, the court, relying on the State Department of Social Services (DSS) spin, called the home visits a verification process . The DSS policy, according to Bruce Wagstaff, was that counties have the authority to verify eligibility, and that can be done any way the county chooses to do so, including through home visits. Well, that is a statewide policy, but it has never been promulgated under the Ad- ministrative Procedures Act as mandated by State law. It is an underground rule. Do Judges Epstein, Hastings and Curry of the California Appellate Court care about the law? How did these guys get on the Appellate court? They did it the old fashion way. They were a part of the club , appointed by Repub- licans. Judge Norman Epstein was selected by conservative Governor Deukmejian in 1990 to become a conservative judicial activist and pun- ish the poor. Justice J. Gary Hastings was crowned by Pete Wilson in 1993. Pete Wilson hated welfare recipients and never missed a chance to beat up on poor women trying to parent their children. Then in 1998, he selected Justice Daniel Curry to be a member of the Ap- pellate court. In 1992, Pete Wilson appointed Justice Curry to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The appellate decision states that the process of verifying eligibility of applicants is delegated to the counties. This is partially true and par- tially a blatant lie. It is true that the county per- forms the verification process, but it has to be done pursuant to statute and regulations pro- California Judges Legislate and Ignore the Law CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17- 6\/9\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 mulgated thereunder. There is no statute that states counties can verify eligibility any way they want to. The state legislature enacted the Paper Work Reduction Act (See Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11275 et.seq.) which provides specific guidelines as to how coun- ties will verify eligibility for applicants. But off course the Epstein-Hastings-Curry trio would rather ignore the law than respect the Legislative process. The Epstein-Hastings- Curry trio decided that they would make law by ignoring the law. And that was a Christ- mas present from Southern California Second Appellate District to impoverished parents with babies and children – the decision was released on December 26, 2002. County Performance Incentive Funds Still Unspent 84% of the County Incentive Funds Unspent Enough to Fund the CalWORKs COLA At the beginning of 2002-2003, counties had $422,143,861 dollars available to play with in the form of TANF incentive payments . Counties are awarded incentive payments by state law when CalWORKs recipients get jobs, etc. There is no evidence that any of the jobs were se- cured as a direct result of some county action. Maybe child care was the reason that the partici- pant is now able to work. But that is not some- thing that the county does, it is something that the county pays for with federal and state money. During the first two (2) quarters of 2002-2003, counties had only spent 16% of their total alloca- tions. The county-by-county breakdown of money avail- able after December 31, 2002, according to DSS, are as follows: County $ Amount Left Percentage FY 02-03 of total left FY02-03 Alameda $ 9,412,988.00 87.27% Alpine $ 18,723.00 100.00% Amador $ 226,836.00 77.09% Butte $ 2,984,728.00 99.81% Calaveras $ 367,914.00 100.00% Colusa $ 94,037.00 85.42% Contra Costa $ 5,110,932.00 87.03% Del Norte $ 591,151.00 100.00% El Dorado $ 750,423.00 98.42% Fresno $ 19,809,130.00 82.25% Glenn $ 295,124.00 99.04% Humboldt $ 1,163,398.00 92.73% Imperial $ 2,392,214.00 68.05% Inyo $ 269,515.00 100.00% Kern $ 9,775,375.00 99.19% Kings $ 2,033,513.00 99.05% Lake $ 646,568.00 87.51% Lassen $ 309,313.00 82.06% Los Angeles $124,956,146.00 80.31% Madera $ 1,442,581.00 73.77% Marin $ 216,575.00 100.00% Mariposa $ 225,863.00 100.00% Mendocino $ 1,410,062.00 88.13% Merced $ 4,913,301.00 87.70% Modoc $ 1.00 0.00% Mono $ 451.00 1.27% Monterey $ 3,153,539.00 90.10% Napa $ 276,106.00 79.49% Nevada $ 48,846.00 90.58% Orange $12,845,861.00 62.46% Placer $ 1,145,455.00 100.00% Plumas $ 63,933.00 100.00% Riverside $24,693,538.00 100.00% Sacramento $24,462,046.00 89.02% San Benito $ 472,514.00 97.83% San Bernardino $30,056,040.00 95.17% San Diego $24,066,908.00 93.53% San Francisco $ 1,911,249.00 63.14% San Joaquin $ 5,842,412.00 64.69% San Luis Obispo $ 1,216,763.00 91.50% San Mateo $ 730,630.00 91.49% Santa Barbara $ 2,031,006.00 84.45% Santa Clara $10,357,406.00 77.98% Santa Cruz $ 591,805.00 79.19% Shasta $ 1,506,507.00 90.15% CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17- 6\/9\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Sierra $ 24,362.00 98.74% Siskiyou $ 423,385.00 83.11% Solano $ 3,320,949.00 86.63% Sonoma $ 1,047,590.00 61.80% Stanislaus $ 0.00 0.00% Sutter $ 562,706.00 78.58% Tehama -$ 5,271.00 -0.50% Trinity $ 89,378.00 98.03% Tulare $ 5,026,631.00 67.26% Tuolumne $ 590,554.00 91.02% Ventura $ 4,576,939.00 77.88% Yolo $ 1,725,973.00 97.78% Yuba $ 489,388.00 55.59% The 2003-2004 CalWORKs COLA could easily be funded with this unspent money that counties really did not earn. It is money earned by welfare recipients and it should be given to welfare recipi- ents to meet their basis survival needs. CalWORKs recipient’s are living on fixed income at 1989 lev- els. They need a COLA now! The counties