Documents

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/322): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/324): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” 1 New Welfare NEWS Bulletin Bulletin # 07-06 May 25, 2007 In This Issue In Brief County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian —— IIInnn BBBrrriiieeefff — \u2714 Fabian Nunez, Speaker of the Assembly, promises to stop the Gov- ernor’s CalWORKs COLA cut On March 9, 2007, a group of organizations concerned with the plight of impoverished families meet with Fabian Nunez re- garding the plight of welfare families in California. During that meeting the Speaker expressly stated that the Democratic Caucus voted to reject the Gover- nor’s CalWORKs cuts, and the COLA cut was one of the cuts that they voted too reject. Present at the meeting were Cynthia Anderson of the Lawyers Guild, Nancy Berlin of California partnership, Saira Soto of SEIU, Frank Tam- borello of Los Angeles Hunger Action, Ms. Villela of CHIRLA and Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. \u2714 Senate and Assembly approve no COLA for CalWORKs On May 21, 2007, the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees accepted the Governor’s proposed trailer bill language suspending the CalWORKs COLA for the third straight year. The Democrats refuse to give a COLA for poor CalWORKs families living on a fixed income of 1989 that would only cost $124 million. On May 21, 2007, they approved $40 million for county performance bonuses, $200 million of PORK for Los Angeles County to build their own computer system rather than using a perfectly good computer system already in use and $140 million as a re- serve . Finally the budget makes a $1.9 billion CalWORKS money contribution to 2 the General Fund. Yes, money for computers and no money for CalWORKs COLA is the actions of the California State Legislature \u2714 Counties have more people in sanctions and non-compliance after getting $230 million to reduce these numbers Counties just can’t help themselves. They are punitive and there is no two ways about it. Last year while Democrats in the State legislature denied the statutory COLA to welfare families that would have cost little over $100 million and gave $230 million to counties to increase Welfare-to-Work participation rates and reduce the number of families in sanctions and non-compliance. The new money started t flow in late 2006. With welfare families suffering and counties swimming in new money one would assume that the number of sanc- tions and non-compliance is going down. The facts show that sanction rates and noncompliance rates are on the rise. October, 2006 March, 2007 Sanction Rate 35% 37% Noncompliance Rate 22% 24% Has the increased funding has yielded desired results? The result is more people in sanctions and more people being sanctioned. Did the Democrats do anything about this? No. The 2007-2008 budget rewards counties by giving them another $40 million on top of the $230 million entitled Pay for Performance . That is money that could have given CalWORKs recipients a COLA. But no children go hungry so welfare bureaucrats can flourish in pork. \u2714 Of 112,748 WtW participants 57,075 persons did not get transporta- tion in March of 2007 The gross violation of welfare recipients basic rights are clearly illustrated in the number of persons not getting transportation assis- tance for participating in welfare-to-work activities. The law is clear the county shall issue advance transportation money to participants in need thereof to assure that they do not use their welfare check money to cover welfare-to-work related transportation expenses. Who does not have transportation expenses in California? With the gasoline prices getting close for $4 a gallon one would assume that this would be a big cost item. Yes, theo- retically it would be. But then that would mean money that the county could use for their own salaries, benefits, travel to Sacramento and Washington would 3 have to be given to welfare recipients. That is not fair as far as county welfare departments are concerned. Thus, about 50% of the welfare-to-work partici- pants do not get transportation. Some ignorant people say that welfare recipi- ents living on a fixed income of 1989 level simply do not need the money. That is not true reveals how out of touch some may be from reality. The fact is that the state and county welfare bureaucrats have created a system where WtW partici- pants do not even have a form to ask for transportation. On the other hand the state and county welfare bureaucrats have a travel claim form for their Sacra- mento\/Washington escapades and they get much more than welfare recipients. \u2714 Orange CWD unhappy that WtW participants have a support system On March 13, 2007, Nancy McBride of Orange County Welfare Department (CWD) e-mailed a request for policy interpretation to DSS. A welfare-to-work (WtW) participant has a friend who is accompanying her when she has appoint- ment with the CWD WtW workers. Orange County is requiring the WtW partici- pant to complete a release form before every meeting. This person also happens to be working for an agency that provides educational services to WtW partici- pants. This provider employee is disrupting the day to day operations, consults with the Western Center on Law & Poverty on every issues and gets involved in issues not related to the services being provided. This provider has consulted the legal department and states that the AR form is good for one year and it shouldn’t have to be signed prior to every meeting, in addition, the provider employee is stating that since the client and AR are both at the meeting, a verbal consent is all that is required for the provider to attend the meeting. The proposed answer of Orange CWD to this question was: Restrict the ART to information related to the services that are provided by the provider On March 29, 2007 this issue was referred from the CalWORKs eligibility bureau to the DSS Employment Bureau. As to what the answer was is unclear. The an- swer is in the state regulations. An authorized representative form is good for one year. .2 Authorizations For purposes of this section, an authorized representative is a person or group who has authorization from the applicant\/recipient to act for him\/her. .21 Written Authorizations Except, as otherwise provided, all authorizations are to be written. Written authorizations shall be dated and shall expire one year from the date on which they are given unless they 4 are expressly limited to a shorter period or revoked Moreover, this is still a free country and any resident of the United States of America, even those involuntarily participating in the WtW program have not given up their minimal basic human rights afforded to them by the U.S. constitu- tion to the chagrin of county welfare bureaucrats in Orange County. \u2714 Maximum Family Grant (MFG) Child Defined On March 6, 2007, FIna Perez of Orange County asked DSS what circumstances does MFG rul,e apply. The March 20, 2007 e-mail answer from DSS was: Legal has concurred that we need the CW 2102 signed at application and the most recent rede- termination that is at least 11 months prior to the birth of the child. The CW 2101 is the MFG notification notice. County Welfare Department County Welfare Department ClCl iient Abuse Reportent Abuse Report A parent living in Riverside County applied for IHSS benefits in early 2007. She has three severely disabled children. Initially the applications was denied because they did not have evidence that there were disabled even though they had Medi-Cal, which made them eligible for the IHSS-Plus program. The second time applications were denied by Riverside County because accord- ing to the notice of action mailed by Riverside County You have not provided sufficient information to establish eligibility or need for services. The notice fails to show what information the applicant was asked to provide. The applicant provided all of the county requested verification. This notice is ei- ther a fraudulent statement or an intentional county denial of benefits to an eli- 5 gible person. It is not a crime for the county to fraudulently deny benefits to an eligible person, but it is a crime if the person fraudulently receive IHSS benefits a felony if the benefits received exceeds $400, but nothing if the benefits denied exceeded $400, $4,000 or $40,000. Conspiracy to fraudulently deny aid is com- mon behavior in many of the California County welfare departments. It appears that Riverside County does not want to authorize IHSS, thus, has decided to em- ploy unlawful means to deny benefits that applicants are eligible for. The appli- cant does plead guilty for not reading the minds of Riverside County bureaucrats who maybe needed information from her than she did not provide to them be- cause they never asked for such information. Mr. L. from San Bernardino County called to say that he wants to apply for CAPI on March 1, 2007. The county mailed out an application packet and gave him until March 12 to turn in the application packet. On March 16, 2007 San Bernardino County issued a notice of action denying Mr. L. CAPI application that they never received. On March 19, 2009, San Bernardino County receives the application but refuses to process it because it was denied. The notice of ac- tion was mailed to a wrong address. As of May 25, 2007, San Bernardino County has unlawfully been sitting on Mr. L. application and refusing to process the application. San Bernardino County a place where applications are denied even if not received. And poor people suffer immensely given the County’s indifference to human being in need. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem ”

” IIInnn BBBrrriiieeefff New Welfare NEWS Bulletin # 07-07 July 2007 In This Issue In Brief Contract Dispute May Be Prelude to County Department Budget CalWORKS Is A Goldmine For The Counties County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Publisher: CCWRO Reporters: Kevin Aslanian and Grace Galligher Contributors: Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2714 CalWIN Does It Again According to our advocate friends in Alameda County, a corrective action notice is being drafted by the county to inform 3,612 CalWORKs participants, who were impacted by six erroneous notices in the mail, that the notices will not impact eligibility for CalWORKs, Food Stamps or Medi-Cal. The corrective action notices to participants will be identified in a letter by NOA title and number. We are targeting June 6, 2007 as the mailing date for the corrective action NOA. \u2714 Free Medi-Cal for SSI? Participants living in County Organized Health System (COHS) Counties Napa, Orange, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Solano, are forcibly enrolled in the local HMO program. If they move to a neighboring county, they will be able to receive free Medi-Cal which means they can see a doctor or a service provider of their choice. So far, there is no law against moving, but you never know what tomorrow will bring. \u2714 Solano County Won’t Let Applicant Complete the SAWS 1 In Full The regulations are very clear, applicants shall be given an opportunity to complete the SAWS 1. An applicant was required to go through what is called an interactive process. This means the welfare worker asks questions and completes the SAWS-1. After the county worker completes the SAWS-1, the applicant is instructed to sign it. If the applicant does not sign the SAWS-1, the application is denied. 40-129 states: CCWRO .32 At the time of application, every applicant shall be given the opportunity to request an Immediate Need payment by completing the Immediate Need section of the application. .321 The county shall encourage applicants who indicate that they are in an emergency situation to complete the Immediate Need section of the application. .322 If an applicant indicates verbally or in writing that he\/she has an emergency situation, after the application has been submitted, the county shall provide the applicant with the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90). Additionally, subsection 321 provides that the county shall encourage the applicant to complete the Immediate Need section of the SAWS-1. In this case, the applicant was not allowed to complete the form. Completing the Immediate Need section of the SAWS-1 was never an option for this applicant – a violation of 40-129.321. \u2714 San Bernardino County Violates CFR Title 7, Section 274.12(g)(6)(i) On 2\/28\/07 San Bernardino County mailed a notice of action to Mr. T.A., terminating his food stamp benefits because he used his EBT card in neighboring Nevada, which he is entitled to do under 7 CFR 274.12(g))(6)(i). San Bernardino County, as a practice, monitors San Bernardino County food stamp recipients’ usage of their EBT cards. If anyone uses the EBT card outside of San Bernardino, while living in San Bernardino County, swift action is taken food stamp benefits are terminated. The county alleges that the person who uses the EBT card in another state must be living outside of San Bernardino County. Prior to terminating benefits, there is no inquiry to find out why the food stamp program participant is using his\/her food stamps in another county or state. In fact, San Bernardino County mails the terminating benefits letter to the recipient’s San Bernardino address and not an address in another county or state. 