Documents

” CCWRO #2003-3 January 27, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget LATEST NEWS – POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN – THE EASY TARGETS OF 2003 ATTACKED VICIOUSLY BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURTE Litigation Update TANF Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 __________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – On January 15, 2003, the Legislative Analyst released a report regarding the true amount of the State budget deficit. While the Governor estimates that the deficit is $34.6 billion, the analyst has estimated $26.1 billion. The truth is that no one will know what the true amount of the deficit will be until May of 2003. During early May, the Governor will present the \”May Revise\”. This is when the real budget writing will start. Program cuts alone cannot balance the budget. There has to be new revenues, which means new taxes. The Republicans are a definite minority in California. Minorities can only get benefits if they stick together. Thus, the Republican Caucus in the Senate and the Assembly stick together. Those who cross the caucus are punished. A number of Republicans who voted for the budget in 2002-2003 were either defeated in the primaries or termed-out. The word is that the Assembly Republicans are adamantly opposed to tax increases no tax is their bottom line. Capital insiders speculate that the budget impasse may last until the November election, when voters will decide on taxes to balance the State Budget. Some are suggesting taxes on services and property tax reform as a solution, but that does not seem likely at this stage of the game. Stay tuned for more. _______________________________________________________________________ LATEST NEWS – POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN – THE EASY TARGETS OF 2003 ATTACKED VICIOUSLY BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURTE The Democratically controlled Assembly and Senate have approved the senseless and vicious denial of the June 2003 COLA for CalWORKs families when there are millions and millions of TANF dollars available to provide for a COLA for impoverished families and their children of California. This is the just the first vicious and malicious attacks on the poor by the Governor and the Democratic legislature to make money available to more bureaucrats from the mouths of the poor children of California. This was the midyear massacre. The proposed 2003-2004 massacre is the further denial of the COLA and a 6% reduction of benefits. This is a sick sick CUT. CCWRO Litigation Update o SHEYKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Case # 99CSO2696) This writ of mandate challenged the policies of DSS that require adult family members in a household who are not applicants for or recipients of CalWORKs or Food Stamp benefits to be finger-imaged and photo-imaged as a condition precedent for receipt of Food Stamps or CalWORKs benefits by eligible family members. CASE STATUS- Appellant briefs filed. KING v. SAENZ, (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00016) This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 challenges Fresno County’s failure to advance Ms. King her transportation expenses. Ms. King lived in Fresno and obtained employment in French Camp, San Joaquin County. The round trip commute was 234.6 per day, six days a week. Although Fresno County paid the mileage for two job interviews, Fresno County refused to pay the monthly mileage allowance would be $1,504 (mileage rate is 34.5\u00a2\/mile). During the hearing, Fresno County argued that the mileage cost is unreasonably high and that the County determined that Ms. King would not be able to sustain this much travel expense when she is no longer eligible for public assistance. Fresno County also contended that supported service for transportation was intended to assist with transportation costs for recipient residents of Fresno County who are employed within the Fresno area. Focused on the remoteness of Ms. King’s employment site and noted that $1, 618 per month in transportation costs is unreasonable and ruled that Ms. King was not entitled to the requested transportation supportive services payment because the transportation expense was not incurred pursuant to a complete Welfare-to-Work contract and the request was for an unnecessary and unreasonable amount. CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record o MEDINA v. SAENZ, (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00015) This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 challenges the decision to allow Fresno County to recover a CalWORKs overpayment that occurred in 1997. The overpayment occurred for the failure to report income. Fresno County learned about the overpayment in May 1998 but did nothing until July 2001. Recovery of the CalWORKs overpayment should be barred by the statute of limitations. The ALJ found that Fresno County could recover the CalWORKs overpayment even though recoupment of the commiserate Food Stamp overissuance was bared by the statute of limitations. CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record o McFARLAND V. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS) This petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenges the ALJ’s finding that Kern County could impose a sanction for refusing to sign a Welfare to Work plan for which the activity is to attend a third party assessment. The normal process is for the counties to schedule the third party assessment and notify the participant of the date and time of the appointment. Kern County also proposed to count the receipt of $1,999 (which Kern County Department of Human Services paid petitioner as a settlement in a court action for misconduct in administering her CalWORKs case) as countable income for purposes of food stamps. The ALJ concurred. This decision is contrary to M.P.P. 63-502.2(j) which states: \”Money received in the form of a nonrecurring lump-sum payment, including, but not limited to, income tax refunds, rebates, or credits; retroactive lump-sum social security, railroad retirement benefits, or other payments; retroactive payments from the approval of an application for any assistance program; AFDC homeless assistance payments for temporary shelter or permanent housing [see M.P.P. 63-102(h)]; court ordered retroactive payments for any assistance program; supplemental or corrective payments received for a previous month from any assistance program; lump-sum insurance settlements; or refunds of security deposits on rental property or utilities. These payments shall be counted as resources in the month received, in accordance with Section 63-501.111 unless specifically excluded from consideration as a resource by other federal laws as specified in Section 63-501.3(l), 63-506 or 63-507.\” CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record ___ ___________________________________________________________________ TANF Update George Bush has submitted his 2003 TANF welfare deform bill. The bill is Bush’s way of demonstrating his compassion for the rich and distaste for poor families with children in America, with a $657 billion proposed tax cut proposal. Senator Grassley of Idaho is the new chairperson of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over TANF reauthorization. On 1\/16\/03 he issued a press release stating that he intends to pursue reauthorization of the welfare program in the Finance Committee this year. The last sentence of his press release states \”My goal is to enact a bipartisan bill as soon as possible\”. Senator Grassley co-sponsored the Senate Finance Committee bill authored by former chairman Baucus in 2002. And so, the games with the lives of poor families and children have begun. ____________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK o Ms. Y.H. received homeless assistance in Sacramento County on 1\/01. At the time, she was pregnant, so she had to find a place to live that would cost less than 80% of the grant for a pregnant woman with no other kids. When she found a permanent place to live, the county refused to issue the check to her, notwithstanding the law which states that the check shall be issued to the recipient. On 4\/02 the place she was living was labeled uninhabitable by the city and she became eligible for homeless assistance again. When she applied for homeless assistance, the county assigned a social worker to help her find a place to live. The social worker found a place that was infested with cockroaches. Ms. Y.H. did not want the place, but the social worker LIED to her by stating that, if she did not take that place, she would not be eligible for homeless assistance. After moving in, the cockroach infestation was so bad, she feared for the health of her baby, and so, she had to move. She is now homeless again compliments of the social worker who coerced her into using her once-in-a-12-month-time- exception homeless assistance for a cockroach-infested apartment. o Ms. P.O is wondering if anybody in Los Angeles County knows what they are doing. In December, she was notified that her benefits were being reduced from $548 to $336 \”because some of the aid you got was for Michael Davis\”. However, Michael Davis has never lived with her. Also, an overpayment recoupment cannot exceed 10% of the grant. In this case, LA County is recouping $212, which is 40%. She also received a letter demanding the school attendance verification of her 6-year-old who is not yet attending school. Ms. P.O. is disabled and has provided the county with several verifications of disability. On 12\/14\/02, she received a notice of action (NOA) stating that her benefits would be reduced from #336 to $0. The reason stated in the notice of action was that P.O. had a participation problem in Welfare to Work. On 12\/20\/02 she received another (NOA) stating that her benefits were being reduced from $548 to $336 because she had failed to provide verification of school attendance of her child. Ms. P.O. filed for a fair hearing. But that did not stop the county from achieving their primary goal sanction penalty whatever they can do to cut the benefits. On 1\/4\/03 the same worker mailed another NOA stating \”As of 01\/01\/2003, the County is changing your monthly cash grant from $548 to $336. Here’s why. You must give us proof of regular school attendance for all of the school age children in your assistance unit. This proof was not given.