Documents

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

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 1, 2012 Issue # 2012-02 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief uYOLO COUNTY UNAWARE OF IEVS PROCESSING TIMELINES During the DSS review of Yolo County’s IEVS processing system, the county asked DSS for documentation regarding the 45 and 90- day IEVS processing requirements. DSS informed Yolo County in an email that for active cases the processing timelines are 45 days and for closed cases is 90 days. For years Yolo County has been submitting claims to be paid for processing IEVS reports when they have no idea what the processing timelines are. uAB 98 OVERPAYMENTS- On 7\/6\/11 Jenny Hart of San Luis Obispo County asked DSS How are overpayments to be handled for AB 98 subsidies? If the county were to made aware immediately within that month? If the county did not find out until 6 months later? On 11\/23\/11, DSS responded that The incorrect amount paid to the employer and claimed by the county to the state under AB 98 is not an overpayment as defined in MPP because it is not and aid payment to the AU. Ms. A.M. has been participating in a welfare-to-work (WtW) activity in Sacramento County during all of 2011. Her brother has been babysitting for her and her welfare worker told her we would pay for child care. I never thought they would lie to me said Ms. A.M. I turn in the forms and then Child Action says my brother had some trouble uCOUNTIES MAY NOT CAP CAR REPAIR SERVICES-Jennie Anglell and Karen Thrilkill of Mendocino County, asked DSS whether counties can impose a monetary ‘cap’ on supportive services, including car repairs. Geoffrey Miller, of CDSS responded on 10\/12\/11 that the Counties cannot impose a monetary ‘cap’ on supportive services, including car repairs. However, the county can establish a process for determining a reasonable limit on such expenditures for each case. This process must be in the county’s written policies. Please review ACL 04-04 (attachment page 1) and ACL 0054 (page 2) for additional guidance on this topic. uCOUNTIES CAUSE OVERPAYMENT CHARGE WELFARE RECIPIENTS WITH FELONY FRAUD -DSS has been working on revising their IEVS regulations for years. The current regulations are left over from the previous century. The last report of statewide IEVS reports known as DPA 482 reveals that statewide, during the quarter of April through June of 2011, counties received 493,695 IEVS hits. During those same three months they only processed 173,960 hits. This means that there were 319,735 potential overpayment cases piling up without county action. When counties get around to dealing with these overpayments, they charge the recipients with felony fraud when in reality many of the overpayments were caused by the counties not doing their job checking out the potential overpayments. uEMPLOYERS OBJECT TO UNFUNDED COUNTY DEMANDS FOR REPORTS Donna Cobb of San Joaquin County informed DSS that an employer called us stating that he wants to be reimbursed by us for the time and his copies of the information we have asked him to provide for us. I explained that this is a preliminary step to the DA investigation for the state. He is a lobbyist and not very happy with anything the state\/all governments are doing right now. My thought is to turn it all over to the DA and let them go talk to him. DSS responded, We agree that handing this issue to the DA is the best way. This could also be one reason why employers are reluctant to hire welfare recipients in some cases. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org CHILDCARE NOT PAID TO WELFARE-TO-WORK PARTICIPANTS The truth is the people who voted for this wanted to deny child care to welfare recipients. How are children protected if the county has no idea who is watching the child when they force welfare recipients to participate in the WtW program? Did the law require that childcare be verified before a welfare recipient is ordered to participate in an WtW activity? No way. with the law, therefore they cannot pay him. He wants his money. He worked hard. I said I would pay him and now I look like a liar in front of my brother. Her brother is a monolingual Armenian speaker but all of the forms he received were in English. He did not CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org Febraury 1, 2012 #2012- understand all of the requirements for a so-called trustline waiver. He went to the police department, but could not get copies of the police reports. He did not understand that he also had to get all of the court reports. The rules are clear a person who was nice enough to provide childcare to a welfare recipient thinking they would be paid but in fact need a trustline waiver gets zero help from the government. The court papers and the police report are in the computers of the police department and the courts. The welfare department simply can have the welfare computer contact the police department computer or the court computer. The welfare departments have dozens of so-called peace officers who can do this anytime. The regulations and the compassionate state law limits retroactive childcare to 120 days. MPP 47-620.32 provides that a welfare recipient living on a fixed income of 1985 is responsible for any childcare costs incurred until such time as the provider becomes Trustline registered. Why does California have a Trustline process? The childcare Trustline process was allegedly enacted to protect children from being cared for by persons who have a criminal record. The propaganda was we care about kids. The truth is the people who voted for this wanted to deny child care to welfare recipients. How are children protected if the county has no idea who is watching the child when they force welfare recipients to participate in the WtW program? Did the law require that childcare be verified before a welfare recipient is ordered to participate in an WtW activity? No way. The recommendation that safe childcare be verified before a WtW participants is forced to participate in a WtW activity has been rejected by those alleging to be concerned with the safety of the child. Now Ms. A.M. has liability of thousands of dollars because she detrimentally relied on the promise of her welfare worker that we will pay for child care and when the worker never said anything about Trustline and never verified that Ms. A.M. has safe and childcare that can be paid for. uSAN MATEO COUNTY REFUSES TO USE REPORTED CHILD CARE TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS – Ms. RN 207089 of San Mateo County reported that she paid $150 for childcare on her QR7. San Mateo County refused to include the $150 childcare expense deduction in computing the food stamp benefits resulting in depriving Ms. RN 207089 of $68 in food stamp benefits. Why did this happen? Because after spending billions on a computer system we still lack a system where the information from the QR-7 is scanned into the system and the computer determines the correct benefits. The reason that the $150 child care was not used is because the worker did not tell the computer that it must use the $150 child care expense that was already in the computer. uLOS ANGELES DPSS TERMINATED ALL BENEFITS FOR REPORTING INCOME ON THE QR-7 – On 7\/19\/11 Los Angeles County District #013 issued a notice of action terminating the benefits of Ms. RN 508035 for failure to submit a QR-7. In reality the QR-7 was submitted to the county and the county received the completed QR-7. The QR-7 showed her IHSS income and all necessary paystubs. The report was rejected by DPSS and returned to the working welfare mom. It appears that if somebody reports income in Los Angeles with paystubs the odds are your benefits will be terminated for turning in a QR7 that has information on it. Is the lesson don’t report? uLOS ANGELES DPSS FAILS TO PROVIDE TRANSITIONAL FOOD STAMPS Ms. RN 508038 is a Public Assistance Food Stamp household. Her and her four (4) children’s CalWORKs ended on 7\/31\/11 because she did not keep the telephone Cash Aid\/ CalFresh Redetermination interview appointment scheduled for 6\/24\/11. It does not appear that Ms. RN 508038 was ever provided with an in-person redetermination appointment. Often DPSS clients are given phone numbers to call that are not answered. After the questionable termination of her and her four (4) children’s benefits, the DPSS also improperly refused to issue transitional food stamps. County Client Abuse Report ”

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

” 1 CCWRO #2003-2 January 13, 2003-Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin – HEADLINES 2003-2004 State Budget Clarks Advocacy Practice Tip DSS NEWS Transportation Statistical Update COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CWD) VICTIMS OF DECEMBER 2002 A Merry Christmas from Counties. ALSO New DS Roster attached in adobe acrobat format COMING NEXT WEEK More on the Gray Davis 2003-2004 State Budget; CCWRO Litigation Update; More CWD Victims ______________________________________________________________________ 2003-2004 State Budget – Average Monthly Benefits Proposed by the 2003-2004 Governor’s Budget 1. Average monthly benefits to one child (CalWORKS) – $185 a month; 2. Average monthly benefits to one Foster Care Child $ 1,762 a month; 3. Average monthly benefits to one Adopted Child living in mostly upper class and middle class families – $690 a month; 4. Average monthly benefits to one KinGAP foster care children – $491 a month; WHAT DOES THE BUDGET DO TO THE LOWEST PAID CHILDREN OF CALIFORNIA? The budget proposes to take away the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go into effect o 6\/03, then, to pit a whopping 6% decrease in benifts effective July 1,2003. Below are the current grant levels and what the grant levels will be if the inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy children of Caliornia is allowed by the Democrats in the State Legislaure. Region I Effective July 1, 2003 1 person -315 2 -514 3 -637 4 – 759 5 – 863 6 – 969 7 – 1066 2 8 – 1161 Current Grant Levels 1 person -336 2 -548 3 -679 4 – 809 5 – 920 6 – 1,033 7 – 1,136 8 – 1,237 Region II Effective July 1, 2003 1 person 299 2 489 3 – 607 4 – 723 5 – 822 6 – 923 7 – 1013 8 1,104 Current Grant Levels 1 person -319 2 -522 3 -647 4 – 770 5 – 876 6 984 7 – 1,079 8 – 1,177 However, this grant level represents an increase from the start this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II according to the Budget Summary published by Davis. Now what a guy that Gray Davis. In 1987-88 the same families were receiving $617 a month. One wonders if Gray Davis has reduced his pay to the level of 1999 when he was elected or 1987? No way. Now that would be something practicing what you preach. 3 IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMNENT? YES. $598 million of the TANF money for impoverished families with children of California is used to pay for other programs , according to Governor Gray Davis. His own budget document states: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids The Budget includes total California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion, which includes $5.8 billion for direct CalWORKs program expenditures, $598 million in other programs, and $200 million for a CalWORKs program reserve. Other programs include the Statewide Automated Welfare System, Child Welfare Services, California Community Colleges education services, Department of Child Support Services disregard payments, and non-CalWORKs child care. Yes, $598 million dollars is used for other programs and $200 million is saved for the future, while impoverished families with children of California are forced to endure a 6% cut in benefits and no cost of living adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does not care for poor families of California? He does. Under his compassionate plan while $598 million of TANF dollars meant for California children is used for other programs and $200 million is tucked into a Davis’s savings account, while benefits for CalWORKs recipients go down on July 1, 2003. NEED MONEY? ATTACK TANF These reductions of grant levels are done in order to transfer $65.7 million dollars to the General Fund to be used by the Department of Development Services. This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration. The Department of Development Services needs money, so take it from poor families with chidren. In the words of the Governor’s Budget: Grant Levels\u2014In order to maintain CalWORKs program expenditures within available resources, while protecting 4 the critical welfare-to-work emphasis of the program, the Governor’s Budget does not include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for cash grants. In addition, grant levels will be reduced by approximately 6 percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act. This reduction is this Administration, when the monthly cash grant for a family of three was $611 in Region I and $582 in Region II. The reduction in the cash grant allows $65.7 million in TANF funds to be transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant in order to offset General Fund costs within the Department of Developmental Services. TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE IT TO THE BUREAUCRATS The governor’s budget takes away the CalWORKs cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and proposes to reduce the current benefits, the Governor’s budget gives the bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide employment services to the families whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The Governor’s budget states: CalWORKs Employment Services\u2014The Governor’s Budget provides a one-time augmentation of $241.5 million for employment services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs grant levels, it is important to invest in services that enable recipients to leave aid and become self- sufficient. Now how about that, huh, he reduces the monthly benefits 1985 levels, while giving $241,5 million dollars to the bureaucrats who are very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families making them self- sufficient. Off course the bureaucrats did donate to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats win and the poor children get screwed. It’s simply business political business. The Gray Davis Budget Winners and Losers? CalWORKs Payments to Families Down 10.88% Foster Care Payments Up 9.02% Adoption Assistance Up 17.82 Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs Up 5.89% County Administration of Foster Care Up 4.17% CalWORKs Child Care Up 4.38% 5 In Home Supportive Services Up 19.92% When the Governor says that everyone will be effected by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished families of California have been disproportionately singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this century. ___ ___________________________________________________________________ CalWORKs ADVOCACY PRACTICE TIP WtW Supportive Services Transportation and Ancillary Services Retroactive Supportive Services All County Letter 00-54 (August 11, 2000) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility To Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work Transportation Services – See http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl00\/pdf\/00-54.PDF 11323.4. (a) Payments for supportive services, as described in Section 11323.2, shall be advanced to the participant, wherever necessary, and when desired by the participant, so that the participant need not use his or her funds to pay for these services. Payments for child care services shall be made in accordance with Article 15.5 (commencing with Section 8350) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Code. (b) The county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any overpayment or underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient or a service provider, including, but not limited to, all cases involving fraud and abuse, consistent with procedures developed by the department. Transportation and ancillary services are supportive services. See W&IC 11323.2. The law clearly provides that the county shall, and not may , advance payments for supportive services to make sure that the participant does not use his or her money to pay for the supportive services that are necessary. If a participant is participating in an activity that is outside of the participants house, then he or she will need money to get from point A to point B . The statute also states that transportation shall be available when desired by the participant. The problem is that the counties never ask the participant does he or she desires an advance payment for transportation. In fact counties rarely ask participants if they want transportation supportive services at all. Some counties complain that paying for transportation means less money for the county to pay for staff. The county never verifies that the participant needs or does not need transportation or advance transportation as mandated by law. Section 11323.4(b) states that the county welfare department shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promptly correct any underpayment of supportive services payments to a recipient. What happens when a participant seeks underpayments? 6 Some counties allege that the participant never asked for transpiration, thus never gets it. Some counties argue that given the fact that DSS made retroactive transportation available to participants pursuant to All County Letter 01-50 (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/getinfo\/acl01\/pdf\/01-50.pdf), the county is no longer required to correct the underpayment pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 11323.4. The problem with this argument is that ACL 01-50 is an underground rule, thus, it is void and invalid as it was not promulgated pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act. CONCLUSION: Ancillary and transportation services are suppotive services. The county is required to issue these payments in advance to assure that the participant does not use his or her money to meet the ancillary and transportation costs associated with participating in WtW activities or working. If a participant has been denied any supportive services they should file for a fair hearing immediately. _____________________________________________________ DSS NEWS Transportation Supportive Services For the past three years CCWRO has been speaking up against the fact that many counties are unlawfully denying transportation supportive services to WtW participants. This has received the attention from DSS and some counties. DSS has issued an ACL to explain that counties shall issue transportation. Today we review what has happened since 1999. We looked at October 1999, October 2000, October 2001, and October 2002. The percentage of WtW participants receiving transportation supportive services has increased from 23% in 1999 to 48% in 10\/2002. Although it is significant that 25% more participants are receiving transportation supportive services, a more significant figure is the fact that statewide 52% of the CalWORKs participants are being denied supportive services. CCWRO estimate that majority of these denials are unlawful. Below we show what percentage of the unduplicated participant’s transportation supportive services during October of 2002. In Kings County there were 1002 participants and none of them received any transportation assistance. Kings County is a rural county. Siskiyou County had 197 participants and only 7 people receiving transportation supportive services. Stanislaus County had 3,459 participants and only 550 received transportation supportive services. Below is a county-by-county rankings of the percentage of participants who received transportation services, 7 Statewide 47.53% 1 Kings 0.00% 2 Modoc 0.00% 3 Plumas 0.00% 4 Napa 1.87% 5 Siskiyou 3.55% 6 Lassen 3.80% 7 Imperial 9.40% 8 Glenn 11.80% 9 El Dorado 13.96% 10 Tehama 13.99% 11 Sutter 14.77% 12 Stanislaus 15.90% 13 Colusa 16.00% 14 Lake 16.35% 15 Shasta 16.80% 16 San Mateo 17.68% 17 Ventura 18.10% 18 Amador 18.18% 19 San Benito 20.10% 20 Merced 20.12% 21 Madera 20.92% 22 Trinity 21.57% 23 Yuba 21.87% 24 Butte 22.84% 25 Mendocino 22.90% 26 Mono 23.81% 27 Mariposa 24.64% 28 Santa Barbara 25.09% 29 Inyo 27.27% 30 Humboldt 28.19% 31 Riverside 28.27% 32 Kern 28.60% 33 Sierra 31.82% 34 San Joaquin 34.71% 35 Nevada 35.00% 36 San Bernardino 35.51% 37 Solano 36.03% 38 Calaveras 36.21% 39 Tulare 38.22% 40 San Luis Obispo 38.63% 41 Monterey 39.31% 42 San Francisco 41.59% 43 Sonoma 45.04% 44 Placer 47.40% 45 Yolo 47.81% 46 Orange 49.45% 47 Alameda a\/ 50.84% 48 Tuolumne 52.65% 49 Los Angeles 61.25% 50 Santa Cruz 63.12% 51 Marin 63.70% 52 Sacramento b\/ 64.97% 53 Santa Clara 68.70% 54 Contra Costa 70.46% 55 Alpine 71.43% 56 San Diego b\/ 76.39% 57 Del Norte c\/ 58 Fresno c\/ ____________________________________________________ — COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM OF THE WEEK M.G. of Los Angeles county received a letter giving her a GAIN appointment on 12\/8\/02, but there was no time, just a date. The 12\/8\/02 appointment letter arrived at her house on 12\/16\/02. The number for the worker on the letter was the wrong number. When we called the office where the letter was mailed, we were informed that a MS. M.G. case was not in that office. We were given another number to call. The person at that number told us to call the number that we contacted initially. The 12\/8\/02 notice stated that Ms. M.G. would be sanctioned, but no one knew for what. It appears that Los Angeles County knows what GAIN is all about sanction- . She has filed a fair hearing to make sure that the sanction does not go into effect. Ms. S.K. and live in Los Angeles and has an epileptic daughter, were. Ms. S.K. also has some mental health problems. On 10\/25\/02 she received a notice of action stating that she would be sanctioned for failure to attend the mental health assessment appointment. The reason she missed the appointment was lack of transportation. When she called to tell the county, they said that they did not advance transportation, even though W&IC Section 11323.3 mandates it. On November 18, 2002, she filed for a fair hearing to stop the illegal sanction of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Sanction v. Self-Sufficiency Update: 8 During October 2002, Los Angels County had 47,977 unduplicated GAIN participants. During the same month 23,478 GAIN participants were sanctioned and a meager 1,643 participants found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs. ( Source: DSS WtW 25 and WtW 25A for 10\/02). It is clear that Los Angeles County knows how to sanction, a whopping 49% sanction rate, while is a dismal failure in getting jobs a 3% success rate. ____________________________________________________________________ CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS & WELFARE RECIPIENTS REFERRED TO US BY LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Fair Hearing Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In depth Consultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal. General Assistance and Refugee Immigration Problems Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 After 6 PM – 916-387-8341 Message\/cell number 916-712-0071 FAX 916-736-2645 e-mail address: [email protected] ”

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News Below are the minutes of the last meeting with DSS between welfare advocates and DSS. The next meeting will be held on August 28, 2003 @ 1 P.M. Persons who have issued that they would like to be raised, please e-mail them to CCWRO at [email protected]. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Welfare Advocates Workgroup Meeting March 27, 2003 Participants: Advocates Kevin Aslanian – CCWRO Karla Barrow – LAFLA Jodie Berger – LSNC Stephen Bingham -BALA Sujatha Jagadeesh Branch – Child Care Law Center Grace Galligher – CCWRO Stephanie Haffner – CRLA Nu Usaha – WCL&P Kate Meiss – NLS Hope Nakamura – Legal Aid of San Mateo County Joseph Ramos – ICLS Julie Aguilar Rogado – LSNC CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003 DSS News – 3\/27\/03 Advocates Meeting With DSS Minutes Food Stamp Emergency Regulations DSS Staff Teena Arneson CDSS, Fraud Bureau Teri Ellen Work Support Services Bureau Mark Gagnon Fraud Bureau Venus Garth Work Services Branch Maria Hernandez CalWORKs Eligibility Bu- reau Jo Lee Fraud Bureau Cynthia McDowell Work Services Branch Debbie McFadden Program Integrity Branch Charr Lee Metsker Employment and Eligibility Branch Connie Navarrette Legal Office Gordon Scott Employment and Eligibility Branch Marie Saur Work Services Branch Pat Sutherland Food Stamps Bureau Antonia Taylor Work Services Branch Lyn Vice Childcare Bureau Bruce Wagstaff Welfare to Work Division Discussion, Action Items, and Follow-up Is- sues Medi-Cal Services For Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients Maria Hernandez reported that the Depart- ment of Health Services (DHS) and CDSS jointly signed a letter to remind the counties that individuals who time out on CalWORKs are eligible for continuing Medi-Cal services under Section1931 (b) of the Medi-Cal program. The letter was sent to all county CalWORKs program CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 managers. Ms. Hernandez will work with DHS to have the letter published on CDSS’ website. Computer Software Removing Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients From Receiving Medi-Cal Services The Advocates stated that some of the software that is be- ing used by the counties is arbitrarily removing timed-out CalWORKs clients from receiving Medi-Cal services. The Advocates were asked to name the counties that have these software problems so CDSS could review the counties on a case by case basis. Debbie McFadden explained that CDSS does not have the authority over the software or the computer programming used by the counties. However, Ms. McFadden stated CDSS staff will follow-up and research this issue. This is an open item. Immediate Need\/County Office Hours Maria Hernandez stated that a question and answer (Q&A) letter will be distributed to remind counties of immediate need and county office hours procedures. We anticipate the letter will be on the CDSS website by the first week in May 2003. Two Parents Required To Attend Application\/ Re-determi- nation Interview Maria Hernandez confirmed that an All County Letter (ACL) will be sent informing counties of the application\/interview requirements and procedures. It’s anticipated the ACIN will be posted on the CDSS website by the end of March 2003. Retroactive Childcare Payment Lyn Vice requested that a correction be made to the December 5, 2002, minutes regarding Retroactive Childcare Payment. Ms. Vice stated on page three of the minutes that an overly broad statement was made which gives the impression that there was not a retroactive payment policy that was appropri- ate. The minutes have been corrected and the sentence was deleted from the minutes. Ms. Vice also agreed to send Dora Lopez a copy of the letter that CDSS is addressing to Los Angeles County regarding the childcare payment policy. Ms. Vice distributed copies of ACL No. 03-10, retroactive payments, which was released on February 27, 2003. The ACL implements the provisions of AB 444 Section 11323.3, regarding retroactive payments. Emergency regulations are currently being written by CDSS and according to statute will be completed by July 1, 2003. Sujatha Branch will work with Ms. Vice on the emergency regulations and Ms. Branch will represent the Advocates. Ms. Vice will check into Ms. Branch’s inquiry regarding the level of effort required by counties after a client refuses to sign a childcare availability notice. Aid Paid Pending Child Care The Advocates stated that counties are requesting that cli- ents submit verification before childcare services are paid. Advocates also stated that this issue typically occurs when there is a sanction notice sent to clients informing them that they are being terminated and their supportive services will end. This is an open item. Aid Paid Pending – Supportive Services CDSS’ Legal office is currently reviewing policies regarding aid paid pending for supportive services (transportation and ancillary services). This is an open item. Transportation Services Teri Ellen reported that an ACL on transportation Q&A will be distributed in the next three weeks. Ancillary Services Ms. Ellen stated that a draft Q & A on Ancillary Services ACL will be ready for review by the Advocates in the near future. Supportive Services for Refugees Kate Meiss expressed a concern regarding refugee clients in Los Angeles County being denied supportive services to which they are entitled. CDSS staff will contact Ms. Meiss with information about whom she can contact at the state level regarding her concern. Refugee Letter A request was made by the Advocates to post on CDSS’ website the refugee letter dated December 9, 2002, which was distributed to all counties. Charr Lee Metsker agreed to post the letter on CDSS’ web- site. Budget Update Bruce Wagstaff briefly discussed the Governor’s proposed realignment proposal. It was reported that the cost of living adjustment (COLA) was still on the floor of the Senate. Mr. Wagstaff stated that there is a lot of work to do with the State Budget and there will be many realignment issues. Quarterly Reporting Bruce Wagstaff reported that a draft quarterly reporting ACL was written, but the letter was delayed because a waiver was needed by, USDA, Food and Nutrition Services (FNS). Using the Director’s authority to waive CalWORKs regu- lations the ACL was revised and a letter has been sent to FNS requesting approval of the revised quarterly reporting process. Mr. Wagstaff stated that CDSS may be seeking pos- sible legislative authority, so the Director would not need to conduct a CalWORKs regulations waiver. January 2004 is CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 3 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 the estimated start-up date for Quarterly Reporting. Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDS) Waiv- ers Gordon Scott reported that seven counties are waiting FNS approval for a labor surplus waiver. Mr. Scott stated that only 22 counties were eligible and of those counties four are being processed and four are not interested (Kern, Colusa, Imperial and Sutter). The other counties are pend- ing and will be processed as received. An updated list of the counties approved ABAWD wavier is attached. This item is to be updated and a status copy of this information will be distributed at the next meeting. Implementation of Supplemental Food Stamps Patrick Sutherland reported on a proposed program that would allow clients leaving CalWORKs to automatically become eligible for five additional months of food stamps. No monthly or quarterly reporting would be required. Also, there is a provision in the program that requires the county to recompute a client’s last month’s benefits while removing CalWORKs income which would result in a larger food stamp allotment. Cost of implementation of the program has not been determined yet. The feasibility of quarterly reporting for CalWORKs and semi-annual reporting for food stamps were also discussed. Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Status Debbie McFadden reported that thirteen counties have imple- mented EBT for cash and food stamps. Ms. McFadden stated that EBT should change the stigma of using food stamps. It was stated that CDSS is currently working vigorously on a wireless EBT system for clients to purchase food at farmers markets. Ms. McFadden reported that 50 percent of the EBT surcharges are currently free for clients. However, CDSS is working with banks to negotiate the removal of surcharges for clients using their EBT card for ATM cash transactions. EBT Committees Ms. McFadden reported that there are several committees that have been established to discuss and address EBT issues. The various committees include representatives from the State Treasurer’s office, client advocates, Grocers Association and County Welfare Director Association, Consumers Union, Legal Services of Northern California, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and the California Reinvestment Center. In addition, there is a statewide client advocates EBT forums that are held quarterly. Kevin Aslanian requested a schedule of the quarterly EBT forums. EBT 1-800 Telephone Number The Advocates inquired on how much information is provided to the client once they are given their EBT card. For example, if a client is charged twice on a purchase or their EBT balance is wrong, does the client know what to do? Have the clients been instructed or trained to call and use the EBT 800 # for assistance. Ms. McFadden stated that there are instructional videos and there is a lot of training material available for clients. In addition, the EBT 800# operators that are avail- able speak 11 languages. EBT Card To Be Used In FNS Approved Restaurants The Advocates stated clients that are approved to use their EBT card to purchase prepared food at FNS authorized restaurants are not able use their EBT card for this purpose. Additionally, this issue also impacts homeless clients that have an EBT card. This is an open item. Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Manage- ment Report The Advocates stated that counties are not completing the IEVS management report. Based on the IEVS quarterly report (482) the advocates concluded that the counties are not identifying and processing overpayments timely. These overpayments are negatively impacting the clients. Teena Arneson reported that the Fraud Bureau is aggressively working with counties to clean-up their IEVS data and the counties are required to submit the IEVS quarterly reports (482). It was stated that there were no formal enforcement authority for counties that fail to report their IEVS data. This is an open item Homeless Assistance CDSS website statistics on homeless assistance seems to be outdated. Charr Lee Metsker will look into the matter and will discuss findings at the next meeting. Section 8 in Los Angeles County Kate Meiss reported that Los Angeles County is denying security deposits and last month’s rent to Section 8 recipients. Maria Hernandez stated that there is an ACL regarding this issue; and Ms. Hernandez agreed to fax copy to Ms. Meiss. Policy Interpretations The Advocates expressed an interest in receiving copies of the policy interpretations that CDSS distributes to the counties. Mr. Wagstaff stated that policy interpretations are case specific and suggested that CDSS look into how they are handled by the Department of Health Services. This is an open item. 60 Months Time Limits The Advocates stated that clients are exempt, but county workers are making mistakes and counting their time. Clients need to be notified when exemptions end. Ms. Hernandez stated that there are no requirements to notify clients when their exemption ends but noted that as a result of this concern the Department would consider revising the form providing 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 4 the exemption determination (CW 2186B) so that counties could enter the exemption end date, when known. Advocates noted that the determination of when an exemption ends is a potential adverse action which requires a notice of action. Learning Disability (LD) Screening The Advocates stated that counties are not using the LD screening tools and\/or are not using the LD screening tools correctly. Additionally, it was stated that clients would have to self-identify as having LD issues to be assessed, and those who did not self-identify would not be assessed. The Department intends to clarify the role of the counties in serving limited English-speaking recipients who may have learning disabilities. Santa Clara County is informing limited English-speaking recipients about learning disabilities with some success. A summary of the available data on learning disabilities was provided: Currently, little data is available from the counties on the number of CalWORKs clients who have learning disabilities. Preliminary data from one county shows that approximately six percent of those clients who are screened have a learning disability, which appears to be in line with the percentage EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OALON:07\/29\/03 OAL FILE NO. 03-0729-04E AGENCY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TOPIC: ABAWD, Food Stamp Voluntary Quit, and FSET Emergency Regulations SECTIONS AFFECTED: MPP, Manual Poli- cies & Procedures SECTIONS: 63-300-63- 505 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the Regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is : 8\/4\/03 OAL DECISION DUE:8\/8\/03 AGENCY CONTACT : Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586 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 Con- sultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Wel- fare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance and Refugee Immigration of our caseload that some thought would have learning dis- abilities (10 percent). Preliminary data from three counties show that of the 4,231 individuals offered learning disabilities screening, 2,667 (or 63 percent) declined screening and 1,564 (or 37 percent) were referred. Of the 1,564 individuals referred to screening, 1,560 (or 98 percent) were screened and 452 (or 29 percent) of those screened were determined to be potentially learn- ing disabled. However, with little available data, we are unable to draw any solid conclusions about the learning-disabled popula- tion in CalWORKs. Hopefully, as more counties implement their learning disability protocols, and more data becomes available, we will be able to more accurately determine the impact of learning disabilities on our clients and the Cal- WORKs program. The next meeting was not scheduled. Emergency Regulation ”

” CCWROCOALITION OF CALIFORNIAWELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. In This Issue 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News Below are the minutes of the last meeting with DSS between welfare advocates and DSS. The next meeting will be held on August 28, 2003 @ 1 P.M. Persons who have issued that they would like to be raised, please e-mail them to CCWRO at [email protected]. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Welfare Advocates Workgroup Meeting March 27, 2003 Participants: Advocates Kevin Aslanian – CCWRO Karla Barrow – LAFLA Jodie Berger – LSNC Stephen Bingham -BALA Sujatha Jagadeesh Branch – Child Care Law Center Grace Galligher – CCWRO Stephanie Haffner – CRLA Nu Usaha – WCL&P Kate Meiss – NLS Hope Nakamura – Legal Aid of San Mateo County Joseph Ramos – ICLS Julie Aguilar Rogado – LSNC CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003 DSS News – 3\/27\/03 Advocates Meeting With DSS Minutes Food Stamp Emergency Regulations DSS Staff Teena Arneson CDSS, Fraud Bureau Teri Ellen Work Support Services Bureau Mark Gagnon Fraud Bureau Venus Garth Work Services Branch Maria Hernandez CalWORKs Eligibility Bu- reau Jo Lee Fraud Bureau Cynthia McDowell Work Services Branch Debbie McFadden Program Integrity Branch Charr Lee Metsker Employment and Eligibility Branch Connie Navarrette Legal Office Gordon Scott Employment and Eligibility Branch Marie Saur Work Services Branch Pat Sutherland Food Stamps Bureau Antonia Taylor Work Services Branch Lyn Vice Childcare Bureau Bruce Wagstaff Welfare to Work Division Discussion, Action Items, and Follow-up Is- sues Medi-Cal Services For Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients Maria Hernandez reported that the Depart- ment of Health Services (DHS) and CDSS jointly signed a letter to remind the counties that individuals who time out on CalWORKs are eligible for continuing Medi-Cal services under Section1931 (b) of the Medi-Cal program. The letter was sent to all county CalWORKs program CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 2 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 managers. Ms. Hernandez will work with DHS to have the letter published on CDSS’ website. Computer Software Removing Timed-Out CalWORKs Clients From Receiving Medi-Cal Services The Advocates stated that some of the software that is be- ing used by the counties is arbitrarily removing timed-out CalWORKs clients from receiving Medi-Cal services. The Advocates were asked to name the counties that have these software problems so CDSS could review the counties on a case by case basis. Debbie McFadden explained that CDSS does not have the authority over the software or the computer programming used by the counties. However, Ms. McFadden stated CDSS staff will follow-up and research this issue. This is an open item. Immediate Need\/County Office Hours Maria Hernandez stated that a question and answer (Q&A) letter will be distributed to remind counties of immediate need and county office hours procedures. We anticipate the letter will be on the CDSS website by the first week in May 2003. Two Parents Required To Attend Application\/ Re-determi- nation Interview Maria Hernandez confirmed that an All County Letter (ACL) will be sent informing counties of the application\/interview requirements and procedures. It’s anticipated the ACIN will be posted on the CDSS website by the end of March 2003. Retroactive Childcare Payment Lyn Vice requested that a correction be made to the December 5, 2002, minutes regarding Retroactive Childcare Payment. Ms. Vice stated on page three of the minutes that an overly broad statement was made which gives the impression that there was not a retroactive payment policy that was appropri- ate. The minutes have been corrected and the sentence was deleted from the minutes. Ms. Vice also agreed to send Dora Lopez a copy of the letter that CDSS is addressing to Los Angeles County regarding the childcare payment policy. Ms. Vice distributed copies of ACL No. 03-10, retroactive payments, which was released on February 27, 2003. The ACL implements the provisions of AB 444 Section 11323.3, regarding retroactive payments. Emergency regulations are currently being written by CDSS and according to statute will be completed by July 1, 2003. Sujatha Branch will work with Ms. Vice on the emergency regulations and Ms. Branch will represent the Advocates. Ms. Vice will check into Ms. Branch’s inquiry regarding the level of effort required by counties after a client refuses to sign a childcare availability notice. Aid Paid Pending Child Care The Advocates stated that counties are requesting that cli- ents submit verification before childcare