Search Demo

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 June 30, 2008, Issue #08-04 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. DSS Will Not Automatically Share Draft ACL\/ACINS with Counties For many years it has been the official policy of the State Department of Social Services (CDSS) to fax draft All County Letters (ACL) and All County Information Notices (ACIN) for their initial review and comment to the Califor- nia Welfare Directors Association (also known as CWDA), a independent nonprofit organization representing county wel- fare departments, who lobby for laws and funding for benefit of the welfare bureaucracy. In all fairness. sometimes CWDA opposes legislation that would be detrimental to CalWORKs recipients. Welfare advocates obtained a copy of the official DSS policy to this effect and started asking that the DSS WtW di- vision also share such drafts with advocates. DSS responded that this will be way to cumbersome and refused to share all draft ACL\/ACINs. CCWRO reviewed the potential number of ACLs and ACINs that DSS would have to share every month and determined that it would be about one ACL\/ACIN a week. DSS has agreed and does share draft ACLs and ACINs that represent a substantial policy change. Advocates have deter- mined that what constitutes substantial change is very sub- jective and decided to start asking for a copy of any and all ACL\/ACINs shared with CWDA every week under the Cali- fornia Public Records Act (See California Government Code 6250 et.seq.). After doing two request we have been told that CDSS has informed CWDA that CDSS would not longer automati- cally share draft ACL\/ACINs with CWDA, but CWDA is wel- come to come over to DSS and look at the new draft ACL\/ ACINs. No similar offer has been made to advocates. It appears that DSS is trying any scheme to get around the laws enacted by the People of the State of California and the Legislature. The Swarzenegger Administation, rather than encouraging and opening up the government to the People has decided to manipulated the system to make sure the People do not see the information that the welfare bureaucracy is cook- ing that may impact the People. We contacted the Office of Governor Schwarzenegger, who has alleged that he favors sharing information with the People, but his office had no response as we went to press with this issue. County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Sacramento County terminated Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) for a married couple because the wife was pregnant and in her third tri- mester after receiving RCA for three (3) months. Thus, the $555 RCA benefits were stopped at the end of May, 2008 and effective June 1, 2008 the pregnant couple was only given $387, which is $340 for the mother and a $47 pregnancy allowance for he unborn. $47 pregnancy special need for the unborn was enacted into law in 1985 and it has never been updated through Republi- can or Democratic administrations. What the county should have done was to discontinue the wife’s RCA benefits, but the husband should have continued to received his RCA benefits until the 8 months was up or the birth of the child. An Alameda County welfare ad- vocate asserts that …my client just told me that she had called and left several messages with her worker to reschedule a missed appointment, Ms. Russell-Chema. The client was able to get a hold of her worker by chance– the worker told her that she had received the message but that if she receives five messages from the same person she doesn’t call back because she assumes she is going to be harassed! What is that?? This is county welfare workers harassing ”

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

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/340): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 June 1, 2008, Issue #08-01 State Budget Update: This week there were two (2) hearings at the State Capital relative to the state budget. On May 29, 2008, the full Senate Budget and Fis- cal Review Committee took up the Governor’s May revise. The second hearing was held May 30, 2008 in the Assembly Committee on Bud- get Health and Human Services Subcommit- tee. To operate the former AFDC program Califor- nia receives about $3.7 billion from the federal government and is required to match about $2.1 billion. That means California has $6.5 billion to meet the needs of impoverished fam- ilies living in deep poverty. California does not spend $6.5 billion to meet the needs of poor families in California. Cali- fornia robs over $1.2 billion dollars from im- poverished families and uses it to balance the state budget – yes, the state budget is being balanced in part on the backs of the poor. The budget proposes to spend about $5.1 billion for poor families with children in California. The rest will be used to balance the budget. Impoverished families in California who live on fixed incomes, have not seen a COLA for the past four (4) years while every other seg- ment of our society has. In fact, the current CalWORKs grants are what welfare families received 20 years ago without any adjustment for inflation. It is in this atmosphere that the Governor’s draconian budget cuts of about $700 million were considered this week by the California State legislature. The May 29, 2008 hearing room was full of hundreds of IHSS supporters as well as repre- sentatives of the Department of Finance who were forced to stand because there was no room for them to sit. Although the hearing was scheduled for 10 am or upon adjournment, it did not start until 3 p.m.. By the time the IHSS items came up, most of the opponents of the IHSS cuts had left. How- ever, none of the IHSS cuts were approved. In contrast, there were a handful of persons concerned about the CalWORKs cuts. CWDA did oppose the suspension of the CalWORKs COLA as did Michael Herald of Western Cen- ter on Law & Poverty and Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO, but that was it. Sadly, there were no victims of the COLA suspension in the room. The Assembly hearing on May 30th heard public testimony from only one proponent of the COLA – Kevin Aslanian of CCWRO. With no COLA for the fourth year in a row and fixed incomes of impoverished families remaining at the same levels as 20 years ago, it appears that no one cares, so kids suffer. On page two (2) there is a chart showing com- mittee actions during these two (2) hearings. Within a week or so there will be a conference committee to resolve the differences between the two houses. It looks to be a long hot summer – the bud- get is way out of whack. This all started when Schwarzenegger repealed the car tax and then started borrowing to balance the budget. The only way out of this mess is to do more borrowing or raise revenues. NOTE: None of the IHSS pro- posed cuts were approved by either committee. Budget Issue Gradual Sanction Modified Safety Net Limiting Child Only Benefits to 60 Months Work Incentive Nutritional Supplements (WINS) Pre-Assistance Employment Readiness System Self-Sufficiency Reviews Reduce CalWORKs Grants by 5% Suspend the 2008 COLA Earned Income Disregard Elimination of CAPI Not passing through the 2009 SSI federal COLA Expanding AB 98 jobs to Suspension of State SSI COLA Ticking Time-Clock for Sanc- tioned Families Limiting Face-to-Face-Inter- views for Food Stamps Assembly Action Rejected Rejected Rejected Approved pro- vided it is allowed under federal law. Rejected Rejected Approved No Provision Rejected Rejected No provision Approved No provision Approved Senate Action Rejected Rejected Rejected Approved provided it is allowed under federal law. Approved an amended system that would be limited to persons who have been sanctioned Rejected Approved Adopted trailer bill language that would provide earned income dis- regard of $300 and 50% of the re- mainder for those meeting the federal participation rates and only 50% of the gross income for those not meet- ing the federal participation rates. Rejected Rejected Adopted trailer bill language to in- clude safety families Approved Adopted trailer bill language to tick the clock for sanctioned families. Approved Conference? No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No May 29 and 30, 2008 CalWORKs, CAPI and SSI Budget Committee Actions ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 June 16, 2008, Issue #08-03 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Alamed County Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order In GA Case. On June 11, 2008, Alameda Superior Court Judge Lindell Williams, issued a TRO stopping Alameda County from terminat- ing or time-limiting General Assistance based on whether individuals are deemed employable , in- cluding the sending of notices thereof. Judith Gold from the law firm of Heller Ehrman, LLP, Steve Ronfeldt of Public Interest Law Project and Steve Weiss Bay Area Legal Services file the lawsuit, Watkins v. County of Alameda. In 1996, at the urging of counties, the Legislature changed the statute and authorized counties to lim- it General Assistance to employable individuals who were previously defined as able-bodied and mentally competent in Welfare and Institutions Code (Welf. & Inst.) 17001.5. In the landmark case of Mooney v. Picket, 4 Cal.3d at 679 the Cali- fornia Supreme Court held: The term employability …is used by the coun- ty to denote merely that a man is physically and mentally fit for work; it does not signify that a job awaits him. Even in times of full employment a per- son may be physically and mentally fit, but lack the necessary skills to obtain a job; in periods, such as the present, of substantial unemployment, even the skilled and experienced worker may be unable to obtain work. Mooney, coupled with Welf. & Inst. Code 10000 which provides that the Welf. & Inst. I Code shall be construed fairly and equitably leads to the proposition that the current un- lawful practice in many counties of assuming that a person who is not disabled or mentally unfit is employable is a violation of existing law and ripe for judicial challenge. IHSS-Plus Waiver to Expire – The IHSS Plus Waiver, which allowed California to use a large portion of federal funds to operate the IHSS program, will expire July 31, 2009. At this time, the fed- eral government has informed California that the waiver will not be extended. The state has no plan to shut down the IHSS plus waiver program at this time. Advocates Meeting with DSS- Counties Deny Forcing Clients to Sign Release of Information Forms – Advocates meet with the IHSS Bu- reau of CDSS on a quarterly basis to discuss statewide issues. In previous meetings, ad- vocates discussed the failure of IHSS work- ers to process requests for protective supervi- sion, especially during home visits. Workers do not enter the request on the work sheet as part of the process to determine the IHSS hours. When the worker issues a notice of action for the authorized hours, frequently there is no entry that protective supervision was requested and denied. At the hearing, the IHSS recipient must argue that protective supervision was, in fact, requested. If the ALJ believes the recipient, the case is remanded for an evaluation for protective supervision. In an effort to save time and money for the cost of the administrative hearings, advo- cates suggested either an All County Letter (ACL) or an All County Information Notice (ACIN) reminding of their ministerial duty to assess for protective supervision. In re- sponse, IHSS said that they did not know More on Page 2 that this was a problem and wanted ad- vocates to present specific cases to IHSS. The advocates did supply several cases. During the April 9, 2008 CWDA meeting, the Department of Social Services Adult Services division informed counties of the advocate meetings and shared some of the issues, such as: informing coun- ties that persons with moderate dementia should be assessed for protective super- vision; assessing clients with diabetes; and, bowel and bladder problems who may need paramedical services. DSS also told the Counties that advocates wanted IHSS to issue ACLs or ACINs. Counties informed DSS that they were fully aware of the regulations and did not need ACLs or ACINs. The Counties characterized advocates concerns and identified cases as case specific and suggested that ad- vocates bring their concerns to them. One major issue is that counties require IHSS applicants and recipients to sign releases of information so counties can gather information to grant or deny IHSS services. MPP 19-0071 provides: if any applicant\/recipient does not wish the county to contact a source in order to de- termine eligibility, the applicant\/recipi- ent shall have the opportunity to obtain the desired information or verification him or herself. Therefore, an applicant\/ recipient is not required to sign the release of information form and can provide any all information directly to the county. When DSS discussed this concern with the Counties, they told DSS that appli- cants and recipients want the Counties to obtain the verification. Why else would applicants and recipients sign the autho- rization for reliease of information? Advocate response to DSS was that it is not voluntary. Counties as a practice co- erce applicants and recipients into sign- ing the release of information and even tell clients that their IHSS benefits will be denied if they refuse to sign it. Second, applicants and recipients are not told of the right to obtain the information them- selves. Advocates working on IHSS issues are encouraged to participate either in person or via telephone. Our next IHSS meeting is scheduled for August 28, 2008. ”

