Search Demo

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

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 31, 2009 Issue 09-22 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian ty was not told that the ES worker should ask the EW for the verifica- tion. Ventura County wants to preg- nant women to personally deliver a copy of the same verification that most likely has been scanned and available on CalWIN to delay curing the sanction. County Welfare Department Victim Report CAPI BENEFITS STOPPED WITH- OUT EVIDENCE IN LOS ANGE- LES COUNTY – On December 19, 2008, Mr. 08365080 of Los Angeles County received a NOA terminating his CAPI benefits because his im- migration status did not meet CAPI eligibility requirements . At the hear- ing the county could not produce any evidence to support their ac- tion. The claim was granted and this victim is back on CAPI again. We wonder how many other CAPI re- cipients were terminated at the end of December 2008 because of their immigration status when there was no such evidence. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANC- TIONS WORKING MOMS – Ms. 09050424 has been working since September,2007 in Los Angeles County. She is a single mom with one child. She has been report- ing her income and her earned in- come has been used all that time to reduce her cash aid. The county has had verification of her earned income since 9-07. The county has included her hours for meeting the TANF work participation rates (WPR). This all sounds good except that all this time she was also sanc- tioned . Yes, a sanctioned persons work is being used by Los Ange- les County to compute their TANF WPR, but her earned net count- able income is being deducted from county must develop a policy and ap- ply it consistently in all cases. MPP 47-220.213 and 47-401.46. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WANTS TO KNOW HOW TO GET OUT OF PAY- ING FOR CHILD CARE – On July 30, 2009, Janet Maroge of San Diego County asked: We have an Active CalWORKs case with a mom, dad and 1 child. The dad is excluded felon on the CalWORKs case. The Mom and Dad are both attending Substance Abuse classes and are requesting child care. For the Mom this is her Welfare to work activity. Because the dad is not on CW, can we still autho- rize child care? So what is the answer? We do not have DSS’s response, but MPP 47- 220.2 states: Child care shall be paid for every cli- ent when the following conditions are met: .212 Welfare-to-Work Activity Participating in a county-approved welfare-to-work activity; or .22 Availability of Care There is no parent, legal guardian, or adult member of the assistance unit living in the home who is able and available to provide care. Dad is in treatment and not available. Does the county think he should fore- go treatment so the county won’t have to pay child care? VENTURA COUNTY WANTS TO CONTINUE TO SANCTION EXEMPT PREGNANT MOMS – On May 29, 2009 Mr. Edward Sajor of Ventura County was told by DSS If a mother meets the WtW exemption require- ments under 42-712.47, then she is exempt from WtW participation for the duration of the exempt period and cures her previous sanction. But this was not enough for Mr. Sajor to do the right thing and stop the sanc- tion. He then asked DSS whether or not the sanctioned person has to sub- mit pregnancy verification to the Em- ployment Service Worker (ES), which most likely had already been given to the Eligibility Worker (EW). The coun- In Brief 1-800-952-5253 ARE NOT BEING AN- SWERED – 1-800-952-5253 is a tele- phone number meeting several federal mandates for a toll free telephone line for public benefits participants to con- tact the California State Welfare Agency. This number has been a nightmare for DSS customers for years. This num- ber has historically been difficult to ac- cess, but generally people got through if they persevere. Today only 30% of the needed staff is answering this telephone number. This means California’s needy elderly, the disabled and others call and call and call and no answer. The comput- er system just drops the calls because there is nobody to answer to the calls. FURLOUGHS DRIVING ALJS TO RE- TIREMENT – 80% of the current State Hearing Division Administrative Law Judges are eligible for retirement. The recent three (3) day furloughs, which re- sulted in 15% reduction in their monthly income means, they do not gain much from working if they can retire. Many who retire will get 80% of their current salary. IHSS CUTS PLANNED IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS – DSS is plan- ning major cuts in IHSS. The termina- tions are based upon the rankings that the county gave the IHSS recipients for the needs set forth in 30-756.2. DSS will have to issue a notice of action and these ranking