services are paid. Advocates also stated that this issue typically occurs when there is a sanction notice sent to clients informing them that they are being terminated and their supportive services will end. This is an open item. Aid Paid Pending – Supportive Services CDSS’ Legal office is currently reviewing policies regarding aid paid pending for supportive services (transportation and ancillary services). This is an open item. Transportation Services Teri Ellen reported that an ACL on transportation Q&A will be distributed in the next three weeks. Ancillary Services Ms. Ellen stated that a draft Q & A on Ancillary Services ACL will be ready for review by the Advocates in the near future. Supportive Services for Refugees Kate Meiss expressed a concern regarding refugee clients in Los Angeles County being denied supportive services to which they are entitled. CDSS staff will contact Ms. Meiss with information about whom she can contact at the state level regarding her concern. Refugee Letter A request was made by the Advocates to post on CDSS’ website the refugee letter dated December 9, 2002, which was distributed to all counties. Charr Lee Metsker agreed to post the letter on CDSS’ web- site. Budget Update Bruce Wagstaff briefly discussed the Governor’s proposed realignment proposal. It was reported that the cost of living adjustment (COLA) was still on the floor of the Senate. Mr. Wagstaff stated that there is a lot of work to do with the State Budget and there will be many realignment issues. Quarterly Reporting Bruce Wagstaff reported that a draft quarterly reporting ACL was written, but the letter was delayed because a waiver was needed by, USDA, Food and Nutrition Services (FNS). Using the Director’s authority to waive CalWORKs regu- lations the ACL was revised and a letter has been sent to FNS requesting approval of the revised quarterly reporting process. Mr. Wagstaff stated that CDSS may be seeking pos- sible legislative authority, so the Director would not need to conduct a CalWORKs regulations waiver. January 2004 is CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 3 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 the estimated start-up date for Quarterly Reporting. Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDS) Waiv- ers Gordon Scott reported that seven counties are waiting FNS approval for a labor surplus waiver. Mr. Scott stated that only 22 counties were eligible and of those counties four are being processed and four are not interested (Kern, Colusa, Imperial and Sutter). The other counties are pend- ing and will be processed as received. An updated list of the counties approved ABAWD wavier is attached. This item is to be updated and a status copy of this information will be distributed at the next meeting. Implementation of Supplemental Food Stamps Patrick Sutherland reported on a proposed program that would allow clients leaving CalWORKs to automatically become eligible for five additional months of food stamps. No monthly or quarterly reporting would be required. Also, there is a provision in the program that requires the county to recompute a client’s last month’s benefits while removing CalWORKs income which would result in a larger food stamp allotment. Cost of implementation of the program has not been determined yet. The feasibility of quarterly reporting for CalWORKs and semi-annual reporting for food stamps were also discussed. Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Status Debbie McFadden reported that thirteen counties have imple- mented EBT for cash and food stamps. Ms. McFadden stated that EBT should change the stigma of using food stamps. It was stated that CDSS is currently working vigorously on a wireless EBT system for clients to purchase food at farmers markets. Ms. McFadden reported that 50 percent of the EBT surcharges are currently free for clients. However, CDSS is working with banks to negotiate the removal of surcharges for clients using their EBT card for ATM cash transactions. EBT Committees Ms. McFadden reported that there are several committees that have been established to discuss and address EBT issues. The various committees include representatives from the State Treasurer’s office, client advocates, Grocers Association and County Welfare Director Association, Consumers Union, Legal Services of Northern California, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and the California Reinvestment Center. In addition, there is a statewide client advocates EBT forums that are held quarterly. Kevin Aslanian requested a schedule of the quarterly EBT forums. EBT 1-800 Telephone Number The Advocates inquired on how much information is provided to the client once they are given their EBT card. For example, if a client is charged twice on a purchase or their EBT balance is wrong, does the client know what to do? Have the clients been instructed or trained to call and use the EBT 800 # for assistance. Ms. McFadden stated that there are instructional videos and there is a lot of training material available for clients. In addition, the EBT 800# operators that are avail- able speak 11 languages. EBT Card To Be Used In FNS Approved Restaurants The Advocates stated clients that are approved to use their EBT card to purchase prepared food at FNS authorized restaurants are not able use their EBT card for this purpose. Additionally, this issue also impacts homeless clients that have an EBT card. This is an open item. Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Manage- ment Report The Advocates stated that counties are not completing the IEVS management report. Based on the IEVS quarterly report (482) the advocates concluded that the counties are not identifying and processing overpayments timely. These overpayments are negatively impacting the clients. Teena Arneson reported that the Fraud Bureau is aggressively working with counties to clean-up their IEVS data and the counties are required to submit the IEVS quarterly reports (482). It was stated that there were no formal enforcement authority for counties that fail to report their IEVS data. This is an open item Homeless Assistance CDSS website statistics on homeless assistance seems to be outdated. Charr Lee Metsker will look into the matter and will discuss findings at the next meeting. Section 8 in Los Angeles County Kate Meiss reported that Los Angeles County is denying security deposits and last month’s rent to Section 8 recipients. Maria Hernandez stated that there is an ACL regarding this issue; and Ms. Hernandez agreed to fax copy to Ms. Meiss. Policy Interpretations The Advocates expressed an interest in receiving copies of the policy interpretations that CDSS distributes to the counties. Mr. Wagstaff stated that policy interpretations are case specific and suggested that CDSS look into how they are handled by the Department of Health Services. This is an open item. 60 Months Time Limits The Advocates stated that clients are exempt, but county workers are making mistakes and counting their time. Clients need to be notified when exemptions end. Ms. Hernandez stated that there are no requirements to notify clients when their exemption ends but noted that as a result of this concern the Department would consider revising the form providing 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-24 — August 1, 2003-Page 4 the exemption determination (CW 2186B) so that counties could enter the exemption end date, when known. Advocates noted that the determination of when an exemption ends is a potential adverse action which requires a notice of action. Learning Disability (LD) Screening The Advocates stated that counties are not using the LD screening tools and\/or are not using the LD screening tools correctly. Additionally, it was stated that clients would have to self-identify as having LD issues to be assessed, and those who did not self-identify would not be assessed. The Department intends to clarify the role of the counties in serving limited English-speaking recipients who may have learning disabilities. Santa Clara County is informing limited English-speaking recipients about learning disabilities with some success. A summary of the available data on learning disabilities was provided: Currently, little data is available from the counties on the number of CalWORKs clients who have learning disabilities. Preliminary data from one county shows that approximately six percent of those clients who are screened have a learning disability, which appears to be in line with the percentage EMERGENCY REGULATION ACTION SUBMITTED TO OALON:07\/29\/03 OAL FILE NO. 03-0729-04E AGENCY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TOPIC: ABAWD, Food Stamp Voluntary Quit, and FSET Emergency Regulations SECTIONS AFFECTED: MPP, Manual Poli- cies & Procedures SECTIONS: 63-300-63- 505 Unless OAL approves or disapproves the Regulations sooner, the last day for public comment is : 8\/4\/03 OAL DECISION DUE:8\/8\/03 AGENCY CONTACT : Anthony J. Velasquez @ (916) 657-2586 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 Con- sultation. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Wel- fare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance and Refugee Immigration of our caseload that some thought would have learning dis- abilities (10 percent). Preliminary data from three counties show that of the 4,231 individuals offered learning disabilities screening, 2,667 (or 63 percent) declined screening and 1,564 (or 37 percent) were referred. Of the 1,564 individuals referred to screening, 1,560 (or 98 percent) were screened and 452 (or 29 percent) of those screened were determined to be potentially learn- ing disabled. However, with little available data, we are unable to draw any solid conclusions about the learning-disabled popula- tion in CalWORKs. Hopefully, as more counties implement their learning disability protocols, and more data becomes available, we will be able to more accurately determine the impact of learning disabilities on our clients and the Cal- WORKs program. The next meeting was not scheduled. Emergency Regulation ”

” 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 #2003-25 — August 11, 2003 CCWRO Litigation report County Victim Report Welfare Advocate ALERT – Medi-Cal Overpayment 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. Bay Area Legal Aid and Asian Law Alliance requested that CCWRO pursue the litigation and prosecution of this action. Co-counsel to Legal Services of Northern California. CASE STATUS- Oral argument scheduled for July 23, 2003. Research in preparation for argument. KING v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00016 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges Fresno County’s failure to advance Ms. King her CalWORKS transportation expenses. CASE STATUS- DSS offered settlement in case. Waiting for client’s expenses MEDINA v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00015 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges the decision to allow Fresno County to recover a CalWORKs overpayment which 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- Awaiting preparation of the administrative record. 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 CCWRO Litigation Report CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 administering her CalWORKs case) as countable income for purposes of food stamps. The ALJ concurred. This decision is contrary to M.P.P. \u00df 63-502.2(j). CASE STATUS- Awaiting preparation of administrative record and updating research in case. SNEED v. SAENZ (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 764797) LASSDC requested that we co-counsel on this case. The Legislature enacted Welfare and Institutions Code \u00df 11450.04(a) to provide that if a child is born into a family unit who has received cash assistance continuously for the ten months prior the child’s birth, the child’s needs is not considered and is excluded from cash benefits. Such child is referred to as a MFG child. When the MFG child has a parent not related to the other child(ren) and the parent is unemployed and lives in the home, the parent’s needs are also not considered. CASE STATUS- Appealed. The Appellate Record is being prepared. KISELEV v. SAENZ- (Sacramento County Case No. 02CS00951) This lawsuit was filed at the request of LSNC. This writ of mandate challenges the policies of DSS to circumvent the adequate notice requirement and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Associacion Mixta Progresista v. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S.D.C. (N.D.Cal.) Civil No. C 72-852 SAW, requires that CDSS (formerly the State Department of Benefit payments) translate necessary forms and written materials into the applicants’\/recipients’ primary language when they constituted a substantial number (i.e., five percent or more of the applicant\/ recipient population) within a particular county. Petitioner Kiselev received a notice of action denying his In Home Supportive Services application in the English language. Mr. Kiselev speaks Russian and DSS admitted that the denial notice had been translated in to Russian. Mr. Kiselev did not request a hearing within the 90 days of receiving the notice. When he did request the hearing, Sacramento County argued that there was no jurisdiction because he waited too long to request the hearing. CASE STATUS: Reviewed Administrative Record. DEPARINI, POLISHCHUK v. BONTA, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DHA, A federal class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, was filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District in Sacramento on March 17, 2000. Case No. Civ. S.-00-655 FCD JFM. As a result of this lawsuit DHS uses 45 new notice codes in denying dental treatment authorization requests (TARs). CASE STATUS- CCWRO receives quarterly report for Health Services and is monitoring and reviewing quarterly reports. DURAN v. DURAN (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 95FL02624.) During November 1997, Mr. Duran was ordered to appear at a child support hearing. When he arrived with his 16 year old girlfriend, the deputy district attorney gave him a copy of the complaint for child support and told his that this is what you have to agree to. Since Mr. Duran is blind, his girlfriend, who had a limited education, read the complaint to him. Mr. Duran had no access to legal counsel or anyone who understood the complaint. Mr. Duran agreed to pay a child support arrearage of $5,290 which occurred during the period in which Mr. Duran was employed. CCWRO obtained employment records from EDD and the Social Security Administration. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CASE STATUS- case settled. GAVRILENKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 00CS01547) CCWRO is amending the petition for writ of administrative mandamus to a class action petition for writ of mandate; complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief along with the writ of administrative mandate. This action challenges the validity of the practice and policy of the California Department of Social Services ( CDSS ) that allows counties to impose the Maximum Family Grant limitation when the English language notice of action is issued to non- English speaking recipients when the CDSS has translated the notice of action into the recipient’s primary language. This policy and practice is inconsistent with state laws and regulations. CASE STATUS: CCWRO has represented potential plaintiffs in administrative hearings in order to exhaust the administrative remedies. When the individual cases are taken to hearing, the judge rules in the client’s favor. CCWRO is still looking for clients. Additional representative class members have administrative hearings in February. ROBLES v. SAENZ Sacramento County Case No. 03CSO0996 Lead Counsel is Jacquelyn Maruhashi of Asian Law Alliance who requested that CCWRO co-counsel on this case. This case was filed in Sacramento County because the Court has judges dedicated to hearing writ cases. The judges in Santa Clara County are not familiar with writ proceedings. This writ of administrative mandate and petition for writ of mandate pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 challenges the validity of the policy of the California Department of Social Services ( DSS ) that the indigent exception which exempts the income and resources of the immigrant’s sponsor for purposes of establishing eligibility for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants ( CAPI ) does not apply before August 29, 2002, the date that DSS issued All-County Letter No. 02-63. This policy is inconsistent with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b) which requires that federal deeming rules and exemptions governing the Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) Program, including all federal and state laws and regulations designed to protect SSI recipients and their resources, shall govern CAPI. Saenz has a duty under the law to conform DSS’ policies and practices in administering the CAPI program to the provisions of applicable statutes and their own duly promulgated regulations. The Social Security POMs which promulgated the Indigence exception to sponsor deeming for the SSI program existed prior to September 1, 2002, the date of ACL No. 02-63. The failure to apply the Indigence Exception to pre-September 1, 2002 CAPI applications where the applicant’s sponsor abandoned the applicant with no means of support which conflicts with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b). CASE STATUS: Awaiting for the Administrative record. County Welfare Department Victim Report A 72 year old man was served with a complaint for child support by Alameda County. We wondered how old is the poor child being deprived of child support. To our amazement the child was only 50 years old. Now Alameda must have been in deep hibernation for a while – a whole 30 years. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 4 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, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility A noncustodial male parent was paying child support to Los Angeles County. The custodial parent moved to San Bernardino County. The noncustodial parent continued to pay child support to Los Angeles County. Several months later, he gets a complaint for failing to pay child support from San Bernardino County. He does not answer the complaint and San Bernardino enters default judgement and takes away his teaching credentials. He is now on CalWORKs, because he can no longer provide for himself and a child living with him. In 1998 the State of California should have had a statewide distribution system, but has failed to do so. The state is paying penalties for their deviant behavior, but those penalties present no relief to this victim. He still cannot teach and provide for his family and none of that penalty money goes to the real victims. Welfare Advocate ALERT Medi-Cal Overpayments Daniel Benson of San Diego Legal Aid has informed us that San Diego County has been pursuing Medi-Cal overpayments. The authority to collect Medi-Cal overpayments can be found in Welfare and institutions Code Section 14009. Subsection (c) states that the .. Amount of overpayment shall be based on the amount of excess income or resources and computed in accordance with overpayment regulations promulgated by the director. The regulations are embodied in the Medi-Cal handbook Article 16, section 50781 through 500793. Persons who need a copy of these regulations can e-mail CCWRO at [email protected] asking for a copy of these regulations. ”

” 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 #2003-25 — August 11, 2003 CCWRO Litigation report County Victim Report Welfare Advocate ALERT – Medi-Cal Overpayment 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. Bay Area Legal Aid and Asian Law Alliance requested that CCWRO pursue the litigation and prosecution of this action. Co-counsel to Legal Services of Northern California. CASE STATUS- Oral argument scheduled for July 23, 2003. Research in preparation for argument. KING v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00016 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges Fresno County’s failure to advance Ms. King her CalWORKS transportation expenses. CASE STATUS- DSS offered settlement in case. Waiting for client’s expenses MEDINA v. SAENZ, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 03CS00015 This petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure \u00df1094.5 challenges the decision to allow Fresno County to recover a CalWORKs overpayment which 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- Awaiting preparation of the administrative record. 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 CCWRO Litigation Report CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 administering her CalWORKs case) as countable income for purposes of food stamps. The ALJ concurred. This decision is contrary to M.P.P. \u00df 63-502.2(j). CASE STATUS- Awaiting preparation of administrative record and updating research in case. SNEED v. SAENZ (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 764797) LASSDC requested that we co-counsel on this case. The Legislature enacted Welfare and Institutions Code \u00df 11450.04(a) to provide that if a child is born into a family unit who has received cash assistance continuously for the ten months prior the child’s birth, the child’s needs is not considered and is excluded from cash benefits. Such child is referred to as a MFG child. When the MFG child has a parent not related to the other child(ren) and the parent is unemployed and lives in the home, the parent’s needs are also not considered. CASE STATUS- Appealed. The Appellate Record is being prepared. KISELEV v. SAENZ- (Sacramento County Case No. 02CS00951) This lawsuit was filed at the request of LSNC. This writ of mandate challenges the policies of DSS to circumvent the adequate notice requirement and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Associacion Mixta Progresista v. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S.D.C. (N.D.Cal.) Civil No. C 72-852 SAW, requires that CDSS (formerly the State Department of Benefit payments) translate necessary forms and written materials into the applicants’\/recipients’ primary language when they constituted a substantial number (i.e., five percent or more of the applicant\/ recipient population) within a particular county. Petitioner Kiselev received a notice of action denying his In Home Supportive Services application in the English language. Mr. Kiselev speaks Russian and DSS admitted that the denial notice had been translated in to Russian. Mr. Kiselev did not request a hearing within the 90 days of receiving the notice. When he did request the hearing, Sacramento County argued that there was no jurisdiction because he waited too long to request the hearing. CASE STATUS: Reviewed Administrative Record. DEPARINI, POLISHCHUK v. BONTA, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DHA, A federal class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, was filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District in Sacramento on March 17, 2000. Case No. Civ. S.-00-655 FCD JFM. As a result of this lawsuit DHS uses 45 new notice codes in denying dental treatment authorization requests (TARs). CASE STATUS- CCWRO receives quarterly report for Health Services and is monitoring and reviewing quarterly reports. DURAN v. DURAN (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 95FL02624.) During November 1997, Mr. Duran was ordered to appear at a child support hearing. When he arrived with his 16 year old girlfriend, the deputy district attorney gave him a copy of the complaint for child support and told his that this is what you have to agree to. Since Mr. Duran is blind, his girlfriend, who had a limited education, read the complaint to him. Mr. Duran had no access to legal counsel or anyone who understood the complaint. Mr. Duran agreed to pay a child support arrearage of $5,290 which occurred during the period in which Mr. Duran was employed. CCWRO obtained employment records from EDD and the Social Security Administration. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CASE STATUS- case settled. GAVRILENKO v. SAENZ (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 00CS01547) CCWRO is amending the petition for writ of administrative mandamus to a class action petition for writ of mandate; complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief along with the writ of administrative mandate. This action challenges the validity of the practice and policy of the California Department of Social Services ( CDSS ) that allows counties to impose the Maximum Family Grant limitation when the English language notice of action is issued to non- English speaking recipients when the CDSS has translated the notice of action into the recipient’s primary language. This policy and practice is inconsistent with state laws and regulations. CASE STATUS: CCWRO has represented potential plaintiffs in administrative hearings in order to exhaust the administrative remedies. When the individual cases are taken to hearing, the judge rules in the client’s favor. CCWRO is still looking for clients. Additional representative class members have administrative hearings in February. ROBLES v. SAENZ Sacramento County Case No. 03CSO0996 Lead Counsel is Jacquelyn Maruhashi of Asian Law Alliance who requested that CCWRO co-counsel on this case. This case was filed in Sacramento County because the Court has judges dedicated to hearing writ cases. The judges in Santa Clara County are not familiar with writ proceedings. This writ of administrative mandate and petition for writ of mandate pursuant to C.C.P. 1085 challenges the validity of the policy of the California Department of Social Services ( DSS ) that the indigent exception which exempts the income and resources of the immigrant’s sponsor for purposes of establishing eligibility for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants ( CAPI ) does not apply before August 29, 2002, the date that DSS issued All-County Letter No. 02-63. This policy is inconsistent with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b) which requires that federal deeming rules and exemptions governing the Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) Program, including all federal and state laws and regulations designed to protect SSI recipients and their resources, shall govern CAPI. Saenz has a duty under the law to conform DSS’ policies and practices in administering the CAPI program to the provisions of applicable statutes and their own duly promulgated regulations. The Social Security POMs which promulgated the Indigence exception to sponsor deeming for the SSI program existed prior to September 1, 2002, the date of ACL No. 02-63. The failure to apply the Indigence Exception to pre-September 1, 2002 CAPI applications where the applicant’s sponsor abandoned the applicant with no means of support which conflicts with Welfare and Institutions Code section 18940(b). CASE STATUS: Awaiting for the Administrative record. County Welfare Department Victim Report A 72 year old man was served with a complaint for child support by Alameda County. We wondered how old is the poor child being deprived of child support. To our amazement the child was only 50 years old. Now Alameda must have been in deep hibernation for a while – a whole 30 years. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-25 — August 11, 2003-Page 4 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, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility A noncustodial male parent was paying child support to Los Angeles County. The custodial parent moved to San Bernardino County. The noncustodial parent continued to pay child support to Los Angeles County. Several months later, he gets a complaint for failing to pay child support from San Bernardino County. He does not answer the complaint and San Bernardino enters default judgement and takes away his teaching credentials. He is now on CalWORKs, because he can no longer provide for himself and a child living with him. In 1998 the State of California should have had a statewide distribution system, but has failed to do so. The state is paying penalties for their deviant behavior, but those penalties present no relief to this victim. He still cannot teach and provide for his family and none of that penalty money goes to the real victims. Welfare Advocate ALERT Medi-Cal Overpayments Daniel Benson of San Diego Legal Aid has informed us that San Diego County has been pursuing Medi-Cal overpayments. The authority to collect Medi-Cal overpayments can be found in Welfare and institutions Code Section 14009. Subsection (c) states that the .. Amount of overpayment shall be based on the amount of excess income or resources and computed in accordance with overpayment regulations promulgated by the director. The regulations are embodied in the Medi-Cal handbook Article 16, section 50781 through 500793. Persons who need a copy of these regulations can e-mail CCWRO at [email protected] asking for a copy of these regulations. ”