” 2007-2008 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Report Full of Misinformation and Untruths The San Bernardino County Grand Jury released a report regarding the welfare system and the fraud unit of San Bernardino County. The report can be viewed at http:\/\/www.sbcounty.gov\/grandjury\/reports.asp. The San Bernardino County Grand jury report about Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards states Pho- tographs on the card are not required. When asked why not, it was stated that retailers are not police; they wouldn’t ask to see the picture anyway… The San Ber- nardino Grand Jury was given wrong information. The reason that the EBT card does not have a picture is that federal and state law does not require that the EBT card have a picture. The Grand jury was also told The state requires as- sistance applicants to be fingerprinted within one year. The PID tries to fingerprint them within a month, before benefits are given. This is a false statement. PID being San Bernardino County Public Integrity Department has to fingerprint all adult applicants before any aid issued. State law provides that an application cannot be ap- proved unless the adult members of the assistance unit have been fingerprinted. Welfare and Institutions Code 10830(b)(2) A person subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) shall not be eligible for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program or the Food Stamp Program until fingerprint images are provided… It appears these facts were withheld from the Grand Jury by representatives of the San Bernardino County Program Integrity Department. The Grand Jury report recommends that County Coun- sel look into asset forfeiture regarding properties pur- chased with illegally obtained welfare money. The only property that most welfare recipients have accused of welfare fraud is food in the bellies of their kids. Welfare grants are the same as they were 20 years ago and kids need to eat. Maybe the San Bernardino Grand Jury can find a way to CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 7, 2008, Issue #08-06 take food out of the mouth of babies and kids as asset forfeiture. The grand jury also recommended that SIU be trans- ferred to the District Attorney’s office without even tell- ing the taxpayers of San Bernardino County’s SIU ac- complishes. During April of 2008 San Bernardino’s own numbers reveal: SIU Referrals Accepted 2,721 SIU Referral Rejected 0 Convictions 28 Less than 1% success Rate This is consistent with what is happening statewide. During April of 2008: SIU Referrals Accepted 33,200 SIU Referral Rejected 1,569 Convictions 354 Welfare fraud is not a problem as the low conviction rate reveals. The real problem is the waste of taxpayer dollars because 99% of the cases referred to SIU did not involve fraud costing taxpayers millions of wasted dol- lars that could have been used to feed and house needy families rather than feeding the welfare fraud bureau- cracy. California 08-09 Budget Fact Money Available for CalWORKs $6.6 Billion Money Used for CalWORKs Recipients $5.2 billion Money Ripped Off From CalWORKs $1.4 billion That is Not Used for Impoverished Families of California. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Vince Toolan Jr. passed away July 1, 2008 Long time DSS employee Vince Toolan passed away July 1, 2008 from complications of diabetes. He was only 55 years old. Vince worked for the DSS Eligibility Bureau since the 80s, until he moved to Community Care Licensing. Although staying in the background, Vince was an integral part of lawsuits in both the litigation and settlement stage. He might be in the courtroom on the day of trial. He ensured that the terms of settlement were feasible. Vince was a man of his word–if he said something would get done–it would. Vince was the type of person that the world really needs. Patient, honor- able and, most of all, a good friend. Vince, we will miss you. ”

” STATE BUDGET UPDATE FROM SACRAMENTO The budget battle in Sacramento goes on. The budget conference committee has shut down, but the budget has a long way to go. The conference committee reconciles the differences between the Assembly version of the budget and the Senate version. Below is a description of what the conference committee did that is public in the CalWORKs program. In the final analysis the budget denies impoverished families with needy children a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) enacted into law with the signature of Ronald Reagan for the fourth year in a row. Was denying a COLA to needy children nec- essary to balance the budget? Not really. The 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Bill (also known as TANF) gives California $3.7 billion and required California to put up 80%, which is $2.9 billion, to qualify for the $3.7 billion federal money in 2008-2009. The Republican Congress did not mandate that this money be used for the poor. States do have the option to use it for the non poor under the guise of state flexibility. The 2008-2009 state budget proposes that California will only spend $5.2 billion on poor children living with their parents on CalWORKs. That means a significant amount – $1.4 billion – will not be spent on CalWORKs children and families in 2008-2009. What happens to that money that by all moral standards should be used for impoverished families with children receiving CalWORKs. It goes many places except to the kids who go hungry in the last two weeks of most months in California. Yes. Americans love kids – who are not poor. The Budget does not include any of the mean-spirited Schwarzenegger proposals for anti-family and anti-child full family sanctions. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 14, 2008, Issue #08-07 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Description Assembly Senate Difference Final Action 1. In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) County Admin. Reduction 0 7,700,000 7,700,000 Senate Version 2. Food Stamp Program County Administration Reduction 0 14,371,000 14,371,000 Senate Version 3. Child Welfare Services: Resources Family Pilot Program (AB 340) -179,000 -608,000 429,000 Assembly version of 187 million reduction 4. Suspension of the June 2009 State SSP COLA 0 23,700,000 23,700,000 Assembly Version 5. CalWORKs Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement (WINS) 0 -8,387,000 8,387,000 $2 million in few counties 6. CalWORKs Pre-Assistance (PEARS) 0 691,000 691,000 Conf. Compromise*. 7. CalWORKs Self-Sufficiency Reviews for Sanctioned Cases 0 691,000 691,000 Assembly Version 8. CalWORKs Revised Income Disregard 0 -15,532,000 15,532,000 Assembly Version 9. Eliminate CalWORKs Pay for Performance Incentive Funding 0 10,000,000 10,000,000 Senate Version 10. Reduce County CalWORKs Single Allocation Funding 0 10,300,000 10,300,000 Assembly Version 11. CalWORKs Funding for the CA Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs -5,000,000 0 5,000,000 Assembly Version 12. Eliminate the TANF Reserve 0 0 50,000,000 50,000,000 * – The conference compromise language is still being worked on. The language is intented to provide for a pro- gram that would be agreed to by all stakeholders and comport with federal law. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” Madera County Policy – Do Not Tell WtW Participant of Their Rights A Madera County WtW victim was scheduled for an appointment with worker Champagne Brown for July 7th, 2008. He kept the appointment, but Ms. Brown was not in the office. He was told to go home without being seen by anybody else. The participant is now being told by Ms. Brown that he has to keep another appointment for July 21, 2008 or he will be sanc- tioned. Ms. Brown informed the participant that even if he files for a state hearing before the sanction takes effect, he will still be sanctioned. Her Supervisor Ms. Greg Rios verified that Ms. Brown could not tell a participant that if he or she files for a timely request for a state hearing, the sanction will be stopped until a hearing decision is issues or the hearing is abandoned. Ms. Rios insisted that the Employment Worker has no duty to tell participants what their rights are. In fact she insisted that it is Madera County policy that Employment Services cannot tell WtW participant s anything about aid paid pending, one of the state hearing rights of WtW participants. It is also ironic, but common county practice, that there is no sanction for Ms. Brown requiring this par- ticipant to appear for an appointment that she refuses to keep and Madera County refused to have some- body see him. Now Ms. Brown is threatening with a sanction and refusing to provide truthful information. No county accountability in California for willful re- fusal to do their job. We are sure that Ms. Brown got her paycheck for July even if she did not do her job. We also looked at the performance of the Madera County WtW program for April of 2008. 70% of the WtW participants are not getting transportation dur- ing April 2008. During April 2008 Madera County had 284 persons sanctioned while they only found jobs that resulted in termination of CalWORKs for 20 participants. The county has 845 participants and only 254 of them received transportation. How are the other 591 participants getting transportation in this rural county? CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 21, 2008, Issue #08-08 Homeless Assistance Institutional Lawbreaking by DSS and C-4 counties A C-4 county client was authorized permanent homeless assistance as a result of a fair hearing conditional with- drawal. The county was not able to issue the payment to the recipient. It took a week or more before the payment was issued to the recipient. When we asked the county why the county was unable to issue the homeless as- sistance payment on the EBT card or by check to the recipient, we were told that the C-4 computer is pro- grammed to issue all homeless assistance payments to landlords or hotels. The county was forced to do a work around, which took more than a week to issue a check. Thus, federal and state money has been appropriated to build a computer system that is designed to break the law. As we have said before in these columns often wel- fare bureaucrats ignore the law while persecuting wel- fare recipients for breaking the law. DSS and counties have intentionally built a computer system that breaks the law. The law requires that such assistance be issued on the date of the request, but no later than the next working day. MPP 44-211.534. The payment shall be issued to the assistance unit unless the assistance unit has shelter at no cost. MPP 44-211.512 – … a homeless assistance payment shall not be issued to an AU if the CWD establishes that the AU has shelter at no cost. MPP 44-211.516 provides: The county shall comply with the AU’s written request to make payments to the AU or to the provider of tempo- rary shelter, permanent housing or utilities unless the conditions in Section 44-211.517 exist. Section 44-211.517 provides that the AU shall receive re- stricted payments when the county established a finding of mismanagement of AFDC cash assistance. The design- ers of the C-4 computer composed of state and county welfare officials have decided that all welfare recipients receiving cash assistance in the C-4 counties are guilty of mismanagement of their AFDC cash assistance. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” Child Care Providers Not Being Paid by the Welfare System State law and regulations provide that childcare shall be paid so that CalWORKs re- cipients can participate in the state workfare programs and\/or work. Getting childcare has always been a strug- gle in California. When the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program started in 1998, every county was required to assess the childcare needs in their county. Needs assessment showed that about 70% of the AFDC recipients would need childcare. Once the program started, less than 50% of the participants are receiving child care. Thousands of parents participate without being paid for childcare. Reaching a wel- fare worker with the authority to authorized childcare has often been a major undertaking within the WtW bureaucratic maze. During the late 90s and early 2000s thou- sands of welfare recipients were requesting and sometimes got retroactive childcare for the childcare promised to them by their wel- fare workers at WtW orientation. This upset Los Angeles County welfare officials and, with the help of the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA), in 2002 Section 34 was inserted into the budget trailer bill known as AB 444 to stop giving retroactive childcare to WtW participants lawfully entitled to such childcare. This provision is embodied in Wel- fare and Institutions Code 11323.3. The All County Letter implementing this provision is ACL-03-33. See http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersnotices\/ entres\/getinfo\/acl03\/pdf\/03-33.pdf DSS developed a Childcare request form known as CCP-7. Now, in order to be eligi- ble for retroactive child care for more than 30 days a WtW participant had to have stated on the CCP-7 for that they need childcare at the time of application. If they mark that they do not need childcare at the time of application, CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 July 28, 2008, Issue #08-09 but later find a job, starts working and then ask for retroactive child care, the welfare bureau- cracy will deny the request because they hon- estly said at the time of application that they did not need child care. Thus, DSS and CWDA created a process that literally steals millions of dollars from hard working Americans just because they completed the CCP-7 honestly. It should be noted that counties are not required to have recipients complete a CCP-7 during job search or another workfare activity, unless an amended WtW contract is signed. This does not always happen. Today many child care providers know that providing child care to a welfare recipient can mean being ripped off by the welfare system. This certainly is effecting the ability of many welfare recipients to start jobs or keep jobs. The word is out that welfare won’t pay for child- care in the low-income community. What needs to be Done? First, the form should be revised to ask if you get a job or have to participate in a WtW activ- ity, will you need child care? Secondly, recipients should get this form at least once every three (3) months with their quarterly reports (QR-7), or monthly, if the county is asking them to submit monthly re- ports of their WtW activities. This deceptive form entraps CalWORKs recipi- ent into stating that they do not need child care and then when they need child care, they are unable to get it because they do not have a form to ask for childcare and cannot reach their welfare worker to get the form. It should be a felony not to pay workers for their work, especially child care workers. This law – W&IC 11323.3 – that takes away hard earned money from workers should be repealed as an evil and immoral law. m m m CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” State Form CW-61 Unlawfully Used By Counties State form CW-61 can be found at http:\/\/www.dss.cah- wnet.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/CW61.PDF. This is a state form that CalWORKs applicants or recipients can use to prove they are disabled for eligibility and Wel- fare-to-Work (WtW) purposes. Section 1 of the form requires the applicant or recipi- ent to sign a release of information exposing all medical conditions to county welfare department personnel which is contrary to state law. Applicants and recipients are not given a choice. They are required to sign Section 1 of this form. Often, we have been told, that county personnel who re- ceive a CW-61 from an applicant or recipient will call the doctor and question the diagnosis. Sometimes CalWORKs families are dropped by their doctor as a patient because the doctor was harassed by the county welfare department WtW worker or the Special Investigative Unit, also known as the welfare fraud unit. The second part of the form is the part that the doctor has to complete. Some doctors will only complete forms for a fee. As a result, some applicants or recipients are forced to pay $25 to $75 to have the form completed. Recently, under the public records act request, we re- ceived a written document representing the state policy from DSS which states: In order to qualify for a disability exemption under 42-412.44 the individual must obtain a doctors verifi- cation (in the form of a CW 61) and actively seek treat- ment. If both conditions are not met, the individual would not qualify for the WtW exemption. It also states If the physician will not complete the form, the county may send the client to another doctor There are a number of problems with this policy state- ment. First, there is no 42-412.44. It is 42-712.44 and it provides as follows: .44 Exemption Based on Disability .441 An individual who has a disability is exempt from welfare-to-work participation when the follow- ing conditions exist: (a) The disability is expected to last at least 30 cal- endar days; and (b) The disability significantly impairs the individu- al’s ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. .442 To qualify for this exemption, the individual CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 10, 2008, Issue #08-10 shall do all of the following: (a) Provide verification from a doctor as defined in Section 42-701.2(d)(2) that includes the disability, the expected duration of the disability, and the extent to which the disability impairs employment and\/or par- ticipation in the welfare-to-work activities; and (b) Actively seek appropriate medical treatment, as verified by a doctor as defined in Section 42- 701.2(d)(2). .443 The exemption may be reviewed at the time the condition is expected to end, or sooner if there is rea- son to believe that there has been a change in the con- dition. There is no mention of a CW-61 in this regulation. Yet, DSS mandates that counties deny a disability exemption even if the doctor states the person is disabled, however, not on the State’s form CW-61. This policy is unlawful as stated above. It is unlawful to coerce or force impoverished individuals to sign releases of information against their will so that they may receive income to feed, cloth and house their children as provided in MPP 19-007.11 below. MPP 19-007.11 Permission If the applicant or recipient does not wish the county to contact a private or public source in order to deter- mine eligibility, the applicant or recipient shall have the opportunity to obtain the desired information or verification himself or herself. This regulation is supported by ACIN I-91-88 which can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersno- tices\/entres\/getinfo\/acin88\/I-91-88.pdf and it provides … Through legislative process, it has been brought to the at- tention of the Department that there is a potential problem in this area. The authority on this subject is found in MPP 19- 007.1 and 40-157.22. It states that collateral contact should NOT be the first option. An applicant or recipient must first have the option of obtaining the desired information or veri- fication himself or herself without any requirement to use county forms or form letters. If the person does not want to obtain the information, then he or she can request assistance from the county in obtaining the information by signing the county consent form. ( MPP 40-107(a)) In some cases these contacts have had adverse effects on recipients, rang- ing from embarrassment to loss of job. The CW-61 should inform individuals clearly about the choices available when signing the form. Moreover, appli- cants and recipients should be told that the CW-61 is not the only way to provide disability. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. ”

” TANF Update – How much Goes to the Poor? In 1996, the Republican Congress passed and then Pres- ident Clinton signed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). This program was sold as a way to self-sufficiency for welfare families; however, it was actually an historic attack on poor families and chil- dren. How was it supposed to help the poor? Benefits were limited to a five (5) year time limit. It also provided for full family termination of benefits for allegedly not obeying welfare bureaucrats. Women who had just given birth had to enroll their infants in day care centers and forced to join millions of others also looking for the same non- existent jobs that migrated to China. Newborns need their moth- ers and breast-feeding is good for babies, but according the President Clinton and the Republicans, poor babies did not deserve this nurturing care because their mothers were forced into the job market too early. Of course having more people looking for work does benefit a certain segment of our society the corporations, like WallMart, etc. More people in the job pool means more people available for lower paying jobs. Mr. Clinton and those who voted for TANF five (5) year limit were hypocrites in that they never voted to limit CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 20, 2008, Issue #08-011 their own public assistance to a five-year limit. Mr. Clin- ton still gets his thousands of dollars in public assistance as a former President, notwithstanding the fact that he is a millionaire. The same is true for all of the Senators and Congresspersons who voted for this TANF bill they are all getting their public assistance in the form of pensions, congressional retirement, etc. States were very excited about having the TANF block grants. They alleged it would give them the flexibility to help poor people. We decided to visit the TANF program ten years later to see how are States helping the poor. In 1996, 84% of the welfare funds were used for payment to families. Ten years later only a meager 29% of the TANF money is used for basic assistance\/paymentgs to families. Where does the money go? The remainder is used for the welfare bureaucracy and to subsidize the general fund of the various states. In California, in the last 10 years TANF has contributed over $10 billion to the General Fund. No won- der States love TANF and the poor hate it. States have harvested billions from the TANF program given the fact that California is the second highest in the country of percentage of the TANF money being used for payments to families. Below is a state-by-state list of percentage of TANF funds used for basic assistance, which is payments to families. CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. * Percentage of total TANF funds used for Basic Assistance\/Payments to Families. 