Documents

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – October 26, 2009 Issue 09-27 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In- Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian DSS Insists on Unlawful Sanctions of Poverty Stricken Families DSS has a new draft ACL implementing Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009 which promotes the unlawful sanctions of exempt WtW par- ticipants. State law provides that exempt persons cannot be sanctioned. Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009, provides that counties can exempt caretaker relatives who have a child between the ages of 12 to 23 or have two or more child en under the age of six (6). This exemption was enacted to enable counties to balance their budgets because county welfare operating budgets were cut by 30%. This exemption was ef- fective August 1, 2009 and meant that these families could not be sanctioned. The first draft ACL requires that all new- ly exempted families in sanction status will need to cure those sanctions. DSS’s 17th floor officials had concluded that forcing exempt families to cure their sanctions would result in saving money. Counties, lead by Los Angeles GAIN of- ficials, and other counties objected to the curing requirement pointing out the un- necessary administrative costs that coun- ties will incur to force exempt persons to cure a sanction that should never be ap- plied in the first place. (Read Cooper v. Swoap, supra and Waits v. Swoap, supra.) The new revised draft ACL now provides that an exempt individual will be forced to request an exemption through their worker. The other sneaky twist put in the new draft is that those who were sanctioned before July 28, 2009 need to cure their sanctions but not those who were sanctioned after July 28, 2009. The unlawful beat at DSS goes on. IHSS Update On November 1, 2009, In Home Support- ive Services planned to terminate benefits to 130,00 of California’s impoverished el- derly, disabled and blind getting In-Home Supportive Services in lieu of being in a nursing home. On October 19, 2009, the CCWRO Welfare News federal court judge in V.L. et.al. v. Wagner derailed the terminations. The County Welfare Directors Asso- ciation (CWDA) has also been very helpful with the litigation effort to protect California’s impoverished elderly, disabled and blind receiv- ing In-Home Supportive Services in lieu of being in a nursing home. DSS has circulated ACL’s and ACIN’s relating to new IHSS requirements set to go into effect Nov. 1st. Many of them violate state law. Advocates and CWDA have been pointing out these discrepancies to DSS. This is expected from a Department that the California Supreme Court found: An administration of the welfare pro- gram that discards statutory mandate to reduce relief to the indigent young cannot be sustained. A society that sacrifices the health and well-being of its citizens upon the false altar of economy endangers its own future, and, indeed, its own survival. Cooper v. Swoap, 11 Cal.3d 856. In essence, the department has so enmeshed itself in fictitious and mis- leading libels for the sake of reducing welfare costs that it has obfuscated the purpose of the underlying statute: the preservation, so far as possible, of the family unit, and the more fun- damental purpose of the preservation of the health of the state’s … citi- zens. Waits v. Swoap. 11 Cal.3d 887, IHSS New Litigation Peter Sheehan with the Social Justice Law Center is preparing litigation on the IHSS provider felon and serious misdemeanor exclusions (but not that providers be printed or livescanned). In addition, there are some serious is- sues regarding the results of the lives- can and fingerprinting process which we will challenge in an independent suit (non IHSS) or possibly with IHSS ccwro.org plaintiffs. The DOJ clearance procedures have significant delays (during which the proposed provider can not be employed in the licensed position). Please con- tact Peter if you know of providers or consumers who might be impacted by the above delay process for declaration purposes–the provider will need to have a criminal history record. Peter Shee- han, at [email protected]. CWDA Kills AB 643 – Skinner In 2009 the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) contributed to the hunger and misery of roughly 29,000 adults and 50,000 children by engineer- ing the death of AB 643- Skinner. Cur- rently when a welfare family moves from San Francisco to Alameda Co, their cash aid follows them. But they have to go to the Alameda Co. welfare department and stand in line all day to apply for food stamps, and then return for an interview. After waiting, without food aid, for weeks the family gets their food stamps. AB643 would have required counties to transfer food stamp cases from one county to an- other just like they do for CalWORKs, Medi-Cal, IHSS. CWDA alleged that it would cost too much to transfer a case from one county to another as opposed to reapplication. Assemblywoman Skinner amended the bill several times to accom- modate CWDA, but CWDA never relent- ed and achieved their goal killed the bill and in the process sentenced about 29,000 adults and 50,000 children to hunger. New IRT ACL ACL 09-55 announces new quarterly re- porting (QR) income reporting threshold (IRT) effective October 1st 2009 to Sep- tember 31st 2010. The QR IRT is based on a federal waive hat expires April 1, 2010. The ACL states that the IRT for a 0 family size is $227. Zero family size? Are unborns being told to report income? ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – November 4, 2009 Issue 09-28 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO Welfare News ccwro.org Table #1 below reveals the amount of dollars that counties deprived welfare-to-work (WtW) partici- pants for WtW transportation sup- portive services during August of 2009, according to DSS’s WtW 25 reports. In August, 2009, there were 148,122 welfare recipients living on a fixed income below 50% of the poverty level who were required to participate a welfare-to-work activ- We have been told by sources in the Schwarzenegger Administration that the new ACL implementing AB X4 4 amended W&IC Section 11320.3 short-term exemptions, would not require exempt families to cure the sanction. However, we also under- stand that the ACL does not address what relief would be provided to families with a child who is from 12 to 23 months of age, or two or more children who are under six years of age, who have been sanctioned unlawfully since August 1, 2009. On July 28, 2009, the State Legislature passed AB X4 4 (Chapter 4, Statutes of the Fourth Extraordinary Session of 2009) that contained short-term chang- es to the CalWORKs program which became effective on July 28, 2009. 