want to use this money in 2003-2004 for reasons other than meeting the basic survival needs of CalWORKs recipients. CWD Victim of the Week Ms. J. Garcia and her two children, 8 and 2 were homeless and without any money. On 6\/5\/03 she applied for cash aid, food stamps and homeless assistance. She arrived at Sacramento County wel- fare department located on 24th and Florin before 8 a.m. She told her worker that in 2002 she re- ceived aid in North Carolina. The worker called North Carolina to verify if she was still receiving welfare benefits. A little after 5 p.m. she was in- formed by her worker that she was being denied homeless assistance because she could not verify her North Carolina welfare status. The worker had no verification that Ms. Garcia received any wel- fare from North Carolina during 2003. Still the worker unlawfully denied Ms. Garcia and her two children homeless assistance. The worker told Ms. Garcia to come back Monday because she did not work on Friday. The worker did not give Ms. Garcia a notice of action denying her homeless assistance or imme- diate need as required by State law. Ms. Garcia called her North Carolina worker and asked the worker to fax a statement to Sacramento County stating that she was not receiving cash aid. The North Carolina worker faxed the infor- mation and Sacramento County received the fax on 6\/6\/03. On Friday Ms. Garcia went to the welfare office again to see if she could get homeless assistance now that North Carolina had verified that she was not getting cash aid. The back- up worker, Ms. Chin, told her she was too busy to see her and to come back on Monday. Someone told Ms. Garcia to call welfare rights. A welfare rights advocate visited the welfare office. A new worker, Ms. Chin, first suggested that she would only issue immediate need, but not home- less assistance. After the welfare rights advocate informed her that denying homeless assistance would be illegal, the worker went back into the office and discussed the matter with other welfare officials. After 20 minutes, she returned and agreed to issue homeless assistance if Ms. Garcia would sign the 6\/5\/03 homeless application using 6\/6\/03 date. The welfare rights advocate informed the The 2003-2004 CalWORKs COLA could easily be funded with this unspent money that counties really did not earn. It is money earned by welfare recipients and it should be given to welfare recipi- ents to meet their basis survival needs. CalWORKs recipient’s are living on fixed income at 1989 levels. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-17- 6\/9\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 The Senate and Assembly have drafted their budgets that now go to the confer- ence committee. The Conference Com- mittee and the Big Five, which is com- posed of Governor Davis, Senators Bur- ton (D) and Brulte (R), Assemblymen Wesson(D) and Cox(R) will decide the fate of the budget behind closed doors in a room that is not smoke filled for a change. NEWS FROM THE STATE CAPITOL LEGAL ANALYSIS: Is Ms. Garcia ineligible if she received cash aid from North Carolina during June of 2003? No. North Carolina pays a family of 3 less than $250 a month. Califor- nia pays $647. Thus, Ms. Garcia would be eli- gible for 50% of the difference between $647 and $250, if she applied for aid on the 15th of June. Thus, Ms. Garcia was eligible for home- less assistance even if she had received cash aid from North Carolina. Some workers just don’t know what they are doing and their gross negligence results in families being homeless and foodless. The Assembly does away with the SSI and CalWORKs COLA. This means that CalWORKs families will live on the same amount of fixed income they re- ceived in 1989. The Senate provides for a COLA thanks to Senators Burton, Chesboro, Ortiz, Cedillo and the rest of the Democratic Senators. ACTION NEEDED: Write letters sup- porting the SSI and CalWORKs COLA today and mail it to your As- semblyman and State Senator. worker that such action would be welfare fraud because Ms. Garcia applied for homeless assistance on 6\/5\/03 and not 6\/6\/03. Ms. Garcia finally signed the 6\/5\/03 application again and put down the 6\/6\/ 03 date. Thus, the application contained two ap- plication dates; 6\/5\/03 and 6\/6\/03. The county worker committed FRAUD by stating on the ap- plication that the application was received on 6\/6\/ 03. Of course there are no Intentional program Violation Penalties for such workers as Ms. Chin who intentionally and knowingly falsify govern- ment documents. If it was not for the welfare right intervention, Ms. Garcia and her two children would have spent the weekend in the hot streets of Sacramento with- out food or money. 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, In- formational Services, and Research Services, in depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal. Gen- eral Assistance and Refugee Immigration ”

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-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] ”