1 ARKANSAS 8.11% * 18 S. CAROLINA 20.51% 35 MISSOURI 29.39% 2 OKLAHOMA 8.75% 19 WISCONSIN 20.63% 36 IOWA 30.74% 3 NEW JERSEY 9.08% 20 LOUISIANA 20.70% 37 PENNSYLVANIA 31.10% 4 ILLINOIS 10.66% 21 MINNESOTA 21.16% 38 KENTUCKY 31.44% 5 GEORGIA 12.11% 22 TENNESSEE 22.42% 39 NEW YORK 31.59% 6 IDAHO 12.46% 23 W. VIRGINIA 22.47% 40 NEVADA 32.98% 7 TEXAS 13.42% 24 UTAH 22.79% 41 MASSACHUSETTS 33.88% 8 WYOMING 13.49% 25 S. DAKOTA 22.84% 42 KANSAS 33.92% 9 FLORIDA 14.77% 26 CONNECTICUT 24.39% 43 RHODE ISLAND 35.78% 10 OHIO 15.43% 27 HAWAII 24.86% 44 ARIZONA 37.12% 11 MISSISSIPPI 15.48% 28 DIST.OF COl. 25.08% 45 WASHINGTON 38.19% 12 N. CAROLINA 15.69% 29 INDIANA 25.63% 46 VIRGINIA 39.47% 13 ALABAMA 17.79% 30 DELAWARE 26.90% 47 NEW MEXICO 40.31% 14 MONTANA 18.34% 31 NEW HAMP. 26.94% 48 VERMONT 42.47% 15 MARYLAND 18.56% 32 ALASKA 27.00% 49 CALIFORNIA 45.60% 16 COLORADO 18.66% 33 OREGON 27.20% 50 MAINE 48.80% 17 N . DAKOTA 19.41% 34 MICHIGAN 29.21% TOTAL 28.99% ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 24, 2008, Issue #08-12 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. San Bernardino County’s Apparent Vio- lation of Food Stamp-Expedited Service Rules. Interim Instruction Notice, IIN #08-062, a county policy issuance instrument of San Bernardino County, has instructed its staff to issue a trouble tick- et and call the matter into the so-called Help Center when the computer incorrectly denies expedited ser- vice food stamps. There is no mention of how to make sure that the three-day expedited service food stamp issuance time line is obeyed. DSS Federal Data Reporting and Analysis Bureau Office Moves. The Federal Data Report- ing and Analysis Bureau has moved to 2450 Del Paso Road, Suite 250, M.S. 20-57, Sacramento, CA 95834. The main number is (916) 515-3525. There are three units located at this new address: Data Transmission and Validation Unit headed by Lee Macias, Trend Analysis headed by Trish Rodriguez and Work Partici- pation Rate Unit headed by Karen Kennedy. County 2006 Federal Work Participation Rates (FWPR) Coming Soon. In a June of 2008 meeting with counties, DSS said that, in July, they would be mailing to counties their annual participa- tion rates for 2006. July has come and gone and still no FWPR numbers from DSS; maybe in September we will find out. DSS will be mailing each county a preliminary FWPR to see what they think before it is final. Someday clients will be able to mail their work- ers a preliminary QR-7 before a final version is mailed. Yeah. Nice dreaming. SB 1569 Clients Eligible For Child Care. On July 10, 2008, Sheila Early of DPSS asked DSS if a family receiving CalWORKs under SB 1569, which is a state-only program, are eligible for Stage One Child Care. On July 22, 2008 DSS responded Yes. If a cli- ent is eligible for, and receiving CalWORKs based on the rules in SB 1569, the client may also be eligible for Stage One child care services. Special Rates for Non-Potty Trained Kids OK. On June 17, 2008, Susan West of Monterey County asked DSS if a provider could have a different rate for children between 3-5 who are not potty trained. On July 23, 2008, DSS responded; There is nothing in the regulation that prohibits a provider from establish- ing a special rate for a child who is not potty trained, as long as the provider is charging other members of the public the same established special rates and it does not exceed the regional market rates. Santa Clara County Does Not Process IEVS Hits on Time. Based on a letter from DSS on 6\/13\/08, Will Lightbourne of Santa Clara County was informed that since April 2006, the county had failed to process 4,172 cases per quarter for six con- secutive quarters. Thus, Santa Clara County is failing to inform clients of potential overpayments within the 45-day time lines established by state and federal regulations. Counties Make Errors in Refugee Cash As- sistance Program. DSS periodically reviews the county refugee assistance programs. In a June 13, 2008 letter, Sacramento County was informed that 8 of the 10 case files reviewed were out of compliance with the state and federal rules. In one case, a refugee who was over 60 years old was forced to register for work when he\/she was exempt. Orange County had 11 cases reviewed and in 5 cases there were problems, such as, not providing applicants with RCA rights and responsibilities in their own language. In another case there were 32 notices of action issued and only two (2) were in the language of the RCA recipient. Statistical Fact The law requires that expedited service Food Stamp benefits (ES-FS) be issued in 3 days. These are house- holds in need of emergency assistance for food. They are hungry kids in many cases and need food to eat. During April 1 through June 30, California counties disposed of 162,995 requests for ES-FS. 92,877 of those requests were denied. 70,118 were granted, but 10,138 those found eligible for emergency food as- sistance were issued such food assistance beyond the three-day time line established by law. That is a 14% violation of the law by counties. There are no penal- ties in the law for counties not providing emergency food to hungry kids. In Brief Source: DSS Documents ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 September 2, 2008, Issue #08-13 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Regulations DSS Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Work Par- ticipation Rate Penalty Pass-on Regulations. DSS is developing TANF Work Participation Rate Penalty Pass-on regulations. The Federal Law requires that 50% of the families re- quired to participate in WtW must meet the federal participation standards. Counties have a lot of flex- ibility is operating the WtW program, thus, they are primarily responsible if California does not meet the federal participation rates. DSS regulations should be available within 6 month or sooner. The regulations may include an appeal process for counties similar to the appeal process that the federal penalty regulations provide. Counties asked if there are provisions in the regulations for penalty relief for poor counties. DSS responded that there is penalty relief for counties who need relief. There are no similar penalty relief provi- sions in the regulations that counties promulgate for their General Assistance Programs for the poor or in the state penalty regulations that contain a variety of monetary penalties against impoverished families liv- ing on a fixed income of 1989. All County Letters (ACL) & All County Information Notices (ACIN) CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Pro- gram Questions and Answers. This ACL contains Q&As regarding the homeless assistance program CalWORKs Case Record Retention This is an annual ACL regarding what CalWORKs records the county have to retain. Disaster Food Stamp Benefit Identifier Types. This ACL addresses the issue of the four Cal- ifornia computer systems having procedures in place for disaster response. Documentation of Interpretative Ser- vices This is an ACL that would reduce the docu- mentation of interpretive services that counties pro- vide to immigrants. This is response to counties who were unhappy with being required to document that they provide interpretative services. This ACL would minimize such documentation and allow counties to get away with not providing interpretive services to immigrants. A victory for CWDA and counties and a loss for limiting English-speaking costumers of Cal- WORKs. Revision of ACL 07-05 Can Counties Sanction Participants for not submit- ting Monthly Progress Reports? This ACL addresses the issue of whether or not the counties can take away 30%-to 50% of the fixed income of WtW participants for failure to submit monthly participa- tion reports. Many counties have been unlawfully sanctioning WtW participants for failure to submit a monthly WtW participation report. This ACL tells counties that they cannot do this. Counties can only impose their punitive sanctions if the participants fails to make satisfactory progress and the activity that they are participating in has a satisfactory participation standards that has been given to the participant. Payment of Tuition and Fees for Cal- WORKs participants in an WtW activity. This ACL tells counties that other than a SIP if the county assigns a participant to an activity that has a fee or tuition, then the county has to pay such fees and tuition. Engagement of CalWORKs Partici- pants During Breaks and Assigned Ac- tivities. Counties have been concerned about what to do when a participant is waiting for the education or training and not meeting the FWPRs. Some counties are having participants do job search when they know that the person will be going back to school. This ACL informs counties that bridging activities such activi- ties have to be designed to increase the participant’s ability to gain or retain employment and it has to be consistent with his or her WtW plan. Counties can- not have bridging activities just to meet the federal participation rates without regards to the participants WtW plan. Moreover, the bridging activity must be discussed with the participant prior to assignment and documented as a part of the case file. Relative Caregivers and Permanency Options. This ACL implements AB 298 which pro- vides that relative caregivers shall be given preference for legal guardianship over adoptions and provide such caregivers with information regarding guardian- ship and adoptions. Support Services for CalWORKs Re- cipients Participating in On-Line Cours- es. This ACIN provides guidance to counties for pro- viding support services to CalWORKs participating enrolled in on-line educational courses. What’s Cooking at DSS ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 September 8, 2008, Issue #08-14 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. TANF legislation cooking – TANF sup- porters are pushing legislation that would include a package of fixes to several problems faced by the Tem- porary Assistance for Needy Families program. These issues include eliminating the 90 percent two-parent work rate; removal of substance abuse and mental health from the job readiness category; one to two years of penalty relief for states that have not met the work participation rates; and increasing flexibility in maintenance-of-effort spending. The increasing flex- ibility in maintenance-of-effort means that states can spend money on non-TANF clients and have it count as helping the poor. Nobody in Washington is working for the poor by ad- vocating that at least 75% of the total TANF dollars and the state match go towards payments to families. That would not please States and County Welfare Bu- reaucrats. Medicaid moves to increase states share of cost – States are cutting back on Medi- Cal all over the country. In order to provide some relief to States in the Medicaid area, Congress is considering increasing the federal matching rates in the proposed September 2008 budget stimulus package. Proponent of increasing the federal match have meet with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.). Child support bill to spend less money to collect child support- States are proposing to reduce the amount of money that they invest in the child support system. Under cur- rent law the federal government puts up 66 of the costs of the state must put up 34%. States used to be able to reduce the amount of money that they put up by us- ing some performance gimmicks. Section 7309 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171, 120 Stat. 147) repealed the gimmicks in S.803. This bill does nothing for poor families who see minimum benefit from the child support collected by the states. Santa Clara County Does Not Want Customer to Get Legal Help Effective 6-19-08 Santa Clara County revised their third party case review policy. Under this revised policy, if a customer wants her or his file looked at by a lawyer or a representative, the customer must con- tact her or his welfare worker, which can take days or weeks, make an appointment and get a county re- lease form known as SC 145. Then the customer must take this form to the lawyer or representative, have it completed, and make another appointment with the same worker to hand this document to the worker. The policy does not provide for mailing the SC 145. Once the worker gets the form, then the lawyer or represen- tative has to call the same worker and try to make an appointment with the welfare worker to look at the case. The idea is to make it as hard and complicated as pos- sible and discourage customers from exercising their constitutional rights to representation. STATISTIC OF THE MONTH During June 2008, there were 126,386 undupli- cated participants in the California Welfare-to- Work programs. This means 56,096 participants were not provided with transportation notwith- standing the enormous increase of energy costs. Assuming the average cost of transportation is $100, each month welfare parents are being cheated out of $5.6 million and annual of $67.2 million money defrauded from welfare families by California counties. We wonder if there is a county welfare director who can say that 44% of their staff do not claim travel reimbursement. They cannot unless they are lying. 