62 days later, September 30, 2009, a draft ACL was born to implement the provisions of AB X4 4 amended W&IC Section 11320.3. This draft pro- vided that if the sanction occurred after July 28, 2009, rather than stopping the sanctions against an exempt person, the exempt person would have to ask for the exemption that the law already provides for. If sanction happened be- fore 7-28-09, the family will be forced to cure the sanction. Advocates and counties object to this policy which violates the law. Counties also object- ed to the added administrative costs that this draft ACL imposes on them. It is now November, over 90 days later and thousands of impoverished parents with one child from 12 to 23 months of age, or two or more children under six years of age, are still being sanctioned in violation of state law. ity and entitled to transportation, but 76,443 families (48%) were not given transportation assistance. This is like 48% of county welfare department employees not claiming travel expens- es incurred. Pretty far fetched? Yes. And what did this cost California’s poor in August of 2009? $3.6 mil- lion. Is there any government in- vestigation of this injustice? No. WtW Transportation Deprives Poor Families $3.6 million in August of 2009Breaking News – New ACL for Short Term Exemptions Will Not Require Curing the Sanction August 2009 Statewide Tulare Ventura San Luis Ob. Kern San Mateo Butte Contra Costa Yolo Stanislaus Alameda Orange Sacramento San Joaquin Fresno San Fran. Solano San Diego Santa Cruz Nevada Sonoma Riverside Santa Clara Los Angeles Unduplicated Participants 148,122 3,945 1,864 961 5,379 830 912 3,304 813 2,597 5,942 4,616 12,146 4,267 8,728 1,678 1,162 10,191 731 299 1,361 7,963 4,657 36,108 Participants Receiving Transport. 76,443 274 208 118 1,353 210 242 926 234 761 1,843 1,497 4,214 1,532 3,572 707 511 5,074 364 155 743 4,774 3,047 26,707 Percentage Not Reciving Transport. 48% 93% 89% 88% 75% 75% 73% 72% 71% 71% 69% 68% 65% 64% 59% 58% 56% 50% 50% 48% 45% 40% 35% 26% Money Taken From Poor Families During 8-09 $3,583,950.00 $183,550.00 $82,800.00 $42,150.00 $201,300.00 $31,000.00 $33,500.00 $118,900.00 $28,950.00 $91,800.00 $204,950.00 $155,950.00 $396,600.00 $136,750.00 $257,800.00 $48,550.00 $32,550.00 $255,850.00 $18,350.00 $7,200.00 $30,900.00 $159,450.00 $80,500.00 $470,050.00 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – November 4, 2009 Issue 09-28 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO Welfare News ccwro.org Table #1 below reveals the amount of dollars that counties deprived welfare-to-work (WtW) partici- pants for WtW transportation sup- portive services during August of 2009, according to DSS’s WtW 25 reports. In August, 2009, there were 148,122 welfare recipients living on a fixed income below 50% of the poverty level who were required to participate a welfare-to-work activ- We have been told by sources in the Schwarzenegger Administration that the new ACL implementing AB X4 4 amended W&IC Section 11320.3 short-term exemptions, would not require exempt families to cure the sanction. However, we also under- stand that the ACL does not address what relief would be provided to families with a child who is from 12 to 23 months of age, or two or more children who are under six years of age, who have been sanctioned unlawfully since August 1, 2009. On July 28, 2009, the State Legislature passed AB X4 4 (Chapter 4, Statutes of the Fourth Extraordinary Session of 2009) that contained short-term chang- es to the CalWORKs program which became effective on July 28, 2009. 62 days later, September 30, 2009, a draft ACL was born to implement the provisions of AB X4 4 amended W&IC Section 11320.3. This draft pro- vided that if the sanction occurred after July 28, 2009, rather than stopping the sanctions against an exempt person, the exempt person would have to ask for the exemption that the law already provides for. If sanction happened be- fore 7-28-09, the family will be forced to cure the sanction. Advocates and counties object to this policy which violates the law. Counties also object- ed to the added administrative costs that this draft ACL imposes on them. It is now November, over 90 days later and thousands of impoverished parents with one child from 12 to 23 months of age, or two or more children under six years of age, are still being sanctioned in violation of state law. ity and entitled to transportation, but 76,443 families (48%) were not given transportation assistance. This is like 48% of county welfare department employees not claiming travel expens- es incurred. Pretty far fetched? Yes. And what did this cost California’s poor in August of 2009? $3.6 mil- lion. Is there any government in- vestigation of this injustice? No. WtW Transportation Deprives Poor Families $3.6 million in August of 2009Breaking News – New ACL for Short Term Exemptions Will Not Require Curing the Sanction August 2009 Statewide Tulare Ventura San Luis Ob. Kern San Mateo Butte Contra Costa Yolo Stanislaus Alameda Orange Sacramento San Joaquin Fresno San Fran. Solano San Diego Santa Cruz Nevada Sonoma Riverside Santa Clara Los Angeles Unduplicated Participants 148,122 3,945 1,864 961 5,379 830 912 3,304 813 2,597 5,942 4,616 12,146 4,267 8,728 1,678 1,162 10,191 731 299 1,361 7,963 4,657 36,108 Participants Receiving Transport. 76,443 274 208 118 1,353 210 242 926 234 761 1,843 1,497 4,214 1,532 3,572 707 511 5,074 364 155 743 4,774 3,047 26,707 Percentage Not Reciving Transport. 48% 93% 89% 88% 75% 75% 73% 72% 71% 71% 69% 68% 65% 64% 59% 58% 56% 50% 50% 48% 45% 40% 35% 26% Money Taken From Poor Families During 8-09 $3,583,950.00 $183,550.00 $82,800.00 $42,150.00 $201,300.00 $31,000.00 $33,500.00 $118,900.00 $28,950.00 $91,800.00 $204,950.00 $155,950.00 $396,600.00 $136,750.00 $257,800.00 $48,550.00 $32,550.00 $255,850.00 $18,350.00 $7,200.00 $30,900.00 $159,450.00 $80,500.00 $470,050.00 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – November 16, 2009 Issue 09-29 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO Welfare News ccwro.org On May 18, 2007, Ms. O.B. who is a US citi- zen living in Sacramento County, lost her 10 children to the state and county. They were re- moved from her care and control due to lack of food and conditions of the home. The con- dition of the home of this welfare mom, who lives on a fixed income, (the same amount that parents like her with the same number of chil- dren received in 1990) did not meet the social worker’s middle class standard for condition of a home. Welfare and Institutions Code does not authorize counties to remove children from their parents because they have a lack of food What defines lack of food? There were no allegations that the children were starving. When the children were removed and placed in foster care, the cost to taxpayers for this family went through the roof. Rather than costing about $1,200 a month in welfare monthly payments, this family is now cost- ing taxpayers at least $20,000 a month. Who is Abusing Children? One of the