7 CFR 274.12(g))(6)(i) states: 274.12 Electronic Benefit Transfer issuance system approval standards. * * * * * (g) * * * (6) * * * (i) * * * States must provide a means for a client to be able to use their benefits upon relocation. A State agency may convert electronic benefits to paper coupons if a household is relocating to a State that is not interoperable and where electronic benefits are not portable from the household’s current State of residence, or assist clients in finding an authorized retail location where out-of-State electronic benefits can be used. This requirement is in accordance with the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interope ability and Portability Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106 171, (hereinafter ”Pub. L. 106 171”) which amended Section 7(k) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2016(k), to mandate nationwide interoperability of FSP EBT systems and portability of electronically issued benefits and directs the Secretary to establish standards to accomplish this. In accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Department will pay one hundred percent of the costs incurred by a State agency for switching and settling transactions. On June 25, 2003, the final rule implementing legislation requiring interoperability of Food Stamp Program EBT systems and portability of electronically-issued benefits nationwide was published in the Federal Register (vol. 69; no. 122; pp. 37693-37697). \u2714 EBT Card Users Losing Food Stamp Benefits While Unlawfully Being Charged With Overpayments A food stamp recipient in San Bernardino County informs us that the county regularly monitors the usage of food stamp recipients’ EBT cards. Recipients who use their EBT cards out of the county or out of state are terminated from the program and charged with an over issuance. People living in Red Rock or Porona would rather shop in Rich Crest or Kern County, but San Bernardino County tells recipients they cannot do that. The City of Baker in San Bernardino County, has two stores that do not have a Quest machine, thus, food stamp recipients in Baker cannot use their EBT cards. They must travel 60 miles to Barstow and pay over $3 for gasoline in order to use their EBT card. People in Needles are not allowed to shop in Bull Head, Arizona, even though it is cheaper in Arizona. EBT has been a terror to some people living in rural America. Quest\u00aeMark – The Quest\u00aeMark is the sign seen on store doors, check-out lanes, and POS machines that tells recipients that EBT Cards can be used at that store. _________________________________________________________________ Contract Dispute May Be Prelude To County Department Budget Battle By ROGER H. AYLWORTH – Staff Writer Article Launched: 06\/13\/2007 12:14:19 AM PDT OROVILLE — In what may be a prelude to a heated budget session, Butte County’s District Attorney and the director of the Department of Employment and Social Services squared off Tuesday in a battle over office security. Cathi Grams, director of DESS, went before the Board of Supervisors seeking approval for $212,000 contract with Elite Universal Security of Marysville to provide unarmed, uniformed guards at the department’s offices in Chico and Oroville. Previously, security in the two facilities was provided by District Attorney’s Office investigators who are sworn peace officers and armed. Grams told the board unarmed private security guards are the norm in the vast majority of facilities like hers. However, District Attorney Mike Ramsey said security guards weren’t the real issue at Tuesday’s meeting. He said the key point was whether Butte County was going to be fighting welfare fraud or not. In the hard-to-explain logic of government funding, while welfare fraud investigators answer to Ramsey, their positions are funded through the DESS budget. Up until a few years ago, there were 12 people in the welfare fraud unit. Currently there are seven. Ramsey said, besides investigating fraud, the officers also provided an armed, law-enforcement presence in the offices. Ramsey said investigators are scheduled so there is always one in each building. However, Grams’ budget calls for cutting those seven positions to 2.5 in the 2007-2008 budget, and moving all of the remaining investigators to Oroville. She explained having the private guards in place would increase security because there would always be three guards at each facility. Ramsey scoffed at the suggestion private guards could provide better security than his investigators. While saying he didn’t want to show any disrespect to anybody, Ramsey said, \”The people on this contract are rent-a-cops. They are hired. They are $7.50-a-hour people.\” He said there are genuine law enforcement problems that crop up every week at the welfare facilities. Ramsey said guns and knives had been brought into the buildings, and recently one of his investigators had been stabbed with a sharpened pencil before the problem subject was subdued. Bad guys don’t respect private security, claimed Ramsey. \”It is a matter of safety for your employees and that is personal for all of us. We have friends in all of the departments,\” he said. Then he asked the supervisors to delay any action on the contract until the panel’s June 26 meeting when the whole county budget will be up for review. Michael Hahn, operations manager for Elite Universal, clearly took umbrage at Ramsey’s suggestion his firm couldn’t do the job. \”My people are not minimum wage,\” he said. He explained, under state law, security guards have to undergo a minimum of 40 hours of training and must have continuing training. He also told the board his staff are uniformed and wear badges, and they are currently providing this same sort of security for the Yuba City welfare office. Grams said her plan will relieve the investigators from guard duty. She also said she had been in contact with the Chico and Oroville police departments and both agencies assured her, if there was a serious problem, they could respond expeditiously. Ramsey said both departments are understaffed and speedy responses are not going to happen. County Chief Administrative Officer Paul McIntosh said safety is not an issue. \”If we had any concern about employee safety we wouldn’t have brought this issue to you,\” he said. Ramsey said the vote on the guard contract was about more than building security. \”What we see in this situation is the first step to saying there will be no further welfare fraud investigations in Butte County,\” he said. He told the board Grams’s request was actually a policy decision that should be put off for the full budget consideration. Gram said if the security contract was approved Tuesday it could take a month after the June 26 meeting to get things back in line. That could cost the county more than $100,000 out of the general fund. Chico Supervisor Maureen Kirk moved to approve the contract. It passed 4-1, with Oroville Supervisor Bill Connelly saying he was uncomfortable voting for the contract in the absence of more detail about the budget. Staff writer Roger H. Aylworth can be reached at 896-7762 or [email protected]. REPRINTED FROM THE CHICO ENTERPRIZE RECORD Editor’s Note: In a subsequent Board meeting the Butte County Board of Supervisors voted in favor of the County8 Welfare Department. CalWORKs is a Goldmine for Counties and the State The poor are the means for counties to get money from the state and federal government that can be used for operating expenses, salaries and other county employee needs. County needs includes using state and federal welfare funds to pay for county costs. For example, when state and federal dollars are used to set up a computer system for the federal and state programs, that same system is often used to run the county general assistance program, which is solely a county funded program. Counties do not contribute their fair share for the development and operation of the system. They also often use food stamp administrative dollars to pay for General Assistance administrative costs. It’s just a regular county business practice, using state and federal money to cover county costs . County employees who master the art of using state and federal funds to cover county costs are often promoted. Counties have never promoted the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the poor because it will mean less money for counties. They understand the hardship that families and kids suffer as a result of no COLA, it causes irreversible harm to children (it may very well be child abuse) and reduces their plight to self- sufficiency, but COLA means less money for counties, thus, no COLA for 2005- 2006, 2006-2007 and now 2007-2008. The State has been using TANF federal dollars as a contribution to the General Fund since 1989. To date, CalWORKs has contributed $9.5 billion to the General Fund. In 2007-2008, CalWORKs will contribute $1.9 billion, according to the Schwarzenegger Administration; yet, they can’t spare a mere $124 million for the 07-08 COLA for the poor. Flexibility for Counties-Zero Flexibility for Customers – County welfare officials want to do their job in a way that suits their needs, which are often at odds with the needs of our clients. County welfare officials insist that they shall have flexibility in operating the welfare program because one size does not fit all, but they offer little flexibility to welfare recipients. Little flexibility is one of the reasons for the high sanction rates in the Welfare-to-Work program. During March of 2007, out of 112,748 unduplicated participants, 41,985 individuals were being sanctioned and 27,378 were being considered for sanction. CalWORKs Violating Recipient Rights By Taking Money Away From the Poor to Pay for the Bureaucracy – The gross violation of welfare recipients’ basic human rights are clearly illustrated in the number of persons not getting transportation assistance for participating in welfare-to-work activities. The law is clear, the county shall issue advance transportation money to participants in need thereof to assure that they do not use their welfare check money to cover welfare-to-work related transportation expenses. Yet, 50% of recipients do not receive transportation money. With the gasoline prices rising up to $4 a gallon, one would assume that this would be a big cost item for families. Yes, theoretically there could a few families getting free transportation from neighbors or friends, but 50%? Paying regional transportation rates to those who need it would mean less money for county salaries, benefits, and travel to Sacramento, Washington, DC, etc. State and county welfare bureaucrats have created a system where WtW participants do not even have a form to ask for transportation. According to one county welfare official from San Joaquin County, It would cost us over a million dollars to increase the payment to 44.5\u00a2 per mile . Participants are paid 17.5\u00a2\/mile while counties pay 44.5\u00a2\/mile to themselves. Poor families want to be self-sufficient and the law requires that counties use the regional market rates for setting travel reimbursements. County Welfare Department ClCounty Welfare Department Cl iient Abuse Reportent Abuse Report A parent living in Riverside County applied for IHSS benefits in early 2007. She has three severely disabled children. Initially, the applications were denied because the county did not have evidence that the children were disabled even though they received Medi-Cal, which made them automatically eligible for the IHSS-Plus program. The second round of applications were denied by Riverside County because, according to the county You have not provided sufficient information to establish eligibility or need for services. The notice of action fails to identify the information that the applicant needed to provide. The applicant provided all of the county requested verification. This notice is either a fraudulent statement or an intentional county denial of benefits to an eligible person. It is not a crime for the county to fraudulently deny benefits to an eligible person, but it is a crime if the person fraudulently receive IHSS benefits, a felony if the benefits received exceeds $400. It appears that Riverside County does not want to authorize IHSS, thus, has decided to employ unlawful means to deny benefits to applicants who are eligible. Mr. L. from San Bernardino County called San Bernardino welfare department to apply for CAPI on March 1, 2007. The county mailed him an application packet and gave him until March 12 to turn it in. On March 16, 2007, before the application was received, San Bernardino County issued a notice of action denying Mr. L.’s CAPI application. On March 19, 2007, after San Bernardino County received the application, they refused to process it because it was denied. The notice of action was mailed to a wrong address. As of May 25, 2007, San Bernardino County still sits on Mr. L’s application and refuses to process it. It seems San Bernardino County is a place where applications are denied even when they are not received. Notice of Action from Sacramento County. Mr. A.C. received a notice of action (NOA) from Sacramento County on July 13, 2007 stating that her CAPI benefits were changed from $741 to $375. Here’s why: Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor changed. Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor changed. This is a NA 692 (9\/98) Benefit Change-CAPI-Various reasons Rules: Welfare and Institutions Code: 18937- 18944. Why does the NOA have the same sentence twice? Whose income is it? How much was the income? What kind of income? Earned income? In-kind income? Unearned income? This notice may meet the due process standards in the year 1599 but not in 2007. CCWRO SERVICES AVAILABLE TO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS Types of Services Offered Litigation Co-Counseling Informational Services Research Services In-depth Consultation Training (see below) CCWRO Provides Assistance in the Following Programs CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance\/General Relief, CalWIN, Refugee Benefits & Immigration Problem TRANING PROVIDED FOR 1. WTW Sanction Defense 2. Welfare State Hearings 3. Administrative Writ 4. CalWIN 5. CalWORKS Cutting Edge Issues 6. CalWORKS Basics 7. County and State Advocacy 8. Citizenship Verification ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 August 26, 2010 Issue # 2010-21 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg, David and Diane Aslanian. In an August 19, 2010 memo from FNS a new policy has been re- vealed regarding student eligibility for Food Stamps. This FNS memo is in response to questions raised through Quality Control (QC) reviews related to student eligibility for SNAP ben- efits. Section 6(e) of the Food and Nutrition Act (the Act) of 2008 and Federal regulations at 7 CFR 273.5(a) prohibit students enrolled at least half-time in an institution of higher education from receiving SNAP benefits unless specific ex- emptions are met. These exemp- tions include students who are assigned to, or placed in, an insti- tution of higher education through the SNAP Employment and Train- ing (E&T) Program or an employ- ment and training program for low- income persons operated by a State or local government. Under Federal regulations, an accept- able local or State employment and training program must be at least equivalent to an acceptable SNAP E&T program component. http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/snap\/ rules\/Memo\/2010\/081910.pdf Thus, counties can certify com- munity college attendance as an FSET activity and allow student to receive food stamps. .511 State Hearing (b) Procedures for a state hear- ing are specified in MPP Division 22. Ms. 2010147089 followed the law and asked for a hearing because she disagreed with the county ac- tions proposing the sanction and the terms of the compliance plan. The ALJ dismissed the hearing holding that there was no issue because the county had rescind- ed the proposed sanction. The ALJ was wrong. The regula- tion clearly states that a welfare recipient is entitled to a state hearing anytime he or she be- lieves that any program require- ment or assignment is in viola- tion of, or inconsistent with, state law and regulations governing the Welfare-to-Work Program. MPP 42-721.51. This regulation does not exclude cases where the sanction has been rescinded by the county. Moreover, the only reason the sanction was rescind- ed is because the victim was eco- nomically coerced into agreeing to a compliance plan that she clearly told the ALJ she did not agree with. MPP 42-721.51 does not exclude contesting compli- ance plans in a hearing once the claimant has agreed to the com- pliance plan. Moreover, W&IC 11327.8 also provides a W&IC 10950 hearing to any participant contesting any WtW action or inaction. Ms. 2010147089 requested a timely hearing because she dis- agreed with the proposed sanc- tion and the compliance plan that she signed for Humboldt County. The county proposed to sanction Ms. 2010147089 and scheduled her for a good cause determina- tion appointment. At the appoint- ment she was told that the only way she could avoid the sanction would be to agree to a county drafted compliance plan. Living on a fixed income equal to what CalWORKs recipients received in 1989, and facing more than a 25% cut in that meager fixed income, she signed the com- pliance plan not because she agreed with it, but because the economic consequences were life threatening. She then requested a state hear- ing stating that she disagreed with the proposed sanction and the compliance plan. MPP 42-721.51 states: Except as specified in Section 42- 721.512(b), .512(c), or .512(d), when a participant believes that any program requirement or as- signment is in violation of, or inconsistent with, state law and regulations governing the Wel- fare-to-Work Program, the CWD shall inform him\/her of the right either to request a state hear- ing or to file a formal grievance based on the procedures estab- lished by the county board of su- pervisors. USDA, FNS Policy States Students in Community College May Get Food Stamps DSS Denies Due Process of Law to a Welfare-to-Work Participant Ms. 2010075330’s CalWORKs was terminated due the alleged failure to submit a QR-7 to Kern County. The claimant testified under oath she went Kern County Wel- fare Dept. and personally turned in the QR-7. The county stated that they never received the QR- 7. The county also stated that on 12-12-09 they mailed a Notice of Action terminating benefits for failure to submit the QR-7. The county also testified that they mailed the claimant the Balderas Notice. The county also mailed another notice dated 12\/24\/09. The county presented no evi- CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org August 26, 2010 #2010-021 Page 2 MPP 22-073.36 Moreover, there was no evidence in the hearing decision that Kern County had the proper signage in- forming clients that they can obtain a receipt for verification submitted. The ALJ held that the claimant presented insufficient evidence she turned in her November QR- 7. What is sufficient evidence? She is under oath. She testified under oath that she turned in the November QR-7 in December. There were no findings that her testimony was not credible. Yet she lost. Could it be welfare recipients are guilty until proven innocent? dence that they met the require- ments of MPP 40-181.221 which provides: (QR). MPP 40 181.221 pro- vides When a QR 7 has not been received at the county after the notice of discontinuance has been sent, the county shall at- tempt to make a personal contact with the recipient either by tele- phone or in a face-to-face meet- ing. During the personal contact the county shall remind the recip- ient that a complete QR 7 must be received by the county no later than the first working day of the next QR Payment Quarter. The county failed to provide any evidence that a phone call was made. Thus, the county failed to meet their burden of proof . See County Fails to Meet Its Burden of Proof and Still Prevails Earl Johnson Appointed as Director, Office of Family Assistance, HHS Earl Johnson has been appointed as Director of the Office of Family Assistance, which overses the TANF program. Prior to joining ACF, Earl was senior Policy Advisor to Oakland, California Mayor Ron Dellums, where he was responsible for helping set policy and program goals for the city in the areas of workforce, health and urban affairs. He also worked with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbor- hood Partnerships on fatherhood initiatives. Before serving in Oakland he had significant state and non-profit sector experience, having served as Associate Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the California Health and Human Services Agency, as Associate Director, Working Communities for the Rockefeller Foundation, and as Senior Program Officer for The California Endowment, a private statewide health foundation. Dr. Johnson graduated from the American University in Washington and earned a Master of Arts in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D in Social Welfare from the University of California. He is widely known for his work in developing programs and policy on matters related to TANF and has authored articles on needy family issues. His areas of expertise include poverty and fatherhood, both high priority issues for the Administration and HHS. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 January 18, 2010 Issue # 2011-01 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian DSS Director Appointment Up- date Our sources tell us that there are three people being considered for Director of DSS by Jerry Brown. (1) Current Director John Wagner. John has been the first state welfare director in the past 40 years who has made a significant effort to consider the views of the poor and their advo- cates when formulating state policy. Past Directors only considered the views of the providers of the welfare services the County Welfare Direc- tors and their lobbying organization known as CWDA. The Governor is reported to also be considering Will Lightbourne, current County Welfare Director of Santa Clara County and Rita Saenz, former DSS Director in the Gray Davis Administration. DSS Wants a Three-Year FNS Waiver for Quarterly Reporting- DSS has decided to ask for a three- year extension of its current quar- terly reporting waiver. DSS has been getting waivers for the past three or more years promising to implement Semi-Annual reporting but has not done so. Despite this failure, Cali- fornia has continued to successfully convince the federal government to approve its quarterly reporting waiv- ers. Stay tuned to see if DSS can con- vince FNS again. DSS is Seeking A Waiver of Set In- terview Date and Time for Annual Redetermination- A county has asked DSS to seek a waiver so the county will not have to give the Food Stamp recipients a date and time for their annual redetermination. DSS has asked if there are other counties to would like to get a waiver of giv- ing food stamp recipients a date and In Brief tions would allow recoupment of child support when the payment was not honored by the bank, or if the wrong amount of child support was paid to the parent. Additionally, the emergency regula- tions required repayment of alleged overpayments by voluntary con- sent, presuming consent if the cus- todial parent does not respond to one of three demand letters or by collec- tion action if the custodial parent af- firmatively withholds consent. Without informing the custodial par- ents that they are legally entitled to choose not to agree to recoupment of the alleged overpayment, these let- ters demand that the parent agree to immediate repayment in full, or repayment at rates of 25% or 100% of future child support payments un- til the overpayment is fully repaid. If the custodial parent affirmatively refused to consent to the recoup, DCSS would take other measures to involuntarily recoup an alleged overpayment. After the emergency regulations were approved, DCSS submitted a permanent regulations package. The regulations package was amended to permit the recoupment of spousal support as well as child support. Since DCSS had no such statutory authority to recoup overpayment of child support or spousal support, CCWRO, Legal Services of North- ern California and Public Interest Law Project sent demand letters to DCSS regarding the collection poli- cies and after negotiating for over two months, DCS agreed to with- draw the request for permanent reg- ulations and rescind the emergency regulations. DCSS is now in the process of determining the process to refund the money collected. Department of Child Support Services to Repeal Overpayment Regulations Food Stamp Applications Not Processed in 30 Days time for their annual redetermina- tion. Counties want to use a block time rather than a fixed time. We are not sure how this would work, but one thing we know for sure, this block time is not designed to ac- commodate food stamp recipients. Rather it would result in many re- cipients being terminated from Food Stamps for failure to recertify and be forced to reapply for food stamps. Federal and State law requires that Food Stamp applications be pro- cessed within 30 days. Counties are required to submit quarterly reports of their application processing times. However, from July 2009 through June 2010 Los Angeles County ap- proved 27, 658 application, but re- fused to report how many cases were approved after the 30 days because Los Angeles County system can- not produce the information. There were many counties to reported the percentage of applications approved after 30 days. These delays caused by the county and not by the recipi- ent. Contra Costa 25% late San Diego 24% late Santa Clara 21% late Santa Cruz 21% late On August 2, 2010 Department of Child Support Services submitted a request for emergency regulations allowing the Department of recoup overpayments for child support on the basis of a fiscal computer system emergency. The emergency regula- ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 March 28, 2011 Issue # 2011-04 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org 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, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. Stage 3 Child Care – Last year, the Legislature terminated Stage 3 childcare. The court stopped the cut, but according to county officials many families never got back on Stage 3. Moreover, many families were unable to afford childcare and have ended up on welfare. The State Department of Education is crafting new regulations regarding a va- riety of programs including: Latch Key, Attendance, Timely Payments and Trust line. CDE has a long-standing policy of operating in secrecy and without trans- parency. They have intentionally re- fused to work with representatives of the childcare program consumers, choosing instead to cooperate only with providers. CalFRESH (Food Stamps) At the 2-3-11 CWDA CalFresh Com- mittee Meeting, DSS stated that if the food stamp recipient fails to check the resource box on the QR-7, it is not in- complete for CalFresh. The big ques- tion is how this would affect CalWORKs recipients. Would a failure to check the resource box also mean the QR-7 is not incomplete for CalWORKs? Food Stamp NOA Waiver – Utah received a FNS waiver to send Food Stamp Notices of Action by email. DSS has agreed to distribute the Utah waiver to counties throughout California that are interested in pursuing similar waiv- ers to enable them to send Food Stamp NOAs by email. This is not being al- lowed in California, yet. For advocates, one county that has expressed an interest in the waiver is Los Angeles. Voter Registration – Voter Regis- tration is a hot topic in the office of the Secretary of State. They are revising a manual designated for public agencies. There is a workgroup that is working on this issue. The law provides that voter registration must be offered to all house- holds at application, recertification and when there is a change in address. In Brief Was it necessary to take $690 million out of the mouths of poor women and children? Again, the short answer is no. But it certainly was politically expedi- ent. Simply aligning the CalWORKs work requirement exemption age with the food stamp program work require- ment (e.g. families with children over the age of six (6)) could have saved the $690 million. Amazingly, this seem- ingly reasonable approach was rejected. One can’t help but wonder at the pro- priety of treating the resources used to support the poor as bargaining chips for political popularity. But perhaps that’s the legacy we will leave for future gen- erations. The budget battle is not over. Califor- nians needs to mobilize to protect their most fragile citizens. Currently before state legislators is an initiative to create a June ballot to raise $12 billion in taxes. If this initiative fails, the budget battle will begin anew in June 2011. On the positive side, the ill-conceived CalWORKs so-called long-term re- forms enacted in 2009 were repealed. 