Public Benefits Legislative Testimony & Bill Analysis

” [image: ] SNAP Beneficiary Impact Statement FNS proposed regulations entitled Revision of Categorical Eligibility in SNAP JULY 24, 2019 – VOLUME 84, NO. 142, Page 35570-35581 Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director Daphne Macklin, Research Analyst Coalition of California welfare Rights Organizations 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Phone: 916-712-0071 Email: [email protected] Web Page: ccwro.org September 23, 2019 Executive Summary The proposed regulation herein is an attempt: \uf05b\uf020to circumvent the regular order and implement an illegal policy, rejected by Congress, that would increase administrative costs (more money for the bureaucracy); \uf05b\uf020to violate our laws in that a similar proposal was rejected by Congress; \uf05b\uf020to make it more difficult for nutritionally challenged persons to receive food assistance; \uf05b\uf020to take away state flexibility and impose a federal rule thinking that one size fits all; \uf05b\uf020to violate one of the many Trump promises for every new regulation, the Trump administration promised to repeal two (2) federal regulations. DATE: 9-23-2019Public Law 115-334- Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 Rejection of Modifying SNAP Categorical Eligibility Rule House Report 115-661 SEC. 4006. UPDATE TO CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY. Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended\u2014 (1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a)\u2014 (A) by striking ”receives benefits” and inserting ”(1) receives cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services”, (B) by striking ”supplemental security” and inserting ”with an income eligibility limit of not more than 130 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), (2) is elderly or disabled and receives cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) with an in- come eligibility limit of not more than 200 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), (3) receives supplemental security”, and (C) by striking ”or aid” and inserting ”or (4) receives aid”, and (2) in subsection (j)\u2014 (A) by striking ”or who receives benefits” and inserting ”cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services” and (B) by striking ”to have” and inserting ”with an income eligibility limit of not more than 130 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), or who is elderly or disabled and receives cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) with an income eligibility limit of not more than 200 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), to have”. H. Report 115-1072 (Conference Report) (25) Update to categorical eligibility The House bill amends section 5(a) and 5(j) of the FNA such that categorical eligibility may only be used in instances where a beneficiary is receiving either cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services such as transportation, childcare, counseling, or other services funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act with an income eligibility limit of not more than 130 percent (200 percent for elderly or disabled) of the poverty line. (Section 4006) The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision. The Conference substitute deletes the House provision. FROM: Kevin Aslanian & Daphne Macklin of CCWRO [image: ] TO: Trump Administration, USDA,FNS SUBJECT: Docket ID Number [FNS-2018-0037] Revision of Categorical Eligibility in SNAP It is with great disappointment that we have to respond to proposed regulations from the Trump Administration after we heard Trump say: One of the very first actions of my administration was to impose a two-for-one rule on new federal regulations. We ordered that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. The people in the media heard me say that during the campaign many, many times. As a result, the never-ending growth of red tape in America has come to a sudden screeching and beautiful halt. The proposed regulation does not reveal which the two (2) regulations FNS would repeal for this one? Did the President LIE? As is true of many policies of this administration, the cruelty is the point. The Department proposes to substantially limit categorical eligibility for food stamps in a way that targets recipients who do not fit its definition of the deserving poor. The new rules will harm older Americans who are asset rich and cash poor, disabled Americans who cannot participate in work programs, students, and others who may need the food stamp program for short term support, such as unemployed people engaged in job hunting. In doing so, the Department ignores the high levels of food insecurity among these populations, ensuring that more Americans will fall through the cracks and go hungry because of this cruel policy. College students, for instance, experience very high levels of food insecurity. One recent study showed that up to 48% of community college students and 41% of university students have experienced food insecurity. In light of this information, the administration cannot justify excluding students who receive TANF benefits from categorical eligibility for food stamps. (Cite: https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2019\/04\/30\/new-research-finds-discrepancies-estimates-food-insecurity-among-college-students). Categorical eligibility (CE) was designed to reduce the bureaucracy in lieu of increasing the bureaucracy, which is what the proposed regulations do by repealing state flexibility and imposing federally imposed rules that are illegal. They are illegal because they limit the application of CE to certain AFDC\/TANF cases. When TANF was enacted, which diverted millions of dollars that under AFDC (AFDC had 70% of the funds used for payments to families) was used to feed and house poor families to the welfare bureaucracy, Congress also amended provisions of the SNAP program in the same legislation. Thus, Congress was aware of AFDC and TANF funds and its application to CE and did not limit it to certain TANF persons and exclude others when it was considering modifications of both (AFDC and the Food Stamp) programs in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104 193) (PRWORA). Moreover, the Trump Administration tried to make changes to CE during the 2018 farm bill that was soundly rejected by the conference committee. So, what does the Trump administration do? Who cares what Congress did? Why would the Socialist Trump administration care about Congress and the pesty U.S. Constitution? 2018 Farm Bill Rejected Provision 7-24-19 Proposed Regulations to Enact Limit SNAP Categorical Eligibility to those who – receive cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services” Limit SNAP Categorical Eligibility to those who – receive cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services” The proposed regulations reveal the colossal failure of the TANF program. Footnote 8 states: In Fiscal Year 2017, 22.7 percent of combined TANF Federal and State MOE funds were used for basic assistance (e.g., cash); 10.5 percent were used for work, education, and training activities; and 16.1 percent were used for child care. In Fiscal Year 2017, 27 States used less than 50 percent of their TANF Federal and State MOE funds on a combination of basic assistance; work, education, and training activities; and child care. Only 23% of the TANF cash aid payments go to TANF beneficiaries that are ongoing and substantial (compared to 70% under AFDC) while in SNAP over 90% of the benefits go to SNAP beneficiaries. It appears that the Trump Administration would like the SNAP program to become the ineffective TANF program- where most of the money goes to the welfare bureaucracy and a meager 23% goes to the TANF babies and children not in foster care living in deep poverty, by making the SNAP program administratively inefficient. The current CE regulations provide for state flexibility something supported by the Trump administrations and its enablers like the Heritage Foundation and other welfare bureaucracy loving conservative swamp organizations. On page 35571 FNS states: Prior to PRWORA, categorical eligibility for SNAP was conferred by receipt of cash AFDC benefits, as noncash AFDC benefits did not exist. While PRWORA did not modify the categorical eligibility provision in Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act, the Department recognized that the changes enacted by PRWORA and the move from AFDC to TANF meant that categorical eligibility could be conferred by both cash and non-cash benefits. We fact checked this false assertion and found that it was a false statement. Under AFDC states used AFDC funds, that were matched by 50% for cash payment state expenditures and for non-cash expenditures, including noncash assistance payments in the form of vouchers and vendor payments to profit making vendors, including most likely some of the Trump properties . USDA asks Specifically, the Department is interested in comments on the processes by which TANF-funded programs actually determine applicant financial and non-financial eligibility for the conferring programs, and at what point in the TANF enrollment process this determination and delivery of benefit(s) to the household may take place relative to the SNAP eligibility determination. The TANF eligibility determination is made before Food Stamp\/SNAP benefits are issued in California and we are sure that this is true in all States. USDA asks Department is interested in public comment as to whether and how the benefits from such hourly-based programs [non-cash TANF benefits, such as education and training, job search assistance, or work experience] could be valued for the purposes of conferring categorical eligibility, or other ways to determine whether such benefits could be ongoing and substantial. The best entity to decide the value of non-cash TANF benefits, such as education and training, job search assistance, or work experience are the local entities and not big brother government in Washington Ivory Towers. Non-cash benefits have different values are different states based on the local conditions. The Trump administration officials and supporters have touted, for years, that one-size does not fit all, yet now one size fits all? What happened. Is the Trump Administration becoming socialist administration? USDA asks, The Department is interested in whether eliminating the distinction, or adjusting the 50 percent funding threshold would help streamline SNAP regulations, ensure consistency in serving households through categorical eligibility, and simplify administration. We would respectfully suggest that the percentage of funding should be dependent on the local conditions. The Trump administration officials and supporters have touted for years that one-size does not fit all, yet now one size fits all? What happened. Is the Trump Administration becoming socialist administration? We would also strongly disagree with the following finding by USDA, FNS: The Department finds it reasonable to use the estimates from OMB approved Information Collection 0054 0064 regarding household burden for providing verification and estimates that providing verification would take 4 minutes or .0668 hours per household at initial certification and 6 minutes or .1002 hours at recertification. We are not sure in what reality a household would need 4-6 minutes to provide verification of assets. This shows how removed from reality is this assertion. In California 50% of SNAP applications are denied for reasons other than failing to meet eligibility requirements. 50% of the denials are due to failure to provide verifications or meeting other bureaucratic procedural requirements or better known as barriers to participation . Generally, applicants are told to go home and come back to provide missing verification. That means they take public transportation or walk to the office that can take an hour each way. Then they have to go through security to get into the welfare office. Once in the office, they have to stand in line and check in with the receptionist. Then they have to wait for the worker to call their name. This can take several hours. By no stretch of anyone’s imagination, is this a 4 to 6-minute household burden. We were not able to comment on most of the numbers in the data table on page 35580 because it was incomprehensible for the public to comment on it intelligently. We have no doubt that the Trump Administration understands what this table means, but that does not help us to provide comments. Curiously the agency justification for the proposed changes identifies no specific states practices or numbers of participants who are now SNAP program participants that would be impacted by what is being proposed. The explanatory statements most specific example states that: Due to the broad flexibility afforded States in the construction of TANF-funded pro- grams, these households, who would not otherwise have qualified for SNAP due to their income or resources, are considered categorically eligible and therefore able to receive SNAP. As a result of these policies, it is estimated that 4.1% of currently participating SNAP households (767,000 households or 1.4 million individuals) have resources above the SNAP limit and 4.9% have incomes above the Federal SNAP gross income limit of 130% FPL (914,000 households or 1.7 million individuals). See Federal Register \/ Vol. 84, No. 142 \/ Wednesday, July 24, 2019 \/ Proposed Rules 35571-2, The report does not specify how it comes to the conclusion that 914,000 households equals 1.7 million individuals. Clearly without more credible data, this Administration’s asserted supportive documentation for the proposed change cannot be considered valid or reliable. Finally with respect to America’s senior citizens, the proposal appears to ignore the fact that older Americans are the fastest growing food insecure population in the country. Since 2007, the number of seniors facing hunger has grown by 65%. In 2014, the National Foundation to End Senior Hunger found that 16% of seniors reported experiencing food insecurity. (Cite: https:\/\/www.aginginplace.org\/the-facts-behind-senior-hunger\/.) The number of people age 60 and older is expected to swell to over 100 million by 2060. A disproportionate number of seniors facing hunger are non-white Americans, meaning that these new rules may have a disparate impact along racial as well as generational lines. According to one article ”Seniors who live in the south are far more likely to be food insecure; nine of the 10 states with the highest rates of food insecurity are in the south. Seventeen percent of African American seniors and 18% of Hispanic seniors are food insecure, compared to just 7% of Caucasian seniors. One-third of food insecure senior citizens have a disability Nearly 1 in 5 seniors living with grandchildren are food insecure. )[footnoteRef:1] [1: https:\/\/www.moveforhunger.org\/food-insecurity-among-senior-citizens-growing-population-ages\/ September 23, 2019. ] Cutting nutrition support to older Americans is exactly the opposite of what we need to do to protect our retired citizens. The Department’s own analysis concedes that older Americans will be disproportionately affected by these rules. Yet the Department does not propose any means of mitigating the negative impact and civil rights implications of these disparate impacts. In summary, the Trump Administration has already tried to change this rule the American way through legislation Public Law 115-334 and it was soundly rejected by the Republican Senate. Now that they have failed, they are trying to do it the Soviet Socialist way- the autocratic way the hell with Congress. We oppose this Unamerican Act of the Trump Administration. [bookmark: _GoBack] Page 1 9-10-19 – CCWRO Testimony on CE proposed federal regulation VOLUME 84, NO. 142, Page 35570-35581 of July 24, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________ MWC leu ”

” 1 Cal-OAR Local Advocate Involvement Handbook By: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations CCWRO 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Tel. 916-712-0071 Email: [email protected] Contact Person: Kevin Aslanian TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Page 2 CalWORKs Outcomes & Accountability Review by CDSS Partial Page 2 Local Advocate Engagement Statutes for Cal-OAR Page 4 Cal-OAR Implementation Timeline Page 5 Cal-OAR Statute Page 6 Cal-OAR Measures more county plans Page 11 Details of Cal-OAR Measures for county plans Page 12 Cal-OAR Advocate Involvement Proposed Actions Page 16 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review (Cal-OAR) CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review (Cal-OAR) is a new CalWORKs county self-evaluation process done every three years to improve services to CalWORKs beneficiaries. Cal-OAR has three parts: (1) county performance measures of CalWORKs employment services, (2) a CalWORKs county self-assessment process, and (3) a CalWORKs county system improvement plan, including a peer review component that includes community participation in the process. Below is portions of the Cal-OAR instruction manual relative to advocate involvement and types of data that the county will be collecting for the CalWORKs employment program. CalWORKs Outcomes & Accountability Review Continuous Quality Improvement Instruction Manual Engage Stakeholders Select methods for stakeholder consultation; this may include, but is not limited to: large stakeholder meetings, focus groups, surveys, and interviews. Refer to Engaging Local Stakeholders section for the list of required stakeholders. Engage and collaborate with stakeholders in the meaningful discussion regarding performance measure data, client satisfaction survey results (See Client Satisfaction Survey section), and other relevant information to inform the CW- CSA. Refer to Appendix C: Stakeholder Engagement Toolkit for additional information on collaborating with local stakeholders, and the CW-CSA Reporting Requirements section for what feedback to consider in the data analysis. The county will utilize the information collected from stakeholder engagement and through the client satisfaction survey to support the CW-CSA. ENGAGING LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS As discussed previously, stakeholder engagement at the state level was statutorily required for the development and implementation of Cal-OAR. Continued stakeholder engagement and collaboration at the local level is required of CWDs for the CW-CQI process. This engagement and collaboration is critical to gain additional information and insight related to measure performance, strategies for improvement, and to better understand the impact of 3 system changes on CalWORKs clients and interrelated programs. Required local stakeholders include: County CalWORKs administrators, supervisors, and caseworkers Current and former CalWORKs clients County human services agency partners To the extent possible and relevant, local stakeholders should also include: Community College representatives Tribal organizations Local Workforce Development Board Adult Education providers Domestic abuse service providers Local housing and continuum of care programs County behavioral health departments County drug and alcohol programs Community-based service providers Organizations that represent CalWORKs clients Child care resource and referral programs Alternative payment programs Additional information and resources for engaging the local stakeholder community can be found in subsequent sections of this instruction manual and in Appendix C: Stakeholder Engagement Toolkit. Client Satisfaction Survey To promote stakeholder engagement within the Cal-OAR process, CDSS, Mathematica Policy Research, and current and former CalWORKs clients have collaboratively developed a CalWORKs client satisfaction survey. Data collected from this survey is a rich source of information available to CWDs for the CW-CQI process; for measure analysis and CalWORKs program assessment. More information on how to use survey data within the CW-CQI process can be found in the CW-CSA Section, within the Stakeholder Engagement and Feedback and Performance Measure Analysis subsections. Source: CDSS Continuous Quality Improvement Appendix C: Stakeholder Engagement Toolkit CDSS envisions this section providing information to CWDs to assist in the local stakeholder engagement process, required by Cal-OAR. This may include: A process guide on how to conduct formal and informal stakeholder convenings. Tips on how to focus discussions and make these meetings fruitful. Examples of how to best engage stakeholders (i.e. forums, webinars, online, focus groups). This information will also be addressed in training. 4 Local Engagement Statute for Cal-OAR 11523(d)(2)(B) (i) The county CalWORKs self-assessment process shall be completed every three years by the county in consultation and collaboration with local stakeholders and submitted to the department. (ii) Local stakeholders shall include county CalWORKs administrators, supervisors, and caseworkers; current and former CalWORKs recipients; and county human services agency partners. To the extent possible and relevant, local stakeholders shall also include representatives of community colleges, tribal organizations, and the local workforce board. Additional specific county human services agency partners shall be determined by the county and may include, but are not limited to, adult education providers, providers of services for survivors of domestic violence, the local housing continuum of care, county behavioral health departments, county drug and alcohol programs, community-based service providers, organizations that represent CalWORKs recipients, child care resource and referral programs, and alternative payment programs, as appropriate. (3) (A) (ii) (D) The county human services agency shall complete an annual progress report on the status of its system improvement plan and shall submit these reports to the department. The department, in consultation with the workgroup, shall develop uniform elements of the progress report. 5 CalWORKs OUTCOMES AND ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW (Cal-OAR) IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE TIMEFRAMES* CAL-OAR ACTIVITIES February 2019 Regular check in calls with SAWS begin – to answer questions and work out details re: data and reporting automation Feb 5-20: Performance Measures and Reporting ACL stakeholder review Late Feb: Final two-part CQI subcommittee to review Instruction Manual March 2019 Late March: CQI package ACL stakeholder review April 2019 Release Performance Measures and Reporting ACL Cal-OAR online training begins (April to include Cal-OAR 101 and measures\/reporting) – remote trainings continue regularly through July 2019 May 2019 Release CQI ACL Remote CWD training continues (May to include measures\/reporting) June 2019 Remote CWD training continues (June to include CQI) July 2019 July 1: Cal-OAR Implements (First three-year cycle: July 2019 thru June 2022) Remote CWD training continues (July to include CQI) September 2019 Monthly conference calls with counties to support CSA and SIP development to continue through December 2020 December 2019 Dec 16-18: CW Training Academy, to include Cal-OAR trainings Jan thru March 2020 In-person CWD trainings (approximate timeframe) Spring 2020 CSAs due Summer 2020 Cal-OAR Peer Review process to being (timeline will vary by county) Fall 2021 SIPs due Spring 2022 Progress Reports due 6 Cal-OAR actual statute 11523. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review Act of 2017. (b) The State Department of Social Services shall establish, by July 1, 2019, the California CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review (Cal-OAR) to facilitate a local accountability system that fosters continuous quality improvement in county CalWORKs programs and in the collection and dissemination by the department of best practices in service delivery. The Cal-OAR shall cover CalWORKs services provided to current and former recipients, including those who are in sanction or exempt status or who are unengaged, and shall include the programmatic elements that each county offers as part of its CalWORKs service array as well as any local program components, and shall consist of performance indicators, a county CalWORKs self-assessment process, and a county CalWORKs system improvement plan. For purposes of this section, CalWORKs services shall include welfare-to-work, family stabilization, housing support, and post-employment job retention services. (c) (1) (A) By October 1, 2017, the department shall convene a workgroup comprised of representatives from county human services agencies, legislative staff, interested welfare advocacy and research organizations, current and former CalWORKs recipients, organizations that represent county human services agencies and county boards of supervisors, representatives of community colleges, tribal organizations, and the workforce investment system, and any other state entities that the department deems necessary. The workgroup members shall also include individuals with expertise related to domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health. The workgroup shall establish a workplan by which the Cal-OAR shall be conducted, pursuant to the provisions described in this section, including a process for qualitative peer reviews of counties’ CalWORKs services. The workgroup shall discuss potential costs for state and county participation. (B) The department shall report annually to the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services of the Assembly Committee on Budget during the budget process with an update on the schedule for development of and future changes to the Cal-OAR. (2) At a minimum, in establishing the work plan, the workgroup shall consider existing CalWORKs performance indicators being measured, additional, alternative, or additional and alternative process and outcome indicators to be measured, development of uniform elements of the county CalWORKs self-assessment and the county CalWORKs system improvement plans, timelines for implementation, recommendations for reducing the existing CalWORKS services 7 data reporting burden in light of new requirements established by the act that added this section and the resulting Cal-OAR, recommendations for financial incentives to counties for achievement on performance measures, and an analysis of the county and state workload associated with implementation of the requirements of this section. (d) The Cal-OAR shall consist of the following three components: performance indicators, a county CalWORKs self-assessment, and a county CalWORKs system improvement plan. (1) (A) The Cal-OAR performance indicators shall be consistent with programmatic goals for the CalWORKs program, and shall include both process and outcome measures. These measures shall be established in order to provide baseline and ongoing information about how the state and counties are performing over time and to inform and guide each county human services agency’s CalWORKs self-assessment and CalWORKs system improvement plan. (i) Process measures shall include measures of participant engagement, CalWORKs service delivery, and participation. Specific process measures shall be established by the department, in consultation with the workgroup, and may include measures of engagement as shown by improvement in program participation, timeliness of service provision, rates of utilization of program components, such as vocational education, and referrals and utilization of services based upon recommendations from the Online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool. (ii) Outcome measures shall include measures of employment, educational attainment, program exits, and program reentries, and may include other indicators of family and child well-being as determined by the department, in consultation with the workgroup. (B) Performance indicator data available in existing county data systems shall be collected by counties and provided to the department, and performance indicator data available in existing state department data systems shall be collected by the department and provided to the counties. These data shall be reported in a manner and on a schedule to be determined by the department, in consultation with the workgroup, but no less frequently than semiannually. (C) (i) During the first three-year Cal-OAR cycle, performance indicator data, as reported by each county, shall be used to establish both county and statewide baselines for each of the process measures. After the first review cycle, the department shall, in consultation with the workgroup, establish standard target thresholds for each of the process measures established by the workgroup. (ii) The department, in consultation with the workgroup, shall develop a process for resolving any disputes regarding the establishment of standard process thresholds pursuant to clause (i). (D) For subsequent reviews, and based upon availability of additional data from enhancements to the Statewide Automated Welfare System or through interagency data-sharing agreements, the workgroup shall convene, as necessary, to consider whether to establish additional performance 8 indicators that support the programmatic goals for the CalWORKs program. Any additional performance indicators established shall also be subject to the process described in subparagraph (C) and include consideration of when data on the additional performance indicators would be available for reporting, if not already available. (E) If, during subsequent reviews, there is sufficient reason to establish statewide performance standards for one or more outcome measures, the department may, in consultation with the workgroup, establish those standards for each of the agreed-upon outcome measures. In making a determination as to whether there is sufficient reason to establish performance standards for any outcome measure, the department shall consider whether all counties could reasonably be expected to meet those standards given local variability in employment opportunities, availability of services, demographics, educational opportunities, and funding, among other things. (2) (A) The county CalWORKs self-assessment component of the Cal-OAR, as established by the workgroup, shall require the county human services agencies to assess their performance on the established process and outcome measures that comprise the performance indicators, identify the strengths and weaknesses in their current practice and resource deployment, identify and describe how local operational decisions and systemic factors affect program outcomes, and consider areas of focus that may be included in the county CalWORKs system improvement plan as described in paragraph (3). The county CalWORKs self-assessment process shall be designed to identify areas of best practices for replication and for system improvement at the county level, and shall guide the development of the county CalWORKs system improvement plan as described in paragraph (3). To the extent a county identifies eligibility procedures and practices that it determines, through its self-assessment, contribute to its achievement on process and outcome measures related to CalWORKs services, the county may, at its option, incorporate eligibility-related elements into its system improvement plan. (B) (i) The county CalWORKs self-assessment process shall be completed every three years by the county in consultation and collaboration with local stakeholders and submitted to the department. (ii) Local stakeholders shall include county CalWORKs administrators, supervisors, and caseworkers; current and former CalWORKs recipients; and county human services agency partners. To the extent possible and relevant, local stakeholders shall also include representatives of community colleges, tribal organizations, and the local workforce board. Additional specific county human services agency partners shall be determined by the county and may include, but are not limited to, adult education providers, providers of services for survivors of domestic violence, the local housing continuum of care, county behavioral health departments, county drug and alcohol programs, community-based service providers, organizations that represent CalWORKs recipients, child care resource and referral programs, and alternative payment programs, as appropriate. 9 (3) (A) (i) The county CalWORKs system improvement plan shall consist of uniform elements to be developed by the workgroup. It shall, at a minimum, describe how the county will improve its CalWORKs program performance in strategic focus areas based upon information learned through the county CalWORKs self-assessment process. The county CalWORKs system improvement plan shall be approved in public session by the county’s board of supervisors or, as applicable, chief elected official, and submitted to the department. (ii) The county CalWORKs system improvement plan shall be completed every three years by the county, approved in public session by the county’s board of supervisors or, as applicable, chief elected official, and be submitted to the department. (B) The county CalWORKs system improvement plan shall include a peer CalWORKs services review element, the purpose of which shall be to provide additional insight and technical assistance by peer counties for each county. (C) Strategic focus areas for the county CalWORKs system improvement plan shall be determined by the county, informed by the county CalWORKs self-assessment process, as described in paragraph (2), with targets for improvement based upon what is learned in the county CalWORKs self-assessment process. (D) The county human services agency shall complete an annual progress report on the status of its system improvement plan and shall submit these reports to the department. The department, in consultation with the workgroup, shall develop uniform elements of the progress report. (e) (1) The department shall receive, review, and, based on its determination of the county CalWORKs system improvement plan meeting the required elements identified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d), certify as complete all county-submitted performance indicator data, county CalWORKs self-assessments, county CalWORKS system improvement plans, and annual progress reports, and shall identify and promote the replication of best practices in CalWORKs service delivery to achieve the established process and outcome measures. (2) The department shall monitor, on an ongoing basis, county performance on the measures developed pursuant to subdivision (d). (3) The department shall make data collected pursuant to this section publicly available on its Internet Web site. (4) The department shall, on an annual basis, submit a report to the Legislature that summarizes county performance on the established process and outcome measures during the reporting period, analyzes county performance trends over time, and makes findings and recommendations for common CalWORKs services improvements identified in the county CalWORKs self- assessments and county CalWORKs system improvement plans, including information on 10 common statutory, regulatory, or fiscal barriers identified as inhibiting system improvements and any recommendations to overcome those barriers. (5) (A) The department shall facilitate the provision of, and provide as appropriate, technical assistance to county human services agencies as part of the peer review that supports the county’s selected areas for improvement as described in its system improvement plan. (B) If, in the course of its review of county CalWORKs system improvement plans and annual updates, or, in the course of its review of regularly submitted performance indicator data, the department determines that a county is consistently failing to make progress toward its strategic focus areas for improvement or is consistently failing to meet the process measure standard target thresholds established pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), the department shall engage the county in a process of targeted technical assistance and support to address and resolve the identified shortcomings. If, after the assistance is provided, the county continues in its failure to meet its goals or performance thresholds, the department may engage in corrective action with the county. (f) A county shall execute and fulfill components of its CalWORKs system improvement plan that can be accomplished with existing resources. (g) A county shall not be required to execute and fulfill any components of its CalWORKs system improvement plan that creates new county costs, unless funding for those costs are appropriated in the annual Budget Act. (h) Beginning in the 2019 20 fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter, no more than two million dollars ($2,000,000) from the General Fund shall be appropriated in the annual Budget Act to counties to complete the requirements described in subdivision (c). 11 CAL-OAR PERFORMANCE MEASURES Below are the Cal-OAR performance measures, grouped programmatically to aid in a comprehensive analysis. Additional details on each measure follow. Programmatic Group Performance Measures Initial Engagement Orientation Attendance Rate OCAT\/Appraisal Completion Timeliness OCAT\/Appraisal to Next Activity Timeliness First Activity Attendance Rate Ongoing Engagement Engagement Rate Sanction Rate Sanction Cure Rate Supportive Services Child Care Access Homeless Assistance and Housing Support Program Access Ancillary Services Access Transportation Provision Timeliness Education Education and Skills Development Access Education and Skills Development Utilization Improved Literacy, Basic Skills and English Language Acquisition Community College Progress Rate Educational Completion Employment and Wages Employment Rate of Current CalWORKs Individuals Subsidized to Unsubsidized Employment Wage Progression Post CalWORKs Employment Rate Exits and Reentries Exits with Earnings Program Reentries Program Reentries After Exit with Income Family Well-Being Home Visiting Transitions to Welfare-to-Work Engagement Family Stabilization Transitions to Welfare-to-Work Engagement 12 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONS FOR TARGETED ANALYSIS The questions below are a resource for CWDs to use while performing the Targeted Analysis of each programmatic grouping of performance measures. This analysis is completed during the CW-CSA process. While it is not required for the CWD to answer each question listed here within the CW-CSA, the CWD should review and consider where answering the question will provide for a more robust CW-CSA. For instructions regarding these questions, please see Section 2 of the Instruction Manual (CSA Reporting Requirements Section: Targeted Analysis; page 16). If not specified, the questions below relate to all measures within the programmatic group. INITIAL ENGAGEMENT Describe the CWD’s process for and goals of Orientation. o How does the CWD adapt the Orientation process based on client needs? Describe what happens if a client misses an Orientation or Appraisal appointment. How are they contacted? How many times can clients no show or reschedule before noncompliance is initiated? Describe how clients are informed about the availability of immediate child care prior to attending Orientation and Appraisal. How does the CWD ensure transportation needs are addressed for clients to attend Orientation and Appraisal? How is the OCAT Appraisal Summary and Recommendations Report (ASR) used by case managers to determine the next activity for clients? And to inform the welfare- to-work plan? o What other resources are used to prioritize service\/activity assignment (i.e. CalMap)? o How are barrier removal recommendations discussed in the context of the client’s next activity? o What is the process for referring clients for services following Appraisal? How is the client’s long-term goals and activity preference accounted for when assigning activities following Appraisal? ONGOING ENGAGEMENT How does the ratio of engaged, sanctioned, and exempt cases compare? And, how does the demographic breakout between the engagement rate and sanction rate compare? How do the time clocks effect client activity choices? How does the CWD explain the relationship between the time clock limits and activity options to clients? 13 Is the CWD employing the CalWORKs 2.0 Strategic Initiative? If so, explain which tools are being used\/adapted, and how the initiative has impacted case management processes. Is the speed of supportive service authorization\/reimbursement\/advancement a barrier to clients’ welfare-to-work engagement? How does the CWD address this? What is the process for establishing welfare-to-work plans for exempt volunteers? How are exempt clients re-engaged into the welfare-to-work program when their exemption ends? o What strategies are employed when re-engaging adults with a barrier related exemption (i.e. related to mental health, substance abuse, and domestic abuse) or a domestic abuse waiver? How is case management for sanctioned cases structured within the CWD (i.e. is there a banked caseload, specific units that work with sanctioned cases, etc.)? Do the staff qualifications or caseload vary for those with sanctioned cases? How does the CWD outreach to and re-engage sanctioned adults? o Does the CWD utilize different strategies for different populations? (for example, assistance units with young children, long term sanction cases, etc.) o If so, identify the populations and the strategies. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES Describe the CWD’s service provision model, including service provider networks, partnerships, and contracted service providers. When and how does the CWD inform clients of the availability of supportive services? When and how does the CWD offer clients supportive services? o How and how often does the CWD revisit the need for supportive services with the client? o How do clients request supportive services, including after the welfare-to-work plan has been established? o How does the CWD inform clients of the necessary paperwork to request services and the approval process timeline? Explain the policies for approval\/authorization of services, and the average timeframe for approval. o Are ancillary and transportation services advanced, reimbursed, or both, and under what conditions for the respective methods? o Are there any ancillary items or dollar thresholds that require secondary review? If so, explain what requires secondary review, how the review process is structured, and the average timeframe for approval. o What forms of transportation services are available to clients? How does the CWD determine which type of transportation service is most appropriate for a client? What options are available to clients who request a different form of transportation service? 14 What are the most common reasons for denial of services? Are there any state or county policies that impact service delivery? What are the major limitations to serving the full need for services? Describe the CWD’s process for transferring clients from Stage One to Stage Two Child Care. What barriers exist? How does the CWD know when a client has been successfully transferred to Stage Two? What is the process for HSP referrals? How are referrals identified? Provide data on the rates of HA\/HSP re-referrals\/re-requests\/re-approvals. What are the CWDs outreach strategies for HA\/HSP? How does the CWD ensure they are serving the most vulnerable clients? Explain any large fluctuations in the HA\/HSP Access measure denominator. EDUCATION What is the CWD’s process for engaging clients in education or training activities? o When does the CWD discuss the option for education or training activities with the client (during appraisal, welfare-to-work plan development, etc.)? o What steps must a client take to participate in education or training activities? What are the main barriers to successfully engaging clients in educational activities? In what ways is the CWD’s relationship with the local community colleges successful? In what ways does the relationship need improvement? Provide the breakout of educational completions by degree\/program type. EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES Describe the CWDs process for engaging employed welfare-to-work clients. What does case management look like for employed clients, and how does it differ from case management for unemployed clients? List and compare the top five employers and top five employment sectors for the CalWORKs population and the overall county population. What percentage of employed CalWORKs clients have unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment, and self-employment? What percentage of employed CalWORKs clients are employed part time? Full time (35 hours per week or more)? Describe the CWD’s partnerships with local labor boards. Does the CWD’s subsidized employment program have goals besides transitioning to unsubsidized employment (i.e. transitioning to other welfare-to-work activities)? If so, describe the other goals. Does the CWD partner with other agencies (i.e. the local board) to provide longer subsidized employment slots, beyond the welfare-to-work funded slot? 15 How does the CWD support clients transitioning from subsidized to unsubsidized employment? What partnerships are leveraged, and what job retention services are provided during and after the transition, and after the case exits CalWORKs? How do former clients’ median earnings compare to the overall county population’s median earnings? Compare former clients’ median earnings to the federal poverty rate, the California supplemental poverty rate, and the county living wage. Describe the CWD’s post aid job retention services. EXITS\/REENTRIES Provide the range of earnings that clients have when exiting the CalWORKs program. Examine why clients return to aid after exiting CalWORKs. In the CWDs experience, what are the top five reasons that clients return to aid? FAMILY WELL-BEING Describe the Family Stabilization Program design and services offered. How does the program design impact outcomes? What aspects of the program provide the most positive outcomes? What is the process for enrolling clients in Family Stabilization Program and the Home Visiting Initiative? What is the average length of time that clients stay in Family Stabilization Program and the Home Visiting Initiative? What portion of the Family Stabilization and the Home Visiting Initiative population are engaged in other program services, respectively? Does the CWD provide other services that divert clients from Family Stabilization Program enrollment? What are the CWD’s policies for transitioning clients to welfare-to-work after successfully completing the goals outlined in the Family Stabilization plan? For clients that do not transition to welfare-to-work engagement after Family Stabilization or the Home Visiting Initiative participation: what are the reasons the transition did not occur? Do barrier removal services continue after clients exit the Family Stabilization program? 16 Cal-OAR Advocate Involvement Proposed Actions 1. Contact your county, in writing or in person, and request that you be included in the W&IC 11523(d)(2)(B)(i) workgroup as a local stakeholder representing the local CalWORKs beneficiaries; 2. Do a monthly California Public Records Act for copies of all county records produced by the county relative to the county CalAOR activities provided for pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 11523. 3. Contact other stakeholders in your community and find out how you can provide them with educational materials regarding Cal-OAR. See Cal- OAR statute above for potential stakeholders. 4. Offer assistance to the county working with them to find CalWORKs beneficiaries who would participate in the process. 5. Keep a list of CalWORKs clients so when the time comes you have a list of potential CalWORKs beneficiaries for the Cal-OAR workgroup. SAMPLE Public Records Act Request – Dear county welfare director: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code 6250 et seq., on behalf of our public assistance clients, CCWRO asks to review and then receive copies of the writings as defined in Government Code 6253 (g) in the format provided for in Gov. Code 6253.9 as described below. If the department has concluded that the document is not available electronically, please explain why not and provide us with an opportunity to review and examine the documents in the format provided for in Gov. Code 6253.9 in response to this request so we can designate the documents in the format provided for in Gov. Code 6253.9 for the period of __\/__\/____. (NOTE: If you do not have the item in electronic form, then I will inspect said document in person. After inspection, if I still wish to have a copy thereof, then, and only then, will pay the 20\u00a2 a page fee. Please do not DEMAND money for documents in the format provided for in Gov. Code 6253.9 that you have in electronic form and documents in the format provided for in Gov. Code 6253.9 that I have not specifically inspected and requested a copy thereof.) What do we want? Copies of any and all writings relative to the county CalAOR activities provided for pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 11523. We ask you for a determination on this request within ten days of receipt. If you determine that any or all of the information requested above qualifies for an exemption from disclosure. We request that you to note whether the exception is discretionary and, if so, whether it is necessary to exercise your discretion to withhold that information. If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that the agency intends to withhold it, we ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. If we can provide any clarification to expedite the request, please contact me at . Please email copies of any documents in the format provided for in Gov. Code 6259 in response to this PRA to: I ask that you notify me in advance of any duplication costs exceeding $20.00. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Your signature For any question CONTACT CCWRO for Assistance at 916-712-0071 OR Email [email protected] ”

“Sheet1 2018 California County Welfare Fraud Special Investigatice Unit (SIU) Office Designations County Who does Welfare Fraud County Who does Welfare Fraud Alameda DA Orange DA Alpine CWD Placer CWD Amador DA Plumas CWD Butte DA Riverside CWD Calaveras CWD Sacramento CWD Colusa DA San Benito CWD Contra Costa CWD San Bernardino CWD Del Norte DA San Diego CWD El Dorado DA San Francisco CWD Fresno DA San Joaquin DA Glenn CWD San Luis Obispo CWD Humboldt CWD San Mateo CWD Imperial DA Santa Barbara DA Inyo DA Santa Clara CWD Kern DA Santa Cruz CWD Kings CWD Shasta DA Lake CWD Sierra CWD Lassen CWD Siskiyou CWD Los Angeles CWD\/DA Solano DA Madera DA Sonoma CWD Marin CWD Stanislaus CWD Mariposa CWD Sutter CWD Mendocino CWD Tehama DA Merced DA Trinity DA Modoc DA Tulare DA Mono DA Tuolumne CWD Monterey DA Ventura DA Napa CWD Yolo DA\/CWD Nevada DA Yuba CWD ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/1811): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. Organizations [image: \/var\/folders\/69\/vl0ghz9w8vl4zwlvt9_64w4c0000gp\/T\/com.microsoft.Word\/WebArchiveCopyPasteTempFiles\/BE34486B-F504-4907-B822-F8220C9F5DA1.jpg]CCWRO Kevin M. Alsanian Executive Director Grace A. Galligher, Directing Attorney 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 958125-8551 Tel. (916) 736-0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 Cell (916) 712-0071 [email protected] www.ccwro.org April 4, 2018 Ms. Sasha Gersten-Paal SNAP Program Development Division Food and Nutrition Service 3101 Park Center Drive Room 812 Alexandria, VA 22302 [bookmark: _GoBack]Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements and Services for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents RIN 0584 AE57 Dear Ms. Gersten-Paal: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on USDA’s Advanced Notice on requirements and services for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs). CCWRO is a statewide organization founded in 1980. Our mission is to make this a better place for all . Our organization has always paid close attention to the food stamp program for decades. SNAP is the only program in the United State of America that prevents widespread famine from happening in the USA. Any rule that would result any human being to go to bed hungry is unconscionable. Federal law limits SNAP eligibility for childless unemployed and underemployed adults age 18-50 (except for those who are exempt) to just three months out of every three years unless they are able to obtain and maintain an average of 20 hours a week of employment. This rule is cruel and unusual punishment for being poor. At least 500,000 low-income individuals nationwide lost SNAP in 2016 due to the barbaric and unconscionable time limiting food rule. While this request for comment appears to be open to suggestions on how to make the time limit less harsh via administrative action, we are concerned that the Administration seeks only to make the rule more draconian: to expand the scope of the cutoff and to eliminate the little flexibility states have to limit the damage of the rule. The Department’s stance on the time limit is not one that our organization shares and neither do most Americans. If you did a poll and ask do you think the government should let people go hungry because they are not able to find a job after three months most would say hell no . The Secretary of Agriculture has suggested that they need to remove those waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents, because it’s become a lifestyle for some people. Going to sleep hungry is not a lifestyle that our forefathers envisioned. Sentencing humans to hunger for not being able to find a job is not humane. Moreover, there is no evidence that the starving person who has or has not refused to work is a violation of the plain language of the eight amendment of the U.S. constitution that says no unusual punishment shall be inflicted upon the People of the United States. The Department of suggesting that people who do not work should not eat. That is exactly what Vladimir Lenin said in 1917. That is what USDA and the proponents of this inhumane are saying becoming the 21st century Leninists ? USDA’s budget has proposed making the time limit harsher by repealing states’ flexibility to exempt certain individuals and most high unemployment areas from the time limit and exposing more people to this punitive policy. As a result, we are deeply concerned that this request for comment is part of an administrative effort to make the time limit even more harsh. We strongly oppose any administrative action by USDA that would expose more people to severe hunger and Leninist punishment for not being able to find a job and taking away state flexibility. Under the law, states have the flexibility to waive areas within the state that have experienced elevated unemployment. The rules governing areas’ eligibility for waivers have been in place for nearly 20 years and every state except Delaware has availed themselves of waivers at some point since the time limit became law. The waiver rules are reasonable, transparent, and manageable for states to operationalize. Any change that would restrict, impede, or add uncertainty to our state’s current ability to waive areas with elevated unemployment must not be pursued. The only action we encourage USDA to take with respect to this time limit rule that impacts Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents is to propose its elimination the humane and Christian thing to do. Restoring SNAP’s ability to provide food assistance to impoverished unemployed people would be a powerful policy improvement that would reduce food insecurity among those seeking work. We have analyzed your notice of proposed rule and would like to specifically respond to the questions posed therein: FNS Question Answer from the People Department is concerned that the number of areas waived has not decreased as much as would be expected during the continued decline in unemployment rates over this time period. For these reasons, the Department is seeking comments on how to ensure the waiver criteria best reflects economic conditions. Not true. According to President Trump \”The unemployment rate number isn’t reflective. I’ve seen numbers of 24 percent — I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent.\” He continued, \”5.3 percent unemployment — that is the biggest joke there is in this country. The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it’s a 30, 32. And the highest I’ve heard so far is 42 percent.\” It appears that the Department of USDA is contradicting the statement of President Trump that the UI rates asserted by the government and USDA in this notice are incorrect and it is the biggest joke and not reflective of the real unemployment rate. USDA needs to get on board with the views of the person in the White House today. The Department is reviewing how it could take action on limiting ABAWD waivers as proposed in the President’s budget proposals. In light of the Department’s interest in helping SNAP participants find and maintain meaningful employment, how could the process for requesting to waive the time limit, the information needed to support waiver approval, and the waiver eligibility parameters be changed in order to provide appropriate relief for areas of high unemployment and a clearly demonstrated lack of jobs? How could the definition of lack of sufficient jobs be revised to better support these goals? States currently have discretion to define the area they are requesting to waive. Should States maintain this flexibility? Should an economic area be limited in geographic scope, such as to a single county, metropolitan area, or labor market area? This should be a local or state decision and the federal government should be ready to help the people in the State to make decisions and not to think that one size emanating from the Washington Ivory Tower fits all. The idea that somebody should starve because there are some jobs out there is inhumane reflecting the views of the dark ages of this planet. FNS Question Answer from the People Should FNS accept data from additional sources of information that are currently not considered? If so: What data sources would that be? What review process should FNS use to verify the validity of the data? This is insulting to our partners at the local and state level operating the SNAP program implying that they are submitting bad data. It appears that the Department is more interested in building a largess of bureaucracy by creating unnecessary work just to have more bureaucrats at the federal level Waivers are typically approved for 1 year, although under certain criteria 2-year waivers are available. Should FNS consider waivers of different time periods? If so, what time period and under what conditions? ABAWDS waivers should be permanent unless FNS has verifiable data to show that the conditions have changed, and a waiver is no longer necessary. To request waiver year after year is an abuse of taxpayer dollars and should be stopped. What challenges and barriers do States face in helping ABAWDs find and maintain employment? What do States need to build or strengthen their capacity, investment, and expertise in working with this population? The lack of jobs that ABAWDS can access is severely limited. The barrier is no jobs. Moreover, ABAWDS can barely eat and stay alive. Some do not have the resources that it takes to find and maintain a job. For that one needs reliable transportation, an address and a telephone, none of which is provided by the SNAP program. What is the appropriate role of States in assessing ABAWDs for barriers to employment, job skills, and career interests in order identify appropriate opportunities for fulfilling the work requirements? At what point in the process is this most useful? During the interview? After certification. At all times. These are human being and living creatures. We know that ABAWDS are not the unborn that many are concerned about, yet those same people so concerned about the unborn could care less about the ABAWDS suffering from hunger just because there are no jobs accessible to the ABAWDS. FNS Question Answer from the People How can existing resources be leveraged by States to help ABAWDs find and maintain employment? Are there State\/local\/Federal or other stakeholders that can be leveraged to provide holistic services to ABAWDs? The federal funding for SNAP E&T is not open ended and rightly so SNAP E&T is a segregated racist employment program for food stamp recipients. If the government wants to help SNAP recipients with employment, they should look at the workforce development agency for employment services and not the food stamp agency. What do food stamp workers know about jobs? According to Newsweek Seven months into his presidency, job growth has slowed from the days under former President Barack Obama, when virtually all demographics of Americans were enjoying new job creation. Now, unemployment is ticking upward, as just 156,000 jobs were added to the American economy in August, the Labor Department reported Friday. The leadership of creating jobs should come from the Trump administration and not from the state and local governments. We are still waiting at the local level for the Trump jobs to materialize. Are there evidence-based activities that States could offer through their SNAP E&T programs that would help reduce barriers to employment among ABAWDs? What kinds of support services, job-retention services and other activities would increase success of ABAWDs moving into gainful employment? Are there additional ways that States could incentivize employers to provide jobs to ABAWDs? First make sure that the jobs are actually available before you tell people to look for jobs that do not exist. That is immoral. What is the appropriate scope of conditions and indicators of physical or mental unfitness for employment under current statutory authority, particularly in State determinations of whether an individual is obviously physically or mentally unfit for employment? What level of State flexibility is appropriate in this area? Why? It is very hard to come up with conditions and indicators that apply to every community. The federal government should allow local conditions to govern rather than this top down socialistic proposal by USDA, FNS. How do current certification processes (use of technology, lack of face-to-face interaction) affect the ability to determine exceptions or exemptions to the ABAWD time limit? How can these processes be modified or enhanced to best support these determinations, while providing any needed reasonable accommodations for individuals? Program efficiency and the wise use of our tax dollars is a primary concern for most Americans. The thought of going back to doing business in the 21st century like we did in the 20th century is appalling – wasting hard earned tax dollars. FNS Question Answer from the People Who should determine whether a participant is fit to work? What technical and information resources, or other resources, would best support States to better screen for unfitness for employment and other exceptions to the ABAWD time limit? What performance and\/or accountability measures would support this process? Today SNAP workers make that determination. There is no evidence that the current process is not working. The federal government could come up with suggested screening tools from the Academy of Science rather than from the Heritage Foundation that could be helpful as a guide and not a mandate. How can the Department\/States better engage and serve individuals determined to be unfit for employment? How can State agencies provide these individuals with services or opportunities that may increase their fitness for work? The federal government could fund a program to remove barriers that are the causes of being unfit for work. For example, people in need of dental work is one of the major barriers to some jobs because employers are not going to hire somebody with teeth looking like hell and with cavities that cause bad breath. There is a whole list of other barriers that ABAWDS have besides this simplistic Leninist illusion that ABAWDS need to be starved to get them to work. What are best practices for the use of 15 percent exemptions in supporting the appropriate application of ABAWD requirements? Let the States make that decision. [image: ] Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director CCWRO Mi liup ”