will certainly be challenged at state hearings and in court. It is esti- mated that many limited English speak- ing elderly, disabled and blind of Califor- nia will get a notice of action terminating their IHSS benefits in a language other than their primary language. If this oc- curs, it would be a violation of their Civil Rights. SAN DIEGO COUNTY TOLD THEY CAN PAY CHILD CARE FOR STUDY TIME – On July 23, 2009, Janet Ma- roge of San Diego County asked How is study time determined for an Active CalWORKs recipients who is attending College? Alana Lee of DSS responded stating we do not have specific child care regulations addressing child care for ‘study time’. If a county decides to reimburse child care for study time the CCWRO Welfare News a MAP of 1 rather than 2. This is how Los Angeles County rewards welfare recipients for meeting the TANF WPR SANCTIONS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHEATS WELFARE MOM OUT OF TRANS- PORTATION AND DSS JUDGE BACKS RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN THIS SCAM On October 28, 2008, Ms. 09105158 of Riverside county reported that she had a job. She explained that the training portion of the job would require her to trav- el from Lake Elsinor to Pomona, Glendale and other long distances. The Riverside Employment Ser- vices Counselor (ESC) entered the following information into the case record: We will only continue to authorize mileage through Decem- ber 2008 as customer will be off aid due to earning and will have ac- cess to free transportation through her employer, Metrolink. Ms. 09105158 submitted a travel claim for December on January 10, 2009 for 1,681.52 miles. The ESC called Ms. 09105158 and informed her that her request was denied and that the Welfare-to-Work Pro- gram would not reimburse her in- definitely. The ESC reminded Ms. 09105158 that she would only be reimbursed the first two months to assist her as she drove to and from different locations in Los Angels and San Diego County. On January 15, 2009 Riverside County sent a Notice of Action stat- ing, as of January 15, 2009, the Welfare-to-Work payment for pub- lic transportation is available. You have available transportation the job. The notice of action made no mention of the disposition of the 1,681.52 mileage reimbursement request. Ms. 09105158 filed for a state hear- ing. The hearing decision written by ALJ Leotaud Enaj stated that the claimant denied having transporta- tion through her job. She testified that her training continued through May 2, when her probation end- ed. The claimant also provided a schedule that indicated that the time she must report to work varies. One document indicated she reported for duty December 2008, 6:30 a.m. the second week of December 2008, CCWRO New Welfare News August 7, 2009 #2009-20 Page 2 and 5:50 a.m. the following week. As such the claimant stated if there was public transportation available it would not her to work and back within two hours. ALJ Leotaud Enaj found while the claimant maintained that her training continues through the end of proba- tionary period ending May 2, 2009, she failed to corroborate that claim with any credible documentation. Hence, it is found the claimant’s train- ing period ended no later than Janu- ary 31, 2009. ALJ Leotaud Enaj goes on to state: ACLs 00-54 and 00-12 provides Counties must reimburse a WTW participant for mileage for using a private vehicle if there is no public transportation available, or round-trip travel time using public transporta- tion exceeds two hours. The two- hour round trip excludes transporting children to school or child care. The county must pay mileage at the rate used in the county. If a participant is commuting across county lines to participate in a county approved activity the county must re- imburse the participant for mileage, even if the reimbursement amount seems excessive. Capping, or im- posing a limit on supportive services is prohibited under MPP 42-750.112 and ACL 00-12. This judge ignored section 42-750.11 that mandates the county to pay sup- portive services not only for training, but also to maintain employment. 