\” Ms. P.O. admits that she is guilty of not fabricating proof for a child that is not of school age yet in order to satisfy Los Angeles County’s hunger for more paper work. She filed for another fair hearing. Just imagine how many other victims like P.O. are being terrorized by Los Angeles County. ____________________________________________________________________ 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, and 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] ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 20, 2003 IN BRIEF NEW COURT DECISION DSS NEWS NEW FEDERAL REGULATION CWD VICTIM REPORT Rush Limbaugh the junkie – Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh has been a strong advocate for drug testing of all wel- fare recipients as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. Now he has admitted to his addiction to narcotics. Maybe there should be a law that all conservative talk show hosts must be drug-tested before being allowed to spew hate on their shows. Eloise Anderson is back in town- Arnold is our new Governor. Hit the internet to view his new transition team which includes Eloise Anderson, who served under Pete Wilson as State Welfare Director, originally from Wisconsin. After losing her job in Sacra- mento, she has been working as Director for Program for the American Family, The Claremont Institute (http:\/\/ www.ashbrook.org\/events\/lecture\/2002\/ anderson.html). She has been an advocate of welfare deform despite her early experi- ence as a former recipient of Section 8 and food stamps benefits. If Anderson does return to DSS, she will find that the top management of DSS has not changed much since she left. IN BRIEF NEW COURT DECISION Sheyko v. Saenz. The new American judiciary attacks the poor again while addressing the is- sue of fingerprinting for CalWORKs and Food Stamp benefits. A recent California Auditor General reports that the program wastes over $20 million a year, however, Gray Davis wants it to continue. In Sheyko, there were two (2) major issues; (1) that state regulations treated refusal as failure; and (2) that finger imaging requirements did not include photographing. A decision rendered by California Third District Appellate Court Justices Morrison, Scotland and Kolkey and written by Justice Morrison held that there was no difference between the words fail- ure and refusal in the Sheyko case. The Department argued that the statute autho- rized the Department to operate a finger imag- ing system. To make the system effective they included a photographing requirement. DSS ar- gued that given the fact that they were autho- rized to developed a system , they do not have to limit the system to fingerprinting. Moreover, DSS stated that the statute did not prohibit DSS from imposing a new eligibility requirement, a requirement to be photographed. This decision is an insult to any reasonable person’s intelligence and is positive proof that there is no justice for the have not’s in America. See court case at http:\/\/www.courtinfo.ca.gov\/ cgi-bin\/opinions.cgi?Courts=C CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 20, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News Quarterly Reporting – DSS has a new quar- terly reporting form called QR7. The first line of the QR 7 is as follows: Request to Stop Benefits (If you fill in this part, sign and date the back of this form. You can reapply at anytime.) There are some addi- tional boxes to check to stop cash aid, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and State CMSP. There is nothing to prevent a dishonest county welfare worker from marking one of the boxes. You can reapply at any time is a statement that can be easily misinterpreted to mean any time you want to get back on aid, just come back and see us and you’ll magically be back on aid. This is misleading and deceitful. To get back on aid you must go to the welfare office and wait – sometimes an entire day – just to get an appointment. Your appointment day could mean another day spent at the county welfare office. Then you have to wait up to 45 days before you get your benefits back. Even if the applicant is homeless and foodless, they still wait 45 days or more. Of- ten, the application is unlawfully denied. If the applicant is working, he\/she may lose their job because they spend more time at the welfare office navigating the bureaucracy than at the job. But welfare to work is all about – keep- ing folks on welfare so welfare workers are guaranteed full employment. Off course, there is no box to check on the QR7 for the person to request child care, trans- portation or ancillary service, because that would result in WtW participants receiving the supportive services they are entitled to – and that does not suit welfare administrators. The mission seems to be to illegally deter people from entitlements such as child care. On September 25, 2003, SSA published new regulations for nonwork social security num- bers. The regulations require that children over the age of 12 years have to personally appear at the local SSA office to apply for and be present for the interview to get a social secu- rity number (SSN). The regulations also allow for the issuance of a nonwork number for persons who verify that they need the SSN to receive federal or local public assistance benefits and are legally in the United States of America. Many SSA of- fices force immigrants, who are eligible for a nonwork SSN, to go to INS, pay $120, get a work permit and then apply for a SSN. NOTE: Immigrants eligible for Cal- WORKs and participating in WtW are eligible for payment of the $120 to get a work permit as an ancillary support service. CWD Victim of the Week GAIN SANCTION FOR FAILING TO COMMIT A FELONY – Ms. G. of Los Angeles County has a four year old child. GAIN wants her to attend the assessment component of the GAIN program. She has told the GAIN office several times that she has no child care. Her case is in the Palmdale office, which is Los Angeles New Federal Regulations CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 20, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS County GAIN Region II. This is a for profit organization known as ACS. The GAIN of- fice has done nothing to help her find child care and has scheduled her for assessment during August of 2003 without ever address- ing her child care needs. Again, she called the GAIN office and told them that she could not find child care. The county has not of- fered her child care. Appropriately, she did not leave her child alone at home and at- tend the assessment because she knew to do so would be a felony – child abandon- ment. Los Angeles County, who was contributing this possible crime, would never have been charged with being an accomplice, rather she would have been prosecuted (more like persecuted) by the county had she left her child alone at home and gone to the assess- ment as demanded by the GAIN office. In October of 2003, DPSS of Los Angeles County proposed to reduce Ms. G’s ben- efits because she did not attend orienta- tion. When she got the notice she called the Palmdale GAIN office. She was informed that she did not have a worker and further- more, it would take two to six weeks before a GAIN worker would be assigned to her case. At that time, she could then discuss her sanction with the new worker. So, even if Ms. G. wanted to agree to par- ticipate, thereby curing the sanction as pro- vided in MPP 42-721.431, she could not do so until her new worker was assigned in 2 to 6 weeks. This is in direct violation of 42- 721.431. To make matters worse, when she called the office during working hours, she got an an- swering machine. All in all it is a total mess – just like GAIN and DPSS expect it to be. Share your VICTIM stories with CCWRO. We’ll publish them in our upcoming issues. ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-31 – October 27, 2003 IN BRIEF EMERGENCY REGULATION ALERT NEW STATE REGULATION LAWSUIT ALERT FOR IMMEDIATE NEED IN BRIEF The Bush Tax Cuts- New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman describes Bush and his tax cuts as follows: President Bush is like a man who tells you that he’s bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for him- self. Eventually, the bill will come due – and it will be your problem, not his. And that’s the over half a trillion deficit that Bush has accumulated for us and our kids so he can pay off his political contributors in his pay to play governance. DSS Transition- DSS is in the process of transition. Each Department has a couple of people who head up the transition. The persons heading up the transition for DSS is King Gee, assistant director for Intergov- ernmental Affairs, a holdover from the Wil- son Administration. The other member was supposed to be Deputy Director Donna L. Mandelstam of Disability and Adult Pro- grams Division, but she was maneuvered out by Chief Deputy Director of DSS Tameron Mitchell, who used to work for De- partment of Health Services. So now the transition team is King and Mitchell. The new governor will be given a transition book which outlines current issues the depart- ment is considering and their status. There will also be a report on litigation status. Supportive Services Unlawfully Be- ing Withheld from Eligible Partici- pants – CWDA had a conference call to dis- cuss the concerns of advocates regarding par- ticipants who are not getting the supportive ser- vices. Counties have a budgetary concern about pro- viding services to which participants are en- titled. So, for years, counties have been com- mitting the colossal crime of witholding sup- portive services monies from impoverished families. They intentionally cheat poor families out of child care, transportation and ancillary services that they are entitled to. This inten- tional fraudulent activity needs to come to a halt. Supportive Services Aid Paid Pending – Under current DSS policy, counties are allowed to determine on a case-by-case basis to con- tinue aid paid pending (APP) or not to. At a September 4, 2003 CWDA meeting, county representatives said they would like to continue to have the power to decide which family they deem worthy of due process of law and which family they deem not worthy by deciding who gets APP on a case-by-case basis. Counties argue that they don’t want to pay APP because they are not able to recoup the APP if the claim- ant loses the hearing. The fact that denial of APP is a blatant violation of the Due Process Rights of WtW participants did not concern the CWDA meeting participants, because it is not their Due Process rights that are being muti- lated. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 27, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 EMERGENCY REGULATION ALERT On October 21, 2003, DSS submitted pro- posed emergency regulations regarding An- ticipating Income & Changes in the Food Stamp Program for QR to the Office of Ad- ministrative Law – FILE NO. 03-1021-01 E The proposed regulations effect MPP Sec- tions: 63-503-505 The last day for public comment is 10-27-03 You can get copies of the regulation by contacting Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657- 2586 DSS Regulation Scheduled for Public Hear- ing When: November 12, 2003 Where: State Office Building #9 744 P Street, Auditorium Sacramento, California Time: 10:00 a.m. November Child Care Intercounty Transfers ORD# 0603-16 HOW TO E-MAIL COMMENTS: All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on November 12, 2003. You can e-mail comments to: [email protected] CCWRO LAWSUIT IN PROGRESS At this time, CCWRO is working on a number of lawsuits to be filed soon. If you have a cli- ent\/victim issue that these lawsuits will ad- dress, contact: Grace A. Galligher, Directing Attorney CCWRO @ 916-736-0616 or e-mail her at [email protected]. This week we will in- form you about the Immediate Need (IN) and Expedited Food Stamps lawsuit. This has been a long standing problem in California. Counties have been intentionally violating the regulations governing IN with the knowledge of the State Department of Social Services. In a recent letter from CDSS (in re- sponse to our demand letter that said, in es- sence, shape up or be sued) there is no prob- lem with IN in California. All is fine. Thus, if your client is hungry and becomes homeless because they did not get the IN they were en- titled to – it is news to DSS. They have no idea that such families and children are being abused by county welfare departments. The causes of actions in this case are: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of 63- 300 .21 \”Screening Applicants shall not be required to complete any CWD developed prescreening form.\” EXPLANATION: Counties require all appli- cants to complete a county screening form before they are given a SAWS 1 form. This violates Food Stamp regulations. About ev- ery county does this and it is illegal. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of 40-129. 32 \”At the time of application, every applicant shall be given the opportunity to request an Imme- diate Need payment by completing the Imme- diate Need section of the application.\” 40-129.33 \”The county shall not complete the Immediate Need section of the application or the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90), except at the applicant’s specific re- quest.\” .34 All Immediate Need payment requests received during regular business hours shall be accepted on that date. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-30 — October 27, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS .341 In no event shall any person wishing to file a request for an Immediate Need pay- ment be denied the right to do so. EXPLANATION: Many counties have an in- teractive process. In these counties, like Los Angeles County and other SAWS counties, the county completes the SAWS 1 on line, prints it out and tells the applicant to sign it. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – 40-129.4 The Immediate Need Interview .41 If the applicant indicates on the initial application or the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) that the family has an emergency situation as defined in MPP 40- 129.13, the county shall conduct an Imme- diate Need interview no later than the next working day following the date the Immedi- ate Need request is received. .411 When feasible, the county should con- duct the interview the same day the Imme- diate Need payment is requested, but no later than the next working day. EXPLANATION: Persons who indicate that they are in IN are scheduled for an appoint- ment after the 2nd working day following the date of application. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 40-129.5 Action on The Immediate Need Payment Request .51 A determination of eligibility for an Im- mediate Need payment shall be made no later than the next working day following re- ceipt of the request. EXPLANATION: Counties refuse to make a determination on IN within the timeframes provided in law. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 40-129.53 When eligibility for an Immediate Need payment does not exist: 40-129.531 The Immediate Need payment request shall be denied and the applicant no- tified in writing in accordance with MPP 22- 001a.(1). Where notification is hand-delivered, a new Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) shall also be given to the applicant. EXPLANATION. This is a violation of Due Pro- cess of Law because applicants denied IN have a right to a FH, but they never get a NOA, thus, cannot file for a FH. ACTION: If you have a client who has been a victim of one of these causes of action, please let us know NOW! ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-32-November 10, 2003 In This Issue IN BRIEF DSS USING UNDERGROUND RULES NEW WtW SANCTION REPORT COUNTY VICTIM OF THE WEEK In Brief The County Welfare Directors As- sociation (CWDA) states in their Octo- ber 10, 2003 meeting minutes that ..we will need to start applying SB 87 to refugee cases… . SB 87 provides for a process to assure that persons cannot be eligible for Medi-Cal any other way before the benefits are terminated. Yes, counties have been un- lawfully terminating Medi-Cal benefits to refugees and getting away with depriving refugees of medical assistance in violation of the State law. How long has this been going on? For years. SB 87 became effec- tive July 1, 2001. DSS has promulgated an illegal regulation (MPP 44-352.113) that allows counties to charge a person with an over- payment for a month that the county has collected child support repaying the aid. This is a violation of the Federal Child Support Law. This regulation was promulgated without ever going through the public hearing pro- cess for comment. At the end of the pro- cess it was dumped in the regulation pack- age in response to nonexisting testimony – which means it was promulgated through a LIE. DSS is circulating proposed regula- tions to implement transitional food stamps for persons who stop getting cash aid. -=-=-=- DSS Has a New Underground Rule – Denying Supportive Services to the Working Poor On June 4, 2003 DSS issued a under- ground rule stating that WtW participants who are self-employed are not eligible for support- ive services other than for commuting back and forth to the employment location. This policy is inconsistent with the statute and state regulations which in essence provide that supportive services shall be provided so par- ticipant can obtain and retain employment. There is nothing in the regulations which state that transportation supportive services is only available …to commute to and from her\/his place of work. This policy statement has been communicated to numerous counties – and it is ILLEGAL because it violates state law and it is a violation of the California Administrative Pro- cedures Act (APA) as it is an underground rule. Persons who know victims of this unlawful policy should contact Grace Galligher of CCWRO at 916-736-0616. -=-=-=- Sanctions Is What Welfare to Work Is All About CalWORKs was enacted in 1998. Mil- lions were given to welfare bureaucrats to ad- minister a program that would require a sec- CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-31-November 10, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 ond- time pregnant woman to participate as soon as her baby was born. Because of the Republican family cap also known as the maximum family grant (MFG) rule, no cash aid would be granted for her baby. The Demo- crats in the State Legislature at that time also voted for the MFG. CCWRO predicted that forcing all to partici- pate in WtW would mean more families would be sanctioned lose 25% or more of their grant each month. We were right. Today 43% of the WtW unduplicated participants are sanctioned in California. The California Welfare Directors Association were the primary proponent of total participa- tion in WtW. The reason is simple – more money. Statewide Sanctions 43.09% Merced 131.69% Trinity 112.50% Fresno 111.23% Napa 107.77% Plumas 103.57% Colusa 94.59% San Joaquin 78.91% Tulare 73.53% Tehama 63.64% Kern 63.03% Siskiyou 60.00% Los Angeles 58.98% Calaveras 58.59% San Diego 55.89% Alameda 55.67% Sutter 53.46% Monterey 53.28% Humboldt 53.06% Lake 52.53% The reason that Merced, Trinity and Fresno County have over 100% sanctions is because they have sanctioned more people than they have reported unduplicated participants. It has been about 20 years and counties still do not know how to report their activities for which they receive millions and millions of dollars. But one thing is sure, 19 counties have a sanction rate above 50%. One would think that aggressive sanctioning would mean a successful welfare to work program. OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT THAT RESULTS IN TERMINATION OF CASH AID DURING 8\/03 Merced 2% Trinity 9% Fresno 6% Napa 11% Plumas 0% Colusa 8% San Joaquin 2% Tulare 17% Tehama 2% Kern 2% Siskiyou 14% Los Angeles 3% Calaveras 4% San Diego 9% Alameda 3% Sutter 1% Monterey 4% Humboldt 2% Lake 3% Yes, the only claim to fame for counties in the welfare to nowhere program, also known as welfare to work – are sanctions. The success in getting participants employment that resulted in self-sufficiency is 4% statewide, while the sanction rate is 43%. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-31-November 10, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 That’s a 1000% higher sanction rate compared to getting participants employment that results in self-sufficiency WHAT ABOUT TRANSPORTATION? Also during the month of August 2003, about 54% of the unduplicated participants did not re- ceive transportation supportive services. Special mention should be made of coun- ties that just did not pay anyone transporta- tion. For example, according to their own reports, Siskiyou County, has 175 undupli- cated participants, but paid transportation for 0 (zero) persons. Also, Alpine and Colusa County paid no transportation. Colusa County reported 27 unduplicated participants during August of 2003; but they were able to sanction 32 WtW participants and provided 0 (zero) transportation. Could it be the lack of transportation had some- thing to do with the high sanction rate of Colusa County? Some other counties that do not like paying trans- portation are Napa at 4%; Imperial at 11%; San Joaquin at 13%, Stanislaus at 15%, Shasta at 16%, San Mateo at 19%. San Ber- nardino and Riverside Counties did not pay transportation to over 70% of its participants. Specifically, River- side failed to pay transportation to 26% of its participants and San Bernardino County failed to pay for 72% of its participants. (SOURCE: DSS WtW 25 & 25A reports) We can assure you that the welfare to work bureaucrats working for these counties always get their travel claims paid on time and in full. County Victim of the Week On May 29, 2002, San Diego County mailed a notice to Ms. 2002114321 alleging that she had $9,075.56 overpayment in stage one chid care. Luckily, Ms. 2002114321 contacted Jenni- fer Welker at Legal Aid Society of San Di- ego County for representation at a fair hearing. The County admitted that they screwed up, which was the sole reason for the overpay- ment. The children of Ms. 2002114321 were placed in a Montessori School rather than in day care by the San Diego County Stage One contractor, the YMCA. Even though the County knew that Ms. 2002114321 was in no way, shape or form re- sponsible for the over- payment, they still tried to go after her. At the hearing, the claim- ant, through her attorney, raised the Equitable Es- toppel defense and received a 25-page al- ternated decision finding that the County of San Diego should be estopped from asking for the alleged overpayment because jus- tice required that equitable estoppel be applied, prohibiting the County from re- couping the entire overpayment at issue. CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-33-December 15, 2003 In This Issue In Brief Schwarzenegger Thumbs His Nose at the Law Los Angeles County Disregards Their Reporting Responsibilities Equal Justice in America? Food Stamp Policy News Statistical Analysis – IHSS Hours Compared County-by County IN BRIEF Solano County asked DSS on 8\/27\/03 whether or not they can modify their Transportation Reimbursement rates to limit reimbursement to an amount that does not exceed the monthly gross earnings for working participants. DSS responded that limiting transportation reimbursement is capping transportation claims in violation of 42-750.112. San Bernardino County asked DSS on 5\/23\/03 whether or not they can limit transportation reimbursement to $5 a day. On 7\/18\/03 DSS responded that according to MPP 42-750.112(b))(3), the transportation rate may not include a cap or maximum monthly reimbursement amount beyond which additional miles driven are not reimbursed. Sacramento County asked DSS on 6\/ 4\/03 whether or not the county has to pay IHSS providers for transportation other than to and from the work place. 