2011- 2012 State Budget News The Legislature recently voted to cut CalWORKs benefits to families in need to 1984 levels, without any adjustment for inflation. Both Democrats and Re- publicans voted for this cut. In fact, Governor Jerry Brown proposed reduc- ing benefits to families in need by 13%. Through the serious efforts of the pub- lic benefits advocate community and Democratic Legislators we were able to persuade the Governor, and his to team, to limit the cuts to 8%. The recent CalWORKS cuts ensure that families in need are worse off today than they were 35 years ago. No one can ar- ticulate why, including the Governor, welfare recipients should suffer greater hardship simply because the State of California has mismanaged its fiscal affairs. If we really propose to protect liberty and equality for the citizens of this state, perhaps the employees of the Department of Finance, the Gover- nor’s Office, and the Legislature should have their paychecks reduced to levels present in the mid-1980s. Would they lead by example? The short answer, of course, is no. In contrast to negative stigma of welfare recipients in our state Capital, is the fact that children living in impoverished families contributed $2 billion worth of CalWORKs funds to the California State General Fund is frequently overlooked. Similarly over- looked is the fact that welfare recipients, since 1998, have contributed about $20 billion to the General Fund while living on a fixed income that hasn’t changed in over 20 years. Yet, the California Government has made the assessment the easiest route to financial health and freedom is to write off the poor. As we tighten our belts families in need will go without food, shelter, or even the most basic protections that were previ- ously afforded them. W a s h i n g t o n D. C. N e w s The U.S. House of Representa- tives passed HR 1, which would significantly cut programs serv- ing the poor. Women Infants and Children (WIC) was cut by 10%, the Low Income Energy Assis- tance Program (LIEAP) by 7%, family planning was cut 100%, and Headstart was cut by $1 bil- lion. Meanwhile, those persons falling in the top tax bracket will continue to get their tax relief of $700 billion over the next five (5) years. ”

” amounts will be rolled back even further to 1984 levels. Bank fees and surcharg- es extract about $21 million annually from poor families through EBT cards, thereby giving the banks with about $18 billion dollars in profits. During January of 2011 welfare recipi- ents were charged $44,268.50 just to find out how much money they had in their EBT accounts. Poor families also paid banks $61,846 dollars in transac- tion fees in January of 2011. Finally, banks that made $6 billion in profits during January of 2011 extract- ed $1.5 million from welfare recipients in the form of surcharges. Table #1 shows the money that banks extracted from the California impoverished dur- ing January 2010 and January 2011. Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization have sponsored AB 759 by Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell that would prohibit using surcharges and other fees for using public benefits EBT cards. The banks have vigorously op- posed this bill. The banks believe that they are entitled to take money out of the mouths of children living in impov- erished families to enhance their already bloated profits. On April 26, 2011, the banks prevailed. AB 759 was defeated in the Assembly Human Services Committee. The poor will have to continue to pay about $20 million a year to the banks. But As- sembly Member Holly Mitchell and the sponsors of this bill will keep on fight- ing. Stay tuned. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 May 2, 2011 Issue # 2011-05 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On April 29, 2011, the Brown ad- ministration appointed Will Light- bourne Director for the State De- partment of Social Services. Lightbourne has been hired as an executive-on-loan as part of an agreement between Santa Clara County and the state. This means Lightbourne will retain his $216,611 salary and remain a county employee, but the state will reimburse the county for his salary and benefits package. Lightbourne, 61, has served as Di- rector of the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency since 2000, and was Executive Director of the San Francisco City and County Hu- man Services Agency from 1996 to 2000. Previously, he was the Di- rector of the Santa Cruz County Human Services Agency from 1990 to 1996. From 1975 to 1990, Lightbourne held a number of posi- tions with Catholic Charities in San Francisco, including Chief Execu- tive Officer and General Director. Lightbourne stated his new mis- sion in a recent article in the San Jose Mercury News; Clearly, the Brown administration is serious about doing structural financial re- NEW CDSS DIRECTOR form, without doing the smoke-and-mirrors games, said Lightbourne. He added that he needs to ensure that the ever-growing budget cuts do not threaten the lives of the state’s most vulnerable residents. Another major part of his job, Lightbourne said, will be creating the most ef- fective system of services that peo- ple are going to be able to count on in the future. Lightbourne replaces John Wagner, who on April 29, 2011 was named Acting Director of the Community Services and Development Depart- ment. It used to that be that welfare recipients got a check in the mail and were able to use all of that money to meet the basic survival needs of their families. In the early 2000’s the welfare bu- reaucracy decided that issuing checks was costly, thus, they would distribute benefits on Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. This saved the welfare systems millions of dollars. However, the EBT system also forces welfare re- cipients to pay fees and surcharges to use this new method of accessing their limited fixed public benefits income. Currently, welfare recipients in Cali- fornia are living on 1989 fixed income levels. Effective July 1, 2011 these Report Period Balance Inquiry Fee ATM Transaction Fee ATM Charge January 2010 $45,143 $54,946 $1,517,157 January 2011 $44,268 $61,846 $1,695,983 Percentage of Increase -2% 13% 12% TABLE #1- Money Extraced From Welfare Recipients by Banks BANKS TAKE $21 MILLION FROM WELFARE FAMILIES ”

” STATE BUDGET UPDATE FROM SACRAMENTO The budget battle in Sacramento goes on. The budget conference committee has shut down, but the budget has a long way to go. The conference committee reconciles the differences between the Assembly version of the budget and the Senate version. Below is a description of what the conference committee did that is public in the CalWORKs program. In the final analysis the budget denies impoverished families with needy children a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) enacted into law with the signature of Ronald Reagan for the fourth year in a row. Was denying a COLA to needy children nec- essary to balance the budget? Not really. The 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Bill (also known as TANF) gives California $3.7 billion and required California to put up 80%, which is $2.9 billion, to qualify for the $3.7 billion federal money in 2008-2009. The Republican Congress did not mandate that this money be used for the poor. States do have the option to use it for the non poor under the guise of state flexibility. The 2008-2009 state budget proposes that California will only spend $5.2 billion on poor children living with their parents on CalWORKs. That means a significant amount – $1.4 billion – will not be spent on CalWORKs children and families in 2008-2009. What happens to that money that by all moral standards should be used for impoverished families with children receiving CalWORKs. It goes many places except to the kids who go hungry in the last two weeks of most months in California. Yes. Americans love kids – who are not poor. The Budget does not include any of the mean-spirited Schwarzenegger proposals for anti-family and anti-child full family sanctions. 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 July 14, 2008, Issue #08-07 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Description Assembly Senate Difference Final Action 1. In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) County Admin. Reduction 0 7,700,000 7,700,000 Senate Version 2. Food Stamp Program County Administration Reduction 0 14,371,000 14,371,000 Senate Version 3. Child Welfare Services: Resources Family Pilot Program (AB 340) -179,000 -608,000 429,000 Assembly version of 187 million reduction 4. Suspension of the June 2009 State SSP COLA 0 23,700,000 23,700,000 Assembly Version 5. CalWORKs Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement (WINS) 0 -8,387,000 8,387,000 $2 million in few counties 6. CalWORKs Pre-Assistance (PEARS) 0 691,000 691,000 Conf. Compromise*. 7. CalWORKs Self-Sufficiency Reviews for Sanctioned Cases 0 691,000 691,000 Assembly Version 8. CalWORKs Revised Income Disregard 0 -15,532,000 15,532,000 Assembly Version 9. Eliminate CalWORKs Pay for Performance Incentive Funding 0 10,000,000 10,000,000 Senate Version 10. Reduce County CalWORKs Single Allocation Funding 0 10,300,000 10,300,000 Assembly Version 11. CalWORKs Funding for the CA Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs -5,000,000 0 5,000,000 Assembly Version 12. Eliminate the TANF Reserve 0 0 50,000,000 50,000,000 * – The conference compromise language is still being worked on. The language is intented to provide for a pro- gram that would be agreed to by all stakeholders and comport with federal law. 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 Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” State Form CW-61 Unlawfully Used By Counties State form CW-61 can be found at http:\/\/www.dss.cah- wnet.