children, T.B., is cur-rently in the fifth grade. Our sources inform us that the social worker’s re- port reveals that T.B. believes her mother is important in her life and wants to go back home and live with her. The mother visits with T.B. ev- ery week, according to the report. The law requires that siblings be placed together. The report shows that these siblings are not placed together be- cause they have allegedly bonded with their caregivers, thus, they will be kept separate. The younger siblings are not allowed to visit their older siblings at the request of caregivers. This is to as- sure that the children do not maintain ties with each other. It is the intentional breaking up of the family by social workers and the courts. Do these people care what happens once the child reach- es 18? Do they know that 70% of the foster care children end up in prison? The report reads: T.B. stated her wish for permanent plan\/placement is to go home. T.C. would like to reunify with her mother. The mother is currently participating in services, but is not prepared to reunify. (Actual names have been redacted). The report does not say ex- actly why the mother is not prepared to reunify. Ms. O.B. is another low income person en- snared by the child welfare system. According to a DSS report only 22% of the children in the California child welfare system are removed due to sexual or physical abuse. The remainder are removed due to neglect , which is a by- product of poverty. The question is, is it worth destroying 7 kids’ lives to protect 3? And why can’t we save 3 lives without destroying 7? Why not assist this family with $200 for food and maybe $1,000 to make the condition of the home acceptable and keep this family to- gether, rather than spending $240,000 a year to spread the children into several foster homes. Not to mention the trauma of separat- ing children from their mother. To date, lack of food has resulted in taxpayers doling out over half a million dollars in foster care costs. August Cases Unduplicated Percentage of Dollar Cost to No. of 2009 Sanctioned Participants Unduplicated Impoverished Children Participants CalWORKs Who Sanctioned Families Suffered (in thousands) in 8\/09 Table #1 reveals the percent- age of WtW participants that have been sanctioned by major counties, the economic cost of those sanctions to impoverished families in these counties and the number of children who suf- fered due to these sanctions. Most sanctions are caused by county failure to provide supportive services, such as child care and transportation. In California about 50% of the WtW participants are not be- ing paid for transportation. Child care cannot be paid un- less the provider is trustlined. TABLE #1 Statewide Alameda Fresno Kern Los Angeles Madera Merced Riverside San Bern. San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin Santa Clara Santa Cruz Stanislaus 47,859 1,410 3,156 4,430 12,849 291 1,085 4,108 6,618 1,303 419 949 1,240 268 1,189 148,122 5,942 8,728 5,379 36,108 725 1,822 7,963 12,373 10,191 1,678 4,267 4,657 731 2,597 32% 24% 36% 82% 36% 40% 60% 52% 53% 13% 25% 22% 27% 37% 46% $6,221,670 $183,300 $410,280 $575,900 $1,670,370 $37,830 $141,050 $534,040 $860,340 $169,390 $54,470 $123,370 $161,200 $34,840 $154,570 95718 2820 6312 8860 25698 582 2170 8216 13236 2606 838 1898 2480 536 2378 Source; DSS August, 2009 WtW 25 and 25A reports ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – December 8, 2009 Issue 09-30 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO Welfare News ccwro.org l The CalWIN computer system which operates in 18 counties, ter- minates cases automatically if the computer is not told that the county received a Social Security Number (SSN) within 60 days. State regu- lations do not authorize the termi- nation of aid for failure to present a SSN within 60 days. This illegal practice was institutionalized by the people who programed the CalWIN computer system. That this rule found its way into the CalWIN system is an evidence of the lack of proper oversight. l CalWIN is programmed to reject an authorization for supportive ser- vices for the month that the partici- pant has signed the contract. Thus, if a person applies and is found to be eligible on December 2, 2009 and must go to work on December 5, CalWIN will not authorize childcare or transportation until January 1st. l On Tuesday, September 22, the US Senate approved Carmen Naz- ario as the new head of the Fed- eral Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Her formal title is the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Next up for child wel- fare is the position of Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families at ACYF is Bryan Samuels, formerly from the Illinois Department of Chil- dren and Family Services. He was nominated on July 13 to fill that post. lSocial Security Administration has implemented a new Social Security Number Verification Process. Under this process, SSA is able to identify persons with SSNs getting Medi- Cal benefits in more than one state. I n B r i e f l In 2010, County Welfare Di- rectors Association(CWDA) will have new leadership. The President will be Linda Haugan, Director of San Bernardino County Welfare Department. She has re- sisted advocate’s propos- als to set up a system to cure Welfare to Work (WtW) sanctions. San Bernardino has a high WtW sanction rate. During August 2009, in San Bernardino County, 13,236 innocent children were punished because their parents were sanctioned. l Mark Wilson has now as- sumed the position of run- ning the DSS Employment Bureau. He comes from EDD and the WIA program. The average sanction reduces welfare benefits by an estimated 30%. The sanctions have a devastating impact on children who are the ultimate victims of California’s punitive sanction system. Based on the DSS WtW 25 reports, which reflect information transmitted from county welfare departments to the State, during August 2009, there were 148,122 persons participating in a WtW activity and 47,859 families who were sanctioned. In August 2009, im- poverished families were deprived of $6.2 million dollars which effected an estimated 95,718 poor children. Fig- ure #1 is a chart of large counties and small counties with high sanction rates. Welfare-to-Work Sanction Impact on the Family Cases Sanctioned 47,859 1,410 3,156 4,430 12,849 291 1,085 4,108 6,618 1,303 419 949 1,240 268 1,189 August 2009 Statewide Alameda Fresno Kern Los Angeles Madera Merced Riverside San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin Santa Clara Santa Cruz Stanislaus Undupl. Participants 148,122 5,942 8,728 5,379 36,108 725 1,822 7,963 12,373 10,191 1,678 4,267 4,657 731 2,597 Dollar cost to Impoverished CalWORKs Families (in thousands) $6,221,670 $183,300 $410,280 $575,900 $1,670,370 $37,830 $141,050 $534,040 $860,340 $169,390 $54,470 $123,370 $161,200 $34,840 $154,570 Number of Children