71 days later DSS promulgated an unlawful underground rule that transportation reimbursement is limited to and from place of work. CCWRO is preparing litigation. Schwarzenegger Thumbs His Nose at the LAW Schwarzenegger has decided not to implement the law which provides food stamps to welfare recipients who become self-sufficient and are transitioning off of welfare. He wanted to repeal AB 231 as part of his midyear budget reduction proposal which was not enacted by the State Legislature The Democrats refused to repeal AB 231. The Terminator has decided that he is above the law and will not implement the provisions of AB 231 which are effective January 1, 2004. It’s the Schwarzenegger way of wishing Happy New Year to poor families of California. Los Angeles Disregards Their Reporting Responsibilities Under state regulations, counties including Los Angeles County, are supposed to submit certain statistical reports just like welfare recipients who have to file monthly reports. If a welfare recipient in Los Angeles County does not file the report by the end of the month of which the report is due, benefits for the family come to a total halt. Food runs out, children go hungry and families become homeless. When Los Angeles County intentionally and knowingly refuses to submit the reports required by state regulations – nothing happens – zero consequences. (cont’d on next page) CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-33-December 15, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 As of December 15, 2003 Los Angeles County has intentionally refused to submit the following reports: CA 237 HA – Last Report Submitted – June, 2002 This is a monthly CalWORKS Homeless Assistance Report DFA 296X – Last Report Submitted- March, 2002 This is a quarterly Expedited Service Food Stamp Report STAT 40 – Last Report Submitted- October, 2002 – FSET Quarterly report STAT 46 – Last Report Submitted- October, 2002 This is a quarterly report for Food Stamp ABAWDS Last month we called Lisa Nunez, Chief Deputy Director of Los Angeles County DPSS. We informed her that DPSS was failing to meet their reporting requirements. She said she would look into it. It has been a month and Los Angeles County continues on the path of irresponsible behavior- refusing to meet their reporting responsibilities. EQUAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA A welfare mom in small County was overpaid by about $567 due to failing to report three (3)) child support checks. She has repaid the entire amount of the overpayment. The County did not allow the $50 disregard for each of the months, but then County cheating of welfare recipients is standard practice without any criminal repercussions. Because the welfare overpayment was over $400 dollars, the County has filed FELONY charges against this welfare mom. Food Stamp Policy News DSS and Los Angeles County Attack Food Stamp Recipients On August 12, 2003, Los Angeles County DPSS asked DSS whether a person applying for food stamps is eligible, if the car owned jointly with another person is worth over $9,000. The car is not accessible to the household because, as of 7\/12\/03, the police impounded the car and it is not accessible to the household. (cont’d on page 4) Editorial Schwarzenegger follows in the footsteps of his mentor, Pete Wilson. Like Wilson, Schwarzenegger has decided that welfare kids and the disabled are easy targets for his administration. Attacking welfare kids and the disabled has been a long time obsession of Republican politicians in Sacramento. In fact, many of the Sacramento- based Republicans are very willing to take money from the mouths of poor kids to make more money available for welfare bureaucrats. Fortunately, Democrats under the leadership of John Burton, Senate President Pro Tem, are not rolling over for Schwarzenegger and he has failed to enact his punitive midyear cuts so far. The Schwarzenegger attack on the poor will most likely continue and will be reflected in the 2004-2005 budget. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-33-December 15, 2003 (cont’d. from page 2) Los Angeles County’s answer was that until the participant gets the car out of impound, they do not have access to it. This is consistent with state regulation MPP 63-501.21 that states: Resources owned jointly by separate households (including non- food stamp households) shall be considered available in their entirety to each household, unless it can be demonstrated by the appli- cant household that such resources are inac- cessible to that household… This did not sit well with the State Department of Social Services. Rather than accepting the County’s proposed response which is consis- tent with the regulations, the 8\/14\/03 response from DSS stated: …the entire value of the vehicle is considered available to the household because access to the value of the vehicle is not dependent upon any agreement with the joint owner as provided in ACIN 17-02. Another household goes hungry compliments of DSS analyst Frederick Hodges the Third. Drugs from Canada are a Medical Expense Deduction On September 23, 2003, San Joaquin County asked DSS whether drugs prescribed in the USA and purchased in Canada are eligible for medical expense deduction. DSS analyst, Katie Kwiatek responded; Since the medica- tion is being prescribed by a doctor in the United States and only being filled in Canada it would be considered an allowable medical expense and the deduction would be allowed. A car used to transport a disabled household member; even those mem- bers not getting food stamps, are ex- empt. On July 22, 2003, San Mateo County called DSS about CalWORKs recipient who owns a car that could make them ineligible for cash aid and food stamps. The car is used to pro- vide medical transportation to a disabled mem- ber of the family who is not getting food stamps. The proposed answer was to deny food stamps because the disabled member of the family was not getting food stamps. However, Katie Kwiatek of DSS had the right answer. She wrote back to San Mateo County on July 22, 2003 stating that … the disabled member is living in the home, the vehicle can be excluded per MPP 63-501.52(e). The dis- abled person does not have to be a member of the food stamp household; they just need to be a member of the household. CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-33-December 15, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Hours Per Case STATEWIDE 81.18 TUOLUMNE 44.75 TULARE 61.28 MERCED 62.87 SANTA CLARA 63.71 ORANGE 68.40 VENTURA 70.36 PLUMAS 70.76 SISKIYOU 71.86 SAN FRANCISCO 72.18 CALAVERAS 72.36 SAN JOAQUIN 76.28 YOLO 76.31 LOS ANGELES 76.56 TEHAMA 76.82 STANISLAUS 77.01 YUBA 77.15 SAN DIEGO 78.02 SAN LUIS OBISPO 78.68 IMPERIAL 80.27 SAN BERNARDINO 81.61 DEL NORTE 82.25 MADERA 82.90 KERN 83.06 SANTA BARBARA 85.35 INYO 85.44 SUTTER 85.87 LASSEN 85.89 SIERRA 86.60 SANTA CRUZ 86.86 AMADOR 87.18 GLENN 87.47 RIVERSIDE 87.82 MENDOCINO 88.54 SONOMA 90.93 MARIPOSA 91.34 TRINITY 91.82 COLUSA 91.83 CONTRA COSTA 92.40 SACRAMENTO 94.02 HUMBOLDT 94.14 ALAMEDA 94.91 MONTEREY 95.15 SHASTA 95.75 SAN BENITO 97.08 KINGS 98.72 NAPA 98.76 SAN MATEO 99.75 FRESNO 100.25 EL DORADO 100.62 PLACER 101.56 SOLANO 101.89 BUTTE 104.62 MODOC 108.27 LAKE 109.20 MARIN 117.30 NEVADA 123.54 MONO 131.34 ALPINE 137.14 Hours Per Case County-by-County IHSS Hours Per Case April, 2003 This issue looks at the hours provided to IHSS recipients in each county. There are statewide standards for determining the number of hours IHSS recipients should get. The statewide average is 81 hours a month. The 10 top most stingy counties with hours are Tuolumne, Tulare, Merced, Santa Clara, Orange, Ventura, Plumas, Siskiyou, San Francisco and Calaveras Counties. Excluding small counties, counties such as Marin, Butte, Solano, Fresno have assessed a need for over 100 hours a month. What is the difference between these top ten stingy counties and the counties that pay for over 100 hours a month? In many counties, social workers do not do an accurate assessment of the number of hours and services that are needed, thus, the huge discrepancies between counties. Many counties are famous for coming up with unlawful ways to deny hours to which IHSS recipients are entitled to. Advocates should always file for a fair hearing and make sure that the appropriate hours have been granted. CCWRO can provide assistance with IHSS hearings for IOLTA funded legal services programs. Statistic of the Week ”