42-750 .11 Necessary supportive services shall be available to every participant in order to participate in the program activity to which he or she is assigned or to accept or retain employment. If necessary supportive services are not available, the individ- ual shall have good cause for not par- ticipating under Section 42-713.21. In this case ALJ Leotaud Enaj only ordered the county to pay for Decem- ber, 2008 and denied transportation for January, February, March, April and May, 2009. FACTS According to the DSS WtW 25 reports during May, 2009, statewide 47% of the un- duplicated participants did not re- ceive transportation. See table #1 for percentage of WtW par- ticipants not getting transporta- tion services during May of 2009. That is 69,078 individuals who did not receive transportation. As- suming the average transportation payment is $50 a month. Looking another way this means every year county welfare department cheat welfare recipients out of $41 million. That is also like 47% of the welfare workers not submitting a travel claim. Riverside County does not pay 48% of the WtW participants and people like ALJ Leotaud Enaj are part of this problem. DSS has agreed to do a workgroup to combat this problem, but it has not happened yet. So the prob- lem continues, and many of Cali- fornia’s poor are denied needed transportation funds to allow them to find and maintain employment. Statewide 46.89% Siskiyou 97.85% Napa 92.49% Ventura 90.46% Tulare 89.06% Mendocino 81.45% Imperial 79.62% Trinity 76.12% El Dorado 75.98% Kern 75.55% San Mateo 74.94% Yuba 74.61% Butte 73.80% Santa Barb 73.49% Contra Costa 69.18% Alameda 68.53% Orange 68.21% Placer 67.61% San Fran 65.77% Yolo 65.24% Madera 64.78% San Joaquin 64.58% Sutter 63.14% Amador 62.86% Merced 62.30% Sacramento 60.91% Humboldt 60.46% T A B L E #1 Percentage of Participants Not Receiving Transporta- tion During May, 2009 ”

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

” CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Represen- tation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News 2009-2010 State Budget The 2009-2010 state budget is out and the one theme that springs out is that the impoverished get royally screwed and most everybody else gets some help. Welfare recipients have always been easy targets for Governors and politicians. This one is no different. The budget has increases for most everything except for payments to the poor as revealed below. 2008-2009 2009-2010 Percentage Appropriation Gov. Budget Difference CalWORKs Assistance Payments $3,004,035.00 $2,488,979.00 -17.00% CalWORKs Services Expenditures $1,004,395.00 $1,075,865.00 7.00% CalWORKs Administration $467,137.00 $489,499.00 5.00% Child Care Stage One $617,428.00 $673,851.00 9.00% Adoption Assistance Payments $793,108.00 $829,833.00 5.00% County Administration & Automation $1,382,970.00 $1,505,484.00 9.00% Social Services $2,241,917.00 $2,306,204.00 3.00% (Source: Governor’s 2009-2010 State Budget) County Single Allocation to operate the CalWORKs program is proposed to be $2.03 billion for 2009-2010. This amount includes a $106.2 million increase over the current year due to rising case caseloads. No COLA for 2009-2010 has been budgeted, which should have been 2.94% increase, would have only cost $ 81 million for 2009-2010. The COLA money is most likely being used to fund the county single allocation increase. While everybody gets more money because the caseloads are going up, the Governor has decided to cut benefits for impoverished families with children. Maybe the economy is great and the cost of living is going down for the poor in the convoluted minds of this administration living in a bubble? This budget pro- poses reduction of grants by 10% to save $301.3 million in 2009-2010. The budget also proposes to terminate benefits to impoverished families who are not meeting the federal work participation rates in order to save $534.7 million in 2009-2010. Many of these kids may end up in foster care, breaking up families an apparent policy of this administration. The budget also launches an attack on the aged, blind and disabled immigrants who are lawfully in the United and destitute by eliminating the cash aid and food assistance and sentencing them to homelessness and foodlessness. In summary, as revealed by the graph #1 on the left, only 38% of the January 17, 2009, Issue #09-01 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 In Brief \u25cf Effective October 1, 2008, the states can pass through to TANF, or CalWORKs families for California, the first $100 of the current child support per month for one child or the first $200 per month for two or more children. The aided parent would get the first $50 per month for spousal support, without decreasing the amount of cash assistance. No more than one support pass through is paid per month per family. \u25cf County IHSS quality assur- ance workers sit in front of IHSS recipients’ houses and take pic- tures in Sacramento County according to local legal aid folks. One client being watched said that the person knocked on her door and said he is from IHSS. He followed her to the store and took DVD pictures. These un- derworked County IHSS bu- reaucrats sit in the car in front of people’s houses and neighbors wonder what is this? Graph # 1 Source: Governor’s 2009-2010 State Budget Documents ”

” CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Represen- tation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO Weekly New Welfare News California Workfare Update The November, 2008 California State Department of Social Services WtW 25 report reveals that during November only 3,557 participants found work that lead to self-sufficiency, the alleged purpose of the California Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program. Taxpayers shelled out $1.4 billion for childcare and services designed to make WtW participants self-sufficient for 2008-2009. This means that during Novem- ber, 2008, California spent $32,218 for each family that found a job resulting in termination of their welfare benefits. Meanwhile an average CalWORKs family annually receives $6,480 in the form payments to families. That means the wel- fare bureaucracy receives $25,738 more annually than an impoverished family with children in California. For November, 2008 there were: Enrolled in WtW – 192,798 participants Participating in WtW – 132,275 participants Sanctioned Families – 39,476 participants Receiving Transportation – 72,812 participants 119,986 enrollees did not receive transportation during November of 2008. 59,463 participants also did not get transportation. This is a 38% of the par- ticipants being denied transportation. These families are forced to use their mea- ger CalWORKs benefits that are set at the 1989 level without regards to inflation to pay for transportation that county welfare departments should be paying. Meanwhile kids go hungry because parents are using the kids food money to cover the transportation costs so they would not be sanctioned for not participat- ing in the WtW program and lose another 30-50% of meager benefits. The reports also reveal that counties continue to impose sanctions upon WtW en- rollees at the rate of 20% a month statewide. Counties that exceed the state aver- age sanctions rate for enrollees are: Colusa 71.43% Mendocino 33.43% San Joaq. 24.71% Kern 58.04% Imperial 31.63% Nevada 24.01% Alpine 50.00% Madera 29.49% Glenn 23.65% Tuolumne 47.74% Merced 29.33% Sutter 23.53% Yuba 39.27% Lake 29.10% L.A 23.44% Tehama 38.31% El Dorado 28.21% Santa Cruz 22.79% Monterey 38.19% Marin 27.73% Plumas 22.37% San L.O. 36.70% San Fra. 25.92% Santa Clara 22.31% Napa 34.55% Humboldt 25.40% Shasta 22.15% Trinity 33.80% Fresno 25.17% Riverside 21.92% Kings 33.68% SSanSan San Bern. 25.05% Stanislaus 20.66% January 26, 2009, Issue #09-02 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 In Brief \u25cf During the depression New York enacted legislation that prohibited foreclosures for 10 years. There is no talk about similar legislation today. \u25cf 70% of the American econ- omy depends on consumer spending. What are welfare recipients? Consumers. They spend and spend and spend and keep the U.S. economy humming, which is why we have a welfare program in America. COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORT Mr. S.M. is an evangelical Christian and vaccinating their kids is against his religious be- liefs. They had a baby recently and when the hospital tried to vaccinate the baby, Mr. S.M. informed the hospital that it was against their religious beliefs to vaccinate their children. Moreover, none of their four (4) children have ever been vacci- nated. The hospital called Sac- ramento Child Protective Serv- ices complaining that the par- ents refused to vaccinate their son. Soon a social worker Ms. Applegate from CPS showed up and wanted to know why their son had not been vaccinated. They told Mr. S.M.’s wife that they want to talk to her husband and they would be back. The children are perfectly healthy and not in danger accept that they are not obeying the sugges- tions of the Hospital and CPS. Mr. S.M. said this is how we were treated in the Soviet Union by Stalin. We will be following ”

” CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Represen- tation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. CCWRO Weekly Welfare News February 5, 2009, Issue #09-03 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 In Brief \u25cf San Bernardino County News Last week San Bernardino County Adminis- trative Officer Mark Uffer in- formed members of the county’s Employee Advisory Group, some of whom work for the county’s Transitional Assistance Depart- ment, that if the State does not give the county the funds needed to issue welfare checks, he will shut down TAD offices. Since more than cash grants, e.g. food stamps and Medi-Cal, are issued through these offices, it is un- clear how those programs would be affected. More to follow. \u25cf Child Care Regional Market Rates Change. Effective March 1, 2009 there are new child care regional market rates that can be found for each county at http:\/\/www.cde.ca.gov\/fg\/aa\/c d\/ap\/index.aspx. Some rates have