“BY LAWS COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. ARTICLE ONE Offices Section One. Principal Office. The principal office of the Corporation is fixed and located at 190l Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816. The board of Directors (hereinafter called the Board ) is granted full power and authority to change said principal office from one location to another. Any such change shall be in the By-Laws opposite this section or this section may be amended to state the new location. Section Two. Other Offices. The Board at any place or places may establish at any time and branch or subordinate offices. ARTICLE TWO Membership This Corporation shall have no members. Any action that would otherwise required approval by a majority of all members or approval by the members shall require only approval of the Board. All rights which would otherwise vest in the members shall vest in the Board. Section One. Associates. Nothing in this Article Two shall be construed as limiting the right of the Corporation to refer to persons associated with it as members even though such persons are not voting members, within the meaning of Section 5058 of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law. This Corporation may confer by amendment of its Articles or of these By Laws some or all of the rights of a member, as set forth in the California Nonprofit Corporation Law, upon nay person or persons provided they do not have the right to vote for the election of Directors or on a disposition of substantially all of the assets of the Corporation or on a merger or on a dissolution or on changes to this Corporation’s Articles or By Laws, but no such person shall be a member within the meaning of said Section 5056. ARTICLE THREE Directors Section One. Powers. (a) Subject to the limitations of the Articles and these By Laws, the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the Board. The Board may delegate the management of activities of the Corporation to any person or persons, a management company, or committees however composed, provided that the activities and affairs of the Corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction of the Board. Without prejudice to such general powers, but subject to the same limitations, it is hereby expressly declared that the Board shall have the following powers in addition to the other powers enumerated in these By Laws: (1) To select and remove all the officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation, prescribe powers and duties for them as may not be inconsistent with law, the Articles, these By Laws (etc. as per draft) (2) To conduct, manage, and control the affairs and activities of the Corporation and make such rules and regulations therefore not inconsistent with law, the Article, or these By Laws, as they may deem best. (3) To adopt, make, and use a corporate seal and to alter the form of such seal from time to time, as they deem best. (b) Limitations on Powers. Pursuant to the requirements of the state law under which this Corporation is funded in part, the Board shall establish and enforce broad policies governing the operation of this corporation but it shall not interfere with any of its attorneys professional responsibility to clients and shall ensure that such attorneys have full freedom to protect the best interest of their clients keeping with the relevant Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon of Ethics, and the high standards of the legal profession. Section Two. Number and Qualifications of Directors. (a) The maximum number of Directors shall be nine, who shall collectively meet the general qualifications set forth in Subsection (b) of this Section. The minimum number of Directors shall be three. Section Three. Selections and Term of Office. (a) Each Director shall hold offices for three (3) years and until a successor has been designated and qualified. In order to maintain a desirable degree of continuity among the Directors as a whole, and among the various classifications of Directors with the Board, the Board shall use its best efforts to distribute the expiration of the Directors’ terms over three (3) successive years over the various classifications of directors. Any director may be re-elected at the end of his or her three (3) year term at the discretion of the Board. Section Four. Vacancies. Subject to the provisions of Section 5226 of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, any Director may resign effective e upon giving written notice to the President, the Secretary, or the board, unless the notice specifies a later time for the effectiveness of such resignation. If the resignation is effective at a future time, successor may be selected before such time, to take office when the resignation becomes effective. Any Director who misses three regularly scheduled consecutive meetings of the Board shall be considered to have tendered his or her resignation from the Board. Vacancies with the Board shall be filled in the same manner as the Director whose office is vacant was selected, provided that vacancies to be filled by election of Directors may be filled by a majority of the remaining Directors, although less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining Director. Each Director so selected shall hold office until the expiration of the term of the replaced Director and until a successor has been selected and qualified. A vacancy or vacancies with the Board shall be deemed to exist in the case of death, resignation, or removal of any Director, or if the authorized number of Directors is increased. The Board may declare vacant the office of a Director who has been declared of unsound mind by a final order of court or convicted of a felony, or found by a final order of judgment of any court to have breached any duty arising under Article Three