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 In This Issue In Brief CalWORKs Policy News CWD Victim of the Week General Assistance Statistical Report State Emergency Regulations are Back IN BRIEF Los Angeles County continues with it’s tradition of not filing timely reports on Homeless Assistance, Child Care and Food Stamp activities. This shameless failure to report continues without any action from the State Department of Social Services. There is also silence from the DSS Program Integrity Bureau. It appears program integrity does not apply to county integrity. King Arnold, wants to give $4 billion to local government. He proposes to take it from the poor through the elimination of COLA and other mean-spirited cuts. He does this without any appropriation action by the State Legislature; then has a photo op with police to announce his unconstitutional action. Has anyone informed King Arnold that the California State Constitution states that the Legislature appropriates and the Executive spends? Why would King Arnold care about the Constitution when what is really important is to get a photo op with police. Applied Research Center has issued a report asserting that counties are employing routine, illegal, and unjust use of WtW sanctions; gross miscalculations of legitimate exemptions for the 60 month time limits; and the denial of job training and educational opportunities. Copy of the report can be found on their web page at www.arc.org. Applied Research Center mailed a letter to Rita Seanz asking her to halt the WtW program pending an investigation of the illegal actions by counties in California. In response, DSS said that only 30 families were reviewed and those families can ask for a State hearing. This is another example of DSS not taking responsibility for unlawful actions conducted by their agents who run the county welfare departments. Quarterly Reporting (QR) and Child Support – One of the unanswered issues for QR is; what are the child support obligations for a parent who was absent, but joins the family during the quarter? Will the parent still have to pay child support during the quarter he or she is living with his or her family. DSS is looking into this matter. Faxed\/Scanned CA7 Acceptable – On 9\/17\/03 Elaine Grothmann of Contra Costa County was informed by DSS Analyst, Ruth Van Den Berg, that a scanned\/faxed CA 7 shall be acceptable to CWDs. This policy interpretation was approved by Supervisor, Linda Lattimore. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CalWORKs Policy News San Diego County Has Problems with Getting Non-Work SSN. DSS Is No Help. On September 4, 2003, Dennis Mirabelli asked DSS why social security offices will not issue non- work social security numbers. Dennis says in his e-mail to DSS that .. several other counties that I have spoken with are also running into this same situation. If you could please provide me with any information or direct us as to whom we should contact, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. On September 8, 2003,@11:07 AM DSS CalWORKs specialist Beverly Thomas responded that … 40-105.2 and 21 state that as a condition of eligibility , each AFDC-FG and U parent applicant or recipient member of the AU shall: .211 Furnish his\/her Social Security Account Number (SSN) or numbers, if more than one. Within 30 days following the date of the application for assistance; or. And then it goes on to say in .212 If you should have further questions please contact me. On September 8, 2003, Dennis e-mailed Ms. Thomas again stating: Here is where I am a bit confused. Per I-54-01….instructs counties that in order for a noncitizens to comply with the SSN requirements, counties can assist the noncitizen in obtaining a non-work SSN. As per SSA office, they are no longer issuing a non-work SSN, is this material now obsolete and if so, how do we comply with the SSN requirements. On 9\/25\/03 Dennis e-mailed another letter to Ms. Thomas stating that SSA still refuses to issue non-work SSN numbers. SSA has always agreed to provide non-work SSN’s to noncitizens with a referral from the county welfare department stating that the person is eligible for public assistance except for a SSN. Moreover, this SSA policy has been promulgated in federal regulations in Federal Register\/Vol. 68, No. 186, 9\/25\/2003. the same day that Dennis was asking for help in this matter. Fresno County Doing Unlawful Vouchers Fresno County loves vouchers. Fresno County’s policy for all persons on voucher\/vendor payments is to pay the rent and utilities, then the remaining grant amount is issued to them in the form of store debit cards . On August 14, 2003, Charr Lee Metsker, Chief of Employment and Eligibility Branch informed Fresno that they have to stop the practice of issuing additional vouchers or store debit cards for any remaining grant amounts to felons or sanctioned voucher\/vendor recipients unless a case by case determination indicates such action is warranted. Fresno County is also putting first time- sanctioned persons on vendor payments. This is inconsistent with MPP 42-721.43 which only allows vendor payments for the second and third sanction. Fresno County was instructed to stop placing first time-sanctioned persons on vendor payments. County Victim of the Week Ms. S.G. of Los Angeles County did not have Christmas this year. Scrooge Schwarzenegger made sure that her children, aged 7 and 8, had a miserable Christmas while he was living it up in Idaho. Ms. S.G. was expecting the statutory cost of living increase that was supposed to go into effect on December 1, 2003, as required by law. Governor Schwarzenegger, ORDERED no COLA for the poor. But this was not the first time Ms. S.G. has been subjected to terror by the government. In July of 2002, she was taking care of her gravely ill mother. She received medical verification that would exempt her from the GAIN program, but the Los Angeles County sanction machine didn’t care about her verification – GAIN sanctions must go forward, and thus, she was unlawfully sanctioned for 12 months. (Con’t on Page 4) CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 This week we looked at a July, 2003 report on General Assistance (GA) in California. We are able to bring this in- formation to you because Los Angeles County has not sub- mitted their General Assis- tance reports. While refusing to submit reports on Expe- dited Food Stamps. ABAWDS, Homeless Assis- tance and others, Los Ange- les County continued to termi- nate benefits of Food Stamp recipients for failing to report, while they refuse to meet their reporting responsibilities. The average General Assis- tance Payment for July of 2003 was $236 a month. There were nine (9) counties that payed no cash to GA re- cipients. They are: Del Norte, Kings, Lake, Madera, Napa, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz and Sonoma Counties. The average cost for in-kind income per case for counties with over 50% of the GA re- cipients receiving in-kind ben- efits is $293 a case. This is a over 20% higher cost for in- kind income compared to cash payments to GA recipi- ents. Table #1 contains the average General Assistance Grant Statistic of the Week Amount county-by-county starting with the grinchiest counties of California. How can a human being live on $78 in the United States of America. It is disgraceful and shameful. This is what El Dorado County pays human beings on GA. Tehama $226.63 Tulare $229.04 Trinity $231.44 Kings $234.65 Mariposa $237.63 Contra Costa $244.11 Santa Barbara $249.08 San Bernardino $261.10 Siskiyou $268.22 Shasta $268.66 Butte $275.15 Inyo $283.02 Marin $285.63 Glenn $286.45 Stanislaus $301.59 Santa Cruz $305.83 Mendocino $311.18 Riverside $323.27 Amador $325.44 Sonoma $326.36 Solano $327.74 Alameda $374.69 Humboldt $376.16 San Diego $382.19 San Mateo $386.62 Fresno $387.07 San Francisco $395.15 Napa $452.13 Calaveras $510.91 Lassen $3,012.00 County Average Monthly GA Grant Statewide $236.02 San Benito $0.00 El Dorado $77.94 Yuba $93.33 Del Norte $111.00 Sierra $116.50 Sutter $124.79 Alpine $132.00 Lake $139.09 Plumas $139.58 Madera $171.83 Colusa $174.22 Imperial $179.00 Yolo $179.05 San Joaquin $179.48 Nevada $180.32 Placer $182.99 Orange $189.16 Sacramento $198.81 Los Angeles $200.86 Mono $203.25 Kern $207.91 Santa Clara $211.06 Ventura $211.26 Monterey $219.79 Merced $220.84 Tuolumne $221.33 Modoc $222.09 San Luis Obispo $226.51 County Average Monthly GA Grant TABLE #1 SOURCE: DSS GA 237 Report CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-34-December 29, 2003 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 County Victim of the Week (con’t from page 2) STATE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS ARE BACK For a while Schwarzenegger would not allow the State Department to file regulations. Now there are a slew of emergency regulations being filed with the Office of Administrative Law. 1.Date Submitted OAL on: 12\/23\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1223-06E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: CalWORKs and Food Stamp Program SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures , MPP, Section (s): 42-207 – 63- 1101 DSS AGENCY CONTACT : Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586 2. Date Sublimated OAL on: 12\/23\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1223-05E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: Transitional Food Stamps and Face-to-Face Interview Exemptions SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures , MPP, Section (s): 63-300 – 63- 504 3. Date Submitted OAL on: 12\/22\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1222-02 EE AGENCY: State Department of Education TOPIC: Regional Market Rate – Child Care and Development Programs SECTIONS AFFECTED: California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 05, Sections: 18021 – 18428 AGENCY CONTACT : Debra Strain @ (916) 319-0155 4.Date Sublimated OAL on: 12\/19\/03 – OAL FILE NO. 03-1219-02 E AGENCY: DSS – TOPIC: Educational Awards\/ Scholarships and Eligible Teens’ Exemption SECTIONS AFFECTED: Manual of Policies and Procedures, MPP, Sections: 42-712 – 44-111 This means that Los Angeles County has crimi- nally stolen over $1,200 from Ms. S.G. and her two children. The County now has admitted that they were wrong to impose the sanction, but still refuse to return the stolen money back to her. Then, on August 1, 2003, while her mother was dying, the County stopped her benefits for failing to do an annual redetermination. She did not get a letter setting up an appointment for the annual redetermination, because the is no state regula- tion that requires such notification. The whole idea is to screw poor families, not to help them. On September of 2003, her mother died. Finally, in October, she reapplied for CalWORKs seeking expedited service food stamps and CalWORKs Immediate Need (IN). She was given food stamps, but IN was denied because the county had to do a home visit before they could issue IN. She had hoped that even if her COLA was with- held, at least she would get the money back from the unlawful GAIN sanction before Christmas. Well, Christmas came and no money. It appears that the county workers were too busy to pay back what they unlawfully took from her. All and all, Ms. S.G. and her kids had a horrible Christmas like many other CalWORKs participants in California – thanks to Scrooge Schwarzeneg- ger. NOTE: On January 14, 2004, A Superior Court Judge in San Francisco will entertain a motion in a law suit filed by Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Western Center on Law & Poverty to ORDER Governor Schwarzanegger to OBEY the LAW and issue the COLA too Ms. S.G. many other poor families of California receiving CalWORKs benefits. If you have a victim of Governor Swcharzanegger like Ms. S.G., contact Clare at 213-487-7211 ext. #25 for JUSTICE. L A W S U IT F IL E D ”