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/CW61.PDF. This is a state form that CalWORKs applicants or recipients can use to prove they are disabled for eligibility and Wel- fare-to-Work (WtW) purposes. Section 1 of the form requires the applicant or recipi- ent to sign a release of information exposing all medical conditions to county welfare department personnel which is contrary to state law. Applicants and recipients are not given a choice. They are required to sign Section 1 of this form. Often, we have been told, that county personnel who re- ceive a CW-61 from an applicant or recipient will call the doctor and question the diagnosis. Sometimes CalWORKs families are dropped by their doctor as a patient because the doctor was harassed by the county welfare department WtW worker or the Special Investigative Unit, also known as the welfare fraud unit. The second part of the form is the part that the doctor has to complete. Some doctors will only complete forms for a fee. As a result, some applicants or recipients are forced to pay $25 to $75 to have the form completed. Recently, under the public records act request, we re- ceived a written document representing the state policy from DSS which states: In order to qualify for a disability exemption under 42-412.44 the individual must obtain a doctors verifi- cation (in the form of a CW 61) and actively seek treat- ment. If both conditions are not met, the individual would not qualify for the WtW exemption. It also states If the physician will not complete the form, the county may send the client to another doctor There are a number of problems with this policy state- ment. First, there is no 42-412.44. It is 42-712.44 and it provides as follows: .44 Exemption Based on Disability .441 An individual who has a disability is exempt from welfare-to-work participation when the follow- ing conditions exist: (a) The disability is expected to last at least 30 cal- endar days; and (b) The disability significantly impairs the individu- al’s ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. .442 To qualify for this exemption, the individual 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 August 10, 2008, Issue #08-10 shall do all of the following: (a) Provide verification from a doctor as defined in Section 42-701.2(d)(2) that includes the disability, the expected duration of the disability, and the extent to which the disability impairs employment and\/or par- ticipation in the welfare-to-work activities; and (b) Actively seek appropriate medical treatment, as verified by a doctor as defined in Section 42- 701.2(d)(2). .443 The exemption may be reviewed at the time the condition is expected to end, or sooner if there is rea- son to believe that there has been a change in the con- dition. There is no mention of a CW-61 in this regulation. Yet, DSS mandates that counties deny a disability exemption even if the doctor states the person is disabled, however, not on the State’s form CW-61. This policy is unlawful as stated above. It is unlawful to coerce or force impoverished individuals to sign releases of information against their will so that they may receive income to feed, cloth and house their children as provided in MPP 19-007.11 below. MPP 19-007.11 Permission If the applicant or recipient does not wish the county to contact a private or public source in order to deter- mine eligibility, the applicant or recipient shall have the opportunity to obtain the desired information or verification himself or herself. This regulation is supported by ACIN I-91-88 which can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersno- tices\/entres\/getinfo\/acin88\/I-91-88.pdf and it provides … Through legislative process, it has been brought to the at- tention of the Department that there is a potential problem in this area. The authority on this subject is found in MPP 19- 007.1 and 40-157.22. It states that collateral contact should NOT be the first option. An applicant or recipient must first have the option of obtaining the desired information or veri- fication himself or herself without any requirement to use county forms or form letters. If the person does not want to obtain the information, then he or she can request assistance from the county in obtaining the information by signing the county consent form. ( MPP 40-107(a)) In some cases these contacts have had adverse effects on recipients, rang- ing from embarrassment to loss of job. The CW-61 should inform individuals clearly about the choices available when signing the form. Moreover, appli- cants and recipients should be told that the CW-61 is not the only way to provide disability. 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 Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” TANF Update – How much Goes to the Poor? In 1996, the Republican Congress passed and then Pres- ident Clinton signed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). This program was sold as a way to self-sufficiency for welfare families; however, it was actually an historic attack on poor families and chil- dren. How was it supposed to help the poor? Benefits were limited to a five (5) year time limit. It also provided for full family termination of benefits for allegedly not obeying welfare bureaucrats. Women who had just given birth had to enroll their infants in day care centers and forced to join millions of others also looking for the same non- existent jobs that migrated to China. Newborns need their moth- ers and breast-feeding is good for babies, but according the President Clinton and the Republicans, poor babies did not deserve this nurturing care because their mothers were forced into the job market too early. Of course having more people looking for work does benefit a certain segment of our society the corporations, like WallMart, etc. More people in the job pool means more people available for lower paying jobs. Mr. Clinton and those who voted for TANF five (5) year limit were hypocrites in that they never voted to limit 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 August 20, 2008, Issue #08-011 their own public assistance to a five-year limit. Mr. Clin- ton still gets his thousands of dollars in public assistance as a former President, notwithstanding the fact that he is a millionaire. The same is true for all of the Senators and Congresspersons who voted for this TANF bill they are all getting their public assistance in the form of pensions, congressional retirement, etc. States were very excited about having the TANF block grants. They alleged it would give them the flexibility to help poor people. We decided to visit the TANF program ten years later to see how are States helping the poor. In 1996, 84% of the welfare funds were used for payment to families. Ten years later only a meager 29% of the TANF money is used for basic assistance\/paymentgs to families. Where does the money go? The remainder is used for the welfare bureaucracy and to subsidize the general fund of the various states. In California, in the last 10 years TANF has contributed over $10 billion to the General Fund. No won- der States love TANF and the poor hate it. States have harvested billions from the TANF program given the fact that California is the second highest in the country of percentage of the TANF money being used for payments to families. Below is a state-by-state list of percentage of TANF funds used for basic assistance, which is payments to families. 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 Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. * Percentage of total TANF funds used for Basic Assistance\/Payments to Families. 1 ARKANSAS 8.11% * 18 S. CAROLINA 20.51% 35 MISSOURI 29.39% 2 OKLAHOMA 8.75% 19 WISCONSIN 20.63% 36 IOWA 30.74% 3 NEW JERSEY 9.08% 20 LOUISIANA 20.70% 37 PENNSYLVANIA 31.10% 4 ILLINOIS 10.66% 21 MINNESOTA 21.16% 38 KENTUCKY 31.44% 5 GEORGIA 12.11% 22 TENNESSEE 22.42% 39 NEW YORK 31.59% 6 IDAHO 12.46% 23 W. VIRGINIA 22.47% 40 NEVADA 32.98% 7 TEXAS 13.42% 24 UTAH 22.79% 41 MASSACHUSETTS 33.88% 8 WYOMING 13.49% 25 S. DAKOTA 22.84% 42 KANSAS 33.92% 9 FLORIDA 14.77% 26 CONNECTICUT 24.39% 43 RHODE ISLAND 35.78% 10 OHIO 15.43% 27 HAWAII 24.86% 44 ARIZONA 37.12% 11 MISSISSIPPI 15.48% 28 DIST.OF COl. 25.08% 45 WASHINGTON 38.19% 12 N. CAROLINA 15.69% 29 INDIANA 25.63% 46 VIRGINIA 39.47% 13 ALABAMA 17.79% 30 DELAWARE 26.90% 47 NEW MEXICO 40.31% 14 MONTANA 18.34% 31 NEW HAMP. 26.94% 48 VERMONT 42.47% 15 MARYLAND 18.56% 32 ALASKA 27.00% 49 CALIFORNIA 45.60% 16 COLORADO 18.66% 33 OREGON 27.20% 50 MAINE 48.80% 17 N . DAKOTA 19.41% 34 MICHIGAN 29.21% TOTAL 28.99% ”

” 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 August 24, 2008, Issue #08-12 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 Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. San Bernardino County’s Apparent Vio- lation of Food Stamp-Expedited Service Rules. Interim Instruction Notice, IIN #08-062, a county policy issuance instrument of San Bernardino County, has instructed its staff to issue a trouble tick- et and call the matter into the so-called Help Center when the computer incorrectly denies expedited ser- vice food stamps. There is no mention of how to make sure that the three-day expedited service food stamp issuance time line is obeyed. DSS Federal Data Reporting and Analysis Bureau Office Moves. The Federal Data Report- ing and Analysis Bureau has moved to 2450 Del Paso Road, Suite 250, M.S. 20-57, Sacramento, CA 95834. The main number is (916) 515-3525. There are three units located at this new address: Data Transmission and Validation Unit headed by Lee Macias, Trend Analysis headed by Trish Rodriguez and Work Partici- pation Rate Unit headed by Karen Kennedy. County 2006 Federal Work Participation Rates (FWPR) Coming Soon. In a June of 2008 meeting with counties, DSS said that, in July, they would be mailing to counties their annual participa- tion rates for 2006. July has come and gone and still no FWPR numbers from DSS; maybe in September we will find out. DSS will be mailing each county a preliminary FWPR to see what they think before it is final. Someday clients will be able to mail their work- ers a preliminary QR-7 before a final version is mailed. Yeah. Nice dreaming. SB 1569 Clients Eligible For Child Care. On July 10, 2008, Sheila Early of DPSS asked DSS if a family receiving CalWORKs under SB 1569, which is a state-only program, are eligible for Stage One Child Care. On July 22, 2008 DSS responded Yes. If a cli- ent is eligible for, and receiving CalWORKs based on the rules in SB 1569, the client may also be eligible for Stage One child care services. Special Rates for Non-Potty Trained Kids OK. On June 17, 2008, Susan West of Monterey County asked DSS if a provider could have a different rate for children between 3-5 who are not potty trained. On July 23, 2008, DSS responded; There is nothing in the regulation that prohibits a provider from establish- ing a special rate for a child who is not potty trained, as long as the provider is charging other members of the public the same established special rates and it does not exceed the regional market rates. Santa Clara County Does Not Process IEVS Hits on Time. Based on a letter from DSS on 6\/13\/08, Will Lightbourne of Santa Clara County was informed that since April 2006, the county had failed to process 4,172 cases per quarter for six con- secutive quarters. Thus, Santa Clara County is failing to inform clients of potential overpayments within the 45-day time lines established by state and federal regulations. Counties Make Errors in Refugee Cash As- sistance Program. DSS periodically reviews the county refugee assistance programs. In a June 13, 2008 letter, Sacramento County was informed that 8 of the 10 case files reviewed were out of compliance with the state and federal rules. In one case, a refugee who was over 60 years old was forced to register for work when he\/she was exempt. Orange County had 11 cases reviewed and in 5 cases there were problems, such as, not providing applicants with RCA rights and responsibilities in their own language. In another case there were 32 notices of action issued and only two (2) were in the language of the RCA recipient. Statistical Fact The law requires that expedited service Food Stamp benefits (ES-FS) be issued in 3 days. These are house- holds in need of emergency assistance for food. They are hungry kids in many cases and need food to eat. During April 1 through June 30, California counties disposed of 162,995 requests for ES-FS. 92,877 of those requests were denied. 70,118 were granted, but 10,138 those found eligible for emergency food as- sistance were issued such food assistance beyond the three-day time line established by law. That is a 14% violation of the law by counties. There are no penal- ties in the law for counties not providing emergency food to hungry kids. In Brief Source: DSS 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 August 24, 2008, Issue #08-12 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 Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. San Bernardino County’s Apparent Vio- lation of Food Stamp-Expedited Service Rules. Interim Instruction Notice, IIN #08-062, a county policy issuance instrument of San Bernardino County, has instructed its staff to issue a trouble tick- et and call the matter into the so-called Help Center when the computer incorrectly denies expedited ser- vice food stamps. There is no mention of how to make sure that the three-day expedited service food stamp issuance time line is obeyed. DSS Federal Data Reporting and Analysis Bureau Office Moves. The Federal Data Report- ing and Analysis Bureau has moved to 2450 Del Paso Road, Suite 250, M.S. 20-57, Sacramento, CA 95834. The main number is (916) 515-3525. There are three units located at this new address: Data Transmission and Validation Unit headed by Lee Macias, Trend Analysis headed by Trish Rodriguez and Work Partici- pation Rate Unit headed by Karen Kennedy. County 2006 Federal Work Participation Rates (FWPR) Coming Soon. In a June of 2008 meeting with counties, DSS said that, in July, they would be mailing to counties their annual participa- tion rates for 2006. July has come and gone and still no FWPR numbers from DSS; maybe in September we will find out. DSS will be mailing each county a preliminary FWPR to see what they think before it is final. Someday clients will be able to mail their work- ers a preliminary QR-7 before a final version is mailed. Yeah. Nice dreaming. SB 1569 Clients Eligible For Child Care. On July 10, 2008, Sheila Early of DPSS asked DSS if a family receiving CalWORKs under SB 1569, which is a state-only program, are eligible for Stage One Child Care. On July 22, 2008 DSS responded Yes. If a cli- ent is eligible for, and receiving CalWORKs based on the rules in SB 1569, the client may also be eligible for Stage One child care services. Special Rates for Non-Potty Trained Kids OK. On June 17, 2008, Susan West of Monterey County asked DSS if a provider could have a different rate for children between 3-5 who are not potty trained. On July 23, 2008, DSS responded; There is nothing in the regulation that prohibits a provider from establish- ing a special rate for a child who is not potty trained, as long as the provider is charging other members of the public the same established special rates and it does not exceed the regional market rates. Santa Clara County Does Not Process IEVS Hits on Time. Based on a letter from DSS on 6\/13\/08, Will Lightbourne of Santa Clara County was informed that since April 2006, the county had failed to process 4,172 cases per quarter for six con- secutive quarters. Thus, Santa Clara County is failing to inform clients of potential overpayments within the 45-day time lines established by state and federal regulations. Counties Make Errors in Refugee Cash As- sistance Program. DSS periodically reviews the county refugee assistance programs. In a June 13, 2008 letter, Sacramento County was informed that 8 of the 10 case files reviewed were out of compliance with the state and federal rules. In one case, a refugee who was over 60 years old was forced to register for work when he\/she was exempt. Orange County had 11 cases reviewed and in 5 cases there were problems, such as, not providing applicants with RCA rights and responsibilities in their own language. In another case there were 32 notices of action issued and only two (2) were in the language of the RCA recipient. Statistical Fact The law requires that expedited service Food Stamp benefits (ES-FS) be issued in 3 days. These are house- holds in need of emergency assistance for food. They are hungry kids in many cases and need food to eat. During April 1 through June 30, California counties disposed of 162,995 requests for ES-FS. 92,877 of those requests were denied. 