“FY 2016-2017 Summary Allocation for FY 2016-2017 Percentage of Allocation Spent During FY 2016-2017 Allocation NOT Spent During FY 2016-2017 Percentage of Allocation Spent During FY 2016-2017 DSS County Fiscal Letter for 2016-2017 COUNTY ALLOCATIONS VS EXPENDITURES FEDERAL & STATE FUNDS EXPENDITURES All numbers displayed in thousands CalWORKs SINGLE ALLOCATION Eligibility $458,521 $637,623 ($179,102) 139.06% CFL 16\/17-62 Child Care $411,659 $318,590 $93,069 77.39% CFL 16\/17-62 Cal Learn $20,075 $19,140 $935 95.34% CFL 16\/17-62 Employment Services $971,819 $817,414 $154,405 84.11% CFL 16\/17-62 TOTAL CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION $1,862,074 $1,792,767 $69,307 96.28% CFL 16\/17-62 CalWORKs MENTAL HEALTH\/SUBSTANCE ABUSE (MH\/SA) ALLOCATION Mental Health $76,304 $66,507 $9,797 87.16% CFL 16\/17-66 Substance Abuse $50,302 $34,176 $16,126 67.94% CFL 16\/17-66 TOTAL MH\/SA ALLOCATION $126,606 $100,683 $25,923 79.52% CFL 16\/17-66 CCL – FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES Federal $13 $13 $0 100.00% CFL 16\/17-36 State $24 $8 $16 33.33% CFL 16\/17-36 Total $37 $21 $16 56.76% CFL 16\/17-36 EXPANDED SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT (ESE) PROG $138,308 $134,210 $4,098 97.04% CFL 16\/17-63 CalWORKs FAMILY STABILIZATION (FS) PROG $39,913 $46,843 ($6,930) 117.36% CFL 16\/17-67 HOMELESS HOUSING SUPPORT PROGRAM $48,085 $42,958 $5,127 89.34% CFL 16\/17-21 BRINGING FAMILIES HOME $9,693 $3 $9,690 0.03% Individual Letters GENERAL FUND ONLY EXPENDITURES CALFRESH ADMIN $632,271 $584,993 $47,278 92.52% CFL 16\/17-64 CCL – FOSTER FAMILY HOMES $4,551 $10,096 ($5,545) 221.84% CFL 16\/17-36 KINSHIP GUARDIANSHIP ASSISTANCE PYMT (Kin-GAP) PROG $3,756 $4,189 ($433) 111.53% CFL 16\/17-09 TRAFFICKING & CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE PRG (TCVAP) $6,688 $4,620 $2,068 69.08% CFL 16\/17-65 NON MEDICAL OUT OF HOME CARE (NMOHC) $352 $451 ($99) 128.13% CFL 16\/17-10 WORK INCENTIVE NUTRITIONAL SUPPLMENT (WINS) PROG $9,073 $5,980 $3,093 65.91% CFL 16\/17-17 COMMERCIALLY SEXUALLY EXPLOITED CHILDREN (CSEC) $29,666 $10,996 $18,670 37.07% CFL 16\/17-38 POST 2011 REALIGNMENT PROG $25,321 $33,761 ($8,440) 133.33% CFL 16\/17-76 CCR CWD FOSTER PARENT RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND SUPPORT $39,818 $42,358 ($2,540) 106.38% CFL 16\/17-35 RESOURCE FAMILY APPROVAL $7,801 $14,800 ($6,999) 189.72% CFL 16\/17-45 CHILD AND FAMILY TEAMS $20,425 $14,458 $5,967 70.79% CFL 16\/17-24 SECOND LEVEL REVIEW $15 $0 $15 0.00% CFL 16\/17-71 CCR PROBATION FOSTER PARENT RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND SUPPORT $14,184 $1,324 $12,860 9.33% CFL 16\/17-35 CHILD AND FAMILY TEAMS $1,593 $222 $1,371 13.94% CFL 16\/17-24 SECOND LEVEL REVIEW $8 $0 $8 0.00% CFL 16\/17-71 CCR TOTAL $83,844 $73,162 $10,682 87.26% CWD $68,059 $71,616 ($3,557) 105.23% Probation $15,785 $1,546 $14,239 9.79% FEDERAL FUNDS ONLY EXPENDITURES ADOPTION AND LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP INCENTIVE (ALG) NEW 2016\/17 $130 $157 ($27) 120.77% CFL 16\/17-59 CALFRESH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM (CFET) $60,576 $78,492 ($17,916) 129.58% CFL 16\/17-48E INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM (ILP) $16,172 $33,643 ($17,471) 208.03% CFL 16\/17-26 PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES (PSSF) $28,943 $31,282 ($2,339) 108.08% CFL 16\/17-27 PSSF CASEWORKER VISITS $2,026 $27,137 ($25,111) 1339.44% CFL 16\/17-28 BFH – Allocation is good for 3 years. CCR includes CFTs, FPRRS, RFA and Second Level Review CFET – Allocation is on a FFY (1st quarter is Dec 2016) Historically, allocation has been overspent. Overmatched amounts move to county only. http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_63.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-142126-263http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_38.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_26.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_28.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_27.pdfhttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_59.pdf?ver=2017-04-17-142801-717http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/16-17_48E.pdf?ver=2017-02-13-160337-760..\/BFH\/INDIVIDUAL%20ALLOCATION%20LETTERShttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_35.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_35.pdfhttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_45.pdfhttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_67.pdf?ver=2017-04-26-161556-563http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_24.pdfhttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_71.pdf?ver=2017-06-06-095318-243http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_24.pdfhttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_71.pdf?ver=2017-06-06-095318-243http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_76.pdf?ver=2017-07-17-103119-943http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_62.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-143537-983http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_62.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-143537-983http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_36.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_36.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_36.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_21.pdfhttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_66.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-160544-343http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_66.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-160544-343http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_66.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-160544-343http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_64.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-134225-313http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_36.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_09.pdfhttp:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/CFL\/2016-17\/16-17_65.pdf?ver=2017-04-25-143622-097http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_10.pdfhttp:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/EntRes\/getinfo\/cfl\/2016-17\/16-17_17.pdf CaLWORKs Eligibility CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION FOR CalWORKs ELIGIBILITY SERVICES COUNTIES FY 2016-2017 Fed & GF Fund CalWORKs Eligibility Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility Expenditures FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility Not Spent by the County FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility Funds Overspent Percentage of FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility Not Spent by the County ALAMEDA $17,901,973 $20,026,679 $0 ($2,124,706) 111.87% ALPINE $86,595 $72,419 $14,176 $0 83.63% AMADOR $233,762 $287,054 $0 ($53,292) 122.80% BUTTE $3,726,552 $6,345,291 $0 ($2,618,739) 170.27% CALAVERAS $427,193 $378,786 $48,407 $0 88.67% COLUSA $238,366 $392,134 $0 ($153,768) 164.51% CONTRA COSTA $12,517,805 $18,741,453 $0 ($6,223,648) 149.72% DEL NORTE $793,087 $1,136,888 $0 ($343,801) 143.35% EL DORADO $1,268,728 $1,238,469 $30,259 $0 97.62% FRESNO $18,044,211 $16,638,170 $1,406,041 $0 92.21% GLENN $773,741 $931,564 $0 ($157,823) 120.40% HUMBOLDT $3,101,910 $3,825,209 $0 ($723,299) 123.32% IMPERIAL $3,520,748 $5,391,934 $0 ($1,871,186) 153.15% INYO $247,254 $269,773 $0 ($22,519) 109.11% KERN $13,039,635 $16,343,823 $0 ($3,304,188) 125.34% KINGS $2,356,214 $2,313,844 $42,370 $0 98.20% LAKE $1,135,193 $1,194,877 $0 ($59,684) 105.26% LASSEN $378,150 $643,966 $0 ($265,816) 170.29% LOS ANGELES $132,123,300 $185,800,182 $0 ($53,676,882) 140.63% MADERA $1,817,516 $3,176,780 $0 ($1,359,264) 174.79% MARIN $1,928,527 $3,593,381 $0 ($1,664,854) 186.33% MARIPOSA $393,820 $862,946 $0 ($469,126) 219.12% MENDOCINO $1,185,461 $1,251,516 $0 ($66,055) 105.57% MERCED $5,533,071 $6,862,414 $0 ($1,329,343) 124.03% MODOC $273,856 $283,029 $0 ($9,173) 103.35% MONO $170,137 $332,983 $0 ($162,846) 195.71% MONTEREY $5,498,547 $5,338,343 $160,204 $0 97.09% NAPA $953,849 $1,129,256 $0 ($175,407) 118.39% NEVADA $821,089 $1,130,323 $0 ($309,234) 137.66% ORANGE $23,965,677 $36,175,676 $0 ($12,209,999) 150.95% PLACER $2,333,873 $2,287,043 $46,830 $0 97.99% PLUMAS $298,381 $267,314 $31,067 $0 89.59% RIVERSIDE $24,520,438 $25,582,197 $0 ($1,061,759) 104.33% SACRAMENTO $27,362,986 $54,069,503 $0 ($26,706,517) 197.60% SAN BENITO $588,822 $835,126 $0 ($246,304) 141.83% SAN BERNARDINO $32,853,741 $42,831,347 $0 ($9,977,606) 130.37% SAN DIEGO $21,432,865 $50,434,827 $0 ($29,001,962) 235.32% SAN FRANCISCO $12,118,769 $18,513,762 $0 ($6,394,993) 152.77% SAN JOAQUIN $8,635,617 $16,085,670 $0 ($7,450,053) 186.27% SAN LUIS OBISPO $2,730,071 $5,610,588 $0 ($2,880,517) 205.51% SAN MATEO $3,747,087 $5,078,194 $0 ($1,331,107) 135.52% SANTA BARBARA $4,064,588 $6,463,966 $0 ($2,399,378) 159.03% SANTA CLARA $18,085,778 $15,043,294 $3,042,484 $0 83.18% SANTA CRUZ $3,458,443 $2,637,726 $820,717 $0 76.27% SHASTA $2,406,747 $3,524,369 $0 ($1,117,622) 146.44% SIERRA $100,055 $143,577 $0 ($43,522) 143.50% SISKIYOU $619,228 $906,719 $0 ($287,491) 146.43% SOLANO $5,049,624 $6,685,211 $0 ($1,635,587) 132.39% SONOMA $4,716,394 $8,017,110 $0 ($3,300,716) 169.98% STANISLAUS $7,231,369 $3,986,625 $3,244,744 $0 55.13% SUTTER $1,185,096 $1,436,346 $0 ($251,250) 121.20% TEHAMA $1,206,469 $1,685,418 $0 ($478,949) 139.70% TRINITY $246,201 $207,562 $38,639 $0 84.31% TULARE $7,123,893 $11,095,106 $0 ($3,971,213) 155.74% TUOLUMNE $601,491 $516,046 $85,445 $0 85.79% VENTURA $6,597,710 $7,931,068 $0 ($1,333,358) 120.21% YOLO $2,643,224 $1,906,016 $737,208 $0 72.11% YUBA $2,106,073 $2,121,891 $0 ($15,818) 100.75% TOTAL $458,521,000 $638,012,783 $9,748,591 ($189,240,374) 139.15% CW Child Care CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION CalWORKs CHILD CARE COUNTIES FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Child Care Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Child Care Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Child Care Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Child Care Allocation Not Used by the County ALAMEDA $18,938,606 $0 ($2,866,260) 117.83% ALPINE $1,693 $76,052 $0 2.18% AMADOR $170,262 $39,609 $0 81.13% BUTTE $1,828,568 $1,517,121 $0 54.65% CALAVERAS $125,908 $257,625 $0 32.83% COLUSA $37,668 $176,336 $0 17.60% CONTRA COSTA $5,731,199 $5,507,255 $0 51.00% DEL NORTE $517,364 $194,667 $0 72.66% EL DORADO $272,674 $866,387 $0 23.94% FRESNO $13,645,745 $2,554,303 $0 84.23% GLENN $179,516 $515,148 $0 25.84% HUMBOLDT $842,520 $1,942,368 $0 30.25% IMPERIAL $3,194,589 $0 ($33,669) 101.07% INYO $130,643 $91,341 $0 58.85% KERN $9,268,408 $2,438,544 $0 79.17% KINGS $2,044,518 $70,885 $0 96.65% LAKE $233,945 $785,228 $0 22.95% LASSEN $231,757 $107,745 $0 68.26% LOS ANGELES $78,062,115 $40,557,851 $0 65.81% MADERA $279,025 $1,352,737 $0 17.10% MARIN $2,220,420 $0 ($488,993) 128.24% MARIPOSA $39,521 $314,050 $0 11.18% MENDOCINO $645,309 $418,994 $0 60.63% MERCED $2,569,186 $2,398,390 $0 51.72% MODOC $23,285 $222,582 $0 9.47% MONO $26,972 $125,777 $0 17.66% MONTEREY $2,959,918 $1,976,663 $0 59.96% NAPA $469,682 $386,681 $0 54.85% NEVADA $315,184 $421,987 $0 42.76% ORANGE $16,583,759 $4,932,565 $0 77.08% PLACER $1,834,582 $260,764 $0 87.56% PLUMAS $98,619 $169,266 $0 36.81% RIVERSIDE $24,898,768 $0 ($2,884,381) 113.10% SACRAMENTO $13,948,986 $10,617,434 $0 56.78% SAN BENITO $416,269 $112,375 $0 78.74% SAN BERNARDINO $32,586,561 $0 ($3,090,555) 110.48% SAN DIEGO $19,131,072 $111,300 $0 99.42% SAN FRANCISCO $11,382,892 $0 ($502,692) 104.62% SAN JOAQUIN $4,841,584 $2,911,451 $0 62.45% SAN LUIS OBISPO $1,923,764 $527,287 $0 78.49% SAN MATEO $1,743,656 $1,620,469 $0 51.83% SANTA BARBARA $3,503,601 $145,576 $0 96.01% SANTA CLARA $10,262,317 $5,975,049 $0 63.20% SANTA CRUZ $3,430,780 $0 ($325,799) 110.49% SHASTA $1,937,617 $223,154 $0 89.67% SIERRA $57,138 $32,691 $0 63.61% SISKIYOU $104,503 $451,439 $0 18.80% SOLANO $3,006,591 $1,526,949 $0 66.32% SONOMA $3,338,409 $895,957 $0 78.84% STANISLAUS $2,281,558 $4,210,747 $0 35.14% SUTTER $599,758 $464,218 $0 56.37% TEHAMA $287,940 $795,225 $0 26.58% TRINITY $12,661 $208,378 $0 5.73% TULARE $5,546,772 $849,041 $0 86.73% TUOLUMNE $48,110 $491,907 $0 8.91% VENTURA $6,338,180 $0 ($414,773) 107.00% YOLO $2,274,987 $98,093 $0 95.87% YUBA $1,162,784 $728,043 $0 61.50% TOTAL $318,590,418 $103,675,704 ($10,607,122) 77.39% WtW Employment Services CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION FOR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES – WtW COUNTIES FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Employmenmt Service Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Employmenmt Service Expenditures FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Employmenmt Service Funds Not Spent by the County FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Employmenmt Service Funds Not Spent by the County FY 2016-2017 Percentage of Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Employmenmt Service Funds Not Spent by the County ALAMEDA $37,942,598 $37,191,158 $751,440 $0 98.02% ALPINE $183,535 $104,824 $78,711 $0 57.11% AMADOR $495,449 $463,890 $31,559 $0 93.63% BUTTE $7,898,294 $5,748,266 $2,150,028 $0 72.78% CALAVERAS $905,421 $756,010 $149,411 $0 83.50% COLUSA $505,208 $618,552 $0 ($113,344) 122.44% CONTRA COSTA $26,531,043 $20,479,302 $6,051,741 $0 77.19% DEL NORTE $1,680,919 $1,412,548 $268,371 $0 84.03% EL DORADO $2,689,023 $2,921,111 $0 ($232,088) 108.63% FRESNO $38,244,066 $31,920,892 $6,323,174 $0 83.47% GLENN $1,639,919 $1,570,788 $69,131 $0 95.78% HUMBOLDT $6,574,391 $8,132,456 $0 ($1,558,065) 123.70% IMPERIAL $7,462,103 $6,912,440 $549,663 $0 92.63% INYO $524,046 $275,564 $248,482 $0 52.58% KERN $27,637,045 $23,732,065 $3,904,980 $0 85.87% KINGS $4,993,911 $4,767,765 $226,146 $0 95.47% LAKE $2,406,001 $2,814,268 $0 ($408,267) 116.97% LASSEN $801,475 $581,517 $219,958 $0 72.56% LOS ANGELES $280,030,649 $235,330,123 $44,700,526 $0 84.04% MADERA $3,852,161 $2,536,373 $1,315,788 $0 65.84% MARIN $4,087,446 $2,919,051 $1,168,395 $0 71.42% MARIPOSA $834,687 $589,780 $244,907 $0 70.66% MENDOCINO $2,512,540 $2,297,203 $215,337 $0 91.43% MERCED $11,727,145 $10,794,164 $932,981 $0 92.04% MODOC $580,428 $773,253 $0 ($192,825) 133.22% MONO $360,600 $61,815 $298,785 $0 17.14% MONTEREY $11,653,975 $10,968,751 $685,224 $0 94.12% NAPA $2,021,649 $2,023,686 $0 ($2,037) 100.10% NEVADA $1,740,268 $1,598,095 $142,173 $0 91.83% ORANGE $50,794,402 $38,682,607 $12,111,795 $0 76.16% PLACER $4,946,562 $5,010,362 $0 ($63,800) 101.29% PLUMAS $632,407 $157,252 $475,155 $0 24.87% RIVERSIDE $51,970,198 $41,578,648 $10,391,550 $0 80.00% SACRAMENTO $57,994,878 $36,960,958 $21,033,920 $0 63.73% SAN BENITO $1,247,990 $912,764 $335,226 $0 73.14% SAN BERNARDINO $69,632,340 $59,181,664 $10,450,676 $0 84.99% SAN DIEGO $45,426,196 $29,639,429 $15,786,767 $0 65.25% SAN FRANCISCO $25,685,301 $24,622,386 $1,062,915 $0 95.86% SAN JOAQUIN $18,302,884 $14,909,009 $3,393,875 $0 81.46% SAN LUIS OBISPO $5,786,289 $3,224,539 $2,561,750 $0 55.73% SAN MATEO $7,941,818 $7,474,766 $467,052 $0 94.12% SANTA BARBARA $8,614,750 $6,716,314 $1,898,436 $0 77.96% SANTA CLARA $38,332,165 $38,439,985 $0 ($107,820) 100.28% SANTA CRUZ $7,330,047 $7,075,753 $254,294 $0 96.53% SHASTA $5,101,015 $4,732,055 $368,960 $0 92.77% SIERRA $212,063 $112,752 $99,311 $0 53.17% SISKIYOU $1,312,433 $1,032,267 $280,166 $0 78.65% SOLANO $10,702,499 $8,662,574 $2,039,925 $0 80.94% SONOMA $9,996,229 $8,049,939 $1,946,290 $0 80.53% STANISLAUS $15,326,629 $21,001,768 $0 ($5,675,139) 137.03% SUTTER $2,511,769 $2,070,462 $441,307 $0 82.43% TEHAMA $2,557,069 $2,160,065 $397,004 $0 84.47% TRINITY $521,815 $805,617 $0 ($283,802) 154.39% TULARE $15,098,838 $9,951,964 $5,146,874 $0 65.91% TUOLUMNE $1,274,839 $644,434 $630,405 $0 50.55% VENTURA $13,983,612 $14,489,931 $0 ($506,319) 103.62% YOLO $5,602,220 $5,502,988 $99,232 $0 98.23% YUBA $4,463,748 $3,315,440 $1,148,308 $0 74.27% TOTAL $971,819,000 $817,414,402 $163,548,104 ($9,143,506) 84.11% Mental Health MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES COUNTIES FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Expenditures FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Allocation Not Spent FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Allocation Percentage of FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Allocation Not Spent ALAMEDA $3,294,530 $2,262,064 $1,032,466 $0 68.66% ALPINE $244 $0 $244 $0 0.00% AMADOR $13,631 $2,750 $10,881 $0 20.17% BUTTE $612,412 $471,717 $140,695 $0 77.03% CALAVERAS $18,556 $2,478 $16,078 $0 13.35% COLUSA $6,555 $0 $6,555 $0 0.00% CONTRA COSTA $1,026,112 $834,287 $191,825 $0 81.31% DEL NORTE $129,663 $129,673 $0 ($10) 100.01% EL DORADO $38,366 $6,626 $31,740 $0 17.27% FRESNO $3,823,277 $2,259,257 $1,564,020 $0 59.09% GLENN $90,708 $114,113 $0 ($23,405) 125.80% HUMBOLDT $415,035 $375,524 $39,511 $0 90.48% IMPERIAL $493,226 $164,556 $328,670 $0 33.36% INYO $27,153 $39,654 $0 ($12,501) 146.04% KERN $2,070,080 $3,418,661 $0 ($1,348,581) 165.15% KINGS $377,161 $239,713 $137,448 $0 63.56% LAKE $145,489 $145,510 $0 ($21) 100.01% LASSEN $98,796 $98,796 $0 $0 100.00% LOS ANGELES $26,963,790 $24,375,755 $2,588,035 $0 90.40% MADERA $595,364 $575,188 $20,176 $0 96.61% MARIN $200,880 $94,226 $106,654 $0 46.91% MARIPOSA $43,235 $54,759 $0 ($11,524) 126.65% MENDOCINO $103,172 $58,647 $44,525 $0 56.84% MERCED $1,028,031 $902,315 $125,716 $0 87.77% MODOC $22,553 $2,099 $20,454 $0 9.31% MONO $2,128 $0 $2,128 $0 0.00% MONTEREY $528,762 $550,503 $0 ($21,741) 104.11% NAPA $36,172 $122,456 $0 ($86,284) 338.54% NEVADA $71,400 $103,937 $0 ($32,537) 145.57% ORANGE $3,926,521 $3,548,710 $377,811 $0 90.38% PLACER $299,596 $324,061 $0 ($24,465) 108.17% PLUMAS $30,859 $18,431 $12,428 $0 59.73% RIVERSIDE $4,218,062 $5,297,955 $0 ($1,079,893) 125.60% SACRAMENTO $3,691,030 $2,546,446 $1,144,584 $0 68.99% SAN BENITO $29,998 $0 $29,998 $0 0.00% SAN BERNARDINO $3,460,638 $1,420,361 $2,040,277 $0 41.04% SAN DIEGO $5,238,642 $4,658,628 $580,014 $0 88.93% SAN FRANCISCO $1,143,524 $1,443,193 $0 ($299,669) 126.21% SAN JOAQUIN $1,900,406 $1,061,874 $838,532 $0 55.88% SAN LUIS OBISPO $78,258 $10,118 $68,140 $0 12.93% SAN MATEO $134,293 $68,340 $65,953 $0 50.89% SANTA BARBARA $874,334 $711,374 $162,960 $0 81.36% SANTA CLARA $2,346,018 $2,336,336 $9,682 $0 99.59% SANTA CRUZ $336,525 $227,479 $109,046 $0 67.60% SHASTA $563,748 $456,563 $107,185 $0 80.99% SIERRA $767 $0 $767 $0 0.00% SISKIYOU $131,959 $113,882 $18,077 $0 86.30% SOLANO $766,649 $898,512 $0 ($131,863) 117.20% SONOMA $656,604 $648,916 $7,688 $0 98.83% STANISLAUS $1,108,348 $809,147 $299,201 $0 73.00% SUTTER $194,752 $154,442 $40,310 $0 79.30% TEHAMA $256,963 $217,937 $39,026 $0 84.81% TRINITY $4,498 $0 $4,498 $0 0.00% TULARE $1,326,602 $1,209,385 $117,217 $0 91.16% TUOLUMNE $158,620 $44,349 $114,271 $0 27.96% VENTURA $712,692 $625,076 $87,616 $0 87.71% YOLO $260,544 $116,453 $144,091 $0 44.70% YUBA $175,669 $133,403 $42,266 $0 75.94% TOTAL $76,303,600 $66,506,635 $12,869,459 ($3,072,494) 87.16% Substance Abuse SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES COUNTIES FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Expenditures FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Allocation Not Spent Percentage of FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Mental Health Allocation Not Spent ALAMEDA $400,101 $0 $400,101 0.00% ALPINE $161 $0 $161 0.00% AMADOR $7,768 $5,449 $2,319 70.15% BUTTE $420,032 $323,530 $96,502 77.03% CALAVERAS $15,469 $4,013 $11,456 25.94% COLUSA $4,321 $0 $4,321 0.00% CONTRA COSTA $1,156,309 $615,582 $540,727 53.24% DEL NORTE $58,753 $39,953 $18,800 68.00% EL DORADO $44,595 $29,914 $14,681 67.08% FRESNO $3,559,108 $1,709,498 $1,849,610 48.03% GLENN $24,313 $44,342 $0 182.38% HUMBOLDT $339,677 $323,442 $16,235 95.22% IMPERIAL $181,600 $193,689 $0 106.66% INYO $20,786 $39,654 $0 190.77% KERN $1,130,662 $6,405 $1,124,257 0.57% KINGS $119,504 $56,293 $63,211 47.11% LAKE $82,781 $82,759 $22 99.97% LASSEN $92,224 $92,224 $0 100.00% LOS ANGELES $20,228,634 $14,129,340 $6,099,294 69.85% MADERA $124,332 $75,877 $48,455 61.03% MARIN $85,711 $62,400 $23,311 72.80% MARIPOSA $24,275 $30,248 $0 124.61% MENDOCINO $30,456 $12,645 $17,811 41.52% MERCED $444,709 $197,724 $246,985 44.46% MODOC $7,630 $0 $7,630 0.00% MONO $1,827 $0 $1,827 0.00% MONTEREY $166,317 $373,304 $0 224.45% NAPA $13,584 $0 $13,584 0.00% NEVADA $52,513 $28,558 $23,955 54.38% ORANGE $1,166,413 $608,147 $558,266 52.14% PLACER $284,384 $106,850 $177,534 37.57% PLUMAS $11,389 $125 $11,264 1.10% RIVERSIDE $773,489 $50,427 $723,062 6.52% SACRAMENTO $4,102,418 $3,480,215 $622,203 84.83% SAN BENITO $29,324 $0 $29,324 0.00% SAN BERNARDINO $2,829,655 $1,819,428 $1,010,227 64.30% SAN DIEGO $3,842,329 $2,909,980 $932,349 75.73% SAN FRANCISCO $361,417 $475,769 $0 131.64% SAN JOAQUIN $1,578,166 $1,341,335 $236,831 84.99% SAN LUIS OBISPO $242,693 $195,605 $47,088 80.60% SAN MATEO $357,443 $121,454 $235,989 33.98% SANTA BARBARA $688,113 $515,208 $172,905 74.87% SANTA CLARA $310,446 $32,838 $277,608 10.58% SANTA CRUZ $292,786 $319,133 $0 109.00% SHASTA $203,529 $147,444 $56,085 72.44% SIERRA $824 $258 $566 31.31% SISKIYOU $129,729 $113,742 $15,987 87.68% SOLANO $183,740 $131,804 $51,936 71.73% SONOMA $303,601 $169,346 $134,255 55.78% STANISLAUS $1,634,044 $1,317,969 $316,075 80.66% SUTTER $152,169 $123,274 $28,895 81.01% TEHAMA $262,425 $233,588 $28,837 89.01% TRINITY $2,965 $0 $2,965 0.00% TULARE $826,552 $703,487 $123,065 85.11% TUOLUMNE $42,082 $26,241 $15,841 62.36% VENTURA $562,106 $558,545 $3,561 99.37% YOLO $210,583 $126,512 $84,071 60.08% YUBA $79,434 $69,969 $9,465 88.08% TOTAL $50,302,400 $34,175,536 $16,531,509 67.94% CALFRESH ADMIN COUNTIES FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs CalFresh Administration Allocation FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs CalFresh Administration Expenditures FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs CalFresh Administration Allocation Not Spend Percentage of FY 2016-2017 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs CalFresh Administration Allocation Not Spend ALAMEDA $21,275,155 $1,627,678 $0 92.89% ALPINE $33,917 $29,130 $0 53.80% AMADOR $365,552 $178,156 $0 67.23% BUTTE $4,339,553 $665,207 $0 86.71% CALAVERAS $688,131 $132,370 $0 83.87% COLUSA $260,538 $48,912 $0 84.19% CONTRA COSTA $17,621,105 $0 ($2,694,644) 118.05% DEL NORTE $769,234 $0 ($110,050) 116.69% EL DORADO $2,223,979 $106,244 $0 95.44% FRESNO $19,976,981 $2,854,739 $0 87.50% GLENN $707,845 $0 ($58,517) 109.01% HUMBOLDT $4,932,205 $0 ($70,537) 101.45% IMPERIAL $2,972,042 $839,954 $0 77.97% INYO $470,495 $0 ($75,336) 119.06% KERN $11,873,265 $2,215,992 $0 84.27% KINGS $2,161,558 $0 $0 100.00% LAKE $1,314,191 $0 $0 100.00% LASSEN $291,140 $81,326 $0 78.17% LOS ANGELES $153,600,720 $33,104,291 $0 82.27% MADERA $2,437,348 $0 ($254,846) 111.68% MARIN $4,902,402 $0 ($1,596,174) 148.28% MARIPOSA $488,479 $0 ($113,483) 130.26% MENDOCINO $1,733,052 $588,951 $0 74.64% MERCED $5,339,273 $0 $0 100.00% MODOC $152,687 $65,291 $0 70.05% MONO $319,594 $1,198 $0 99.63% MONTEREY $8,833,421 $0 ($361,923) 104.27% NAPA $1,450,046 $0 ($100,566) 107.45% NEVADA $1,173,427 $165,407 $0 87.65% ORANGE $30,717,485 $0 $0 100.00% PLACER $4,284,685 $0 ($150,308) 103.64% PLUMAS $308,188 $34,241 $0 90.00% RIVERSIDE $32,785,369 $0 $0 100.00% SACRAMENTO $29,379,656 $957,457 $0 96.84% SAN BENITO $840,649 $56,073 $0 93.75% SAN BERNARDINO $36,408,899 $8,146,760 $0 81.72% SAN DIEGO $41,279,092 $0 $0 100.00% SAN FRANCISCO $21,697,759 $0 ($2,535,157) 113.23% SAN JOAQUIN $9,040,741 $0 ($688,546) 108.24% SAN LUIS OBISPO $3,457,805 $0 $0 100.00% SAN MATEO $6,188,851 $253,884 $0 96.06% SANTA BARBARA $7,100,611 $0 ($132,303) 101.90% SANTA CLARA $26,782,841 $0 ($1,223,259) 104.79% SANTA CRUZ $5,391,884 $0 ($425,159) 108.56% SHASTA $3,511,631 $23,196 $0 99.34% SIERRA $99,221 $31,237 $0 76.06% SISKIYOU $870,239 $211,052 $0 80.48% SOLANO $7,267,354 $568,140 $0 92.75% SONOMA $8,100,363 $0 ($236,463) 103.01% STANISLAUS $9,377,577 $2,104,446 $0 81.67% SUTTER $1,099,905 $164,331 $0 87.00% TEHAMA $1,246,069 $12,413 $0 99.01% TRINITY $370,542 $0 ($18,586) 105.28% TULARE $7,676,203 $2,533,458 $0 75.19% TUOLUMNE $720,617 $195,309 $0 78.68% VENTURA $11,766,125 $0 $0 100.00% YOLO $2,706,797 $123,446 $0 95.64% YUBA $1,808,688 $3,687 $0 99.80% TOTAL $584,993,181 $58,123,976 ($10,845,857) 92.52% &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T &Z \/ &F &A &D &T &D &T &D &T &D &T ”

” Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director, CCWRO, 1111 Howe Avenue, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone (916) 712-0071 Email: [email protected] Advocate Response to DSS Options for Replacing the Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) CCWRO position on DSS Option #1- SUPPORT Option number one (1) would use the existing MEDS system, that for decades has successfully identified duplicate Medi-Cal, CalFresh and CalWORKs participation. Duplicate issuance of aid is rare in the 21st century, given the technological advances made. MEDS spots duplicate participation of not only the parents, which is all Option #4 will do, but also the children. It would also be less intrusive, cost effective and efficient. CCWRO position on DSS Option #4 OPPOSE Option number four (4) creates a new bureaucracy and costs that will exceed $10 million annually when history has shown that there is no need for a new bureaucracy and costs to prevent the issuance of duplicate aid that can better be used to alleviate the homelessness ravaging CalWORKs children. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. Authentication of identity is not a legal requirement for CalWORKs. Moreover, KBA relies on precise recall of secret information that is not a strong point of human cognition, especially adults living in deep poverty. This is also especially unreliable when it applies to people new to the U.S. or who are young, as they don’t have much public data built up. December 4, 2017 mailto:[email protected] 2 Table of Contents Page Summary 3 History of SFIS in California .. 5 Analysis of DSS & Advocate Recommended Options. 7 Analysis of the DSS recommended Options ..8 Conclusion .10 APPENDIX 1-Chapter 24, Statutes of 2017, SB 89 11 APPENDIX 2-Examples of questions that DSS’s recommended option would ask to determine identity of CalWORKs & CalFresh applicants and recipients 12 3 SUMMARY Chapter 24, Statutes of 2017 (SB 89, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) provides that the department shall implement and maintain an automated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program to identity verification and prevent duplicate aid and aids in the efficiency and efficacy of the file clearance process. There is no mention of authentication in SB 89. The federal law for Medi-Cal and CalFresh only requires that identity be verified. CalWORKs has no federal verification requirements. Moreover, there is nothing in Chapter 24, Statutes of 2017 (SB 89, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) that requires authentication of identity as a new condition of eligibility for CalWORKs. The following four (4) options were discusses during the single consultation meeting with DSS: 1. Continue with the existing verification process used for CalFresh and Medi-Cal; 2. Make Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) a requirement for all applicants; 3. Make KBA a requirement only for applicants applying remotely (by phone or online); and 4. Hybrid of Options 1 and 3 along with an Application Hub for prompt electronic verifications. NO FISCAL ANALYSIS – Some of the stakeholders requested a fiscal estimate for each option. The Department report failed to include any fiscal impact analysis of the four (4) recommendations that the Department put forth in their report to the Legislature. TIMELINE OF IMPLEMENTATION – During one of the stakeholder meeting on July 19,2017, DSS representative assured the workgroup that DSS would be reporting to the fiscal committees of each house before going ahead with implementation of the alternative to SFIS. This meant that DSS would not be taking definitive steps to implement Option #4 without presentations to the Legislative Assembly Budget Sub #1 and Senate Budget Sub #3. It was disappointing to see the proposed implementation plan for KBA that would do a Request for Proposal (RFP) November of 2017. The RFP has not been shared with advocate stakeholders. 4 The DSS November 2017 report states: The schedule below shows the major milestones related to the implementation of Option 4, Remote KBA in combination with an Application Hub. Any necessary funding will be sought through the annual budget process. DSS Intended Remote KBA Timeline November 2017\u2014Request for Proposal (RFP) and scope of work development November\/December 2017\u2014Risk code refinement and stakeholder input December 2017\u2014RFP published February 2018\u2014Evaluate vendor proposals and award contract April 2018\u2014Execute KBA service contract April 2018\u2014Develop business process and procedure for remote KBA service May 2018 Implementation instructions ACL following stakeholder review Summer 2018\u2014Remote KBA service available for counties opting out of face- to-face interviews The CalWORKs consumer representatives recommend Option #1, the most cost- effective option that saves over $10 million annually. Option #1 will provide nonbiometric identity verification methods in the CalWORKs program to identity verification and prevent duplicate aid and aids in the efficiency and efficacy of the file clearance process for all assistance unit members, including children. Options #’s 2,3, and 4 only address adults. 5 History of SFIS in California The history of statewide finger imaging system (SFIS): The SFIS system was enacted in 1996 added by a 1996 trailer budget bill SB 1780 (Stats. 1996, Ch. 206, Sec. 1.5.) to allegedly identify and prevent duplicate participation in the CalWORKs and Food Stamp program (now CalFresh). On average, SFIS detects about 65 cases of potential duplicate aid fraud each year (about 0.01percent of all applications). Assuming that such duplicate aid would not have been detected by any other means, the benefit loss associated with these 65 cases could be up to $400,000 per year based upon the average benefit and duration of a CalWORKs case. SFIS is wasteful: In 2003, the Bureau of State Auditor General released a report about SFIS which concluded most of the matches that SFIS identified have turned out to be administrative errors made by county staff, and the level of detected duplicate-aid fraud has been small. After this revelation of waste, California’s welfare system still continues to spend taxpayer money to demonstrate that California is concerned about program integrity. To date, California may have spent about $200 million on this failed system. SFIS eliminated for CalFresh: On October 6, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 6, Chapter 501, Statutes of 2011, which eliminated the Statewide Finger-Imaging System (SFIS). Effective January 1, 2012 California stopped using SFIS to identify duplicate participation in the CalFresh program and started to use the Medical Eligibility Data System (MEDS) to make sure that an applicant for CalFresh was not receiving CalFresh in another county. In the past five years MEDS addressed CalFresh duplicate participation: Neither the State Auditor General’s office or any other entity have found widespread duplicated participation in CalFresh. MEDS has been very effective in combating duplicate participation. MEDS has been the system addressing potential duplicate Medi-Cal participation: Since 1983, way before the enactment of SFIS, MEDS has served as the system that provides automated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the Medi- Cal program to identity verification and prevent duplicate aid and aids in the efficiency and efficacy of the file clearance process for all Medi-Cal recipients. KBA was not designed for our CalWORKs Caseload: The main weakness of knowledge-based authentication is that it relies on precise recall of the secret information. If the user makes a small error in entering the secret, the authentication 6 fails. Unfortunately, precise recall is not a strong point of human cognition. Studies have shown that people are much better at imprecise recall, particularly in recognition of previously experienced stimuli. Much of the information that KBA asks for can be found on a number of social networks, such as what city was your mother born in? KBA is especially unreliable when it applies to people new to the U.S. or who are young, as they don’t have much public data built up. Given the demographics of our caseload, we believe this would have a horrific impact on our child-only cases which are 29% of the CalWORKs caseload and about 20% of the applications. One could imagine the questions (on column 2) being asked of the ineligible relative caretaker of the child-only caseload. Appendix #2 is a list of questions KBA would ask CalWORKs applicants that are designed for whole different demographic of our population and would certainly be demeaning and frustrating for parents trying to raise children in deep poverty . 7 Analysis of DSS and Advocate Recommended Options OPTION #1 RECOMMENDED BY ADVOCATES – Continue with the existing verification process used for CalFresh. Utilize the existing Applicant IEVS process for identity verification. The information provided by the client would be matched against MEDS. This process validates a client’s identity, but does not authenticate the identity. CDSS would issue guidance to counties reminding them of the need to verify documents of all applicants. PROS Verifies identity of all assistance members, including children; Detects duplicate aid, including children, which KBA does not; It has been used successfully for the Medi-Cal program since 1983; It has been used successfully for the CalFesh program since 2011; It is efficient in that it would save taxpayers about an estimated $15 million annually. CONS: (DSS Cons) DSS Cons Advocate Response to DSS Con Does not authenticate identity Authentication of identity is not a legal requirement for CalWORKS. Moreover, KBA relies on precise recall of secret information that is not a strong point of human cognition, especially adults living in deep poverty. This is also especially unreliable when it applies to people new to the U.S. or who are young, as they don’t have much public data built up. Does not facilitate remote applications MEDS has facilitated remote applications for Medi-Cal for several decades with evidence of increased fraud. This has also been true for CalFresh for several years. It can do the same for CalWORKs. Will not enable same-day eligibility determination MEDS has facilitated remote applications for Medi-Cal for several decades. This is also true for CalFresh. It can do the same for CalWORKs. 8 Will not reduce the risk of overpayments and recoupments DSS has no objective study to prove this claim OPTION #4 RECOMMENDE BY DSS – Option # 4, that is a Hybrid of Options #1 and #3 along with an Application Hub for prompt electronic verifications. A hybrid of Options #1 and #3, while developing an Application Hub for expedited eligibility determination and identity verification. In the short-term, CDSS would implement Option #1 as outlined above, and counties offering remote applications under Senate Bill 947 (Chapter 798, Statutes of 2016) would utilize KBA once that service is competitively procured. All counties would allow clients the opportunity for in- person application, and that process would not require KBA. In the long-term, CDSS would work with stakeholders to develop an Application Hub for real-time eligibility determination for CalWORKs and CalFresh, ensuring benefits are issued on time and with significantly fewer errors. The Application Hub would ping state and federal sources, such the Franchise Tax Board and the Employment Development Department, to verify information so that clients can more easily complete their applications. More accurate benefit determination will reduce client burdens from collections\/grant reductions. Development of the Application Hub was the top priority identified by county, advocate and other stakeholders for the $13 million in CalFresh bonus funds awarded to the state in 2015-16. DSS Pros: DSS Pro Advocate Response to DSS Stated Pro Maximizes client choice for the application process Remote applications have been done for CalFresh for several years without any increase in the State’s error rate. Counties have the discretion to accommodate CalWORKs families, many of whom are homeless, or erect barriers on their path to get relief from California’s safety net program for impoverished families of California-many of them homeless. This is a county choice and there is no evidence that KBA would lead to all counties opting for the SB 947 option. Verifies identity MEDS also verified identity. It has been verifying identity for decades Authenticates identity Authentication of identity is not a legal requirement for CalWORKS. It is not required by SB 89. Moreover, KBA relies on precise recall of secret information that is not a strong point of human cognition, especially adults living in deep poverty. This is also especially unreliable when it applies to people new to the U.S. or who are young, as they don’t have much public data built up. 9 Detects duplicate aid MEDS detects duplicate participation for all assistance unit members in CalWORKs, CalFresh and Medi-Cal, whereas this option only applies to adults and not children. Facilitates remote applications MEDS has facilitated remote applications for Medi-Cal for several decades with evidence of increased fraud. It can do the same for CalWORKs. Enables same-day eligibility determination MEDS has facilitated remote applications for Medi-Cal for several decades. This is also true for CalFresh. It can do the same for CalWORKs. Reduces the risk of overpayments and recoupments DSS has no objective study to prove this claim. Some clients find the questions to be intrusive or difficult to answer The main weakness of knowledge-based authentication is that it relies on precise recall of the secret information. If the user makes a small error in entering the secret, the authentication fails. Unfortunately, precise recall is not a strong point of human cognition. Studies have shown that people are much better at imprecise recall, particularly in recognition of previously experienced stimuli. Lot of the information that KBA asks can be found on a number of social networks, such as what city was your mother born in? KBA is especially unreliable when it applies to people new to the U.S. or who are young, as they don’t have much public data built up. Given the demographics of our caseload, we believe that this would have a horrific impact on our child-only cases which are 29% of the CalWORKs caseload. One could imagine the questions (on column 2) being asked of the ineligible relative caretaker of the child-only caseload. 10 CONCLUSION What a KBA-like system proposes to do, MEDS has been doing for the CalFresh program for the past five years without spending $13.2 million a year, and for Medi-Cal since 1983. We suggest that in the absence of any major duplicate participation in the CalFresh program after 5 years of no fingerprinting, it is time to treat CalWORKs families just like we treat CalFresh and Medi-Cal families in California. There is no evidence of a slew of duplicate CalFresh and Medi-Cal participation. Moreover, it is our view that MEDS is more than capable of identifying duplicate participation as it is an instrument to verify identity of non-citizens for Medi-Cal. Moreover, while KBA only identifies duplicate participation of adults, MEDS captures not only adults, but children too. Advocates suggest that the Legislature adopt Option #1 which has a proven track record of combating any alleged duplicate participation for adults, but also for children. This option is also the most effective option of the four (4) options of the October 2017 DSS report. The $13.2 million that is planned to be wasted for SFIS or a similar system in the Governor’s 2018-2019 proposed budget, can better be used to help CalWORKs homeless families by upgrading the Homeless Assistance Program. 11 APPENDIX 1 10831. (a) The department shall implement and maintain an automated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program. It is the intent of the Legislature to codify additional details regarding this method so that recipients of aid, other than dependent children, will be required, as a condition of eligibility, to cooperate with this method. (b) The department shall update the Legislature, no later than November 1, 2017, regarding options for the design, implementation, and maintenance of an automated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program. (c) The options developed under this section shall be for use in California counties and shall include procedures and a schedule for implementation. (d) Prior to the update to the Legislature, the department shall do both of the following: (1) Consult with stakeholders, including legislative staff, representatives of counties and county human services agencies, current or former CalWORKs clients, advocates for clients, and other stakeholders, as appropriate. (2) Consider how any new methods of identity verification would impact applicant or recipient experiences and make application and eligibility practices more efficient. (e) (1) A method implemented and maintained pursuant to this section shall be reviewed annually, with an update to the Legislature in the course of the annual spring budget subcommittee process, according to the following criteria: (A) The extent to which the method improved identity verification and prevented duplicate aid. (B) The extent to which the method improved the client experience. (C) The extent to which the method aided in the efficiency and efficacy of the file clearance process. (2) A method implemented and maintained pursuant to this section shall be evaluated, and a written report shall be submitted to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, addressing the criteria in paragraph (1) by April 1, 2019. (f) Notwithstanding any other law, contracts necessary pursuant to this section shall be exempt from both of the following: (1) The personal services contracting requirements of Article 4 (commencing with Section 19130) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (2) The Public Contract Code and the State Contracting Manual. Contracts necessary pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the approval of the Department of General Services. (g) Beginning in fiscal year 2018-19, any method implemented and maintained pursuant to this section shall only be operative in years in which funding is provided in the annual Budget Act for this purpose. 12 APPENDIX 2 Examples of questions Pondera would ask to determine identity of CalWORKs & CalFresh applicants and recipients. (These questions assume alternative facts ) The current industry standard is to present 4 questions, 3 of the 4 questions answered correctly will pass the authentication. If not, then the person would be suspected of welfare fraud and could be subject to investigation, a search of their house by the welfare fraud investigators and more. Our beneficiary concerns are shown below: KBA Question BENEFICIARY CONCERN 1. What month were you born? There are many immigrants who have no idea what month they were born. How long have you lived at your current residence? There are many are homeless CalWORKs families that do not have a fixed residence address. Which of the following people have you known? This sounds like McCarthyism for our Hispanic brothers and sisters. Which of the following vehicles have you recently owned or leased? Less than 25% of CalWORKs families own a car. This question is demeaning in that it assumes the respondent has a car like the person drafting the questions does. Which of the following streets have you ever lived or used as your address? There are many are homeless CalWORKs families that do not have a fixed residence address. What is the color of your current vehicle? Less than 25% of CalWORKs families own a car. This question is demeaning in that it assumes the respondent has a car like the person drafting the questions does. Which of the following email addresses have you ever been associated with? Many CalWORKs parents, especially those from the 29% child- only cases have no email address. It is also an insulting question and the respondent would feel demeaned for not having an email address. According to your driver’s license, approximately how tall are you? Less than 25% of CalWORKs families own a car. This is a demeaning question in that it assumes that the respondent has a car like the person drafting these questions does. Moreover, many parents do not even have a driver’s license. Which of the following phone numbers have you ever been associated with? This question implies that folks have the same phone numbers for years and can identify the number. In reality, many CalWORKs beneficiaries are having their telephone services constantly disconnected then getting different numbers. Summary of Options for Replacing the Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System October 2017 Director Will Lightbourne Deputy Director Todd Bland California Department of Social Services 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. ………. 2 OPTIONS FOR REPLACING STATEWIDE FINGERPRINT IMAGING SYSTEM.. … ……… 3 APPENDIX A.. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 APPENDIX B …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 California Department of Social Services 2 Executive Summary Chapter 24, Statutes of 2017 (SB 89, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to implement and maintain an automated, non-biometric identity verification method in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program to replace the Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS). Chapter 24 repeals SFIS no later than July 1, 2018. After consulting with stakeholders, Chapter 24 requires CDSS to submit a report outlining options for SFIS replacement no later than November 1, 2017. Pursuant to Chapter 24, CDSS held two stakeholder meetings to obtain input on potential alternatives for SFIS replacement. In addition, at these stakeholder meetings, CDSS reviewed the results of a pilot that used Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) to verify identity. CDSS noted all comments and concerns from the stakeholder consultations and considered them while drafting this Legislative Report. Building on prior research that begun in 2015 and the recently completed verification pilot, discussed later, four options were developed for replacing SFIS: 1. Continuing with the existing verification process used for CalFresh. 2. Making KBA a requirement for all applicants. 3. Making KBA a requirement only for applicants applying remotely (by phone or online). 4. Hybrid of Options 1 and 3 along with an Application Hub for prompt electronic verifications. CDSS recommends Option 4, moving forward with the KBA method for remote applications only with the long term vision of an Application Hub. The KBA implementation would start with phone interviews at first and eventually include online applications. During this time, CDSS will be working towards the creation of an Application Hub, supporting real-time eligibility determination for CalWORKs and CalFresh, and ensuring benefits are issued on time and with significantly fewer errors. California Department of Social Services 3 Options for Replacing the Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System I. Introduction and Legislative Mandate For much of this decade, the policy of requiring applicants of CalWORKs to be fingerprinted as a condition of eligibility has been questioned by the Legislature, advocates, the Bureau of State Audits and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). Accordingly, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2017 (SB 89, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), repeals the fingerprinting requirement no later than July 1, 2018, and requires CDSS to implement a non-biometric identity verification method for CalWORKs. Chapter 24 further requires that CDSS update the Legislature no later than November 1, 2017 on options for the design, implementation, and maintenance of the new method. The options are to include procedures and a schedule for implementation. Prior to this update, CDSS must consult with specified stakeholders. This paper is submitted pursuant to Section 16 of Chapter 24, excerpted below: SEC. 16. Section 10831 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read: 10831. (a) The department shall implement and maintain an automated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program. It is the intent of the Legislature to codify additional details regarding this method so that recipients of aid, other than dependent children, will be required, as a condition of eligibility, to cooperate with this method. (b) The department shall update the Legislature, no later than November 1, 2017, regarding options for the design, implementation, and maintenance of an automated, nonbiometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program. (c) The options developed under this section shall be for use in California counties and shall include procedures and a schedule for implementation. (d) Prior to the update to the Legislature, the department shall do both of the following: (1) Consult with stakeholders, including legislative staff, representatives of counties and county human services agencies, current or former CalWORKs clients, advocates for clients, and other stakeholders, as appropriate. (2) Consider how any new methods of identity verification would impact applicant or recipient experiences and make application and eligibility practices more efficient. II. Background and Reference Documents CalWORKs Application Process CalWORKs provides cash assistance and services to low-income families with children. The current CalWORKs application process requires applicants to come into the county office for an in-person interview and go through the SFIS process. The county worker will request an Applicant Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) abstract through MEDS. The county worker will process the Applicant IEVS information and any California Department of Social Services 4 documentation provided by the client to determine eligibility. The county will notify the client with a notice of action of the client’s approval or denial or pended application. If approved, the notice will provide the client with their benefit amount. If the application is pended, the notice will tell the client when the county will review their eligibility again (when they appear they may be eligible). If denied, the notice will state the reason for the denial. Applicant Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) This federally mandated matching system consists of a coordinated data exchange comprised of various cross-matches of applicant name and Social Security Number (SSN) with various databases. These matches include, but are not limited to, Employment Development Department (EDD) Wage and Unemployment\/Disability payments, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income verification. The Applicant IEVS verifies matches that take place at the time of application for public assistance. These matches occur over several days, and confirm income eligibility, assets, citizenship and residency. Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) Chapter 206, Statutes of 1996 (SB 1780, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) required CDSS to create SFIS in order to detect and prevent the issuance of duplicate aid in CalWORKs and CalFresh. SFIS thereafter was implemented, and is a biometric ID verification system that takes images of applicants’ index fingerprints and a photo of the benefit applicant. In 2011, use of SFIS was ended for CalFresh by enactment of Chapter 501, Statutes of 2011 (AB 6, Fuentes). The SFIS process requires the applicant to be physically present in a county welfare office in order to obtain the fingerprint images and photograph. Because clients are aware of SFIS, there may be deterrent effects to applying for duplicate aid, which cannot be estimated or documented. The results of the fingerprint imaging matching process are used solely to determine whether additional investigation or documentation is required before proceeding with the applicant’s case. On average, SFIS detects about 65 cases of potential duplicate aid fraud each year (about 0.01 percent of all applications). Assuming that such duplicate aid would not have been detected by any other means, the benefit loss associated with these 65 cases could be up to $400,000 per year based upon the average benefit and duration of a CalWORKs case. Appendix A provides additional background on the CalWORKs eligibility process and SFIS. California Department of Social Services 5 Earlier Exploration of an SFIS Replacement In a 2009 report (2009-1011) and related follow up reports, the California State Auditor questioned the cost effectiveness and value of SFIS. Based on this report and the mounting evidence that SFIS costs outweigh its benefits, in May 2015 the CDSS and the Office of Systems Integration (OSI) developed a Request For Information (RFI) to solicit potential less invasive alternatives to SFIS. Seven vendors responded to the RFI. Each of the seven vendors proposed a solution, all of which were based on the KBA method. The RFI process concluded that the most viable solutions presented for replacing SFIS and deterring and detecting duplicate aid fraud were based on KBA. KBA is the industry standard used for identity proofing, in lieu of using biometric technologies. At its core, KBA is a method of authentication which seeks to prove the identity of an applicant accessing a service in this case, applying for cash assistance by requiring the applicant to correctly identify personal information specific to the applicant. The KBA provides both identity verification and authentication. The software performs identity verification to determine if the identity provided to the program is legitimate (for example, a real SSN, if one is provided, and birthdate, are both tied to the name provided). While identity verification is designed to verify that the identity provided to the program is legitimate, identity authentication then seeks to ensure that the applicant is in fact the individual that they are representing themselves to be. To authenticate an individual, the KBA presents a quiz. The authentication quiz consists of four multiple choice questions that are designed to be easy for the individual to answer. Questions generally fall into one of the following categories: \uf0b7 Address and phone history (such as the street you live on) \uf0b7 Asset history (such as the color of your car) \uf0b7 Educational History \uf0b7 Driver’s License\/ID card data Identity Verification Pilot In late 2016, CDSS selected Pondera Solutions, through the Software Licensing Program (SLP), as the vendor to conduct a pilot using the KBA method. The pilot commenced in February in Placer County, and expanded to offices in five additional counties (Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, Napa, and Stanislaus) at the end of March 2017. Two of the pilot counties (Los Angeles and Placer) also used this service for their county General Relief\/General Assistance programs. The duration of the pilot was approximately three months. The counties were provided in-person training and ongoing monitoring of the service in each of the participating offices. The goals of the pilot were to: (1) authenticate identity and prevent duplicate aid through the most client-sensitive means that maintains program integrity, (2) allow counties to 1 California State Auditor November 2009 Report 2009-101 – Department of Social Services: For the CalWORKs and Food Stamp Programs, It Lacks Assessments of Cost-Effectiveness and Misses Opportunities to Improve Counties Antifraud Efforts. California Department of Social Services 6 improve intake business processes, and (3) assess potential benefits to clients and their perception of KBA. The pilot ran parallel to the current-law SFIS requirements. Counties were not allowed to make any case decisions, fraud referrals or conduct investigations based on the KBA results. The KBA service results during the pilot were put into a research queue for future discussion with counties about what the results mean and how they could be resolved. Appendix B presents the evaluation of the pilot. Overall, the pilot demonstrated that KBA protected program integrity just as well as the combination of SFIS and IEVS today. The service was preferred by clients, and county staff generally found the process easier to learn and use than the current SFIS and IEVS processes. Additionally, it was noted that the adoption of the KBA solution would support the elimination of the requirement for face to face interviews in the CalWORKs program pursuant to Chapter 798, Statutes of 2016 (SB 947, Pan), by enabling verification over the phone or online. Pending further analysis, it also could facilitate potential reductions in the amount of documentation applicants must provide for eligibility determination. III. Stakeholder Process In accordance with Chapter 24, CDSS hosted two consultations with stakeholders, including legislative staff, welfare and immigration Advocates, current CalWORKs participants, California Welfare Fraud Investigators Association (CWFIA), County Welfare Director’s Association (CWDA), and county representatives (Pilot and Non-Pilot). The July 19, 2017 agenda items revolved around possible options for an automated, non- biometric identity verification method in the CalWORKs program. CDSS presented the CalWORKs application process, SFIS overview, process used to identify potential SFIS replacement services and the Identity Verification Pilot results. During the open discussion participants requested follow up information to be shared at the next consultation. These included: \uf0b7 List of Pilot Office Locations \uf0b7 CalFresh Application Process \uf0b7 Overview of Applicant IEVS \uf0b7 Pilot Demographic Data \uf0b7 Historical SFIS Data The September 26, 2017 agenda included a presentation of the CalFresh Application Process provided by Placer County, CalHEERS overview of its Remote Identity Proofing (KBA) process, Pilot Office Location and Demographic Data, and Historical SFIS Data. The primary focus of this consultation was an open discussion of the SFIS Replacement Options identified by CDSS. These options are: 1. Continuing with the existing verification process used for CalFresh. 2. Making KBA a requirement for all applicants. California Department of Social Services 7 3. Making KBA a requirement only for applicants applying remotely (by phone or online). 4. Hybrid of Options 1 and 3 along with an Application Hub for prompt electronic verifications. A wide variety of opinions were expressed regarding the options. In summary, we noted: \uf0b7 Concern that KBA was the only alternative service to SFIS; \uf0b7 Recognition that authentication supports program integrity but is not required by statute; \uf0b7 Concern that KBA is more difficult for some applicants, particularly for minorities; \uf0b7 Comments in support of a KBA service for preventing fraudulent applications; \uf0b7 Consensus that KBA is less intrusive to clients than SFIS; and \uf0b7 Comments from a current CalWORKs client in support of client choice (specifically, options 3 and 4). IV. The Options The narrative below summarizes the options and their respective pros and cons. Additionally, these options are subject to the budget and information technology approval processes. Option 1: Continuing with the existing verification process used for CalFresh. Utilize the existing Applicant IEVS process for identity verification. The information provided by the client would be matched against MEDS. This process validates a client’s identity, but does not authenticate the identity. CDSS would issue guidance to counties reminding them of the need to verify documents of all applicants. Pros: \uf0b7 No additional service required \uf0b7 Verifies identity \uf0b7 Detects duplicate aid \uf0b7 County staff and clients are familiar with the process Cons: \uf0b7 Does not authenticate identity \uf0b7 Does not facilitate remote applications \uf0b7 Will not enable same-day eligibility determination \uf0b7 Will not reduce the risk of overpayments and recoupments Option 2: Making KBA a requirement for all applicants. Utilize the Knowledge Based Authentication method statewide for all in-person and remote applications. California Department of Social Services 8 Pros: \uf0b7 Verifies identity \uf0b7 Authenticates identity \uf0b7 Detects duplicate aid \uf0b7 Facilitates remote applications Cons: \uf0b7 Will not enable same-day eligibility determination \uf0b7 Will not reduce the risk of overpayments and recoupments \uf0b7 Some clients find the questions to be intrusive or difficult to answer Option 3: Making KBA a requirement only for applicants applying remotely. Utilize the Knowledge Based Authentication method for remote applications only. CDSS would issue guidance to counties reminding them of the need to verify documents of clients applying in-person. Pros: \uf0b7 Maximizes client choice for the application process \uf0b7 Verifies identity \uf0b7 Authenticates identity \uf0b7 Detects duplicate aid \uf0b7 Facilitates remote applications Cons: \uf0b7 Will not enable same-day eligibility determination \uf0b7 Will not reduce the risk of overpayments and recoupments \uf0b7 Some clients find the questions to be intrusive or difficult to answer Option 4: Hybrid of Options 1 and 3 along with an Application Hub for prompt electronic verifications. A hybrid of Options 1 and 3, while developing an Application Hub for expedited eligibility determination and identity verification. In the short-term, CDSS would implement Option 1 as outlined above, and counties offering remote applications under Senate Bill 947 (Chapter 798, Statutes of 2016) would utilize KBA once that service is competitively procured. All counties would allow clients the opportunity for in-person application, and that process would not require KBA. In the long-term, CDSS would work with stakeholders to develop an Application Hub for real-time eligibility determination for CalWORKs and CalFresh, ensuring benefits are issued on time and with significantly fewer errors. The Application Hub would ping state and federal sources, such the Franchise Tax Board and the Employment Development Department, to verify information so that clients can more easily complete their applications. More accurate benefit determination will reduce client burdens from collections\/grant reductions. Development of the Application Hub was the top priority identified by county, advocate and other stakeholders for the $13 million in CalFresh bonus funds awarded to the state in 2015-16. California Department of Social Services 9 Pros: \uf0b7 Maximizes client choice for the application process \uf0b7 Verifies identity \uf0b7 Authenticates identity \uf0b7 Detects duplicate aid \uf0b7 Facilitates remote applications \uf0b7 Enables same-day eligibility determination \uf0b7 Reduces the risk of overpayments and recoupments Cons: \uf0b7 Some clients find the questions to be intrusive or difficult to answer V. Recommendation CDSS recommends Option 4, moving forward with the KBA method for remote applications only with the long term vision of an Application Hub. The KBA implementation would start with phone interviews at first and eventually include online applications. During this time, CDSS will be working towards the creation of an Application Hub. Once created, CDSS will pair the remote KBA with the Application Hub. CDSS will develop a budget and implementation plans; a high level implementation plan is presented below. VI. High Level Implementation Plan The schedule below shows the major milestones related to the implementation of Option 4, Remote KBA in combination with an Application Hub. Any necessary funding will be sought through the annual budget process. . Intended Remote KBA Timeline \uf0b7 November 2017\u2014Request for Proposal (RFP) and scope of work development \uf0b7 November\/December 2017\u2014Risk code refinement and stakeholder input \uf0b7 December 2017\u2014RFP published \uf0b7 February 2018\u2014Evaluate vendor proposals and award contract \uf0b7 April 2018\u2014Execute KBA service contract \uf0b7 April 2018\u2014Develop business process and procedure for remote KBA service \uf0b7 May 2018 Implementation instructions ACL following stakeholder review \uf0b7 Summer 2018\u2014Remote KBA service available for counties opting out of face-to- face interviews Intended Application Hub Timeline \uf0b7 Fall 2017\u2014Issue RFA for consultant to plan and scope for an Application Hub \uf0b7 Spring 2017\/18\u2014Stakeholder discussions regarding an Application Hub \uf0b7 Summer 2018\u2014Recommendations issued regarding an Application Hub VII. Additional Considerations California Department of Social Services 10 There are a number of factors that need to be considered during implementation. These include: A) Developing for counties business process instructions, worker training curriculum, and scripts to explain the process to clients B) Most KBA solutions return risk codes based upon the publicly available information being searched and relied upon for verifications. The question of whether to use, modify, or eliminate the risk codes as part of the KBA system needs further attention and consideration. The SFIS replacement pilot project identified five risk codes which may be of particular value when provided in real time to the eligibility worker. These are: \uf0b7 The KBA service was unable to verify the applicant’s SSN \uf0b7 The input SSN was issued prior to the input date of birth \uf0b7 The identity is reported as deceased \uf0b7 Address mismatch between the city, state and\/or zip code \uf0b7 The applicant may reside in a different state However, these risk codes usually require further research to resolve, and may not accelerate eligibility determination nor the client experience. CDSS will obtain stakeholder input before incorporating any of these risk codes into the plans for Option 4. C) Translations into client languages would need to be made and tested. KBA questions are intended to be easy to answer, yet simple questions can be translated with a variety of words, dialects, or conventions that can be imprecise and impede understanding and the best results. D) Information technology infrastructure for connections and work with clients will depend upon the results of a competitive procurement for the short-term KBA service and longer-term Application Hub. E) Successful implementation of any solution will depend upon all parties understanding what is being done, when, why, and how. California Department of Social Services 11 APPENDIX A Background Information on the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility (CalWORKs) program and the Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) I. CalWORKs Eligibility There are three components to eligibility determination in CalWORKs, following receipt of a paper application: \uf0b7 Face to Face Interview with the applicant–During the interview, the Eligibility Worker will validate the applicant’s active aid status, and will verify the applicant’s identity through identity verification documentation. The Eligibility Worker will also look for and identify any anomalies in the applicant’s information. If a discrepancy cannot be resolved by the applicant, the Eligibility Worker may make an Early Fraud Referral to the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) at the county, for investigation while the intake process continues. \uf0b7 SFIS–The applicant leaves the intake interview and goes to the designated SFIS location within the county office to complete SFIS. The SFIS operator enters the CIN provided by the Eligibility Worker, and scans the fingerprint and takes a photograph of the individual. SFIS then generates either an expected result which indicates that the individual is not associated with a different CIN, or an unexpected result which indicates the fingerprint matches a different CIN, or does not match the CIN being used. The unexpected results need to be reviewed and investigated to ensure that the result generated is not due to duplicate aid. \uf0b7 Applicant IEVS query–This federally mandated matching system consists of a coordinated data exchange comprised of various cross-matches of applicant name and Social Security Number (SSN) with various databases. These matches include, but are not limited to, EDD Wage and Unemployment\/Disability payments, and Social Security and SSI income verification. Applicant IEVS also includes a search for any previous aid in California through MEDS. If previous aid is not found, the county proceeds with establishing a new Client Identification Number (CIN) in the system. II. Origin of SFIS In the 1990s some California counties implemented fingerprinting in order to prevent recipients of county General Assistance from obtaining benefits from multiple locations or counties. Los Angeles County expanded these efforts to include Food Stamps (now CalFresh) and AFDC (now CalWORKs) in a system known as AFFIRM. Enacted during the Wilson Administration and modeled on AFFIRM, Chapter 206, Statutes of 1996 (SB 1780) required CDSS to create a statewide fingerprint imaging system (SFIS) in order to detect and prevent the issuance of duplicate in aid in CalWORKs and CalFresh. SFIS thereafter was implemented, and is a biometric ID verification system that takes images of applicants’ index fingerprints and a photo of the benefit applicant. In 2011, use of SFIS was ended for CalFresh by enactment of Chapter 501, Statutes of 2011 (AB 6, Fuentes). California Department of Social Services 12 III. What SFIS Does SFIS merely compares fingerprint images to the images of other previous applicants. It is NOT a criminal background check mechanism, as fingerprinting often is commonly used for. Also, as a stand-alone system, SFIS does not share its data with any other system. By law, its data is not available to law enforcement except for purposes of investigations within the program(s) it serves. The SFIS process requires the applicant to be physically present in a county welfare office in order to obtain the fingerprint images and photograph. Because clients are aware of SFIS, there may be deterrent effects to people applying for aid, which cannot be estimated or documented. The results of the fingerprint imaging matching process are used solely to determine whether additional investigation or documentation is required before proceeding with the applicant’s case. On average, SFIS detects about 65 cases of potential duplicate aid fraud each year (about 0.01 percent of all applications). Assuming that such duplicate aid would not have been detected by any other means, the benefit loss associated with these cases could be up to $400,000 per year based upon the average benefit and duration of a CalWORKs case. (Note that this benefit is far less than the operating costs of SFIS.) IV. Budget SFIS has an annual budget $12.3 million ($10.8 million TANF and $1.5 million County). This amount covers vendor costs and state operations at the Office of Systems Integration (OSI). This does not include the county administrative costs for fingerprinting, which are within the CalWORKs Single Allocation to counties. Estimated SFIS decommissioning costs are $2.4 million for a six month phase out of the system. This primarily includes the removal of hardware and ensuring data security. V. Concerns with SFIS \uf0b7 The current fingerprinting process is considered by many to be stigmatizing for applicants. \uf0b7 The application process is cumbersome, requiring significant documentation to be provided by the client and scanned by the county workers. \uf0b7 SFIS requires applicants to be in the office when applying for aid, and requires a second step in addition to the intake interview. Currently, applicants complete their intake interview and generally must wait in the reception area or schedule a second office visit to complete SFIS. \uf0b7 Although Applicant IEVS queries MEDS to see if aid already is being received, it cannot authenticate identity. (It cannot validate that the applicant is the person that the applicant says he\/she is.) California Department of Social Services 13 APPENDIX B Evaluation of the Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) Replacement Pilot I. Overview For much of this decade, the policy of requiring applicants of CalWORKs to be fingerprinted as a condition of eligibility has been questioned by the Legislature, advocates, the Bureau of State Audits and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). Over the past year, CDSS has conducted a pilot of an alternative identity verification method for CalWORKs applicants in six counties. The alternative method, known as knowledge based authentication (KBA), searches public data bases to create a four question quiz that only the applicant should be able to answer. Chapter 24, Statutes of 2017 (SB 89, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), repeals SFIS no later than June 30, 2018, and requires CDSS to implement a non-biometric identity verification method for CalWORKs. Chapter 24 further requires that CDSS update the Legislature no later than November 1, 2017 on options for the design, implementation, and maintenance of the new method. The options are to include procedures and a schedule for implementation. Prior to this update, CDSS must consult with specified stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to provide background information for stakeholders. The remainder of this white paper is organized as follows: 1. Exploration of an SFIS Replacement 2. The Structure of the KBA pilot (page 2) 3. Pilot Results (page 3) II. Exploration of an SFIS Replacement In July 2015, CDSS and OSI issued a Request for Information (RFI) for potential solutions to deter and detect duplicate aid fraud. All vendors made presentations proposing a Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) service as a potential solution. CDSS did not solicit a biometric solution. KBA is an increasingly common method for accurately verifying an individual’s identity, and is used across government, E-commerce, financial, healthcare, insurance and other industries. To authenticate identity, a KBA quiz is generated instantly and draws from a uniquely configured Question Bank . The multiple choice questions typically relate to address history, assets owned, educational history, known associates, and demographic information. Typical questions displayed by The KBA Service include Which of the following addresses have you ever been associated with? and Which of the following vehicles have you ever owned or leased? Currently, recipients of Covered California’s health benefits may access their benefit information online through a remote identity determination process by answering a KBA quiz. What is KBA? The KBA service is a two-step search and verification workflow. Users access the Search Dashboard by entering the applicant’s name, address, SSN, and date of birth to search for any MEDS data that matches this applicant-supplied information. After performing this first level search, the second step in the workflow verifies the applicant’s identity against public third-party data sources, using a KBA quiz of at least four questions that is produced based upon the public California Department of Social Services 14 data sources associated with that information. There are over 10,000 public data sources; these sources, and the quizzes, are described in Attachment A. KBA service results are displayed as Risk Codes . These codes can illustrate potential identity-related discrepancies, typically related to SSNs, addresses, and date of birth. The combination of KBA pass\/failure and risk codes create a full picture of the validity of a person’s identity. These results can be used to make decisions regarding applications based on possible duplicate aid and\/or the legitimacy of the applicant’s identity. Some risk code results or failed quizzes can be resolved quickly through clarifying questions, and others may require further research. These results are returned to the user in the format of a Green, Yellow, or Red profile: Green The individual passed the KBA quiz and had no significant risk codes. Yellow The individual passed the KBA quiz but risk codes indicate further research may be needed to authenticate the identity. Red Passed KBA Quiz The individual passed the KBA quiz, yet there were significant risk codes indicating further research may be needed to authenticate the identity. Red Failed Quiz All failed KBA quizzes generate a red result. Instances where the individual fails the KBA quiz and there are risk codes may indicate the individual is not providing accurate identifying information and further research is needed to authenticate the identity. Person not found or no quiz produced This results when the information entered in the KBA service did not produce a strong match in the public record data footprint database. This could be due to the information entered being incomplete or incorrect, or perhaps that the individual is a young adult, homeless, undocumented, or a very scant public records file. III. Structure of the Pilot The Pilot had three primary objectives: 1. Authenticate identity and prevent duplicate aid through the most client-sensitive means that maintains program integrity. 2. Allow counties to improve intake business processes. 3. Assess potential benefits to clients, and their perception of KBA. In February 2017, six counties (Placer, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, Napa, and Stanislaus) began piloting the KBA service in 11 county offices with 200 county staff. Two of the pilot counties (Los Angeles and Placer) also used this service for their county General Relief\/General Assistance programs. The duration of the pilot was approximately three months. The counties were provided in-person training and ongoing monitoring of the service in each of the participating counties. The Pilot ran parallel to the current-law SFIS requirements, and client consent was collected to participate in the Pilot. Counties were not allowed to make any case decisions, fraud referrals or conduct investigations based on the KBA results. The KBA service results during the Pilot were sent into a research queue for future discussion with counties about what the results mean and how they could be resolved. Data that was gathered during the Pilot was assembled solely California Department of Social Services 15 for the Pilot, and was not otherwise shared nor stored. The identity of applicants for, and recipients of, public assistance is confidential by law. Also, zero security incidents were reported. Users of the KBA service had to sign agreements to use the service only for applicants assigned to them. Audit logs were used to monitor compliance. Business Process of the Pilot \uf0b7 County eligibility workers log-in into the KBA via a virtual private network secure connection. Workers enter the client’s name, social security number, birthdate, and address. \uf0b7 The KBA checks for receipt of aid in the MEDS system (is the applicant already known to MEDS ). \uf0b7 The KBA then taps into set of comprehensive and current public data collections. (Again, see Attachment A.) \uf0b7 The system generates four multiple-choice questions. The questions typically relate to prior address history, assets owned, educational history, known associates, and demographic information. Partway through the Pilot, a fifth and sixth question were added, only for clients having difficulty answering the first four questions. \uf0b7 Clients answer the multiple choice questions, and the system responds with the appropriate risk code described above. \uf0b7 The KBA service was administered to about 1,800 applicants for CalWORKs and General Assistance. \uf0b7 During the Pilot, 1,625 individuals completed the SFIS process. \uf0b7 Clients completed the KBA service during the intake interview, but some percentage of clients did not yet complete the SFIS process (either a no-show or a return appointment hadn’t yet occurred). IV. Pilot Results Pilot results pertaining to each objective are summarized below. Objective 1: Authenticate identity and prevent duplicate aid through the most client-sensitive means that maintains program integrity. \uf0b7 No duplicate aid was found during the Pilot, by SFIS or the KBA service. Both identified the same 20 cases that were in the process of an inter-county transfer due to a client relocating or having two CINs for an identity. \uf0b7 Although a MEDS query can detect duplicate aid, it does not authenticate identity. KBA provides additional identity authentication by confirming that the applicant is the individual they claim to be. \uf0b7 Using the applicant quizzes, initially 80 percent of applicants were cleared by green results in roughly four minutes each. (With the addition of the bonus quiz discussed below, the green pass rate reached 85 percent in the final weeks of the pilot.) \uf0b7 93 percent of quiz-takers found the questions to be easy to answer. Objective 2: Allow counties to improve intake business processes. \uf0b7 The KBA Service provided immediate, real-time identification of potential discrepancies with SSN, name, address, and date of birth, compared to three to five business days for Applicant IEVS processing. The immediate identification may allow the county staff to resolve discrepancies during the initial office visit. California Department of Social Services 16 \uf0b7 The KBA service provides more information pertaining to the risk of fraud than the current SFIS and Applicant IEVS\/MEDS query system, creating an opportunity to streamline county business practices. \uf0b7 County users reported that the KBA Service was easy to administer. However, user reactions to the helpfulness of risk codes were less positive. This likely results from counties not being allowed to take actions or seek further clarification using KBA service results. \uf0b7 85 percent of CalWORKs applicants were identified by the KBA service as green (passed quiz and minimal or no risk codes), so there is an opportunity to reduce application processing burdens and timeframes for counties. \uf0b7 Four-minute average processing time per applicant with the KBA service, versus current SFIS time of approximately 2.33 hours for results. \uf0b7 Only 3 percent of applicants have a \”thin data file\” where the system is unable to generate a quiz, which would require use of the current applicant IEVS process instead. \uf0b7 The average time to train county eligibility workers to use the KBA service was two hours. Figure 1: KBA Service Results CalWORKs Applicants Total: 1,053 Duration: March 23-May 31, 2017 Green 845 80.2% Yellow 19 1.8% Red-Passed Quiz, but risk codes Present 73 7.0% Red-Failed Quiz 80 7.6% Person not Found or No Quiz Produced 36 3.4% The Figure above illustrates that 80 percent passed the KBA quiz with no significant risk codes. No additional actions by the county are needed for these cases. Refinements were made to the KBA quiz process during the last three weeks of the pilot, to generate a bonus quiz for those who answered with only two, but not the required three, correct answers to the original four questions. This two-question bonus quiz increased the number of green results to 85 percent during the last three weeks. Also of note, county General Assistance\/General Relief applicants had green results nearly 90 percent of the time during the Pilot. Objective 3: Assess potential benefits to clients, and their perception of knowledge base KBA. \uf0b7 The KBA Service found a valid identity and produced a quiz for 97 percent of applicants. \uf0b7 Because 85 percent of CalWORKs applicants were identified by the KBA service as green (passed quiz and minimal or no risk codes), there is an opportunity to reduce application burdens and timeframes for most applicants. \uf0b7 The KBA Service provided immediate, real-time identification of potential discrepancies with SSN, name, address, and date of birth, compared to three to five business days for Applicant IEVS processing. The immediate identification of potential issues may allow clients to resolve discrepancies during the initial office visit. \uf0b7 93 percent of clients found the system easy to use; 7 percent had some difficulty. \uf0b7 Of clients who expressed a preference, 55 percent preferred the KBA service and 45 percent preferred SFIS. There was wide variation by county in this statistic. California Department of Social Services 17 \uf0b7 Applicants who preferred SFIS stated that it was easier for them, and they felt it was more secure than the KBA quiz. Applicants who preferred the KBA service indicated that they didn’t have to wait, have their picture taken, and that they thought the questions were easy and\/or interesting. What About Yellow and Red Results? KBA service results were not acted upon. Instead, the yellow and red cases were referred to a research queue and a sample of those cases was discussed at Program Integrity Workshops for each pilot county. These red results were reviewed during the workshops with a select group of county staff, including eligibility supervisors and representatives from the fraud prevention units. The purpose of these workshops was threefold: 1. Create an understanding of the KBA service results and associated risk codes 2. Validate accuracy of risk codes on selected cases 3. Solicit feedback from county staff regarding processes and policies around resolving identity issues to continue the eligibility process This was accomplished through three workshops with each of the six pilot counties. A total of 88 cases were reviewed. Of these cases, it was determined that 83 could have been resolved by the existing intake process including asking clarifying questions, requesting additional documentation and\/or clearing Applicant IEVS. It was determined that five of the cases reviewed may have merited an early fraud referral to investigate discrepancies. Overall, the counties found some value to the risk codes as they relate to eligibility. This ranged from ensuring the county had accurate information regarding the applicant (address, last name, date of birth, etc.) to potential early fraud referrals. During the pilot, it was agreed that further refinement of the risk codes may be helpful to reduce false positives , thereby reducing the number of yellow and red results and associated time to resolve them. County staff reported during feedback sessions that, while they liked the KBA service, they would feel more confident in its use as a statewide tool for duplicate aid prevention if there were clear-cut policies and procedures in place to guide them through the process. CDSS agrees, and this would be part of the policy development process if the KBA service is implemented. Potential Improvements The pilot experience provided CDSS and the counties with a wealth of information about how the KBA service could be improved if implemented statewide. Three short-term and two-long term improvements are discussed below. MEDS Data Upload. Assuming the continuation of importing MEDS data will be required to assist with the identification of applicants, there will need to be a more complete MEDS dataset. The current dataset only includes people that have been on cash aid within the last 15 months. Further, the data is only provided once a month. The frequency of the data is important, as it becomes stale quickly, and already is delayed by the time it is imported. An automated daily feed of MEDS into the KBA service would be much better. Connection Security. There were times that two counties in the Pilot (Stanislaus and Placer) had their virtual private networks (VPN) connections to the KBA Service go down intermittently. This caused the county to lose access to the KBA service. In conversations with the vendor, it California Department of Social Services 18 seems that the use of a whitelist of county’s IP addresses may be more reliable for a full statewide implementation. Risk Code Refinement. Further analysis of the various risk codes is needed to refine the process. Some of the yellow and red results may be reduced by filtering out risk codes that have little impact to granting the case, thereby eliminating some false positives and the associated unproductive workload. Reduction In Required Documents. For the 85 percent of applicants cleared green through the KBA system, there could be statutory changes reducing or eliminating certain paper documentation requirements. Any such changes must be consistent with federal TANF regulations. Such changes could greatly reduce burdens on clients to produce supporting documents. Building Toward a Verification Hub. Future enhancements to this service could include direct access through the KBA service to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, EDD, and other neighboring states’ data to improve identity verification and eligibility determinations. Data Sources and Quiz Questions KBA services collect public records from dozens of categories and hundreds of jurisdictions. The data is gathered from over 10,000 public sources including, but not limited to: \uf0b7 Credit header data from all three credit bureaus (NOTE: No FCRA protected information is leveraged) \uf0b7 Government agencies including o The Social Security Administration’s Death Master File o DMVs o County Assessors o Vital Records o Professional licensure agencies \uf0b7 Business datasets such as utility and telephone companies KBA services include both Identity Verification and Identity Authentication. The service performs Identity Verification to determine if the identity provided to the program is legitimate (for example, a real SSN, if one is provided, and birthdate, are both tied to the name provided). Addresses are also standardized by the system to avoid misspellings and other common mistakes. While identity verification is designed to verify that the identity provided to the program is legitimate, authentication then seeks to ensure that the applicant is in fact the individual that they are representing themselves to be. The authentication quiz will consist of four multiple choice questions that are designed to be easy for the individual to answer but challenging to manipulate if the applicant is presenting false identity information. Questions generally fall into one of the following categories: \uf0b7 Address and phone history (such as the street you live on) \uf0b7 Asset history (such as the color of your car) \uf0b7 Educational History of applicant or children \uf0b7 Driver’s License\/ID card data \uf0b7 Demographic details (such as DOB\/SSN specifics) CalWORKs Consumer SFIS Report on SB 89 SFIS Replacement Leg Report FINAL 10.27.2017 ”