” 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 #2003-28 — September 12, 2003 IN BRIEF DSS NEWS New Legislation Passed – AB 1402 U.S. Senate Finance Committee Passes TANF Reauthorization County Statistical Reporting – At an August 14, 2003 County Welfare Director Asso- ciation meeting, counties were reminded that the WtW 25 and CW 115 reports should be accu- rate. The WtW 25 are the CalWORKs workfare program reports and the CW 115 are the child care reports. Often, CWDA representatives have publicly stated that the information in these reports are not accurate. Now counties are being told that DSS is using these reports to allocate funding to counties, thus, they should be accurate if they want to get the right amount of money. Off course, this also means that counties may be sub- mitting false reports to get more money and DSS never verifies the information contained in these reports. These reports are completed by county revenue enhancers who know every trick in the book to download more federal and state money. Food Stamp Error Rate – DSS and coun- ties have been meeting with FNS trying to get FNS to hold the state harmless for the error rate while counties switch from monthly reporting to quarterly reporting. Quarterly Reporting (QR) was only passed because it reduces the error rate by 75%. With monthly reporting there were 12 chances a year for an error to occur. With QR it goes down to 4 chances a year. The request was denied by FNS. IN BRIEF Food Stamp Error Rate Down – The Cu- mulative State Food Stamp error rate through March, 2003 was 7.49%. This may yield DSS a $10 million bonus. Off course, none of the bonus money will go to the people who brought the error rate down – the food stamp recipients of California. 2001 Food Stamp Sanction In Litiga- tion – When DSS got hit with a sanction for having a high error rate, they did not pay up like Food Stamp recipients who pay with sanctions–first an NOA then the sanction goes into effect unless one requests a fair hearing. If one does not win the hearing, then the sanction goes into effect within a couple of months. Less than 5% file for a hearing. It is late 2003 and the State still has not paid their $138 mil- lion sanction (which was reduced to $114 million) to the federal government. They are still working on the discovery of the sanction hearing. If only such due process could be afforded to the recipients of Food Stamps… equal justice . Secret Webpage for Counties by DSS – DSS is developing a secure webpage for coun- ties that will have up to date questions and answers regarding QR. So far there are 169 questions that have been posed to DSS with more coming. The pub- lic will not have access to these policy issuances. What is there to hide? Maria Hernandez of DSS as- sures us that all answers will be available on the in- ternet in the ACIN or ACL format. They need the secure webpage to get questions from counties. What is wrong with regulations e-mail? SFIS Update- The Statewide Fingerprint Iden- tification System (SFIS) has found a small number of individuals who have applied for aid in more than one county, DSS still loves this system because they allege it deters fraud. How does DSS know that SFIS deters fraud? It is their bureaucratic intuition. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-28 — September 12, 2003-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 DSS News ACIN I-58-03- Transitional Food Stamps This ACIN puts counties on notice that AB 1752 signed by the Governor on August 9, 2003, requires the Transitional Food Stamp Benefits program go into effect on January 1, 2004. The statute, W&IC 18901.6 was actually effective on August 9, 2003. Section 43 of AB 1752 states very clearly: SEC. 43. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Con- stitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to make necessary statutory changes to imple- ment the Budget Act of 2003 at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect immedi- ately. Immediately does not mean January 1, 2003. AB 1752 also suspended the 2003-2004 COLA for families. Why does that provision go into effect right away, while another provisions in the same bill take its sweet time? What about all the Food Stamps that households lost because this section did not take effect on August 9, 2003? How will these victims be made whole? ACL 03-41- 2003 Regional Market Rate Ceil- ings and Emergency Regulations The regional market rates have been reduced from 93% to 85% due to 2003-2004 budget action. The ACL contains emergency regulations promul- gated by State Department of Education imple- menting this Budget Cut. This cut takes effect on December 1, 2003 or prior thereto. Supportive Services Overpayment- Inyo County has asked DSS whether or not the county can recover supportive services overpay- ments. DSS responded that the county can recover the overpayments pursuant to 42-751.2, provided that such recovery does not interfere with the program participation. This means that if there is an over- payment, it can be recovered from transportation supportive services, provided the lack of transpor- tation services will not interfere with the partici- pants’ participation in WtW. RULE: The county cannot recover an overpay- ment which will interfere with the participants abil- ity to participate in a WtW activity and can only be recovered from a supportive services payment and not from the CalWORKs grant. Retroactive Payments Informing Notice- On 3\/26\/03 San Mateo County Child Care Manager Lorna Strachan asked DSS if San Mateo County can modify the CCP 7. DSS re- sponded the same day stating According to All County Letter 0-3-10, counties have the flexibil- ity to develope their own informing notice to meet their specific needs as long as the notice includes the information contained in the sample form. Prior CDSS approval on the form is not required. CCWRO Observation: Pretty bad. The county could do whatever they want to do with zero ac- countability. CDSS could care less if the county informing notice that is illegal. What you don’t know doesn’t hurt is the CDSS model. DSS Proposed Regulations DSS has published proposes regulations regard- ing: 1. ABAWD, Food Stamp Voluntary Quit, and FSET Emergency Regulations ORD# 1202-28; and 2. CalWORKS\/Food Stamps Intercept Program ORD# 0203-04. Comments are due by Septem- ber 17, 2003 For more information go to:http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ord\/PublicHear_675.htm You can file your comments by e-mail also. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-28 — September 12, 2003-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Welfare Legislation passed AB 1402, by Lois Wolk, chairperson of the Assembly Human Services Committee passed the Assembly on August 28, 2003. AB 1402 makes the following changes in law: 1. This bill makes some technical changes in the way reported changes are treated. 2. AB 1402 would also require DSS to report to relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Leg- islature in April 2005 regarding the effects of the mid-quarter reporting requirement on pro- gram efficiency and integrity of implementa- tion. The report is to be based on data collected by CWDA and select counties, with DSS to de- termine, in consultation with CWDA, data col- lection needs. AB 1402 completely ignores the consumer community from this report. In fact, the legal services community representing the recipient community was intentionally excluded from this process. The report will also be based upon the county data, which is very suspect as we all know about how often counties manipu- late data that produces conclusion not supported by the evidence. 3. Finally this bill allows DSS to implement quarterly reporting based on All County Letters and not duly promulgated regulations until July 1, 2004. AB 231, by Steinberg – This bill was the fingerimaging abolition bill. The State Auditor General reported that this system is costing mil- lions of dollars and saving nothing, but CDSS still loves to fingerprint welfare recipients. The final version of AB 231 dropped the provi- sions that would have saved millions of dollars by repealing the fingerprint provision. The bill would exempt one car and make some other technical changes. ACTION: People are urged to write let- ters to Gray David asking him to sign AB 231. Senate Finance Committee Passed a TANF Reauthorization Bill On September 10, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building the U.S. Senate Finance Committee meet to consider a substitute to H.R. 4, (the House of Representatives TANF reauthorization bill) to reauthorize the TANF pro- gram. The Senate Finance Committee, on a partisan vote, with all Republicans voting yes and all Demo- crats voting no , the Senate Finance Committee passed a bill called the Family Opportunity Act of 2003 – the Senate TANF reauthorization bill. NEXT STOP: The bill will go to the floor for a hearing. It is very doubtful that the bill will be heard on the Senate Floor in September. TANF expires September 30, 2003. Thus, it is very likely that there will be another continuing resolution to al- low the Senate Bill to be considered on the floor and go to conference. The Senate Bill contains the following major provisions: — Work Participation Rates: Requires States to increase participation rates to 70% by FY 2008 as in HR 4; States are allowed to use extra credits towards the participation rates, such as using hours exceed- ing the 34 required hours towards overall partici- pation rates; giving states extra credits for people who leave TANF for jobs with higher wages; etc. — Work Hours: Single parents with kids under 6, including single parents of newborn babies, will be forced to work 24 hours a week. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-28 — September 12, 2003-Page 4 Single parents with kids over 4 will be required to work 34 hours a week; Two-parent families must work 39 hours a week. — What Counts as Work? The Senate Bill does not coincide with the limi- tations of what counts as work in HR 4. In addi- tion, the Senate Bill allows for some secondary education to count as work for 12 months for only 10% of the caseload. — Barriers to Work and Sanction Protections: The Senate Bill requires States to conduct pre- sanction reviews before reducing benefits. — More Child Care Money The Senate Bill adds another billion for a five year period for child care. — Superwaivers The bill gives up to 10 states- waivers of federal laws and regulations for the TANF, Social Services Block Grant and Child Care Development Fund programs. HR 4 allows for the waivers to included the Food Stamp program; the Workforce Reinvestment Act program; homelessness and housing programs and adult education programs. –Marriage Promotion\/Fatherhood Proposals There will be $200 million a year given to states with a 50% match to promote marriage. It is not clear if this is any marriage or only marriage be- tween a male and female. — Transportation The bill provides $25 million per year to pro- vide TANF recipients with cars needed to become self-sufficient. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Fair Hearing Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services & In-Depth Consultation. CCWRO SERVICES FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility ”

” 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 #2003-29 — October 6, 2003 IN BRIEF DSS NEWS TANF UPDATE COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT Medicaid Regulations and Medi-Cal- At a recent state administrative hearing represen- tatives of the State Department of Health Services (DHS) testified under oath that DHS does not have to follow federal medicaid regulation when administering provisions of the Medi-Cal program. The State does sub- mit federal claims for Medi-Cal, thus, it is a part of the Medicaid program, but the well educated government officials representing the Department of Health Services did not know this. CAPI – Indigence Exception – Sponsor Whereabouts Unknown- This is a policy in- terpretation requested by Nancy Gillitzer of Fresno County Welfare Department. Many states have asked what happens if the CAPI applicant\/recipient does not know the where- abouts of the sponsor? Marshall Brown, with the approval of Vickie Walker stated: ..if the sponsor’s where- abouts are unknown, the applicant’s state- ment (if credible and nonconflicting with other case file information) can be accepted with- out confirmation. Supporting statements from third parties can also be used if the sponsor’s whereabouts are unknown. HA Reports Withheld by DSS- DSS pub- lishes monthly homeless assistance reports IN BRIEF on the internet. The last report published was for June, 2002. Duly promulgated state regula- tion require that each county submit a monthly report by the 20th day of the following month. This means that the September monthly report is due by October 20th. We have been informed by DSS officials that no report has been released since June of 2002 because Los Angeles County has knowingly re- fused to submit the homeless assistance reports as required by duly promulgated state regula- tions since June of 2002. How would Los Angeles County react to Cal- WORKs participants not submitting income re- ports for over one year? The manure will hit the fan. A notice of action stopping all benefits would have been mailed out in July of 2002 and ben- efits would have been stopped. But Los Ange- les County DPSS just keeps on getting their paychecks and intentionally violating the law. And then they have the colossal nerve to talk about their concern with the integrity of the Cal- WORKs program when it comes to the partici- pants. How practicing a little bit of what you preach DPSS. DSS News WtW Sanctions Climbing to New Heights- In July of 2002, 34.6% of the unduplicated Wel- fare to Work participants were sanctioned in California. This is the fruits of punitive polices promoted by the County Welfare Directors As- sociation (CWDA) to make it easier to sanction impoverished families of California. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-29 — 10\/6\/03-Page 2 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 A year later, we have taken another look at how many people are being sanctioned in Cali- fornia. The California Sanction machine has been humming and it has now reached 42.41% sanction rate. This is a huge 7.81% increase over a one year period. At this rate in 2004 the sanction rate will pass 50%. Counties admit that most sanctions are a re- sult of lack of child care. It is unlawful to im- pose a sanction when it is caused by lack of child care. Lack of child care is good cause. But then the primary purpose of the California WtW program has always been the desire to sanction. In July, 2003 the following counties have sanc- tion rates over 50%: Merced 128.59% Fresno 109.39% Plumas 107.41% Colusa 100.00% Napa 95.33% Trinity 80.49% San Joaquin 77.31% Tulare 68.77% Calaveras 65.69% Los Angeles 60.90% Tehama 56.30% San Diego 54.98% Monterey 52.65% Alameda 52.55% Sutter 52.28% Shasta 51.05% Humboldt 50.64% TANF UPDATE H.R.3146, which was enacted and became Public Law 108-89, extends the Temporary As- sistance for Needy Families block grant pro- gram and the child care block grant program through March 31, 2004. The Center for Law and Social Policy and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on September 19, 2003 published the Key Pro- visions in TANF Reauthorization Bills Passed by the Senate Finance Committee and the House. You can download this report at: http:\/ \/www.clasp.org\/Pubs\/DMS\/Documents\/ 1064343116.03\/Summary_SBS.pdf Meanwhile the state welfare directors have published their own side-by-side comparing the House and Senate bills passed in 2003. This side-by-side can be downloaded at:http:\/ \/www.aphsa.org\/publicat\/WMemo-03-9-10- TANF%20side-by-side.doc It looks like 2004 will be another year where poor families of America will be TERRORIZED by the Republicans and the Bush Administra- tion. CWD Victim Report Los Angeles County Victim – On December 31, 2002, Ms. 02350117 a single mom living in Los Angeles County, was verbally notified on 12\/31\/02 that effective 12\/31\/02 she will only receive aid for her child because she had already received aid for 60 months. The county said she has been getting aid since 9\/23\/97. On 12\/31\/02 Ms. 02350117 filed for a fair hear- ing against Los Angeles County stating that CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Bulletin #2003-29 — 10\/6\/03-Page 3 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 Los Angeles County got it wrong. She started getting aid since June of 1998. The county recognized that they screwed up and agreed to a conditional withdrawal stating that the county would reevaluate her time limit. On 2\/15\/03 Ms. 02350117 received a letter stating that effective 3\/1\/03 her aid will be reduced because she had exceeded the 60- month time limit. Ms. 02350117 reopened her hearing filed on 12\/31\/02 because the county had failed to make a proper determination of her time limit. On 3\/10\/03 the hearing was held. Los An- geles County representative Victor Lojero argued that the case should be dismissed because the county had not taken any ad- verse action against Ms. 02350117. The county had no case file at the hearing and failed to show that the Ms. 02350117 had been on aid for more than 60 months when the county proposed to terminate the benefits given the lack of evidence Law Judge William Blum granted the claim be- cause the county could not prove that Ms. 02350117 had received aid for 60 months. San Diego County Victim – Ms. 02365372 of San Diego County is enrolled in college at San Marcos. On 12\/24\/02 she received a Christmas Present from Scrooge County San Diego – her 24 months had stopped and she was no longer eligible for supportive services. 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 She has a learning disability and needs sup- portive services to complete her education. Section 42-710.12 provides that the county shall adopt a criteria for extending the 18\/24 month clock. All County Letter No. 0170 dated October 17, 2001 provides for a process of extending the 24\/18 month clock for persons with learning disabilities. In this case Ms. 02365372 was never evaluated for learning disability by San Diego County. Judge Patrick Cooney OR- DERED San Diego County to rescind their determination that her 24 month time period has expired and top provide Ms. 02365372 screening for learning disability. ”

” 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 ”

” 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 ”

” 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 COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 IN BRIEF BOB CAMPBELL GOES TO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE – Long-time CDSS lawyer, Robert Campbell, has taken a job with the State Department of Finance as its Chief Counsel. Representing CDSS’s legal interests, Bob was involved in a large part of the welfare litigation filed over the past 25 years. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DOES NOT REPORT AS REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATIONS – Los Angeles County continues to defy State regulations which requires quarterly reporting for Expedited Services Food Stamps, ABAWDS and Homeless Assistance monthly reports. In early November, CCWRO informed Liza Nunez, Chief Deputy Director of DPSS, that DPSS was not meeting their State- mandated reporting responsibilities. As of this week’s bulletin, DPSS continues to ignore it’s reporting responsibilities. UNSPENT TANF MONEY – GAO-03-1094, a report from the United States General Accounting office, reveals that at the end of fiscal year 2002, the U.S. Treasury reported that states failed to spend 8.9 billion TANF dollars. The same GAO report reveals that 2.3 billion TANF dollars meant for needy families, were transferred to the community development block grants which have no direct benefits in meeting the housing and feeding needs of poor families. MISSOULA ACTIVIST JOINS BAUCUS STAFF – Kate Kahan, a longtime welfare activist and a former welfare recipient, was hired by Senator Baucus of Montana, vice-chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Ms. Kahan will be working on welfare reform issues. GAO-03-210 Report- TANF Recipients With Impairments- This report reveals that 44% of TANF recipients reported having at least one impairment, while the non-TANF population reported 15% with impairments. The report also shows that recipients with impairments are less likely to become self-sufficient, and more likely to end up on other federal programs, such as SSI. 11\/03 Unemployment Rate 5.9% – True? or False? – In 2002, there were over 35 million persons in California. A recent Employment Development Department Labor Market Bulletin alleges that the California labor force included 17,503 million persons. This means that 50% of Californian’s were not in the labor force. The same report reveals that in November ’03, only 16,518 million persons were working, which means 46% of Californian’s were working, 54% were not. Finally, the report concludes that only 5.9% of Californians are unemployed. Something does not add up here. How does 54% unemployed become 5.9%? Maybe children under 18 and all adults over 65 can be excluded, but many of them are working or looking for work. In This Issue IN BRIEF Expedited State Hearings Eff. 2\/1\/04 Statistical Analysis – the WtW Jobs Story CWD Vicitms of the Week CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 EXPEDITED STATE HEARINGS EFFECTIVE 2\/1\/04 HOW WILL THE ESH HEARING BE CONDUCTED? The hearing will be conducted in person if it can be incorporated into the existing calendar for regularly scheduled cases. If the hearing cannot be incorporated into the existing calendar for regularly scheduled cases, then the hearing can be conducted telephonically. NEGOTIATING BEFORE THE HEARING The ACL urges counties and claimants to attempt to negotiate before the hearing. POSITION STATEMENTS The county will be required to have a position statement the day of the hearing if the case has not been settled. DEADLINE FOR DECISION The ALJ will issue a decision in the case within five working days from the date of the record closure. CONTACT PERSON: The ACL has designated Rosalie Morefield at 916-229-4155 as the contact person for this matter. You can also contact Kevin Aslanian at 916-736-0616 or 916-712-0071 for assistance with any aspect of expedited hearings. This week we look at what taxpayers and On January 19, 2004, DSS released an All County Appeals Letter regarding the subject of Expedited State Hearings (ESH) to be conducted by the CDSS State Hearings Divisions. Western Center on Law and Poverty attorney, Clare Pastore, presented this issue to Rita Saenz, former DSS Director, at the beginning of the Davis Administration. When Clare left to teach for a year, it was picked up by Kevin Aslanian who worked with the legal services community to achieve ESH in California. The primary CDSS contact person was Lonnie Carlson, the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Regional Office, who also worked hard on this issue. Judge Carlson’s commitment to a fair hearing is unparalleled, notwithstanding the political problems that the SHD faces daily. ISSUES THAT CAN BE HEARD AT ESH: (1) Expedited Food Stamps, (2) CalWORKs Immediate Need, (3) CalWORKs Homeless Assistance; and (4) other issues of urgency that CDSS-DHS deems necessary. A hearing for (4) can be filed as ESH, but it would only be granted if CDSS or DHS deems it to be an issue of urgency . WHEN WILL THE HEARING BE HELD? The hearing will be scheduled ten (10) working days from the filing date, unless the hearing can be incorporated into the existing calendar for regularly scheduled cases. . CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 1901 AlhAmbrA blvd. SAcrAmento, cA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO SERVICES Statistic of the Week CalWORKs recipients receive for CalWORKs services. This is a budget line item that funds welfare-to-work county bureaucrats. For 2003- 2004, the State Legislature appropriated over 993,000 million. Some of the low performing counties re- garding job placement were San Bernardino at .6%; Kern County at 1.1%; Alameda County at 1.2%; Stanislaus at 1.3%; Orange at 1.4% and Los Angeles at 1.6%. We wonder how many em- ployment agencies would keep staff who could not find employment for more than 2% of their caseload in one month. Don’t laugh. Governor Schwarzanegger has determined that these are excellent numbers, thereby increasing funding by 3.5%. Governor Schwarzanegger promised to look at each item carefully before proposing his budget. The result of this careful review was to increase the budget for CalWORKs services to $1,030,767. This is an additional 37.5 million dollars for the WtW county bureaucrats; a 3.6% increase for 2004-2005. At the same time, he denies CalWORKs recipients their Ronald Reagan Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) and proposes another 5% reduction in benefits that are at the same level they were 15 years ago. To determine what Governor Schwarzanegger saw to warrant huge increases in service dollars for 2004-2005, we looked at the county reports to see how many of the WtW enrollees obtained employ- ment that resulted in termination of benefits. What the Governor must have seen is that dur- ing the month of November of 2003, out of 211,251 enrollees, a meager 6,269 participants found em- ployment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits, which does not necessarily mean they over- came poverty. He must have also estimated that the monthly cost would be over $13,000 per participant to find employment that made them ineligible for CalWORKs. For county-by-county analysis of the percentage of enrollees who obtained employment that resulted in termination of CalWORks benefits see TABLE 1 below. SOURCE-DSS WtW 25 and 25A reports. Statewide 2.97% Sierra 0.00% Inyo 0.00% Alpine 0.00% San Bernardino 0.63% Kings 0.77% Butte 0.98% Nevada 1.03% Imperial 1.09% Kern 1.10% Modoc 1.14% Alameda 1.18% Amador 1.25% Humboldt 1.26% Stanislaus 1.28% Mendocino 1.37% Orange 1.42% Madera 1.44% Tuolumne 1.45% Merced 1.45% Monterey 1.60% Mono 4.17% San Luis Obispo 4.66% Glenn 4.88% Ventura 5.02% Riverside 5.21% Calaveras 5.63% Yolo 6.29% Plumas 7.14% San Diego 7.59% Siskiyou 7.74% Solano 7.80% Sacramento 8.63% Placer 8.79% Sonoma 9.02% Napa 9.89% San Mateo 10.31% Santa Cruz 14.90% Santa Barbara 18.67% Los Angeles 1.64% Lassen 1.70% Tehama 1.71% Yuba 1.81% Mariposa 1.89% Colusa 2.13% San Benito 2.24% Shasta 2.32% Marin 2.37% Fresno 2.43% San Joaquin 2.54% Tulare 2.75% Lake 2.75% Sutter 2.84% Del Norte 3.01% San Francisco 3.07% Trinity 3.45% El Dorado 3.85% Contra Costa 4.09% Santa Clara 4.15% TABLE #1- Percentage of WtW Enrollees Obtaning Employment that Re- sults in Termination of CalWORKs Benefits During November, 2003 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-3-January 31, 2004 County Victims of the Week San Benito County Victim Report. Ms. K.F. of San Benito County applied for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal on 11\/12\/03. On the SAWS1, she indicated that she was homeless and did not have enough food for three days. Rather than scheduling an appointment for the next working day as required by state law, the County scheduled an appointment on December 3, 2003. This was a willful and blatant violation of the state law. The County authorized aid for December of 2003 and have now informed Ms. K.F. that her benefits have stopped effective January 31, 2004 because her husband is working over 100 hours a month. The County has no evidence to substantiate this. Ms. K.F’s benefits were terminated even though she has yet to receive a Notice of Action. She has filed for a fair hearing against the County for failing to schedule an appointment for Immediate Need and for expedited food stamps as required by law. Ms. K.F. is still homeless and has never been allowed to apply for homeless assistance. Los Angeles County Victim Report. Ms. S.W. of Los Angeles County has three children. Two of the children are disabled and are receiving SSI. On 12\/1\/03, caseworker Ms. Doyle, requested medical verification of the children’s disabilities. Ms. S.W. provided the GAIN contractor with the requested verification and obtained a receipt verifying her documents were received. Within a week she received a letter alleging that she had a participation problem because she failed to provide the County with the requested verification. The letter instructed her to come to the office on 12\/22\/03 to provide good cause for not providing the requested verification. Ms. S.W. called Ms. Doyle and was assured that it was just a bureaucratic mix up. However, a new worker called her and told her that she has been sanctioned. Ms. S.W. explained that she had a receipt showing she had turned in the verification then asked to talk to the caseworker’s supervisor, he then hung up on her. She filed for a fair hearing Another Los Angeles County Victim Report. Ms. M.M. and her five children applied for CalWORKs on 12\/27\/04 because her husband was laid off on 1\/21\/04. They went to the Belvedere District office and applied for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal. The Belvederes knowledgable staff informed Ms. M.M. that she had to wait 28 days from the date that her husband lost his job before she could apply for benefits. A call was made to District Director, Gustav Serrato, who stated that they indeed have to wait 28 days before they could reapply per MPP 41-440. When he was told that there was nothing in 41-440 that says a person has to wait 28 days to apply, he read the regulation again and agreed that the action was wrong. ”