” CCWRO #2003-3 January 27, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget LATEST NEWS – POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN – THE EASY TARGETS OF 2003 ATTACKED VICIOUSLY BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURTE Litigation Update TANF Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 __________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – On January 15, 2003, the Legislative Analyst released a report regarding the true amount of the State budget deficit. While the Governor estimates that the deficit is $34.6 billion, the analyst has estimated $26.1 billion. The truth is that no one will know what the true amount of the deficit will be until May of 2003. During early May, the Governor will present the \”May Revise\”. This is when the real budget writing will start. Program cuts alone cannot balance the budget. There has to be new revenues, which means new taxes. The Republicans are a definite minority in California. Minorities can only get benefits if they stick together. Thus, the Republican Caucus in the Senate and the Assembly stick together. Those who cross the caucus are punished. A number of Republicans who voted for the budget in 2002-2003 were either defeated in the primaries or termed-out. The word is that the Assembly Republicans are adamantly opposed to tax increases no tax is their bottom line. Capital insiders speculate that the budget impasse may last until the November election, when voters will decide on taxes to balance the State Budget. Some are suggesting taxes on services and property tax reform as a solution, but that does not seem likely at this stage of the game. Stay tuned for more. _______________________________________________________________________ LATEST NEWS – POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN – THE EASY TARGETS OF 2003 ATTACKED VICIOUSLY BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURTE The Democratically controlled Assembly and Senate have approved the senseless and vicious denial of the June 2003 COLA for CalWORKs families when there are millions and millions of TANF dollars available to provide for a COLA for impoverished families and their children of California. This is the just the first vicious and malicious attacks on the poor by the Governor and the Democratic legislature to make money available to more bureaucrats from the mouths of the poor children of California. This was the midyear massacre. The proposed 2003-2004 massacre is the further denial of the COLA and a 6% reduction of benefits. This is a sick sick CUT. CCWRO Litigation Update o SHEYKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Case # 99CSO2696) This writ of mandate challenged the policies of DSS that require adult family members in a household who are not applicants for or recipients of CalWORKs or Food Stamp benefits to be finger-imaged and photo-imaged as a condition precedent for receipt of Food Stamps or CalWORKs benefits by eligible family members. CASE STATUS- Appellant briefs filed. KING v. SAENZ, (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00016) This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 challenges Fresno County’s failure to advance Ms. King her transportation expenses. Ms. King lived in Fresno and obtained employment in French Camp, San Joaquin County. The round trip commute was 234.6 per day, six days a week. Although Fresno County paid the mileage for two job interviews, Fresno County refused to pay the monthly mileage allowance would be $1,504 (mileage rate is 34.5\u00a2\/mile). During the hearing, Fresno County argued that the mileage cost is unreasonably high and that the County determined that Ms. King would not be able to sustain this much travel expense when she is no longer eligible for public assistance. Fresno County also contended that supported service for transportation was intended to assist with transportation costs for recipient residents of Fresno County who are employed within the Fresno area. Focused on the remoteness of Ms. King’s employment site and noted that $1, 618 per month in transportation costs is unreasonable and ruled that Ms. King was not entitled to the requested transportation supportive services payment because the transportation expense was not incurred pursuant to a complete Welfare-to-Work contract and the request was for an unnecessary and unreasonable amount. CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record o MEDINA v. SAENZ, (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00015) This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 challenges the decision to allow Fresno County to recover a CalWORKs overpayment that occurred in 1997. The overpayment occurred for the failure to report income. Fresno County learned about the overpayment in May 1998 but did nothing until July 2001. Recovery of the CalWORKs overpayment should be barred by the statute of limitations. The ALJ found that Fresno County could recover the CalWORKs overpayment even though recoupment of the commiserate Food Stamp overissuance was bared by the statute of limitations. CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record o McFARLAND V. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS) This petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenges the ALJ’s finding that Kern County could impose a sanction for refusing to sign a Welfare to Work plan for which the activity is to attend a third party assessment. The normal process is for the counties to schedule the third party assessment and notify the participant of the date and time of the appointment. Kern County also proposed to count the receipt of $1,999 (which Kern County Department of Human Services paid petitioner as a settlement in a court action for misconduct in administering her CalWORKs case) as countable income for purposes of food stamps. The ALJ concurred. This decision is contrary to M.P.P. 63-502.2(j) which states: \”Money received in the form of a nonrecurring lump-sum payment, including, but not limited to, income tax refunds, rebates, or credits; retroactive lump-sum social security, railroad retirement benefits, or other payments; retroactive payments from the approval of an application for any assistance program; AFDC homeless assistance payments for temporary shelter or permanent housing [see M.P.P. 63-102(h)]; court ordered retroactive payments for any assistance program; supplemental or corrective payments received for a previous month from any assistance program; lump-sum insurance settlements; or refunds of security deposits on rental property or utilities. These payments shall be counted as resources in the month received, in accordance with Section 63-501.111 unless specifically excluded from consideration as a resource by other federal laws as specified in Section 63-501.3(l), 63-506 or 63-507.\” CASE STATUS Waiting for the Administrative Record ___ ___________________________________________________________________ TANF Update George Bush has submitted his 2003 TANF welfare deform bill. The bill is Bush’s way of demonstrating his compassion for the rich and distaste for poor families with children in America, with a $657 billion proposed tax cut proposal. Senator Grassley of Idaho is the new chairperson of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over TANF reauthorization. On 1\/16\/03 he issued a press release stating that he intends to pursue reauthorization of the welfare program in the Finance Committee this year. The last sentence of his press release states \”My goal is to enact a bipartisan bill as soon as possible\”. Senator Grassley co-sponsored the Senate Finance Committee bill authored by former chairman Baucus in 2002. And so, the games with the lives of poor families and children have begun. ____________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK o Ms. Y.H. received homeless assistance in Sacramento County on 1\/01. At the time, she was pregnant, so she had to find a place to live that would cost less than 80% of the grant for a pregnant woman with no other kids. When she found a permanent place to live, the county refused to issue the check to her, notwithstanding the law which states that the check shall be issued to the recipient. On 4\/02 the place she was living was labeled uninhabitable by the city and she became eligible for homeless assistance again. When she applied for homeless assistance, the county assigned a social worker to help her find a place to live. The social worker found a place that was infested with cockroaches. Ms. Y.H. did not want the place, but the social worker LIED to her by stating that, if she did not take that place, she would not be eligible for homeless assistance. After moving in, the cockroach infestation was so bad, she feared for the health of her baby, and so, she had to move. She is now homeless again compliments of the social worker who coerced her into using her once-in-a-12-month-time- exception homeless assistance for a cockroach-infested apartment. o Ms. P.O is wondering if anybody in Los Angeles County knows what they are doing. In December, she was notified that her benefits were being reduced from $548 to $336 \”because some of the aid you got was for Michael Davis\”. However, Michael Davis has never lived with her. Also, an overpayment recoupment cannot exceed 10% of the grant. In this case, LA County is recouping $212, which is 40%. She also received a letter demanding the school attendance verification of her 6-year-old who is not yet attending school. Ms. P.O. is disabled and has provided the county with several verifications of disability. On 12\/14\/02, she received a notice of action (NOA) stating that her benefits would be reduced from #336 to $0. The reason stated in the notice of action was that P.O. had a participation problem in Welfare to Work. On 12\/20\/02 she received another (NOA) stating that her benefits were being reduced from $548 to $336 because she had failed to provide verification of school attendance of her child. Ms. P.O. filed for a fair hearing. But that did not stop the county from achieving their primary goal sanction penalty whatever they can do to cut the benefits. On 1\/4\/03 the same worker mailed another NOA stating \”As of 01\/01\/2003, the County is changing your monthly cash grant from $548 to $336. Here’s why. You must give us proof of regular school attendance for all of the school age children in your assistance unit. This proof was not given.