of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. No reduction of the authorized number of Directors shall have the effect of removing any Director prior to the expiration of the Director’s term office. Section Five. Place of Meeting. (a) Meetings of the Board shall be held at any place within or without the State of California which has been designated from time to time by the Board. In the absence of such designation, regular meetings hall be held a the principal office of the corporation. Section Six. Regular Meetings. The board of Directors shall hold at least four (4) regular meetings every calendar year at regularly scheduled intervals to be set by the Board. Ten (10) days written notice of all regular meetings of the Board shall be given. Any such notice shall be addressed delivered to each director at such director’s address as it is shown upon the records of the Corporation or as may have been given to the Corporation by the Director for purposes of notice, or, if any such address is not shown on such records or is not readily ascertainable, at the principal office of the organization which the member is associated with, or otherwise at the place at which the meetings of directors are regularly held. Section Seven. Notice of Meetings Notice by mail shall be deemed to have been given at the time a written notice is deposited in the Untied States mails, postage prepaid thereon. Any other written notice shall be deemed to have been given at the time it is personally delivered to the recipient or its delivered to a common carrier for transmission, or actually transmitted by the person giving the notice by electronic means, to the recipient. Oral notice shall be deemed to have been given at the time it is communicated, in person or by telephone, or any other electronic means or wireless, to the recipient or to a person at the office of recipient who the person giving the notice has reason to believe will promptly communicate it to the receiver. Section Eight. Quorum. Majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum of the Board for the transaction of business, except to adjourn as provided in Section Twelve of this Article Three. Every act or decision done or made by a majority of the Directors present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present shall be regarded as the act of the Board, unless a greater number is required by law or by the Articles, except as provided in the next sentence. A meeting at which a quorum is initially present may continue to transact business notwithstanding the withdrawal of Directors, I any action taken is approved by a least a majority of the required quorum each meeting. Section Nine. Participation in Meeting by Conference Telephone. Members of the Board may participate in a meeting through use of conference telephone or similar communications equipment so long as all members participating in such meeting can hear one another. Section Ten. Waiver of Notice. Notice of a meeting need not be given to any Director who signs a waiver of notice or a written consent to holding the meeting or an approval of the minutes thereof, whether before or after the meeting, or who attends the meeting without protesting, prior thereto or at its commencement, the lack of notice to such Director. All such waivers, consents, and approval shall be filed with the corporate records or made a part of the minutes of the meeting. Section Eleven. Adjournment. A majority of the Directors present, whether or not a quorum is present, may adjourn any directors’ meeting to another time and place. Notice of the time and place of holding the adjourned meeting need not be given to absent Directors if the time and place is fixed at the meeting adjourned, except as provided in the next sentence. If the meeting adjourned for more than forty eight (48) hours, notice of any adjournment to another time and place shall be given prior to the time of the adjourned meeting to the Directors who were not present at the time of the adjournment. Section Twelve. Action Without Meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board may be taken without a meeting if all members of the Board shall individually or collectively consent in writing or by electronic mail to such actions. Such consent or consents shall have the same effect as a unanimous vote of the Board and shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the Board. Section Thirteen. Rights of Inspection. Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents of every kind and to inspect the physical properties of the Corporation. Section Fourteen. Committees. The Board may appoint one or more committees each consisting of two or more directors and delegate to such committees any of the authority of the board except with respect to: (a) The approval of any action for which the California Nonprofit Corporation law also requires approval of the members or approval of a majority of all members; (b) The filling of vacancies on the Board of any committees; (c) The fixing of compensation of directors for serving on the Board or on any committees; (d) The amendment or repeal of By Laws or the adoption of new By Laws; (e) The amendment or repeal of a resolution of the board which by its express terms is not so amendable or repealable; (f) The appointment of other committees of the Board or the members thereof; (g) The expenditure of corporate funds to support a nominee for Director after