” CCWRO COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 IN BRIEF CalWORKs Privatization – Governor Schwarzanegger is considering privatizing the CalWORKs eligibility and employment functions. Counties are also looking into this matter. At a December retreat in San Francisco, the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) set up a committee to look into the Privatization issue. CalWORKs Fails Self-Sufficiency – CWDA has received information about a report done by the California Budget Project that shows while CalWORKs was successful in reduc- ing the caseload, it failed in making the fami- lies self-sufficient. For a copy of the report go to: www.cbp.org. Q-7 News – CWDA and CDSS has been test- ing the quarterly reporting form known as Q- 7. CDSS is now working on modifying the Q-7 form, since counties and clients alike have found it to be confusing. Quarterly Reporting (QR) regulation sta- tus – The first draft of the QR regulations have been completed and made available to CWDA. The recipient community has yet to see a copy of these regulations. Father Involvement Better for kids – The 1\/04 issue of Fragile Families Research re- ports that research shows that a father’s involvement, in terms of time and financial resources, is associated with better cogni- tive, social, and emotional development for children. This is another reason to do away with the 100 rule that denied 2-parent appli- cants CalWORKs for working over 100 hours no matter how little the earning are. Higher Welfare Grants good for families – The Number 20 report of Fragile Families Re- search reveals that higher welfare benefits are associated with a reduced likelihood of break- ing up… On the other hand the study finds that with respect to child support a …stronger child support enforcement is linked with a greater like- lihood of breaking up compared to cohabitation . For copies of these studies contact [email protected]. The Bush 2005 Proposed Budget in Brief Food Stamps: The Bush 2005 proposed bud- get would provide food stamp benefits to immi- grants who have been in the country for more than five (5) years. This could benefit an esti- mated 360,000 low-income immigrants. The proposed budget also allows one vehicle to be totally exempt as a resource. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): The budget proposed to renew the TANF Block Grant program at the current level of $16.7 billion a year for the next five (5) years. The Bush budget proposes to maintain state spending requirements, provide for supplemen- tal grants to states with high poverty or fast population growth and reauthorize the contin- gency fund. In This Issue IN BRIEF Senate Budget Hearing of 2\/5\/04 Bush 2005 Budget in Brief Statistic of the Week- Comparing WtW Sanctions to Obtained Employment that Resulted in Termination of Cal- WORKs by Unduplicated Participants during 11\/03. CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 1901 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 FAX (916) 736-2645 There was a major discussion about the Governor Schwarzanegger’s use of Section 27 which allows the Governor to appropriate money to respond to emergency situations. During 2003-2004, the DOF used this loophole to spend $4.3 billion. Mike Genest pointed out that the California Government Code provides that if a Director of a State Department overspends the amount of money appropriated by the State lawmakers, then he or she has to pay back the money from his or her own pocket. A bipartisan motion was made by Senator Wesley Chesboro, the Chair of the Committee to repeal Section 27 of the State Budget Bill and to direct the Legislative Analyst and the DOF to propose a new Section 27 that would only trigger for real emergencies, rather than being used to circumvent the constitutional budget process. The motion was seconded by Republican McClintock and it passed. The ’03-’04 budget authorizes the Governor to make 5% cuts in State government. The Department of Finance is suppose to report on the impact of these cuts. To date, no such report has been presented to the Legislature. Senators argued that they cannot make any cuts until they see the impact of the cuts made so far. Republican Senator Dick Ackerman made a motion to enact the Governor’s proposed midyear cuts. Chairman Chesboro stated that he would oppose such motion. Senator Sheila Kuhl stated that the Administration had failed to report on the impact of the Governor’s cuts on the State and its people. The Chair emphasized that before the Legislature can act on the proposed midyear . The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee met on February 5, 2004. Michael Genest of the Department of Finance and Liz Hill of the Legislative Analyst’s Office were witnesses at the hearing. Mr. Genest started his testimony by stating that Governor Schwarzanegger inherited a 12 billion dollar deficit. This prompted Senator Jack Scott of Los Angeles to point out that Mr. Genest’s statement was disingenuous. Senator Scott pointed out that Governor Schwarzanegger signed an executive order reversing the vehicle tax, thus causing a 4 billion dollar additional deficit. He concluded that 4 billion of the 12 billion dollar deficit was created by Governor Schwarzanegger. Senator McClintock of Thousand Oaks, who also ran for Governor and lost in 2003, pointed out that while Governor Schwarzanegger urged the firing of Governor Davis for spending too much, under Davis, the 2003-2004 budget was $71 billion. Governor Schwarzanegger’s proposed budget is more than 76 billion dollars. Michael Genest alleged that 71% of the ’04-’05 budget were cuts. Liz Hill of the Analyst’s office stated that, 45% of the budget are cuts in programs, while 55% are nonprogram reductions. Liz Hill also pointed out that the budget assumes that the State will receive $500 million from Indian gaming, which has not materialized. In addition, the budget assumes that the federal government will give California $350 million. Mike Genest stated that Governor Schwarzanegger hoped to get several billion dollars from the federal government, but the $350 million was not reflected in the Bush 2005 budget which was released this week. Senate Budget Hearing of 2\/5\/04 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 cuts, the legislature needs the required reports from the Administration. One of the Senators asked whether the mid- year cuts included the Medi-Cal rate reduc- tions. Senator Ackerman answered yes. The Senators wondered how they could approve midyear reduc- tions that included illegal re- ductions as the Medi-Cal rate reduction has been declared unlawful by the courts . Finally, Senator Kuhl pointed out that while Governor Schwarzanegger is worried about the negative conse- quences that tax increases would have on the economy, the Administration should look at the negative consequences that program reductions would have on the economy. Many of the program cuts will be dis- cussed on the various budget sub- committee hearings after the Legis- lative Analyst report is released on February 18, 2004. This report can be downloaded at www.lao.ca.gov. FUTURE BUDGET ACTION: The budget has been transmitted to the Senate subcommittee on Health and Human Services and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Welfare. The Assembly subcommittee is more commonly referred to as sub 1 and the Senate Subcommittee is referred to as sub 3 . The hearings schedules will be available soon and we will share the hearing dates with you when we find out. Meanwhile, if you are interested in knowing more about the DSS budget, you can go to: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/cdssweb\/ LocalAssis_1705.htm and download the infor- mation. Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 on Health, Human Services, Labor, and Veterans Affairs 916-445-5205 Senator Wesley Chesbro (Chair) -Dem (916) 445-3375 Fax (916) 323-6958 Senator Gilbert Cedillo, Dem (916) 445-3456 Fax (916) 327-8817 Senator Tom McClintock, Rep. (916) 445-8873 Fax: (916) 324-7544 Senator Bruce McPherson, Rep. (916) 445-5843 Senator Deborah Ortiz, Dem. (916) 445-7807 Fax (916) 323-2263 California State Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 1 Judy Chu, Chair Phone: (916) 319-2049 Fax: (916) 322-9208 Judy Chu, Chair Dem-49 (916) 319-2049 Mervyn M. Dymally Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Loni Hancock Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Ray Haynes Rep-66 (916) 319-2066 Robert Pacheco Rep-60 (916) 319-2060 CCWRO Welfare News Bulletin #2004-4- February 9, 2004 Welfare to Work (WtW) Statistic of the Week The WtW 25, which is a monthly report completed by county wel- fare departments and mailed to DSS, reveal the number of un- duplicated participants who have found employment that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits and the number of par- ticipants that have been sanc- tioned among other information. Any interested person can find this data at : http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/ CalWORKsDa_388.htm on the internet. The data show that Trinity, Napa, Merced, Fresno and Colusa Counties have the highest sanc- tions of unduplicated partici- pants. This may surprise some, but it should not. The fact is that often, persons who have not signed a contract to participate are sanctioned in California. The law provides that only partici- pants who fail to participate in WtW can be sanctioned. However, while 45% of the partici- pants are sanctioned in California, the November report shows that only 5% of unduplicated partici- pants found employment that re- sulted in termination of Cal- WORKs. This does not mean that these families are no longer living in poverty- it only means they are no longer eligible for CalWORKs. The TABLE below shows the per- centage of unduplicated participants in each county that were sanctioned. The counties with the highest sanc- tion rates are listed first, finishing with the counties with the lowest sanction rates. Statewide 45.30% 5.09% Trinity 166.67% 8.33% Napa 148.00% 12.00% Merced 140.41% 2.62% Fresno 122.48% 5.34% Colusa 119.35% 3.23% Plumas 87.10% 9.68% San Joaquin 82.32% 3.72% Alpine 75.00% 0.00% Sonoma 69.81% 14.44% Los Angeles 66.83% 3.24% San Luis Obispo 62.68% 14.79% Sutter 61.59% 3.04% Humboldt 60.61% 1.53% Monterey 59.40% 2.78% Tehama 58.18% 2.73% San Diego b\/ 57.83% 11.97% Yolo a\/ 56.96% 20.76% Siskiyou 56.21% 13.61% Calaveras 54.87% 7.08% Alameda 53.21% 2.20% Amador 51.11% 2.22% Shasta 50.17% 3.25% Mono 50.00% 7.14% Lake 47.90% 3.50% Kern 46.73% 1.79% Tulare 46.12% 12.77% Glenn 45.80% 6.11% Mendocino 44.47% 2.01% Butte 43.05% 1.54% Kings 38.94% 0.92% Tuolumne 34.56% 1.84% Nevada 33.53% 1.18% San Mateo 32.53% 22.13% Contra Costa 32.45% 4.89% Lassen 32.41% 2.76% Santa Barbara 31.81% 36.77% Marin 31.72% 2.99% Madera 31.42% 2.46% Mariposa 31.17% 2.60% Placer 29.41% 18.49% San Benito 28.16% 4.02% Stanislaus 26.17% 2.46% San Bernardino 25.89% 0.89% Sierra 25.00% 0.00% Santa Cruz 22.82% 22.98% Orange 21.39% 1.80% Santa Clara 20.15% 6.64% El Dorado 17.13% 5.30% Ventura 17.09% 5.81% Inyo 16.28% 0.00% Solano 14.71% 23.44% Modoc 12.50% 2.50% Yuba 12.41% 2.36% Riverside a\/ 11.95% 6.59% San Francisco 10.58% 4.18% Del Norte 8.11% 12.16% Sacramento b\/ 4.49% 13.48% Imperial 2.45% 1.74% We then show the percentage of unduplicated participants that were able to obtain em- ployment that resulted in ter- mination of CalWORKs, which is the alleged purpose of the program. The facts show that while only 5% of the unduplicated participants found employment that re- sulted in termination of Cal- WORKs, over 45% of the un- duplicated participants were sanctioned. The LESSON is clear – WtW is hugely successful in impos- ing sanctions (many of which are unlawful) on WtW partici- pants , while it is a dismal fail- ure in getting poor families jobs that may make them self- sufficient. Counties Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Counties Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Sanction Rate Jobs Ending Welfare Counties TABLE – Comparing WtW Sanctions to Obtained Employment that Resulted in Termination of CalWORKs by Unduplicated Participants during 11\/03. ”