\” Ms. P.O. admits that she is guilty of not fabricating proof for a child that is not of school age yet in order to satisfy Los Angeles County’s hunger for more paper work. She filed for another fair hearing. Just imagine how many other victims like P.O. are being terrorized by Los Angeles County. ____________________________________________________________________ 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, and 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] ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-8 March 11, 2003- HEADLINES IN BRIEF- Welfare Policy Issues EDITORIAL – CalWORKs – A Program of Sanction, Penalties and Punishment – How About Trying Something Positive? DSS NEWS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT ________________________________________________ IN BRIEF- Welfare Policy Issues — Quarterly Reporting. DSS has proposed to drop the concept of re-averaging during the quarter in favor of doing perspective budgeting in those situations. This concept is waiting for approval from the Department of Finance. Meanwhile, DSS assumes that if the ACL implementing quarterly reporting is released during March, 2003, it will go into effect on November 1, 2003. — Milt Yee of DSS informed the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) CalWORKs committee that persons cannot be sanctioned for not attending a third-party assessment. If the participant who objected to the county-proposed plan fails to attend the third party assessment, then the county shall schedule the participant for the activity outlined in the proposed plan. If the participant fails to participate without good cause, then a sanction can be imposed. — Reimbursement for Extracurricular Activities for Children On 9\/18\/02 Bill Beinbrech of LA DPSS asked DSS; Is reimbursement for transporting children to extracurricular activities a State mandate or a county option? Michael Lipkin of DSS answered on 10\/3\/2; The policy in ACL 00-54, last paragraph, page 4 states, payments for this type of transportation could provided…if the CWD has determined it is necessary for the parent to participate in work activities. Payment for transportation to extracurricular activities is therefore a county option. — San Bernardino County asked DSS; Are there any financial penalties to the County for failure to timely process some of the IEVS pieces? IEVS stands for Income and Eligibility Verification System. This system, using the CalWORKs recipients social security numbers, identifies cases where income has not been reported. Many counties are slow to act on these reports, which allows the overpayment to grow and then they commence to persecute (CWDs call it prosecute) the parent for the large overpayment. These are large overpayments caused by the county intentional program violations. In a letter dated 7\/24\/02, DSS informed San Bernardino County that federal law and state regulations require processing matches, most within 45 days from the date of the match. Also counties will lose fraud incentive payments, larger errors and lawsuits from advocate groups. However, the 7\/24\/02 letter made no mention of any consequence or consequences if the county intentionally refuses to process the IEVS reports in a timely fashion. ________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL – CalWORKs – A Program of Sanction, Penalties and Punishment – How About Trying Something Positive? The CalWORKs program, is a punitive program, infested with sanctions and penalties. There are Welfare to Work (WtW) sanctions, immunization penalties, penalties for children not going to school, penalties for being convicted of a drug crime and intentional program violations penalties. Some CalWORKs participants have multiple penalties. The whole idea of the program is to punish parents and children of impoverished families. There is only one piece of the CalWORKs program that has a positive feature – CalLearn rewards for completing the program, however even this program has sanctions. There is no regulation or law that establishes a statewide policy on how sanctions and penalties are imposed. Counties are all over the place on this issue. Typically, many counties do not even have a policy. The CalWORKs program should be changed into a positive experience by giving people incentives to follow through and complete the objectives of law makers. For example, the Legislative Analyst states that meeting participation rates is important. If California does not meet the rates, it could lose federal money. Lawmakers should consider giving families a COLA if they meet the participation goals. Why not give eligible participants an incentive to meet the federal participation rates? Counties get incentives for collecting overpayments, etc. It is high time that the CalWORKs Program reward impoverished families and their children with dignity and respect when they meet the expectations of lawmakers. Today 25-35% of the WtW participants are being sanctioned, which means that the kids suffer. This is a cowardly act and child abuse at the highest level. CalWORKs and county welfare operators have become masters of this in California. ___________________________________________________ DSS NEWS –Stage 1 Child Care: On 11\/6\/02 Efhraim Rodriguez contacted DSS with the following inquiry: A participant is in Stage I and is determined to be stable and referred to Stage II. The Stage II AP will not contract with the participant’s provider (maybe it’s an in-home provider). However, the participant does not want to select another provider. On 11\/7\/02 Suzanne McNamee of DSS responded as follows: ANSWER\/COMMENTS: …The client can remain in Stage One, provided it has not been more than 24 months since they left cash aid. …Please note, however, that Stage Two cannot refuse to pay the client’s provider simply because said provider is license-exempt. There is no basis for refusal to pay a license-exempt provider. –San Francisco Stage One Benefits Stopped without a Proper Notice of Action Joyce Bosc of San Francisco County Welfare Department called DSS on 10\/11\/02 about a client whose Stage One child care benefits were discontinued by the San Francisco APP, known as Children’s Council, with the issuance of a letter that was not a notice of action and did not inform the victim of her fair hearing rights and how to file for a fair hearing. The victim has filed for a fair hearing and Ms. Bosc was looking for guidance from DSS. DSS informed Ms. Bosc of MPP 47-420.31 that states the county can only terminate Stage One benefits if a timely and adequate notice of action has been issued. We wonder how many other people have been unlawfully terminated by the San Francisco Children’s Council. –Can a CalWORKs participant be reimbursed for ancillary expenses for cosmetology tools and supplies purchased prior to signing the county’s employment plan? On 4\/4\/02 Dao Nguyen of Santa Clara County asked DSS the following question: … a client that signed up for cash aid on December 10, 2001. The client attended a CalWorks orientation that discussed the participation requirements of the program. The client enrolled in cosmetology training program at San Jose City College on January 10, 2002. She bought the tools and supplies required for the program totaling $780. According to the Appeal Worker, the client met with a CalWORKs representative at the school who told her that she would be reimbursed. The client did not sign her Welfare to Work employment plan until February 4, 2002. The county denied the request from the recipient. The county denied the $780 claim because client had not signed the employment plan prior to enrolling in the training program. This decision is being appealed by the client. The appeal hearing is April 10, 2002. On 4\/5\/02, Linda Horne of DSS answered: ANSWER: Section MPP 42-750 does not specifically prohibit a county from denying ancillary expenses to a client who voluntarily enrolled in a training program with prior approval of the training program from the county. However, if the county ultimately approved the client’s welfare to work activity in cosmetology and the tools and supplies are required for the training, the county should pay such costs. Especially since the client was told by a Calworks representative at the school that she would be reimbursed. ___________________________________________________ COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT San Diego County Victim – A WtW participant enrolled her child in the Montessori School of San Diego. The enrollment was approved by the San Diego YMCA, which was administering the Stage One program for San Diego in 9\/99. On 6\/6\/01 San Diego County mailed a notice to the WtW participant stating that she has a $9,075.65 overpayment. The county said that she was overpaid because YMCA should never had enrolled her child in the Montessori School of San Diego. She appealed. She was represented by Jennifer Welker of Legal Aid Society of San Diego. In a 25 page decision issued by Rita Saenz, Director of DSS, the hearing decision held that under the equitable estoppel doctrine the participant did not have to pay back the overpayment caused by the county, Good work Jennifer. State hearing # 20021143321. — Los Angeles Tries to Sanction a Person Working Full Time. – On June 1, 2002, Los Angeles County mailed a notice of action in SH #2002182287 imposing a sanction for allegedly failing to participate in GAIN. The victim had to take a day of work, come to a hearing, only to be told by the county that the county screwed up – it was an administrative error. The claimant is working full time, but that does not prevent the CalWORKs administrators to try to impose a sanction, even if illegal. In this case the victim asked for a hearing. Many other victims do not and are unlawfully sanctioned by Los Angeles County. –San Diego County Wants to Sanction Disabled Person – San Diego County, one of the leaders in imposing sanctions upon CalWORKs families, issued a letter dated 5\/7\/02 that her aid would be reduced from $516 to $369 because she failed to cooperate with the WtW program. At the hearing, the county presented an authentic document signed by the claimants doctor that she was disabled. The county did not accept this document, because in certain places it was whited out, thus, they assumed the document was falsified. The county never contacted the doctor to determine if the statement was true or false. They just went forward with their primary mission – sanction. At the hearing the claimant testified that this was the document that the doctor gave her and she gave it to the welfare office. She never falsified the document as slanderously alleged by the county. She won her hearing and the county was not able to terrorize this victim. But just imagine how many other persons similarly situated are being terrorized by San Diego County today. ____________________________________________________________________ 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, and 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] ` ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-9 March 18,2003 IN THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF EDITORIAL – Counties Ignore Overpayments DSS NEWS TANF UPDATE by Evelyn Dortch – Direct Action Welfare Group (DAWG) COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT ________________________________________________ IN BRIEF- Welfare Policy Issues — On 4\/2\/02 Karol Hamman of Riverside County asked DSS: Could a sanctioned client get child care when she is trying to cure her sanction by participating in WtW activity? This is her first sanction and she has been sanctioned for 36 months. She has to complete a 2-3 week job club\/job search activities before she is eligible to receive cash aid again. However, she needs child care in order to participate. Hilva Chan of DSS answered : Yes, it is the intent of the legislature to provide supportive services, including child care, for clients to participate. This client would not be able to participate and cure her sanction without child care. She may claim good cause if a lack of supportive services is preventing her from