there are more people nominated for Director than can be elected; or (h) The approval of any self dealing transaction, as such transactions are defined in Section 5233(a) of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. Any committee must be created, and members thereof appointed, by resolution adopted by a majority of the authorized number of Directors then in office, provided a quorum is presented, and any such committee may be designated by such name as the Board shall specify. The Board may appoint, in the same manner, alternate members of any committee who may replace any absent member at any meeting of the committee. The Board shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which proceedings of any such committee shall be conducted. In the absence of any such prescription the committee will have the power to prescribe the manner in which its proceedings shall be conducted. Unless the Board or such committee shall otherwise provide. The regular and special meetings and other actions of any such committee shall be governed by the provisions of this Article Three applicable to meetings and action of the Board. Minutes shall be kept of each meeting of each committee. Section Fifteen. Executive Committee. (a) The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors shall consist of three (3) members of the Board of directors, and shall include: (1) The President of the Board; (2) The Vice President; (3) A member selected by the President and appointed by the Board; and, (4) a member selected by the President and appointed by the Board. The President of the Board shall be Chairperson of the Executive Committee, and he\/she shall preside over all Executive Committee meetings. An assistant Chairperson of the Executive committee shall be elected by the majority vote of the members of the Executive Committee. (b) The Executive committee may exercise all the powers of the Board of directors during the interim period between meetings of the Board. Decisions by the Executive committee may be made by a majority thereof, and such decisions may be made by any form of communication including telephonic, between members thereof, without the necessity of a meeting. A report or any and all action taken by the Executive Committee shall be made at each regular Board meeting. The Executive committee shall have such other powers and duties as designated by the Board. (c) Meetings of the Executive committee of the Board of Directors shall be at such times and places as called by its Chairperson. The presence of all three (3) members of the Executive committee at any meeting shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The Secretary and Treasurer of the Corporation, whether or not they are Directors, shall attend all executive Committee meetings. Notice of such meetings shall be given to each member of the Executive committee at least four (4) days in advance, if by mail, and at least twenty four (24) hours in advance of the meeting, if given orally or by telephone. Section Sixteen. Fees and Compensation. The Director shall receive no compensation for their services as members of the Board, but by appropriate action of the Board, may be reimbursed for the expense of attending each Board meeting, Executive Committee meeting. Committee meetings, and other appropriate meetings. Section Seventeen. Self-Dealing Transactions. (a) Definitions. Self-dealing transactions are transactions to which the Corporation is a party and in which one or more of its directors has a material financial interest. Such a director is an interested director for the purpose of this section. (b) Self-dealing transaction are prohibited, except as provided in (c) below . (c) A transaction to which the Corporation is party and in which one or more of the Directors has a material financial interest is permissible if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The Corporation entered into the transaction for its own benefit; (2) The transaction was fir and reasonable as to the Corporation at the time the Corporation entered into the transaction; (3) Prior to consummating the transaction or any part thereof the Board authorized or approved the transaction in good faith by a vote of a majority of the Directors then in office without counting the vote of the interested Director or directors, and with knowledge of the material facts concerning the transaction and the directors interest in the transaction; (4) Prior to authorizing or approving the transaction the Board considered and in good faith determined after reasonable investigation under the circumstances that the Corporation could not have obtained a more advantageous arrangement with reasonable effort under the circumstances; and (5) Interested Directors may be counted in determining the presence of a quorum at a meeting of the Board which authorizes, approves or ratifies a contract transaction; (6) Action by a committee of the Board shall not satisfy this paragraph unless: (A) A committee person authorized by the Board approves the transaction in a manner consistent with the standards set forth in this subdivision (c)(1)-(4); (B) It is not reasonably practicable to obtain approval of the Board prior to entering into the transaction; and (C) The Board, after determining in good faith that the conditions subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph were satisfied ratified the transaction at its next meeting by a vote of the