70,118 were granted, but 10,138 those found eligible for emergency food as- sistance were issued such food assistance beyond the three-day time line established by law. That is a 14% violation of the law by counties. There are no penal- ties in the law for counties not providing emergency food to hungry kids. In Brief Source: DSS 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 September 28, 2008, Issue #08-16 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 Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. In Brief DSS to move. DSS located at 744 P Street will be moving next door to 714 P Street in mid-October. The 714 P Street building has housed the Department of Health Ser- vices which has relocated to 15th Street and Capitol Ave. AB 1808 second report delayed. AB 1808 man- dating that DSS submit a second report regarding how to meet the federal participation rates has been delayed. DSS has transmitted a letter informing the Legislature of this de- lay. Stay tune. More people working, but no increase in child care. DSS estimates staff is working on the state budget for 2009-2010. In formulating their estimates they have noticed the number of CalWORKs recipients who are working has increased, while the number of families receiving child care has not increased. County justification was that the increase could be two-parent families, etc. The real reason is that child care is not accessible. There are a number of barriers to child care called, Trustline, a fingerprinting requirement for providers before they get paid. Thus, the word is out that the welfare department may not pay for child care. We are concerned that as a result of this Trustline, some children may be left home alone. Child care agencies also hassle exempt providers who want to do child care for less than minimum wage. These kinds of Trustline and refusal to pay retroactive child care legislation have erected barriers to de- prive families access to child care. When would a drug felon convicted after 12\/31\/97 ever be eligible for cash aid again? This is a question posed by a county. DSS issued a policy interpre- tation, dated July 14, 2008, stating that per MPP 40-034, ACL 04-59 and ACIN I-71-99 such person would only be eligible for cash aid again if their record has been ex- punged or the charge has been reduced to a misdemeanor. Vendor\/voucher problems in homeless assistance and WtW sanctions- Some counties have been using ven- dor\/voucher payments for issuing permanent homeless as- sistance directly to landlords and in cases where the family has been in sanction for more than three months. Counties have been in violation of certain IRS rules for a long time. Counties have been chronically violating the IRS Code that requires counties to request a Taxpayer Identification N um- ber (TIN) before issuing rent payments in excess of $600 a year. According to DSS, IRS regulations also provide that rents are subject to a 28% withholding when there is a miss- ing TIN. Check your county to make sure your county is not violating the IRS laws. AB 98 Subsidized Employment Reporting form. DSS is going to publish a reporting form for counties to report AB 98 subsidized Employment Claimed Under AB 98. This is a form regarding a program that was added to the statute in 2007. See W&IC 11322.63. Under this program, the state would reimburse counties 50% of the wages paid to recipients in subsidized employment outside of the county single allocation. The single allocation is the amount of money each county receives annually to operate their WtW program. Yolo County no longer eligible for refugee So- cial Services (RSS) Money. On August 28, 2008, DSS has informed Yolo County that they are no longer eligible for RSS money because of the county’s decreased number of new refugee arrivals. However, the county does not have to return the money they received for 2007-2008 that has not been spent. They have until September 30, 2009 to find a way to spend that money. California asks for $13.6 million for refugee pro- grams in FY 2009. On August 20, 2008, DSS informed HHS that California would need $13,646,996 for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 to serve 1,900 persons and 63 unaccom- panied minors. There are only 23 unaccompanied minors being served today, but California has decided to open an- other site in Southern California to download $4,216.25 for each minor. This includes $1,865 that would be provided to the foster care parents taking care of each unaccompanied minor. $2,351 would be going to people other than the fos- ter care parent. Who may that be? CWD Client Abuse Report LA DPSS Client Abuse: Ms. T.K. mailed a letter to her worker asking to close her case because she was being harassed by welfare fraud workers. She then changed her mind and wanted to continue to receive her cash aid. She tried to reach her worker to no avail before the end of the month. She then filed for a state hearing before the end of the month and is getting aid paid pending. DPSS is now insisting that the termina- tion of CalWORKs should go into effect, even if she changed her mind, and if she wants CalWORKs she needs to reapply. DPSS is trying to saddle her with an Aid Paid Pending overpayment. ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/402): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” 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 October 29, 2008 Issue #08-20 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 Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Food Stamp Expedited Service in California On July 21, 2006, legal services attorneys Julie Aguilar, Jodie Berger and Bill Kennedy of LSNC, and Grace Gal- ligher of CCWRO filed a CCP 1085 Writ of Mandate action against the Department of Social Services and the Sacramento County Welfare Department (DHA) for not issuing expedited service food stamp benefits on time as required by MPP 63- 301.5. Prior to filing the litigation LSNC and CCWRO had mailed several letter complaining about the fact that DHA is not meeting the state law mandating that food stamp expe- dited service (FS-ES) benefits be issued in three days. Expedited Services for Food Stamps is available to any household who at the time of application: (1) has less than $150 of regular income; (1) less than $100 in liquid resourc- es; (3) who combined income and resources is less than their monthly rent and utility costs. Such households are entitled to food stamp benefits within three (3) calendar days. See State Regulation MPP 63-301.5. Each time DHA got a letter they would write and say that they going to take certain measures that never resulted in long-term compliance with the law. At the insistence of the eligible clients and the primary local charity known as Sacramento Loaves and Fishes, a law suit was filed. After the lawsuit DHA started to take effective and mean- ingful steps to resolve this problem. The county started to schedule appointments for FS-ES households the next working day and issuing ES. FS-ES is identified at the window. There are some applica- tion assistants who help the applicants with their applications. Sacramento County has also decided to get new scheduling software to meet the FS-ES and CalWORKs immediate need standards. At this time Sacramento is barely at 95%. The major force behind this lawsuit was the lead attorney Julie Aguilar with the invaluable support of Jodie Berger and Grace Galligher. DSS published quarterly reports showing how each county and the state are meeting the FS-ES standards as required by state law. Some of the large counties that are way out of compliance and crying for litigation are Alameda, Los An- geles, Sonoma, Tulare, Fresno, Santa Clara, and the State of California. CCWRO is willing to work with any Legal Services Of- fice contemplating doing litigation to bring their county into compliance and assure that people do not suffer from hunger due to county violation of state law. The data can be found at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG354.htm. The table below reveal the percentage of households whose FS-ES benefits for Public Assistance households were issued beyond the three (3) day time frame for timely issuance of FS-ES ben- efits. January – April, 2008 Statewide 40.08% Alameda 75.59% Humboldt 80.00% Shasta 74.42% Sonoma 73.68% Los Angeles 61.08% Solano 60.67% Tulare 56.92% Santa Barb. 50.00% Fresno 49.32% San Luis Ob 48.00% San Fran. 47.83% Yolo 47.37% Santa Clara 46.05% Imperial 41.38% Orange 39.29% Santa Cruz 38.33% Placer 35.14% October-December, 2007 Statewide 42.92% Alameda 69.59% Humboldt 90.00% Los Angeles 64.01% Tulare 61.68% Solano 60.00% Sonoma 58.49% Placer 56.76% Santa Clara 47.67% Fresno 45.95% Santa Barbara 40.00% San Mateo 37.93% Contra Costa 37.86% Imperial 37.50% Orange 35.85% Shasta 31.25% San Luis Ob. 31.03% Sacramento 30.86% April-June, 2008 Statewide 36% Shasta 90% Sonoma 84% Alameda 74% Imperial 67% Los Angeles 62% Solano 57% Tulare 53% Nevada 50% Santa Barbara 50% Santa Cruz 49% Santa Clara 44% San Luis Ob. 41% Fresno 40% San Francisco 38% Yolo 38% San Mateo 36% July-September, 2007 Statewide 47.65% Alameda 71.65% Sonoma 80.43% Humboldt 80.00% Tulare 69.16% Los Angeles 68.67% Solano 59.78% Imperial 54.24% Kings 53.33% Sacramento 50.89% Placer 46.84% Yolo 46.15% Contra Costa 42.64% Santa Barbara 40.00% Orange 38.30% Santa Clara 37.76% Shasta 36.84% Fresno 33.71% San Luis Ob. 33.33% San Mateo 30.77% ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 6, 2009 Issue 09-18 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Administration for Children and Families. She worked for the Clinton Administra- tion and has a master’s in social work. l Eskinder Negash has been appointed to be Direc- tor of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the HHS, ACF. He worked on behalf of refugees and immigrants for over thirty years. He currently serves as Vice President and Chief Op- erating Officer of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI). l On May 14, 2009, Charr Lee Metsker, Deputy Director for the DSS WtW Division requested a new food stamp waiver USDA, FNS. This waiver would allow a household (HH) to provide any needed in- formation and\/or verifica- tion within the month fol- lowing discontinuances to have their benefits resored without a new application and the certification period would not change. A similar waiver was granted to Wis- consin in August of 2007. worked in the welfare sys- tem for Virginia, Delaware and Puerto Rico. She re- ceived her Master in Social Work in 1973. l David A. Hansell, worked as the Commis- sioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance has been named Principal Secretary of HHS Admin- istration of Children and Families (ACF). He worked for Gay Men’s Health Cri- sis. He also worked as As- sociate Commissioner for HIV Services at the New York Department of Health. He was an Adjunct Assis- tant Professor at the New York University Wagner School of Public Services. He graduated from Yale Law School. l Joan Lombardi, who worked for the Clinton Ad- ministration, has been ap- pointed Deputy Assistant Secretary and Inter-De- partmental Liaison for Ear- ly Childhood Development for HHS, ACF. l Shannon Rudisill has been appointed to be Asso- ciate Commissioner of the Child Care Bureau in the IN BRIEF l State offices will be closed every first, second and third Friday of the month – a new Order by millionaire Arnold Schwarzenegger. This means state employees will face a 14% wage cut, but he can continue to raise money and swim in his mil- lions. Why should he care? He’s a millionaire. l According to the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman Medicare spends 3% on the administrative costs, while the free enter- prise, capitalistic profit mak- ing health care companies spend 14%. It is clear that profit making medical pro- viders spend more on bu- reaucracy- which is why Republicans support the bu- reaucracy. l Carmen Nazario has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary for HHS, ACF. Her nomination is sub- ject to Senate approval. She worked for the Clinton Administration. She also CCWRO Welfare News \u2029 \u2029 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – October 12, 2009 Issue 09-25 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In- Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Welfare recipients contribute $1.3 billion to California’s general fund- No COLA and a host of cuts in