participation. CCWRO COMMENT: This means that if a person is sanctioned and agrees to participate, but supportive services are not actually available, then the county should give them good cause and stop the sanction. — SB 429, which allowed parents, whose kids are taken away from them by child protective services, to continue to receive WtW services, but not CalWORKs. Now Department of Health Services has announced that the parents may not be eligible for Medi-Cal. — NEW CalWORKs Lobbyist – Western Center n Law and Poverty have hired a new lobbyist for CalWORKs. LUPE DIAZ, who worked for MALDEF for 2 and a half years, and the Children Roundtable for two and a half years will start on April 1, 2003. Welcome aboard. ________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL – COUNTIES IGNORE OVERPAYMENT Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) is designed to identify persons being overpaid and to stop the continuation of overpayments. This is done by matching the CalWORKs recipients social security number with the income reported to IRS by employers. When the income reported to the welfare department does not match the income reported to IRS by the employer, it is called a hit . A hit produces an abstract , which includes the name of the person who did not report income and the amount of the income not reported. While counties rant and rave about welfare recipients not reporting income, they rarely talk about their own deviant behavior- refusing to process these abstracts with the 45 days mandated by federal law. Some counties, are so arrogant, they don’t even file state required reports – and DSS does nothing about the counties not reporting. The counties not reporting for the second and third quarter of 2002 are: Contra Costa, Monterey, Nevada and Sacramento. Ventura County did not file a report for the third quarter. During the third quarter of 2002 the following activity was reported; Abstracts Received – 173,075 Abstracts Processed – 123,949 Abstract Unprocessed – 515,414 It looks like many cases are lingering on and accumulating more and more overpayments. When the county finally gets to on overpayment, its grown to thousands of dollars. The recipient is then accused of being a criminal, while the county, who actually caused the overpayment by refusing to do its job, becomes the persecuter. There is nothing action by DSS to assure that these counties do their job and stop setting poor parents into being a felons. ___________________________________________________ TANF UPDATE by Evelyn Dortch Direct Action Welfare Group (DAWG) Senate Committee Tackles Welfare Reform Continuing the dialogue on the reauthorization of the 1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193), the Senate Finance Committee held a March 12 hearing to discuss improvements needed in the current law. Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) noted that the welfare law \”is largely acknowledged to be one of the most successful reforms in decades.\” He added that, in this next phase, \”we should consider how states are serving those families who are not getting assistance, but who remain poor.\” Ranking Member Max Baucus (D-MT) agreed. \”In 1996, the welfare program was broken, and major surgery was required,\” he said. \”That surgery has been pretty successful,\” he stated and added, \”We need to keep going along that path, not force states into making major strategy shifts.\” Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson also began his testimony by noting the success of the 1996 welfare law. \”Employment among single mothers has grown to unprecedented levels, child poverty rates are at or near historic lows, the rate of births to unwed mothers has stabilized, and the share of unmarried women with a young child stopped growing and began to decline in mid decade,\” he said. The administration’s proposal \”builds a foundation to help families find jobs,\” continued Secretary Thompson. \”We would require states to engage every family in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to work 40 hours a week,\” he said. Recipients must spend 24 hours per week \”in direct work,\” and states would have the flexibility to decide which activities, such as education or substance abuse treatment, should be included in the remaining 16 hours, he explained. According to Secretary Thompson, the plan would provide $200 million in annual grants \”to support healthy families and healthy marriages,\” an additional $1 billion for child care, and states would be given an incentive to pass on more child support payments directly. \”One last component would allow families to continue on Medicaid for up to a year after they get off of welfare,\” he said. \”The plan would authorize $2.4 billion to extend Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) through FY2008,\” he added. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) expressed concern that a Maine program allowing welfare mothers to attend college while continuing to receive cash assistance and child care would be curtailed under the administration’s plan. \”The idea of allowing individuals to achieve a higher education is something we all should strive for,\” she stated. \”Ninety percent of those who participated in the program in Maine have successfully moved off of welfare and increased their income by more than 15 percent,\” she said. \”Our basic premise is that you have to have a work requirement,\” responded Secretary Thompson. \”If you completely exempt the work requirement and just allow school, I don’t think you ever really get to the accomplishments originally in the law,\” he added. \”If we’re just driven to look at the numbers, to reduce the numbers, and we don’t look at the individuals behind those numbers, that’s going to be a real travesty because we’re not going to be successful,\” replied Sen. Snowe. \”The current law is number-driven. The administration’s proposal is not number-driven. It allows for much more flexibility for the states,\” said Secretary Thompson. \”If we could work out a proposal for work and school, that’s the best of both worlds, but I still think you have to have the work component,\” he emphasized. Sen. Baucus said he had big concerns regarding the resources that states \”may or may not have for child care. If dollars are going to those additional work requirements for those on welfare, where is the money coming from for child care?\” he asked. \”The House-proposed bill, which we are supporting, increases child care funding by 22 percent,\” responded Secretary Thompson. Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) noted that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $8 billion to $11 billion would be needed for states to meet the new work requirements and child care needs. \”I don’t think the administration has made their case to mandate 40 hours with no additional funding,\” he said. On the second panel, Howard Hendrick of Oklahoma Human Services told the committee that he was asked to share some of the successes of the Oklahoma welfare program with particular emphasis on family forming initiatives as they relate to marriage promotion. \”Our strategy has been to develop a network of trained workshop leaders to deliver a twelve-hour curriculum called PREP, the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program,\” he said. To date, 550 workshop leaders have been trained to provide this service throughout Oklahoma communities, he explained. Marilyn Smith of the Child Support and Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue said that her agency has made extensive use of automation to collect child support. \”In the last ten years, collections in Massachusetts have increased by 97 percent, from $207 million in 1993 to $408 million in 2002,\” she said. Although the numbers are impressive, \”the real impact is in the difference that these collections have made for individual families, when a child support check appears out of the blue in the mailbox of a custodial parent who has not received a payment in years,\” she added. Ms. Smith urged the committee to expand support for a responsible fatherhood initiative. \”Eighty percent of fathers are romantically involved with mothers at the time of birth,\” she contended. \”Three years later, only 20 percent are involved,\” she stated, advocating for a program that would provide job support services for noncustodial parents. \”A job and the ability to provide financial support are critical to keeping these connections,\” she added. Margy Waller of the Brookings Institution testified that states now spend more than 60 percent of their funds on services like child care, much of it on working families not on welfare. \”That’s because the 1996 law guaranteed funding levels for block grants and caseloads dropped by more than half,\” she explained. The drop in caseloads also allowed states \”to design individualized programs for parents to prepare for work,\” she added. \”There are two things that I have concluded about this proposal to increase work requirements,\” she assessed. \”First, despite what we heard this morning, I believe that flexibility will disappear. The only way that states can try to meet the proposed elements of the new participation rates will be to create one-size-fits-all, unpaid work programs,\” she said. \”Secondly, services to poor working families will be wiped out as states spend their block grants creating and administering these work programs,\” she stated. \”The administration’s proposal makes it seem like the states have done something wrong and now need more help from the federal government,\” she added. While it’s true that the administration is more than doubling the money for welfare, \”the great truth is that we don’t need to spend as much money under the current, flexible system,\” she asserted. \”Instead, states are spending much of the money on supports like child care and transportation for working families who don’t get welfare,\” she pointed out. \”If states have to create expensive welfare programs, these supports will collapse,\” she cautioned. Bills Introduced Welfare S. 574 —-Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) \/ Finance (03\/07\/03)—A bill to toll the five-year limit for assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for recipients who live in a state that is experiencing significant increases in unemployment. S. 605 —-Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) \/ Finance (03\/12\/03)—A bill to extend waivers under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program through the end of fiscal year 2008. S. 603 —-Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) \/ Finance (03\/12\/03)—A bill to give states the option to create a program that allows individuals receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to obtain post-secondary or longer duration vocational education. ____________________________________________________________________ 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, and 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] ”