gone down. \u25cf San Joaquin County RCA Program a Mess – On November 26, 2008 Joe Chelli, Director of San Joaquin County was mailed an evaluation of his county Refugee Assistance Program. The Evaluation noted such deficiencies as not having self-sufficiency plans, not in- forming RCA clients that social security number disclosure is voluntary, and the failure to document what activities and services were provided. The County will be required to sub- mit a corrective action, however the County will likely continue to have the same violations at the next review. There is no mean- ingful accountability enforce- ment mechanism in the law for counties only for the county clients. \u25cf County Funds Cut Back and they Go Ballis- tic For the past 20 years wel- fare recipients have been subject to devastating reduction of bene- fits and have suffered im- mensely. The fixed incomes of welfare families in 2009 are the same as they were in 1989 20 years ago. County welfare offi- cials never testified before the Legislature that this is uncon- scionable. Now that County Welfare Offices have been cut- much less than welfare recipi- ents – they are incensed. Coun- ties are considering using call-in centers or banking cases and other cost saving measures that would reduced services to save money. Maybe counties will see what it is like to go to sleep hungry Thanksgiving day or Christmas night like thousands of welfare children have been doing for many years while some welfare officials have been dumping food. But we doubt it. Salaries of welfare administrators and workers are not stuck at the same level as they were in 1989. \u25cf Santa Clara County IHSS Report. Santa Clara received their IHSS report card on Sep- tember 30, 2008. This report card is an annual quality assur- ance monitoring summary. This year the county failed to com- plete the initial application as- sessments within 45 days in 15 of the 24 cases reviewed. This is a 62.5% failure rate. The law also required reassessment every 12 months. DSS reviewed 36 cases and in 25 cases Santa Clara County failed to complete the reassessment within 12 months. This is a 69% noncom- pliance rate. Are there any con- sequences to Santa Clara County for willfully and routinely break- ing the law. No. COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORT Los Angeles County Forces the Poor to Use Their CalWORKs Money for Supportive Services. – On 12-5-08 Los Angeles DPSS mailed a letter to Ms. 20073620391 denying her request for sup- portive services. On December 15, 2008 she filed for a state hearing. At the hearing the claimant presented evidence of entitle- ment to such supportive services. The county agreed to rescind the denial of sup- portive services and continue to process the request for supportive services. The hearing decision and Los Angeles County did not explain why they did not advance the pay- ment and forced an impoverished family to use their meager fixed income of Cal- WORKs that the same they received 20 years ago to pay for his activity. Santa Clara County Terminates Benefits to Victim of Domestic Abuse. Ms. 08207383 and her two children are victims of domestic violence. On 7-15- 08 Santa Clara County mailed a notice ter- minating the benefits of these victims of domestic violence (DV) because the abuser is getting SSA benefits. She filed for a state hearing and won the hearing. Santa Clara County was ORDERED not to deny Cal- WORKs to a DV victim by deeming the abusers income to be available to the victim. Fresno County Sanctions Family for Not Participating in WtW who lives 10 miles from the closest bus stop Fresno county mailed a notice of action to Ms. 08228906 imposing a Welfare-to-Work (WtW) sanction for not participating in Fresno County’s WtW program effective 9- 1-08. She filed for a state hearing on 8-13- 08. The decision states: Claimant lives in a rural area. It was un- disputed that claimant has no private trans- portation and the nearest bus stop is 10 miles away. The WtW worker knew or should have known these facts, yet imposed the sanction. The county appeals worker knew or should have known these facts yet went ahead with the hearing to make the sanction stick. ”