Suffered August ’09 95718 2820 6312 8860 25698 582 2170 8216 13236 2606 838 1898 2480 536 2378 Figure #1 CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org December 8, 2009 #2009-30 Page 2 l Kern County sent a Notice of Action (NOA) on February 19, 2009 impos- ing a sanction on a single mom for failing to partici- pate in the WtW program. Ms. 9069157 has received cash aid since January 2009. She is Yemeni- American. Her husband is in Yemen. Her uncle pro- vided her with a place to live. Her husband and un- cle believe it is a violation of Islamic law and custom for her to work. Claim- ant does not agree with their interpretation, but her uncle will not allow her to live with him if she works. lAlameda County has been unlawfully sanction- ing Ms. 9198148’s family since March 1, 2008. The Alameda County welfare worker did not want to take corrective action. Ms. 9198148 was forced to file an administrative hear- ing costing over $2,500 to get a hearing decision ordering Alameda Coun- ty to return the money taken away from this im- poverished family living on a fixed income below 50% of the poverty level. l Ms. 92208184 of San Bernardino County re- ceived a Notice of Action dated July 21, 2009 that her benefits would be reduced. She received the letter on July 22, 2009. She filed for a state hearing on July 27, 2009 and asked for aid paid pending. On August 1, 2009 she did not get aid paid pending (APP). She also did not get aid paid pending for September of 2009. In fact San Bernardino refused to issue aid paid pending. Even at the time of the hear- ing San Bernardino County had not complied with the law. The County finally is- sued aid paid pending as required by a court order in Blankenship v. Saenz which can be downloaded at : http:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/ index.php?option=com_ d o c m a n & I t e m i d = 1 0 5 and EAS 22-073.11. 22-073.1. Upon receipt of a request for hearing or no- tice from the Department that a recipient has filed a request for a state hearing, the county shall provide aid pending the state hearing in accordance with Section 22-072, when entitlement exists. 22-073.11 Such payment shall be either placed in the U.S. Mail or available for hand-delivery to the recipi- ent (if agreed to by the coun- ty and recipient) within five working days of the receipt of the hearing request by the appropriate agency as spec- ified in Section 22-004, or the date the regular sched- uled aid payment would oth- erwise have been paid to the recipient, whichever is later. It seems San Bernardino County believes that some- where in the regulations there is an instruction that APP should not be issued if it would result in an over- payment. There is no such regulation. San Bernardino County must promulgate State regulations lawfully. County Welfare Department Victim Report Call for submissions — CCWRO New Welfare News is accepting articles on any aspect of public benefits law and practice. Anyone interested in writing an article for the New Welfare News may submit it for review to Kevin Aslanian at [email protected]. If you have any questions, e-mail Kevin or call CCWRO at (916) 736-0616. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – December 21, 2009 Issue 09-31 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO Welfare News ccwro.org This Christmas an estimated 97,868 impoverished children would have a bad Christmas due to Welfare-to-Work sanc- tions that bring the benefits of a family of two (2) down to 21% of the poverty level. An estimated $6 million dollars will be taken away from these families for the month of December of 2009. Table #1 reveals the percent- age of WtW participants who have been sanctioned by major counties, the economic cost of those sanctions to impoverished families in these counties and the number of children who suffered due to these sanctions. Most sanctions are caused by county fail- ure to provide supportive services, such as child- care and transportation. In California about 50% of the WtW participants are not being paid for transporta- tion. Childcare cannot be paid unless the provider is trustlined weeks and sometimes months. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT CLIENT ABUSE REPORT Ms. 2009154029 of Riverside County was sent a notice of action dated June 16, 2009, informing her that effective July 1, 2009, her cash aid ben- efits would be decreased from $533.00 to $326.00 per month, because she had failed to par- ticipate or did not make good progress in her assigned Wel- fare to Work activity. What does the law say about an adequate notice of action? Adequate notice is define in EAS 22-001(a)(1) which pro- vides: October Cases Unduplicated Percentage of Dollar Cost to No. of 2009 Sanctioned Participants Unduplicated Impoverished Children Participants CalWORKs Who Sanctioned Families Suffered (in thousands) in 8\/09 TABLE #1 Statewide Alameda Fresno Kern Los Angeles Madera Merced Riverside San Bern. San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin Santa Clara Santa Cruz Stanislaus 48,934 1,472 3,262 4,746 13,311 292 1,037 4,169 6,971 1,297 390 971 991 263 1,135 149,309 5,975 8,635 4,953 36,745 664 1,779 8,362 12,609 10,433 1,851 4,214 4,818 750 2,528 33% 25% 38% 96% 36% 44% 58% 50% 55% 12% 21% 23% 21% 35% 45% $6,361,420 191,360 424,060 616,980 1,730,430 37,960 134,810 541,970 906,230 168,610 50,700 126,230 128,830 34,190 147,550 97868 2944 6524 9492 26622 584 2074 8338 13942 2594 780 1942 1982 526 2270 Source: DSS October, 2009 WtW 25 and WtW25A reports 22-001(A)(1) The following definitions shall apply wherever the terms are used throughout Division 22. (a) (1) Adequate Notice – A written notice informing the claimant of the action the county intends to take, the reasons for the intended ac- tion . In this case the notice was not adequate be- cause it did not specify the reasons for the specific action. The Notice of Action did not specify what activ- ity she failed to meet County Welfare Department WtW Sanctions Hurt Poor This Christmas CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org December 21, 2009 #2009-31 Page 2 or make good progress in. It also failed to say whether was the problem that she did not make good progress or that she did not do what she was supposed to do. Finally how does one make good progress in job search? Is failure to find a job bad progress and finding a job good progress? Has any- one from Riverside County looked at the unemployment rates lately? Moreover, this is not a 30- day notice of action as re- quired by EAS 42-721.23 Upon determination that an individual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the indi- vidual a notice of action effective no earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of issuance. Ms. 2009154029 filed for a state hearing. The deficiency of this notice of action was not addressed in the hear- ing decision. The hearing