2008 Federal Public Benefits Congressional Legislative Update ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 September 28, 2008, Issue #08-16 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. In Brief DSS to move. DSS located at 744 P Street will be moving next door to 714 P Street in mid-October. The 714 P Street building has housed the Department of Health Ser- vices which has relocated to 15th Street and Capitol Ave. AB 1808 second report delayed. AB 1808 man- dating that DSS submit a second report regarding how to meet the federal participation rates has been delayed. DSS has transmitted a letter informing the Legislature of this de- lay. Stay tune. More people working, but no increase in child care. DSS estimates staff is working on the state budget for 2009-2010. In formulating their estimates they have noticed the number of CalWORKs recipients who are working has increased, while the number of families receiving child care has not increased. County justification was that the increase could be two-parent families, etc. The real reason is that child care is not accessible. There are a number of barriers to child care called, Trustline, a fingerprinting requirement for providers before they get paid. Thus, the word is out that the welfare department may not pay for child care. We are concerned that as a result of this Trustline, some children may be left home alone. Child care agencies also hassle exempt providers who want to do child care for less than minimum wage. These kinds of Trustline and refusal to pay retroactive child care legislation have erected barriers to de- prive families access to child care. When would a drug felon convicted after 12\/31\/97 ever be eligible for cash aid again? This is a question posed by a county. DSS issued a policy interpre- tation, dated July 14, 2008, stating that per MPP 40-034, ACL 04-59 and ACIN I-71-99 such person would only be eligible for cash aid again if their record has been ex- punged or the charge has been reduced to a misdemeanor. Vendor\/voucher problems in homeless assistance and WtW sanctions- Some counties have been using ven- dor\/voucher payments for issuing permanent homeless as- sistance directly to landlords and in cases where the family has been in sanction for more than three months. Counties have been in violation of certain IRS rules for a long time. Counties have been chronically violating the IRS Code that requires counties to request a Taxpayer Identification N um- ber (TIN) before issuing rent payments in excess of $600 a year. According to DSS, IRS regulations also provide that rents are subject to a 28% withholding when there is a miss- ing TIN. Check your county to make sure your county is not violating the IRS laws. AB 98 Subsidized Employment Reporting form. DSS is going to publish a reporting form for counties to report AB 98 subsidized Employment Claimed Under AB 98. This is a form regarding a program that was added to the statute in 2007. See W&IC 11322.63. Under this program, the state would reimburse counties 50% of the wages paid to recipients in subsidized employment outside of the county single allocation. The single allocation is the amount of money each county receives annually to operate their WtW program. Yolo County no longer eligible for refugee So- cial Services (RSS) Money. On August 28, 2008, DSS has informed Yolo County that they are no longer eligible for RSS money because of the county’s decreased number of new refugee arrivals. However, the county does not have to return the money they received for 2007-2008 that has not been spent. They have until September 30, 2009 to find a way to spend that money. California asks for $13.6 million for refugee pro- grams in FY 2009. On August 20, 2008, DSS informed HHS that California would need $13,646,996 for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 to serve 1,900 persons and 63 unaccom- panied minors. There are only 23 unaccompanied minors being served today, but California has decided to open an- other site in Southern California to download $4,216.25 for each minor. This includes $1,865 that would be provided to the foster care parents taking care of each unaccompanied minor. $2,351 would be going to people other than the fos- ter care parent. Who may that be? CWD Client Abuse Report LA DPSS Client Abuse: Ms. T.K. mailed a letter to her worker asking to close her case because she was being harassed by welfare fraud workers. She then changed her mind and wanted to continue to receive her cash aid. She tried to reach her worker to no avail before the end of the month. She then filed for a state hearing before the end of the month and is getting aid paid pending. DPSS is now insisting that the termina- tion of CalWORKs should go into effect, even if she changed her mind, and if she wants CalWORKs she needs to reapply. DPSS is trying to saddle her with an Aid Paid Pending overpayment and continues the KGB-style harassment. ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 September 28, 2008, Issue #08-16 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. In Brief DSS to move. DSS located at 744 P Street will be moving next door to 714 P Street in mid-October. The 714 P Street building has housed the Department of Health Ser- vices which has relocated to 15th Street and Capitol Ave. AB 1808 second report delayed. AB 1808 man- dating that DSS submit a second report regarding how to meet the federal participation rates has been delayed. DSS has transmitted a letter informing the Legislature of this de- lay. Stay tune. More people working, but no increase in child care. DSS estimates staff is working on the state budget for 2009-2010. In formulating their estimates they have noticed the number of CalWORKs recipients who are working has increased, while the number of families receiving child care has not increased. County justification was that the increase could be two-parent families, etc. The real reason is that child care is not accessible. There are a number of barriers to child care called, Trustline, a fingerprinting requirement for providers before they get paid. Thus, the word is out that the welfare department may not pay for child care. We are concerned that as a result of this Trustline, some children may be left home alone. Child care agencies also hassle exempt providers who want to do child care for less than minimum wage. These kinds of Trustline and refusal to pay retroactive child care legislation have erected barriers to de- prive families access to child care. When would a drug felon convicted after 12\/31\/97 ever be eligible for cash aid again? This is a question posed by a county. DSS issued a policy interpre- tation, dated July 14, 2008, stating that per MPP 40-034, ACL 04-59 and ACIN I-71-99 such person would only be eligible for cash aid again if their record has been ex- punged or the charge has been reduced to a misdemeanor. Vendor\/voucher problems in homeless assistance and WtW sanctions- Some counties have been using ven- dor\/voucher payments for issuing permanent homeless as- sistance directly to landlords and in cases where the family has been in sanction for more than three months. Counties have been in violation of certain IRS rules for a long time. Counties have been chronically violating the IRS Code that requires counties to request a Taxpayer Identification N um- ber (TIN) before issuing rent payments in excess of $600 a year. According to DSS, IRS regulations also provide that rents are subject to a 28% withholding when there is a miss- ing TIN. Check your county to make sure your county is not violating the IRS laws. AB 98 Subsidized Employment Reporting form. DSS is going to publish a reporting form for counties to report AB 98 subsidized Employment Claimed Under AB 98. This is a form regarding a program that was added to the statute in 2007. See W&IC 11322.63. Under this program, the state would reimburse counties 50% of the wages paid to recipients in subsidized employment outside of the county single allocation. The single allocation is the amount of money each county receives annually to operate their WtW program. Yolo County no longer eligible for refugee So- cial Services (RSS) Money. On August 28, 2008, DSS has informed Yolo County that they are no longer eligible for RSS money because of the county’s decreased number of new refugee arrivals. However, the county does not have to return the money they received for 2007-2008 that has not been spent. They have until September 30, 2009 to find a way to spend that money. California asks for $13.6 million for refugee pro- grams in FY 2009. On August 20, 2008, DSS informed HHS that California would need $13,646,996 for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 to serve 1,900 persons and 63 unaccom- panied minors. There are only 23 unaccompanied minors being served today, but California has decided to open an- other site in Southern California to download $4,216.25 for each minor. This includes $1,865 that would be provided to the foster care parents taking care of each unaccompanied minor. $2,351 would be going to people other than the fos- ter care parent. Who may that be? CWD Client Abuse Report LA DPSS Client Abuse: Ms. T.K. mailed a letter to her worker asking to close her case because she was being harassed by welfare fraud workers. She then changed her mind and wanted to continue to receive her cash aid. She tried to reach her worker to no avail before the end of the month. She then filed for a state hearing before the end of the month and is getting aid paid pending. DPSS is now insisting that the termina- tion of CalWORKs should go into effect, even if she changed her mind, and if she wants CalWORKs she needs to reapply. DPSS is trying to saddle her with an Aid Paid Pending overpayment. ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 October 14, 2008, Issue #08-18 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. 2008-2009 State Budget Report State Budget for 2008-2009 appropriates about $5.2 billion of the $6.6 billion avail- able for CalWORKs. What happens to the $1.4 billion? It is used to balance the budget on the backs of impoverished families with needy chil- dren living on fixed incomes that are the same dollar amounts they received in 1989. Yes, for poor children and families time has been still. Everyone else has received a raise; the wel- fare bureaucracy; various welfare industry contractors like computer vendors and private contractors such as Maximus, EDS, etc. The 2008-2009 state budget could not find $140 million to give poor kids a COLA. The CalWORKs budget can be found in two pieces of legislation. (1) The actual budget is con- tained in AB 88, Chapter 269 of statutes of 2008. (2) The trailer bill, which contains the statutory changes to implement the budget is AB 1279, Chapter 759 of statutes of 2008. The governor vetoed $70 million from the County CalWORKs single allocation. He stated in his veto message that even with the $70 million reduction in county administration money for county welfare directors the budget still provides for an increase in their single allocation. NOTE: It should be noted that welfare recipients were denied a COLA for the third year in a row. The trailer bill, AB 1279 makes numer- ous changes in the welfare system. The following are the highlights of these changes: Section 1. Education Code Section 8206.1 provides that Department of Education shall develop a spending plan setting forth child care priorities in con- sultation with DSS, Dept. of Finance and other stake- holders. The plan shall be subject to a public hearing and a 30-day written comment period. This plan will be due before May of 2009 to the Legislature. Section 5. Education Code 8357 is amend- ed to provide: Beginning March 1, 2009, the regional market rate ceilings shall be established at the 85th percentile of the 2007 regional market rate survey for that region. For the 2008 09 and 2009 10 fiscal years, the 85th percentile ceilings of the 2007 regional mar- ket rate survey for that region shall remain in effect. Section 6. Education Code 8447(g) pro- vides Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no family receiving CalWORKs cash aid may be charged a family fee. Section 16. Family Code 17560 provides that the department shall establish and operate a state- wide compromise of arrears program for persons who are currently making child support payment for a time period to be determined by the department. Section 27. Welf.