” Facilitating CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for SSI Recipients January 2017 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations County Welfare Directors Association of California Social Interest Solutions Acknowledgements The authors express gratitude to staff from the following organizations who generously shared their time and contributed information and insights to this project: Alabama Department of Human Resources, California Department of Health Care Services, California Department of Social Services, California Food Policy Advocates, California Office of Systems Integration, California Statewide Automated Welfare System Consortium IV (C-IV), CalWIN Consortium, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, Hunger Solutions New York, Kone Consulting, Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, and National Council on Aging. About the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations (CCWRO) is a state- wide nonprofit organization that has been providing advocacy in the public benefits field since the early 1980s. CCWRO provides public assistance training, consultation and information services, and serves as co-counsel on hearings and administrative procedures related to public benefit programs. www.ccwro.org About the County Welfare Directors Association The County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) is a non- profit association representing the human services directors from each of California’s 58 counties. The association’s mission is to promote a human services system that encourages self-sufficiency of families and commu- nities and protects vulnerable children and adults from abuse and neglect. www.cwda.org About Social Interest Solutions Social Interest Solutions (SIS) is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to improving access to quality health and social services through technol- ogy and policy solutions. SIS has worked to advance federal, state and local policies to streamline and modernize eligibility and enrollment processes, and has developed pioneering technology solutions that have impacted the quality of life for more than 20 million of the nation’s underserved population. www.socialinterest.org http:\/\/www.ccwro.org http:\/\/www.cwda.org https:\/\/www.socialinterest.org Contents 1 Executive Summary Streamlined CalFresh Enrollment Options for SSI Recipients Additional Considerations 2 Introduction 3 Background 4 Current California Landscape SSI CalFresh 9 Streamlined Enrollment Models SSA Role in SNAP Enrollment Simplified SNAP Enrollment Pilots Streamlined Enrollment Based on Eligibility for Other Programs Options for Streamlining Enrollment 13 Facilitating CalFresh Enrollment for SSI Recipients CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for Current SSI Recipients CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for New SSI Applicants Ongoing CalFresh Case Management for SSI Recipients CalFresh Recertification for SSI Recipients 21 Additional Considerations Planning and Phased Rollout Working with Trusted Partners Multiple Communication Channels Training and Customer Support 22 Conclusion 23 Endnotes FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 1 CalFresh case management; and managing CalFresh recer- tification. These options are discussed briefly below. Facilitating CalFresh for Current SSI Recipients: Fast Track Given the large number of SSI recipients in California, the state could identify a fast track population that is highly likely to be eligible for CalFresh and implement a one-time simplified enrollment process for this group. The fast track population could be defined as single individuals or couples whose only income comes from SSI, a group that is consid- ered categorically eligible for SNAP in all other states. Once the fast track population has been identified, a stream- lined approach for initial CalFresh enrollment for this group could be implemented. A potential approach could include the following high-level steps: calculate a standard benefit amount; issue a notice of eligibility, EBT card, PIN number and instructions on how to accept and use the benefits to recipients; allow use of the EBT card to serve as con- sent or collect consent by electronic\/telephonic signature, in person, or by mail, and conduct interviews by phone or waive the interview requirement. This approach would re- quire a number of policy and procedural changes, some of which would require federal waivers, including modified data sharing agreements between federal and state agencies, the application of standard allowances to CalFresh income calculations, changes to current consent policies and\/or the ability to collect signatures telephonically, and the potential waiving of the CalFresh interview requirement. The tradeoffs of these changes would need to be weighed against the usability of the process for SSI recipients and the potential efficiencies for program administrators. Enrollment of Current SSI Recipients: Non-Fast Track SSI recipients who are not identified as fast track, meaning those with additional sources of income and\/or additional household members, would likely require a full eligibility de- termination process to obtain an accurate CalFresh benefit amount. However, potential options for streamlining this ap- proach could include leveraging existing SSI data to initiate enrollment and verify household information, utilizing a sim- plified CalFresh application, disregarding non-SSI income and resources, and exploring treating all SSI recipients as individual households. In order to mitigate the impact of ending cash-out on existing CalFresh households with SSI members, the state could also delay recertification of these Executive Summary Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients in California are not currently eligible for CalFresh (California’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps). Instead, California has historically opted to support food expenses for the SSI pop- ulation through the state share of the SSI payment, a policy decision known as cash-out. California is now reexamining this policy and considering changes to allow SSI recipients who meet income and other requirements to be eligible for CalFresh benefits. If California decides to end cash-out, it will be important to consider how existing processes and systems can be leveraged and streamlined to facilitate CalFresh eligibility de- termination and enrollment for as many as 1.3 million existing SSI recipients. California counties have well-established sys- tems and processes used to determine CalFresh eligibility and manage ongoing caseload using their State Automated Welfare System (SAWS). Furthermore, the state has existing access to a rich data file on SSI recipients through the Social Security Administration (SSA) State Data Exchange (SDX), and a subset of that data is already captured by state and county systems. However, given California’s current number of SSI recipients, it will be challenging from a workload perspective to collect CalFresh applications for the entire population and expedi- ently process them all at once. Therefore, California may want to assess opportunities to streamline the application and en- rollment process. Existing models in other states targeted at facilitating SNAP participation for elderly and disabled pop- ulations, such as the Combined Application Project (CAP) and the Elderly Simplified Application Project (ESAP), may provide lessons for California. California may also want to examine the role that SSA currently plays in other states to help facilitate SNAP applications for SSI applicants. These models have utilized a range of options that may be useful to California for streamlining enrollment if it decides to end cash-out. Streamlined CalFresh Enrollment Options for SSI Recipients Facilitating CalFresh enrollment for SSI recipients will in- clude: assessing eligibility for, and conducting enrollment in, CalFresh for current SSI recipients; facilitating CalFresh applications for new SSI applicants; providing ongoing FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 2 approach; working with trusted community partners to ef- fectively communicate with SSI recipients; providing multiple communication channels for recipients, including in-person, web, phone and mail; and ensuring adequate training and specialized customer support. Evaluating options for streamlining enrollment in CalFresh for SSI recipients will require discussions about the potential need for state policy changes (including federal waivers), the ability to leverage existing technology, and one-time versus ongoing process and program changes. Furthermore, the state will want to consider the importance of planning, train- ing, and building partnerships with county eligibility staff as well as community-based organizations. These decisions will ultimately determine whether seniors and people with disabilities in California are able to obtain the nutrition as- sistance they need in a manner that is least burdensome for them as well as most efficient for the state. Introduction Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients in California are not currently eligible for CalFresh (California’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps). Today, California is reexamining this policy, referred to as cash-out. State pol- icymakers are considering changes to allow SSI recipients who meet income and other requirements to be eligible for CalFresh benefits. If this policy change is realized, 1.3 mil- lion elderly and disabled Californians receiving SSI today, as well as future SSI recipients in California, could potentially become eligible for CalFresh. The purpose of this policy paper is to assess solutions for maximizing enrollment of el- igible SSI recipients into CalFresh, should California decide to end cash-out. The paper discusses: \u25b6\u25b6 The California cash-out policy \u25b6\u25b6 Current enrollment processes and systems for SSI and CalFresh \u25b6\u25b6 Models for streamlining enrollment across programs \u25b6\u25b6 Options for facilitating CalFresh enrollment for SSI recipients in California \u25b6\u25b6 Key policy, technology and other considerations households until the next regularly scheduled CalFresh rede- termination date. Facilitating CalFresh for New SSI Applicants On an ongoing basis, individuals who are newly applying to SSI could also benefit from a streamlined connection to CalFresh. A potential approach would be to leverage SSA’s existing obligation to assist SSI applicants with SNAP ap- plications. In some states, the SSI application has been modified to ask applicants about their interest in applying for SNAP (and collect consent), and in some cases to collect additional required information for SNAP eligibility determi- nation purposes. The SSI interview could also be deemed to satisfy the initial CalFresh interview requirement. Ongoing CalFresh Case Management for SSI Recipients Ongoing CalFresh case management for SSI recipients, which will be managed by county human services offices as it is for current CalFresh recipients, can benefit by ensuring specialized training for staff on providing customer support for elderly and disabled individuals. Furthermore, careful ad- vance planning will be required to ensure adequate staffing levels to support the expanded caseload. CalFresh Recertification for SSI Recipients CalFresh currently requires recertification every 12 months for most households, and every 24 months for elderly and disabled recipients. An interview is required at the time of re- certification, and interim reporting is required within 10 days of a change. This process could be simplified for fast track SSI recipients, for example, by extending the CalFresh re- certification timeline, waiving interim reporting requirements, aligning the CalFresh recertification process with the SSI or Medi-Cal redetermination processes, or allowing SSA’s redetermination process for SSI to fulfill the CalFresh recer- tification requirements. Non-fast track households could use the current CalFresh recertification process, but additional efficiencies could be achieved, such as if CalFresh were able to conduct an ex-parte recertification of SSI recipients using the most current data from SSA. These and other ideas should be more formally considered and fleshed out by the state, counties, advocates and other stakeholders. Additional Considerations Lessons from other states provide additional consider- ations for California to weigh if it ends cash-out, including: the importance of planning and the possibility of a phased FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 3 the California Assembly enacted a measure Assembly Joint Resolution 35 calling on the federal government to allow California to end cash-out in a way that would maxi- mize participation among those newly eligible for CalFresh and mitigate the impact on those determined to be ineligible for CalFresh for income or other reasons. One of the stated drivers behind the current reconsideration of cash-out is a concern that many low-income seniors and people with disabilities in California have difficulties obtaining suffi- cient food. 4 Data support this concern. One in seven seniors over the age of 60 and half of individuals with disabilities over the age of 40 in the United States have experienced food insecurity, or inadequate access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food.5 Food insecurity is also widespread among those with low incomes: 38% of those between zero and 50% of FPL and 45.5% of those between 50% and 100% of FPL struggle with food insecurity.6 In California, food in- security has increased among low-income seniors in recent years, increasing from 21% of California seniors with in- comes under 200% of FPL in 2009\/10, to 27% in 2013\/14.7 Food insecurity can compromise health, particularly among vulnerable populations such as those eligible for the SSI pro- gram: One study found that food insecure seniors were more than twice as likely to report fair or poor health status as their food secure counterparts.8 As California contemplates ending cash-out, a number of procedural, policy and system issues will need to be thought through in order to maximize enrollment for newly eligi- ble SSI recipients. One of the challenges the state faces is how to optimally enroll seniors and people with disabil- ities in CalFresh, an issue with which California and many other states have struggled. In 2012, with only 18% of eligi- ble Californians over the age of 60 (excluding SSI recipients) enrolled in SNAP, California ranked last in enrollment com- pared to other states and was nearly seven percentage points lower than the next lowest state.9 To set the context for, and provide insights into, the decisions California faces if it decides to end cash-out, the next two sections describe the current California landscape for SSI and CalFresh, and examine a range of potential models for streamlining eligibility and enrollment of SSI recipients into CalFresh. The findings were informed by interviews and workgroup sessions with more than 30 California state and county program officials, national and state advocates, and rep- resentatives from efforts in other states to connect the SSI population with nutrition assistance. Background SSI, a federal income support program administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA), was created in 1974 to help aged, blind and disabled individuals with little or no income pay for basic needs. States can choose to supple- ment the federal SSI benefit using state funds. This additional payment is called the State Supplementary Payment (SSP). SSI recipients in California are not currently eligible for CalFresh, a state-federal program that provides nutrition assistance to low-income individuals and families. Instead, California has opted to support nutrition assistance for the SSI population through its SSP benefit, a policy decision commonly referred to as cash-out. California’s cash-out policy dates back to the creation of the SSI program in 1974. States that provided a SSP pay- ment were allowed to increase the amount of that payment in lieu of allowing SSI recipients to be eligible for food stamps (now called SNAP, known as CalFresh in California). To save on the administrative costs of administering both SSI and food stamps benefits to SSI recipients, California chose to utilize the cash-out policy option.1 While four other states implemented cash-out initially (Massachusetts, Nevada, New York and Wisconsin), California is the only state that has maintained cash-out to the present day. However, SSI\/ SSP payments (hereafter referred to simply as SSI ) have not kept pace with inflation over time. In 1980, a year of SSI payments for an individual equated to about 128% of the federal poverty level (FPL); by 2002, the annual value of SSI payments had decreased to about 102% of FPL.2 In 2016, SSI recipients are living below the federal poverty level. A year of SSI payments in California for an individual resid- ing in their own home ($10,672.80) equates to about 90% of FPL ($11,880 annually).3 As a result, spending on food must compete with scarce resources for living expenses and other basic necessities. For this and other reasons, California has contemplated ending cash-out several times since 1974. Most recently, FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 4 2. The local SSA office determines financial eligibility and conducts an interview.13,14 The applicant may need to submit additional documentation. If the applicant is not determined to be financially eligible, SSA issues a denial notice. 3. If the applicant is determined to be financially eligible, a disability determination is conducted, unless the ap- plicant is over age 65 or legally blind, in which case a separate disability determination is not required. \u25b6\u25b6 SSA contracts with the California Department of Social Services’ Disability Determination Service Division (DDSD) to conduct the disability determi- nation and report the result back to SSA. \u25b6\u25b6 This process can take several months and often requires multiple medical evaluations. 4. If the applicant is determined to be disabled accord- ing to the SSI program rules, SSA sends the applicant an approval notice and the applicant begins to receive a monthly benefit amount from SSA, either via direct de- posit into a bank account or into a debit card account. 5. Once approved for SSI, individuals are automatically eligi- ble for Medi-Cal. Information about the newly eligible SSI recipient is sent electronically from SSA in a regular batch file via the State Data Exchange (SDX) and captured by the state Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS). (See sidebars below and on page 5.) Current California Landscape California’s existing processes and systems for administering SSI and CalFresh will need to be leveraged and may require adjustments if cash-out ends. This section provides a high- level overview of the steps and systems currently involved in determining eligibility for each program in California. SSI Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is income assistance for people who are disabled, blind, or age 65 or older with lim- ited income and resources.10 Of SSI recipients in California, 43% are age 65 or older, 48% are non-elderly adults and 9% are children.11 Some 72% of SSI recipients qualify for the program on the basis of a disability, including a portion of the group age 65 and older.12 The program is both federally (SSI) and state (SSP) funded. The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers SSI at the federal level. Although some states administer the SSP portion of the program, California has opted to have SSA administer its SSP program as well. However, SSA has del- egated a portion of the SSI eligibility determination process to the state via the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). This process is described in more detail below. SSI recipients in California are categorically eligible for Medi-Cal (the state Medicaid program), referred to as SSI- linked Medi-Cal. Because the process and systems used to administer SSI-linked Medi-Cal might inform facilitating CalFresh enrollment for SSI recipients, the steps involved in this process are included in the description of the SSI eligi- bility and enrollment process below. SSI and SSI-Linked Medi-Cal Eligibility and Enrollment Process In California, the steps to enroll in SSI and SSI-linked Medi-Cal are: 1. An individual goes in person to a local SSA office to com- plete an application and interview for SSI. The application can be started online, but must be completed in person at the SSA office. In California, and other states with an automatic linkage between SSI and Medicaid, the SSA application also serves as an application for Medi-Cal. State Data Exchange (SDX) SDX is a batch data exchange that provides data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) on SSI applicants and recipients to states that administer federally funded income and\/or health programs such as Medicaid. Each state receives a flat file from SDX and uses its state eligibility system to extract data needed to conduct eligi- bility for various means-tested programs from the SDX record.15 States must have a data shar- ing agreement with SSA that clearly indicates for which programs the state may use the SDX data.16 FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 5 8. The SSA office provides ongoing case management for SSI and SSI-linked Medi-Cal. SSA is responsible for in- forming SSI recipients about their SSI and Medi-Cal benefits, handling benefits questions or problems (includ- ing any issues related to Medi-Cal BIC cards), receiving and processing recipient reports of changes in eligibil- ity, and managing the SSI redetermination process. If the SSI recipient calls or goes to the county human services office for assistance with Medi-Cal, the county can record a change of address or reissue a BIC card, but SSA han- dles all other case management. The SSI recipient must report any changes in eligibility (e.g., change of address, household, or income) directly to SSA within 10 days and must undergo redetermination annually if changes are likely.17 As long as the recipient retains SSI eligibility, they remain enrolled in Medi-Cal. 6. MEDS identifies the newly eligible SSI recipient based on SDX records, assigns an aid code designating each individual as an SSI-linked Medi-Cal recipient, and this in- formation is sent to the California Medicaid Management Information System (CA-MMIS) to complete Medi-Cal en- rollment for the SSI recipient. Note, that unlike for all other Medi-Cal recipients, SSI-linked Medi-Cal cases are not managed at the county level and therefore do not have a record in the county eligibility and enrollment system unless it is from a case that existed prior to the individu- al’s enrollment in SSI. 7. CA-MMIS electronically notifies the state vendor (Xerox) to issue and mail a Medi-Cal Beneficiary Identification Card (BIC) to the recipient. The BIC serves as proof of enrollment for the SSI-linked Medi-Cal recipient to use when receiving Medi-Cal covered health care services from a provider. Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) California’s MEDS provides a repository for en- rollment data about multiple benefits programs, including Medi-Cal, CalFresh, CalWORKs, and other cash and nutrition assistance programs. MEDS captures data on SSI applicants and re- cipients, including demographics and program eligibility and enrollment. MEDS also interfaces with all three Statewide Automated Welfare Systems (SAWS), California’s county-managed elibility and enrollment system of record for public programs (see next section for more information on SAWS). FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 6 CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment Process The steps to enroll in CalFresh are: 1. An individual or family applies online, by phone, by mail, or in person at the local county human services office. The applicant must sign the application to certify the in- formation provided is accurate and to provide consent to use the information for an eligibility determination for CalFresh. 2. A county eligibility worker checks to see if the applicant has a prior or existing case in MEDS (known as file clear- ance; see sidebar on page 7). MEDS is also checked to determine whether the applicant has SSI, which would, under today’s cash-out policy, make them ineligible for CalFresh. CalFresh CalFresh, California’s SNAP program, assists low-income in- dividuals and households in purchasing food. The program issues monthly electronic benefits via an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card that can be used to buy most foods at many markets and grocery stores. (See sidebar on page 7.) CalFresh benefits are federally funded, while program ad- ministrative costs are shared between the federal (50%), state (35%) and county (15%) governments. The program is administered at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and at the state level by CDSS. Under California’s county-ad- ministered public benefit system, 58 county human services departments are responsible for CalFresh eligibility determi- nations and case management. Figure 1. SSI and SSI-Linked Medi-Cal Eligibility and Enrollment Process APPLICATION DETERMINE SSI MEDI-CAL DELIVER BENEFIT MANAGE CASE DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY To determine financial eligibility, local SSA office conducts in-person interview MEDS sends data to CA-MMIS MEDS receives SSI recipient data via SDX and creates SSI-Linked Medi-Cal case To determine disability eligibility, DDSD conducts a disability determination New SSI recipient receives notice of SSI Medi-Cal eligibility Local SSA offices provide ongoing case management services to SSI recipients Applicant Agency\/worker Applicant goes to local SSA office to complete an application CA-MMIS sends data to BIC vendor to print and mail BIC New SSI recipient receives Medi-Cal BIC in the mail New SSI recipient receives SSI payments via either direct deposit or debit card FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 7 3. If a case does not already exist, the county eligibility worker opens a new case in the Statewide Automated Welfare System (see sidebar). If a SAWS case does exist, the county eligibility worker adds information from the new CalFresh application to the existing case. 4. The county eligibility worker interviews the applicant, either in-person or by phone.18 In the interview, the eli- gibility worker reviews the application and explains the program. If any additional documents are needed from the applicant, the eligibility worker asks the applicant to send that information to the county. 5. Once the applicant has completed the interview and pro- vided all necessary information and documentation, the eligibility worker uses SAWS to determine eligibility and calculate the CalFresh benefit amount for the household. (See details below.) 6. SAWS then sends the new CalFresh recipient data to MEDS and to the EBT system, whose vendor (Xerox) generates and mails an EBT card with the correct ben- efit amount. The recipient separately receives a Personal Identification Number (PIN) to use when making pur- chases with the EBT card. The CalFresh recipient can immediately use the EBT card, like a debit card, to pur- chase food at most grocery stores and many other locations. Alternatively, if the CalFresh recipient applied in person at a county office, the county staff can print an EBT card on the spot and help the recipient set a PIN before they leave the office. Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) SAWS is California’s county-managed eligibility and enrollment system and is the state’s system of record for public programs including CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and CalWORKs (cash assistance). SAWS supports eligibility determination, benefit calculation, benefit issuance, case management and reporting. All of California’s 58 counties are organized into one of three SAWS consortia : CalWIN, C-IV, and LRS (C-IV and LRS will consolidate into a single consortia over the next several years). Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) EBT cards are used by states to provide an easy way for public program recipients to access benefits. EBT cards are similar to bank debit cards and can be used at any point of sale (POS) system that accepts the card, for example, a card reader at a grocery check-out. States were required to start using EBT cards for SNAP in 2002. In California, an EBT card is issued by default to the adult designated as the head of household in the CalFresh benefits case. The head of household may authorize other adults in the household, as well as one additional adult outside the house- hold, to be issued an EBT card as well, all linked to the same CalFresh benefits case. Those who are issued an EBT card are also assigned or are prompted to choose a personal identification number (PIN) that allows them to use the EBT card and access the CalFresh benefits. California’s EBT vendor, Xerox, is responsible for issuing CalFresh EBT cards and tracking spending against recipients’ benefit amounts. File Clearance Currently, before a CalFresh case can be created in SAWS, county workers must first go through a file clearance process to avoid creating a duplicate record for the same individual. The county worker searches for an existing record in MEDS using the individu- al’s information (name, date of birth, address, and Social Security number). If the individual is known to MEDS, the county worker selects the existing Client Index Number (CIN) and links the new application to an existing SAWS case in that county, or creates a new SAWS case, as appropriate. If the individual is not already known to MEDS, a new CIN is created in MEDS, and a new case is created in SAWS. FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 8 CalFresh Calculation of Income and Benefit Amount An individualized assessment is required to determine eli- gibility and the monthly amount of CalFresh benefits for the applicant’s household. Anyone in the household, whether re- lated or not, who purchases and prepares meals together, is counted as part of the CalFresh household, as is their income. To qualify for the program: \u25b6\u25b6 Total gross household income must be below 200% of FPL; and \u25b6\u25b6 Net income (gross income minus deductions and standard allowances) must be at or below 100% of FPL.19 7. County human services offices provide initial and ongo- ing case management for CalFresh cases. In addition to processing all mandatory periodic reports submitted by recipient households and annual recertifications, el- igibility workers respond to all changes in household circumstances, address changes, lost EBT card, and other reports and changes communicated by house- holds. In addition, county staff explains program rules, answer questions, and assist households with securing necessary documents and verifications required by fed- eral and state regulations. Figure 2. CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment Process Applicant Agency\/worker DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION DELIVER BENEFIT MANAGE CASE County worker performs file clearance in MEDS and SAWS County worker runs CalFresh eligibility in SAWS SAWS sends CalFresh information to EBT vendor County worker opens a new case (or updates existing case) in SAWS SAWS sends CalFresh information to MEDS EBT vendor generates and mails EBT card and PIN (or counties can generate locally) County workers provide ongoing case management services County worker interviews applicant Applicant completes and submits application New CalFresh recipient receives notice of eligibility from SAWS New CalFresh recipient receives EBT card and PIN FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 9 Streamlined Enrollment Models Existing models targeted at increasing SNAP participation for elderly and disabled populations or for facilitating stream- lined enrollment across other public benefit programs can provide lessons to California as it contemplates ending cash-out. This section highlights some of those models and identifies a range of potential options for streamlining eligi- bility and enrollment. SSA Role in SNAP Enrollment In all states other than California, SSI recipients are eligi- ble to apply for SNAP. Under federal law, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is required to assist SSI applicants in applying for SNAP benefits.22 Specifically, for all households consisting of only SSI applicants and\/or recipients, SSA must: \u25b6\u25b6 Help to fill out the state SNAP application at the time applicants register for SSI, if they are not already receiving SNAP benefits; \u25b6\u25b6 Deliver the completed SNAP application to the state or county agency responsible for facilitating SNAP benefits. That agency must process the SNAP application within 30 days.23 – 25 For individuals applying for SSI who have other household members or other income, SSA must inform applicants of potential eligibility for SNAP and refer them to the appropri- ate state or county agency to apply.26 Simplified SNAP Enrollment Pilots SNAP enrollment challenges related to the senior popula- tion are well documented. Nationally, in fiscal year 2014 just 42% of eligible elderly individuals were enrolled in SNAP, compared to 83% of all eligible individuals.27 FNS has at- tempted to approve various pilot projects over the years to test various enrollment strategies to help increase SNAP participation among seniors through a variety of demon- stration pilots, including the Combined Application Project (CAP) and the Elderly Simplified Application Project (ESAP). Combined Application Project (CAP) CAP is an FNS demonstration project established 21 years ago that has allowed 18 states to streamline enrollment of SSI recipients into SNAP. 28, 29 The primary goal of CAP is to Net income is determined by applying deductions and stan- dard allowances to gross income. Deductions are based on actual costs incurred by a household for certain expenses, such as housing and dependent care, up to a maximum amount. For example, the actual amount paid for housing (up to the capped amount) is deducted from the household’s gross income; thus, the amount deducted will vary by house- hold. In California, medical expenses greater than $35 per month can also be deducted from gross income.20 Standard allowances are a pre-set amount, determined by the state, and deducted from gross income for certain living costs, regardless of the amount spent by the household on that item. For example, households that have earned income, such as wages or salaries, are automatically given a $20 al- lowance, regardless of the actual amount of their earned income. This allowance is referred to as an earned income deduction. CalFresh households that incur a utility cost sep- arately from their rent or mortgage also receive a Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) for utility expenses that is deducted from gross income. After all deductions and standard allowances have been applied to the gross household income, an individualized as- sessment is made to determine the amount of the CalFresh benefit for all eligible members of the household. Under SNAP program rules, households are generally expected to contribute 30% of their net income to food expenses. That amount is subtracted from the CalFresh program maximum benefit amount for that household size, which is tied to the cost of the Department of Agriculture’s Thrifty Food Plan.21 For example, if a household has no income, it would receive the maximum CalFresh benefit amount. If a household has a net income of $400 per month, it would be expected to con- tribute 30% ($120) to food; that amount would be deducted from the maximum CalFresh benefit amount for that house- hold size, and the resulting difference would be the amount received each month by that household from CalFresh. Based on these program rules, CalFresh households must submit documentation of income and relevant expenses and undergo an individualized assessment in order to calculate eligibility and benefit amount. FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 10 Streamlined Enrollment Based on Eligibility for Other Programs Another model for streamlined enrollment is direct certifica- tion of eligibility from one program to another. For example, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), states are permitted to find certain SNAP recipients automatically eligible for Medicaid based on the SNAP eligibility determination.32 In 2014, California initiated an Express Lane Eligibility (ELE) program to provide a streamlined process to enroll new and existing CalFresh recipients into Medi-Cal.33 Specifically, the California Medi-Cal agency identified ex- isting CalFresh recipients in MEDS who were not already enrolled in Medi-Cal and notified them by mail that they could affirmatively opt in to Medi-Cal without completing a new application. Those opting in could respond by mail, phone, web portal, or in person using a provided PIN. The response rate to the initial mailing was estimated to be about 30%, with responses primarily from mail and phone. On an ongoing basis, the CalFresh application is altered so new applicants for CalFresh can be evaluated for Medi-Cal if they meet the ELE requirements. Options for Streamlining Enrollment The models described utilize a range of options for stream- lining enrollment either for target populations or across programs that may be useful to California if it decides to end cash-out. Some of these options could be utilized to stream- line the eligibility and enrollment process for SSI recipients in CalFresh, and are described briefly below. Population Identification Targeted outreach using existing data sources can be an ef- ficient way to identify recipients of one public program who may be eligible for another, despite some differences in pro- gram eligibility rules. For example, in CAP states the SNAP agency identifies newly eligible SSI recipients from the SDX data periodically sent by SSA and initiates the CAP SNAP en- rollment process so that only a few additional questions have to be answered to complete the CAP SNAP determination. Similarly, for its CalFresh\/Medi-Cal ELE program, California queried MEDS to identify existing CalFresh recipients who were not already enrolled in Medi-Cal and sent notices to those individuals informing them of their eligibility for Medi- Cal without requiring they complete a separate application. If California ends cash-out, it can identify and reach out to existing SSI recipients who are most likely to be eligible for CalFresh using only data available through SDX and MEDS. increase SNAP participation among SSI recipients by simpli- fying the process for receiving SNAP benefits in conjunction with SSI benefits. The standard CAP model builds on the existing SSA ob- ligation to screen and help enroll new SSI applicants into SNAP. Under this model, people applying for SSI bene- fits are asked if they would also like to apply for state CAP SNAP benefits; if yes, they only need answer a few additional questions on their SSI application, rather than completing a separate SNAP application, in order for the state or county SNAP agency to determine eligibility for the CAP SNAP ben- efits. In contrast, under the modified CAP model, the state or county SNAP agency affirmatively reviews the SDX data to identify SSI recipients who live alone or only with a spouse and are thus more likely to be eligible for CAP SNAP benefits. The SNAP agency then notifies these individuals of eligibility for CAP SNAP benefits and provides instructions on how to opt in. With both CAP models, the SSI interview satisfies the SNAP interview requirement. Elderly Simplified Application Project (ESAP) ESAP is an FNS demonstration project that as of November 2016 has allowed eight states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington) to streamline application and recertification for eligible elderly (and in some states, disabled) individuals.30 The primary goal of ESAP is to increase SNAP participa- tion among the elderly low-income population, and in some states, the disabled low-income population as well, by sim- plifying the existing SNAP application and certification requirements for those most likely to be eligible for SNAP. Typically, individuals are eligible for ESAP if all household members are disabled or over 60 years of age and have no earned income. While ESAPs are not limited to SSI re- cipients, those who are eligible greatly overlap with the SSI population. The ESAP pilots streamline the SNAP application and certi- fication process by using a shorter application, eliminating the interview requirement at recertification (early ESAP pilots were also able to offer SNAP eligibility without conducting an initial interview), making use of data matches to eliminate the need for applicants and recipients to provider paper docu- ments, and extending the SNAP certification period from 12 to 36 months.31 FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 11 to them was considered as consent to receive SNAP benefits. If the EBT card is not used within a set period, the individual’s case is closed. CAP recipients in New York have 90 days to begin using the EBT card to purchase food. Recipients are mailed a reminder if they have not used the card within 60 days, and the state SNAP agency closes the case if not used it within 90 days. Interview Another potential area for streamlining is around the SNAP program requirement for an interview at initial application and annual recertification. The purpose of the interview is to gather or confirm additional information to determine eligibility, and to provide information to applicants about the program, including their rights and responsibilities. States can conduct interviews by phone for some populations. However, requiring an interview as an eligibility criterion can create a barrier to enrollment for some, preventing or delay- ing otherwise eligible individuals from completing enrollment for failing to complete the interview. The CAP and ESAP pilots have explored alternative approaches to the SNAP interview requirement: \u25b6\u25b6 In CAP states, FNS allowed the SSA in-person interview for SSI to fulfill the state SNAP agency’s interview requirement, both at initial application and at SSI recertification. \u25b6\u25b6 In ESAP states, the SNAP interview requirement at recertification is waived. In some of the initial ESAP pilots, the interview requirement for SNAP was also waived. Waiving the interview requirement, however, would require finding another channel for providing SNAP education to new recipients and giving them opportunities to ask ques- tions about their new benefits. The value of this can be seen in Washington’s specialized call center for its CAP. Since CAP allows the initial interview by SSA to satisfy the SNAP interview requirement, Washington’s CAP call center could be dedicated to providing education and support to recipi- ents once they received their SNAP benefits. The specialized call center staff are trained to handle a variety of questions, ranging from questions about data matching errors to how to use an EBT card, which also helps reduce call volume in Washington’s other human services call centers and county offices. However, waiving the initial interviews for SNAP eligi- bility may be difficult; FNS will permit states to postpone but Simplified Application Implementing a simplified application can be a core compo- nent of streamlining program enrollment. ESAP states have provided individuals who they have identified as being likely eligible for SNAP with a simplified two-page SNAP applica- tion. CAP states with a standard CAP model have built on the SSA existing obligation to facilitate enrollment of SSI recipi- ents into SNAP by adding a small number of SNAP-specific eligibility questions to the existing SSI application, in lieu of a separate SNAP application. If California opts to adopt this approach, state oversight of the SSA obligation may initially be needed to ensure that staff at the local SSA offices ask the additional SNAP questions, capture and record the an- swers, and ensure that the SDX records are sent on a timely basis. Consent Under federal law, individuals seeking SNAP must affirma- tively agree or consent to apply. Typically, the SNAP agency collects an applicant’s consent through a signature on the initial application prior to conducting an eligibility de- termination. Streamlined options for collecting consent from SSI recipients to apply for CalFresh that California might con- sider include: \u25b6\u25b6 Allowing electronic signatures. FNS recently provided states instruction on using electronic signatures for SNAP, which requires the consent to be recorded and be available for review in the individual’s case file.34 \u25b6\u25b6 Providing multiple channels. Individuals enrolled in one program who may be eligible for a second program may need to provide consent prior to being automatically enrolled. Once these indi- viduals are notified of potential eligibility, providing multiple channels of communicating their consent could help increase the response rate for auto enrollment. For example, the California CalFresh\/ Medi-Cal ELE program allowed SNAP recipients to provide consent for Medi-Cal by mail, phone, web portal, or in person. \u25b6\u25b6 Usage of EBT card as proxy for consent. In lieu of providing consent through a signature, some states have allowed an individual’s use of the EBT card to purchase food to indicate consent to be enrolled in SNAP. In New York and Pennsylvania, an individual’s use of an EBT card and PIN mailed FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 12 consist of only those who receive SSI benefits.40 The SNAP agency can deem these individuals eligible for SNAP based on their receipt of SSI and only request any additional in- formation that the SNAP agency needs that SSA does not collect, such as housing costs.41 Benefit Calculation Developing a standard SNAP benefit amount is another way to streamline the SNAP enrollment process. As discussed earlier, an individualized assessment of income and ex- penses for each CalFresh applicant is currently performed to determine eligibility and CalFresh benefit amount. One key difference in the CAP and ESAP models that allows SNAP determination to be simplified is that instead of going through the regular SNAP calculation process to determine a SNAP benefit amount, CAP SNAP recipients receive a standardized SNAP benefit amount. It may be lower than if the recipient went through the regular SNAP eligibility pro- cess, but the advantage of ensuring that more SSI recipients successfully enroll in SNAP benefits is perceived to outweigh this disadvantage. One specific method used by some CAP and ESAP states is to apply standard allowances for living expenses (such as housing, utilities and medical expenses), rather than requesting documentation of actual expenses. For example, most CAP states applied one or more stan- dard allowances to each CAP participant’s reported gross income. The levels of the standard allowances vary in an effort to account for the different levels of housing and other costs actually paid by participants. Individuals who self-re- port high housing or utility costs have their gross income reduced by a higher standard allowance amount than those with smaller costs. The tradeoff of this approach is that some households may receive more or less SNAP benefits than they would if they had provided documentation and were individually assessed based on their actual income and expenses. For example, those who spend less in actual housing expenses than the standard housing allowance re- ceive a higher level of SNAP benefits than if they had gone through an individualized assessment, while those with higher housing costs receive a smaller SNAP benefit amount than they would have under an individualized eligibility de- termination. In the latter cases, however, states report that recipients who received less SNAP benefits than they might have otherwise often remained in CAP (rather than opt to apply through the regular SNAP process and potentially re- ceive more in SNAP benefits) and accepted the lower benefit amount as a tradeoff for the benefit of a more streamlined not waive the initial interview for expedited SNAP applicants and Alabama’s request to continue waiver of the initial inter- view in its ESAP renewal was recently denied by FNS.35 Verification Some SNAP eligibility data, including income and medical deductions, must be verified, often through documentation supplied by the applicant. This can delay the application process if an applicant does not have all of the required information on hand at the time of initial application. Data matching using reliable, external data sources can assist with verification of most eligibility criteria e.g., income, citizenship status, births and deaths so that the appli- cant need only supply information and documentation for a few eligibility criteria rather than all. For example, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently found that SSA data on unearned income is particularly reliable for data matching purposes because the data is current, accessible in real time, and relies on a primary data source.36 One of the key features of ESAP pilots is to leverage this data matching capability to verify certain eligibility criteria, including income and household size, without relying on the applicant to provide information or documentation.37 SSI recipients are already required to report changes to SSA, providing the CalFresh program an opportunity to use SDX data to fulfill at least some CalFresh data verification require- ments as states participating in ESAP do. Eligibility Determination One way to streamline enrollment across public programs is to allow one program’s eligibility determination to serve as the determination for a second program. This is referred to as categorical or deemed eligibility or direct certification. For example, once an applicant has been enrolled in SSI, states have the option to automatically determine them eligible for, and enroll them in, Medicaid.38 More recently, CMS encour- aged states to streamline Medicaid enrollment by directly certifying an individual for Medicaid using existing SNAP eli- gibility determination, without requiring a separate Medicaid application or resubmission of documents that were already provided to the SNAP agency.39 Another option is to apply some of the eligibility calculations for one program to satisfy a second program’s requirement, and to then only collect whatever required information is still needed. Currently, in non-cash-out states, SSI recipients are considered income eligible for SNAP if their households FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 13 Facilitating CalFresh Enrollment for SSI Recipients In the event that California decides to end cash-out, plans will need to be in place to address the following processes: \u25b6\u25b6 Conduct CalFresh eligibility and enrollment for current SSI recipients \u25b6\u25b6 Facilitate CalFresh eligibility and enrollment for new SSI applicants \u25b6\u25b6 Provide ongoing CalFresh case management for SSI recipients \u25b6\u25b6 Manage CalFresh recertification for SSI recipients This section discusses streamlining options for each of these processes to help maximize enrollment of eligible se- niors and disabled individuals into CalFresh based on their linkage to the SSI program, should California end cash-out. CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for Current SSI Recipients If California changes its cash-out policy, 1.3 million elderly and disabled SSI recipients will become potentially eligible for CalFresh. Given the size of this population, CDSS and county human services agencies could face capacity and efficiency challenges in expediently processing applications if a large volume of CalFresh applications from existing SSI recipients are submitted all at once. One option is to do a phased rollout, by county or by SSI sub-population (for ex- ample, process individuals first, followed by more complex households), using the current CalFresh eligibility and enroll- ment process. A second option is to use available SSI data to identify a subset of the SSI population that is highly likely to be eligible for CalFresh, and implement a one-time simplified enroll- ment process a fast track for this group. Households with more complex situations, the non-fast track popula- tion, could be assessed using a process more similar to the current CalFresh eligibility determination process. This section outlines options and considerations for CalFresh el- igibility and enrollment for both the fast track and non-fast track groups. enrollment process, including a longer recertification period and no interim reporting requirements. The CalFresh benefit calculation could be further simplified by assuming the same gross income for all SSI recipients as well as applying the same deductions and standard al- lowances for some groups of SSI recipients. Applying a standard allowance to a standard gross income results in the same amount of SNAP benefits, thereby effectively cre- ating a standard benefit amount. Because SSI recipients with no income other than their SSI benefit have generally the same level of gross income (as defined by the federal pov- erty level), CAP states are able to predetermine the SNAP benefit amount by applying a few standard allowances to the same gross SSI income. By creating a standard bene- fit amount, applicants do not have to provide documentation of their income and expenses, the administrative costs for the SNAP agency to follow up with applicants who failed to submit documents are reduced, and more eligible appli- cants are likely to receive benefits rather than being denied for lack of documents. Recertification Once an individual successfully completes the application process and is enrolled in the program, a streamlined re- certification process can improve continuity of benefits. One option for streamlining CalFresh recertification of SSI recip- ients is to extend the time between recertification. In ESAP states, the SNAP recertification period is extended from 12 months to 36 months. Many CAP states have also opted to extend the recertification period beyond 12 months, either to 24 months or 36 months. Another potential option for streamlining recertification would be to waive or reduce the frequency of SNAP interim report- ing requirements for SSI recipients, which could also help reduce administrative costs for the SNAP agency. In some ESAP states, interim reporting during the 36-month recertifi- cation period was not required, based on the relative stability of residence, income, and disability status among the el- derly and disabled participants. Alternatively, rather than waiving interim reporting altogether, data matching could be used to satisfy the interim reporting requirements. For example, ESAP states are required to leverage data match- ing capabilities at recertification to verify certain eligibility criteria, including income and household size, only asking program participants to provide information or documenta- tion, if needed.42 FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 14 b. Notify recipients that use of their EBT card will indicate their consent to accept the CalFresh benefits. 6. Conduct interviews by phone, or waive the interview requirement. 7. Conduct outreach to recipients who fail to respond to the initial notice (5a) or fail to use their EBT card (5b). Send individuals who fail to respond or use their EBT card a notice of discontinuance and provide information on how to apply for CalFresh benefits if they choose to do so in the future. 8. Provide ongoing case management by leveraging data reported to SSA by SSI recipients wherever possible. Implementing this streamlined approach for the fast track population would require the following: \u25b6\u25b6 Modify the existing SSA-CDSS data sharing agree- ment to allow CDSS to use SDX data to determine CalFresh eligibility, currently not identified in the agreement because of cash-out. \u25b6\u25b6 Develop and apply pre-set standard allowances, including housing and medical. If the same gross income is assumed for all fast track individuals, a policy option discussed below, determine and apply a standard benefit amount. \u25b6\u25b6 Allow electronic or telephonic signature to serve as consent for CalFresh and establish a mechanism to collect and store electronic\/telephonic signatures per FNS guidance; or allow initial use of the EBT card to establish consent. \u25b6\u25b6 Potentially waive the interview requirement. \u25b6\u25b6 Provide a point of contact for SSI recipients to ask questions, conduct interviews, and provide con- sent as needed during the initial enrollment period. The implementation details for many of the steps above will depend on key policy decisions, some of which may require a federal waiver, including: \u25b6\u25b6 Create standard deductions for housing allowance and medical expenses for only the fast track popula- tion to allow simplified enrollment. (This would require a federal waiver.) Fast Track Identifying the Fast Track Population The fast track population could be defined as single indi- viduals or couples whose only income comes from SSI. This group has also been referred to as pure SSI households, and is considered categorically eligible for SNAP in all other states.43 The fast track population can be identified using available SSI data, either directly from the SDX data set, or possibly via the subset of SDX data fields that are delivered to MEDS. One caveat is that this group might include SSI recipients who purchase and prepare meals with non-spousal room- mates or other family members who are included in the CalFresh definition of household, but are not part of the SSI program’s household definition. However, for purposes of identifying a fast track population in order to streamline initial enrollment of current SSI recipients, the state might explore allowing the SSI definition of household to meet the CalFresh household definition in this specific circumstance (poten- tially requiring a federal waiver). Potential Streamlined Enrollment Process A potential streamlined approach for initial CalFresh enroll- ment for the fast track population could include the following steps: 1. Generate a data file of the fast track population from SDX, using a pre-determined set of data elements and criteria. 2. Calculate the initial CalFresh benefit amount for the entire fast track population using standard allowances (includ- ing housing and medical) for everyone in this population and assuming the same gross income. 3. Issue notice of eligibility to recipients. 4. Send the data file electronically to the EBT vendor (Xerox) with recipient information and benefit amount so that Xerox can generate the EBT cards. 5. Issue and mail to recipients an EBT card, PIN number, and instructions on how to accept and use the benefits. a. Notify recipients that they need to contact the program via phone, web portal, in person, or by mail to accept their CalFresh benefits and get additional information. Collect their consent to enroll by electronic\/telephonic signature, in person, or by mail; or FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 15 Considerations and Tradeoffs Benefit calculation. Establishing a standard CalFresh benefit amount using predetermined housing and utility allowances, regardless of actual housing costs, would help to avoid the need for collecting additional information and documentation from the fast track population before making a CalFresh determination. As housing costs vary greatly in California, those in the fast track population with high housing costs might receive a smaller level of CalFresh ben- efits than they would have if they went through the existing CalFresh determination process, while those with less costly housing (including the homeless) would receive more than they would otherwise qualify. The tradeoff for these recipi- ents opting for the fast track streamlined enrollment process over the existing individualized CalFresh process, however, would be to obtain CalFresh benefits more quickly and easily. A standard utility allowance (SUA) already exists in CalFresh. The state could explore creating a new standard housing allowance to establish a standard benefit amount for enroll- ment of the fast track population. The state could allow fast track recipients to opt out of the standard benefit at any point after the initial enrollment and request a full CalFresh eligibility determination, likely requir- ing the collection of additional information. The county could conduct an individualized CalFresh determination and re- calculate the benefit amount if the SSI recipient provides \u25b6\u25b6 Determine which method to use to calculate the monthly benefit amount using only SDX data. Potential options include: Option 1. Calculate the benefit amount for every individual assuming the same income and deductions for all recip- ients, regardless of income data in SDX, resulting in the same benefit amount for everyone. Using California’s cur- rent average benefit amount as an example, all individuals in the fast track population would receive $200 per month regardless of how much they spend on housing.44 Option 2. Apply standard deductions to each individual’s actual income reported in SDX. May result in minimal vari- ances to the benefit amount. Option 3. Like option 1, but instead of assuming the same income and deductions for all, assume no income outside of SSI or deductions and provide the minimum CalFresh benefit amount, which is currently $17 per month. \u25b6\u25b6 Permit use of a simplified interview requirement for the fast track population or use the SSA interview of the SSI recipient to satisfy the CalFresh interview re- quirement. (This would require a federal waiver.) Figure 3. Potential Streamlined Enrollment Process for Fast Track Population Applicant Agency\/worker DETERMINE BENEFIT DELIVER BENEFIT FINALIZE ELIGIBILITY IDENTIFY POPULATION Generate fast track list from SDX Apply CalFresh benefit amount Send fast track list to EBT vendor EBT vendor mails EBT card, PIN, and instructions to accept the benefits Recipient completes steps to accept the benefit FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 16 Non-Fast Track Identifying the Non-Fast Track Population By definition, SSI recipients who are not identified as fast track would be considered non-fast track. In general, non- fast track recipients would have additional sources of income and\/or additional members in their households than those in the fast track population. This greater level of complexity would make it difficult to assess CalFresh eligibility without additional information about who else is in their household or the sources and amounts of their other income. Because the eligibility rules for what income is counted and who is part of the household are different in SSI and CalFresh, the county human services agencies would likely need to conduct a full eligibility determination to get an accurate CalFresh benefit amount for the non-fast track population. Moreover, additional household members who reside with the SSI recipient may already receive CalFresh, or may have received CalFresh benefits in the past. If so, there would be an existing case in SAWS containing information that may allow for a preliminary recertification of everyone in the cur- rent CalFresh household, including the SSI recipient. Given these differences within the non-fast track population and to help streamline enrollment, California may want to identify different types of SSI households within the non-fast track population solely using SDX data and process each group into CalFresh separately as a batch at different times. The enrollment of the non-fast track population could be phased in as follows: \u25b6\u25b6 Group 1. SSI recipients who live alone or with their spouse only, but are not fast track due to having sources of income other than SSI; \u25b6\u25b6 Group 2. SSI recipients who live with additional household members who do not currently receive CalFresh benefits; \u25b6\u25b6 Group 3. SSI recipients who live with additional household members who currently receive CalFresh. Group 1 could be identified using only SDX data. The re- maining population would need to be assessed, using SAWS, to determine whether or not their household has an existing CalFresh case in order to classify them into either Group 2 or Group 3. documentation of actual housing or medical costs and complies with other requirements. The ability to opt out is available in some CAP pilots, thus allowing the eligible SNAP recipient to choose between enrolling in SNAP through the standard application and recertification process with an in- dividualized benefit amount, or enrolling through the CAP with a more streamlined process with fewer reporting and recertification requirements and a standard benefit amount. California could consider a similar approach. Case creation. As discussed earlier, county human services offices conduct the CalFresh case creation process. Under the current CalFresh enrollment process, county workers conduct file clearance and enter applicant information into SAWS before a new case can be created (or an existing case can be modified) in SAWS and the enrollment process can proceed. Streamlining this step could help to expedite the initial enrollment of fast track recipients. For example, the state could implement technology solutions to better support the clearance process, and use those to identify and clean up existing duplicate records. Alternatively, the timeline for this effort must provide sufficient lead time and funding for staff to complete this step prior to the target date for the first benefits to be issued. Communication with recipients. If SSI recipients in California become newly eligible for CalFresh they will need educa- tion to help them understand and use their new benefits. In addition, SSI recipients who are notified of their new eligibil- ity for CalFresh will need an easy way to give their consent and complete the required CalFresh interview, if not waived. Providing multiple pathways for recipients to communicate with the program, including phone, web portal, in-person, and mail can help increase participation. Based on successful models in the CAP and ESAP pilots, California could designate one or more call centers with staff trained to support the SSI population to handle incoming re- quests, conduct phone interviews and obtain telephonic consent (if needed), provide education about CalFresh and use of the EBT card, and make outbound calls to fast track individuals who do not respond within a certain time frame. Given the magnitude of the potential policy change, pro- viding specialized training to call center staff will be vital. Providing one example, Washington’s CAP set up a des- ignated call center staffed by a small number of specially trained workers, allowing it to more efficiently process about 60,000 new SNAP cases created through CAP. FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 17 send a notice and a simplified CalFresh application to collect needed information for all household members. c. Allow a set number of days for the SSI recipient to respond via multiple channels and follow up with non-responders. d. Use the information received from the simplified ap- plication to determine if the SSI recipient is eligible for CalFresh and what the benefit amount should be. Send notice of eligibility and EBT card. 3. For Group 3: a. Determine the next recertification date for the CalFresh household. Potential Streamlined Enrollment Process A potential streamlined approach for the initial CalFresh en- rollment for the non-fast track population could include the following steps: 1. Identify the non-fast track individuals in each of the three groups (identified above) using SDX and SAWS. 2. For Groups 1 and 2: a. Determine what information is still missing to deter- mine CalFresh eligibility. b. For Group 1, send a notice to the SSI recipient asking for any additional information needed to clarify income and complete the eligibility determination. For Group 2, Figure 4. Potential Streamlined Enrollment Process for Non-Fast Track Population COLLECT REMAINING INFORMATION DELIVER BENEFIT AND\/OR NOTICE FINALIZE ELIGIBILITY IDENTIFY POPULATION Generate fast track list from SDX Send fast track list to EBT vendor Determine eligibility Send an application Send CalFresh EBT card and PIN Check if recipient already has a MEDS record For those not known to MEDS For those known to MEDS Recipient completes application For those who live in a household already receiving CalFresh Send notice explaining that the SSI household member (and his\/her income) will be included in the CalFresh household at recertification Applicant Agency\/worker For those who live alone or in a household not receiving CalFresh FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 18 \u25b6\u25b6 Consider treating all SSI recipients as individual households (see sidebar). In simplifying CalFresh enrollment for non-fast track SSI re- cipients, California could also facilitate enrollment for non-SSI individuals in those households who are potentially eligible for, but not enrolled in, CalFresh, thereby further reducing food insecurity in California and increasing the CalFresh par- ticipation rate. However, some existing CalFresh households that have an SSI household member could see a reduction in their CalFresh benefit amount or become ineligible for CalFresh altogether. Under existing CalFresh eligibility rules, a SSI recipient is not counted as part of the CalFresh house- hold and the SSI income is not included in the CalFresh benefit calculation. If cash-out ends, the SSI recipient and corresponding income would be counted in the CalFresh eligibility and benefit calculation, and would change the income of the overall household. b. Send a notice to explain the policy change and that the SSI household member will need to be included as part of the next CalFresh recertification. c. Recertify CalFresh eligibility for the entire household at that next recertification date. Considerations and Tradeoffs Non-fast track SSI recipients would likely require an individ- ualized assessment before they could be found eligible for CalFresh. However, changes to the existing CalFresh enroll- ment process could help streamline this process. Potential options include: \u25b6\u25b6 Leverage existing SDX and MEDS data to the greatest extent possible to initiate CalFresh enroll- ment, and if needed for consent and\/or additional information, ask non-fast track households to complete a pre-populated form or simplified ap- plication rather than requiring submission of a full CalFresh application (the potential costs of this ap- proach would need to be assessed). \u25b6\u25b6 Send an individualized notice, preferably from SSA, to all non-fast track SSI recipients in California to explain the change in CalFresh policy and to alert them that they will be contacted with information about any required next steps needed to assess their eligibility for, or complete their en- rollment in, CalFresh. \u25b6\u25b6 Provide a list of non-fast track SSI recipients to county human services agencies for purposes of outreach and follow-up. The following policy changes could support a streamlined process: \u25b6\u25b6 Require use of electronic data sources (such as SAWS, SDX and MEDS) to conduct ex-parte review of eligibility for all non-fast track individuals, includ- ing those living with other household members; do not request documentation for information that can be verified electronically. \u25b6\u25b6 Postpone any change in eligibility or benefit amount for existing CalFresh households until the next scheduled CalFresh recertification date. \u25b6\u25b6 Consider potential disregard of non-SSI income and resources for initial enrollment of the non-fast track population. Treating All SSI Recipients as Their Own Households A policy option that California previously explored and may want to consider again is to seek a fed- eral waiver to treat all SSI recipients as their own households. This would alleviate the need for the state to analyze the household composition of current SSI recipients during the initial enrollment into CalFresh and to more easily recertify existing CalFresh households that have SSI household members. Under this approach, all SSI recipients could be treated as fast track, so long as they do not have non-SSI income. A separate CalFresh case could be created for every SSI recipient, and any existing CalFresh cases for households with SSI recipients would continue to exclude the SSI individual and SSI income as part of the house- hold. However, if California opts to consider this option, it should be explored in more detail with counties and SAWS to determine optimal admin- istration structure to minimize workload impacts and automation costs. FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 19 4. The state could further simplify CalFresh enrollment for new SSI fast track applicants by: \u25b6\u25b6 Deeming the SSI interview to satisfy the initial CalFresh phone interview, via a waiver; \u25b6\u25b6 Allowing SSA to collect an individual’s consent to apply for CalFresh via the SSI application process, if use of the EBT card is not sufficient for consent. 5. CDSS could also regularly review the SDX record to iden- tify new fast track individuals by: \u25b6\u25b6 Using the same eligibility criteria as those used in the initial enrollment of fast track individuals; or \u25b6\u25b6 Looking for new applicants who indicated on their SSI applications that they currently do not have, but would like to apply for, CalFresh.45, 46 Best practices from other states related to streamlining SNAP enrollment for new SSI applicants can also inform California’s approach, including: 1. Training for staff in California SSA offices about the change in policy and new procedures for CalFresh enroll- ment for SSI applicants and recipients, such as: \u25b6\u25b6 How to help SSI applicants complete and submit CalFresh applications \u25b6\u25b6 Potentially adding questions to the SSI application to ensure there is sufficient information in the SDX record to screen for CalFresh eligibility 2. Creating liaisons between SSA, CDSS and the California county agencies 3. Providing one or more designated call centers where SSA staff can refer SSI applicants and recipients for individual assistance with CalFresh Ongoing CalFresh Case Management for SSI Recipients County human services offices will manage ongoing CalFresh case management for the SSI population, as they do for current CalFresh recipients. County staff will support SSI recipients with a wide range of tasks including benefits questions, EBT card replacements and PIN changes, and changes in address, household composition, and income. These processes could be supported by ensuring spe- cialized training for staff on providing customer support for elderly and disabled individuals. Counties may opt to One way to help temporarily mitigate this issue would be to delay any recertification of SSI recipients in households with existing CalFresh cases until the next scheduled CalFresh recertification date. California could also consider using po- tential cost savings from streamlined enrollment for the fast track and other non-fast track groups to offset potential re- ductions in or loss of benefits for affected households. CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for New SSI Applicants Following the initial enrollment of existing SSI recipients into CalFresh, individuals who are newly applying for SSI could also benefit from a streamlined CalFresh enrollment process. Leveraging the existing SSA obligation to assist SSI appli- cants with CalFresh applications, a potential streamlined approach could involve the following steps: 1. Individual applies for SSI. The current SSI application could be modified to ask applicants if they currently receive CalFresh or would like to apply for CalFresh. This is a similar approach to the one used in the standard CAP model. That information is recorded in the SDX record, as it currently is in CAP pilot states. 2. At the initial SSI interview, SSA notifies every SSI applicant regarding eligibility status for CalFresh. SSA conducts a preliminary screen to determine if applicants currently receive CalFresh and whether they could be classified as fast track for CalFresh purposes. For those not already receiving CalFresh benefits: \u25b6\u25b6 If not fast track, SSA provides applicants with a CalFresh application and refers them to the appro- priate state or county agency to apply for CalFresh. \u25b6\u25b6 If fast track, SSA assists with expediting enrollment into CalFresh as described in steps 3 to 4. 3. SSA assists fast track applicants with enrollment into CalFresh by: \u25b6\u25b6 Providing a streamlined CalFresh application, sim- ilar to the simplified applications used in the CAP and ESAP pilots, and delivers the application to the appropriate state or county agency for expedited processing. Under existing federal rules, CDSS must ensure an eligibility determination is com- pleted within 30 days. \u25b6\u25b6 Or, facilitating submission of an online CalFresh application through the county SAWS portal. FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 20 Based on lessons from other states, California could simplify and streamline CalFresh recertification for the SSI fast track population by making the following policy changes: 1. Depending on state policy decisions and federal require- ments of budget neutrality, individualized assessments of CalFresh eligibility for fast track individuals who re- ceived a standard benefit amount at initial enrollment, could be done at the first recertification date. This could allow verification of the CalFresh household and permit a change in the monthly benefit for those with high housing costs. However, this could result in a large number of in- dividualized assessments coming due at the same time, potentially resulting in significant caseload management issues. To alleviate a potential backlog, a phased recerti- fication approach could be considered. 2. Allow fast track SSI recipients to extend CalFresh recertifi- cation to three years with a waiver from FNS. Alternatively, the state could apply the existing CalFresh two-year re- certification period, currently available only to aged and disabled individuals, to all SSI recipients. 3. Waive interim reporting requirements between recerti- fication periods (which could be accomplished through an ESAP pilot). Alternatively, allow changes reported to SSA between CalFresh recertification periods that are reflected in the SDX data to meet interim reporting re- quirements. This would still require some county action to update SAWS with the new information, but would require recipients to report a change only once. 4. Explore data-matching policies and procedures that could initiate a CalFresh redetermination in SAWS if data from SDX indicates an SSI recipient loses SSI eligibility before the next CalFresh recertification period, and request ad- ditional information from the recipient only if needed. 5. Allow use of the SSA periodic redetermination of SSI eli- gibility to automatically serve as a CalFresh recertification for fast track individuals. California could recertify using the same or a new standard CalFresh benefit amount. Non-fast track households would use the current CalFresh re- certification process. However, efficiencies could be achieved if CalFresh is able to conduct an ex-parte recertification of SSI recipients using the most current data from the SDX record, only requesting that SSI recipients provide additional information if not otherwise available (similar to the stream- lined process for fast track households outlined above). provide this training broadly, or to designate specific staff or units to provide support to the SSI population. In fact, some counties already designate specific units to support elderly public program recipients. Regardless of the approach, careful planning will be required to ensure adequate staffing levels to support the expanded caseload. CalFresh Recertification for SSI Recipients The current recertification process for CalFresh is: 1. A 12-month recertification period for most households and 24-month recertification period for the elderly and disabled.47 2. Interview required at recertification phone interview is permitted unless the CalFresh recipient requests an in-person interview.48 3. Interim reporting for the elderly and disabled is required at 6, 12 and 18 months for households with earned income, and at 12 months for households with no earned income. This process could be simplified for fast track SSI recipients by leveraging the SSA redetermination process for SSI. For individuals whose SSI is based on disability, SSA conducts a disability review annually or every three years, depending on the severity of the disability.49 For all other SSI eligibil- ity criteria, SSI recipients must report changes to SSA no later than 10 days after the end of the month in which the change occurred.50 In order to minimize the recipient having to report the same changes multiple times, California could explore policy and technology changes that would permit data matching from SDX to meet CalFresh interim reporting requirements. Because CalFresh and SSI have similar financial eligibil- ity criteria and deadlines for reporting changes, California could choose to rely on SDX data for CalFresh recertifica- tion and interim reporting to lessen the burden on recipients, avoid duplication of SSA processes for verification and rede- termination of new information, and help reduce the churn that occurs when individuals fail to provide requested docu- mentation at renewal, but are otherwise eligible for continued enrollment. FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 21 senior centers, independent living centers, and other com- munity-based organizations and human services agencies. Alabama’s ESAP, for example, has succeeded in enrolling more than 60,000 elderly individuals into SNAP due, in part, to coordinated outreach efforts between the Department of Human Resources and community-based organizations. In California, community partners could provide individu- alized support, answer questions and provide education about the CalFresh program and how to use the benefits. State and county agencies could help increase recipient satisfaction and increase CalFresh participation rates by in- volving all community resources and trusted partners. The state could also send a joint notice with SSA or a general notice about the CalFresh program, followed by a person- alized notice explaining next steps, based on whether the individual is identified as fast track or non-fast track. Multiple Communication Channels The SSI population in California is diverse and is likely to have a range of customer support needs that will require a flexible and multi-channel enrollment and communications approach. For example, technology solutions, such as use of a web-portal to provide information or enabling communi- cations solely by email or text, could greatly help streamline enrollment and communications with SSI recipients and may be the preferred method of communication for some. However, other SSI recipients who do not feel comfortable with technology or prefer face-to-face interactions will need alternative ways to ask questions and communicate with the state about their new CalFresh options. For example, low-in- come seniors tend to have lower adoption of technology than the broader population; only 39% of surveyed seniors with incomes below $30,000 reported that they go online com- pared to 59% of all seniors and 86% of all adults. Even fewer low-income seniors have access to broadband services at home 25% compared to 47% of all seniors and 70% of all adults.51 Similarly, adults with disabilities are as a group less likely than non-disabled adults to use the Internet (54% com- pared to 81%) or have broadband at home (41% compared to 69%), though that gap has been narrowing over time.52 An optimal solution for supporting the transition of SSI recip- ients into CalFresh would therefore encompass a range of enrollment and customer support channels, including phone support, in-person assistance, web-based solutions, and mail. Additional Considerations Along with the suggestions discussed above, there are ad- ditional lessons learned from other states that California can take into consideration. Based on positive results from ESAP states, for example, FNS has recommended that new ESAP pilots adopt best practices such as collaboration with com- munity partners on outreach, specialized call centers for handling ESAP cases and questions, and the development of targeted communications materials such as resource guides to support recipients. Some of these considerations are described briefly below. Planning and Phased Rollout Given the size and diversity of the SSI population in California and the complexity of the process involved in eligibility de- termination for, and enrollment in, CalFresh, which includes outreach and education, it will be critical for California to plan carefully for the roll-out. CDSS, counties, and other stakeholders can work in partnership to plan and determine the best business process flow for enrollment and recertifi- cation of SSI recipients in CalFresh based on the adopted streamlining options. County human services agencies may have their own relationships with local SSA offices that can be leveraged as part of the transition, or may have spe- cialized units that have experience working with aged and disabled populations. California may also want to consider a phased approach to implementation, rolling out the ex- isting SSI population in different subgroups to reduce the simultaneous volume of new CalFresh cases. This approach would give county human services agencies the opportunity to test and refine the enrollment process with a smaller pop- ulation, ensuring those individuals receive and understand how to use their CalFresh benefits before opening up enroll- ment more broadly. It would also allow for careful planning and adjustments as needed for training relevant staff, antic- ipating workload changes, and otherwise ensuring efficient operations. Working with Trusted Partners Early communication with SSI recipients will be particularly important. Many existing SSI recipients in California may not have interacted with the state or county agencies that admin- ister CalFresh. Initial communications coming directly from these agencies, therefore, may be met with confusion or mis- trust. As California plans its education and outreach strategy, it may want to consider partnering with organizations that are known to and trusted by the SSI population SSA, FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 22 Conclusion If California ends cash-out, it can consider a range of options for streamlining enrollment in CalFresh for SSI re- cipients. Evaluating these options will require decisions about the respective roles of federal, state and county agencies, the potential need for state policy changes, the ability to leverage existing technology, and one-time verses ongoing process and program changes. These decisions will ultimately determine whether seniors and people with disabilities in California are able to obtain the nutrition as- sistance they need in a manner that is least burdensome for them and most efficient for the state. Training and Customer Support Based on lessons learned from states with CAP and ESAP states, putting in place a dedicated call center with staff who have been trained specifically to support the SSI popu- lation can help increase SNAP program enrollment. Training staff to understand the preferences and perceived barri- ers of seniors and people with disabilities can lead to better interactions and a greater likelihood that they will want to provide additional information that may be needed to help them apply for or use their SNAP benefits. In California, the state could work with county human services agencies to leverage or create designated call centers that are trained to assist not only with initial CalFresh enrollment for this popu- lation but with ongoing determinations, recertification, and\/ or case management. For example, after the initial rollout of the pilot did not go as smoothly as planned, Alabama established a dedicated call center for its ESAP pilot and today that call center remains a central part of the ESAP pilot for new enrollments and recer- tification. Washington’s WASHCAP set up a dedicated call center at the start of the pilot, which was staffed by a small number of specially trained call center workers (six eligibility workers and one supervisor) that and took calls exclusively from SSI recipients enrolled in WASHCAP. Washington found that many seniors preferred to use the phone as a way to seek information and ask questions. Because WASHCAP staff were trained specifically for, and dedicated solely to, WASHCAP SNAP cases, they were able to process their caseloads efficiently. Moreover, staff in SSA offices will need to be trained on the change in policy and whatever process California estab- lishes to enroll existing and newly eligible SSI individuals. Creating materials like FAQs, fact sheets, and scripts for the SSA call center staff could also help make the transition easier for SSI recipients. FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 23 16. State Agreements , Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov. 17. Recertification every six years may be permitted if changes are not likely. POMS Section SI 02301.005, secure.ssa.gov. 18. See 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 273.2(e) for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) require- ments for initial applicant interview. See 7 CFR 273.14(3) for SNAP recertification interview requirements. Initial interview for SNAP applicants can be done by phone rather than in-person for households without earned income or whose members are el- derly or disabled. 19. CalFresh Eligibility and Issuance Requirements, California Department of Social Services, www.dss.cahwnet.gov. 20. California is considering developing a standard medical deduc- tion rather than applying actual costs, which is currently done in 16 other states. See for example, Ty Jones, SNAP’s Excess Medical Expense Deduction: Targeting Food Assistance to Low- Income Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities, (Center for Budget Policy and Priorities, August 2014), www.cbpp.org. 21. A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits, Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, November 5, 2015, www.cbpp.org. 22. See 7 CFR 273.2(e), 273.2(k). Additional details of SSA’ ob- ligation are included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and SSA. 23. 7 CFR 273.2(k) POMS Section SI 01801.005, secure.ssa.gov. 24. Understanding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Other Government Programs: 2016 Edition, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov. 25. Social Security: Nutrition Assistance Programs, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov (PDF). 26. 7 CFR 273.2(m) and 7 CFR 273.2(k)(1)(i)(H). 27. Senior SNAP Participation Visualization, National Council on Aging, www.ncoa.org. 28. State Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Eligibility and Participation Among Elderly Individuals, Fiscal Year 2008 to Fiscal Year 2013, Mathematica Policy Research, July 2015, www.mathematica-mpr.com (PDF). 29. Combined Application Projects: Guidance for States Developing Projects, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, March 2005, www.fns.usda.gov (PDF). 30. Fact Sheet: USDA Support for Older Americans, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, July 2015, www.fns.usda.gov. 31. Elderly Simplified Application Project Guidance, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Program Development Division, Fiscal Year 2015-2016, www.fns.usda.gov (PDF). Endnotes 1. Autumn Arnold and Amy Marinacci, Cash-Out in California: A History of Help and Harm, California Food Policy Advocates, August 2003, cfpa.net (PDF). 2. Ibid. 3. SSI\/SSP Payment Standards, California Department of Social Services, January 2016, caassistedliving.org (PDF); Poverty Guidelines, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, January 2016, aspe.hhs.gov. 4. AJR-35 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: cash-out policy, California Legislative Information, U.S. Senate, August 16, 2016, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. 5. Sarah Strickhouser, James D. Wright, and Amy M. Donley, Food Insecurity Among Older Adults, AARP Foundation, September 2014, www.aarp.org (PDF). 6. Ibid. 7. Marisa Agha, Fighting poor nutrition among California seniors with a food truck, Tales From The Field, California Department for Food and Agriculture, blogs.cdfa.ca.gov. 8. Jung Sun Lee and Edward A. Frongillo Jr., Nutritional and Health Consequences Are Associated with Food Insecurity among U.S. Elderly Persons, The Journal of Nutrition, 131(5), American Society for Nutritional Sciences, May 2001, jn.nutrition.org. 9. Senior SNAP Participation Visualization, National Council on Aging, Retrieved September 8, 2016, www.ncoa.org. 10. SSI does not depend on prior work history, and individuals can receive SSI if they live alone, with others, or in an eligible institu- tion. Living arrangements may affect the amount of SSI received if others are paying for housing and other basic necessities. SSA permits and encourages SSI recipients to work if possi- ble so they can receive earned income while also receiving SSI. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Living Arrangements, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov. 11. SSI Recipients by State and County, 2014, Social Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 2015, www.ssa.gov (PDF). 12. Ibid. 13. Individual is income eligible as long as countable income is less than the federal benefit amounts and resources are beneath certain thresholds. For 2016, the maximum SSI federal benefit amount is $733 for an individual and $1,100 for a couple (www.ssa.gov). This amount decreases if a SSI recipient re- ceives any countable income by subtracting the amount of the countable income from the maximum SSI federal benefit amount (www.ssa.gov). Countable resources must be less than $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple (www.ssa.gov). 14. Social Security Administration Program Operations Manual (POMS), Sections GN 00203.001 and SI 00601.060, secure.ssa.gov and secure.ssa.gov. 15. List of data elements and their descriptions, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov (PDF). https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/dataexchange\/stateagreements.html https:\/\/secure.ssa.gov\/apps10\/poms.nsf\/lnx\/0502301005 http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/foodstamps\/PG841.htm#inc http:\/\/www.cbpp.org\/research\/snaps-excess-medical-expense-deduction?fa=view&id=4189 http:\/\/www.cbpp.org\/research\/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits https:\/\/secure.ssa.gov\/apps10\/poms.nsf\/lnx\/0501801005 https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/ssi\/text-other-ussi.htm https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/pubs\/EN-05-10100.pdf https:\/\/www.ncoa.org\/economic-security\/benefits\/visualizations\/senior-snap-participation\/ https:\/\/www.mathematica-mpr.com\/our-publications-and-findings\/publications\/state-trends-in-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-eligibility-and-participation-among-elderly-individuals http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/CAPsDevelopmentGuidance.pdf http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/pressrelease\/2015\/020215 http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/snap\/ESAP_Guidance.pdf http:\/\/cfpa.net\/CalFresh\/CFPAPublications\/CalFresh-CashOutHelpHarm-2003.pdf https:\/\/caassistedliving.org\/pdf\/resources\/ssi-ssp.pdf https:\/\/aspe.hhs.gov\/poverty-guidelines https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AJR35 http:\/\/www.aarp.org\/content\/dam\/aarp\/aarp_foundation\/2015-PDFs\/AF-Food-Insecurity-2015Update-Final-Report.pdf http:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/TalesFromTheField\/?p=754 http:\/\/jn.nutrition.org\/content\/131\/5\/1503.abstract https:\/\/www.ncoa.org\/economic-security\/benefits\/visualizations\/senior-snap-participation\/ https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/ssi\/text-living-ussi.htm https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/policy\/docs\/statcomps\/ssi_sc\/2014\/ca.pdf https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/ssi\/text-benefits-ussi.htm https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/oact\/cola\/countableincome.html https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/ssi\/text-resources-ussi.htm https:\/\/secure.ssa.gov\/apps10\/poms.nsf\/lnx\/0200203001 https:\/\/secure.ssa.gov\/apps10\/poms.nsf\/lnx\/0500601060 https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/dataexchange\/documents\/SDX%20record.pdf FACILITATING CALFRESH ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR SSI RECIPIENTS 24 42. Elderly Simplified Application Project Guidance, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Program Development Division, Fiscal Year 2015-2016, www.fns.usda.gov (PDF). 43. See 7 CFR 273.2(j)(1)(iv); 273.2(j)(2)(i)(D); 273.2(j)(2)(i)(E). 44. For CalFresh’s average benefit amount to all households, see www.dss.cahwnet.gov. 45. Understanding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Other Government Programs: 2016 Edition, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov. 46. POMS Section EN-05-10100, www.ssa.gov (PDF). 47. CalFresh recertification periods can vary from one month to two years, depending on whether there are expected changes in the household; see California Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) 63-504.141(a) and 63-504.1 for details. Households who only include elderly or disabled individuals are re-certified every two years. See 7 CFR 273.10(f)(1); California MPP 63-504.142. 48. 7 CFR 273.14(b)(3); All County Letter 12-26, California Department of Social Services, May 31, 2012, www.dss.cahwnet.gov (PDF). 49. Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) are generally done every 3 years but can be earlier if the underlying medical condi- tion could improve sooner or every 6-7 years if improvement is not expected. Continuing Disability Reviews, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov. 50. POMS Section SI 02301.005. For a list of changes that must be reported to SSA, see www.ssa.gov. 51. Aaron Smith, Older Adults and Technology Use, April 3, 2014, www.pewinternet.org. 52. Susannah Fox, Americans Living with Disability and Their Technology Use, Pew Research Center, January 21, 2011, www.pewinternet.org. 32. Policy Options for Using SNAP to Determine Medicaid Eligibility and an Update on Targeted Enrollment Strategies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, State Health Official Letter 15-001, August 13, 2015, www.medicaid.gov (PDF); Strategies to Enroll and Retain Eligible Children in Medicaid and CHIP, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Informational Bulletin, June 13, 2016, www.medicaid.gov (PDF); Facilitating Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment and Renewal in 2014, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services State Health Official Letter 13-03, May 17, 2013, www.medicaid.gov (PDF). 33. Express Lane Enrollment For CalFresh Eligible Adults And Children, All County Welfare Directors’ Letter 14-06, California Department of Health Care Services, February 21, 2014, www.dhcs.ca.gov (PDF). 34. See Accepting SNAP Applicant and Client Signatures Electronically, U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 21, 2016, available at: www.fns.usda.gov (PDF). Also see SNAP Telephonic Signature Guidance, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 12, 2014, available at: www.fns.usda.gov (PDF). 35. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Guidance for State Agencies on Novel Waivers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 13, 2014, www.fns.usda.gov. 36. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:: More Information on Promising Practices Could Enhance States’ Use of Data Matching for Eligibility, U.S. Government Accountability Office, October 19, 2016, www.gao.gov. 37. Elderly Simplified Application Project Guidance, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Program Development Division, Fiscal Year 2015-2016, www.fns.usda.gov (PDF). 38. 42 United States Code 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(II)(aa) (Section 1634 of the Social Security Act). Section 209(b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 gave states the option of using their own criteria for eligibility for Medicaid for SSI recipients rather than provide categorical linkage. For a current list of states that do and do not automatically deem Medicaid eligibility to SSI recipients, see List of State Medicaid Programs for the Aged, Blind and Disabled, SSA POMS Section SI 01715.020, secure.ssa.gov. 39. Policy Options for Using SNAP to Determine Medicaid Eligibility and an Update on Targeted Enrollment Strategies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, State Health Official Letter 15-001, August 13, 2015, www.medicaid.gov (PDF). 40. See 7 CFR 273.2(j)(1)(iv); 273.2(j)(2)(i)(D); 273.2(j)(2)(i)(E). 41. 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(v). SNAP eligibility criteria that are similar to SSI’s include resource, gross and net income limits; Social Security Number; citizenship or immigration status; and resi- dency. The SNAP agency must verify other eligibility factors not collected by SSA, such as determining which SSI household members purchase and prepare food together. 7 CFR 273.2(j) (2)(v)(C). http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/snap\/ESAP_Guidance.pdf http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/foodstamps\/PG846.htm https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/ssi\/text-other-ussi.htm https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/pubs\/EN-05-10100.pdf http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/entres\/getinfo\/acl\/2012\/12-26.pdf https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/ssi\/text-cdrs-ussi.htm https:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/ssi\/text-report-ussi.htm http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2014\/04\/03\/older-adults-and-technology-use\/ http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2011\/01\/21\/americans-living-with-disability-and-their-technology-profile\/ https:\/\/www.medicaid.gov\/Federal-Policy-Guidance\/downloads\/SHO-15-001.pdf https:\/\/www.medicaid.gov\/federal-policy-guidance\/downloads\/cib061316.pdf https:\/\/www.medicaid.gov\/Federal-Policy-Guidance\/downloads\/SHO-13-003.pdf http:\/\/www.dhcs.ca.gov\/services\/medi-cal\/eligibility\/Documents\/ACWDL2014\/14-06.pdf http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/snap\/Electronic_Signatures_Memo.pdf http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/SNAP%20Telephonic%20Signatures%20Policy%20Memo.pdf http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/snap\/snap-guidance-state-agencies-novel-waivers http:\/\/www.gao.gov\/products\/GAO-17-111 http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/snap\/ESAP_Guidance.pdf https:\/\/secure.ssa.gov\/poms.nsf\/lnx\/0501715020 https:\/\/www.medicaid.gov\/Federal-Policy-Guidance\/downloads\/SHO-15-001.pdf Executive Summary Streamlined CalFresh Enrollment Options for SSI Recipients Additional Considerations Introduction Background Current California Landscape SSI CalFresh Streamlined Enrollment Models SSA Role in SNAP Enrollment Simplified SNAP Enrollment Pilots Streamlined Enrollment Based on Eligibility for Other Programs Options for Streamlining Enrollment Facilitating CalFresh Enrollment for SSI Recipients CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for Current SSI Recipients CalFresh Eligibility and Enrollment for New SSI Applicants Ongoing CalFresh Case Management for SSI Recipients CalFresh Recertification for SSI Recipients Additional Considerations Planning and Phased Rollout Working with Trusted Partners Multiple Communication Channels Training and Customer Support Conclusion Endnotes ”