decision indicates that Her Welfare to Work activ- ity plan included Job Search from May 27, 2009 to June 5, 2009, which required that she go to class from 8 am to 12 noon, and look for a job on her own Monday through Thursday, for a total of 35 hours per week, and Job Club @ 35 hours per week thereafter, with the activi- ties being the same as Job Search. The hearing decision further states: The county provided evi- dence of having made a mental health referral in the case in 2007, and that at that time; the clinical therapist who evaluated the claimant determined that the claimant was capable of working full time. In response, the claimant submitted into evidence a Riverside County Depart- ment of Mental Health Con- sumer Care Plan, testifying that she had met with a therapist on September 21, 2009 and again on Sep- tember 28, 2009. In pertinent part, it indicates the following: Client present with depressive symptoms that include inability to sleep, feelings of hopeless- ness, crying spells, inappropriate guilt and loss of concentration. It also indicates that the therapeu- tic intervention is to Provide individual counseling sessions to help alleviate barriers to employ- ment. Riverside County shall rescind its notice of action, and shall not decrease the claimant’s cash aid benefits from $555.00 to $340.00 per month. The county shall provide the claimant with all appropriate retroactive benefits to the extent that the claimant has not received such benefits through aid pending this hearing decision, as otherwise eligible. Ms. 2009154029 was one of the lucky ones who asked for a hear- ing and got justice. Thousands like her did not understand that they can ask for a hearing or were afraid to do so and have been unlawfully sanctioned with- out an adequate notice of action. From CCWRO ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 May 17, 2009 Issue 09-13 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Table #1 reveal the human and fiscal impact of these cuts. The data in Table #2 reveal the poverty levels of the Cal- WORKs grant with a 6% benefit reduction based on the 2009 federal poverty levels for Re- gion #1. The budget also attacks immi- grants by proposing to eliminate the CAPI program which was designed to provide aid to the elderly, disabled and blind who are here legally, but denied federal benefits due to the 1996 Republican cuts in Congress. It also proposes to eliminate the California Food Assistance program for Californians who are here legally, but denied federal food stamp benefits due to the 1996 Republican cuts in Congress. The budget also cuts SSI for single person down to $830 a month and $1,407 for couples. This does not even begin to de- scribe the long term economic and human harm that these cuts would do to California. How many of these children will end up in foster care? How many will end up in the criminal system? CalWORKs’ poor families are al- ready suffering. This grant cut is a race to the bottom sinking Cali- fornia’s impoverished families with children even further down with fixed incomes at about 35% of the poverty level. The economic stimulus loss is based upon the analysis of econo- mist Zandi. For every dollar spent on payments to poor families gen- erates 1.7% economic activity in the community that the recipients of the benefits live. The data in Governor’s 2009-2010 May Revise CalWORKs Overview On May 15th, Governor Schwar- zanegger launched another attack on the poor. In summary, May Revise, which is the 2009-2010 revised California state bud- get, proposes to recycle the old unconscionable termination of CalWORKs benefits that would sentence 223,000 impoverished children into total destitution and seriously harm a total of 785,000. These cuts would cost the poor $947.1 million. It is also a big job killer in that California’s sagging economy would take another $1.6 billion dollar economic stimulus hit. \u2029\u2029 CCWRO Welfare News LOSS TO THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY ( in millions) $584.4 $426.3 $408.3 190.6 $1.6 billion TABLE #1 PROPOSED CUTS FOR 2009-2010 6% Grant Reduction CalWORKs Child Only Time Limit CalWORKs Modified Safety Net Self-Sufficiency Reviews TOTAL CHILDREN CUT 18,000 82,000 98,000 25,000 223,000 CHILDREN HARMED 785,000 MONEY LOSS TO THE POOR ( in millions) $344 $250.7 $408.3 $190.6 $947.1 TABLE #2 Persons Grants with the 6% cuts 2009 Federal Poverty levels $900 $1,214 $1,526 $1,838 $2,149 $2,461 $2,773 $3,084 % of Federal Poverty levels 34.30% 41.14% 40.64% 40.21% 39.11% 38.37% 37.33% 36.62 $309 $500 $620 $739 $841 $944 $1,035 $1,130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The Impact of the May Revise Proposed Cuts on Impoverished Famliies & Economy of California Source:Dept. of Social Services ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/451): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 June 8, 2009 Issue 09-15 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian serve the poor. On June 4, 2009, the Sacramento Bee wrote an editorial pointing out that state services are primarily designed for the upper class and the middle class. The Bee asked if all education funding goes for the poor? Does all secondary education spending go for the poor? Does all of the education spending is $51.7 bil- lion go for the poor? Does all of nurs- ing home spending go for the poor? Does all prison spending go for the poor, which is $10 billion? Transpor- tation and economic development is $2.6 billion. The editorial concluded that Genest’s comments simply feed the myth accepted by far too many Californians- that only poor people need government services. One of the savings that is being considered is the proposal by the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) to temporarily suspend the manda- tory requirement for participation in Welfare-to-Work. This would free up county welfare workers to assist clients to get their benefits and would save money by not forcing families to use child care and transportation services that they don’t want to use. This proposal to allow welfare moms to make decisions is not supported by California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA). They propose to limit this provision to families with children between 0-2 and to families with 2 or more kids up to six (6) years old. It does not appear that CWDA’s proposal would yield the $200 million in saving that LAO’s proposal would yield. Moreover, what is the problem with empower- ing the poor to make decision about their lives? The proposed suspension would not prevent anybody from vol- untarily participating in any welfare to work activity they are eligible for and wish to participate in. There is a hearing tomorrow, June 9th, 2009 that can be viewed at 2 p.m. – http:\/\/ www.calchannel.com\/channel\/live\/2 Sacramento Budget Battle Update Last week, there were all kinds of things popping in