the 2009-2010 budget In the 2009-2010 budget battle, welfare recipients lost their COLA and had their benefits cut by 4%. Fixed incomes of California’s poor families are currently at the same level as in 1988. Thousands of poor families will be having a terrible Thanksgiving, a miserable Christ- mas and a not so happy New Year. CCWRO Welfare News While fixed incomes of welfare recipients have been going backwards, resulting in wide- spread hunger and misery, the California General Fund has gobbled up $14 billion meant for California’s poor families. See Chart # 1. Home Visitation Federal Bill Recipient Position This year, Congress is consid- ering S.1267 and H.R. 2667, Early Support for Families Act proposals. These bills allocate $2 billion over 5 years for so- cial workers to do home visits to homes of low-income preg- nant women and low-income families with young children who volunteer for a home visitation. The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization (CCWRO) is a statewide orga- nization working for the best interest of poor families and children. We have been work- ing for poor families for over four (4) decades. We are concerned about monies spent on proposals such as S.1267 and H.R.2667 which provide funds for bu- reaucrats instead of providing poor families with adequate benefit levels. Since 2007, 1,760 children have died from alleged abuse and neglect. We do not con- done sexual and physical CHART #1 Fiscal Year TANF Dollar Contribution to the CA State Gen. Fund 1998-1999 $745,249,000.00 1999-2000 $1,021,913,000.00 2000-2001 $1,126,647,000.00 2001-2002 $1,088,940,000.00 2002-2003 $1,088,940,000.00 2003-2004 $1,088,940,000.00 2004-2005 $1,087,321,000.00 2005-2006 $1,299,448,000.00 2006-2007 $1,184,134,000.00 2007-2008 $1,745,291,000.00 2008-2009 $1,268,997,000.00 2009-2010 $1,299,314,000.00 Total TANF Contribution to the California General Fund to date – $13,738,994,000.00 abuse, but we do find that neglect is a direct result of poverty which has affected the millions of low-income Ameri- can family since the passage of the TANF legislation in 1996. Many of the provisions of TANF allows the National Association of Public Child Welfare Admin- istrators (NAPCWA) members who support S.1267 and H.R. 2667, to commit child neglect. These policies often resulting in child neglect are: a. Full family sanctions im- posed by welfare administra- tors represented by NAPCWA. b. Spending less than 30% of the TANF funds for family assistance and skimming the remaining 70% for bureaucratic spending and balancing state budgets. (Since the inception of TANF, California has used over $13 billion of TANF funds as a contribution the State General Fund). Prior to TANF, 70% of AFDC, (the predessor of TANF) spend- ing were payments to families to make sure families and children were not subjected to neglect due to poverty. c. Limiting TANF’s meager benefits to 2-5 years, then terminating all TANF benefits to families in many cases. d. Imposing full family sanc- tions upon families who failed to participate in NAPCWA member workfare programs due to lack of childcare and ccwro.org CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org October 12, 2009 #2009-25 Page 2 reaucrat going to do for a family whose heat has been terminat- ed for lack of funds? NAPCWA lobbyist and child welfare bureaucrats may allege that they do not remove chil- dren for being poor, but the vic- tims of the child welfare system know better. This is especially true in states like California, New York, Wisconsin as well as many other states. The MYTHS about Child Protective Services. MYTH #1. States have to provide reasonable efforts to keep the family together before children are removed. TRUTH – The states do not provide any verifiable reason- able efforts to keep the family together. Social workers never state under penalty of perjury that they have done so. More- over, the U.S. Supreme Court in Sutter v. Artist M., 503, 347 (1992) held that states cannot be required to obey this law in Federal Court because Con- gress has not stated that par- ents can enforce this law in the federal courts. Well-financed lobbyists like NAPCWA are no competition for poor families with no lobbyists, so families cannot enforce their right to reasonable efforts before their children are removed in federal courts. MYTH #2. Parents have legal representation. TRUTH The legal represen- tation that parents generally receive borders on malpractice. The lawyers encourage parents to submit to the false allega- tions of the social workers and agree to a reunification plans that are never family friendly. MYTH #3. Parents are given 12 to 24 months to reunify. TRUTH The reunification plan transportation. Full family sanc- tion means terminated all cash aid to the family for allegedly not participating in the state work- fare program. NAPCWA states that in 2007 there were 3.2 million cases of alleged neglect of children. Of course, when food stamps run out and there is no money for food because the family has been subjected to full fam- ily sanction, and with welfare payments far below 40% of the poverty level, what can one expect? What does NAPCWA suggest when a family is home- less in January or the heating bill cannot be paid because the family were subject to full-family sanction or have timed out? Now NAPCWA and their sup- porters are seeking $2 billion for five years to launch a home visi- tation program that we believe would result in stealing babies and small kids from parents who are victimized by the TANF anti- family policy options of NAPC- WA member States. Very little of that $2 billion, if any, would be devoted to payments to families. 4 What good is a welfare bu- reaucrat going to do for a fam- ily who has run out of food and cannot feed his or her children? 4 What good is a welfare bu- reaucrat going to do for a family who has timed out from TANF and lives in 10% or more unem- ployment area? 4 What good is a welfare bu- reaucrat going to do for a fam- ily who has been subject to full family sanction because they could not reach their welfare bureaucrat to report that they couldn’t make their appointment because their children were sick. 4 What good is a welfare bu- forced upon parents are not achiev- able given the fact that the parents are in deep poverty. There is no federal law mandating that States pay for parents’ transportation to the service providers outlined in the alleged reunification plan. Parents often have no transporta- tion to visit their children and social workers often do not allow visits, thus, breaking up families. Social workers have been known to write reports that the parent did not visit the children and intentionally delete the economic reasons for the non visitation. 70% percent of persons in U.S. prisons are products of the foster care system. Kids are ripped from their families, and when they be- come 18-19 years old, they are turned loose without any family support or safety net. CONCLUSION This proposed visitation program is allegedly voluntary. However what this $2 billion will do is give social workers the opportunity to enter the homes of poor families under the threat of removing the children if the parent does not volunteer for the visit. Once the social workers have entered the house, they can easily build a case for neglect given the poverty of the families. Children will be removed, families will be broken up in many cases, and the babies and smallchildren will be adopted out. There is no provision in this bill that 70% of the funds shall be used as payments to families address- ing problems such as no food, no home, no heat, no water, no elec- tricity, no clothing, which are the primary causes of neglect. Only 30% or less of the $2 billion should be used to pay for welfare bureaucrats. In fact, we would submit, that this program should be run by volunteers, whose sole interest is to help poor families – not spot babies and young children for adoption. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 – October 19, 2009 Issue 09-26 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In- Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief l United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is in the final stages of publishing a new fee waiver form and guidance that would waive filing fees for numerous immigration forms for persons who are receiving federal or state means tested benefits or whose income is below the poverty level for their household size. Persons whose in- come and expenses are about the same may also get a fee waiver. l Sacramento County is re- fusing to pay for supportive ser- vices to Ms. L.R. (BG17592) for the month of September, yet the county is demanding that she sub- mit a monthly WtW activity report for the same month. She submit- ted her report, but supportive ser- vices have not been paid by Sac- ramento County for September. l The Welfare Director for Santa Clara County has been authorized by the County Board of Supervi- sors to do a sole source con- tract with InTelegy Corporation for $500,000 to design and imple- mentation of a Centralized Call Center model and related intake, and ongoing eligibility program processes, including the modifica- tions of the centralized Integrated Document Management System for the Department of Employment and Benefits Services l A 7-14-09 letter from Butte County con- firms that the county is in violation of several civil rights violations and is undertaking cor- CCWRO Welfare News rective action, such as fail- ure to have directional sig- nage in the lobby in English, Spanish and Hmong among other civil rights violations. Quarterly Reporting v. Semi-Annual Reporting – FNS Waiver Hurts The Poor On September 22, 2009, FNS informed DSS that their re- quest for a four (4) year waiver to continue quarterly reporting (QR) system with a requirement that recipients report changes that federal regulations do not otherwise require, will come to halt on March 31, 2010. FNS urged DSS to adopt semi- annual reporting that most states have been doing. This letter was issued by FNS at the urging of food stamp advocates, lead by the California Food Policy Advocates, because it would be beneficial to the poor of California in need of food assistance. CCWRO strongly supports ending this anti-family and anti-child federal waiver. QR REDUCES STATE ERROR RATE – Several years ago Cali- fornia actually faced penalties (Con’t on page 2, col. 1) ccwro.org WHO SUPPORTS THE ABOLITION OF THIS FEDERAL FOOD STAMP REPORTING WAIVER ? (Parial List) Aleta Cruel, Executive Director, Compton Welfare Rights Organization Amanda Davis, Family Services Case Manager, Ocean Park Community Center Amy Scott, Food Pantry Coordinator, Friends In Deed Amy Tam, Youth Services Program Specialist, You- ThinkAngeles Angie Cooper, Research Scientist, Public Health Institute Anne Holcomb, Executive Director, Food for People Antoinette Nelson, Food Pantry Coordinator, First African Methodist Episcopal Church Los Arturo Ybarra, Executive Director, Watts\/Century Latino Organization Authur G. Kinslow, President, Christ Temple Church of Pomona Barbara Williams, Social Worker Beth Abrams, President, Beth Abrams’ Center for Peace, Arts, Justice, and the Environment Carl R. Hansen, Executive Director, Food Bank Co- alition of San Luis Obispo County Carol Lazarovits, Outreach Coordinator, St. John Vianney Church Cathy Mason, Office Manager, Trinity Baptist Church Chuch Huston, Director, The AIDS Food Store, Inc. Colleen Rivecca, Advocacy Coordinator, St. An- thony Foundation Dana Wilkie, CEO, Community Food Bank David Cox, Executive Director, St. Joseph’s Fam- ily Center David Goodman, Executive Director, Redwood Empire Food Bank Deborah Waxman, Community Education and Out- reach Coordinator, Food for People Douglas Ferraro, Executive Director, Hope-Net Eileen MacKusick, Lead Dietitian, Watsonville Community Hospital Frank Tamborello, Director, Hunger Action LA Fred Summers, Director of Operations, SOVA Food & Resource Program, Jewish Family Frederick Brown, Program Operations Manager, California Institute of Health & Social Services Gary Romriell, Food Bank Manager, Community Action Partnership of Kern George LeBard, Executive Director, Project MANA George Manalo-LeClair, Senior Legislative Advo- cate, California Food Policy Advocates Gianna Muir Robinson, Disaster Relief Coordina- tor, Jewish Family Service of San Diego H. Eric Schockman, President, MAZON: A Jew- ish Response to Hunger Hallie Roth, Case Management Supervisor, Jew- ish Family Service of San Diego Healthcare Helen Anderson, Treasurer, Orange County Hun- ger Coalition Ilene Leiter, CEO, Kings’ Care A Safe Place, Inc. Janice Maseda, Director, Lutheran Social Ser- vices Los Angeles California welfare industry has been acting as if the waiver is crucial to quarterly reporting. If the waiver is gone, the QR system in Califronia will continue without the anti-poor provisions of the waiver. Con’t on page 2, col. 3 CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org October 19, 2009 #2009-26 Page 2 posed to take action on the report. 