majority of the Directors then in office without counting the vote of the interested Director or Directors. (d) A transaction which is part of a public or charitable program of Corporation and which results in a benefit to one or more director or their families because they are in the class of persons intended to be benefited by the public or charitable program is permissible if it is approved or authorized by the Corporation in good faith and without unjustified favoritism. (e) A transaction, of which the interested Director or Directors have no actual knowledge, and which does not exceed the lesser of one percent of the gross receipts of the Corporation for the preceding fiscal year or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) is permissible. ARTICLE FOUR Officers Section One. Officers. The officers of the Corporation shall be a President, one or more vice-Presidents (as determined from time to time by the Board), a Secretary, and a Treasurer. The President and vice President shall be members of the bard of directors. Section Two. Election. The President and Vice President shall be elected annually by plurality vote of the members of the Board of directors. Nominations for the officers President and Vice President shall be made at the last regular meeting of each calendar year. Ballots with the names of those persons nominated for each office shall be mailed to each member of the Board of directors addressed to him or her at the address shown upon the records or not readily ascertainable, at the principal office of the organization which the member is associated with, not later than twenty days following the date of nomination. The person receiving the most votes for each office shall be elected to that position; in the event there is a tie for one or both of the offices, balloting will continue until the ties are broken. Ballots will be counted and winning member shall be elected to their offices at the first regular meeting of each calendar year. Section Three. President of the Board. Subject to the control of the board of Directors and the Executive Committee, the President shall have general supervision, direction and control of the business and affairs of the Corporation. The President shall preside over meetings of the Board of Directors, utilizing such procedures as fair, orderly and efficient in carrying out the work of the Board. Section Four. Vice President. In the absence or disability of the President, the Vice President shall perform all the duties of the President, and when so acting shall have all the powers of and the subject to all the restrictions upon the president. The Vice President shall have such other powers and duties as from time to time may be prescribed by the Board of directors. Section Five. Secretary. The secretary shall be responsible for the keeping of full record of the meetings of the Board of directors and the Executive Committee of the Board, shall keep the seal of the Corporation and affix the same on such papers and such instruments as may be required in the regular course of business, shall make service of such as may be necessary or proper, shall supervise the keeping of the books of the Corporation, shall give notice or cause to be give of all Board meetings, shall assist the President in the performance of his or her office, shall attend all Executive Committee and Board meetings, and shall discharge such other duties as pertain to the office as prescribed by the President. Section Six. Treasurer The Treasurer shall keep and maintain or cause to be kept and maintain adequate and correct accounts of the properties and business transactions of the Corporation, including accounts of assets, liabilities, receipts, disbursements, gains, losses, capital and surplus. The Treasurer shall deposit, or cause to be deposited, all monies and other valuables in the name and to the credit of the Corporation with such depositories as may be designated by the Board of Directors and shall, subject to the requirement of authorized signatures be ordered by the Board of Directors. The Treasurer shall cause a financial report consisting of balance sheet and statement of receipts and expenditures to be rendered not less often than annually to the Board of directors, or at any time requested by a majority of the Board of Directors, together with an account of all his or her transactions as Treasurer and of the financial conditions of the Corporation. Section Seven. Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of the President or Vice President because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification or otherwise shall be filled by vote of the members of the Board of Directors as set forth in Section Two of this Article. A vacancy in the office of Secretary or Treasurer shall be filled by nominations made to the Board of Directors and ratification by the Board of Directors of said nominees. The President and Vice President may be removed either with or without cause, by the majority of the Directors at that time in office, at any regular or special meeting of the Board. Any officer may resign at any time by giving written notice to the President or the Secretary of the Board of Directors. Any such resignation shall take effect at the date of the receipt of such notice, or at the time that the officer’s position is filled. ARTICLE FIVE Nominations Section One. Definitions for This Article Only. (a) For the purposes of this