Sacramento The Budget Conference committee passed a motion to eliminate various agencies in state government that are loaded with political appointees and friends. These agencies oversee various state department, including the state Health & Human Services Agency. The big overseer the De- partment of Finance was spared for some reason. On June 2, 2009, Speaker Karen Bass and Senate Leader Darryl Steinberg held a press conference where they made it very clear that safety net programs will not be eliminated as proposed by Governor Schwarzanegger. Darrell Steinberg suggested that they may shift some programs to counties and make it easier for locals to raise taxes. This would mean that residents of poor counties would get low quality services, while rich coun- ties would provide better services. Under this proposal, California’s services to the poor and middle class would became like the General As- sistance Program. Many counties would only help the poor for three months a year and then sentence the poor to eating from garbage cans and living in the streets of California. Mr. Steinberg also reiterated that he is opposed to eliminating safety net programs like the Governor is sug- gesting, and said that there may be cuts, but they would be surgical and not wholesale. Meanwhile, Mike Genest, a former Deputy Director for Welfare Pro- grams at DSS, asserted that the Cali- fornia state budget primarily exists to IN BRIEF l DSS has submitted a waiver of the Food Stamp face-to-face interviews for applications to USDA, FNS. FNS re- quests that the State show that the waiv- er would be cost neutral. Department of Finance is working on it. FNS has said that they would most likely approve the waiver within 30 of submission. l The federal General Account- ing Office will be in Sacramento every two (2) months to monitor the federal ARRA funds. California will need to prove that they meeting the matching requirements to get this federal money. l At a May 14, 2009 CWDA meeting DSS clarified that a face- to-face interview: A face to face is generally not required at the annu- al redetermination. The regulations at 40-181.311 require a interview but a telephone interview can fulfill that requirement. We also clarified that the SAWS2 does not need to be signed in the presence of the coun- ty worker, and can be mailed. l AB 433, implementing the modi- fied food stamp categorical eligibility, will be implemented effective 7-1-09, DSS has not provided any money to program any of the consortia systems. l According to the 2009 DSS WtW25 report, a monthly average of 142,553 persons are participating in the Welfare to Work program and Counties have sanctioned 42,464 of those families. That is a 30% sanc- tion rate. Without a sanction, a fam- ily of three (3) average grant is $677 effective July 1, 2009. The sanctioned families average grant will be $547 a month, which is 39% of the poverty level. This is the real legacy of welfare- to-work forcing about 95,000 chil- dren deeper and deeper in poverty. CCWRO Welfare News \u2029 \u2029 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 June 16, 2009 Issue 09-16 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian my business clientele and vendors (who are) required to participate in the program. I have attorney friends ques- tioning the legality of this and I am in- between a rock and hard place won- dering if their help is really help or a way to keep me poor forever. I feel my rights have been violated. Where do I start or do I just start taking my kid to work with me? The form that she signed stated: I authorize CDR to contact one or more of my listed clients on this form for purposes of verifying my reported work activity for this month. I under- stand that this is required for me to participate in any of the Subsidized Child Care program. The form says that this information will be used to determine if the signer is eligibly for ant of the Subsidized Child Care Programs. After making calls for two days we were able to reach Jack Hinojosa of CDR who informed us that this form is based upon with State Department of Education Child Care Regulation Section 18086 (c)(2)(B) reads as fol- lows: If the self-employment occurs in variable locations, independently verifying this information by contact- ing one or more clients whose names and contact information have been voluntarily provided by the parent. (Our emphasis added). What do you think? LATEST WELFARE BUDGET NEWS On June 16, 2009, the Budget Con- ference Commitee rejected the Gov- ernor’s proposals to eliminate the CalWORKs program and mutilate the IHSS program. The Conference Com- mittee actions are attached hereto. Stamps it saved any money. Why not? Because it did not save any money! Finally Mr. Todd Bland from the Leg- islative Analyst Office alleged that by repealing SFIS the caseload would go up by 1%. Mr. Bland provided no ba- sis for this conclusion. The Conference Committee approved SFIS which has a cost taxpayers $8 million, not includ- ing the cost of 100 welfare workers needed to process these fingerprints. Stay tuned for new develop- ments. The proponents of SFIS, at the DOF and Legislative Analyst Office, are still fighting to preserve this wasteful spending program. Child Care Agency Client Abuse Report Ms. S.D. is a self-employed single mother who is financially challenged. She receives CalWORKs and child care from Child Development Re- sources (CDR), a nonprofit orga- nization getting TANF money for child care in Ventura County. In January 2009 CDR developed a form that requires all recipients of child care, as a condition of receiving child care government benefits, to provide all of her clients names and phone numbers along with the vendor names and phone numbers so that the CDR workers can call and verify that the person is working. The form is signed each month under penalty of perjury along with bank records and tax re- turns verifying all her income, etc. CDR recently called one of her business clients to verify her where- abouts. CDR told the client why CDR was calling, to check up on the person getting welfare child care. Ms. S. D. lost a client this month, that provided over $300 a month in income to her family, solely based on this call to the client. She said My personal life and financial woes are being shared with IN BRIEF l Penelope Clarke, who used to be the Director of Sacramento County Welfare Department re- cently retired. She is now working for CWDA on Child Welfare Com- puter issues. l Public Law No. 111-3 allows states to meet the Medi-Cal citizen- ship documentation requirements by getting verification from SSA. This provision is effective January 1, 2010. John Zapata and Cheryl Dobbins of DHCS is working on this matter. l AFSCME has proposed a list of taxes that would balance the Cali- fornia State Budget.The proposal includes such majority vote rev- enues as switch the gas fee to tax for $6 billion; establish a 3% with- holding on independent contractors for $2 billion; Changed ownership for commercial property loopholes – $1.5 billion and more. WASTEFUL SPENDING ON FINGERPRINTING STOPPED On June 4, 2009, the Budget Con- ference Committee eliminated the ill -conceived, wasteful statewide finger imaging system (SFIS). SFIS is not a federaly required program. Many of the cuts proposed by the Department of Finance (DOF) are justified by the fact that they are not federally required. But when Senator Leno proposed to elimi- nate this wasteful program, that was not federally required, DOF opposed this suggestion. The spokesperson for DOF, Nick Buchen, alleged that fingerprint- ing saves a lot of money and stated that Los Angeles County saved $30 mil- lion when they implemented this sys- tem for their General Assistance cases. SFIS was implemented from De- cember of 1999 through 2001. Mr. Bu- chen did not assert that when SFIS was implemented for CalWORKs and Food CCWRO Welfare News \u2029 \u2029 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 June 29, 2009 Issue 09-17 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Fresno County Violates Civil Rights and Wrongfully Demands Money Back. – Mr. 65152-285 filed for a state hearing because Fresno County as- serted that he and his wife were over- paid $200 for ancillary services in the Welfare-to-Work (WTW) program in September 2007. On December 26, 2008, the county is- sued two WTW Supportive Services overpayment Final Notices informing him and his wife that (1) they was pre- viously informed of the overpayments on June 13, and (2) since they did not pay and were no longer in the WTW program, they must repay the amount owed or contact the county to make a repayment plan within 10 days. The Claimant requested a hearing March 6, 2009, stating that he did not understand the $200 WTW overpay- ment. At the hearing, Fresno County tried to get the hearing dismissed because the claimant filed for the state hearing af- ter 90 days of getting the NOA. This attempt by the County to wrongfully try to get $200 from the claimant was not sustained by the judge because the county had used an inadequate notice of action. The $200 ancillary services needed because he found a job and needed clothing for it. The worker issued him a $200 check and he mailed the re- ceipt to the worker. He said he worked from 6:30 am to 4:30 p.m. and could not take time off from work to hand- deliver the receipts to the worker. He also said that he thought the $200 was for food stamps, but when he found out that it was for the clothing, he asked for a hearing right away. The ALJ found that the claimant did not have an overpayment. There was no evidence from Fresno County showing that he did not use the money for clothing. County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report WtW Costs Welfare Recipient his Job – Job Club is a job killer for some in Sacramento County. The Legislature is proposing to suspend looking at the county participation rates, but Mr. E. S., who had a job last week is NOT working this week – compliments of Job Club. He told Andy, from Job Club, that he had a part-time job which he started last Wednesday. Andy told E.S. that he called his worker, Mr. Steven Blake- man, who advised Job Club Andy to tell the client that he is not working 35 hours, thus, not meeting the par- ticipation rates, and needed to do Job Club. Mr. E. S. OBEYED the welfare department. He was let go last week after missing a shift at an ACTUAL job because he feared a sanction from missing Job Club . But he is going to Job Club. That should be a big relief – not being disobedient to the welfare department at the cost of a real a job. San Diego County Appears to Com- mit Child Care Fraud – San Diego County issued a notice of action to Ms. 9091096-504 that she is eligible for 3.99 hours of child care a week. She knew this was wrong. She filed for a state hearing. A hearing was scheduled. She went to the hearing. During the hearing the county admit- ted that she was entitled to 4.99 hours and not 3.99 hours. It is unclear why the county did not agree to a condi- tional withdrawal before the victim had to spend money from her fixed in- come that is at about 40% of the pov- erty level to come to the hearing only to be told that the county is wrong. If Ms. 9091096-504 had claimed 5 hours when she needed 4, the San Diego County and the District Attor- ney would be screaming FRAAAU- UUUD. IN BRIEF l Child Support hear- ing required by Family Code Section 17800 have not been conducted since June 1, 2009. Until 6\/2009 DSS had a contract to conduct hearings, as of 7\/1 the Department of Child Support Ser- vices is contracting with Office of Ad- ministrative Hearings to conduct the hearings. At this time the contract with OAH has not been finalized and there is a large backlog of hearings. l AB 643, authored by Assem- blywoman Nancy Skinner, requires that Food Stamp recipients moving from one county to another would have their Food Stamp case trans- ferred without re-applying for Food Stamps, just like CalWORKs, Me- di-Cal, IHSS, WtW, has passed the Assembly and the Senate Human Services Committee. This would benefit about 90,000 people. l State Hearing Post- ponement Policy – According to DSS when the county requests a postponement or the postponement is because of the county, that post- ponement does count towards the one postponement that claimants get without good cause. l LATEST WELFARE BUD- GET NEWS – Budget Conference Committee Bill failed in assembly 48-29. The Bill also failed pas- sage in State Senate 22 to 16. Both Houses are meeting to re-consider the Budget Conference Committee Bill. Democratic Senators Correa and Yee and Democratic Assembly member Swanson vote against the Bill – Republican Assembly mem- ber Mr. Adams and Senator Mal- donaldo Abstain. CCWRO Welfare News \u2029 \u2029 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 28, 2009 Issue 09-19 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian ance their budgets. It should be noted that, according to an HHS statistical report, about 30% of the TANF money is used for payments to families. The remaining TANF money is used for the welfare bureau- cracy and to balance the state budgets. County Welfare Department Client Abuse REPORT l PLACER COUNTY TAKES OBAMA STIMU- LIS REFUND FROM RE- CIPIENT WITH AN IM- PROPER NOA. Ms. L.C. of Placer County received a tax refund from P.L. 111-5 which was meant to stimulate the economy. Placer County sent a notice of action (NOA) stating that she had unre- ported property exceeding program limits and took the money away from her. Lat- er, L.C. found out that the al- leged excess property was a car. This was an inadequate NOA. See ACIN I-151-82 for adequacy of a NOA. The no- tice also violated the require- ments of the consent decree, Knight v. Saenz that can be found at: http:,\/\/www.ccwro. org\/index.php?option=com_ Magazine. l San Diego County asked DSS whether or not San Diego County can impose Stage Two Child Care Attendance Report- ing requirements on Stage One child care recipients. On May 27, 2009, DSS Child Care Bu- reau responded as follows: The Manual and Policy Proce- dures (MPP) does not currently have regulations regarding at- tendance reporting or atten- dance sheets for Stage One Child Care. Counties may cur- rently develop their own policies regarding attendance report- ing and attendance sheets for Stage One Child Care that are applied consistently to clients and that do not conflict with cur- rent regulations. How does a County develop policies that are consistent with nonexistent state regulations? l On May 27, 2009, the federal Department of Health and Hu- man Services (HHS) published regulations implementing the change in how States use TANF carryover funds. Previously, all carry-over funds had to be used for payments to families and for supportive services. P.L. 111-5 now allows States to use the carry-over money for any reason. It does not have to be used for impoverished families. It can be used by States to bal- IN BRIEF l State offices will be closed every first, second and third Fri- days of each month until July 1, 2010. l DSS’s Welfare-to-Work Di- vision lost 17 positions including five filled positions. DSS em- ployees lost about 15% of their income. These cuts made more money available to the general fund (GF) from money designated to serve impoverished families on welfare. l Judy Gold of the Public Inter- est Law Project (PILP), Susan Kim and Katherine Siegfreid of Bay Area Legal Aid and pro bono lawyers Grace Carter, Jason So- nota and Michael Stevens of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP filed a lawsuit against Contra Costa County for unreasonable delays (sometimes six (6) months) in issuance of General Assistance under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000. The lawsuit is entitled Lugo v. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and can be found at: http:\/\/www.cc- wro.org\/index.php?option=com_ docman&Itemid=104. Judy Gold, a former welfare advocate, has returned to her passion again. She started off as a welfare advo- cate, then got a law degree, a job at a big law firm in San Francisco and now has come back to fight the injustices in the welfare sys- tem. You can read about Judy in the March 2009 California Lawyer CCWRO Welfare News \u2029 \u2029 docman&Itemid=105. This consent decree requires the NOA to inform the recipi- ent that he or she can submit alternative proof that the prop- erty had a lesser value. The NOA that Ms. L.C. received did neither. It did not even mention that the alleged ex- cess property was a car. l Santa Clara County Denies Good Cause for Not Having Proof of Tak- ing Injured Child to Hos- pital and Tries to Sanc- tion. Ms. N.A. of Santa Clara County received a NOA im- posing a sanction for not sign- ing a WtW plan on 4-1-09. She told the welfare-to-work work- er that she took her injured child to the hospital that day. The County demanded verifi- cation. She did not have proof that she went to the hospital in her possession. However, Medi-Cal paid for the hospital visit. Thus, the County could have verified that the hospital submitted a bill for that day. In addition, the county has the responsibility to assist appli- cants and recipients with gath- ering information. See MPP 40-107. The county found Ms. N.A. had no good cause. Had she neglected her injured child and gone to the WtW appointment, she could have been charged with felony child neglect. Since she wanted to avoid the sanction, she considered the compliance plan which required that she attend job CCWRO New Welfare News July 28 2009 #2009-19 Page 2 club. What she did not do was sign the WtW plan. The law and regulations, MPP 42-721.43 provides that the sanction shall stop if the noncomplying individual per- forms the activity(ies) he or she previously refused to per- form; or if the activity that the individual originally failed to perform is no longer avail- able or appropriate, the county must specify another appropri- ate activity for the individual to perform . The activity that she did not perform, allegedly with- out good cause, was not sign- ing the WtW plan. Santa Clara County wanted her to go to job club that would take more than a hour of travel each way by bus. Thus, she was re- mote. The county defended it’s compliance plan which violates state laws and regulations. l County Refuses to Pay Supportive Services to Homeless Working Mom Who Meets Federal Par- ticipation Rates- County Threatens to Call CPS – Wants to Stop Aid for Not Having an Address. M.L. of Sacramento County and her three kids are homeless. She found a job in Alameda Coun- ty without assistance from the WtW program. She is working and saving money to find hous- ing for her family. On 4-22-09, the worker issued a notice of action stating, As of 4\/30\/2009, the County is stopping your cash aid. Here’s why: You are not living at the last address you gave. You will get another notice about Medi-Cal. Meanwhile, M.L. works and turns in her TEMP 2145’s asking for child care. None of the child care requests have been acted upon by her worker. The worker informed M.L. that welfare workers are mandated reporters and she may have to report her to CPS for being homeless. This is a violation of W&IC Section 300 which pro- vides that, No minor shall be found to be a person described by this subdivision solely due to the lack of an emergency shelter for the family. She could have lost her kids had she not filed for a state hearing. The folks at hearing did a con- ditional withdrawal and DHA is no longer trying to take away her benefits. However, M.L. still has not received child care and transportation. M.L. has now found permanent housing, notwithstanding the barriers erected before her by Sacramento County Welfare De- partment, such as not giving her a 10 day NOA, not paying child care, not paying transportation and threatening to take her chil- dren away. She has been working and meet- ing the federal work participation rates for months. We’ll see if she gets her mileage for working (not bus fare) and her childcare paid after so many months. Statistic of the Month January Through March, 2009 Food Stamp Expedited Services Percentage of Cases not acted upon with the three (3) issuance as requirted by state laws and regulations in many large counties Statewide 14.84 Imperial 23.08% Placer 15.58% Santa Barbara 25.68% Alameda 29.64% Kings 10.26% San Diego 15.66% Santa Clara 10.61% Contra Costa 20.81% Los Angeles 29.94% San Francisco 28.13% Santa Cruz 19.23% Fresno 15.13% Marin 26.67% San Joaquin 13.33% Solano 27.27% Humboldt 18.31% Orange 15.12% San Luis Ob. 22.22% Sonoma 33.33% San Mateo 43.64% Tulare 29.85% Source: State Department of Social Services ”