&Inst. 10823 provides that the Office of Systems Integration shall test and be- gin user acceptance testing before 6\/30\/09 of ISAWS counties migrating to C-IV system. By 2-28-10 at least five unknown counties shall complete their migration from ISAWS to C-IV. All 35 counties shall be operat- ing as C-IV by 8-31-10. ISAWS shall be put to rest 1-31-11. Section 28. Welf.&Inst. 11320.32 provides extension for the implementation of the Temporary Assistance Program which would use state MOE dol- lars to aid to certain CalWORks families meeting state WtW exemptions, but not federal exemptions rules from April 2009 to April 2010. Section 30. Welf.&Inst. 11453(c)(5) pro- vides for no CalWORKs COLA for 2008-2009 im- poverished families with needy children living on 1989 benefit levels. Section 31. Welf.&Inst. 12201 would do away with the SSI and CAPI COLA for 2008-2009. Section 32. Welf. & Inst. 12305.82 allows counties to investigate alleged IHSS fraud of $500 or less. Yes. Counties can now spend thousands of tax- payer dollars to find alleged fraud of less than $500. This is the welfare fraud bureaucracy defrauding tax- payers. Section 36. Welf.&Inst. 15525 is added to create the WINS program. This program would give families who are no longer eligible for CalWORKs because they are working, $40 in food stamps so they can be counted as another family meeting the federal work participation rates (FWPR). This section also requires that DSS convene a workgroup before De- cember 1, 2008 to work on the implementation of this WINS program and consider other changes that would enhance the state’s ability to meet the FWPRs. You can download these bills at: http:\/\/ www.leginfo.ca.gov\/bilinfo.html ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 October 20, 2008, Issue #08-19 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. STATE WELFARE BUREAUCRATS WANT MORE MONEY AND POWER TO PUNISH POOR FAMILIES The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA), formerly the American Public Welfare As- sociation, the federal lobbying group for welfare bu- reaucrats, has published a piece entitled For Those We Serve: A Challenge for the Next President… It has also transmitted another piece entitled starting point advocating for more state flexibility and less account- ability. APHSA represents the welfare bureaucracy, i.e. State TANF directors. So what are some of the ser- vices that the TANF program provides to the poorest families of America are: l Using less than 30% of the state and fed- eral money meant to benefit the poorest familes of America as payment to families while the rest is used for state budget relief and to fund the welfare bureaucracy; (In California this year there was $6.6 billion available to TANF, but only $5.2 bil- lion was used for TANF. The rest was used to balance the budget by innovative welfare budgeting and no COLA for the third straight year.) l 21 states impose full family sanctions, which means aid to the whole family is cut off. In many cases because the parents or relatives taking care of the kids did not have money for trans- portation and child care to do the federally unregulated welfare-workfare bureaucratic demands upon the poor- est families, often the performance of unpaid labor. l Except for California, District of Columbia, Indi- ana, Maine. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and maybe Massachusetts and Michigan all other states termi- nate benefits to impoverished children and babies after 60 months-children sentenced to total destitution is the service that ma- jority of the TANF bureaucrats perform in the United States. l 23 states won’t provide cash aid children who were born to a family on welfare. These children are punished States for not being aborted. Now these welfare bureaucrats are asking Presiden- tial candidates to do away with meaningful federal accountability while they impose harsh and puni- tive accountability measures against welfare families. They do not have the professional integrity of asking for the same type of accountability and penalties that they themselves impose on the poorest families of America. States and APHSA want no meaning- ful regulations just like Wall Street. On 9-23-08 APHSA also mailed a letter to congres- sional leaders asking Congress to sneak in a provision in the second stimulus bill to reverse HHS regulations preventing these states who use money for alleged case load reduction credit scheme that take credit for using other state funds as expenditures for the poor when it is money that have been traditional been used the State’s people, including the poor. We would support case load reduction credit for states who use 70% of their federal and state match TANF funds for payments to families . Such states, which do not exist, would should get relief for using the money for the poorest families of America and not the welfare bureaucracy and state budget relief. Statistic of the Month! This month we look at the how the State is meeting the needs of hungry families applying for welfare. State law provides that if the family is eligible for expedited service food stamps, then benefits shall be issued in three (3) days. Three (3) days is a long time to go hun- gry. During the period of April, May and June of 2008, 36% of the families eligible for emergency food stamps re- ceived their benefits after the third day in violation of state law. This is statistically significant 36% DSS noncompliance rate. More information coming next week on this topic. ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 October 29, 2008 Issue #08-20 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Food Stamp Expedited Service in California On July 21, 2006, legal services attorneys Julie Aguilar, Jodie Berger and Bill Kennedy of LSNC, and Grace Gal- ligher of CCWRO filed a CCP 1085 Writ of Mandate action against the Department of Social Services and the Sacramento County Welfare Department (DHA) for not issuing expedited service food stamp benefits on time as required by MPP 63- 301.5. Prior to filing the litigation LSNC and CCWRO had mailed several letter complaining about the fact that DHA is not meeting the state law mandating that food stamp expe- dited service (FS-ES) benefits be issued in three days. Expedited Services for Food Stamps is available to any household who at the time of application: (1) has less than $150 of regular income; (1) less than $100 in liquid resourc- es; (3) who combined income and resources is less than their monthly rent and utility costs. Such households are entitled to food stamp benefits within three (3) calendar days. See State Regulation MPP 63-301.5. Each time DHA got a letter they would write and say that they going to take certain measures that never resulted in long-term compliance with the law. At the insistence of the eligible clients and the primary local charity known as Sacramento Loaves and Fishes, a law suit was filed. After the lawsuit DHA started to take effective and mean- ingful steps to resolve this problem. The county started to schedule appointments for FS-ES households the next working day and issuing ES. FS-ES is identified at the window. There are some applica- tion assistants who help the applicants with their applications. Sacramento County has also decided to get new scheduling software to meet the FS-ES and CalWORKs immediate need standards. At this time Sacramento is barely at 95%. The major force behind this lawsuit was the lead attorney Julie Aguilar with the invaluable support of Jodie Berger and Grace Galligher. DSS published quarterly reports showing how each county and the state are meeting the FS-ES standards as required by state law. Some of the large counties that are way out of compliance and crying for litigation are Alameda, Los An- geles, Sonoma, Tulare, Fresno, Santa Clara, and the State of California. CCWRO is willing to work with any Legal Services Of- fice contemplating doing litigation to bring their county into compliance and assure that people do not suffer from hunger due to county violation of state law. The data can be found at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG354.htm. The table below reveal the percentage of households whose FS-ES benefits for Public Assistance households were issued beyond the three (3) day time frame for timely issuance of FS-ES ben- efits. January – April, 2008 Statewide 40.08% Alameda 75.59% Humboldt 80.00% Shasta 74.42% Sonoma 73.68% Los Angeles 61.08% Solano 60.67% Tulare 56.92% Santa Barb. 50.00% Fresno 49.32% San Luis Ob 48.00% San Fran. 47.83% Yolo 47.37% Santa Clara 46.05% Imperial 41.38% Orange 39.29% Santa Cruz 38.33% Placer 35.14% October-December, 2007 Statewide 42.92% Alameda 69.59% Humboldt 90.00% Los Angeles 64.01% Tulare 61.68% Solano 60.00% Sonoma 58.49% Placer 56.76% Santa Clara 47.67% Fresno 45.95% Santa Barbara 40.00% San Mateo 37.93% Contra Costa 37.86% Imperial 37.50% Orange 35.85% Shasta 31.25% San Luis Ob. 31.03% Sacramento 30.86% April-June, 2008 Statewide 36% Shasta 90% Sonoma 84% Alameda 74% Imperial 67% Los Angeles 62% Solano 57% Tulare 53% Nevada 50% Santa Barbara 50% Santa Cruz 49% Santa Clara 44% San Luis Ob. 41% Fresno 40% San Francisco 38% Yolo 38% San Mateo 36% July-September, 2007 Statewide 47.65% Alameda 71.65% Sonoma 80.43% Humboldt 80.00% Tulare 69.16% Los Angeles 68.67% Solano 59.78% Imperial 54.24% Kings 53.33% Sacramento 50.89% Placer 46.84% Yolo 46.15% Contra Costa 42.64% Santa Barbara 40.00% Orange 38.30% Santa Clara 37.76% Shasta 36.84% Fresno 33.71% San Luis Ob. 33.33% San Mateo 30.77% ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 November 3, 2008, Issue #08-21 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. In Brief lNO VACATION ALLOWED FOR CalWORKs WORKING POOR. – The federal TANF work participation regulations state that paid vacation does not count as work – welfare recipients are second class workers in the eyes of the Bush Ad- ministration. lCOLLEGE STUDENTS BEING HARASSED BY COUNTIES – The California Welfare-to-Work law gives wide discretion to counties. One discre- tion counties have is to come up with a policy whether or not the student is making satisfac- tory progress. Rationally, satisfactory progress should be defined by the educational institution and not the welfare bureaucrats. However, many counties are requiring students to bring in monthly reports to prove that they are making satisfactory progress. This takes a lot of county bureaucratic time and lot of time from the students and the college. Now that counties have had their single alloca- tion reduced by $88 million, one would think that they would engage in more efficient administra- tion of the WtW program. lSTATE HEARINGS ON THE RISE – During February through July of 2008 there were 1,219 more hearing held than during the same period in 2007. Statistical Fact of the Month The Governor is again talking about using Cal- WORKs money to balance the budget. In the 2008-2009 state budget just passed welfare re- cipients contributed $1.3 billion to balance the state budget. To date Welfare recipients have contributed $12.5 billion. CalWORKs grants are at the same dollar level that they were in 1989 and there has been no COLA for three years. CWD Client Abuse Report In October 25, 2008 Ms. K.F. of Contra Costa County was mailed a letter