Article Five agent means any person who is or was a Director, officer, employee or other agent of the Corporation, or is or was servicing at the request of the Corporation as a director, officer, employee, or agent of another foreign domestic corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, or other enterprise; (b) proceeding means any threatened, pending or completed action or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative; and (c) expenses includes without limited attorneys’ fees and any expenses of establishing a right to indemnification under Section Four or five (b) of this Article Five. Section Two. Indemnification of Actions by Third Parties. The Corporation shall have power to indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any proceeding (other than an action by or in the right of the Corporation to procure a judgment in its favor, an action for self-dealing brought under Section 5233 of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law [See also Article Five, Section Eight of these By Laws], or an action brought by the Attorney General for any breach of duty relating to assets held in charitable trust), by reason of the fact that such person is or was an agent of the Corporation, against expenses, judgment, fines, settlements, and other amounts actually and reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the Corporation and, in the case of a criminal proceeding, had reasonable cause to believe the conduct of such person was unlawful. The termination of any proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in good faith in a manner which the person reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the Corporation or that the person had reasonable cause to believe that the person’s conduct was unlawful. Section Three. Indemnification in Actions by or in the Right of the Corporation. The Corporation shall have the power to indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending, or completed action by or in the right of the Corporation, or brought under Section 5233 of the California Nonprofit Benefit Corporation Law to redress self-dealing transactions (See Article Five, Section Eighteen of these By Laws), or brought by the Attorney General or a person granted relator status by the Attorney General for breach of duty relating to assets held in charitable trust, to procure a judgment in its favor by reason of the fact that such person is or was an agent of the Corporation, against expenses actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection with the defense or settlement of such action if such person acted in good faith, in a manner such person believed to be in the best interest of the Corporation, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in like position would use under similar circumstances. No indemnification shall be made under this Section three: (a) In respect of any claim, issue, or matter as to which such person shall have been adjudged to be liable to the Corporation in the performance of such person’s duty to the Corporation, unless and only to the extent that the court in which such proceeding is or was pending shall determine upon application that, in view of all the circumstances of the case, such persons fairly and reasonably entitled to indemnity for the expenses which such court shall determine; (b) Of amounts in settling or otherwise disposing of a threatened or pending action, with or without court approval; or (c) Of expenses incurred in defending a threatened, or pending action which is settled or otherwise disposed of without court approval unless it is settled with the approval of the Attorney General. Section Four. Indemnification Against Expenses. To the extent that an agent of the Corporation has been successful on the merits in defense of any proceeding referred to in Section Two or Three of this Article Five or in the defense of any claim, issue, or matter therein, the agenda shall be indemnified against expenses actually and reasonably incurred by the agent in connection therewith. Section. Five. Required Determinations. Except as provided in Section Four of this Article Five, any indemnification under this Article Five shall be made by the Corporation only if authorized in the specific case, upon a determination that indemnification of the agent is proper in the circumstances because the agent has met the applicable standard of conduct set forth in Section Two or Three of this Article Five by: (a) A majority vote of a quorum consisting of Directors who are not parties of such proceedings; or (b) The court in which such proceeding is or was pending upon application made by the Corporation or the agent or the attorney or other person rendering services in connection the defense, whether or not such application by the agent, attorney, or other person is opposed by the Corporation. Section Six. Advance of Expenses. Expenses incurred in defending any proceeding may be advanced by the Corporation prior to the final disposition of such proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of the agent to repay such amount unless it shall be determined ultimately that the agent is entitled to be indemnified as authorized in this Article Five. Section Seven. Other Indemnification. No other provision made by the Corporation to indemnify its directors or officers for the defense of any proceeding, whether contained in the Articles, By Laws, a resolution of members