” CALFRESH CALL CENTER FUNCTIONALITY COUNTY CASELOAD SIZE CONSORTIA INTAKE INTERVIEW RECERT INTERVIEW SAR 7 TELEPHONIC SIGNATURE CHANGE REPORT HEARING REQUEST NEW HIRE REPORT RETURN MAIL EBT CARD REPLACE- MENT BENEFIT INQUIRY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS Alameda 60,502 CalWIN X X X X X X X Butte 16,975 CIV X X X X X X Contra Costa 34,040 CalWIN X X X X X X X X X Fresno 94,025 CalWIN X X X X X X X X X Humboldt 12,517 CIV X X X X X X X X Kern 70,633 CIV X X X X X X X Kings 10,820 CIV X X X X X X X X Los Angeles 558,723 LRS X X X X Marin 6,246 CIV X X X X Monterey 22,713 CIV X X X X Orange 123,183 CalWIN X X X X X Placer 9,286 CalWIN X X X X X X X Riverside 129,010 CIV X X X X X X Sacramento 102,439 CalWIN X X X X X X X X San Bernardino 178,495 CIV X X X X X San Diego 142,006 CalWIN X X X X X X X San Francisco 34,846 CalWIN X X X X X X X San Mateo 15,148 CalWIN X X X X X X X X X Santa Barbara 18,573 CalWIN X X X X X X X Santa Cruz 14,643 CalWIN X X X X X X X X X X Shasta 12,943 CIV X X X X Solano 22,398 CalWIN X X X X X X X X Sonoma 18,932 CalWIN X X X X X X X X X Stanislaus 41,902 CIV X X X X X X Sutter 5,727 CIV X X X X X X X Tulare 52,436 CalWIN X X X X X X Ventura 37,376 CalWIN X X X Yolo 10,645 CalWIN X X X X X X X Yuba 6,187 CIV X X X X X ”

“Summary 2015-2016 County Single Allocation (CSA) allocations v. expenditures The following reflects the 2015-2016 County Single Allocation for the various programs and the actual amount of the allocated funds spent by counties during the 2015-2016 fiscal year. The source of this information is the county claiming of the annual allocated funds made to the State Department of Social Services. This presentation is done by the Coalition of California of Welfare Rights Organizations. For questions or information contact Kevin Aslanian at 916-712-0071 or email [email protected]. COUNTY ALLOCATIONS VS EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION EXPENDITURES DIFFERENCES %AGE All numbers displayed in thousands FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 SPENT CFL # 09\/15 QTR – 6\/16 QTR FEDERAL & STATE FUNDS EXPENDITURES CalWORKs SINGLE ALLOCATION Eligibility $495,834 $648,658 ($152,824) 130.82% Child Care $409,195 $334,091 $75,104 81.65% Cal Learn $19,243 $23,264 ($4,021) 120.90% Employment Services $1,096,646 $853,304 $243,342 77.81% TOTAL CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION $2,020,918 $1,859,317 $161,601 92.00% CFL 15\/16-19, 52 CalWORKs MENTAL HEALTH\/SUBSTANCE ABUSE (MH\/SA) ALLOCATION Mental Health $76,304 $69,177 $7,127 90.66% Substance Abuse $50,302 $35,991 $14,311 71.55% TOTAL MH\/SA ALLOCATION $126,606 $105,168 $21,438 83.07% CFL 15\/16-15, 54 CCL – FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES Federal $13 $44 ($31) 338.46% State $21 $31 ($10) 147.62% $34 $75 ($41) 220.59% CFL 15\/16-17 EXPANDED SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT (ESE) PROG $134,145 $104,831 $29,314 78.15% CFL 15\/16-25, 53 CalWORKs FAMILY STABILIZATION (FS) PROG $29,840 $38,010 ($8,170) 127.38% CFL 15\/16-06 HOMELESS HOUSING SUPPORT PROGRAM $35,000 $32,126 $2,874 91.79% Letters Dated: 7\/31\/2015, 10\/2\/2015, 2\/26\/2016 GENERAL FUND ONLY EXPENDITURES CALFRESH ADMIN $631,772 $593,473 $38,299 93.94% CFL 15\/16-26,51 CCL – FOSTER FAMILY HOMES $5,530 $11,473 ($5,943) 207.47% CFL 15\/16-17 KINSHIP GUARDIANSHIP ASSISTANCE PYMT (Kin-GAP) PROG $3,642 $3,513 $129 96.46% CFL 15\/16-13 TRAFFICKING & CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE PRG (TCVAP) $5,102 $3,335 $1,767 65.37% CFL 15\/16-14, 57 NON MEDICAL OUT OF HOME CARE (NMOHC) $354 $365 ($11) 103.11% CFL 15\/16-03 WORK INCENTIVE NUTRITIONAL SUPPLMENT (WINS) PROG $9,211 $4,835 $4,376 52.49% CFL 15\/16-05, 59 COMMERCIALLY SEXUALLY EXPLOITED CHILDREN (CSEC) $16,184 $4,001 $12,183 24.72% CFL 15\/16-22,CFL 15\/16-41, CFL 16\/17-04 * POST 2011 REALIGNMENT PROG $22,073 $28,391 ($6,318) 128.62% CFL 15\/16-32,44,49 CFL 16\/17-01 ** APPROVED RELATIVE CAREGIVER $30,108 $17,697 $12,411 58.78% CFL 15\/16-24 FOSTER PARENT RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND SUPPORT $17,193 $4,450 $12,743 25.88% Individual letters CWDS $16,471 $4,437 Probation $722 $13 FEDERAL FUNDS ONLY EXPENDITURES *** CALFRESH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM (CFET) $59,158 $65,387 ($6,229) 110.53% CFL 15\/16-30, Letter (Fresno) INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM (ILP) $16,766 $33,749 ($16,983) 201.29% CFL 15\/16-21 PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES (PSSF) $28,264 $28,358 ($94) 100.33% CFL 15\/16-11 PSSF CASEWORKER VISITS $1,976 $24,604 ($22,628) 1245.14% CFL 15\/16-12 * ALLOCATION INCLUDES WAIVER COUNTIES ** ARC – Based on invoice process *** CFET – Allocation is on a FFY (1st quarter is Dec 2015) CalWORKs WtW Employment Serv $ CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION FOR WTW Sorted by County COUNTIES CalWRKs Emply Svcs FED &GF CalWRKs Emply Svcs FED &GF 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Over-Used Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used COUNTIES Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used ALLOCATIONS EXPENDITURES ALAMEDA $47,034,176 $36,888,890 $10,145,286 $0 78.43% PLUMAS 28.50% ALPINE $27,607 $99,475 $0 ($71,868) 360.33% MONO 34.34% AMADOR $559,985 $455,246 $104,739 $0 81.30% INYO 46.49% BUTTE $9,592,004 $6,282,511 $3,309,493 $0 65.50% SIERRA 47.67% CALAVERAS $1,028,494 $845,626 $182,868 $0 82.22% MARIN 56.41% COLUSA $322,192 $348,085 $0 ($25,893) 108.04% LASSEN 59.20% CONTRA COSTA $30,135,424 $25,253,036 $4,882,388 $0 83.80% SAN DIEGO 60.58% DEL NORTE $1,891,296 $1,413,445 $477,851 $0 74.73% TULARE 63.30% EL DORADO $3,215,209 $2,914,648 $300,561 $0 90.65% MARIPOSA 63.78% FRESNO $42,802,084 $36,365,225 $6,436,859 $0 84.96% SAN BENITO 64.19% GLENN $1,553,440 $1,685,138 $0 ($131,698) 108.48% BUTTE 65.50% HUMBOLDT $7,457,045 $7,753,818 $0 ($296,773) 103.98% YUBA 66.34% IMPERIAL $7,891,650 $5,883,431 $2,008,219 $0 74.55% SAN LUIS OBISPO 67.28% INYO $594,036 $276,163 $317,873 $0 46.49% SAN JOAQUIN 68.75% KERN $29,864,638 $25,813,270 $4,051,368 $0 86.43% SANTA BARBARA 69.72% KINGS $5,941,858 $5,320,023 $621,835 $0 89.53% SACRAMENTO 70.13% LAKE $2,326,144 $2,581,026 $0 ($254,882) 110.96% MENDOCINO 70.37% LASSEN $910,081 $538,771 $371,310 $0 59.20% SONOMA 70.44% LOS ANGELES $316,274,652 $233,705,016 $82,569,636 $0 73.89% RIVERSIDE 71.59% MADERA $3,217,582 $2,768,255 $449,327 $0 86.04% MERCED 72.69% MARIN $5,848,330 $3,298,900 $2,549,430 $0 56.41% LOS ANGELES 73.89% MARIPOSA $947,918 $604,546 $343,372 $0 63.78% SAN FRANCISCO 74.27% MENDOCINO $2,831,300 $1,992,485 $838,815 $0 70.37% IMPERIAL 74.55% MERCED $13,197,269 $9,592,689 $3,604,580 $0 72.69% DEL NORTE 74.73% MODOC $659,745 $816,642 $0 ($156,897) 123.78% SISKIYOU 75.89% MONO $259,322 $89,061 $170,261 $0 34.34% ORANGE 76.86% MONTEREY $13,184,680 $12,098,037 $1,086,643 $0 91.76% SAN BERNARDINO 78.37% NAPA $2,295,666 $2,027,736 $267,930 $0 88.33% ALAMEDA 78.43% NEVADA $1,972,175 $1,737,650 $234,525 $0 88.11% SHASTA 78.65% ORANGE $57,522,406 $44,212,318 $13,310,088 $0 76.86% SOLANO 79.63% PLACER $5,614,430 $5,171,779 $442,651 $0 92.12% SUTTER 80.92% PLUMAS $517,485 $147,467 $370,018 $0 28.50% AMADOR 81.30% RIVERSIDE $62,631,519 $44,840,143 $17,791,376 $0 71.59% CALAVERAS 82.22% SACRAMENTO $58,916,248 $41,316,010 $17,600,238 $0 70.13% CONTRA COSTA 83.80% SAN BENITO $1,417,275 $909,780 $507,495 $0 64.19% FRESNO 84.96% SAN BERNARDINO $81,208,635 $63,639,366 $17,569,269 $0 78.37% SAN MATEO 85.25% SAN DIEGO $51,362,778 $31,117,464 $20,245,314 $0 60.58% VENTURA 85.52% SAN FRANCISCO $35,949,518 $26,699,149 $9,250,369 $0 74.27% MADERA 86.04% SAN JOAQUIN $20,490,727 $14,086,470 $6,404,257 $0 68.75% KERN 86.43% SAN LUIS OBISPO $5,569,563 $3,747,319 $1,822,244 $0 67.28% NEVADA 88.11% SAN MATEO $8,923,650 $7,606,972 $1,316,678 $0 85.25% NAPA 88.33% SANTA BARBARA $10,509,344 $7,327,380 $3,181,964 $0 69.72% KINGS 89.53% SANTA CLARA $33,517,220 $36,896,008 $0 ($3,378,788) 110.08% EL DORADO 90.65% SANTA CRUZ $8,529,288 $8,299,073 $230,215 $0 97.30% MONTEREY 91.76% SHASTA $5,746,155 $4,519,443 $1,226,712 $0 78.65% PLACER 92.12% SIERRA $241,032 $114,901 $126,131 $0 47.67% SANTA CRUZ 97.30% SISKIYOU $1,487,735 $1,129,112 $358,623 $0 75.89% TRINITY 99.23% SOLANO $11,025,826 $8,780,344 $2,245,482 $0 79.63% TUOLUMNE 100.64% SONOMA $11,739,778 $8,269,870 $3,469,908 $0 70.44% TEHAMA 100.76% STANISLAUS $17,362,487 $22,698,127 $0 ($5,335,640) 130.73% HUMBOLDT 103.98% SUTTER $2,827,471 $2,288,041 $539,430 $0 80.92% COLUSA 108.04% TEHAMA $2,347,927 $2,365,817 $0 ($17,890) 100.76% GLENN 108.48% TRINITY $687,246 $681,946 $5,300 $0 99.23% YOLO 109.65% TULARE $16,787,638 $10,626,291 $6,161,347 $0 63.30% SANTA CLARA 110.08% TUOLUMNE $709,916 $714,443 $0 ($4,527) 100.64% LAKE 110.96% VENTURA $16,607,797 $14,202,708 $2,405,089 $0 85.52% MODOC 123.78% YOLO $7,194,526 $7,888,677 $0 ($694,151) 109.65% STANISLAUS 130.73% YUBA $5,364,378 $3,558,895 $1,805,483 $0 66.34% ALPINE 360.33% TOTAL $1,096,646,000 $853,304,157 $253,710,850 ($10,369,007) 77.81% TOTAL 77.81% CalWORKs WtW Child Care $ CalWORKs Single Allocation for WtW Child Care Sorted by County COUNTIES 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Over-Used Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used COUNTIES Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used FED & GF FED & GF CalWRKs Child Care CalWRKs Child Care REVISED EXPENDITURES ALAMEDA $16,051,771 $20,726,904 $0 ($4,675,133) 129.13% ALPINE 1.74% ALPINE $77,465 $1,346 $76,119 $0 1.74% MODOC 4.25% AMADOR $208,951 $201,856 $7,095 $0 96.60% TRINITY 6.68% BUTTE $3,322,667 $1,957,117 $1,365,550 $0 58.90% TUOLUMNE 8.49% CALAVERAS $383,768 $151,751 $232,017 $0 39.54% COLUSA 9.29% COLUSA $213,649 $19,851 $193,798 $0 9.29% MARIPOSA 12.94% CONTRA COSTA $11,244,527 $6,123,748 $5,120,779 $0 54.46% MADERA 15.84% DEL NORTE $705,706 $445,385 $260,321 $0 63.11% MONO 16.36% EL DORADO $1,138,622 $318,833 $819,789 $0 28.00% TEHAMA 25.79% FRESNO $15,970,881 $12,784,350 $3,186,531 $0 80.05% LAKE 26.41% GLENN $691,576 $311,196 $380,380 $0 45.00% EL DORADO 28.00% HUMBOLDT $2,782,469 $862,217 $1,920,252 $0 30.99% NEVADA 29.76% IMPERIAL $3,131,205 $3,138,187 $0 ($6,982) 100.22% HUMBOLDT 30.99% INYO $221,657 $120,805 $100,852 $0 54.50% PLUMAS 36.66% KERN $11,516,617 $10,556,770 $959,847 $0 91.67% SISKIYOU 37.96% KINGS $2,101,855 $1,892,012 $209,843 $0 90.02% CALAVERAS 39.54% LAKE $1,017,218 $268,693 $748,525 $0 26.41% STANISLAUS 42.42% LASSEN $339,583 $278,644 $60,939 $0 82.05% MENDOCINO 43.49% LOS ANGELES $118,012,556 $82,961,701 $35,050,855 $0 70.30% NAPA 43.88% MADERA $1,611,029 $255,234 $1,355,795 $0 15.84% GLENN 45.00% MARIN $1,733,596 $2,331,495 $0 ($597,899) 134.49% YUBA 45.35% MARIPOSA $353,700 $45,777 $307,923 $0 12.94% SIERRA 48.52% MENDOCINO $1,056,451 $459,490 $596,961 $0 43.49% MONTEREY 52.61% MERCED $4,924,339 $2,711,365 $2,212,974 $0 55.06% CONTRA COSTA 54.46% MODOC $246,172 $10,455 $235,717 $0 4.25% INYO 54.50% MONO $152,728 $24,981 $127,747 $0 16.36% MERCED 55.06% MONTEREY $4,919,641 $2,588,465 $2,331,176 $0 52.61% SACRAMENTO 56.67% NAPA $856,592 $375,914 $480,678 $0 43.88% BUTTE 58.90% NEVADA $735,884 $219,005 $516,879 $0 29.76% SOLANO 59.40% ORANGE $21,463,522 $17,807,652 $3,655,870 $0 82.97% DEL NORTE 63.11% PLACER $2,094,931 $2,344,893 $0 ($249,962) 111.93% SANTA CLARA 64.19% PLUMAS $267,716 $98,153 $169,563 $0 36.66% SAN LUIS OBISPO 68.97% RIVERSIDE $21,842,841 $28,040,751 $0 ($6,197,910) 128.38% SAN MATEO 69.58% SACRAMENTO $24,297,029 $13,768,907 $10,528,122 $0 56.67% LOS ANGELES 70.30% SAN BENITO $528,831 $596,201 $0 ($67,370) 112.74% SAN JOAQUIN 70.85% SAN BERNARDINO $29,149,141 $32,417,769 $0 ($3,268,628) 111.21% SONOMA 73.16% SAN DIEGO $19,165,159 $21,013,496 $0 ($1,848,337) 109.64% SUTTER 74.90% SAN FRANCISCO $10,878,474 $12,032,405 $0 ($1,153,931) 110.61% FRESNO 80.05% SAN JOAQUIN $7,645,772 $5,417,245 $2,228,527 $0 70.85% LASSEN 82.05% SAN LUIS OBISPO $2,451,324 $1,690,800 $760,524 $0 68.97% ORANGE 82.97% SAN MATEO $3,367,020 $2,342,905 $1,024,115 $0 69.58% TULARE 86.41% SANTA BARBARA $3,633,259 $3,596,443 $36,816 $0 98.99% KINGS 90.02% SANTA CLARA $16,237,717 $10,422,414 $5,815,303 $0 64.19% KERN 91.67% SANTA CRUZ $3,101,477 $3,280,588 $0 ($179,111) 105.78% SHASTA 94.71% SHASTA $2,144,080 $2,030,752 $113,328 $0 94.71% AMADOR 96.60% SIERRA $89,937 $43,637 $46,300 $0 48.52% SANTA BARBARA 98.99% SISKIYOU $555,126 $210,732 $344,394 $0 37.96% IMPERIAL 100.22% SOLANO $4,524,551 $2,687,668 $1,836,883 $0 59.40% YOLO 104.66% SONOMA $4,236,437 $3,099,170 $1,137,267 $0 73.16% SANTA CRUZ 105.78% STANISLAUS $6,478,523 $2,748,271 $3,730,252 $0 42.42% VENTURA 108.01% SUTTER $1,055,023 $790,203 $264,820 $0 74.90% SAN DIEGO 109.64% TEHAMA $1,077,578 $277,948 $799,630 $0 25.79% SAN FRANCISCO 110.61% TRINITY $220,708 $14,754 $205,954 $0 6.68% SAN BERNARDINO 111.21% TULARE $6,264,027 $5,412,510 $851,517 $0 86.41% PLACER 111.93% TUOLUMNE $539,143 $45,758 $493,385 $0 8.49% SAN BENITO 112.74% VENTURA $5,908,800 $6,381,937 $0 ($473,137) 108.01% RIVERSIDE 128.38% YOLO $2,367,578 $2,478,023 $0 ($110,445) 104.66% ALAMEDA 129.13% YUBA $1,886,401 $855,526 $1,030,875 $0 45.35% MARIN 134.49% TOTAL $409,195,000 $334,091,058 $93,932,787 ($18,828,845) 81.65% TOTAL 81.65% CalWORKs WtW Mental Health $ CalWORKs Single Allocation for WtW Mental Health Sorted by County COUNTIES 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation 2015-2016 General Fund Expenditures 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Over-Used Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used COUNTIES Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used CFL 15\/16-15, 54 12\/31\/99 ALAMEDA $4,169,384 $0 $4,169,384 $0 64% ALPINE 0% ALPINE $30 $0 $30 $0 0% COLUSA 0% AMADOR $21,185 $0 $21,185 $0 18% MENDOCINO 0% BUTTE $788,770 $0 $788,770 ($20,290) 103% MONO 0% CALAVERAS $64,437 $0 $64,437 $0 3% TRINITY 0% COLUSA $795 $0 $795 $0 0% CALAVERAS 3% CONTRA COSTA $2,208,242 $0 $2,208,242 $0 65% AMADOR 18% DEL NORTE $193,054 $0 $193,054 $0 78% EL DORADO 33% EL DORADO $120,335 $0 $120,335 $0 33% IMPERIAL 33% FRESNO $7,603,612 $0 $7,603,612 $0 70% NAPA 37% GLENN $127,889 $0 $127,889 $0 89% TULARE 53% HUMBOLDT $1,819,527 $0 $1,819,527 $0 69% SAN MATEO 56% IMPERIAL $772,243 $0 $772,243 $0 33% KINGS 57% INYO $41,099 $0 $41,099 ($44,111) 207% MONTEREY 59% KERN $3,032,585 $0 $3,032,585 $0 100% ALAMEDA 64% KINGS $535,696 $0 $535,696 $0 57% CONTRA COSTA 65% LAKE $306,200 $0 $306,200 $0 100% MERCED 65% LASSEN $168,125 $0 $168,125 ($1) 100% SAN BERNARDINO 66% LOS ANGELES $47,796,754 $0 $47,796,754 $0 88% SAN LUIS OBISPO 68% MADERA $688,400 $0 $688,400 ($169) 100% YUBA 68% MARIN $290,055 $0 $290,055 $0 82% HUMBOLDT 69% MARIPOSA $69,979 $0 $69,979 $0 75% FRESNO 70% MENDOCINO $153,310 $0 $153,310 $0 0% SAN JOAQUIN 72% MERCED $1,599,199 $0 $1,599,199 $0 65% SISKIYOU 72% MODOC $30,894 $0 $30,894 ($1,294) 104% MARIPOSA 75% MONO $289 $0 $289 $0 0% SUTTER 75% MONTEREY $1,100,671 $0 $1,100,671 $0 59% SANTA CLARA 76% NAPA $68,382 $0 $68,382 $0 37% DEL NORTE 78% NEVADA $157,503 $0 $157,503 $0 88% YOLO 80% ORANGE $4,829,138 $0 $4,829,138 $0 84% MARIN 82% PLACER $526,168 $0 $526,168 $0 97% STANISLAUS 83% PLUMAS $36,830 $0 $36,830 ($950) 103% ORANGE 84% RIVERSIDE $5,613,858 $0 $5,613,858 $0 93% SONOMA 87% SACRAMENTO $6,679,811 $0 $6,679,811 $0 91% LOS ANGELES 88% SAN BENITO $32,895 $0 $32,895 ($6,178) 119% NEVADA 88% SAN BERNARDINO $5,325,749 $0 $5,325,749 $0 66% GLENN 89% SAN DIEGO $7,987,744 $0 $7,987,744 $0 91% TEHAMA 90% SAN FRANCISCO $1,820,103 $0 $1,820,103 ($75,298) 104% SACRAMENTO 91% SAN JOAQUIN $3,715,331 $0 $3,715,331 $0 72% SAN DIEGO 91% SAN LUIS OBISPO $293,083 $0 $293,083 $0 68% RIVERSIDE 93% SAN MATEO $562,872 $0 $562,872 $0 56% SHASTA 93% SANTA BARBARA $1,384,029 $0 $1,384,029 $0 98% PLACER 97% SANTA CLARA $2,657,766 $0 $2,657,766 $0 76% SIERRA 97% SANTA CRUZ $537,747 $0 $537,747 ($2,975) 101% SANTA BARBARA 98% SHASTA $682,649 $0 $682,649 $0 93% KERN 100% SIERRA $618 $0 $618 $0 97% LAKE 100% SISKIYOU $287,686 $0 $287,686 $0 72% LASSEN 100% SOLANO $1,076,193 $0 $1,076,193 ($582) 100% MADERA 100% SONOMA $956,857 $0 $956,857 $0 87% SOLANO 100% STANISLAUS $2,401,208 $0 $2,401,208 $0 83% TUOLUMNE 100% SUTTER $343,287 $0 $343,287 $0 75% SANTA CRUZ 101% TEHAMA $458,340 $0 $458,340 $0 90% VENTURA 101% TRINITY $14,926 $0 $14,926 $0 0% BUTTE 103% TULARE $2,576,642 $0 $2,576,642 $0 53% PLUMAS 103% TUOLUMNE $187,672 $0 $187,672 $0 100% MODOC 104% VENTURA $938,029 $0 $938,029 ($12,649) 101% SAN FRANCISCO 104% YOLO $456,945 $0 $456,945 $0 80% SAN BENITO 119% YUBA $293,180 $0 $293,180 $0 68% INYO 207% TOTAL $126,606,000 $0 $126,606,000 ($164,497) 83% TOTAL 83% CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse $ CalWORKs Single Allocation for WtW Substance Abuse Sorted by County COUNTIES 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation 2015-2016 General Fund Expenditures 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Over-Used Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used COUNTIES Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used ALAMEDA $800,201 $0 $800,201 $0 0.00% ALAMEDA 0% ALPINE $322 $0 $322 $0 0.00% ALPINE 0% AMADOR $14,665 $892 $13,773 $0 6.08% COLUSA 0% BUTTE $442,194 $315,533 $126,661 $0 71.36% MENDOCINO 0% CALAVERAS $27,610 $1,992 $25,618 $0 7.21% MONO 0% COLUSA $8,643 $0 $8,643 $0 0.00% NAPA 0% CONTRA COSTA $1,014,945 $823,391 $191,554 $0 81.13% TRINITY 0% DEL NORTE $76,931 $8,091 $68,840 $0 10.52% RIVERSIDE 4% EL DORADO $47,811 $32,111 $15,700 $0 67.16% AMADOR 6% FRESNO $3,431,569 $2,542,823 $888,746 $0 74.10% CALAVERAS 7% GLENN $46,654 $11,648 $35,006 $0 24.97% PLUMAS 8% HUMBOLDT $274,219 $656,455 $0 ($382,236) 239.39% DEL NORTE 11% IMPERIAL $217,904 $136,767 $81,137 $0 62.76% SANTA CLARA 11% INYO $16,781 $42,740 $0 ($25,959) 254.69% GLENN 25% KERN $1,305,981 $544,598 $761,383 $0 41.70% SOLANO 39% KINGS $148,675 $65,058 $83,617 $0 43.76% KERN 42% LAKE $111,508 $111,508 $0 $0 100.00% KINGS 44% LASSEN $75,930 $75,930 $0 $0 100.00% ORANGE 44% LOS ANGELES $18,961,767 $14,486,216 $4,475,551 $0 76.40% MERCED 46% MADERA $171,922 $140,024 $31,898 $0 81.45% SAN BERNARDINO 50% MARIN $98,096 $66,304 $31,792 $0 67.59% TUOLUMNE 53% MARIPOSA $23,889 $17,917 $5,972 $0 75.00% YUBA 56% MENDOCINO $60,912 $0 $60,912 $0 0.00% MONTEREY 59% MERCED $538,402 $248,386 $290,016 $0 46.13% SIERRA 60% MODOC $6,160 $7,454 $0 ($1,294) 121.01% YOLO 60% MONO $3,654 $0 $3,654 $0 0.00% TULARE 61% MONTEREY $248,063 $147,271 $100,792 $0 59.37% IMPERIAL 63% NAPA $27,169 $0 $27,169 $0 0.00% EL DORADO 67% NEVADA $46,690 $32,047 $14,643 $0 68.64% SAN BENITO 67% ORANGE $1,438,299 $634,383 $803,916 $0 44.11% MARIN 68% PLACER $229,581 $221,599 $7,982 $0 96.52% SAN MATEO 68% PLUMAS $9,194 $750 $8,444 $0 8.16% NEVADA 69% RIVERSIDE $1,508,192 $59,962 $1,448,230 $0 3.98% SUTTER 69% SACRAMENTO $3,840,934 $3,465,733 $375,201 $0 90.23% BUTTE 71% SAN BENITO $58,647 $39,073 $19,574 $0 66.62% SHASTA 71% SAN BERNARDINO $3,476,936 $1,727,944 $1,748,992 $0 49.70% FRESNO 74% SAN DIEGO $3,178,499 $2,794,576 $383,923 $0 87.92% SONOMA 74% SAN FRANCISCO $421,038 $431,327 $0 ($10,289) 102.44% MARIPOSA 75% SAN JOAQUIN $1,391,985 $1,326,663 $65,322 $0 95.31% LOS ANGELES 76% SAN LUIS OBISPO $195,925 $188,312 $7,613 $0 96.11% SISKIYOU 78% SAN MATEO $376,811 $254,647 $122,164 $0 67.58% CONTRA COSTA 81% SANTA BARBARA $582,729 $566,591 $16,138 $0 97.23% MADERA 81% SANTA CLARA $556,737 $62,000 $494,737 $0 11.14% TEHAMA 82% SANTA CRUZ $236,365 $276,768 $0 ($40,403) 117.09% VENTURA 85% SHASTA $227,424 $162,352 $65,072 $0 71.39% SAN DIEGO 88% SIERRA $1,011 $602 $409 $0 59.55% SACRAMENTO 90% SISKIYOU $132,093 $103,206 $28,887 $0 78.13% SAN JOAQUIN 95% SOLANO $308,651 $120,015 $188,636 $0 38.88% SAN LUIS OBISPO 96% SONOMA $314,887 $232,138 $82,749 $0 73.72% STANISLAUS 96% STANISLAUS $1,319,156 $1,262,613 $56,543 $0 95.71% PLACER 97% SUTTER $149,749 $103,754 $45,995 $0 69.29% SANTA BARBARA 97% TEHAMA $237,262 $194,657 $42,605 $0 82.04% LAKE 100% TRINITY $5,930 $0 $5,930 $0 0.00% LASSEN 100% TULARE $950,550 $579,176 $371,374 $0 60.93% SAN FRANCISCO 102% TUOLUMNE $45,616 $24,328 $21,288 $0 53.33% SANTA CRUZ 117% VENTURA $528,224 $449,632 $78,592 $0 85.12% MODOC 121% YOLO $223,609 $133,448 $90,161 $0 59.68% HUMBOLDT 239% YUBA $107,099 $59,813 $47,286 $0 55.85% INYO 255% TOTAL $50,302,400 $35,991,218 $14,771,363 ($460,181) 71.55% TOTAL 72% CalWORKs Eligibility $ CalWORKs Single Allocation for CalWORKs Eligibility Sorted by Counbty COUNTIES FED & GF CalWORKs Elgig. Admin ALLOCATION FED & GF CalWORKs Elgig. Admin EXPENDITURES 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Over-Used Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used COUNTIES Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used ALAMEDA $19,450,417 $18,554,990 $895,427 $0 95.40% SANTA CRUZ 56.04% ALPINE $93,866 $56,793 $37,073 $0 60.50% ALPINE 60.50% AMADOR $253,193 $321,646 $0 ($68,453) 127.04% SANTA CLARA 80.17% BUTTE $4,026,177 $6,705,150 $0 ($2,678,973) 166.54% TUOLUMNE 80.63% CALAVERAS $465,023 $379,390 $85,633 $0 81.59% MODOC 81.19% COLUSA $258,885 $371,090 $0 ($112,205) 143.34% MONO 81.39% CONTRA COSTA $13,625,335 $21,492,238 $0 ($7,866,903) 157.74% CALAVERAS 81.59% DEL NORTE $855,125 $1,071,163 $0 ($216,038) 125.26% TRINITY 82.96% EL DORADO $1,379,703 $2,122,389 $0 ($742,686) 153.83% MONTEREY 83.66% FRESNO $19,352,401 $21,515,389 $0 ($2,162,988) 111.18% NAPA 86.01% GLENN $838,004 $932,937 $0 ($94,933) 111.33% STANISLAUS 87.11% HUMBOLDT $3,371,602 $3,926,980 $0 ($555,378) 116.47% KINGS 95.29% IMPERIAL $3,794,176 $4,512,001 $0 ($717,825) 118.92% ALAMEDA 95.40% INYO $268,588 $357,011 $0 ($88,423) 132.92% YUBA 96.81% KERN $13,955,035 $16,801,687 $0 ($2,846,652) 120.40% PLACER 99.92% KINGS $2,546,881 $2,427,050 $119,831 $0 95.29% YOLO 100.68% LAKE $1,232,594 $1,329,660 $0 ($97,066) 107.87% SUTTER 100.75% LASSEN $411,483 $673,855 $0 ($262,372) 163.76% PLUMAS 106.56% LOS ANGELES $142,999,399 $189,039,064 $0 ($46,039,665) 132.20% LAKE 107.87% MADERA $1,952,133 $2,877,036 $0 ($924,903) 147.38% NEVADA 108.54% MARIN $2,100,650 $3,558,960 $0 ($1,458,310) 169.42% RIVERSIDE 108.77% MARIPOSA $428,589 $751,471 $0 ($322,882) 175.34% SAN BENITO 110.42% MENDOCINO $1,280,134 $2,144,074 $0 ($863,940) 167.49% FRESNO 111.18% MERCED $5,966,970 $8,436,346 $0 ($2,469,376) 141.38% GLENN 111.33% MODOC $298,294 $242,185 $56,109 $0 81.19% HUMBOLDT 116.47% MONO $185,065 $150,629 $34,436 $0 81.39% IMPERIAL 118.92% MONTEREY $5,961,278 $4,987,175 $974,103 $0 83.66% KERN 120.40% NAPA $1,037,959 $892,720 $145,239 $0 86.01% VENTURA 121.57% NEVADA $891,693 $967,806 $0 ($76,113) 108.54% DEL NORTE 125.26% ORANGE $26,008,001 $37,869,768 $0 ($11,861,767) 145.61% SOLANO 125.77% PLACER $2,538,492 $2,536,410 $2,082 $0 99.92% AMADOR 127.04% PLUMAS $324,399 $345,690 $0 ($21,291) 106.56% SAN FRANCISCO 128.03% RIVERSIDE $26,467,634 $28,789,301 $0 ($2,321,667) 108.77% SHASTA 128.63% SACRAMENTO $29,441,448 $48,782,387 $0 ($19,340,939) 165.69% LOS ANGELES 132.20% SAN BENITO $640,801 $707,555 $0 ($66,754) 110.42% INYO 132.92% SAN BERNARDINO $35,320,899 $49,192,825 $0 ($13,871,926) 139.27% SAN MATEO 136.77% SAN DIEGO $23,223,005 $42,817,034 $0 ($19,594,029) 184.37% SAN BERNARDINO 139.27% SAN FRANCISCO $13,181,777 $16,876,735 $0 ($3,694,958) 128.03% TULARE 140.06% SAN JOAQUIN $9,264,614 $14,034,770 $0 ($4,770,156) 151.49% MERCED 141.38% SAN LUIS OBISPO $2,970,343 $5,781,799 $0 ($2,811,456) 194.65% SANTA BARBARA 143.03% SAN MATEO $4,079,920 $5,580,139 $0 ($1,500,219) 136.77% COLUSA 143.34% SANTA BARBARA $4,402,530 $6,296,826 $0 ($1,894,296) 143.03% TEHAMA 144.43% SANTA CLARA $19,675,734 $15,774,751 $3,900,983 $0 80.17% ORANGE 145.61% SANTA CRUZ $3,758,154 $2,106,240 $1,651,914 $0 56.04% MADERA 147.38% SHASTA $2,598,046 $3,341,964 $0 ($743,918) 128.63% SONOMA 149.33% SIERRA $108,979 $226,894 $0 ($117,915) 208.20% SAN JOAQUIN 151.49% SISKIYOU $672,663 $1,022,581 $0 ($349,918) 152.02% SISKIYOU 152.02% SOLANO $5,482,536 $6,895,282 $0 ($1,412,746) 125.77% EL DORADO 153.83% SONOMA $5,133,419 $7,665,918 $0 ($2,532,499) 149.33% CONTRA COSTA 157.74% STANISLAUS $7,850,222 $6,838,156 $1,012,066 $0 87.11% LASSEN 163.76% SUTTER $1,278,404 $1,287,929 $0 ($9,525) 100.75% SACRAMENTO 165.69% TEHAMA $1,305,734 $1,885,846 $0 ($580,112) 144.43% BUTTE 166.54% TRINITY $267,438 $221,875 $45,563 $0 82.96% MENDOCINO 167.49% TULARE $7,590,311 $10,630,702 $0 ($3,040,391) 140.06% MARIN 169.42% TUOLUMNE $653,296 $526,762 $126,534 $0 80.63% MARIPOSA 175.34% VENTURA $7,159,873 $8,704,368 $0 ($1,544,495) 121.57% SAN DIEGO 184.37% YOLO $2,868,866 $2,888,453 $0 ($19,587) 100.68% SAN LUIS OBISPO 194.65% YUBA $2,285,810 $2,212,830 $72,980 $0 96.81% SIERRA 208.20% TOTAL $495,834,000 $649,440,675 $9,159,973 ($162,766,648) 130.98% TOTAL 130.98% CalFresh Admin $ CalWORKs Single Allocation for WtW CalFresh Administration Costs Sorted by County COUNTIES FY 2015-16 2015-2016 General Fund Expenditures 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Over-Used Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used COUNTIES Percentage of 2015-2016 General Fund Allocation Not Used GENERAL FUND CALFRESH ADMIN ALLOCATION ALAMEDA $19,281,286 $19,281,286 $0 $0 100.00% AMADOR 41.06% ALPINE $82,963 $46,337 $36,626 $0 55.85% TRINITY 54.39% AMADOR $898,208 $368,846 $529,362 $0 41.06% ALPINE 55.85% BUTTE $5,320,390 $5,320,390 $0 $0 100.00% LASSEN 65.42% CALAVERAS $819,741 $664,900 $154,841 $0 81.11% KINGS 74.19% COLUSA $376,438 $299,416 $77,022 $0 79.54% STANISLAUS 76.85% CONTRA COSTA $15,126,092 $15,486,427 $0 ($360,335) 102.38% SUTTER 77.57% DEL NORTE $810,264 $810,264 $0 $0 100.00% TULARE 78.53% EL DORADO $2,511,457 $2,507,549 $3,908 $0 99.84% MODOC 78.77% FRESNO $22,388,317 $22,343,959 $44,358 $0 99.80% SIERRA 79.32% GLENN $685,268 $685,268 $0 $0 100.00% COLUSA 79.54% HUMBOLDT $4,957,069 $4,957,069 $0 $0 100.00% SISKIYOU 80.83% IMPERIAL $3,408,386 $2,965,625 $442,761 $0 87.01% CALAVERAS 81.11% INYO $357,124 $411,186 $0 ($54,062) 115.14% PLUMAS 82.71% KERN $15,074,943 $13,047,637 $2,027,306 $0 86.55% MENDOCINO 83.85% KINGS $2,211,862 $1,641,088 $570,774 $0 74.19% TUOLUMNE 85.29% LAKE $1,457,743 $1,457,743 $0 $0 100.00% KERN 86.55% LASSEN $447,058 $292,451 $154,607 $0 65.42% IMPERIAL 87.01% LOS ANGELES $186,528,169 $162,414,036 $24,114,133 $0 87.07% LOS ANGELES 87.07% MADERA $2,100,453 $2,096,314 $4,139 $0 99.80% SOLANO 89.02% MARIN $3,722,481 $3,722,481 $0 $0 100.00% YOLO 89.93% MARIPOSA $374,633 $672,545 $0 ($297,912) 179.52% SAN BERNARDINO 92.44% MENDOCINO $1,679,802 $1,408,435 $271,367 $0 83.85% SAN LUIS OBISPO 92.58% MERCED $5,253,837 $5,253,837 $0 $0 100.00% SAN MATEO 92.73% MODOC $217,799 $171,561 $46,238 $0 78.77% YUBA 94.92% MONO $374,369 $424,385 $0 ($50,016) 113.36% SAN DIEGO 96.95% MONTEREY $7,619,870 $9,083,429 $0 ($1,463,559) 119.21% SAN JOAQUIN 97.26% NAPA $1,448,179 $1,448,179 $0 $0 100.00% NEVADA 97.45% NEVADA $1,357,462 $1,322,833 $34,629 $0 97.45% TEHAMA 97.96% ORANGE $30,688,415 $30,688,415 $0 $0 100.00% RIVERSIDE 98.10% PLACER $4,203,888 $4,203,888 $0 $0 100.00% SACRAMENTO 98.84% PLUMAS $342,135 $282,985 $59,150 $0 82.71% SANTA CLARA 99.33% RIVERSIDE $36,053,350 $35,369,587 $683,763 $0 98.10% FRESNO 99.80% SACRAMENTO $29,534,803 $29,192,847 $341,956 $0 98.84% MADERA 99.80% SAN BENITO $884,982 $884,982 $0 $0 100.00% EL DORADO 99.84% SAN BERNARDINO $43,713,503 $40,407,180 $3,306,323 $0 92.44% ALAMEDA 100.00% SAN DIEGO $41,638,178 $40,366,916 $1,271,262 $0 96.95% BUTTE 100.00% SAN FRANCISCO $21,824,502 $21,824,502 $0 $0 100.00% DEL NORTE 100.00% SAN JOAQUIN $8,027,935 $7,807,983 $219,952 $0 97.26% GLENN 100.00% SAN LUIS OBISPO $3,454,512 $3,198,067 $256,445 $0 92.58% HUMBOLDT 100.00% SAN MATEO $6,275,899 $5,819,593 $456,306 $0 92.73% LAKE 100.00% SANTA BARBARA $8,207,216 $8,207,216 $0 $0 100.00% MARIN 100.00% SANTA CLARA $24,269,935 $24,106,639 $163,296 $0 99.33% MERCED 100.00% SANTA CRUZ $5,259,468 $6,075,607 $0 ($816,139) 115.52% NAPA 100.00% SHASTA $3,371,459 $3,371,459 $0 $0 100.00% ORANGE 100.00% SIERRA $128,716 $102,094 $26,622 $0 79.32% PLACER 100.00% SISKIYOU $1,080,289 $873,174 $207,115 $0 80.83% SAN BENITO 100.00% SOLANO $6,898,093 $6,140,672 $757,421 $0 89.02% SAN FRANCISCO 100.00% SONOMA $8,180,167 $8,710,975 $0 ($530,808) 106.49% SANTA BARBARA 100.00% STANISLAUS $10,271,219 $7,893,239 $2,377,980 $0 76.85% SHASTA 100.00% SUTTER $1,263,015 $979,761 $283,254 $0 77.57% CONTRA COSTA 102.38% TEHAMA $1,257,291 $1,231,599 $25,692 $0 97.96% VENTURA 102.45% TRINITY $618,880 $336,593 $282,287 $0 54.39% SONOMA 106.49% TULARE $10,795,445 $8,477,519 $2,317,926 $0 78.53% MONO 113.36% TUOLUMNE $995,061 $848,735 $146,326 $0 85.29% INYO 115.14% VENTURA $10,386,330 $10,640,345 $0 ($254,015) 102.45% SANTA CRUZ 115.52% YOLO $3,284,986 $2,954,077 $330,909 $0 89.93% MONTEREY 119.21% YUBA $1,970,664 $1,870,496 $100,168 $0 94.92% MARIPOSA 179.52% TOTAL $631,771,999 $593,472,621 $42,126,224 ($3,826,846) 93.94% TOTAL 93.94% ‘CalWORKs Single Allocat ”

“Sheet1 2015 Report on Average ATM Access Surcharges Incurred by CalWORKs, CAPI & GA recipients During 2015 2015 Report on Average ATM Access Surcharges Incurred by CalWORKs, CAPI & GA recipients During 2015 – SORTED County 2015 Total CW cases CAPI cases GA cases Annual Average Surcharges Incurred by each CalWORKs, CAPI and GA recipients County 2015 Total CW cases CAPI cases GA cases Annual Average Surcharges Incurred by each CalWORKs, CAPI and GA recipients Alameda $ 961,184.00 11,687 1,299 12,046 $ 38.40 Modoc $ 1,086.44 111 0 32 $ 7.60 Alpine $ 254.94 3 0 0 $ 84.98 Plumas $ 2,509.39 156 0 44 $ 12.55 Amador $ 11,647.22 255 0 19 $ 42.51 Lassen $ 6,739.86 371 0 59 $ 15.67 Butte $ 69,107.00 2,760 2 561 $ 20.80 Glenn $ 6,916.59 351 1 15 $ 18.85 Calaveras $ 14,851.33 402 1 37 $ 33.75 Marin $ 30,177.82 787 40 746 $ 19.18 Colusa $ 3,760.54 140 4 16 $ 23.50 Shasta $ 53,889.12 2,350 1 449 $ 19.25 Contra Costa $ 351,579.14 7,560 435 1,547 $ 36.85 Sonoma $ 54,891.81 2,309 65 347 $ 20.17 Del Norte $ 12,881.71 556 0 7 $ 22.88 Butte $ 69,107.00 2,760 2 561 $ 20.80 El Dorado $ 31,431.63 861 6 109 $ 32.20 Del Norte $ 12,881.71 556 0 7 $ 22.88 Fresno $ 752,429.28 19,378 102 4,104 $ 31.90 Orange $ 617,936.31 19,182 739 6,992 $ 22.96 Glenn $ 6,916.59 351 1 15 $ 18.85 Colusa $ 3,760.54 140 4 16 $ 23.50 Humboldt $ 41,830.92 1,364 3 246 $ 25.93 Trinity $ 2,646.39 109 0 3 $ 23.63 Imperial $ 114,326.00 3,720 16 56 $ 30.15 Tehama $ 25,968.12 1,040 0 40 $ 24.04 Inyo $ 4,581.67 81 1 21 $ 44.48 Sierra $ 611.79 18 0 6 $ 25.49 Kern $ 644,535.24 16,599 23 549 $ 37.54 Humboldt $ 41,830.92 1,364 3 246 $ 25.93 Kings $ 67,785.42 2,236 9 4 $ 30.14 Stanislaus $ 256,769.15 8,961 151 176 $ 27.65 Lake $ 36,192.00 966 0 10 $ 37.08 Tulare $ 357,865.76 11,697 134 1,001 $ 27.89 Lassen $ 6,739.86 371 0 59 $ 15.67 San Mateo $ 80,517.60 1,662 457 713 $ 28.43 Los Angeles $ 7,587,497.70 137,410 6,689 77,626 $ 34.22 Santa Cruz $ 54,111.89 1,523 5 300 $ 29.60 Madera $ 114,640.09 2,853 2 193 $ 37.61 Placer $ 52,881.98 1,273 26 480 $ 29.73 Marin $ 30,177.82 787 40 746 $ 19.18 San Joaquin $ 399,136.36 11,953 70 1,260 $ 30.05 Mariposa $ 9,601.52 200 0 21 $ 43.45 Kings $ 67,785.42 2,236 9 4 $ 30.14 Mendocino $ 35,954.05 1,059 6 82 $ 31.35 Imperial $ 114,326.00 3,720 16 56 $ 30.15 Merced $ 250,181.36 6,321 41 90 $ 38.78 Yolo $ 54,159.61 1,567 91 93 $ 30.93 Modoc $ 1,086.44 111 0 32 $ 7.60 Tuolumne $ 15,637.05 498 0 4 $ 31.15 Mono $ 1,008.33 21 0 3 $ 42.01 Mendocino $ 35,954.05 1,059 6 82 $ 31.35 Monterey $ 200,618.60 3,907 27 498 $ 45.27 Sutter $ 37,205.68 1,138 16 21 $ 31.66 Napa $ 19,928.86 529 8 21 $ 35.71 Fresno $ 752,429.28 19,378 102 4,104 $ 31.90 Nevada $ 19,539.94 501 1 90 $ 33.01 Siskiyou $ 20,419.12 603 0 34 $ 32.06 Orange $ 617,936.31 19,182 739 6,992 $ 22.96 El Dorado $ 31,431.63 861 6 109 $ 32.20 Placer $ 52,881.98 1,273 26 480 $ 29.73 San Bernardino $ 1,328,249.43 39,995 256 547 $ 32.56 Plumas $ 2,509.39 156 0 44 $ 12.55 Nevada $ 19,539.94 501 1 90 $ 33.01 Riverside $ 881,539.37 25,875 478 138 $ 33.28 Riverside $ 881,539.37 25,875 478 138 $ 33.28 Sacramento $ 1,224,084.33 22,957 907 6,470 $ 40.35 San Francisco $ 309,585.59 3,244 659 5,289 $ 33.68 San Benito $ 25,852.27 438 15 138 $ 43.74 Calaveras $ 14,851.33 402 1 37 $ 33.75 San Bernardino $ 1,328,249.43 39,995 256 547 $ 32.56 Los Angeles $ 7,587,497.70 137,410 6,689 77,626 $ 34.22 San Diego $ 1,022,698.97 23,240 461 5,254 $ 35.32 Santa Barbara $ 125,116.13 3,168 21 443 $ 34.45 San Francisco $ 309,585.59 3,244 659 5,289 $ 33.68 Santa Clara $ 455,843.12 8,122 832 4,116 $ 34.88 San Joaquin $ 399,136.36 11,953 70 1,260 $ 30.05 Ventura $ 203,082.81 5,028 114 639 $ 35.13 San Luis Obispo $ 77,060.40 1,638 13 299 $ 39.52 San Diego $ 1,022,698.97 23,240 461 5,254 $ 35.32 San Mateo $ 80,517.60 1,662 457 713 $ 28.43 Napa $ 19,928.86 529 8 21 $ 35.71 Santa Barbara $ 125,116.13 3,168 21 443 $ 34.45 Contra Costa $ 351,579.14 7,560 435 1,547 $ 36.85 Santa Clara $ 455,843.12 8,122 832 4,116 $ 34.88 Lake $ 36,192.00 966 0 10 $ 37.08 Santa Cruz $ 54,111.89 1,523 5 300 $ 29.60 Kern $ 644,535.24 16,599 23 549 $ 37.54 Shasta $ 53,889.12 2,350 1 449 $ 19.25 Madera $ 114,640.09 2,853 2 193 $ 37.61 Sierra $ 611.79 18 0 6 $ 25.49 Alameda $ 961,184.00 11,687 1,299 12,046 $ 38.40 Siskiyou $ 20,419.12 603 0 34 $ 32.06 Merced $ 250,181.36 6,321 41 90 $ 38.78 Solano $ 228,642.08 4,167 114 748 $ 45.46 San Luis Obispo $ 77,060.40 1,638 13 299 $ 39.52 Sonoma $ 54,891.81 2,309 65 347 $ 20.17 Yuba $ 50,022.42 1,235 2 27 $ 39.57 Stanislaus $ 256,769.15 8,961 151 176 $ 27.65 Sacramento $ 1,224,084.33 22,957 907 6,470 $ 40.35 Sutter $ 37,205.68 1,138 16 21 $ 31.66 Mono $ 1,008.33 21 0 3 $ 42.01 Tehama $ 25,968.12 1,040 0 40 $ 24.04 Amador $ 11,647.22 255 0 19 $ 42.51 Trinity $ 2,646.39 109 0 3 $ 23.63 Mariposa $ 9,601.52 200 0 21 $ 43.45 Tulare $ 357,865.76 11,697 134 1,001 $ 27.89 San Benito $ 25,852.27 438 15 138 $ 43.74 Tuolumne $ 15,637.05 498 0 4 $ 31.15 Inyo $ 4,581.67 81 1 21 $ 44.48 Ventura $ 203,082.81 5,028 114 639 $ 35.13 Monterey $ 200,618.60 3,907 27 498 $ 45.27 Yolo $ 54,159.61 1,567 91 93 $ 30.93 Solano $ 228,642.08 4,167 114 748 $ 45.46 Yuba $ 50,022.42 1,235 2 27 $ 39.57 Alpine $ 254.94 3 0 0 $ 84.98 Grand Total $ 16,301,448.62 428,135 14,343 134,879 $ 28.23 Grand Total $ 16,301,448.62 428,135 14,343 134,879 $ 28.23 2015 Report on Average ATM County 2015 Total | CWeas laiameda 3 seh ened 6s lip s 254.04 3 Amador $ 11.647 2 2 ”