7 CFR 273\/12(a)(4)(vi) Chang- es reported outside of the quar- terly report. The State agency must act on any changes re- ported outside of the quar- terly report in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. DSS WANTS TO CONTINUE THE BAD WAIVER – However, DSS did not want to give up on the punitive reporting process completely. They were able to get waivers from the federal government to allow the state to still force families to report changes that were not mandat- ed by federal law, such as cer- tain amount of income, address change, etc. Thus, it maintains some of the punitive features of the monthly reporting, but reduc- es the state error rates by 75%. It was a win-win for the welfare bureaucracy and damaging for recipients. The waiver was ap- proved in 2003 and it is still in effect until March 31, 2010. WAIVER IS NOT NEEDED TO CONTINUE QR IN CALIFOR- NIA – California welfare industry has been acting as if the waiver is crucial to quarterly reporting. If the waiver is gone, the QR sys- tem in California will continue without the anti-poor provisions of the waiver. In reality, the waiver is crucial to DSS and counties so they can continue to terminate im- poverished families with children from food benefits because they do not have an address to report during the non-reporting months and for other reasons. Thou- sands of children have experi- enced hunger due to this waiver. The 9-22-09 letter informs Cali- fornia that they can adopt a semi-annual reporting system or continue with quarterly re- porting without a waiver. This is good news for the low-in- come community of California. Jeff Dronkers, Chief Programs and Policy Officer, Los Angeles Regional Foodbank Jenn Sramek, Board President, Haight Ashbury Food Pro- gram Jennifer Tracy, Food Stamp Outreach Coordinator, San Diego Hunger Coalition Joni Halpern, Esq., Director, Supportive Parents Informa- tion Network, Inc. Joyce Hutson, Program Manager, Greater Richmond In- terfaith Program Kathleen Harmon, Executive Director, Interfaith Council of Amador Ken Hecht, Executive Director, California Food Policy Advocates Kevin Aslanian, Ex. Dir. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc Lane Tobias, Activist\/Community Blogger, Mother Earth\/ OBrag.org Laurie True, Executive Director, California WIC Associa- tion Lisa Perry, Director, Connections of Hope\/ERG Commu- nity Services Lisa Sherrill, Community Relations Manager, Food Bank of Contra Cost and Solano Luis M. Lozano, Executive Director, The Beacon House Association of San Pedro Lynis Chaffey, Executive Director, Inter-Faith Ministries Lynn Kersey, Executive Director, Maternal and Child Health Access Mable Everette, President\/CEO, Community Nutrition Education Magud Franco, Office Administrator, Inglesia Apostolica Manantial de Vida Mara Schoner, President, Neighbor2Neighbor Marc Ross, Nutritional Specialist, Downtown Women’s Center Maria G. Orozco, Community Referral Specialist, Chula Vista Community Collaborative Marie M. Mugan, Administrative Services, Little Sisters of the Poor Mark Lowry, Co-Chair, Orange County Hunger Coalition Marla Feldman, California Program Director, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger Mary Agnes Erlandson, Center Director, St. Margaret’s Center\/Catholic Charities of Los Mary Ann Kelly, RD, Consultant Dietitian, Dietitian of the Desert Mary Buckley, Executive Director, Plowshares Maya Hagege, Project Assistant, South LA Healthy Eating Active Communities Merle Preston, Access to Care Manager Community Healthy Programs, Neighborhood Mike Mallory, CEO, Second Harvest Food Bank of San Joaquin & Stanislaus Counties Nancy Tivol, Executive Director, Sunnyvale Community Services Natalie Caples, Nutrition Education Coordinator, Com- munity Food Bank Olga De Jesus, Program Coordinator Failure to Thrive Program, Harbor UCLA Medical Center Pantry Pastor Roger R. Kuehn, Pastor of Church Administrator of Food Pantry, Antioch Food Closet Paul Ash, Executive Director, San Francisco Food Bank Paul Bellerjeau, Director of Programs, Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz County Paul S. Castro, CEO, Jewish Family Service of Los An- geles Phil Huisman, Administrator, Shepherd’s Pantry Rabbi Marvin Gross, CEO, Union Station Homeless Ser- vices Reverend Will Wauters, Vicar, The Episcopal Church of the Epiphany Robert V. Shear, Executive Director, Mid Valley Recovery Services Rosa Murillo, Coordinator, St. Josephs God Parents Sandy Rechtschaffen, Social Justice Coordinator, Congre- gation Emanu-El Services of Los Angeles Shelly Hahne, Hand Up Youth Pantry Coordinator, Jewish Family Service Hand Up Youth Food Sonia Pereira, Dual Diagnosis Case Manager, Ocean Park Community Center Access Center Sue Sigler, Executive Director, California Association of Food Banks Susanna Sibilsky, Community Consultant, Sibilsky & As- sociates Trish Ribail, Executive Director, Imperial Valley Food Bank Victoria Beeher, Advocate, Mental Health Systems Building Bridges Together due to their high food stamp error rate. The State had to pay millions to the federal gov- ernment due to the inefficient administration of the Califor- nia Food Stamp program. The reason the error rate was so high was due to the fact that California was still us- ing the 20th century monthly reporting system put in place by Governor Reagan in the 1970. This means every month there was a monthly report and each month that the report contained an error, it contributed to the error rate. AB 444 IMPLEMENTS QR AND ERROR RATES GOES DOWN BY 75%. In order to reduce the error rate DSS decided to adopt a quarterly reporting system. It was con- tained in a budget trailer bill ( AB 444 of 2001-2002), that never went to a committee hearing. It also authorized DSS to seek federal waivers. This would automatically reduce the error rate by 75%. Rather than having 12 errors a year, there were now only 4 errors a year. The California error rate has gone down and California is no longer paying penalties to the federal government. FNS WAIVER – According to federal regulations quarterly reporting can only require a re- port four times a year. In fact the federal regulations state: 7 CFR 273\/12(a)(4)(vii) Sole reporting requirement. The quarterly report form shall be the sole reporting require- ment for any information that is required to be reported on the form, except that able- bodied adults subject to the time limit of 273.24 shall report whenever their work hours fall below 20 hours per week, averaged monthly. If a recipient reports a change voluntarily during the mid- quarter, then the county is sup- ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 www.ccwro.org July 23, 2010 Issue #2010-18 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Thousands of childcare providers are being denied payments for their labor because their employers sub- mitted the childcare claim form be- yond the 30-day time lines imposed by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1323.3. The State condi- tions child care payments upon the submission of a claim form that is not even readily accessible to the child care provider or the welfare recipient. W&IC 11323.3(b)(4) states that DSS shall have a form which pro- vides the following information to the applicant or recipient: (4) The recipient is required to request a child care subsidy from the county within 30 days from the first day child care services are received from each different provider, to be fully reimbursed for child care services. The form provides: I understand that I need to request paid child care within 30 calendar days from the first day I received services from my provider. This way, my child care provider can be paid for the services s\/he provides to me. The statute does not require DSS to inform child care recipients on how to request child care. In fact, there is a form (CCP-2145) that is used to request child care, but it is not easily accessible to welfare parents. There are immense barriers between form CCP-2145 and the childcare window and was told to wait. She continued waiting. After 4-5 hours she went home. She never received a Notice of Action about the dis- position of her entitlement to Cal- WORKs Immediate need or Expe- dited Service Food Stamps. Finally, on 7\/21\/10, she had a face-to-face interview. Sacramento County denies a 2008 Medi-Cal application in 2010. Mr. B3004524 received a Notice of Action from Sacramen- to County on 5\/8\/10 denying his 06\/26\/2008 Medi-Cal application. The notice even explained why it was denied. Your property is above the allowable limit. The limit is $3,600 Los Angeles County refuses to conduct an annual rede- termination of a working mom, then terminates her benefits. Ms. T48559D, of Los Angeles County, came in for her yearly redetermination on 6\/2\/10. She took the day off of work to make this appointment. After wait- ing four hours she was told her worker wasn’t in. A new appoint- ment for June 24th was given. On June 24th Ms. T48559D took an- other day off work and waited four hours only to be told her worker, once again, wasn’t there. On this day, a worker of the day (WOD) took pity on her, helped her com- plete her yearly redetermination and placed it on her worker’s desk. recipient. First you must reach your worker during their phone hours (usually during the recipient’s work hours and the calls are often not re- turned). When the recipient does reach the worker he\/she is given an appointment to meet with the work- er. Then the recipient must take time off work to go to the appointment. There is no regulation that provides for three (3) months of child care request forms if a person identifies their need for child care, The system was never meant to help people get child care, it was designed to find ways to pay child care providers as little as possible. Many are denied child care because they failed to attend their child care orientation. Often, these orientations conflict with their work schedules. If they want child care, they must take time off of work endangering their employment. Applicants in need of emer- gency assistance get an in- terview after 47 days. Ms. C.L. who was homeless, penniless and foodless, applied for welfare in Sacramento County on 6\/4\/10. After waiting 2 hours, she went up to the Making Less than Minimum Wage Child Care Provider Is Denied Payments County Client Abuse Report Ms. T48559D thought she had fi- nally assured her continued aid in July. LA County thought otherwise. Ms. T48559D was discontinued on July 1st for failure to complete her yearly redetermination. After two appointments where her work- er failed to appear, after waiting four hours on two occasions, after missing two days of work and af- ter completing the redetermination anyway, Ms. T48559D was ille- gally discontinued. Ms. T48559D attempts to clear up this situation were useless as South Family Dis- trict #31 refused to communicate with her. The Deputy District Di- rector went so far as to claim Ms. T48559D had been contacted on July 8th to set up a third redeter- mination appointment. No call was placed to Ms. T48559D on July 8th nor were the multiple messages left on her workers phone responded to. Eventually, the completed redeter- mination was found on the work- ers desk after two weeks of ignored phone calls and no July aid for Ms. T48559D. Perhaps if South Family District #31 showed more concern about the time and needs of their recipients Ms. T48559D would not have been made to suffer need- lessly in this manner. Ms. T48559D is very fortunate that she has an understanding boss who did not fire her for spending so much at the welfare office needlessly. Welfare to Work is a program designed to CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org July 23, 2010 #2010-018 Page 2 make welfare recipients self-suffi- cient endangering their continued employment when we have 5 people for one job in California is not pro- moting self-sufficiency. Sacramento County refuses to Issue Emergency Assistance- has the security guard remove the victim from the welfare of- fice. Ms. L.C., of Sacramento Coun- ty, applied for cash aid, food stamps and Medi-Cal on 7\/9\/10 and was giv- en an appointment for July 12th. On the 12th she had most of the required verification. She did not have her birth certificate or her son’s. However, the county was in possesion of these birth certificates when she was previously on aid. Moreover, the Medi-Cal sys- tem had her birth certificates through the SSN Match system. She also did not have her SSN card, but had the number. On the 7\/12 she was told that her food stamps had been approved. Yet, to date, she has not received them. She returned to DHA V-100 on July 20th. She was handed a Notice of Action denying Immediate Need. The IN denial was due to a failure to coop- erate with child support (she claims good cause due to domestic violence) and for not having proof that she ap- plied for a SSN. She already had so- cial security numbers and the county is more than capable of verifying her SSN on the applicant IEVS screen. She is ill and needs Medi-Cal to get medical treatment, but DHA refuses to give her a Medi-Cal Card or ap- prove her Medi-Cal. When she went to the window to complain that the County was violating her rights she was escorted out of V-100 of by the sheriffs. Who we are The Coalition of California Wel- fare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) has been providing ad- vocacy in the public benefits field since the early 1980s. CCWRO is a statewide nonprofit organization that provides back-up services to qualified legal service field pro- grams funded by the Legal Ser- vices Trust Fund Commission and and pro-bono attorneys referred to CCWRO by such legal services field programs. CCWRO provides consultation, information, training and represen- tation on issues relating to public benefit programs such as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) aka CalWORKs\/TANF, Refugee Assistance, Medi-Cal, Welfare Employment Programs, Food Stamps, General Assistance, Cash Assistance Program for Im- migrants (CAPI) and SSI. Attached is a pdf copy of the latest CCWRO 2010 Public Assistance Table. You can also find a copy at: ccwro.org ”