denying her application of on or about September 24, 2008. She reapplied for CalWORKs, Food Stamp and Medi-Cal on October 29, 2008. The county completed her SAWS1 although she did not asked the county to complete it for her. She did indicate that she will run out of food in three days and needed assistance with money for transportation which appeared on the SAWS1. She was told to return in the morning of October 30, 2008 for orientation. At orientation she was called out of orientation and told to go home. Her former welfare worker told her that she cannot reapply for CalWORKs, Food Stamps or Medi-Cal. We contacted Contra Costa County for a com- ment, and did not receive any comment. It appears this is common practice in Contra Costa County. What laws have been broken by Contra Cost County? COUNT ONE – Violation of MPP 40-109.1 Right to Apply for Aid …any person has the right to apply for aid, either on his\/her own behalf or on behalf of another. An applicant who appears ineligible must still be allowed to exercise his\/her right to make an application. Ms. K.F. was not allowed to do so. COUNT TWO- Violation of MPP 40-128.33 The county shall not complete the Immediate Need section of the application or the Immediate Need Pay- ment Request (CA 4, 9\/90), except at the applicant’s specific request. Ms. K.F was not allowed to complete the SAWS1. COUNT THREE- Violation of MPP 40-128.41 If the applicant indicates on the initial application or the Immediate Need Payment Request (CA 4, 9\/90) that the family has an emergency situation as defined in MPP 40-129.13, the county shall conduct an Imme- diate Need interview no later than the next working day following the date the Immediate Need request is received. Ms. K.F. had no interview the next working day. COUNT FOUR – Violation of MPP 63-301.5. Re- fusal to issue expedited service food stamp benefits. If the applicant has less than $100 in liquid resources and has no other income, then they shall received Food Stamp benefits within three days. Ms. K.F. did not get any food stamps by 10-31-08. ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 November 12, 2008, Issue #08-22 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance & Refugee (RCA)\/Immigrant Eligibility. By Kevin Aslanian & Grace Galligher. Contributing editors Stephen Goldberg & Diane Aslanian. In Brief lCWDA Annual Meeting with no WiFi or ac- cess to Blackberry email. CWDA held their 2008 Annual Meeting at the Tenaya Lodge in Merced County this year. Awards were given to Merced County for a great conference. Sources tell us that the lodge did not have wifi and blackberries were generally not working. People had to drive to certain hot spots to see their email messages. lWelfare Officials are collecting focal points of suggestions for Barak Obama. Welfare officials nationally are collecting suggestions for changes in the TANF law and regulations that would ben- efit the welfare bureaucracy and they are calling it focal points. There are some who believe in the Reagan trickle down theory that happy welfare bureaucrats would mean happy clients. They are confused. TANF welfare officials have proven record of who they care about – they only us- ing 30% of TANF federal and state money for payments to families. lSan Bernardino County Policy for Study\/ Homework Time. San Bernardino County released a new policy effective October 1, 2008 relative to student study\/homework time that provides for 10 hours per week of supervised or unsupervised study\/homework time. A true copy of this policy is available from CCWRO upon request. State Budget Update Governor Attacks the poor Last week Governor Schwarzanegger, released anoth- er budget plan to balance the budget. Here are some of the highlights of this plan: m 10% cut in benefits -He has prepared a Christmas Present for welfare recipients – a 10% cut in the grant levels – after welfare recipients have given California over 12 billion to balance the budget and contributed $1,2 billion in the 2008-2009 budget just enacted. This will reduce the meager benefit of a family of three from $723 to $651. $93.2 million in 08-09. mNo aid for timed out families not meeting work participation rates – For those kids whose parents can’t work because they do not have child care and transportation, the Governor has a present for those kids – total destitution – no money to pay the rent. Christmas in the streets of California is what Gover- nor Scrooge has in mind for poor children. Saving – $80.7 million in 08-09. mLimiting Child Only Benefits to 60 months – For families who have been on aid for more that 60 months and aid is only being paid to the children, the Gov- ernor has a present for those kids – total destitution – no money to pay the rent. Christmas in the streets of California is what the Governor has in mind for poor children. $76.8 million in 08-09. mInstitute a every six month face-to-face meetings with the welfare workers. This proposal alleges that it would save $23.3 million in 2008-2009. Actually is would cost twice that much just for the administrative costs. This does not include the child care and the transportation costs and the people who would lose their jobs because they have to spend a whole day at the welfare office checking in with their welfare worker. .False saving of $23.3 million in 08-09. mEliminate Food Stamps for Lawful Aliens who are mostlky aged, blind or disabled. This proposal would eliminate food stamps for hungry aged, blind, disabled and mostly working low-income persons in Califronia who are lawfully in the United States. .saving of $30.3 million in 09-10. mReduce In-Home Supportive Services for the Aged, Blind and Disabled. These proposals would eliminate in home supportive services to persons who are in danger of ending up in a nursing home. It would also impose a share of cost on some of the aged, blind and disabled and would try to reduce the pay of home- maker chore providers – the working poor with whom the Schwarzanegger has not connection. Saving of $118.3 million in 09-10. County Client Abuse Report Sacramento County mailed a Notice of Action to Mr. B.M. on October 29, 2008 stating that effective 12-1- 08 his in-home supportive servive hours would be re- duced from 47.1 to 28.4 hours. Mr. B.M. also received amended time cards for September of 2008 reflecting the 28.4 hours. ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 December 1, 2008, Issue #08-24 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Ser- vices, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, General Assistance & Refugee (RCA)\/Immigrant Eligibility. By Kevin Aslanian & Grace Galligher. Contributing editors Stephen Goldberg & Diane Aslanian. In Brief l No car – most likely no job in California. – In Sac- ramento County a group of organizations are trying to redesign the county welfare-to-work system to help welfare recipients become self-sufficient. The county reported that 75% of welfare families do not have a car. Then an expert on jobs reported that 90% of the jobs in California require a car. In conclusion counties ignore the real barrier to employment and talk about engagement, job search, unpaid work, etc. Thanksgiving Message from Welfare Kids of California For us poor kids it has been a bad year No COLA for the fourth consecutive year Food Stamps run out by the 20th And thanksgiving falls on the 27th While many throw food away We go to sleep hungry They say that hope is on its way But all can see is that on Christmas eve Again we will go to sleep the same way. And no Santa Claus for us kids, Just another day of misery is our way. Outcomes of AB 1808 Annual $230 Million Addition to the County Single Allocation In 2006, the California State Legislature passed AB 1808 giving counties $230 million annually to increase welfare to work engagement and reduce sanctions. This was added to the county single allocation. To pay for it, the 2006-2007 state budget suspended the meager CalWORKs COLA that would have cost only $143 million. In the 2007-2008 state budget Cal- WORKs COLA was again suspended that would have only cost $124 million. Today, impoverished families with children live on fixed income at 1989 level when milk cost $1.44, a loaf of bread cost less than $1 and a first class stamp cost 22\u00a2. In 2008, families pay more than $3 for a gallon of milk, over $2-3 for a loaf of bread, and 42\u00a2 for a first class stamp – not to mention the cost of diapers, for- mula and other basic necessities of everyday life. So what did Californians get for spending $460 million and continuing? r Enrollee Engagement – up from 57% in October, 2006 to 70% in September, 2008. CCWRO ANALYSIS: This is a 13% increase at the cost of $35 million per percentage point. r Enrollees Sanctioned – up from 20% in October, 2006 to 21% in September, 2008. Although more peo- ple are engaged, there are more sanctions. The rate of WtW enrollees sanctions has gone up by 1%. CCWRO ANALYSIS: The $460 did not reduce the sanction rate. The reason for this is simple – there is no statewide process for curing the sanction. The counties get the money and they get to decide what they want to do with it. r Enrolled participants getting jobs – DOWN from 10% in October, 2006 to 8% in September, 2008. r Enrolled participants getting jobs that results in termination of benefits – 3% in October, 2006 and 3% in September, 2008. CCWRO ANALYSIS: The $460 million did not result in more people becoming self-sufficient. The primary alleged goal of welfare-to-work was to get welfare recipi- ents jobs and make them self-sufficient. At least that is the propaganda that the welfare industry espoused when they lobbied for the $230 million. Thus, we reviewed the impact that the $460 million has had on employment for welfare recipients. We are fully cogni- zant of the impact that it had on the employment of the wel- fare industry. Many more people were hired in the welfare industry. Many of them got a raise during this same time period welfare recipients did not get a COLA. The results are not good. More people being engaged has meant that more people are going through the WtW pavlovian tun- nels and less people are finding work because they are to busy meeting the commands and demands welfare indus- try and not able to spend time finding a job. The number of families getting jobs that makes them ineli- gible for welfare remains at 3% a month. r For September 2008 unduplicated participants not getting transportation supportive services – 44% no transportation paid. ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 December 8, 2008, Issue #08-25 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. l GOVERNORS BEG FOR $40 BILLION AND ALLEGE THEY’RE NOT ASKING FOR HELP – The nations Governors meet with President-Elect Barack Obama on December 2, 2008 in Philadelphia. The message from the Governors through the National Governors Association (NGA) Chairman, Ed Rendell was that they were not asking for federal relief, but would like the stimulus bill to include a $40 billion relief (welfare) to states in the form of revised federal matching for Medicaid. California Governor Schwar- zenegger said publicly that California needs no help from the federal government. Does that mean he will reject the millions of additional Medicaid matching dollars from the federal government? l BuDGET SuBcOmmITTEE NO. 3 ON HEALTH AND HumAN SERVIcES FOR 2009- 2010 – Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg named the membership and chairmanships of the upper house’s five budget subcommittees late Friday. Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Health and Human Services Sen. Alex Padilla, Chair (D); Sen. mark Leno (D); Sen. Gilbert cedillo (D); Sen. Elaine Alquist (D); Sen. Leland Yee (D); Sen. Dave cox (R); Sen. Bob Huff (R) and Sen. Sam Aanestad (R). l SAVE THE DATE! EVENING OF APRIL 18, 2009 – The National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter will have its annual Testimonial Dinner on April 18, 2009 in Oakland, CA. Their Champion of Justice will be Stephen Bingham. More details, including an opportunity to honor Steve, will follow in January. Tickets will be available beginning in March. See www.nlgsf.org for more information. l FEDERAL GOVERNmENT WON’T RE- LEASE STATE PARTIcIPATION RATES FOR FY 2007 – By June 30, 2008, the federal government was supposed to have all data necessary from the states to determine the Federal Participation Rates (FPR) for FY 2007. After getting this information, rather than is- suing a report of what the FPR are for each state, HHS sent the data back to the states and gave them until September 30, 2008 to comment on the data that they provided to HHS on or before 6-30-08. So what is the FPR for FY 2007? This information is still no where in sight. CalWORKs Partnership Meeting Report Dec. 2-4, 2008 DSS and community colleges do a CalWORKs part- nership meeting annually. This year, the session opened with a speech from John Wagner, Director of DSS. mr. Wagner said that the Governor asked Barack Obama for help with federal DRA rules regarding the federal participation rates (FPR) and the penalties for failing to meet the FPR. What was not said was that the Governor’s proposed budgets have always raided TANF money for Gen- eral Budget Relief. In California TANF is known as CalWORKs. In 2008-2009 $1.4 billion was taken away from CalWORKs budget and used to subsidize the state budget. Given the fact that annually about 20% of the CalWORKs money is siphoned off by the Governor and the Legislature, why should Congress fix anything when states refuse to spend the money available to meet the FPR. Congress should only offer relief to states who have spent all of the TANF federal and state money directly for the benefit of state TANF recipients who have qualified for the State TANF means tested program. charrLee metsker, Deputy Director of Welfare-to- Work Programs said that DSS does not want TANF money going back to federal government in the form of penalties for not meeting FPRs because that would be harming poor families. The truth is that every bud- get proposed by the administration since the inception of the TANF program has been penalizing poor fami- lies at the rate of +$1 billion a year. Since 1988-1989, California has taken over $12 billion from the mouths of impoverished families who live on the same fixed income amounts that they received in 1989 for the State General Fund. We attended several workshops done by DSS staff. It was like watching Fox News. All of the presentations we attended only talked about the greatness of the Cal- WORKs and WtW programs. On the other hand, Fres- no County welfare director Julie Hornback said that they are not able to bring down their sanction rate. Cont’d on page 2. In Brief Not mentioned was that 44% of the WtW unduplicated participants are not getting transportation. No mention that most supportive services were not advanced, rather they were reimbursed, causing undue hardship on poor families. There was no mention of the fact that many families are sanctioned when they actually had barriers that were never considered before imposing the sanc- tion. One of the DSS presenters told me that they want to uplift counties. At a workshop presentation regarding elevating the work participation rate, by Joseph Jack- son and Ryan Fruchtenicht of DSS, they talked about doing focus groups with participants. They said WtW participants loved their social workers or job search leaders. DSS staffers never mentioned anything nega- tive said by participants. We were later told by DSS that there were indeed negative comments about the county WtW program from the participants during those focus groups. INTERNATIONAL MOTHERS NETWORK (IMN) ANNOUNCED Mothers’ Movement Summit October 24-26th featured the participation of 28 international mother organiza- tions (including CODE PINK, NOW, Mothers Acting Up, Momsrising, Literary Mama, Sistersong, Mother- hood Project, NAMC, MINE, Welfare Warriors — to name just a few) and was attended by two hundred aca- demics and activists from more than twenty countries. At the final day of the conference, representatives of 20 plus mother’s organizations announced the establish- ment of the IMN. The initial goal of the IMN is to have mother organizations from around the world to join this network. In particular, the IMN urges mothers from the global south, mothers in poverty, mothers with disabili- ties, welfare mothers, grandmother caregivers, etc. to join in this new network. Folks interested in joining the IMN can send details about their organization by February 15, 2009 to sha- [email protected]. A website that will feature a quarterly newsletter and calendar of IMN events world- wide: www.internationalmothersnetwork.org. MAXIMUS LOBBYIST WIN At a 11-18-08 Los Angeles County Board of Supervi- sors meeting, the Board refused to approve a new con- tract for welfare to work private contractor PSI, who had only spent $25,000 on lobbying the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors according to the Los An- geles Times. maximus, the loser in this bidding war, spent $200,000 on lobbying. Maximus has been running this program for years, only bidding for it once about 13 years ago. On a 3-1 vote the supervisors rejected the recommenda- tions of the entire Los Angeles County bureaucracy and sided with the lobbyists of maximus to reject the PSI as a contractor and do a new Request for Proposal at the cost of at least $250,000. Maximus has made millions of dollars and they have failed to address the corrective action plans from their DPSS monitors of Los Angeles County and have been alleged to have performed inadequate work. At the hearing, the first attack came from Republican Supervisor Antonovich. He appeared to be well pre- pared by the Maximums lobbyists. He attacked PSI for having labor violations filed against them in other states and also because a state rescinded a contract with PSI. He was not a yes vote. Then came Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. The proposed contract would give PSI $22.6 million and $3.9 million in incentive payments. The county could do the same job for $25.3 million. Under LA County Prop. A the county cannot contract out a service to a private com- pany that would cost more than what the county would do it for. DPSS was not able to explain how this meets the Prop A requirements. He also asserted that the entire process was flawed be- cause DPSS contract evaluators had discarded their rating sheets in accordance with county policy. It was pointed out that this policy had been in effect since 2003. But Supervisor Yaroslavsky wanted to see the rating sheets. At this point, a representative from the union addressed the Board to alert them that all contracts where the rating sheets were discarded are invalid and void and should be recalled. The supervisors did not respond to this observation for their mission was only to stop the PSI contract so their Maximums buddies can continue to make millions of dollars. The Board finally rejected the recommendation of DPSS and DPSS Director Philip Browning, who used to work for Los Angeles County Department of Child Support. Mr. Browning commented I never knew child support was so good . DPSS was ordered to do a new RFP, do not destroy rat- ing sheets and notes and Maximus continues to make their millions until someday the bidding process is done at the cost of another $250,000 plus. The county has already spent about $4 million for doing the request for proposal and responding to the protests filed by maxi- mus and their lobbyists. CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News – 08-25 – December 8, 2008, Page 2 ”

” CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 December 15, 2008, Issue #08-26 CCWRO is a IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Of- fered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Servic- es, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. l CalWIN Mails Notices of Action with Wrong Date – CalWIN, the infamous computer system riddled with prob- lems, mails out notices of action (NOA) a week after the date of the NOA. Families generally have 10 days from the date of the NOA to ask for a hearing and receive continued benefits. With CalWIN, families sometimes get the NOA’s after the first of the month. l 80% of the State Hearings Staff Can Retire – We have been told that 80% of the state hearings division staff can retire. This will cripple the California hearing system which is one of the best in the country. l Fraud Investigators Do Not Comply with California Civil Rights Law – We have been told by reliable sources that welfare fraud investigators do not comply with Califor- nia civil rights law. They often interview and take evidence from persons in English when English is not their primary language. This is a violation of their civil rights. l Welfare Position Statements Not Translated – Cali- fornia counties are violating California civil rights law by providing persons with position statements in English when their primary language is not English. According to Welf.& Inst. Code Section 10952.5 the position statement shall be available two working days before the state hearing. WHAT IS THE TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE? The California unemployment rate for October, 2008 was 8.2%. Does that mean that 91.8% of the people who can work are working? No. That simply means that 1.5 million people are receiving unemployment benefits in California. Thus, it is assumed that these are the only unemployed people in California. This excludes most welfare recipients who are going to Job Club and are forced to look for non- existent jobs, persons whose unemployment insurance ben- efits have run out and more job seekers like students, etc. To determine the true unemployment rate, we looked at the number of people in California between the ages of 20 through 64 at http:\/\/www.dof.ca.gov\/html\/DEMOGRAP\/ ReportsPapers\/Projections\/P3\/P3.php, which are the offi- cial numbers from California Department of Finance – it is about 32 million people. The State of California Labor Market Review for October 2008 asserts that there are 17.2 million persons working. They then add the 1.5 million persons getting unemploy- ment insurance benefits to the 17.2 million people work- ing and allege that the workforce is only18.6 million. What about the 13.4 million people out there whose unemploy- ment benefits have been exhausted, are on welfare or just can’t find a job? Now maybe you can exclude some folks for being disabled. That can be 3.4 million people. How about the remaining 10 million? The unemployment rate is deceiving and it needs reform to match reality. County Welfare Department Client Abuse Report Ms. C.S. of Los Angeles County applied for CalWORKs and Food Stamps on 10-1-08 and asked for Immediate Need and Expedited Food Stamps. She had her first ap- pointment on 10-7-08. This is a violation Welfare and Insti- tution Code 11266(b), which mandates that the Immediate Need appointment be scheduled on the date of application, but no later than the next working day. She was issued CalWORKs Immediate Need in the amount of $200 on or after 10-7-08, about 5-6 days after the legal deadline for issuance of Immediate Need, but no expedited food stamps. DPSS lush with money requires a home visit for all appli- cants – a very costly administreative procedure.DPSS states that they did three home visits. The first was on 10-29-08 at 10:40 am. Ms. C.S. said that no one came to her house that day. The county then states that on 10-30-08 they made another attempt at 10 am. She was not home because she had a job interview. The third home call was made on 11- 6-08. She was at the welfare office that day trying to figure out what was happening with her application. Her 10-1-08 application was denied because the county was not able to make a home visit, even though they had all necessary verification to clear eligibility. She and her family were unlawfully denied food stamp benefits for 50 days. She was also unlawfully denied expedited service food stamp benefits. A violation of Welfare and Institutions Code 18914. Her food stamps were finally issued on November 20, 2008 going back to 10-1-08 after the welfare advocate contacted the county to determine why her benefits were being with- held and why the county was violating the CalWORKs Im- mediate Need and Food Stamp expedited Service laws. Her food stamps were 47 days late. In Brief ”