” A Call Out For a 2015 CalWORKs & SSI Cost-of-living Adjustment (COLA) Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization Kevin M. Aslanian, Executive Director [email protected] 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816-7000 Tel. (916) 736-0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 Cell (916) 712-0071 ccwro.org 1975 109% $ 144.00 67% 8.0% 1975 $ 440.00 155% 237.00$ 83% 9% 1976 111% $ 157.00 67% 6.4% 1976 $ 488.00 158% 258.00$ 84% 6% 1977 112% $ 166.00 67% 5.9% 1977 $ 522.00 159% 273.00$ 83% 6% 1978 113% $ 175.00 67% 6.5% 1978 $ 557.00 161% 287.00$ 83% % 1979 109% $ 201.00 71% 9.9% 1979 $ 574.00 153% 331.00$ 88% 15% 1980 113% $ 232.00 73% 14.3% 1980 $ 660.00 158% 382.00$ 91% 15% 1981 112% $ 227.00 63% 11.2% 1981 $ 746.00 157% 374.00$ 79% -2% 1982 113% $ 248.00 64% 11.2% 1982 $ 815.00 157% 408.00$ 79% 9% 1983 111% $ 258.00 64% 7.0% 1983 $ 838.00 154% 424.00$ 78% 0% 1984 115% $ 272.00 66% 3.5% 1984 $ 886.00 158% 448.00$ 80% 4% 1985 115% $ 288.00 66% 3.5% 1985 $ 936.00 159% 474.00$ 81% 6% 1986 119% $ 303.00 68% 3.1% 1986 $ 989.00 164% 498.00$ 83% 6% 1987 122% $ 311.00 68% 1.3% 1987 $ 1,039.00 168% 511.00$ 83% 5% 1988 120% $ 326.00 68% 4.2% 1988 $ 1,066.00 165% 535.00$ 83% 4% 1989 121% $ 341.00 68% 4.0% 1989 $ 1,116.00 167% 560.00$ 84% 5% 1990 120% $ 326.00 62% 4.7% 1990 $ 1,167.00 166% 535.00$ 76% 5% 1991 114% $ 311.00 56% 5.4% 1991 $ 1,167.00 158% 535.00$ 72% 0% 1992 114% $ 307.00 54% 3.7% 1992 $ 1,190.00 155% 511.00$ 67% -6% 1993 107% $ 307.00 53% 3.0% 1993 $ 1,140.00 145% 504.00$ 64% -3% 1994 98% $ 299.00 49% 2.6% 1994 $ 1,109.00 135% 490.00$ 60% 0% 1995 99% $ 293.00 47% 2.8% 1995 $ 1,102.00 132% 490.00$ 59% -9% 1996 97% $ 293.00 45% 2.6% 1996 $ 1,101.00 128% 479.00$ 55% 0% 1997 97% $ 266.00 40% 2.9% 1997 $ 1,122.00 127% 434.00$ 49% -3% 1998 97% $ 287.00 43% 2.1% 1998 $ 1,156.00 128% 469.00$ 52% 2% 1999 98% $ 294.00 43% 1.3% 1999 $ 1,201.00 130% 481.00$ 52% 3% 2000 99% $ 303.00 44% 2.5% 2000 $ 1,229.00 131% 495.00$ 53% 5% 2001 99% $ 319.00 45% 3.5% 2001 $ 1,265.00 131% 521.00$ 54% 4% 2002 96% $ 319.00 43% 2.6% 2002 $ 1,265.00 127% 521.00$ 52% 0% 2003 101% $ 331.00 44% 1.4% 2003 $ 1,344.00 133% 540.00$ 53% 3% 2004 102% $ 331.00 43% 2.1% 2004 $ 1,399.00 134% 540.00$ 52% 0% 2005 101% $ 340.00 43% 2.7% 2005 $ 1,422.00 133% 555.00$ 52% 0% 2006 102% $ 340.00 42% 4.1% 2006 $ 1,472.00 134% 555.00$ 50% 0% 2007 101% $ 340.00 40% 3.3% 2007 $ 1,502.00 132% 555.00$ 49% 0% 2008 100% $ 340.00 39% 2.3% 2008 $ 1,524.00 131% 555.00$ 48% 0% 2009 100% $ 326.00 36% 5.8% 2009 $ 1,579.00 130% 533.00$ 44% 0% 2010 94% $ 326.00 36% 0.0% 2010 $ 1,407.00 116% 533.00$ 44% -8% 2011 91% $ 300.00 33% 0.0% 2011 $ 1,407.00 115% 490.00$ 40% 0% 2012 92% $ 300.00 32% 3.6% 2012 $ 1,444.00 115% 490.00$ 39% 0% 2013 90% $ 300.00 31% 1.7% 2013 $ 1,462.00 113% 490.00$ 38% 0% 2014 90% $ 315.00 32% 2014 1,478.00$ 113% 515.00$ 39% 0% CalWORKs COLA History SSI\/SSP COLA History SSI\/SSP and AFDC\/CalWORKs Benefit Levels Couple SSI and 2 person CalWORKs Assistance Units from 1974 to 2014 % of the Poverty LEVEL % of the Poverty LEVEL Year SSI Payment for one-person $ 866.00 $ 907.00 $ 845.00 $ 830.00 % of the Poverty LEVEL Year SSI Payment for two (2)- person $ 854.00 $ 836.00 $ 856.00 $ 870.00 $ 757.00 $ 790.00 AFDC- CalWORKs Payment for one- person AFDC – CalWORKs for two (2) – person % of the Poverty LEVEL $ 650.00 $ 676.00 $ 805.00 $ 692.00 $ 712.00 $ 712.00 $ 620.00 $ 603.00 $ 614.00 $ 626.00 $ 640.00 $ 575.00 $ 602.00 $ 630.00 $ 630.00 $ 645.00 Published by the Coalition of Califronia Welfare Rights Organizations, 1111 Howe Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 $ 235.00 $ 877.00 SSI\/SSP and AFDC\/CalWORKs Benefit Levels, Individual Recipient 1974 to 2014 $ 259.00 $ 276.00 $ 296.00 $ 308.00 $ 356.00 $ 402.00 $ 439.00 $ 451.00 $ 477.00 $ 504.00 $ 533.00 $ 560.00 A Call for CalWORKs & SSI COLA for 2015 CalWORKs (formerly known as AFDC) and SSI programs are the primary means-tested programs in California for impoverished families, aged, blind and disabled persons. Since the early seventies, under Republican Governor Ronald Reagan CalWORKs and SSI recipients were given an automatic cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to assure that needy Californians are able to meet their basic survival needs. The COLA flowed automatically under the Reagan administration. During the first Jerry Brown administration COLAs were suspended for two (2) years and reduced by 2.1% in 1980-1981. Under the Republican George Deukmejian Administration the AFDC and SSI COLA was never stopped and benefits were never reduced. It is was under Pete Wilson’s administration that AFDC and SSI grant payments came under attack. The COLAs were regularly suspended and meager benefits were reduced. See page 3, Table # 2 for the History of the AFDC\/CalWORK and SSI COLA. Table #2 also reveals the poverty level that the benefits covered for AFDC\/CalWORKs and SSI recipients. The data reveal that children with families have endured much more severe poverty compared to the aged, blind and disabled in California. Throughout these turbulent times the CalWORKs\/AFDC and SSI COLA’s were treated as one because they are the two primary programs supporting impoverished families with children, aged, blind and disabled. Since l974, advocates for the disabled OPPOSED separating the AFDC and SSI COLA’s. Advocates for the disabled and elderly felt that it would be immoral to abandon the children and grandkids of the needy disabled, aged and blind of California. Current law has created a fund for CalWORKs and AFDC COLA that is not very reliable. The money for this fund comes from the redirection of 1991 realignment general growth revenues from social services and health to a new CalWORKs COLA 1991 subaccount as long as there is enough general growth funding in the new grant subaccount. The amount of future grant increases will be based on the amount of general growth funding available in the new subaccount. In any fiscal year in which there is not enough general growth funding in the subaccount, the federal TANF funds and the required state matching funds will cover the shortfall. This fund was established in the 2013-2014 state budget. See AB 85, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2013, Section 1. Since l974, advocates for the disabled and elderly have OPPOSED separating the COLA’s for AFDC\/CalWORKs and SSI. Since l974, advocates for the disabled have OPPOSED separating the COLA’s for AFDC\/CalWORKs, and SSI. Advocates for the disabled felt that it would be immoral to abandon the children and grandchildren of the needy disabled, aged and blind of California. Dependence on this fund for a CalWORKs COLA is very uncertain. CalWORKs COLA can only use this fund if all other recipients of the fund have been funded. This fund was unable to cover the needed amount for a 2014-2015 CalWORKs COLA. It is imperative that the SSI and CalWORKs COLA be restored for impoverished California families with children, aged, blind and disabled. The COLA proposal for the upcoming legislative session is to enact legislation or trailer bill language that would restore the SSI COLA and restore the CalWORKs COLA for those years that the COLA Realignment Fund does not have enough funds for the CalWORKs COLA, then the CNI CalWORKs will be provided or make up the difference of what the CalWORKS CNI COLA amount is that the realignment would cover. For example, if the CalWORKs CNI COLA is 3% and the fund only can cover 2%, then the CalWORKs COLA for that year would be 1%. Would the SSI\/SSP COLA need General Fund money to pay for it? Yes. Would the CalWORKs COLA need General Fund money to pay for it? No. See Chart # 1 to illustrate that there is over $1.1 billion available to fund the CalWORKs COLA that is more than ten times the overestimated $100 million cost for the 2015-2016 CalWORKs. However, the SSI COLA will have to be paid with state general fund money. CHART #1 $1.1 billion was taken from CalWORKs babies, children and families and used as CalWORKs INVOLUNTARY contribution to the state general fund while grants remain at the 1988 level. Federal Funds $3.7 billion State Match $3 billion TOTAL CalWORKs Funding $6.7 billion $1.5 billion taken from CalWORKs $5.1 billion for CalWORKs ”

” Number of Jobs Welfare Recipients Create Annually and Monthly in California Actual 1.79% Economic Multiplier Food Stamps, SNAP\/CalFresh Annual Benefits $8,156,325,528.82 $14,028,879,909.57 Per Job Creation Costs $100,000.00 Annual Jobs Created by Food Stamp Recipients 140,289 CalWORKs\/TANF $3,161,374,000.00 $5,658,859,460.00 Per Job Creation Costs $100,000.00 Annual Jobs Created by CalWORKs Recipients 56,588.59 TOTAL TANF\/SNAP BENEFITS ISSUED $11,317,699,528.82 $19,687,739,369.57 Annual SNAP\/TANF jobs in California 196,877 Monthly SNAP\/TANF jobs in California 16,406.45 SOURCE OF COST PER JOB – The $100,000 per job is based upon on estimate received from Chad Stone, Chief Economist working for Center on Budget Policy and Priorities in Washington D.C. There are other estimates that assert that a cost of an entry level job is about $60,000 per job. See: http:\/\/economistsview.typepad.com\/economistsview\/2008\/11\/how-much-does-i.html. Also see USDA, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report Number 103, October 2010, The Food Assistance National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM) Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP – Kenneth Hanson & CDSS Budget Documents of 2014-2015. [bookmark: _GoBack]Contact Person: Kevin Aslanian Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 Phone: (916) 736-0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 — Cell (916) 712-0071 Email: [email protected] [image: Description: CCWRO Logo] 1 Number of Jobs Welfare Recipients Create ‘Annually and Monthly in Galifornia 179m canons Aewal ‘Muttiplier ‘subarea ome! s8386az5sznea| \u2014s14oneer9o0057 Sits Fars on Tom [ama sobre Tyce me \”ecpre sa20 ‘awontrTanr | \u2014gaseraranoo| \u2014 esha Fob ron Co sion Ty eanone \”scours ose TIALS | sisarremsmea| _sierzanzees7| ‘ein cara ‘087 Tony SATA ‘ies Clare ‘aos SOURCE OF COST PER JOB 10 100.0052 toes enon eae seston ‘Gus Se, Ce cna tn Cnn Bot ey an Prien vo Sic antsy ofc sp ‘ocean nce ar AM se an oman Cc ot Rare omons cbse use Soar 12018 ‘Contact Person: Kevin Aslanian Serine etn te ”

“2014-2015 County Single Allocations & Expenditures Welfare and Institutions Code 15200 provides that the State would allocate certain amounts for the administration and services of CalFresh, CalWORKs, Employment Services and other programs. This report reveals that millions of dollars are returned back to the State of California by counties that could have been used to provide child care, mental health services, substance abuse services and employment services and supportive services, such as transportation and ancillary services for students attending college. Many students have to drop their classes because they do not receive the ancillary services for buy their books required by their college instructors. The county-by-county numbers are set forth below. Table of Contents County-by-County CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Employment Services Allocations and Expenditures County-by-County CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Child Care Allocations and Expenditures County-by-County CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Substance Abuse Services Allocations and Expenditures County-by-County CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Mental Health Services Allocations and Expenditures County-by-County CalFresh Administration Allocations and Expenditures County-by-County CalWORKs Eligibility Services Allocations and Expenditures Comprehensive DSS 2014-2015 Allocation and Expenditures Report Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2014-2015 County Single Allocation v. Expenditures Summary Numbers Allocation $ Allocation $ Not Spent By Counties WtW- Employment Services $819 million $197 million CalWORKs Child Care $311million $84 million CalFresh Administration Costs $864 million $129 million Substance Abuse $50 million $17 million Mental Health Care $76 mill $13 million 204-2015 CalWORKs WtW Services ALLOCATION v. EXPENDITURES COUNTIES 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs WtW Services ALLOCATION 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs WtW Services EXPENDITURES 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs WtW Services NOT SPENT 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs WtW Services ALLOCATION OVERSPENT PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs WtW Services ALLOCATION SPENT COUNTIES PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs WtW Services ALLOCATION SPENT – SORTED Source: State Department of Social Services – Compiled and presented by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. www.ccwro.org ALAMEDA $40,618,572 $35,948,074 $4,670,498 $0 88.50% INYO 19% ALPINE $197,893 $53,482 $144,411 $0 27.03% PLUMAS 24% AMADOR $581,026 $462,379 $118,647 $0 79.58% ALPINE 27% BUTTE $9,057,093 $6,520,372 $2,536,721 $0 71.99% MONO 28% CALAVERAS $959,331 $922,592 $36,739 $0 96.17% SIERRA 53% COLUSA $541,750 $340,924 $200,826 $0 62.93% SAN LUIS OBISPO 54% CONTRA COSTA $28,493,550 $24,080,219 $4,413,331 $0 84.51% LASSEN 59% DEL NORTE $1,995,280 $1,857,642 $137,638 $0 93.10% SISKIYOU 60% EL DORADO $2,872,238 $2,290,060 $582,178 $0 79.73% MARIN 60% FRESNO $39,956,378 $33,424,415 $6,531,963 $0 83.65% SAN JOAQUIN 62% GLENN $1,757,482 $1,790,478 $0 ($32,996) 101.88% COLUSA 63% HUMBOLDT $7,729,527 $7,688,880 $40,647 $0 99.47% TUOLUMNE 63% IMPERIAL $7,802,243 $5,413,998 $2,388,245 $0 69.39% SAN BENITO 64% INYO $565,078 $106,345 $458,733 $0 18.82% MARIPOSA 67% KERN $27,769,848 $22,222,815 $5,547,033 $0 80.02% SAN DIEGO 68% KINGS $5,002,667 $5,138,264 $0 ($135,597) 102.71% TRINITY 68% LAKE $2,556,313 $2,692,388 $0 ($136,075) 105.32% IMPERIAL 69% LASSEN $859,072 $502,548 $356,524 $0 58.50% TULARE 70% LOS ANGELES $296,868,242 $235,089,651 $61,778,591 $0 79.19% SOLANO 71% MADERA $3,018,237 $2,502,386 $515,851 $0 82.91% SANTA BARBARA 72% MARIN $4,398,537 $2,657,185 $1,741,352 $0 60.41% BUTTE 72% MARIPOSA $995,222 $666,609 $328,613 $0 66.98% SACRAMENTO 72% MENDOCINO $2,650,942 $2,066,952 $583,990 $0 77.97% VENTURA 75% MERCED $12,307,587 $10,299,318 $2,008,269 $0 83.68% SUTTER 75% MODOC $624,741 $801,004 $0 ($176,263) 128.21% RIVERSIDE 76% MONO $391,195 $111,372 $279,823 $0 28.47% SANTA CLARA 76% MONTEREY $11,444,051 $11,728,422 $0 ($284,371) 102.48% NAPA 77% NAPA $2,176,587 $1,671,432 $505,155 $0 76.79% MENDOCINO 78% NEVADA $1,922,640 $1,982,531 $0 ($59,891) 103.12% LOS ANGELES 79% ORANGE $54,352,017 $45,378,134 $8,973,883 $0 83.49% AMADOR 80% PLACER $5,271,775 $5,557,639 $0 ($285,864) 105.42% SAN BERNARDINO 80% PLUMAS $677,524 $161,200 $516,324 $0 23.79% EL DORADO 80% RIVERSIDE $54,688,619 $41,512,956 $13,175,663 $0 75.91% KERN 80% SACRAMENTO $59,248,395 $42,808,724 $16,439,671 $0 72.25% SAN FRANCISCO 81% SAN BENITO $1,334,336 $858,994 $475,342 $0 64.38% MADERA 83% SAN BERNARDINO $72,756,063 $57,902,274 $0 79.58% TEHAMA 83% SAN DIEGO $47,956,591 $32,396,190 $15,560,401 $0 67.55% SHASTA 83% SAN FRANCISCO $28,465,742 $22,915,112 $5,550,630 $0 80.50% YUBA 83% SAN JOAQUIN $18,976,116 $11,790,559 $7,185,557 $0 62.13% ORANGE 83% SAN LUIS OBISPO $6,209,832 $3,379,580 $2,830,252 $0 54.42% FRESNO 84% SAN MATEO $8,420,117 $8,612,360 $0 ($192,243) 102.28% MERCED 84% SANTA BARBARA $9,390,082 $6,739,967 $2,650,115 $0 71.78% CONTRA COSTA 85% SANTA CLARA $41,304,198 $31,498,968 $9,805,230 $0 76.26% SONOMA 85% SANTA CRUZ $7,882,742 $6,846,987 $1,035,755 $0 86.86% SANTA CRUZ 87% SHASTA $5,374,109 $4,459,977 $914,132 $0 82.99% ALAMEDA 89% SIERRA $229,511 $122,365 $107,146 $0 53.32% DEL NORTE 93% SISKIYOU $1,389,262 $837,200 $552,062 $0 60.26% CALAVERAS 96% SOLANO $10,411,990 $7,364,357 $3,047,633 $0 70.73% HUMBOLDT 99% SONOMA $10,761,273 $9,131,462 $1,629,811 $0 84.85% GLENN 102% STANISLAUS $15,874,332 $20,107,800 $0 ($4,233,468) 126.67% SAN MATEO 102% SUTTER $2,640,402 $1,987,075 $653,327 $0 75.26% MONTEREY 102% TEHAMA $2,707,924 $2,246,739 $461,185 $0 82.97% KINGS 103% TRINITY $840,795 $573,210 $267,585 $0 68.17% NEVADA 103% TULARE $15,533,109 $10,939,249 $4,593,860 $0 70.43% YOLO 105% TUOLUMNE $1,353,045 $854,886 $498,159 $0 63.18% LAKE 105% VENTURA $14,932,977 $11,173,698 $3,759,279 $0 74.83% PLACER 105% YOLO $5,993,419 $6,272,190 $0 ($278,771) 104.65% STANISLAUS 127% YUBA $4,766,505 $3,978,792 $787,713 $0 83.47% MODOC 128% TOTAL $1,025,856,124 $819,441,381 $197,376,493 ($5,815,539) 79.88% TOTAL 80% 204-2015 CalWORKs WtW Child Care ALLOCATION v. EXPENDITURES COUNTIES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND WtW CalWORKs Child Care ALLOCATION 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND WtW CalWORKs Child Care EXPENDITURES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND WtW CalWORKs Child Care NOT SPENT 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND WtW CalWORKs Child Care ALLOCATION OVERSPENT PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND WtW CalWORKs Child Care ALLOCATION SPENT COUNTIES PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND WtW CalWORKs Child Care ALLOCATION SPENT – SORTED Source: State Department of Social Services – Compiled and presented by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. www.ccwro.org ALAMEDA $14,818,006 $20,672,135 $0 ($5,854,129) 139.51% MODOC 7% ALPINE $72,192 $8,004 $64,188 $0 11.09% ALPINE 11% AMADOR $190,074 $147,351 $42,723 $0 77.52% TUOLUMNE 12% BUTTE $3,054,212 $1,947,186 $1,107,026 $0 63.75% TRINITY 14% CALAVERAS $349,973 $233,448 $116,525 $0 66.70% MADERA 15% COLUSA $197,635 $113,904 $83,731 $0 57.63% MARIPOSA 16% CONTRA COSTA $10,394,693 $6,058,805 $4,335,888 $0 58.29% GLENN 24% DEL NORTE $643,989 $400,167 $243,822 $0 62.14% EL DORADO 25% EL DORADO $1,047,817 $266,624 $781,193 $0 25.45% MONO 29% FRESNO $14,576,433 $9,880,706 $4,695,727 $0 67.79% SISKIYOU 30% GLENN $641,144 $152,475 $488,669 $0 23.78% LAKE 31% HUMBOLDT $2,575,741 $993,233 $1,582,508 $0 38.56% TEHAMA 32% IMPERIAL $2,846,326 $1,814,060 $1,032,266 $0 63.73% SIERRA 35% INYO $206,145 $97,977 $108,168 $0 47.53% MENDOCINO 37% KERN $10,495,490 $9,350,614 $1,144,876 $0 89.09% STANISLAUS 38% KINGS $1,825,017 $1,804,543 $20,474 $0 98.88% HUMBOLDT 39% LAKE $932,565 $285,469 $647,096 $0 30.61% YUBA 40% LASSEN $313,397 $242,298 $71,099 $0 77.31% NEVADA 46% LOS ANGELES $108,300,103 $80,483,868 $27,816,235 $0 74.32% MONTEREY 47% MADERA $1,465,888 $219,641 $1,246,247 $0 14.98% INYO 48% MARIN $1,604,625 $1,857,180 $0 ($252,555) 115.74% MERCED 56% MARIPOSA $326,584 $51,656 $274,928 $0 15.82% COLUSA 58% MENDOCINO $967,086 $358,929 $608,157 $0 37.11% CONTRA COSTA 58% MERCED $4,489,915 $2,525,109 $1,964,806 $0 56.24% NAPA 58% MODOC $227,911 $15,113 $212,798 $0 6.63% SACRAMENTO 59% MONO $142,711 $41,185 $101,526 $0 28.86% PLUMAS 61% MONTEREY $4,539,698 $2,119,176 $2,420,522 $0 46.68% DEL NORTE 62% NAPA $794,038 $463,544 $330,494 $0 58.38% IMPERIAL 64% NEVADA $664,915 $305,797 $359,118 $0 45.99% BUTTE 64% ORANGE $19,828,087 $14,998,959 $4,829,128 $0 75.65% CALAVERAS 67% PLACER $1,923,190 $2,501,352 $0 ($578,162) 130.06% FRESNO 68% PLUMAS $247,167 $150,150 $97,017 $0 60.75% SANTA CLARA 68% RIVERSIDE $19,950,882 $26,154,434 $0 ($6,203,552) 131.09% SOLANO 69% SACRAMENTO $22,280,103 $13,201,555 $9,078,548 $0 59.25% SAN LUIS OBISPO 71% SAN BENITO $486,777 $541,849 $0 ($55,072) 111.31% SAN JOAQUIN 73% SAN BERNARDINO $25,630,019 $29,274,324 $0 ($3,644,305) 114.22% SUTTER 73% SAN DIEGO $17,494,980 $18,714,137 $0 ($1,219,157) 106.97% LOS ANGELES 74% SAN FRANCISCO $10,019,741 $12,500,301 $0 ($2,480,560) 124.76% ORANGE 76% SAN JOAQUIN $6,922,651 $5,023,928 $1,898,723 $0 72.57% LASSEN 77% SAN LUIS OBISPO $2,265,400 $1,618,129 $647,271 $0 71.43% AMADOR 78% SAN MATEO $3,071,731 $2,423,967 $647,764 $0 78.91% SHASTA 79% SANTA BARBARA $3,352,622 $3,142,219 $210,403 $0 93.72% SAN MATEO 79% SANTA CLARA $15,068,129 $10,295,704 $4,772,425 $0 68.33% SONOMA 82% SANTA CRUZ $2,875,692 $3,328,261 $0 ($452,569) 115.74% TULARE 86% SHASTA $1,960,522 $1,545,556 $414,966 $0 78.83% YOLO 86% SIERRA $83,728 $29,365 $54,363 $0 35.07% KERN 89% SISKIYOU $506,815 $153,543 $353,272 $0 30.30% SANTA BARBARA 94% SOLANO $4,163,193 $2,857,631 $1,305,562 $0 68.64% KINGS 99% SONOMA $3,925,806 $3,211,294 $714,512 $0 81.80% SAN DIEGO 107% STANISLAUS $5,791,094 $2,190,627 $3,600,467 $0 37.83% VENTURA 109% SUTTER $963,242 $699,812 $263,430 $0 72.65% SAN BENITO 111% TEHAMA $987,875 $315,293 $672,582 $0 31.92% SAN BERNARDINO 114% TRINITY $204,219 $27,743 $176,476 $0 13.58% MARIN 116% TULARE $5,666,613 $4,848,404 $818,209 $0 85.56% SANTA CRUZ 116% TUOLUMNE $493,603 $59,610 $433,993 $0 12.08% SAN FRANCISCO 125% VENTURA $5,447,680 $5,919,579 $0 ($471,899) 108.66% PLACER 130% YOLO $2,186,452 $1,883,378 $303,074 $0 86.14% RIVERSIDE 131% YUBA $1,738,862 $702,251 $1,036,611 $0 40.39% ALAMEDA 140% TOTAL $374,241,198 $311,223,552 $84,229,606 ($21,211,960) 83.16% TOTAL 83% 204-2015 WtW SUBSTANCE ABUSE ALLOCATION v. EXPENDITURES COUNTIES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse ALLOCATION 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse EXPENDITURES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse NOT SPENT 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse ALLOCATION OVERSPENT PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse ALLOCATION SPENT COUNTIES PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW Substance Abuse ALLOCATION SPENT – SORTED Source: State Department of Social Services – Compiled and presented by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. www.ccwro.org ALAMEDA $836,282 $0 $836,282 $0 0% ALAMEDA 0% ALPINE $226 $0 $226 $0 0% ALPINE 0% AMADOR $14,833 $0 $14,833 $0 0% AMADOR 0% BUTTE $372,170 $287,345 $84,825 $0 77% COLUSA 0% CALAVERAS $29,844 $4,999 $24,845 $0 17% EL DORADO 0% COLUSA $8,398 $0 $8,398 $0 0% MENDOCINO 0% CONTRA COSTA $829,946 $840,513 $0 ($10,567) 101% MONO 0% DEL NORTE $65,293 $36,536 $28,757 $0 56% NAPA 0% EL DORADO $57,197 $0 $57,197 $0 0% RIVERSIDE 0% FRESNO $3,191,490 $2,726,019 $465,471 $0 85% SAN BENITO 0% GLENN $36,631 $37,600 $0 ($969) 103% SIERRA 0% HUMBOLDT $255,873 $802,205 $0 ($546,332) 314% TRINITY 0% IMPERIAL $206,085 $299 $205,786 $0 0% IMPERIAL 0% INYO $16,333 $17,723 $0 ($1,390) 109% SANTA CLARA 11% KERN $1,376,423 $442,923 $933,500 $0 32% SAN FRANCISCO 11% KINGS $138,153 $25,215 $112,938 $0 18% SOLANO 15% LAKE $78,316 $36,587 $41,729 $0 47% TULARE 16% LASSEN $70,974 $70,974 $0 $0 100% MADERA 17% LOS ANGELES $20,094,567 $15,365,619 $4,728,948 $0 76% CALAVERAS 17% MADERA $147,304 $24,511 $122,793 $0 17% MONTEREY 17% MARIN $80,302 $86,377 $0 ($6,075) 108% KINGS 18% MARIPOSA $18,983 $18,984 $0 ($1) 100% YUBA 29% MENDOCINO $61,219 $0 $61,219 $0 0% KERN 32% MERCED $544,489 $217,991 $326,498 $0 40% SHASTA 37% MODOC $31,349 $36,592 $0 ($5,243) 117% MERCED 40% MONO $13,854 $0 $13,854 $0 0% TUOLUMNE 41% MONTEREY $328,926 $57,243 $271,683 $0 17% SAN BERNARDINO 44% NAPA $27,680 $0 $27,680 $0 0% ORANGE 45% NEVADA $32,332 $30,998 $1,334 $0 96% LAKE 47% ORANGE $1,330,012 $603,845 $726,167 $0 45% DEL NORTE 56% PLACER $212,974 $237,915 $0 ($24,941) 112% SUTTER 59% PLUMAS $23,105 $23,105 $0 $0 100% VENTURA 61% RIVERSIDE $1,527,473 $0 $1,527,473 $0 0% SISKIYOU 76% SACRAMENTO $3,729,090 $3,120,966 $608,124 $0 84% SAN JOAQUIN 76% SAN BENITO $73,614 $0 $73,614 $0 0% LOS ANGELES 76% SAN BERNARDINO $3,131,426 $1,386,245 $1,745,181 $0 44% BUTTE 77% SAN DIEGO $2,872,821 $2,655,610 $217,211 $0 92% SAN MATEO 81% SAN FRANCISCO $617,300 $68,496 $548,804 $0 11% STANISLAUS 84% SAN JOAQUIN $1,075,454 $816,058 $259,396 $0 76% SACRAMENTO 84% SAN LUIS OBISPO $166,085 $157,680 $8,405 $0 95% FRESNO 85% SAN MATEO $364,627 $294,868 $69,759 $0 81% YOLO 88% SANTA BARBARA $520,657 $479,644 $41,013 $0 92% SONOMA 88% SANTA CLARA $581,473 $62,000 $519,473 $0 11% SANTA BARBARA 92% SANTA CRUZ $194,017 $216,751 $0 ($22,734) 112% SAN DIEGO 92% SHASTA $287,141 $107,605 $179,536 $0 37% SAN LUIS OBISPO 95% SIERRA $1,810 $0 $1,810 $0 0% NEVADA 96% SISKIYOU $128,803 $97,441 $31,362 $0 76% LASSEN 100% SOLANO $387,028 $59,118 $327,910 $0 15% PLUMAS 100% SONOMA $244,702 $215,901 $28,801 $0 88% MARIPOSA 100% STANISLAUS $1,388,717 $1,162,012 $226,705 $0 84% TEHAMA 101% SUTTER $157,310 $92,674 $64,636 $0 59% CONTRA COSTA 101% TEHAMA $231,953 $233,588 $0 ($1,635) 101% GLENN 103% TRINITY $6,110 $0 $6,110 $0 0% MARIN 108% TULARE $1,132,952 $181,465 $951,487 $0 16% INYO 109% TUOLUMNE $57,675 $23,477 $34,198 $0 41% PLACER 112% VENTURA $614,936 $376,985 $237,951 $0 61% SANTA CRUZ 112% YOLO $179,284 $157,179 $22,105 $0 88% MODOC 117% YUBA $98,379 $28,586 $69,793 $0 29% HUMBOLDT 314% TOTAL $50,302,400 $34,026,467 $16,895,820 ($619,887) 68% TOTAL 68% 204-2015 WtW MENTAL HEALTB ALLOCATION v. EXPENDITURES COUNTIES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW mental health ALLOCATION 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW mental health EXPENDITURES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW mental health NOT SPENT 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW mental health ALLOCATION OVERSPENT PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW mental health ALLOCATION SPENT COUNTIES PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalWORKs WtW mental health ALLOCATION SPENT – SORTED Source: State Department of Social Services – Compiled and presented by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. www.ccwro.org ALAMEDA $3,284,007 $2,619,406 $664,601 $0 79.76% ALPINE 0% ALPINE $343 $0 $343 $0 0.00% COLUSA 0% AMADOR $22,484 $1,989 $20,495 $0 8.85% EL DORADO 0% BUTTE $576,799 $510,834 $65,965 $0 88.56% MENDOCINO 0% CALAVERAS $37,498 $1,065 $36,433 $0 2.84% MONO 0% COLUSA $12,728 $0 $12,728 $0 0.00% NAPA 0% CONTRA COSTA $1,010,006 $833,249 $176,757 $0 82.50% SIERRA 0% DEL NORTE $113,485 $110,349 $3,136 $0 97.24% TRINITY 0% EL DORADO $68,937 $0 $68,937 $0 0.00% CALAVERAS 3% FRESNO $3,460,141 $2,965,259 $494,882 $0 85.70% AMADOR 9% GLENN $68,708 $85,486 $0 ($16,778) 124.42% SAN LUIS OBISPO 13% HUMBOLDT $327,365 $430,701 $0 ($103,336) 131.57% SAN BERNARDINO 36% IMPERIAL $543,454 $486,728 $56,726 $0 89.56% SAN MATEO 39% INYO $23,092 $17,633 $5,459 $0 76.36% TULARE 41% KERN $2,009,267 $1,359,410 $649,857 $0 67.66% YUBA 44% KINGS $283,293 $254,602 $28,691 $0 89.87% SAN BENITO 46% LAKE $151,021 $192,743 $0 ($41,722) 127.63% SUTTER 50% LASSEN $78,731 $78,732 $0 ($1) 100.00% STANISLAUS 52% LOS ANGELES $28,014,685 $25,860,687 $2,153,998 $0 92.31% MONTEREY 57% MADERA $419,109 $507,592 $0 ($88,483) 121.11% VENTURA 57% MARIN $161,882 $161,385 $497 $0 99.69% YOLO 59% MARIPOSA $38,794 $38,796 $0 ($2) 100.01% SAN JOAQUIN 66% MENDOCINO $156,700 $0 $156,700 $0 0.00% SACRAMENTO 67% MERCED $959,018 $698,571 $260,447 $0 72.84% KERN 68% MODOC $20,006 $38,541 $0 ($18,535) 192.65% SISKIYOU 72% MONO $14,146 $0 $14,146 $0 0.00% MERCED 73% MONTEREY $801,100 $455,364 $345,736 $0 56.84% INYO 76% NAPA $52,321 $0 $52,321 $0 0.00% ALAMEDA 80% NEVADA $49,006 $39,806 $9,200 $0 81.23% NEVADA 81% ORANGE $3,548,856 $3,139,553 $409,303 $0 88.47% CONTRA COSTA 83% PLACER $237,069 $238,899 $0 ($1,830) 100.77% TEHAMA 84% PLUMAS $17,796 $19,071 $0 ($1,275) 107.16% FRESNO 86% RIVERSIDE $4,742,351 $5,186,191 $0 ($443,840) 109.36% ORANGE 88% SACRAMENTO $3,729,258 $2,505,016 $1,224,242 $0 67.17% BUTTE 89% SAN BENITO $46,720 $21,699 $25,021 $0 46.44% IMPERIAL 90% SAN BERNARDINO $4,546,554 $1,647,234 $2,899,320 $0 36.23% KINGS 90% SAN DIEGO $4,200,459 $4,120,165 $80,294 $0 98.09% LOS ANGELES 92% SAN FRANCISCO $950,583 $2,094,397 $0 ($1,143,814) 220.33% DEL NORTE 97% SAN JOAQUIN $2,070,315 $1,367,725 $702,590 $0 66.06% SAN DIEGO 98% SAN LUIS OBISPO $134,368 $16,933 $117,435 $0 12.60% MARIN 100% SAN MATEO $165,959 $64,900 $101,059 $0 39.11% LASSEN 100% SANTA BARBARA $675,802 $688,114 $0 ($12,312) 101.82% MARIPOSA 100% SANTA CLARA $1,725,783 $2,245,256 $0 ($519,473) 130.10% PLACER 101% SANTA CRUZ $217,556 $253,384 $0 ($35,828) 116.47% SANTA BARBARA 102% SHASTA $456,226 $562,387 $0 ($106,161) 123.27% PLUMAS 107% SIERRA $1,639 $0 $1,639 $0 0.00% SONOMA 108% SISKIYOU $135,549 $97,444 $38,105 $0 71.89% RIVERSIDE 109% SOLANO $653,243 $867,605 $0 ($214,362) 132.82% TUOLUMNE 113% SONOMA $581,721 $625,518 $0 ($43,797) 107.53% SANTA CRUZ 116% STANISLAUS $1,224,134 $638,480 $585,654 $0 52.16% MADERA 121% SUTTER $205,858 $102,546 $103,312 $0 49.81% SHASTA 123% TEHAMA $238,554 $199,775 $38,779 $0 83.74% GLENN 124% TRINITY $9,260 $0 $9,260 $0 0.00% LAKE 128% TULARE $1,632,267 $670,898 $961,369 $0 41.10% SANTA CLARA 130% TUOLUMNE $127,921 $143,962 $0 ($16,041) 112.54% HUMBOLDT 132% VENTURA $779,493 $446,806 $332,687 $0 57.32% SOLANO 133% YOLO $276,281 $164,134 $112,147 $0 59.41% MODOC 193% YUBA $213,899 $94,422 $119,477 $0 44.14% SAN FRANCISCO 220% TOTAL $76,303,600 $65,971,442 $13,139,748 ($2,807,590) 86.46% TOTAL 86% 204-2015 CalFresh General Fund Administration ALLOCATION v. EXPENDITURES COUNTIES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalFresh Admin ALLOCATION 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalFresh Admin EXPENDITURES 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalFresh Admin NOT SPENT 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalFresh Admin ALLOCATION OVERSPENT PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalFresh Admin ALLOCATION SPENT COUNTIES PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 GENERAL FUND CalFresh Admin ALLOCATION SPENT – SORTED Source: State Department of Social Services – Compiled and presented by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. www.ccwro.org ALAMEDA $24,583,051.00 $20,566,700.00 $4,016,351.00 $- 84% ALPINE 31% ALPINE $130,386.00 $41,006.00 $89,380.00 $- 31% PLUMAS 36% AMADOR $695,487.00 $389,484.00 $306,003.00 $- 56% MENDOCINO 49% BUTTE $5,218,523.00 $4,866,442.00 $352,081.00 $- 93% TRINITY 52% CALAVERAS $890,446.00 $581,540.00 $308,906.00 $- 65% SIERRA 54% COLUSA $378,553.00 $293,588.00 $84,965.00 $- 78% AMADOR 56% CONTRA COSTA $15,751,052.00 $15,504,734.00 $246,318.00 $- 98% TULARE 57% DEL NORTE $999,390.00 $745,889.00 $253,501.00 $- 75% LASSEN 61% EL DORADO $2,391,158.00 $2,205,139.00 $186,019.00 $- 92% NEVADA 62% FRESNO $24,317,171.00 $20,750,707.00 $3,566,464.00 $- 85% SOLANO 63% GLENN $590,123.00 $551,670.00 $38,453.00 $- 93% KERN 64% HUMBOLDT $5,275,709.00 $5,275,709.00 $- $- 100% IMPERIAL 64% IMPERIAL $4,136,449.00 $2,658,647.00 $1,477,802.00 $- 64% CALAVERAS 65% INYO $387,921.00 $293,955.00 $93,966.00 $- 76% MADERA 67% KERN $16,236,745.00 $10,319,766.00 $5,916,979.00 $- 64% SAN MATEO 68% KINGS $2,185,116.00 $1,849,292.00 $335,824.00 $- 85% SUTTER 68% LAKE $1,670,231.00 $1,293,215.00 $377,016.00 $- 77% MODOC 69% LASSEN $485,616.00 $296,477.00 $189,139.00 $- 61% SISKIYOU 69% LOS ANGELES $200,759,045.00 $154,401,583.00 $46,357,462.00 $- 77% STANISLAUS 71% MADERA $2,368,229.00 $1,582,432.00 $785,797.00 $- 67% DEL NORTE 75% MARIN $2,846,466.00 $2,958,895.00 $- -$112,429.00 104% INYO 76% MARIPOSA $506,943.00 $493,804.00 $13,139.00 $- 97% LOS ANGELES 77% MENDOCINO $2,519,673.00 $1,237,472.00 $1,282,201.00 $- 49% LAKE 77% MERCED $6,227,807.00 $5,777,978.00 $449,829.00 $- 93% SAN JOAQUIN 78% MODOC $236,579.00 $162,744.00 $73,835.00 $- 69% COLUSA 78% MONO $325,182.00 $367,992.00 $- -$42,810.00 113% VENTURA 79% MONTEREY $8,276,562.00 $8,276,562.00 $- $- 100% TUOLUMNE 80% NAPA $1,464,375.00 $1,222,560.00 $241,815.00 $- 83% SAN LUIS OBISPO 80% NEVADA $1,561,332.00 $960,825.00 $600,507.00 $- 62% SAN BERNARDINO 81% ORANGE $33,332,894.00 $29,576,695.00 $3,756,199.00 $- 89% RIVERSIDE 82% PLACER $4,326,553.00 $3,660,961.00 $665,592.00 $- 85% SACRAMENTO 82% PLUMAS $571,642.00 $206,461.00 $365,181.00 $- 36% SAN DIEGO 83% RIVERSIDE $36,161,599.00 $29,548,666.00 $6,612,933.00 $- 82% NAPA 83% SACRAMENTO $32,920,234.00 $27,061,937.00 $5,858,297.00 $- 82% ALAMEDA 84% SAN BENITO $744,000.00 $666,358.00 $77,642.00 $- 90% PLACER 85% SAN BERNARDINO $48,348,625.00 $39,204,118.00 $9,144,507.00 $- 81% KINGS 85% SAN DIEGO $46,963,956.00 $39,149,552.00 $7,814,404.00 $- 83% FRESNO 85% SAN FRANCISCO $18,340,791.00 $18,889,141.00 $- -$548,350.00 103% SANTA CLARA 85% SAN JOAQUIN $8,719,634.00 $6,760,019.00 $1,959,615.00 $- 78% ORANGE 89% SAN LUIS OBISPO $3,752,238.00 $3,011,986.00 $740,252.00 $- 80% SAN BENITO 90% SAN MATEO $7,859,561.00 $5,346,923.00 $2,512,638.00 $- 68% TEHAMA 90% SANTA BARBARA $6,716,373.00 $6,716,373.00 $- $- 100% SHASTA 92% SANTA CLARA $26,129,321.00 $22,302,719.00 $3,826,602.00 $- 85% EL DORADO 92% SANTA CRUZ $5,129,908.00 $5,129,908.00 $- $- 100% MERCED 93% SHASTA $3,835,727.00 $3,527,524.00 $308,203.00 $- 92% BUTTE 93% SIERRA $141,547.00 $76,636.00 $64,911.00 $- 54% GLENN 93% SISKIYOU $1,173,387.00 $813,608.00 $359,779.00 $- 69% YUBA 94% SOLANO $8,535,322.00 $5,378,150.00 $3,157,172.00 $- 63% MARIPOSA 97% SONOMA $7,180,015.00 $7,826,089.00 $- -$646,074.00 109% CONTRA COSTA 98% STANISLAUS $11,959,599.00 $8,482,622.00 $3,476,977.00 $- 71% HUMBOLDT 100% SUTTER $1,371,812.00 $936,267.00 $435,545.00 $- 68% MONTEREY 100% TEHAMA $1,365,603.00 $1,223,393.00 $142,210.00 $- 90% SANTA BARBARA 100% TRINITY $449,127.00 $231,431.00 $217,696.00 $- 52% SANTA CRUZ 100% TULARE $16,004,236.00 $9,065,716.00 $6,938,520.00 $- 57% YOLO 101% TUOLUMNE $993,913.00 $790,488.00 $203,425.00 $- 80% SAN FRANCISCO 103% VENTURA $12,584,766.00 $9,882,997.00 $2,701,769.00 $- 79% MARIN 104% YOLO $3,133,595.00 $3,157,370.00 $- -$23,775.00 101% SONOMA 109% YUBA $2,091,702.00 $1,957,551.00 $134,151.00 $- 94% MONO 113% TOTAL $684,253,000.00 $556,508,466.00 $129,117,972.00 -$1,373,438.00 81% TOTAL 81% 204-2015 CalWORKs Eligibility ALLOCATION v. EXPENDITURES COUNTIES 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility ALLOCATION 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility EXPENDITURES 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility NOT SPENT 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility ALLOCATION OVERSPENT PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility ALLOCATION SPENT COUNTIES PERCENTAGE OF 2014-2015 Federal & General Fund CalWORKs Eligibility ALLOCATION SPENT – SORTED Source: State Department of Social Services – Compiled and presented by the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. www.ccwro.org ALAMEDA $20,503,645 $14,121,480 $6,382,165 $0 68.87% ALAMEDA 69% ALPINE $99,893 $42,770 $57,123 $0 42.82% ALPINE 43% AMADOR $263,007 $326,674 $0 ($63,667) 124.21% AMADOR 124% BUTTE $4,226,107 $6,279,956 $0 ($2,053,849) 148.60% BUTTE 149% CALAVERAS $484,256 $401,443 $82,813 $0 82.90% CALAVERAS 83% COLUSA $273,467 $365,368 $0 ($91,901) 133.61% COLUSA 134% CONTRA COSTA $14,383,116 $18,330,365 $0 ($3,947,249) 127.44% CONTRA COSTA 127% DEL NORTE $891,086 $937,966 $0 ($46,880) 105.26% DEL NORTE 105% EL DORADO $1,449,863 $2,134,983 $0 ($685,120) 147.25% EL DORADO 147% FRESNO $20,169,379 $20,749,945 $0 ($580,566) 102.88% FRESNO 103% GLENN $887,151 $724,107 $163,044 $0 81.62% GLENN 82% HUMBOLDT $3,564,049 $3,629,207 $0 ($65,158) 101.83% HUMBOLDT 102% IMPERIAL $3,938,455 $4,353,183 $0 ($414,728) 110.53% IMPERIAL 111% INYO $285,242 $231,858 $53,384 $0 81.28% INYO 81% KERN $14,522,587 $14,983,916 $0 ($461,329) 103.18% KERN 103% KINGS $2,525,271 $2,586,516 $0 ($61,245) 102.43% KINGS 102% LAKE $1,290,389 $1,115,645 $174,744 $0 86.46% LAKE 86% LASSEN $433,647 $589,491 $0 ($155,844) 135.94% LASSEN 136% LOS ANGELES $149,854,628 $190,163,833 $0 ($40,309,205) 126.90% LOS ANGELES 127% MADERA $2,028,345 $2,053,434 $0 ($25,089) 101.24% MADERA 101% MARIN $2,220,316 $3,057,684 $0 ($837,368) 137.71% MARIN 138% MARIPOSA $451,894 $765,800 $0 ($313,906) 169.46% MARIPOSA 169% MENDOCINO $1,338,156 $1,902,354 $0 ($564,198) 142.16% MENDOCINO 142% MERCED $6,212,686 $9,603,620 $0 ($3,390,934) 154.58% MERCED 155% MODOC $315,361 $169,625 $145,736 $0 53.79% MODOC 54% MONO $197,470 $136,672 $60,798 $0 69.21% MONO 69% MONTEREY $6,281,571 $4,305,495 $1,976,076 $0 68.54% MONTEREY 69% NAPA $1,098,709 $848,222 $250,487 $0 77.20% NAPA 77% NEVADA $920,042 $817,045 $102,997 $0 88.81% NEVADA 89% ORANGE $27,436,082 $35,428,782 $0 ($7,992,700) 129.13% ORANGE 129% PLACER $2,661,113 $2,242,289 $418,824 $0 84.26% PLACER 84% PLUMAS $342,005 $279,257 $62,748 $0 81.65% PLUMAS 82% RIVERSIDE $27,605,994 $26,235,050 $1,370,944 $0 95.03% RIVERSIDE 95% SACRAMENTO $30,828,933 $44,615,676 $0 ($13,786,743) 144.72% SACRAMENTO 145% SAN BENITO $673,553 $652,985 $20,568 $0 96.95% SAN BENITO 97% SAN BERNARDINO $35,464,205 $47,999,215 $0 ($12,535,010) 135.35% SAN BERNARDINO 135% SAN DIEGO $24,207,766 $39,256,429 $0 ($15,048,663) 162.16% SAN DIEGO 162% SAN FRANCISCO $13,864,293 $14,681,452 $0 ($817,159) 105.89% SAN FRANCISCO 106% SAN JOAQUIN $9,578,858 $12,035,609 $0 ($2,456,751) 125.65% SAN JOAQUIN 126% SAN LUIS OBISPO $3,134,629 $5,346,366 $0 ($2,211,737) 170.56% SAN LUIS OBISPO 171% SAN MATEO $4,250,349 $6,197,104 $0 ($1,946,755) 145.80% SAN MATEO 146% SANTA BARBARA $4,639,014 $6,367,275 $0 ($1,728,261) 137.25% SANTA BARBARA 137% SANTA CLARA $20,849,739 $16,382,790 $4,466,949 $0 78.58% SANTA CLARA 79% SANTA CRUZ $3,979,090 $2,227,581 $1,751,509 $0 55.98% SANTA CRUZ 56% SHASTA $2,712,769 $3,041,217 $0 ($328,448) 112.11% SHASTA 112% SIERRA $115,854 $153,866 $0 ($38,012) 132.81% SIERRA 133% SISKIYOU $701,278 $1,059,033 $0 ($357,755) 151.01% SISKIYOU 151% SOLANO $5,760,601 $7,571,010 $0 ($1,810,409) 131.43% SOLANO 131% SONOMA $5,432,128 $6,953,621 $0 ($1,521,493) 128.01% SONOMA 128% STANISLAUS $8,013,124 $6,390,502 $1,622,622 $0 79.75% STANISLAUS 80% SUTTER $1,332,834 $1,051,756 $281,078 $0 78.91% SUTTER 79% TEHAMA $1,366,920 $1,783,896 $0 ($416,976) 130.50% TEHAMA 131% TRINITY $282,577 $438,025 $0 ($155,448) 155.01% TRINITY 155% TULARE $7,840,881 $11,605,162 $0 ($3,764,281) 148.01% TULARE 148% TUOLUMNE $682,996 $643,285 $39,711 $0 94.19% TUOLUMNE 94% VENTURA $7,537,943 $8,356,351 $0 ($818,408) 110.86% VENTURA 111% YOLO $3,025,388 $2,728,825 $296,563 $0 90.20% YOLO 90% YUBA $2,406,059 $2,432,010 $0 ($25,951) 101.08% YUBA 101% TOTAL $517,836,763 $619,885,076 $19,780,883 ($121,829,196) 119.71% TOTAL 120% COUNTY ALLOCATION VS. EXPENDITUIRES All numbers displayed in millions FEDERAL & STATE FUNDS EXPENDITURES PROGRAM ALLOCATION FY 2014-2015 EXPENDITURES FY 2014-2015 DIFFERENCES PERCENTAGE SPENT DSS COUNTY FISCAL LETTER CalWORKs Single Allocation – Eligibility $517,837 $619,885 ($102,048) 119.71% CFL 14\/15\/-21,69 CalWORKs Single Allocation Child Care $374,241 $311,224 $63,017 83.16% CFL 14\/15\/-21,69 CalWORKs Single Allocation – CalLearn $25,834 $25,464 $370 91.37% CFL 14\/15\/-21,69 CalWORKs Single Allocation Employment Services $1,025,856 $819,441 $206,415 80% CFL 14\/15\/-21,69 CalWORKs Single Allocation Mental Health $76,304 $65,971 $10,333 86.46% CFL 14\/15\/-02 CalWORKs Single Allocation Substance Abuse $50,302 $34,026 $16,276 67.64% CFL 14\/15\/-02 CCL-Family Child Care Homes – Federal $13 $13 $0 100% CFL 14\/15\/-09 CCL-Family Child Care Homes – State $19 $52 ($33) 273.68% CFL 14\/15\/-09 Expanded Subsidized Employment Program $134,145 $72,323 $61,822 53.91% CFL 14\/15\/-65 CalWORKs Family Stabilization Program $29,654 $22,744 $6,910 76.70% CFL 14\/15\/-66 Homeless Housing Support Program $20,000 $17,278 $2,722 86.39% GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ONLY CalFresh Administration $684,253 $556,508 $127,745 81.33% CFL 14\/15-20,72 CCL-Foster Family Homes $5,827 $11,842 ($6,015) 203.23% CFL 14\/15-09 Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program (Kin-GAP) $2,607 $3,539 ($923) 135.75% CFL 14\/15-10 Trafficking & Crime Victim Assistance Program (TCVAP) $10,575 $3,637 $6,938 34.39% CFL 14\/15-03 Non-Medical Out of Home Care Program $353 $322 $31 91.22% CFL 14\/15-04,59 WINS program $6,425 $5,528 $897 86.04% CFL 14\/15-01.67 Commercially Sexually Exploited Children $3,250 $765 $2,485 23.54% CFL 14\/15-25,32 CWS Case Reviews $3,649 $421 $3,228 11.54% CFL 14\/15-39 Katie A $400 0 $400 0.00% ACL 15-12 Approved Relative Caregiver 0 0 0 0.00% CFL 14\/15-58 FEDERAL FUND ONLY EXPENDITURES ONLY CalFresh Employment and Training Program $105,643 $75,144 $30,499 71.13% CFL 14\/15-35 CBCAP $2,008 $0.00 $2,008 0.00% CFL 14\/15-41,41E Independent Living Programs $16,318 $32,311 ($15,993) 198.01% CFL 14\/15-11 Promoting Safe & Stable Families $28,614 $31,630 ($3,016) 110.54% CFL 14\/15-06,06E PSSF Caseworker Visits $1,959 $20,818 ($18,859) 1062.69% CFL 14\/15-07,75 Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations CCWRO 1111 Howe Ave. Ste.150 Sacramento, CA 95816-7000 Tel. (916) 736-0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 Cell (916) 712-0071 www.ccwro.org October, 2015 [bookmark: _GoBack]Source: County Welfare Departments Reports compliled by the State Department of Social Services. 1 2014-2015 County Single Allocations and Expenditures Source: State Department of Social Services Published by CCWRO October 19, 2015 ”