or directors, an agreement or otherwise, shall be valid unless consistent with this Article Five [which as presently drafted conform to the indemnification provisions of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law’. Nothing contained in this Article Five shall affect any right to indemnification to which persons other than such Directors and officers may be entitled by contract or otherwise. Section Eight. Forms of Indemnification Not Permitted. No indemnification or advance shall be made under this Article Five, except as provided in Section Four or Five (b), in any circumstances where it appears: (a) That it would be inconsistent with a provision of the Articles, these By Laws, or an agreement in effect at the time of the accrual of the alleged cause of action asserted in the proceeding in which the expenses were incurred or other amounts were paid, which prohibits or otherwise limits an indemnification; or (b) That it would be inconsistent with any condition expressly imposed by a court in approving a settlement. Section Nine. Insurance. The Corporation shall have power to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any agent of the Corporation against any liability asserted against or incurred by the agent in such a capacity or arising out of the agent’s status as such whether or not the Corporation would have the power to indemnify the agent against such liability under the provisions of the Article Five, provided however, that this Corporation shall have no power to purchase and maintain such insurance to indemnify any gent of the Corporation for a violation of self-dealing transaction in violation of Section 5233 of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. ARTICLE SIX Miscellaneous Section One. Amendment of By Laws. New By Laws may be adopted or these By Laws may be amend or repealed by the majority vote of the Board of Directors then serving, or by the written assent of such Directors, except as otherwise provided by law or by the Article of Incorporation. Section Two. Reports to the Board. The Board may require various staff members to make reports at its regular meetings and require the attendance of staff at Board meetings. ARTICLE SEVEN Proxies Section One. Proxies. A Board member may authorize any other Board members to vote for him or her by proxy, including being considered to be present for the purposes of a quorum. Such proxy may be in writing or through an affidavit submitted by a party who received oral authorization to exercise such proxy to be filed with the minutes of the meeting. The proxy may permit the holder of the proxy to vote on any issue that comes before the Board in any manner deemed appropriate by the holder of the proxy, or the proxy may by the proxy giver. Limitations on a proxy may permit the proxy holder to vote only as directed by the proxy giver on specified issues. ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF COALITION CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. Article I. The name of this corporation is COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. Article II. A. This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit law for charitable purposes. B. The specific purpose of this corporation is to provide advocacy, consultation, legal representation and informational services to legal services and IOLTA funded field programs, low and moderate income individuals, families, and organizations that represent and assist low and moderate income persons as well as to the many underserved populations that exist today. Furthermore, we believe that often the voices of the low income, moderate income and underserviced populations are often silenced by bureaucratic manipulation or intimidation. To create or continue bureaucratic systemic change, we are dedicated to ensuring access for low and moderate income individuals and underserviced populations to all public assistance programs, hearings and activities that they may be eligible for and participation to ensure that the civil rights of all are protected. C. The mission statement of this corporation is Making the Place We Live The Place We Can Succeed . Article III. The name and address in the State of California of this corporation’s initial agent for services of process is KEVIN M. ASLANIAN, 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816. Article IV. A. This corporation is organized and operated exclusively for educational and charitable purposes with the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. B. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall consist of carrying out propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign (including the publishing or distribution of statement) on behalf of any candidate for public office. Article V. The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person. Upon the dissolution or winding up of the corporation its assets remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities o this corporation shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes and which has established its tax exempt status under 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. January 18, l984 ______________________________________ KEVIN M. ASLANIAN I hereby declare that I am the person who executed the foregoing Articles of Incorporation, which execution is my act and deed. ______________________________________ KEVIN M. ASLANIAN Amended: April 30, 2003 PAGE 1 ”