“Raw Data Month County ATM Count ATM Witdrawals Surcharges Jun-14 Alameda 40256 7595841.7 77757.13 Jun-14 Alpine 12 3560 28.5 Jun-14 Amador 491 93877 988.42 Jun-14 Butte 5134 1158115 7042.54 Jun-14 Calaveras 819 169629 1791.95 Jun-14 Colusa 305 63545 498.84 Jun-14 Contra Costa 17422 3589386.42 30868.03 Jun-14 Del Norte 1146 262685 1023.49 Jun-14 El Dorado 1675 350568 2979.86 Jun-14 Fresno 36735 8424473.58 60816.74 Jun-14 Glenn 695 154020 646.52 Jun-14 Humboldt 2994 561160 4403.21 Jun-14 Imperial 6985 1766399 10368.64 Jun-14 Inyo 137 28890 259.25 Jun-14 Kern 26188 5710478.88 54978.92 Jun-14 Kings 4003 879898 5741.91 Jun-14 Lake 1592 330760 3106.36 Jun-14 Lassen 907 183170 763.05 Jun-14 Los Angeles 332863 67007002.79 648182.29 Jun-14 Madera 4307 1089074.95 7342.52 Jun-14 Marin 1772 389840 3116.89 Jun-14 Mariposa 321 73350 716.46 Jun-14 Mendocino 1943 414821 3419.87 Jun-14 Merced 10818 2791925.42 21664.49 Jun-14 Modoc 255 45600 91.49 Jun-14 Mono 31 8780 87 Jun-14 Monterey 7175 1788974 18140.76 Jun-14 Napa 999 223815 1648.67 Jun-14 Nevada 1172 257535 2203.88 Jun-14 Orange 31473 7481991.67 51394.8 Jun-14 Placer 3171 664155 5204.98 Jun-14 Plumas 281 63800 214.55 Jun-14 Riverside 44094 10945705.75 81737.58 Jun-14 Sacramento 48386 10654762.77 102566.28 Jun-14 San Benito 888 240374 2344.35 Jun-14 San Bernardino 70907 17083777.46 107557.62 Jun-14 San Diego 43702 10113919.15 86100.62 Jun-14 San Francisco 18534 3322441.36 27523.43 Jun-14 San Joaquin 24944 5701379.58 34136.7 Jun-14 San Luis Obispo 3294 723810 6592.25 Jun-14 San Mateo 3902 896238 8137.08 Jun-14 Santa Barbara 4837 1199429 12309.54 Jun-14 Santa Clara 23417 4921500.09 41282.32 Jun-14 Santa Cruz 4058 832915 4594.22 Jun-14 Shasta 4750 965547 5623.34 Jun-14 Sierra 61 10680 94.5 Jun-14 Siskiyou 1332 256745 1856.72 Jun-14 Solano 11028 2321973.52 20308.47 Jun-14 Sonoma 5203 1125876 5179.98 Jun-14 Stanislaus 16068 3742142.92 22185.07 Jun-14 Sutter 2438 543453.29 3793.14 Jun-14 Tehama 1972 448490 3039.04 Jun-14 Trinity 204 41710 261.12 Jun-14 Tulare 17304 4225765.18 29014.27 Jun-14 Tuolumne 674 142255 1684.19 Jun-14 Ventura 8387 2087420.98 17988.46 Jun-14 Yolo 2969 666000 4167.09 Jun-14 Yuba 2334 490352.99 4911.19 Summary Data Surcharge Amt Column Labels Row Labels Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Grand Total Alameda $75,256 $74,780 $76,615 $75,715 $76,097 $378,464 Alpine $25 $22 $24 $10 $14 $94 Amador $1,168 $1,196 $1,243 $1,272 $1,151 $6,031 Butte $6,317 $6,085 $6,638 $6,383 $6,641 $32,063 Calaveras $1,041 $1,123 $1,178 $1,243 $1,162 $5,748 Colusa $261 $226 $248 $320 $288 $1,342 Contra Costa $31,168 $31,531 $31,775 $31,391 $32,569 $158,434 Del Norte $1,303 $1,242 $1,286 $1,313 $1,401 $6,545 El Dorado $2,611 $2,577 $2,476 $2,489 $2,392 $12,545 Fresno $53,255 $52,536 $53,795 $52,384 $52,677 $264,647 Glenn $730 $658 $646 $589 $601 $3,223 Humboldt $3,112 $3,219 $3,541 $3,227 $3,245 $16,343 Imperial $8,224 $7,747 $7,927 $7,881 $7,979 $39,758 Inyo $579 $548 $543 $558 $585 $2,813 Kern $53,367 $51,809 $52,670 $52,389 $53,044 $263,279 Kings $5,822 $5,262 $5,600 $5,308 $5,428 $27,420 Lake $1,931 $1,921 $1,869 $1,800 $1,746 $9,267 Lassen $665 $661 $614 $588 $670 $3,199 Los Angeles $649,925 $641,920 $651,353 $642,533 $650,088 $3,235,820 Madera $6,950 $6,747 $6,933 $6,857 $6,947 $34,434 Marin $2,754 $2,774 $2,966 $2,873 $3,054 $14,421 Mariposa $488 $366 $373 $388 $392 $2,006 Mendocino $3,159 $3,392 $3,365 $3,240 $3,496 $16,652 Merced $17,390 $16,770 $17,186 $16,632 $16,772 $84,750 Modoc $147 $166 $115 $120 $157 $705 Mono $136 $147 $143 $108 $105 $639 Monterey $20,315 $19,655 $18,959 $18,563 $17,724 $95,217 Napa $2,181 $1,840 $1,806 $1,885 $1,719 $9,432 Nevada $1,837 $1,864 $1,885 $1,932 $2,106 $9,623 Orange $45,354 $44,514 $44,489 $43,699 $44,417 $222,472 Placer $5,171 $5,069 $5,204 $5,159 $4,917 $25,520 Plumas $432 $436 $370 $342 $249 $1,829 Riverside $77,482 $76,063 $76,252 $76,544 $78,253 $384,594 Sacramento $96,894 $94,853 $95,410 $94,616 $95,273 $477,046 San Benito $2,616 $2,450 $2,469 $2,458 $2,303 $12,296 San Bernardino $98,377 $97,600 $99,824 $99,738 $99,837 $495,375 San Diego $85,415 $83,676 $85,054 $84,141 $86,075 $424,362 San Francisco $30,727 $30,343 $30,795 $30,349 $30,606 $152,820 San Joaquin $36,651 $35,395 $35,863 $34,536 $33,952 $176,398 San Luis Obispo $4,594 $4,575 $5,429 $5,291 $5,213 $25,102 San Mateo $10,084 $10,194 $10,207 $10,375 $10,178 $51,038 Santa Barbara $9,694 $9,960 $9,781 $9,490 $9,862 $48,787 Santa Clara $47,051 $47,449 $47,953 $46,685 $46,980 $236,117 Santa Cruz $5,999 $6,178 $6,310 $5,794 $5,419 $29,699 Shasta $5,209 $5,293 $5,328 $5,387 $5,036 $26,253 Sierra $124 $119 $73 $70 $86 $472 Siskiyou $1,682 $1,715 $1,615 $1,816 $1,846 $8,675 Solano $18,453 $18,208 $19,075 $18,241 $19,011 $92,988 Sonoma $5,834 $5,709 $6,235 $5,912 $5,790 $29,481 Stanislaus $22,389 $22,271 $21,988 $21,862 $22,546 $111,057 Sutter $3,277 $3,564 $3,273 $3,303 $3,196 $16,613 Tehama $2,115 $2,079 $2,238 $2,087 $2,175 $10,694 Trinity $177 $153 $152 $141 $156 $778 Tulare $24,876 $24,936 $24,803 $25,333 $25,823 $125,769 Tuolumne $1,009 $1,015 $997 $915 $1,052 $4,988 Ventura $17,921 $17,686 $18,212 $17,748 $17,549 $89,117 Yolo $3,407 $3,392 $3,867 $3,801 $3,768 $18,235 Yuba $4,185 $3,941 $3,774 $3,708 $3,970 $19,579 Grand Total $1,619,319 $1,597,619 $1,620,811 $1,599,531 $1,615,788 $8,053,067 2011 County Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 2011 Total Alameda $73,860 $74,306 $76,482 $78,022 $78,645 $78,162 $83,266 $81,201 $78,095 $78,924 $76,959 $76,699 $934,623 Alpine $20 $12 $26 $22 $12 $15 $7 $12 $11 $21 $25 $27 $209 Amador $1,361 $1,313 $1,404 $1,377 $1,373 $1,290 $1,252 $1,222 $1,281 $1,285 $1,289 $1,089 $15,536 Butte $6,823 $6,777 $7,053 $7,758 $7,258 $6,909 $6,617 $6,705 $6,687 $6,597 $6,536 $6,427 $82,146 Calaveras $1,454 $1,337 $1,446 $1,474 $1,394 $1,534 $1,275 $1,276 $1,297 $1,193 $1,241 $1,154 $16,075 Colusa $335 $372 $365 $383 $341 $275 $246 $240 $226 $250 $256 $235 $3,524 Contra Costa $33,422 $32,997 $33,470 $34,407 $34,445 $34,413 $32,698 $32,335 $33,112 $32,909 $31,985 $31,694 $397,887 Del Norte $1,613 $1,310 $1,472 $1,650 $1,826 $1,588 $1,541 $1,370 $1,289 $1,268 $1,193 $1,262 $17,382 El Dorado $3,042 $2,898 $3,038 $3,000 $3,093 $2,934 $2,848 $2,730 $2,617 $2,730 $2,550 $2,524 $34,002 Fresno $55,312 $53,865 $56,797 $58,624 $57,789 $57,698 $54,991 $52,739 $53,592 $53,575 $51,802 $53,342 $660,126 Glenn $780 $780 $782 $816 $650 $740 $644 $722 $693 $648 $623 $642 $8,518 Humboldt $3,253 $3,243 $3,208 $3,371 $3,540 $3,313 $3,351 $3,173 $3,075 $3,280 $3,188 $3,187 $39,181 Imperial $9,741 $9,792 $9,617 $9,357 $9,416 $9,588 $9,595 $8,801 $9,124 $9,131 $8,523 $8,282 $110,967 Inyo $730 $770 $741 $716 $688 $611 $653 $566 $585 $520 $560 $589 $7,729 Kern $57,326 $58,029 $60,782 $60,295 $59,757 $60,373 $56,296 $55,238 $55,497 $54,488 $52,974 $51,991 $683,046 Kings $5,861 $5,683 $6,278 $6,324 $6,261 $6,305 $5,934 $5,803 $5,674 $5,755 $5,648 $5,510 $71,034 Lake $2,041 $2,156 $2,088 $2,261 $2,214 $2,239 $2,049 $1,976 $2,169 $1,916 $1,697 $1,717 $24,522 Lassen $799 $686 $679 $765 $743 $732 $789 $678 $682 $596 $691 $562 $8,401 Los Angeles $669,697 $654,789 $683,025 $690,227 $690,982 $692,000 $680,234 $667,906 $675,328 $670,649 $648,337 $650,145 $8,073,319 Madera $7,603 $7,560 $7,839 $7,755 $7,754 $7,923 $7,515 $7,111 $6,957 $7,032 $6,948 $6,527 $88,525 Marin $3,733 $3,616 $3,717 $4,005 $3,566 $3,490 $3,320 $3,370 $3,184 $3,181 $2,923 $2,944 $41,050 Mariposa $397 $397 $399 $354 $486 $339 $384 $396 $523 $455 $458 $441 $5,028 Mendocino $3,592 $3,371 $3,521 $3,728 $3,725 $3,688 $3,689 $3,682 $3,456 $3,518 $3,095 $3,308 $42,373 Merced $14,099 $13,684 $14,336 $14,376 $14,453 $14,189 $13,618 $14,065 $18,009 $17,325 $16,466 $16,607 $181,226 Modoc $194 $202 $209 $215 $236 $213 $207 $167 $164 $160 $145 $151 $2,262 Mono $132 $140 $128 $118 $105 $101 $121 $117 $81 $87 $69 $106 $1,304 Monterey $21,967 $21,071 $21,909 $21,503 $19,870 $18,280 $15,708 $15,057 $14,909 $14,441 $14,510 $17,418 $216,641 Napa $2,258 $2,159 $2,228 $2,469 $2,218 $2,316 $2,140 $1,949 $2,022 $1,928 $1,790 $2,045 $25,522 Nevada $2,163 $2,017 $2,206 $2,333 $2,478 $2,393 $2,277 $2,105 $2,185 $2,007 $1,893 $2,043 $26,100 Orange $48,831 $47,943 $49,115 $49,488 $49,551 $49,405 $46,313 $47,079 $46,846 $45,903 $44,416 $45,088 $569,979 Placer $5,105 $5,027 $5,315 $5,414 $5,535 $5,690 $5,421 $5,482 $5,659 $5,565 $5,235 $5,125 $64,574 Plumas $489 $514 $462 $476 $485 $433 $495 $363 $459 $479 $400 $463 $5,519 Riverside $82,947 $81,262 $83,020 $83,831 $87,494 $86,932 $81,449 $81,437 $81,315 $80,368 $79,165 $78,248 $987,467 Sacramento $98,042 $96,122 $99,260 $106,525 $104,520 $103,601 $97,016 $96,752 $93,648 $93,997 $92,752 $91,533 $1,173,769 San Benito $3,038 $3,141 $3,036 $3,187 $3,069 $3,162 $2,980 $2,849 $2,619 $2,554 $2,508 $2,596 $34,740 San Bernardino $103,600 $103,504 $105,502 $106,624 $106,569 $106,952 $102,058 $100,447 $104,091 $101,258 $98,530 $98,870 $1,238,004 San Diego $94,420 $92,275 $95,129 $94,505 $95,644 $94,316 $89,263 $88,284 $87,265 $87,857 $85,536 $85,942 $1,090,436 San Francisco $32,661 $31,836 $32,975 $35,989 $35,297 $33,833 $33,940 $32,817 $32,595 $32,348 $31,369 $31,709 $397,368 San Joaquin $33,067 $32,261 $33,340 $34,996 $35,960 $36,217 $33,812 $33,415 $33,538 $33,098 $31,957 $32,278 $403,939 San Luis Obispo $5,319 $5,156 $5,045 $5,359 $5,342 $5,087 $4,703 $4,522 $4,566 $4,577 $4,493 $4,697 $58,867 San Mateo $11,373 $11,151 $11,390 $11,580 $11,684 $11,299 $11,095 $10,459 $10,863 $10,848 $10,782 $10,471 $132,994 Santa Barbara $11,468 $11,431 $11,990 $11,776 $11,024 $11,142 $10,193 $10,143 $9,851 $9,652 $9,721 $9,881 $128,271 Santa Clara $55,861 $54,467 $56,938 $58,474 $58,109 $57,240 $53,821 $52,326 $50,827 $49,965 $48,241 $47,717 $643,985 Santa Cruz $6,533 $6,677 $6,704 $6,817 $6,330 $5,999 $5,540 $5,283 $5,109 $4,942 $5,218 $5,757 $70,908 Shasta $5,433 $5,655 $5,573 $6,096 $6,064 $5,916 $5,599 $5,877 $5,705 $5,437 $4,934 $4,983 $67,271 Sierra $155 $149 $148 $154 $128 $146 $194 $144 $179 $148 $125 $114 $1,785 Siskiyou $1,915 $2,039 $1,909 $2,020 $1,991 $2,000 $1,883 $1,972 $1,644 $1,737 $1,626 $1,648 $22,385 Solano $20,850 $20,028 $21,454 $22,477 $22,259 $22,032 $21,295 $20,469 $20,028 $19,361 $18,456 $19,152 $247,860 Sonoma $7,233 $7,144 $7,030 $7,310 $7,238 $7,090 $6,706 $6,157 $6,336 $6,204 $5,640 $6,063 $80,151 Stanislaus $21,688 $21,877 $22,016 $23,036 $24,170 $23,951 $22,230 $21,541 $21,491 $21,643 $21,395 $20,930 $265,967 Sutter $3,519 $3,400 $3,740 $3,983 $3,853 $3,846 $3,533 $3,429 $3,377 $3,407 $3,134 $3,056 $42,279 Tehama $2,368 $2,480 $2,492 $2,699 $2,617 $2,461 $2,415 $2,303 $2,334 $2,175 $2,073 $2,018 $28,435 Trinity $172 $151 $182 $164 $164 $146 $117 $153 $151 $141 $178 $149 $1,868 Tulare $25,271 $25,004 $26,571 $27,399 $26,971 $26,362 $25,516 $24,792 $24,831 $24,738 $23,557 $24,266 $305,278 Tuolumne $1,249 $1,182 $1,202 $1,215 $1,285 $1,193 $1,040 $1,088 $1,043 $976 $1,015 $958 $13,446 Ventura $21,743 $21,173 $21,300 $20,816 $20,446 $20,169 $18,590 $18,333 $18,572 $18,421 $17,908 $17,721 $235,195 Yolo $3,984 $4,013 $4,161 $4,479 $4,275 $4,309 $4,129 $3,833 $3,778 $3,558 $3,594 $3,453 $47,563 Yuba $4,832 $4,605 $5,048 $5,182 $4,972 $4,760 $4,606 $4,550 $4,492 $4,371 $4,149 $4,024 $55,590 Grand Total $1,696,774 $1,666,996 $1,727,293 $1,759,774 $1,758,362 $1,749,341 $1,689,213 $1,659,010 $1,665,734 $1,651,596 $1,602,479 $1,607,578 $20,234,150 Office of Systems Integration (OSI) ATM Surcharges by County Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Project &A &P of &N &D 2012 County Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 2012 Total Alameda $75,256 $74,780 $76,615 $75,715 $76,097 $76,728 $75,893 $79,539 $80,339 $77,340.03 $75,955.92 $74,174.45 $918,434 Alpine $25 $22 $24 $10 $14 $17 $15 $11 $9 $14.00 $13.00 $7.50 $180 Amador $1,168 $1,177 $1,243 $1,272 $1,151 $1,190 $1,242 $1,239 $1,288 $1,122.00 $1,087.40 $1,047.45 $14,228 Butte $6,317 $6,053 $6,638 $6,383 $6,641 $6,271 $6,828 $6,487 $6,475 $6,281.75 $6,218.46 $5,907.83 $76,499 Calaveras $1,041 $1,119 $1,178 $1,243 $1,162 $1,231 $1,196 $1,169 $1,185 $1,588.02 $1,581.05 $1,559.52 $15,254 Colusa $261 $223 $248 $320 $288 $273 $247 $289 $303 $340.72 $277.94 $360.02 $3,430 Contra Costa $31,168 $31,386 $31,775 $31,391 $32,569 $33,090 $32,428 $32,000 $32,585 $31,594.64 $31,495.71 $29,548.44 $381,031 Del Norte $1,303 $1,239 $1,286 $1,313 $1,401 $1,422 $1,333 $1,341 $1,250 $1,080.09 $1,195.19 $1,287.40 $15,450 El Dorado $2,611 $2,556 $2,476 $2,489 $2,392 $2,585 $2,506 $2,557 $2,671 $2,745.20 $2,716.19 $2,658.88 $30,963 Fresno $53,255 $52,376 $53,795 $52,384 $52,677 $54,057 $52,898 $53,635 $55,804 $54,229.26 $53,035.72 $52,360.93 $640,507 Glenn $730 $658 $646 $589 $601 $645 $531 $705 $643 $639.40 $598.84 $714.54 $7,700 Humboldt $3,112 $3,198 $3,541 $3,227 $3,245 $3,408 $3,465 $3,512 $3,787 $4,479.73 $4,312.88 $4,292.20 $43,579 Imperial $8,224 $7,715 $7,927 $7,881 $7,979 $8,545 $8,661 $8,862 $9,229 $8,181.24 $7,970.86 $7,443.20 $98,618 Inyo $579 $543 $543 $558 $585 $519 $577 $488 $514 $494.15 $570.73 $484.65 $6,457 Kern $53,367 $51,665 $52,670 $52,389 $53,044 $53,562 $54,908 $55,318 $55,057 $53,120.87 $53,042.31 $51,858.44 $640,001 Kings $5,822 $5,238 $5,600 $5,308 $5,428 $5,292 $5,277 $5,538 $5,652 $4,957.04 $5,076.68 $5,106.56 $64,295 Lake $1,931 $1,916 $1,869 $1,800 $1,746 $1,719 $1,943 $1,756 $2,027 $1,880.32 $1,986.39 $2,032.25 $22,605 Lassen $665 $661 $614 $588 $670 $550 $572 $664 $607 $601.79 $554.36 $671.58 $7,420 Los Angeles $649,925 $641,918 $651,353 $642,533 $650,088 $664,491 $659,383 $666,448 $694,359 $654,028.46 $632,362.02 $618,209.49 $7,825,098 Madera $6,950 $6,710 $6,933 $6,857 $6,947 $6,687 $6,697 $6,483 $6,978 $6,296.18 $6,486.53 $6,512.73 $80,537 Marin $2,754 $2,762 $2,966 $2,873 $3,054 $2,892 $2,925 $2,853 $3,181 $2,883.58 $2,779.07 $2,705.62 $34,628 Mariposa $488 $364 $373 $388 $392 $406 $402 $526 $483 $469.67 $382.69 $384.50 $5,057 Mendocino $3,159 $3,375 $3,365 $3,240 $3,496 $3,495 $3,672 $3,430 $3,325 $3,076.94 $3,069.58 $2,895.59 $39,599 Merced $17,390 $16,718 $17,186 $16,632 $16,772 $17,464 $16,997 $16,766 $16,875 $16,790.43 $16,317.06 $16,527.71 $202,436 Modoc $147 $166 $115 $120 $157 $111 $115 $110 $97 $106.49 $118.50 $108.00 $1,471 Mono $136 $147 $143 $108 $105 $108 $114 $106 $133 $117.50 $97.50 $106.75 $1,422 Monterey $20,315 $19,546 $18,959 $18,563 $17,724 $16,251 $15,260 $14,856 $15,105 $14,353.31 $14,509.72 $16,590.03 $202,032 Napa $2,181 $1,833 $1,806 $1,885 $1,719 $1,852 $1,835 $1,704 $1,770 $1,573.05 $1,620.40 $1,644.28 $21,422 Nevada $1,837 $1,858 $1,885 $1,932 $2,106 $2,080 $2,143 $2,241 $2,055 $2,002.03 $2,021.88 $2,022.02 $24,182 Orange $45,354 $44,343 $44,489 $43,699 $44,417 $44,881 $44,962 $45,637 $46,583 $44,489.90 $44,535.20 $43,807.36 $537,198 Placer $5,171 $5,022 $5,204 $5,159 $4,917 $4,783 $4,767 $5,133 $5,611 $5,529.93 $5,346.17 $4,968.04 $61,610 Plumas $432 $436 $370 $342 $249 $279 $217 $213 $228 $224.60 $205.10 $226.00 $3,421 Riverside $77,482 $75,760 $76,252 $76,544 $78,253 $78,217 $78,572 $80,475 $81,293 $76,539.91 $74,921.36 $73,488.57 $927,798 Sacramento $96,894 $94,502 $95,410 $94,616 $95,273 $97,889 $97,583 $98,322 $100,443 $94,368.39 $94,627.38 $92,984.33 $1,152,911 San Benito $2,616 $2,433 $2,469 $2,458 $2,303 $2,359 $2,170 $2,423 $2,412 $2,125.87 $2,178.69 $2,455.20 $28,403 San Bernardino $98,377 $97,269 $99,824 $99,738 $99,837 $100,657 $101,170 $104,335 $105,338 $101,582.66 $99,927.37 $96,845.77 $1,204,900 San Diego $85,415 $83,325 $85,054 $84,141 $86,075 $86,504 $86,422 $88,474 $88,687 $86,196.31 $82,702.38 $81,275.15 $1,024,272 San Francisco $30,727 $30,183 $30,795 $30,349 $30,606 $30,715 $30,370 $29,312 $29,974 $27,720.11 $27,502.48 $26,607.38 $354,862 San Joaquin $36,651 $35,252 $35,863 $34,536 $33,952 $35,868 $34,801 $34,752 $36,339 $33,520.14 $33,597.36 $33,747.30 $418,880 San Luis Obispo $4,594 $4,548 $5,429 $5,291 $5,213 $5,253 $4,995 $5,325 $5,088 $4,938.97 $4,732.50 $4,882.55 $60,290 San Mateo $10,084 $10,125 $10,207 $10,375 $10,178 $9,977 $9,743 $9,695 $9,672 $9,864.27 $9,555.43 $8,898.29 $118,374 Santa Barbara $9,694 $9,895 $9,781 $9,490 $9,862 $9,893 $9,101 $8,808 $9,000 $8,601.50 $8,377.57 $8,076.06 $110,578 Santa Clara $47,051 $47,172 $47,953 $46,685 $46,980 $46,553 $45,553 $45,318 $46,267 $44,317.85 $42,986.55 $41,748.57 $548,585 Santa Cruz $5,999 $6,135 $6,310 $5,794 $5,419 $5,298 $4,833 $4,789 $4,776 $4,451.84 $4,640.69 $4,682.67 $63,126 Shasta $5,209 $5,267 $5,328 $5,387 $5,036 $5,414 $5,663 $5,622 $5,540 $5,085.04 $5,166.25 $5,295.92 $64,012 Sierra $124 $119 $73 $70 $86 $77 $120 $74 $67 $49.70 $53.50 $89.55 $1,004 Siskiyou $1,682 $1,705 $1,615 $1,816 $1,846 $1,817 $1,931 $1,922 $1,831 $1,832.71 $1,767.97 $1,894.19 $21,661 Solano $18,453 $18,094 $19,075 $18,241 $19,011 $19,090 $19,122 $19,242 $19,317 $18,468.28 $18,322.53 $18,087.79 $224,524 Sonoma $5,834 $5,684 $6,235 $5,912 $5,790 $6,019 $5,827 $5,873 $5,973 $5,783.59 $5,708.95 $5,450.05 $70,091 Stanislaus $22,389 $22,169 $21,988 $21,862 $22,546 $22,763 $23,082 $22,980 $23,712 $21,099.17 $21,354.80 $21,380.46 $267,328 Sutter $3,277 $3,558 $3,273 $3,303 $3,196 $3,165 $2,999 $3,182 $3,374 $3,641.13 $3,667.91 $3,773.12 $40,409 Tehama $2,115 $2,068 $2,238 $2,087 $2,175 $2,188 $2,284 $2,284 $2,406 $2,769.58 $2,739.60 $2,677.16 $28,032 Trinity $177 $153 $152 $141 $156 $214 $185 $162 $172 $241.50 $249.23 $187.75 $2,191 Tulare $24,876 $24,866 $24,803 $25,333 $25,823 $25,420 $25,645 $25,515 $25,942 $24,528.51 $25,111.76 $24,727.86 $302,590 Tuolumne $1,009 $993 $997 $915 $1,052 $937 $1,020 $1,237 $1,257 $1,736.99 $1,693.67 $1,840.65 $14,689 Ventura $17,921 $17,596 $18,212 $17,748 $17,549 $17,515 $16,654 $17,229 $17,842 $17,258.07 $17,184.54 $17,005.79 $209,715 Yolo $3,407 $3,367 $3,867 $3,801 $3,768 $3,869 $3,704 $3,771 $3,654 $3,458.45 $3,408.23 $3,336.06 $43,412 Yuba $4,185 $3,931 $3,774 $3,708 $3,970 $3,915 $3,888 $3,798 $4,054 $4,361.04 $4,341.88 $4,047.20 $47,974 Grand Total $1,619,319 $1,593,889 $1,620,811 $1,599,531 $1,615,788 $1,638,473 $1,627,446 $1,646,531 $1,690,641 $1,607,174 $1,574,062 $1,543,709 $19,377,374 ATM Surcharges by County &A &P of &N &D 2013 County Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 2013 Total Alameda $74,679.64 $73,498.10 $74,898.46 $74,971.40 $75,628.92 $75,004.85 $74,026.03 $75,893.73 $74,469.11 $74,298.27 $74,012.58 $73,435.97 $894,817.06 Alpine $10.50 $4.50 $6.75 $10.00 $28.50 $28.95 $14.85 $7.75 $6.70 $9.50 $9.00 $12.00 $149.00 Amador $1,093.25 $1,080.33 $1,065.42 $1,059.25 $1,043.96 $998.50 $1,044.21 $1,001.43 $1,072.23 $1,044.93 $951.15 $1,008.98 $12,463.64 Butte $6,268.59 $5,736.17 $6,035.34 $5,728.85 $6,338.89 $6,860.28 $7,102.83 $6,867.19 $7,030.97 $7,019.79 $6,530.16 $6,394.71 $77,913.77 Calaveras $1,521.51 $1,550.41 $1,486.78 $1,459.27 $1,533.74 $1,547.33 $1,342.26 $1,514.39 $1,505.10 $1,336.24 $1,403.03 $1,540.48 $17,740.54 Colusa $274.20 $256.57 $247.73 $286.14 $348.24 $396.22 $340.69 $385.26 $410.15 $367.38 $376.77 $389.64 $4,078.99 Contra Costa $29,763.97 $29,486.45 $29,492.74 $29,576.84 $29,422.40 $29,273.72 $28,448.57 $28,950.19 $29,022.85 $28,496.01 $28,123.04 $28,061.80 $348,118.58 Del Norte $1,010.88 $960.63 $980.68 $970.84 $919.18 $1,067.56 $955.01 $984.45 $884.55 $891.24 $976.59 $877.60 $11,479.21 El Dorado $2,772.54 $2,721.81 $2,723.95 $2,600.07 $2,576.12 $2,520.51 $2,444.18 $2,426.45 $2,631.01 $2,642.12 $2,523.09 $2,459.99 $31,041.84 Fresno $53,260.31 $53,969.10 $54,098.79 $54,371.60 $55,033.76 $55,238.66 $55,011.26 $56,829.58 $56,436.80 $56,791.06 $55,509.93 $54,746.40 $661,297.25 Glenn $629.91 $719.69 $794.80 $695.53 $666.50 $695.83 $645.22 $628.41 $689.74 $611.40 $561.74 $591.14 $7,929.91 Humboldt $4,006.67 $4,041.39 $3,961.44 $3,993.90 $4,165.57 $4,332.71 $4,287.23 $4,214.16 $4,218.99 $3,917.68 $3,875.10 $3,984.73 $48,999.57 Imperial $7,670.57 $7,376.21 $7,238.42 $7,251.83 $9,053.23 $11,820.96 $11,560.86 $11,569.06 $12,032.04 $11,840.31 $11,394.63 $10,983.13 $119,791.25 Inyo $443.15 $411.95 $390.35 $354.35 $407.24 $417.00 $375.99 $350.95 $343.70 $315.75 $321.60 $321.20 $4,453.23 Kern $52,752.23 $51,758.96 $51,465.38 $52,631.52 $53,660.08 $53,855.47 $54,958.17 $54,095.33 $51,312.68 $51,395.32 $49,810.63 $49,815.12 $627,510.89 Kings $5,154.54 $5,156.15 $5,169.25 $5,140.60 $5,395.85 $5,407.11 $5,295.12 $5,177.61 $5,117.89 $4,935.27 $5,296.93 $5,181.12 $62,427.44 Lake $1,981.52 $1,914.40 $1,948.95 $2,042.65 $1,957.02 $1,860.31 $1,936.13 $1,842.79 $1,838.07 $1,821.38 $1,761.42 $1,950.33 $22,854.97 Lassen $693.99 $587.95 $667.54 $637.93 $706.70 $710.11 $645.01 $628.24 $593.94 $678.54 $741.59 $680.75 $7,972.29 Los Angeles $614,996.95 $610,315.07 $621,162.73 $624,592.45 $638,549.72 $641,955.22 $640,799.22 $648,215.44 $663,763.70 $647,336.10 $637,115.47 $623,798.66 $7,612,600.73 Madera $7,033.09 $6,863.17 $6,682.71 $6,661.21 $6,902.43 $6,703.13 $6,631.95 $6,562.80 $6,776.40 $6,805.41 $6,695.86 $6,503.95 $80,822.11 Marin $2,774.98 $2,796.35 $2,640.74 $2,646.12 $2,654.34 $2,707.48 $2,740.25 $2,746.12 $2,923.78 $2,788.78 $2,637.24 $2,781.56 $32,837.74 Mariposa $388.34 $435.56 $327.19 $386.81 $440.88 $415.58 $459.01 $421.55 $396.57 $430.29 $401.62 $451.56 $4,954.96 Mendocino $3,244.92 $2,961.25 $3,141.46 $3,044.39 $3,040.95 $3,016.30 $3,244.89 $3,423.71 $3,232.24 $3,199.70 $2,970.50 $2,958.23 $37,478.54 Merced $16,846.10 $17,163.86 $17,143.60 $16,764.69 $17,415.02 $17,468.64 $17,179.83 $17,517.37 $17,441.82 $16,760.78 $16,633.21 $16,206.64 $204,541.56 Modoc $158.00 $200.25 $181.70 $123.00 $90.45 $85.75 $57.35 $49.75 $86.70 $48.25 $51.25 $92.25 $1,224.70 Mono $119.00 $98.00 $112.50 $119.25 $116.00 $92.00 $97.45 $84.50 $102.00 $64.25 $64.25 $65.00 $1,134.20 Monterey $19,253.93 $18,975.97 $18,277.44 $17,365.12 $17,711.90 $18,907.43 $17,127.70 $17,134.41 $16,586.93 $16,634.17 $16,425.23 $18,652.98 $213,053.21 Napa $1,671.24 $1,798.10 $1,576.97 $1,657.05 $1,491.37 $1,454.67 $1,564.60 $1,493.26 $1,544.04 $1,486.43 $1,377.76 $1,413.89 $18,529.38 Nevada $2,063.01 $1,883.94 $1,926.93 $1,942.83 $1,994.67 $2,014.36 $1,905.29 $2,034.36 $1,892.82 $1,936.87 $1,863.43 $1,802.73 $23,261.24 Orange $45,102.06 $44,599.32 $44,142.47 $44,124.25 $45,207.56 $44,188.39 $43,672.21 $45,692.79 $45,928.73 $46,166.28 $45,914.23 $45,512.37 $540,250.66 Placer $4,890.51 $4,798.66 $4,809.42 $4,900.10 $4,890.75 $5,057.58 $4,777.24 $4,874.28 $4,734.56 $4,687.12 $4,548.44 $4,758.76 $57,727.42 Plumas $224.75 $256.25 $243.45 $271.45 $180.00 $220.95 $125.15 $155.65 $107.25 $147.15 $167.45 $137.39 $2,236.89 Riverside $72,835.82 $71,811.50 $70,806.78 $71,249.31 $73,492.80 $76,701.64 $76,721.92 $76,425.11 $76,832.22 $76,829.84 $75,806.45 $76,489.61 $896,003.00 Sacramento $93,993.99 $94,349.40 $93,097.00 $92,300.34 $93,041.23 $92,014.77 $92,265.60 $93,169.53 $94,108.38 $94,286.65 $95,991.99 $95,199.87 $1,123,818.75 San Benito $2,369.24 $2,310.97 $2,280.25 $2,144.83 $2,392.18 $2,554.87 $2,442.15 $2,252.72 $2,088.87 $2,378.62 $2,290.31 $2,487.60 $27,992.61 San Bernardino $96,968.81 $96,376.09 $96,950.82 $97,164.54 $99,391.29 $99,589.01 $100,228.21 $100,459.37 $99,960.38 $100,207.49 $99,173.16 $98,630.10 $1,185,099.27 San Diego $81,338.90 $80,369.96 $79,912.37 $80,822.74 $81,580.27 $80,282.23 $79,753.78 $79,174.02 $78,938.50 $79,713.96 $79,273.39 $80,088.80 $961,248.92 San Francisco $27,440.37 $26,375.71 $26,125.67 $27,053.53 $27,029.61 $26,720.38 $25,802.96 $26,197.00 $26,050.43 $25,044.99 $25,284.16 $25,228.23 $314,353.04 San Joaquin $33,284.49 $33,058.90 $32,719.64 $32,531.20 $33,018.52 $33,705.39 $33,155.20 $33,535.01 $33,528.90 $32,463.22 $32,619.67 $33,111.08 $396,731.22 San Luis Obispo $4,990.63 $4,912.60 $4,910.05 $4,871.20 $6,091.80 $7,538.24 $7,330.31 $6,958.97 $6,896.00 $6,949.55 $6,709.95 $6,356.44 $74,515.74 San Mateo $8,852.14 $8,572.42 $8,480.32 $8,297.09 $8,266.46 $8,272.01 $8,007.18 $8,014.52 $7,965.19 $8,381.47 $7,817.69 $7,573.42 $98,499.91 Santa Barbara $8,566.41 $8,711.10 $8,715.04 $8,035.21 $9,495.23 $13,218.91 $12,733.10 $12,698.96 $12,353.94 $12,620.15 $12,683.94 $12,253.18 $132,085.17 Santa Clara $42,019.18 $41,035.08 $41,843.81 $41,301.27 $41,837.05 $41,447.06 $41,111.19 $41,248.01 $40,470.53 $40,559.26 $39,724.87 $39,061.39 $491,658.70 Santa Cruz $5,082.89 $5,115.10 $4,938.97 $5,014.21 $5,270.64 $4,781.80 $4,591.14 $4,557.02 $4,420.31 $4,486.89 $4,575.05 $4,625.55 $57,459.57 Shasta $5,198.82 $4,854.32 $5,238.92 $5,327.20 $5,321.58 $5,204.93 $5,530.81 $5,512.94 $5,455.14 $5,327.61 $5,106.82 $4,937.20 $63,016.29 Sierra $75.80 $50.35 $55.90 $50.25 $46.20 $57.90 $48.00 $27.25 $40.25 $30.95 $29.75 $38.95 $551.55 Siskiyou $1,798.48 $1,893.94 $1,785.18 $1,749.85 $1,775.97 $1,759.73 $1,828.26 $1,912.45 $1,787.38 $1,725.64 $1,642.74 $1,652.35 $21,311.97 Solano $18,347.74 $17,393.93 $17,794.26 $17,995.66 $18,179.80 $17,909.49 $17,469.48 $17,475.33 $17,657.23 $17,328.35 $17,560.12 $16,942.69 $212,054.08 Sonoma $5,665.39 $5,383.21 $5,231.98 $5,181.44 $5,160.22 $5,281.45 $5,195.52 $5,248.94 $4,999.29 $4,932.06 $4,744.23 $4,750.88 $61,774.61 Stanislaus $21,045.27 $20,614.78 $20,853.92 $20,769.60 $20,656.14 $21,119.15 $20,467.51 $20,665.44 $20,241.74 $20,012.71 $20,061.16 $20,025.24 $246,532.66 Sutter $3,840.78 $3,741.29 $3,802.17 $3,612.67 $3,562.54 $3,422.70 $3,743.91 $3,636.42 $3,820.70 $3,561.82 $3,413.04 $3,370.27 $43,528.31 Tehama $2,552.44 $2,542.13 $2,702.97 $2,770.72 $2,840.68 $2,827.86 $2,872.25 $2,875.00 $2,785.59 $2,825.79 $2,732.09 $2,735.62 $33,063.14 Trinity $224.44 $213.23 $207.39 $175.09 $209.38 $168.75 $192.86 $201.52 $257.25 $264.64 $244.36 $197.94 $2,556.85 Tulare $25,488.11 $25,292.70 $25,242.52 $25,496.50 $26,720.87 $27,618.20 $27,503.93 $27,715.24 $27,409.44 $27,470.77 $27,021.57 $27,177.91 $320,157.76 Tuolumne $1,704.19 $1,520.99 $1,689.90 $1,564.10 $1,490.78 $1,498.33 $1,512.54 $1,314.24 $1,388.30 $1,436.53 $1,417.24 $1,319.09 $17,856.23 Ventura $17,344.70 $17,098.96 $17,099.73 $16,606.46 $17,488.04 $17,706.33 $17,386.09 $17,177.71 $16,814.57 $17,032.79 $17,929.49 $17,821.43 $207,506.30 Yolo $3,444.95 $3,247.39 $3,496.18 $3,464.91 $3,433.90 $3,440.91 $3,305.36 $3,415.55 $3,475.32 $3,396.69 $3,338.38 $3,260.65 $40,720.19 Yuba $4,522.64 $4,157.02 $4,230.20 $4,220.95 $4,763.24 $4,621.75 $4,474.59 $4,567.35 $4,745.48 $4,417.33 $4,540.70 $4,425.29 $53,686.54 Grand Total $1,551,751.47 $1,535,379.59 $1,545,254.02 $1,548,152.16 $1,582,128.36 $1,595,787.35 $1,586,489.61 $1,600,208.58 $1,609,625.39 $1,590,589.54 $1,572,777.24 $1,557,331.84 $18,875,475.15 ATM Surcharges by County &A &P of &N &D 2014 County Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 2014 Total Alameda $74,285.97 $74,598.75 $77,152.64 $76,738.01 $78,955.06 $77,757.13 $459,487.56 Alpine $9.00 $11.00 $14.50 $22.50 $23.75 $28.50 $109.25 Amador $986.94 $971.35 $997.18 $954.60 $1,067.83 $988.42 $5,966.32 Butte $6,859.12 $6,681.11 $6,879.03 $7,102.63 $7,321.44 $7,042.54 $41,885.87 Calaveras $1,558.34 $1,518.33 $1,570.19 $1,507.94 $1,630.49 $1,791.95 $9,577.24 Colusa $442.46 $427.15 $522.01 $486.25 $438.35 $498.84 $2,815.06 Contra Costa $28,532.07 $28,849.80 $31,033.74 $30,449.09 $30,769.39 $30,868.03 $180,502.12 Del Norte $943.57 $859.52 $909.10 $922.40 $985.44 $1,023.49 $5,643.52 El Dorado $2,638.00 $2,539.61 $2,757.95 $2,846.68 $2,948.54 $2,979.86 $16,710.64 Fresno $56,399.31 $59,593.83 $61,682.87 $61,033.76 $62,224.85 $60,816.74 $361,751.36 Glenn $710.67 $647.19 $597.47 $633.04 $682.37 $646.52 $3,917.26 Humboldt $4,029.79 $4,100.19 $4,443.54 $4,440.39 $4,478.13 $4,403.21 $25,895.25 Imperial $11,382.67 $10,908.70 $10,992.46 $10,812.24 $10,907.52 $10,368.64 $65,372.23 Inyo $318.90 $302.75 $250.85 $249.10 $296.75 $259.25 $1,677.60 Kern $51,686.30 $52,962.49 $53,965.80 $53,903.59 $54,901.09 $54,978.92 $322,398.19 Kings $5,497.83 $5,659.63 $5,794.02 $5,621.96 $6,150.53 $5,741.91 $34,465.88 Lake $2,106.72 $3,044.04 $3,240.82 $2,972.36 $3,059.34 $3,106.36 $17,529.64 Lassen $683.10 $698.45 $703.20 $690.75 $761.12 $763.05 $4,299.67 Los Angeles $630,339.76 $623,782.08 $659,810.15 $654,509.41 $658,339.36 $648,182.29 $3,874,963.05 Madera $6,609.46 $6,836.23 $7,441.38 $7,329.04 $7,517.12 $7,342.52 $43,075.75 Marin $2,728.25 $3,111.84 $3,148.22 $3,075.91 $3,077.13 $3,116.89 $18,258.24 Mariposa $424.77 $769.83 $726.79 $766.54 $754.87 $716.46 $4,159.26 Mendocino $3,171.82 $3,250.65 $3,458.11 $3,396.58 $3,389.99 $3,419.87 $20,087.02 Merced $17,674.40 $20,784.73 $21,784.78 $22,208.03 $22,195.65 $21,664.49 $126,312.08 Modoc $59.70 $74.00 $91.25 $63.95 $105.75 $91.49 $486.14 Mono $73.25 $56.50 $68.25 $82.75 $67.50 $87.00 $435.25 Monterey $21,427.68 $21,469.88 $22,024.70 $21,218.30 $20,337.33 $18,140.76 $124,618.65 Napa $1,535.38 $1,665.58 $1,818.93 $1,879.75 $1,762.04 $1,648.67 $10,310.35 Nevada $1,949.73 $1,945.71 $2,125.24 $2,097.75 $2,180.83 $2,203.88 $12,503.14 Orange $47,484.83 $47,760.05 $51,581.42 $51,724.36 $52,568.63 $51,394.80 $302,514.09 Placer $4,970.08 $4,904.40 $5,200.53 $5,223.35 $5,489.44 $5,204.98 $30,992.78 Plumas $211.23 $157.15 $194.82 $196.59 $205.30 $214.55 $1,179.64 Riverside $77,544.21 $77,274.51 $79,794.91 $80,607.59 $81,874.54 $81,737.58 $478,833.34 Sacramento $96,514.27 $96,665.64 $102,217.77 $101,011.76 $103,206.66 $102,566.28 $602,182.38 San Benito $2,642.93 $2,444.18 $2,572.16 $2,704.54 $2,561.12 $2,344.35 $15,269.28 San Bernardino $100,608.38 $100,391.98 $105,849.82 $104,778.72 $109,791.16 $107,557.62 $628,977.68 San Diego $78,934.85 $78,623.21 $83,511.34 $84,299.79 $86,646.37 $86,100.62 $498,116.18 San Francisco $25,141.31 $24,778.44 $26,964.67 $26,904.73 $26,884.45 $27,523.43 $158,197.03 San Joaquin $33,995.20 $33,685.10 $34,412.36 $34,457.54 $34,924.03 $34,136.70 $205,610.93 San Luis Obispo $6,464.58 $6,440.92 $6,594.49 $6,489.48 $6,457.86 $6,592.25 $39,039.58 San Mateo $8,171.34 $8,075.86 $8,517.22 $8,308.34 $8,956.55 $8,137.08 $50,166.39 Santa Barbara $12,979.79 $12,530.36 $13,498.77 $13,216.89 $12,763.58 $12,309.54 $77,298.93 Santa Clara $39,751.30 $39,235.02 $42,393.45 $41,619.53 $42,447.15 $41,282.32 $246,728.77 Santa Cruz $4,907.84 $4,993.54 $5,293.86 $5,010.08 $5,177.10 $4,594.22 $29,976.64 Shasta $5,191.49 $5,128.06 $5,526.87 $5,684.14 $5,664.25 $5,623.34 $32,818.15 Sierra $49.45 $60.00 $71.95 $67.00 $64.50 $94.50 $407.40 Siskiyou $1,948.66 $1,885.61 $2,056.52 $2,101.02 $1,928.18 $1,856.72 $11,776.71 Solano $18,002.74 $19,673.14 $20,584.37 $20,345.29 $20,936.96 $20,308.47 $119,850.97 Sonoma $4,976.23 $4,949.36 $5,404.04 $5,104.03 $5,359.83 $5,179.98 $30,973.47 Stanislaus $19,877.08 $20,978.11 $21,411.27 $21,374.65 $22,449.44 $22,185.07 $128,275.62 Sutter $3,799.01 $3,650.90 $3,784.10 $3,936.39 $3,703.06 $3,793.14 $22,666.60 Tehama $3,016.94 $2,887.06 $3,340.18 $3,337.43 $3,502.45 $3,039.04 $19,123.10 Trinity $215.97 $259.00 $292.65 $214.99 $233.65 $261.12 $1,477.38 Tulare $28,125.80 $28,001.70 $28,638.19 $28,976.05 $29,174.13 $29,014.27 $171,930.14 Tuolumne $1,435.49 $1,571.79 $1,595.67 $1,616.13 $1,801.94 $1,684.19 $9,705.21 Ventura $17,729.14 $17,562.73 $18,931.27 $18,192.08 $18,712.99 $17,988.46 $109,116.67 Yolo $3,328.36 $3,905.44 $3,712.25 $3,705.28 $4,101.71 $4,167.09 $22,920.13 Yuba $4,715.30 $4,516.55 $4,790.29 $4,693.45 $4,845.61 $4,911.19 $28,472.39 Grand Total $1,587,798.76 $1,591,110.73 $1,674,742.38 $1,663,916.52 $1,689,762.20 $1,662,480.58 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,869,811.17 ATM Surcharges by County &A &P of &N &D ”

” 2012-2013 CalWORKs County Single Allocation Report CalWORKs Item County Single Allocation Amount County Single Allocation Amount NOT SPENT by Counties Percentage of County Single Allocation Amount NOT SPENT by Counties CalWORKS Eligibility $617,598,000 $49,847,126 8% CalWORKs WtW $786,272,000 $70,480,998 9% CalWORKs Stage 1 Child Care $432,203,000 143,427,591 33% WtW Substance Abuse Services $50,656,492 $15,052,907 30% WtW Mental Health Services $76,907,508 $15,698,024 20% CalWORKs TCVAP $10,540,000 $7,876,440 75% Food Stamp (CalFresh) Administration 532,628,000 41,893,506 8% Prepared by: Kevin Aslanian Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 Phone: (916) 736-0616 Fax: (916) 736-2645 Cell: (916) 712-0071 E:Mail: [email protected] Web Page: ccwro.org COUNTY SINGLE ALLOCATION STATUTES 15204.2. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that the annual Budget Act appropriate state and federal funds in a single allocation to counties for the support of administrative activities undertaken by the counties to provide benefit payments to recipients of aid under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 and to provide required work activities and supportive services in order to efficiently and effectively carry out the purposes of that chapter. ALAMEDA $18,746,633 $14,135,648 $4,610,985 $0 24.60% ALPINE 76.67% ALPINE $92,104 $21,491 $70,613 $0 76.67% PLUMAS 48.27% AMADOR $357,047 $263,385 $93,662 $0 26.23% MODOC 44.05% BUTTE $5,079,833 $6,859,085 $0 ($1,779,252) 0.00% GLENN 42.72% CALAVERAS $640,187 $441,866 $198,321 $0 30.98% TUOLUMNE 38.83% COLUSA $344,780 $221,460 $123,320 $0 35.77% SUTTER 38.30% CONTRA COSTA $17,424,038 $18,669,012 $0 ($1,244,974) 0.00% COLUSA 35.77% DEL NORTE $1,114,274 $951,275 $162,999 $0 14.63% MADERA 35.51% EL DORADO $1,768,916 $1,616,516 $152,400 $0 8.62% SANTA CLARA 32.85% FRESNO $23,679,330 $21,357,710 $2,321,620 $0 9.80% CALAVERAS 30.98% GLENN $1,110,555 $636,171 $474,384 $0 42.72% YUBA 29.37% HUMBOLDT $3,328,977 $3,316,313 $12,664 $0 0.38% STANISLAUS 28.93% IMPERIAL $4,182,563 $4,528,563 $0 ($346,000) 0.00% KINGS 28.34% INYO $309,902 $460,545 $0 ($150,643) 0.00% SANTA CRUZ 28.29% KERN $17,737,958 $16,120,822 $1,617,136 $0 9.12% RIVERSIDE 28.06% KINGS $3,020,128 $2,164,270 $855,858 $0 28.34% LAKE 27.86% LAKE $1,468,153 $1,059,166 $408,987 $0 27.86% AMADOR 26.23% LASSEN $533,475 $591,813 $0 ($58,338) 0.00% PLACER 25.97% LOS ANGELES $176,987,231 $183,878,352 $0 ($6,891,121) 0.00% ALAMEDA 24.60% MADERA $2,883,849 $1,859,771 $1,024,078 $0 35.51% NEVADA 21.49% MARIN $2,312,894 $3,206,356 $0 ($893,462) 0.00% SAN JOAQUIN 17.02% MARIPOSA $461,154 $478,659 $0 ($17,505) 0.00% TEHAMA 16.07% MENDOCINO $1,799,321 $1,973,857 $0 ($174,536) 0.00% DEL NORTE 14.63% MERCED $8,270,470 $7,390,099 $880,371 $0 10.64% ORANGE 14.13% MODOC $365,839 $204,692 $161,147 $0 44.05% SIERRA 13.14% MONO $120,708 $203,977 $0 ($83,269) 0.00% NAPA 11.85% MONTEREY $7,758,870 $7,093,600 $665,270 $0 8.57% YOLO 10.92% NAPA $1,014,920 $894,634 $120,286 $0 11.85% MERCED 10.64% NEVADA $1,032,982 $810,944 $222,038 $0 21.49% FRESNO 9.80% ORANGE $37,633,566 $32,315,518 $5,318,048 $0 14.13% KERN 9.12% PLACER $2,795,166 $2,069,159 $726,007 $0 25.97% EL DORADO 8.62% PLUMAS $338,365 $175,047 $163,318 $0 48.27% MONTEREY 8.57% RIVERSIDE $33,698,555 $24,244,372 $9,454,183 $0 28.06% SAN BERNARDINO 6.91% SACRAMENTO $39,198,750 $42,497,450 $0 ($3,298,700) 0.00% SHASTA 2.50% SAN BENITO $777,420 $813,549 $0 ($36,129) 0.00% HUMBOLDT 0.38% SAN BERNARDINO $46,921,537 $43,679,826 $3,241,711 $0 6.91% BUTTE 0.00% SAN DIEGO $29,195,331 $34,516,291 $0 ($5,320,960) 0.00% CONTRA COSTA 0.00% SAN FRANCISCO $11,756,427 $12,723,753 $0 ($967,326) 0.00% IMPERIAL 0.00% SAN JOAQUIN $11,407,296 $9,466,041 $1,941,255 $0 17.02% INYO 0.00% SAN LUIS OBISPO $3,968,045 $5,168,501 $0 ($1,200,456) 0.00% LASSEN 0.00% SAN MATEO $5,405,069 $5,928,896 $0 ($523,827) 0.00% LOS ANGELES 0.00% SANTA BARBARA $5,105,269 $6,049,448 $0 ($944,179) 0.00% MARIN 0.00% SANTA CLARA $24,053,073 $16,151,820 $7,901,253 $0 32.85% MARIPOSA 0.00% SANTA CRUZ $3,673,097 $2,633,937 $1,039,160 $0 28.29% MENDOCINO 0.00% SHASTA $2,912,887 $2,840,002 $72,885 $0 2.50% MONO 0.00% SIERRA $150,578 $130,790 $19,788 $0 13.14% SACRAMENTO 0.00% SISKIYOU $742,629 $1,002,327 $0 ($259,698) 0.00% SAN BENITO 0.00% SOLANO $6,989,908 $7,643,533 $0 ($653,625) 0.00% SAN DIEGO 0.00% SONOMA $6,155,538 $6,409,620 $0 ($254,082) 0.00% SAN FRANCISCO 0.00% STANISLAUS $11,311,408 $8,039,022 $3,272,386 $0 28.93% SAN LUIS OBISPO 0.00% SUTTER $1,615,279 $996,603 $618,676 $0 38.30% SAN MATEO 0.00% TEHAMA $1,860,291 $1,561,387 $298,904 $0 16.07% SANTA BARBARA 0.00% TRINITY $288,257 $388,166 $0 ($99,909) 0.00% SISKIYOU 0.00% TULARE $10,388,785 $11,096,279 $0 ($707,494) 0.00% SOLANO 0.00% TUOLUMNE $971,979 $594,569 $377,410 $0 38.83% SONOMA 0.00% VENTURA $8,161,873 $9,302,694 $0 ($1,140,821) 0.00% TRINITY 0.00% YOLO $3,183,869 $2,836,179 $347,690 $0 10.92% TULARE 0.00% YUBA $2,990,662 $2,112,349 $878,313 $0 29.37% VENTURA 0.00% TOTAL $617,598,000 $594,797,180 $49,847,126 ($27,046,306) 8.07% TOTAL 8.07% FY 2012-13 FEDERAL & STATE GENERAL FUND CalWORKs Eligibility Administration ALLOCATION FY 2012-13 FEDERAL & STATE GENERAL FUND CalWORKs Eligibility Administration EXPENDITURES Amount of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties CalWORKs Eligibility Administration Counties Overspending Source: CFL 12\/13-18 Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED COUNTIES COUNTIESPercentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties PUBLISHED BY: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 712-0061 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian [email protected] ccwro.org FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 FED & GF FED & GF CalWRKs Emply Services CalWRKs Emply Services Deficit ALLOCATION EXPENDITURES Counties ALAMEDA $27,529,934 $32,289,186 $0 ($4,759,252) 0.00% ALPINE 99.76% ALPINE $242,956 $589 $242,367 $0 99.76% MONO 70.71% AMADOR $399,240 $195,295 $203,945 $0 51.08% INYO 56.27% BUTTE $8,168,726 $5,531,744 $2,636,982 $0 32.28% AMADOR 51.08% CALAVERAS $625,448 $1,015,177 $0 ($389,729) 0.00% SAN LUIS OBISPO 50.27% COLUSA $570,806 $589,293 $0 ($18,487) 0.00% SISKIYOU 43.29% CONTRA COSTA $24,355,191 $26,057,338 $0 ($1,702,147) 0.00% SIERRA 43.02% DEL NORTE $1,568,844 $1,451,999 $116,845 $0 7.45% MENDOCINO 41.79% EL DORADO $2,394,317 $1,969,809 $424,508 $0 17.73% PLUMAS 41.33% FRESNO $27,774,176 $28,568,621 $0 ($794,445) 0.00% LASSEN 39.53% GLENN $1,676,871 $1,865,532 $0 ($188,661) 0.00% BUTTE 32.28% HUMBOLDT $5,264,583 $8,120,246 $0 ($2,855,663) 0.00% SOLANO 29.91% IMPERIAL $5,136,313 $5,917,071 $0 ($780,758) 0.00% TULARE 26.04% INYO $527,071 $230,497 $296,574 $0 56.27% TUOLUMNE 25.94% KERN $21,564,118 $19,223,832 $2,340,286 $0 10.85% SAN DIEGO 21.76% KINGS $3,774,974 $4,493,264 $0 ($718,290) 0.00% MADERA 19.37% LAKE $2,934,539 $2,958,253 $0 ($23,714) 0.00% MARIN 18.60% LASSEN $808,967 $489,189 $319,778 $0 39.53% SAN MATEO 17.88% LOS ANGELES $235,039,578 $209,547,512 $25,492,066 $0 10.85% EL DORADO 17.73% MADERA $3,396,588 $2,738,838 $657,750 $0 19.37% SANTA BARBARA 13.34% MARIN $3,241,041 $2,638,249 $602,792 $0 18.60% SAN BENITO 13.30% MARIPOSA $531,522 $857,606 $0 ($326,084) 0.00% SACRAMENTO 12.43% MENDOCINO $2,632,128 $1,532,251 $1,099,877 $0 41.79% ORANGE 12.26% MERCED $10,325,455 $10,284,364 $41,091 $0 0.40% KERN 10.85% MODOC $620,013 $772,832 $0 ($152,819) 0.00% LOS ANGELES 10.85% MONO $551,616 $161,571 $390,045 $0 70.71% YUBA 10.39% MONTEREY $9,663,283 $9,998,040 $0 ($334,757) 0.00% DEL NORTE 7.45% NAPA $1,242,193 $1,960,518 $0 ($718,325) 0.00% SANTA CLARA 6.47% NEVADA $1,723,589 $1,977,227 $0 ($253,638) 0.00% VENTURA 5.67% ORANGE $48,161,503 $42,259,248 $5,902,255 $0 12.26% PLACER 3.80% PLACER $4,171,468 $4,012,932 $158,536 $0 3.80% SHASTA 3.19% PLUMAS $818,699 $480,299 $338,400 $0 41.33% TEHAMA 2.98% RIVERSIDE $32,489,293 $32,662,383 $0 ($173,090) 0.00% MERCED 0.40% SACRAMENTO $49,355,763 $43,220,175 $6,135,588 $0 12.43% ALAMEDA 0.00% SAN BENITO $769,542 $667,155 $102,387 $0 13.30% CALAVERAS 0.00% SAN BERNARDINO $42,586,216 $48,625,150 $0 ($6,038,934) 0.00% COLUSA 0.00% SAN DIEGO $33,816,181 $26,458,664 $7,357,517 $0 21.76% CONTRA COSTA 0.00% SAN FRANCISCO $19,713,125 $20,211,608 $0 ($498,483) 0.00% FRESNO 0.00% SAN JOAQUIN $13,464,848 $14,815,898 $0 ($1,351,050) 0.00% GLENN 0.00% SAN LUIS OBISPO $5,834,530 $2,901,765 $2,932,765 $0 50.27% HUMBOLDT 0.00% SAN MATEO $7,455,930 $6,122,683 $1,333,247 $0 17.88% IMPERIAL 0.00% SANTA BARBARA $6,700,916 $5,807,045 $893,871 $0 13.34% KINGS 0.00% SANTA CLARA $35,685,575 $33,378,388 $2,307,187 $0 6.47% LAKE 0.00% SANTA CRUZ $5,860,808 $7,552,320 $0 ($1,691,512) 0.00% MARIPOSA 0.00% SHASTA $4,054,216 $3,924,845 $129,371 $0 3.19% MODOC 0.00% SIERRA $238,655 $135,980 $102,675 $0 43.02% MONTEREY 0.00% SISKIYOU $1,521,384 $862,782 $658,602 $0 43.29% NAPA 0.00% SOLANO $9,354,595 $6,556,817 $2,797,778 $0 29.91% NEVADA 0.00% SONOMA $8,485,678 $9,050,066 $0 ($564,388) 0.00% RIVERSIDE 0.00% STANISLAUS $13,844,391 $14,861,219 $0 ($1,016,828) 0.00% SAN BERNARDINO 0.00% SUTTER $1,934,023 $2,263,293 $0 ($329,270) 0.00% SAN FRANCISCO 0.00% TEHAMA $2,551,599 $2,475,683 $75,916 $0 2.98% SAN JOAQUIN 0.00% TRINITY $470,543 $555,439 $0 ($84,896) 0.00% SANTA CRUZ 0.00% TULARE $11,478,116 $8,488,741 $2,989,375 $0 26.04% SONOMA 0.00% TUOLUMNE $1,233,107 $913,221 $319,886 $0 25.94% STANISLAUS 0.00% VENTURA $10,688,287 $10,082,271 $606,016 $0 5.67% SUTTER 0.00% YOLO $4,682,105 $5,633,809 $0 ($951,704) 0.00% TRINITY 0.00% YUBA $4,566,824 $4,092,104 $474,720 $0 10.39% YOLO 0.00% TOTAL $786,272,000 $742,507,926 $70,480,998 ($26,716,924) 8.96% TOTAL 8.96% Source: CALWORKS EMPLOYMENT SERVICES SINGLE ALLOCATION COUNTIES COUNTIES Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED Amount of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties CFL 12\/13-18 PERCENTAGE of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties PUBLISHED BY: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 712-0061 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian [email protected] ccwro.org ALAMEDA $21,701,221 $21,138,744 $562,477 $0 2.59% ALPINE 98.20% ALPINE $42,310 $761 $41,549 $0 98.20% MONO 83.88% AMADOR $177,541 $117,652 $59,889 $0 33.73% MADERA 76.76% BUTTE $2,195,481 $1,450,985 $744,496 $0 33.91% TRINITY 76.35% CALAVERAS $227,103 $166,625 $60,478 $0 26.63% TEHAMA 62.96% COLUSA $95,404 $64,676 $30,728 $0 32.21% SAN JOAQUIN 62.46% CONTRA COSTA $6,329,424 $5,618,481 $710,943 $0 11.23% YUBA 57.95% DEL NORTE $353,169 $298,668 $54,501 $0 15.43% TUOLUMNE 54.41% EL DORADO $439,056 $323,144 $115,912 $0 26.40% SISKIYOU 53.01% FRESNO $19,226,151 $9,283,882 $9,942,269 $0 51.71% INYO 52.74% GLENN $263,750 $160,390 $103,360 $0 39.19% SUTTER 52.54% HUMBOLDT $1,053,030 $634,817 $418,213 $0 39.72% FRESNO 51.71% IMPERIAL $2,661,994 $2,033,582 $628,412 $0 23.61% SOLANO 50.89% INYO $226,641 $107,101 $119,540 $0 52.74% KERN 50.37% KERN $12,959,313 $6,432,262 $6,527,051 $0 50.37% SACRAMENTO 45.51% KINGS $1,702,638 $1,436,593 $266,045 $0 15.63% LOS ANGELES 44.53% LAKE $281,730 $244,177 $37,553 $0 13.33% TULARE 43.55% LASSEN $257,205 $201,235 $55,970 $0 21.76% NAPA 42.50% LOS ANGELES $133,557,273 $74,087,395 $59,469,878 $0 44.53% HUMBOLDT 39.72% MADERA $1,011,261 $234,993 $776,268 $0 76.76% GLENN 39.19% MARIN $1,750,483 $1,705,261 $45,222 $0 2.58% STANISLAUS 39.11% MARIPOSA $78,133 $55,576 $22,557 $0 28.87% MONTEREY 38.71% MENDOCINO $420,323 $297,884 $122,439 $0 29.13% PLUMAS 37.51% MERCED $3,019,774 $2,150,910 $868,864 $0 28.77% SAN BERNARDINO 35.74% MODOC $19,009 $25,000 $0 ($5,991) 0.00% BUTTE 33.91% MONO $72,877 $11,746 $61,131 $0 83.88% YOLO 33.74% MONTEREY $4,061,522 $2,489,166 $1,572,356 $0 38.71% AMADOR 33.73% NAPA $600,691 $345,418 $255,273 $0 42.50% COLUSA 32.21% NEVADA $591,538 $402,707 $188,831 $0 31.92% NEVADA 31.92% ORANGE $15,685,381 $13,957,902 $1,727,479 $0 11.01% VENTURA 29.94% PLACER $2,360,471 $1,680,011 $680,460 $0 28.83% MENDOCINO 29.13% PLUMAS $105,365 $65,844 $39,521 $0 37.51% MARIPOSA 28.87% RIVERSIDE $33,249,107 $25,600,595 $7,648,512 $0 23.00% PLACER 28.83% SACRAMENTO $23,470,067 $12,789,130 $10,680,937 $0 45.51% MERCED 28.77% SAN BENITO $755,146 $587,660 $167,486 $0 22.18% SHASTA 28.00% SAN BERNARDINO $36,758,173 $23,621,326 $13,136,847 $0 35.74% CALAVERAS 26.63% SAN DIEGO $24,033,040 $21,327,207 $2,705,833 $0 11.26% EL DORADO 26.40% SAN FRANCISCO $11,336,197 $10,659,067 $677,130 $0 5.97% SAN LUIS OBISPO 25.00% SAN JOAQUIN $9,014,365 $3,384,338 $5,630,027 $0 62.46% IMPERIAL 23.61% SAN LUIS OBISPO $1,762,064 $1,321,574 $440,490 $0 25.00% SONOMA 23.55% SAN MATEO $2,895,456 $2,416,642 $478,814 $0 16.54% RIVERSIDE 23.00% SANTA BARBARA $3,167,420 $3,064,607 $102,813 $0 3.25% SAN BENITO 22.18% SANTA CLARA $14,513,075 $12,498,462 $2,014,613 $0 13.88% LASSEN 21.76% SANTA CRUZ $3,813,079 $3,337,268 $475,811 $0 12.48% SAN MATEO 16.54% SHASTA $1,864,701 $1,342,664 $522,037 $0 28.00% KINGS 15.63% SIERRA $20,287 $76,001 $0 ($55,714) 0.00% DEL NORTE 15.43% SISKIYOU $260,511 $122,417 $138,094 $0 53.01% SANTA CLARA 13.88% SOLANO $4,704,049 $2,310,095 $2,393,954 $0 50.89% LAKE 13.33% SONOMA $3,842,194 $2,937,285 $904,909 $0 23.55% SANTA CRUZ 12.48% STANISLAUS $2,883,852 $1,755,916 $1,127,936 $0 39.11% SAN DIEGO 11.26% SUTTER $1,268,113 $601,893 $666,220 $0 52.54% CONTRA COSTA 11.23% TEHAMA $541,857 $200,696 $341,161 $0 62.96% ORANGE 11.01% TRINITY $27,977 $6,617 $21,360 $0 76.35% SAN FRANCISCO 5.97% TULARE $5,731,377 $3,235,391 $2,495,986 $0 43.55% SANTA BARBARA 3.25% TUOLUMNE $263,298 $120,032 $143,266 $0 54.41% ALAMEDA 2.59% VENTURA $8,702,816 $6,097,279 $2,605,537 $0 29.94% MARIN 2.58% YOLO $2,488,549 $1,648,976 $839,573 $0 33.74% MODOC 0.00% YUBA $1,308,968 $550,388 $758,580 $0 57.95% SIERRA 0.00% TOTAL $432,203,000 $288,837,114 $143,427,591 33.19% TOTAL 33.19% COUNTIES Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED CFL 12\/13\/18 FY 2012-2013 Federal & General Funds Child Care Stage 1 Source: COUNTIES Amount of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties PERCENTAGE of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties FY 2012-13 FEDERAL & GENERAL FUND CalWORKs Stage 1 Child Care ALLOCATION FY 2012-13 FEDERAL & GENERAL FUND CalWORKs Stage 1 Child Care EXPENDITIRES Deficit Counties PUBLISHED BY: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 712-0061 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian [email protected] ccwro.org FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 GENERAL FUND GENERAL FUND CalWRKs Subs Abuse CalWRKs Subs Abuse Deficit ALLOCATION EXPENDITURES Counties ALAMEDA $893,145 $525 $892,620 $0 99.94% ALPINE 100.00% ALPINE $256 $0 $256 $0 100.00% AMADOR 100.00% AMADOR $17,269 $0 $17,269 $0 100.00% COLUSA 100.00% BUTTE $376,085 $311,445 $64,640 $0 17.19% MENDOCINO 100.00% CALAVERAS $29,689 $10,570 $19,119 $0 64.40% NAPA 100.00% COLUSA $9,085 $0 $9,085 $0 100.00% TRINITY 100.00% CONTRA COSTA $1,028,553 $195,759 $832,794 $0 80.97% ALAMEDA 99.94% DEL NORTE $41,468 $53,915 $0 ($12,447) 0.00% NEVADA 99.47% EL DORADO $85,244 $29,902 $55,342 $0 64.92% IMPERIAL 91.63% FRESNO $3,057,285 $2,917,717 $139,568 $0 4.57% MADERA 90.31% GLENN $40,221 $44,175 $0 ($3,954) 0.00% KINGS 90.04% HUMBOLDT $255,662 $258,889 $0 ($3,227) 0.00% SIERRA 86.68% IMPERIAL $218,394 $18,277 $200,117 $0 91.63% PLACER 82.79% INYO $15,053 $30,669 $0 ($15,616) 0.00% CONTRA COSTA 80.97% KERN $1,397,257 $598,306 $798,951 $0 57.18% YUBA 78.45% KINGS $160,224 $15,958 $144,266 $0 90.04% MARIN 75.75% LAKE $125,042 $52,974 $72,068 $0 57.64% MONTEREY 75.45% LASSEN $71,724 $71,725 $0 ($1) 0.00% ORANGE 70.79% LOS ANGELES $18,524,861 $15,506,118 $3,018,743 $0 16.30% SAN BERNARDINO 70.50% MADERA $164,179 $15,906 $148,273 $0 90.31% EL DORADO 64.92% MARIN $63,382 $15,372 $48,010 $0 75.75% SANTA CLARA 64.85% MARIPOSA $26,530 $12,149 $14,381 $0 54.21% CALAVERAS 64.40% MENDOCINO $61,191 $0 $61,191 $0 100.00% SHASTA 63.59% MERCED $710,907 $281,056 $429,851 $0 60.47% MERCED 60.47% MODOC $58,276 $67,900 $0 ($9,624) 0.00% LAKE 57.64% MONO $13,998 $14,000 $0 ($2) 0.00% SAN JOAQUIN 57.29% MONTEREY $392,128 $96,284 $295,844 $0 75.45% KERN 57.18% NAPA $35,436 $0 $35,436 $0 100.00% MARIPOSA 54.21% NEVADA $54,257 $285 $53,972 $0 99.47% SONOMA 50.84% ORANGE $1,655,397 $483,575 $1,171,822 $0 70.79% TULARE 38.77% PLACER $207,845 $35,776 $172,069 $0 82.79% SAN LUIS OBISPO 38.04% PLUMAS $26,992 $35,088 $0 ($8,096) 0.00% YOLO 34.54% RIVERSIDE $1,486,262 $1,922,357 $0 ($436,095) 0.00% TUOLUMNE 22.59% SACRAMENTO $3,736,318 $3,036,265 $700,053 $0 18.74% SANTA CRUZ 22.15% SAN BENITO $38,648 $121,889 $0 ($83,241) 0.00% SAN DIEGO 19.34% SAN BERNARDINO $3,518,693 $1,038,021 $2,480,672 $0 70.50% SUTTER 18.96% SAN DIEGO $2,665,395 $2,149,944 $515,451 $0 19.34% SACRAMENTO 18.74% SAN FRANCISCO $776,137 $794,601 $0 ($18,464) 0.00% BUTTE 17.19% SAN JOAQUIN $1,371,972 $585,972 $786,000 $0 57.29% LOS ANGELES 16.30% SAN LUIS OBISPO $158,253 $98,052 $60,201 $0 38.04% SOLANO 8.74% SAN MATEO $334,558 $533,043 $0 ($198,485) 0.00% FRESNO 4.57% SANTA BARBARA $515,547 $528,601 $0 ($13,054) 0.00% TEHAMA 3.78% SANTA CLARA $900,160 $316,372 $583,788 $0 64.85% VENTURA 3.77% SANTA CRUZ $273,195 $212,679 $60,516 $0 22.15% SISKIYOU 2.75% SHASTA $376,777 $137,168 $239,609 $0 63.59% DEL NORTE 0.00% SIERRA $1,547 $206 $1,341 $0 86.68% GLENN 0.00% SISKIYOU $131,462 $127,843 $3,619 $0 2.75% HUMBOLDT 0.00% SOLANO $635,185 $579,649 $55,536 $0 8.74% INYO 0.00% SONOMA $407,400 $200,261 $207,139 $0 50.84% LASSEN 0.00% STANISLAUS $1,106,387 $1,165,703 $0 ($59,316) 0.00% MODOC 0.00% SUTTER $128,892 $104,450 $24,442 $0 18.96% MONO 0.00% TEHAMA $242,774 $233,588 $9,186 $0 3.78% PLUMAS 0.00% TRINITY $7,057 $0 $7,057 $0 100.00% RIVERSIDE 0.00% TULARE $1,095,811 $670,980 $424,831 $0 38.77% SAN BENITO 0.00% TUOLUMNE $64,902 $50,243 $14,659 $0 22.59% SAN FRANCISCO 0.00% VENTURA $556,116 $535,125 $20,991 $0 3.77% SAN MATEO 0.00% YOLO $184,648 $120,864 $63,784 $0 34.54% SANTA BARBARA 0.00% YUBA $125,361 $27,016 $98,345 $0 78.45% STANISLAUS 0.00% #DIV\/0! #DIV\/0! TOTAL $50,656,492 $36,465,207 $15,052,907 ($861,622) 29.72% TOTAL 29.72% Source: WtW Substance Abuse CFL 12\/13-18 COUNTIES COUNTIES Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED Amount of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties PERCENTA GE of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties PUBLISHED BY: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 712-0061 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian [email protected] ccwro.org FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 GENERAL FUND GENERAL FUND CalWRKs Mental Health CalWRKs Mental Health Deficit ALLOCATION EXPENDITURES Counties ALAMEDA $3,236,318 $3,625,169 $0 ($388,851) 0.00% ALPINE 100.00% ALPINE $391 $0 $391 $0 100.00% AMADOR 100.00% AMADOR $26,276 $0 $26,276 $0 100.00% COLUSA 100.00% BUTTE $621,983 $553,678 $68,305 $0 10.98% EL DORADO 100.00% CALAVERAS $42,613 $4,328 $38,285 $0 89.84% MENDOCINO 100.00% COLUSA $15,718 $0 $15,718 $0 100.00% SAN BENITO 100.00% CONTRA COSTA $1,089,957 $1,012,191 $77,766 $0 7.13% SAN MATEO 100.00% DEL NORTE $62,275 $126,145 $0 ($63,870) 0.00% TRINITY 100.00% EL DORADO $78,736 $0 $78,736 $0 100.00% SAN LUIS OBISPO 97.30% FRESNO $3,705,987 $2,683,214 $1,022,773 $0 27.60% CALAVERAS 89.84% GLENN $80,482 $74,190 $6,292 $0 7.82% PLACER 88.12% HUMBOLDT $316,453 $773,997 $0 ($457,544) 0.00% RIVERSIDE 61.20% IMPERIAL $561,195 $246,770 $314,425 $0 56.03% KINGS 59.75% INYO $21,385 $35,639 $0 ($14,254) 0.00% STANISLAUS 58.96% KERN $2,246,264 $1,092,179 $1,154,085 $0 51.38% SAN BERNARDINO 56.07% KINGS $326,248 $131,316 $194,932 $0 59.75% IMPERIAL 56.03% LAKE $169,203 $176,278 $0 ($7,075) 0.00% KERN 51.38% LASSEN $71,750 $71,750 $0 $0 0.00% SIERRA 50.34% LOS ANGELES $27,758,902 $26,995,396 $763,506 $0 2.75% VENTURA 46.09% MADERA $403,591 $261,664 $141,927 $0 35.17% YUBA 45.46% MARIN $171,832 $136,759 $35,073 $0 20.41% NEVADA 44.61% MARIPOSA $30,845 $45,227 $0 ($14,382) 0.00% TULARE 38.76% MENDOCINO $94,385 $0 $94,385 $0 100.00% SAN JOAQUIN 37.59% MERCED $1,049,839 $729,862 $319,977 $0 30.48% MADERA 35.17% MODOC $39,784 $30,160 $9,624 $0 24.19% SOLANO 34.49% MONO $14,304 $14,304 $0 $0 0.00% NAPA 31.45% MONTEREY $705,563 $685,660 $19,903 $0 2.82% MERCED 30.48% NAPA $67,160 $46,037 $21,123 $0 31.45% SANTA CRUZ 29.59% NEVADA $92,219 $51,083 $41,136 $0 44.61% PLUMAS 28.43% ORANGE $3,445,284 $3,118,512 $326,772 $0 9.48% FRESNO 27.60% PLACER $305,677 $36,305 $269,372 $0 88.12% SACRAMENTO 27.47% PLUMAS $30,884 $22,104 $8,780 $0 28.43% SUTTER 26.34% RIVERSIDE $4,832,995 $1,875,331 $2,957,664 $0 61.20% YOLO 25.29% SACRAMENTO $4,461,790 $3,236,206 $1,225,584 $0 27.47% MODOC 24.19% SAN BENITO $57,297 $0 $57,297 $0 100.00% MARIN 20.41% SAN BERNARDINO $5,095,427 $2,238,431 $2,856,996 $0 56.07% BUTTE 10.98% SAN DIEGO $3,249,229 $3,475,683 $0 ($226,454) 0.00% ORANGE 9.48% SAN FRANCISCO $942,706 $1,227,992 $0 ($285,286) 0.00% TEHAMA 7.88% SAN JOAQUIN $2,254,573 $1,407,031 $847,542 $0 37.59% SISKIYOU 7.82% SAN LUIS OBISPO $145,990 $3,945 $142,045 $0 97.30% GLENN 7.82% SAN MATEO $198,484 $0 $198,484 $0 100.00% CONTRA COSTA 7.13% SANTA BARBARA $682,310 $684,134 $0 ($1,824) 0.00% MONTEREY 2.82% SANTA CLARA $1,406,040 $1,990,630 $0 ($584,590) 0.00% LOS ANGELES 2.75% SANTA CRUZ $313,093 $220,444 $92,649 $0 29.59% ALAMEDA 0.00% SHASTA $321,252 $441,480 $0 ($120,228) 0.00% DEL NORTE 0.00% SIERRA $2,356 $1,170 $1,186 $0 50.34% HUMBOLDT 0.00% SISKIYOU $138,687 $127,843 $10,844 $0 7.82% INYO 0.00% SOLANO $498,273 $326,436 $171,837 $0 34.49% LAKE 0.00% SONOMA $524,261 $606,730 $0 ($82,469) 0.00% LASSEN 0.00% STANISLAUS $1,386,646 $569,113 $817,533 $0 58.96% MARIPOSA 0.00% SUTTER $178,575 $131,546 $47,029 $0 26.34% MONO 0.00% TEHAMA $236,585 $217,937 $18,648 $0 7.88% SAN DIEGO 0.00% TRINITY $10,737 $0 $10,737 $0 100.00% SAN FRANCISCO 0.00% TULARE $1,643,573 $1,006,468 $637,105 $0 38.76% SANTA BARBARA 0.00% TUOLUMNE $121,318 $190,684 $0 ($69,366) 0.00% SANTA CLARA 0.00% VENTURA $857,869 $462,448 $395,421 $0 46.09% SHASTA 0.00% YOLO $253,044 $189,059 $63,985 $0 25.29% SONOMA 0.00% YUBA $210,895 $115,019 $95,876 $0 45.46% TUOLUMNE 0.00% TOTAL $76,907,508 $63,525,677 $15,698,024 ($2,316,193) 20.41% TOTAL 20.41% Source: WtW Mental Health Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED Amount of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED CFL 12\/13-18 COUNTIES COUNTIES PUBLISHED BY: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 712-0061 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian [email protected] ccwro.org Deficit Counties ALAMEDA $1,178,512 $14,727 $1,163,785 $0 98.75% ALPINE 100.00% ALPINE $2,226 $0 $2,226 $0 100.00% AMADOR 100.00% AMADOR $3,772 $0 $3,772 $0 100.00% BUTTE 100.00% BUTTE $28,171 $0 $28,171 $0 100.00% CALAVERAS 100.00% CALAVERAS $4,066 $0 $4,066 $0 100.00% COLUSA 100.00% COLUSA $2,226 $0 $2,226 $0 100.00% DEL NORTE 100.00% CONTRA COSTA $130,634 $12,223 $118,411 $0 90.64% EL DORADO 100.00% DEL NORTE $11,131 $0 $11,131 $0 100.00% GLENN 100.00% EL DORADO $7,575 $0 $7,575 $0 100.00% HUMBOLDT 100.00% FRESNO $1,876,586 $815,621 $1,060,965 $0 56.54% IMPERIAL 100.00% GLENN $6,086 $0 $6,086 $0 100.00% INYO 100.00% HUMBOLDT $19,309 $0 $19,309 $0 100.00% KINGS 100.00% IMPERIAL $49,215 $0 $49,215 $0 100.00% LAKE 100.00% INYO $2,249 $0 $2,249 $0 100.00% LASSEN 100.00% KERN $216,841 $255 $216,586 $0 99.88% MADERA 100.00% KINGS $33,891 $0 $33,891 $0 100.00% MARIPOSA 100.00% LAKE $9,572 $0 $9,572 $0 100.00% MENDOCINO 100.00% LASSEN $6,310 $0 $6,310 $0 100.00% MODOC 100.00% LOS ANGELES $2,722,516 $1,068,151 $1,654,365 $0 60.77% MONO 100.00% MADERA $22,261 $0 $22,261 $0 100.00% NEVADA 100.00% MARIN $72,356 $60,394 $11,962 $0 16.53% PLACER 100.00% MARIPOSA $2,226 $0 $2,226 $0 100.00% PLUMAS 100.00% MENDOCINO $10,326 $0 $10,326 $0 100.00% RIVERSIDE 100.00% MERCED $51,128 $102,425 $0 ($51,297) 0.00% SAN BENITO 100.00% MODOC $2,226 $0 $2,226 $0 100.00% SAN DIEGO 100.00% MONO $2,226 $0 $2,226 $0 100.00% SAN JOAQUIN 100.00% MONTEREY $80,963 $50,678 $30,285 $0 37.41% SAN MATEO 100.00% NAPA $59,189 $25,577 $33,612 $0 56.79% SANTA BARBARA 100.00% NEVADA $10,112 $0 $10,112 $0 100.00% SANTA CRUZ 100.00% ORANGE $219,719 $81,028 $138,691 $0 63.12% SHASTA 100.00% PLACER $31,153 $0 $31,153 $0 100.00% SIERRA 100.00% PLUMAS $2,336 $0 $2,336 $0 100.00% SISKIYOU 100.00% RIVERSIDE $491,104 $0 $491,104 $0 100.00% SOLANO 100.00% SACRAMENTO $289,582 $793 $288,789 $0 99.73% SUTTER 100.00% SAN BENITO $14,092 $0 $14,092 $0 100.00% TEHAMA 100.00% SAN BERNARDINO $628,545 $1,524 $627,021 $0 99.76% TRINITY 100.00% SAN DIEGO $437,192 $0 $437,192 $0 100.00% TULARE 100.00% SAN FRANCISCO $203,126 $30,080 $173,046 $0 85.19% TUOLUMNE 100.00% SAN JOAQUIN $146,248 $0 $146,248 $0 100.00% VENTURA 100.00% SAN LUIS OBISPO $19,479 $1,947 $17,532 $0 90.00% YOLO 100.00% SAN MATEO $289,865 $0 $289,865 $0 100.00% YUBA 100.00% SANTA BARBARA $61,215 $0 $61,215 $0 100.00% KERN 99.88% SANTA CLARA $166,794 $510 $166,284 $0 99.69% SAN BERNARDINO 99.76% SANTA CRUZ $47,960 $0 $47,960 $0 100.00% SACRAMENTO 99.73% SHASTA $26,298 $0 $26,298 $0 100.00% SANTA CLARA 99.69% SIERRA $2,226 $0 $2,226 $0 100.00% ALAMEDA 98.75% SISKIYOU $4,567 $0 $4,567 $0 100.00% CONTRA COSTA 90.64% SOLANO $50,744 $0 $50,744 $0 100.00% SAN LUIS OBISPO 90.00% SONOMA $423,847 $427,075 $0 ($3,228) 0.00% SAN FRANCISCO 85.19% STANISLAUS $51,507 $25,077 $26,430 $0 51.31% ORANGE 63.12% SUTTER $23,238 $0 $23,238 $0 100.00% LOS ANGELES 60.77% TEHAMA $13,557 $0 $13,557 $0 100.00% NAPA 56.79% TRINITY $2,226 $0 $2,226 $0 100.00% FRESNO 56.54% TULARE $93,654 $0 $93,654 $0 100.00% STANISLAUS 51.31% TUOLUMNE $4,009 $0 $4,009 $0 100.00% MONTEREY 37.41% VENTURA $112,072 $0 $112,072 $0 100.00% MARIN 16.53% YOLO $41,654 $0 $41,654 $0 100.00% MERCED 0.00% YUBA $18,090 $0 $18,090 $0 100.00% SONOMA 0.00% TOTAL $10,540,000 $2,718,085 $7,876,440 ($54,525) 74.73% TOTAL 75% CFL 12\/13-34 Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED COUNTIES Source: Trafficking & Crime Victim Assistance Program (TCVAP) COUNTIES Amount of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties FY 2012-13 General Fund TCVAP Expenditures FY 2012-13 General Fund TCVAP Allocation Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties PUBLISHED BY: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 712-0061 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian [email protected] ccwro.org Deficit Counties ALAMEDA $20,605,295 $20,605,295 $0 $0 0.00% PLUMAS 64.94% ALPINE $60,971 $47,830 $13,141 $0 21.55% AMADOR 58.56% AMADOR $625,088 $259,017 $366,071 $0 58.56% LASSEN 35.56% BUTTE $4,441,585 $4,198,475 $243,110 $0 5.47% CALAVERAS 32.21% CALAVERAS $747,614 $506,804 $240,810 $0 32.21% IMPERIAL 29.78% COLUSA $247,944 $200,137 $47,807 $0 19.28% MADERA 28.98% CONTRA COSTA $13,810,675 $12,856,685 $953,990 $0 6.91% TULARE 28.07% DEL NORTE $689,365 $557,099 $132,266 $0 19.19% YOLO 26.75% EL DORADO $2,043,879 $1,774,936 $268,943 $0 13.16% SOLANO 26.39% FRESNO $21,226,466 $20,236,021 $990,445 $0 4.67% NEVADA 25.17% GLENN $517,048 $517,048 $0 $0 0.00% SAN DIEGO 24.55% HUMBOLDT $4,480,044 $4,480,044 $0 $0 0.00% STANISLAUS 23.17% IMPERIAL $3,399,503 $2,387,183 $1,012,320 $0 29.78% MARIPOSA 22.05% INYO $289,014 $293,962 $0 ($4,948) 0.00% TUOLUMNE 21.78% KERN $12,782,509 $10,527,540 $2,254,969 $0 17.64% ALPINE 21.55% KINGS $1,843,845 $1,623,054 $220,791 $0 11.97% SIERRA 20.49% LAKE $1,125,998 $1,097,477 $28,521 $0 2.53% TEHAMA 19.75% LASSEN $406,126 $261,691 $144,435 $0 35.56% COLUSA 19.28% LOS ANGELES $149,371,209 $148,328,572 $1,042,637 $0 0.70% DEL NORTE 19.19% MADERA $1,645,219 $1,168,458 $476,761 $0 28.98% SAN BENITO 18.73% MARIN $2,176,802 $2,417,887 $0 ($241,085) 0.00% MENDOCINO 18.60% MARIPOSA $418,026 $325,847 $92,179 $0 22.05% SAN MATEO 17.90% MENDOCINO $1,411,329 $1,148,774 $262,555 $0 18.60% KERN 17.64% MERCED $5,307,486 $4,980,057 $327,429 $0 6.17% SAN BERNARDINO 13.38% MODOC $218,408 $190,012 $28,396 $0 13.00% EL DORADO 13.16% MONO $291,235 $291,235 $0 $0 0.00% MODOC 13.00% MONTEREY $6,812,342 $6,812,342 $0 $0 0.00% NAPA 12.40% NAPA $1,473,905 $1,291,213 $182,692 $0 12.40% SAN LUIS OBISPO 12.08% NEVADA $1,120,131 $838,204 $281,927 $0 25.17% KINGS 11.97% ORANGE $25,513,264 $23,239,508 $2,273,756 $0 8.91% YUBA 10.96% PLACER $3,698,255 $3,487,569 $210,686 $0 5.70% RIVERSIDE 10.89% PLUMAS $294,044 $103,105 $190,939 $0 64.94% TRINITY 10.01% RIVERSIDE $27,927,431 $24,885,718 $3,041,713 $0 10.89% SHASTA 9.22% SACRAMENTO $26,424,547 $25,218,354 $1,206,193 $0 4.56% SUTTER 9.06% SAN BENITO $720,708 $585,734 $134,974 $0 18.73% ORANGE 8.91% SAN BERNARDINO $37,482,678 $32,466,241 $5,016,437 $0 13.38% CONTRA COSTA 6.91% SAN DIEGO $34,036,056 $25,680,673 $8,355,383 $0 24.55% MERCED 6.17% SAN FRANCISCO $17,262,820 $17,262,820 $0 $0 0.00% PLACER 5.70% SAN JOAQUIN $6,596,210 $6,389,568 $206,642 $0 3.13% BUTTE 5.47% SAN LUIS OBISPO $3,177,446 $2,793,752 $383,694 $0 12.08% VENTURA 5.16% SAN MATEO $5,793,425 $4,756,529 $1,036,896 $0 17.90% FRESNO 4.67% SANTA BARBARA $5,353,495 $5,313,543 $39,952 $0 0.75% SACRAMENTO 4.56% SANTA CLARA $20,960,434 $20,109,680 $850,754 $0 4.06% SANTA CLARA 4.06% SANTA CRUZ $3,632,562 $3,890,941 $0 ($258,379) 0.00% SAN JOAQUIN 3.13% SHASTA $3,455,426 $3,136,837 $318,589 $0 9.22% LAKE 2.53% SIERRA $117,068 $93,076 $23,992 $0 20.49% SANTA BARBARA 0.75% SISKIYOU $876,139 $876,139 $0 $0 0.00% LOS ANGELES 0.70% SOLANO $6,212,774 $4,572,920 $1,639,854 $0 26.39% ALAMEDA 0.00% SONOMA $5,322,081 $5,322,081 $0 $0 0.00% GLENN 0.00% STANISLAUS $9,777,547 $7,512,216 $2,265,331 $0 23.17% HUMBOLDT 0.00% SUTTER $1,071,134 $974,090 $97,044 $0 9.06% INYO 0.00% TEHAMA $1,020,033 $818,555 $201,478 $0 19.75% MARIN 0.00% TRINITY $298,920 $269,011 $29,909 $0 10.01% MONO 0.00% TULARE $11,315,771 $8,138,970 $3,176,801 $0 28.07% MONTEREY 0.00% TUOLUMNE $922,490 $721,604 $200,886 $0 21.78% SAN FRANCISCO 0.00% VENTURA $9,342,739 $8,860,605 $482,134 $0 5.16% SANTA CRUZ 0.00% YOLO $2,605,156 $1,908,342 $696,814 $0 26.75% SISKIYOU 0.00% YUBA $1,828,286 $1,627,826 $200,460 $0 10.96% SONOMA 0.00% TOTAL $532,628,000 $491,238,906 $41,893,506 ($504,412) 8% TOTAL 8% CFL 12\/13-15 & 39 Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties SORTED COUNTIES Source: CALFRESH ADMINISTRATION COUNTIES Amount of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties FY 2012-13 General Fund CalFresh Administration Expenditures FY 2012-13 General Fund CalFresh Administration Allocation Percentage of Allocation Not SPENT by Counties PUBLISHED BY: Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. (916) 712-0061 CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Aslanian [email protected] ccwro.org ”

“Sheet1 Job Search 12% Workfare 10% October, 2012 Working 56% Education 36% CalWORKs Terminated Due to Employment 7% PART A. ENROLLMENT DATA 2 – parent Single-parent TOTAL Percentage of Enrolles 1. Enrollees .. . 49,098 108,018 157,116 2. Exemptions 26,967 106,347 133,314 3. Removed from the Assistance Unit a. WTW sanctions . 14,584 35,268 49,852 42% 4. Entered employment . 0 0% 5. Terminations due to employment . 2,852 5,648 8,500 7% PART B. ACTIVITIES 1,639 2,449 Percentage of Undupl. Part. 6. Appraisal 3,959 9,330 13,289 11% 7. Assessment .. 2,026 4,708 6,734 6% 8. Reappraisal … 125 402 527 0.442% 9. Job search & job readiness assistance .. 4,400 10,397 14,797 12% 10. Unsubsidized employment 17,080 42,303 59,383 11. Self-employment 1,829 3,263 5,092 4% 12. Subsidized private sector employment . 222 659 881 1% 13. Subsidized public sector employment .. 235 684 919 1% 14. On-the-job training (OJT) . 17 54 71 0.1% 15. Grant-based on-the-job training (OJT) . 2 8 10 0.008% 16. Work-study .. 307 853 1,160 1% 17. Supported work or transitional employment 5 33 38 0.032% 18. Work experience 1,090 2,658 3,748 3% 19. Community service .. 2,567 6,046 8,613 7% 20. Job skills training directly related to employment .. 1,766 4,233 5,999 5% 21. Vocational education training .. 5,024 16,416 21,440 18% 22. Education directly related to employment . 1,656 2,917 4,573 4% 23. Adult basic education .. 3,056 3,189 6,245 5% 24. Satisfactory progress in a secondary school .. 96 333 429 0.359% 25. Other activities .. 1,245 4,132 5,377 5% 26. Providing childcare to community services participants . 1 3 4 0.003% 27. Mental health services .. 931 6,272 7,203 6% 28. Substance abuse services . 246 1,327 1,573 1% 29. Domestic abuse services .. 123 3,190 3,313 3% a. Granted waiver of program rules (Subset of 29) . 66 2,657 2,723 2% 30. Number of individuals 6-29 (Unduplicated) 33,598 85,748 119,346 a. Self-initiated programs (SIPs) (Unduplicated subset of 30) . 2,302 8,204 10,506 9% PART C. NONPARTICIPATION STATUS 31. Noncompliance . 7,723 17,770 25,493 21% 32. Good cause for not participating in WTW 4,139 8,566 12,705 11% PART D. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES 33. Transportation . 19,654 49,078 68,732 58% 34. Ancillary services . 4,491 10,391 14,882 12% PART E. POST-EMPLOYMENT\/JOB-RETENTION SERVICES 35. Post-employment\/Job-retention services .. 1,742 4,833 6,575 36. Post CalWORKs 60-month time limit services .. 1,276 7,695 8,971 DUPLICATED ACTIVITES DURING THE MONTH * 50,376 134,271 184,647 Source: DSS WtW 25 Report Source: DSS WtW 25 A Report * There are 119,, 346 unduplicated participants and there were 176,577 activities done by the 116,000 unduplicated participants. Sometimes participants do appraisal and job search the same month or job search and assessment the same month. Source: DSS WtW 25 A Report Source: DSS WtW 25 Report Sheet2 ”

“Sheet1 October Unduplicated Sanctions Sanctions Transportation Transportation 2012 Participants Sorted Sorted Statewide 119,346 49,852 42% Statewide 42% 68,732 58% Statewide 58% Alameda 4,658 1,553 33% Colusa 3300% 2,696 58% Alpine 0% Alpine 0 1 0% Mariposa 400% 0 0% Lassen 0% Amador 39 18 46% Sierra 200% 13 33% Napa 6% Butte 579 374 65% San Joaquin 161% 226 39% Plumas 16% Calaveras 178 28 16% Madera 145% 104 58% Ventura 17% Colusa 1 33 3300% Kern 131% 4 400% Tulare 19% Contra Costa 2,677 675 25% Mendocino 128% 973 36% San Mateo 25% Del Norte 447 25 6% Imperial 98% 166 37% Lake 26% El Dorado 199 132 66% Lassen 95% 212 107% Placer 29% Fresno 6,356 2,491 39% San Bernardino 82% 2,710 43% Santa Barbara 29% Glenn 72 20 28% Nevada 81% 25 35% Orange 29% Humboldt 373 166 45% Shasta 81% 197 53% San Luis Obispo 30% Imperial 1,221 1,192 98% Monterey 81% 414 34% Shasta 32% Inyo 33 6 18% Tehama 74% 24 73% Siskiyou 32% Kern 2,408 3,161 131% Tuolumne 72% 1,135 47% Amador 33% Kings 485 281 58% Merced 72% 345 71% San Benito 33% Lake 167 92 55% Sonoma 69% 44 26% Imperial 34% Lassen 19 18 95% Stanislaus 67% 0 0% Stanislaus 34% Los Angeles 35,683 12,787 36% El Dorado 66% 22,381 63% Glenn 35% Madera 161 233 145% Riverside 66% 133 83% Contra Costa 36% Marin 181 73 40% Butte 65% 162 90% Del Norte 37% Mariposa 4 16 400% Kings 58% 38 950% Mendocino 39% Mendocino 134 171 128% Lake 55% 52 39% Butte 39% Merced 1,301 939 72% Trinity 55% 567 44% Yolo 40% Modoc 32 13 41% Plumas 52% 18 56% Fresno 43% Mono 7 3 43% Amador 46% 3 43% Mono 43% Monterey 828 669 81% Sutter 46% 685 83% Merced 44% Napa 156 58 37% Humboldt 45% 10 6% Sacramento 46% Nevada 97 79 81% San Benito 44% 123 127% Tehama 47% Orange 4,591 1,511 33% Mono 43% 1,343 29% Kern 47% Placer 643 144 22% Yuba 43% 186 29% Tuolumne 49% Plumas 31 16 52% Modoc 41% 5 16% San Francisco 51% Riverside 6,631 4,375 66% Marin 40% 4,624 70% Humboldt 53% Sacramento 8,924 1,337 15% Fresno 39% 4,135 46% San Diego 56% San Benito 108 47 44% Ventura 38% 36 33% Modoc 56% San Bernardino 9,847 8,112 82% Solano 38% 9,810 100% San Joaquin 57% San Diego 10,911 957 9% Napa 37% 6,087 56% Alameda 58% San Francisco 1,474 271 18% Los Angeles 36% 758 51% Calaveras 58% San Joaquin 1,789 2,888 161% San Luis Obispo 34% 1,023 57% Solano 62% San Luis Obispo 325 112 34% Alameda 33% 98 30% Los Angeles 63% San Mateo 865 47 5% Orange 33% 213 25% Santa Cruz 69% Santa Barbara 750 101 13% Santa Cruz 30% 219 29% Riverside 70% Santa Clara 2,661 669 25% Yolo 28% 2,444 92% Sutter 71% Santa Cruz 480 144 30% Glenn 28% 332 69% Kings 71% Shasta 542 439 81% Contra Costa 25% 175 32% Inyo 73% Sierra 1 2 200% Santa Clara 25% 1 100% Trinity 74% Siskiyou 111 19 17% Placer 22% 36 32% Madera 83% Solano 926 353 38% San Francisco 18% 572 62% Monterey 83% Sonoma 351 241 69% Inyo 18% 574 164% Yuba 88% Stanislaus 1,939 1,305 67% Siskiyou 17% 665 34% Marin 90% Sutter 276 127 46% Calaveras 16% 196 71% Santa Clara 92% Tehama 223 166 74% Sacramento 15% 105 47% San Bernardino 100% Trinity 31 17 55% Santa Barbara 13% 23 74% Sierra 100% Tulare 3,779 141 4% San Diego 9% 727 19% El Dorado 107% Tuolumne 105 76 72% Del Norte 6% 51 49% Nevada 127% Ventura 1,585 605 38% San Mateo 5% 270 17% Sonoma 164% Yolo 570 160 28% Tulare 4% 229 40% Colusa 400% Yuba 381 163 43% Alpine 0% 335 88% Mariposa 950% ”