” CCWRO 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 February 24, 2009 Issue 09-04 \u2029 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co- Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refu-gee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian FEDERAL STIMULUS BILL NEWS Last week President Obama signed the America Recovery and Reinvest- ment Act of 2009-P.L.111-05. The bill makes 5 billion dollars available to states to whose caseloads are going up for basic assistance. This appears to mean money for welfare work- ers not poor families. Nothing in the bill says this money shall be used for payments to families to stimulate the economy. There is also money for nonrecurring aid, such as help- ing families with security deposits, utility shut-offs and money to pay for subsidized employment. Cur- rently, when states carry over federal TANF dollars they can only use it for payment to families. This bill would let States take that money from poor families and give it to the state and county welfare bureaucracies. The money is sometimes used by states to balance their budgets or as tax relief to the rich. It should be noted that currently less than 30% of the TANF and state match money goes to poor families and children. The rest goes to the States who have been fleecing TANF dollars for years. The fleecing of TANF dollars continues under this bill at a greater level. P.L. 111-05 also increases food stamp benefits by 13.6%. This bill can be viewed at: http:\/\/ thomas.loc.gov\/cgi-bin\/cpquery\/ R?cp111:FLD010:@1(hr016). SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY WEB-BASED APPLICATION SYSTEM REJECTS MANY OF THE POOR San Francisco County is launching a web based application process called benefits.sf.org. It is an on- line application system for Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, School Meals, EITC, WIC and Working Families Credit. According to the county, the system was intentionally de- signed to exclude CalWORKs and General Assistance (GA). The county representative stated that GA is a county program, thus, they do not want to help people get on GA. It appears that Cal- WORKs is in the same category. California Enacts New Budget On February 19, 2009, California passed a budget that still has a $5-6 billion deficit. The democrats agreed to cuts in programs new taxes on the poor and middle class. Republicans got new tax breaks for the big corporation while welfare parents, who struggle on a fixed income equal to 1989 levels, continue to suffer. Yes, Governor Schwarzeneger and his adminis- tration can proudly claim that they again screwed poor children. It is his claim to fame. It should be noted that he was aided by Repub- lican and Democratic members of the State Legislature. The Demo- crats rejected a long list of other punitive and barbaric initiatives put forth by the Governor and his Republican allies. 1. Elimination of the CAPI pro- gram designed to help the elderly, disabled and blind: Rejetced 2. Denying non-medical IHSS services to many recipients: Re- jetced 3. Imposing a 60-month time limit on certain needy kids: Rejetced 4. Implement a 6-month self- sufficiency bureaucratic wasteful review: Rejetced 5. Ten percent reduction in the CalWORKs grants which are at the same level that they were 20 years ago pushing the benefits to about 30 years ago: Rejetced 6. Stealing $216.9 million in federal funds for CalWORKs and giving it to DDS and California Student Aid commission: Rejet- ced 7. Suspending Pay-for-Perfor- mance to counties. Counties want performance incentives for them- selves, but OPPOSE incentives for the poor: Accepted 8. 4% reduction of CalWORKs grant will go into effect unless the state received sufficient federal stimulus funds . We have no idea what is sufficient : Accepted 9. Elimination of the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP): Rejected WORKFARE SANCTION REPORT This Christmas, about 80,000 chil- dren, were recipients of California workfare sanctions which means the fixed income of these impov- erished families will be the same amount they received in 1984. Most sanctions by California’s 58 counties were unlawful. Most of these families were not even given transportation to participate in the \u2029 \u2029 and her fixed income would be reduced. But Oscar Perez, a Los Angeles County official, testified under oath at a hearing that in Los Angeles County recipients have to work 20 hours a week or more in order to be eligible for transportation. That is why 49% of the WtW enrollees who were vulnerable to a WtW sanction are not getting transportation in Los Angeles County. That is 23,709 partici- pants who did not get transpor- tation last Christmas. Many poor families in Los Angeles County had to use their food money for their Christmas meal to pay for the transportation to avoid being sanctioned. DSS ACL 03-15 states: Every individual participating in an approved WTW activity, including employment, is eligi- ble to receive necessary transpor- tation supportive services. …. Q. Are there a minimum number of participation hours required of a CalWORKs partic- ipant in order to receive trans- portation services? A. No. Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Section 42-750.11 states that necessary supportive services, including transportation, shall be available to every participant in order to participate in the program activ- ity to which he or she is assigned or to accept or retain employ- ment. CCWRO New Welfare News February 24, 2009 #2009-04 Page 2 DSS and counties refuse to cure the sanctions in accordance with the law. A typical case is that of Ms. S.B. who was told by her WtW case manager Veronica Gonzales and the supervisor Frank Valenzuela that if she did not comply with WtW, without good cause, she can cure the sanction only by agreeing to a 90-day compliance plan. MPP 42-721.43 provides that a sanction is cured once the sanctioned indi- vidual perform the activity that he or she failed to perform not a 90- day mandatory compliance period. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT CLIENT ABUSE REPORT SACRAMENTO COUNTY FORCES PARENTS TO DO WTW WITHOUT CHILD CARE – Mr. & Ms. R.S. have been forced to participate in the welfare-to-work program by Sacramento County. They have been warned that if they do not, they will be sanctioned. This means their fixed income will be reduced down to early 1980 levels. They have a newborn baby. They asked for Child Care and their worker refuses to pay or arrange child care. LOS ANGELES UNLAW- FULLY DENIES SUP- PORTIVE SERVICES – Ms. C.S. of Los Angeles County has an on-call job. Whenever they call her she goes to work as OR- DERED by Los Angeles County welfare department. She was told clearly that if she ever refus- es a job she would be sanctioned WtW program because the county wants to save money by denying transportation assistance to needy families. There were 40,163 families who were being sanctioned in Decem- ber of 2008 according to Depart- ment of Social Services WtW 25 reports. The statewide average sanction rate is 20.31% counties exceeding the statewide average are Colusa County who has 54 persons enrolled in the WtW pro- gram and had 34 persons in sanc- tion mode. This is a 61% sanction rate. The next one is Kern County with a 56% sanction rate. Coun- ties exceeding the statewide aver- age are: Statewide 20.31% Colusa 61.11% Kern 55.62% Tuolumne 44.91% Tehama 42.69% Kings 40.99% Yuba 39.90% Trinity 37.33% Monterey 36.99% San Luis Obispo 36.70% El Dorado 31.90% Napa 30.93% Marin 29.04% Alpine 28.57% Merced 27.89% Humboldt 27.81% Madera 27.80% San Francisco 27.53% Mendocino 27.43% Lake 26.89% Santa Cruz 26.26% Imperial 25.67% San Bernardino 25.46% Nevada 24.70% San Joaquin 24.65% Fresno 24.25% Riverside 23.64% Sutter 23.43% Los Angeles 22.71% Inyo 22.45% Shasta 22.18% Santa Clara 21.71% Stanislaus 21.37% NOTE: LARGE COUNTIES BOLDED ”

” CCWRO 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 March 4, 2009 Issue 09-05 \u2029 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co- Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refu-gee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian The 2009-2010 Califor- nia state legislation is out. There are about thirteen CalWORKs and Food Stamp related bills. There are good bills, some waste- ful bills and some spot bills. Spot bills are bills that are introduced that will later be amended to do something other than what the original bill does. This is a common tactic in Sac- ramento. l SB 384 – Benoid (R) -This Bill would require random drug testing of welfare parents. Parents who test positive would lose their ben- efits if they fail to complete a drug treatment program. CCWRO POSITION: Oppose: This Bill does not take into consideration false positives . Counties have reduced funding for loe-cost drug treatment programs in ordr to save money . Most importantly, this Bill punishes children for their parents actions. l SB 718 – Leno (D) This Bill would limit fingerimaging only to those food stamp recipients who receive General Assistance. CCWRO POSITION: Support l AB 325 – Beall( D) This Bill would create a Earned Income Tax Credit Outreach program. CCWRO POSITION: Support l AB 510 -Evans ( D) This Bill would stop to the 60 month time clock for WtW participants who have received good cause from participation due to lack of sup- portive services. CCWRO POSITION: Support l AB 631 Tran (R) This Bill would require the county district attorneys office to search the house of every applicant for Cal- WORKs before aid is authorized. CCWRO POSITION: Oppose – This could cost millions of dol- lars in bureaucratic costs for do- ing meaningless home searches for the crime of being poor. l AB 719 – Lowenthal( D) This Bill would provide transitional food stamps to foster care youth with federal waivers CCWRO POSITION: Support l AB 816 – Hagman ( R) Cur- rent law transfers funding from the Employment Training Panel (ETP) to the counties for the WtW program. This Bill would stop the raid of the ETP funds. Just as we oppose others raiding TANF funds, we should not support raid- ing other peoples money. CCWRO POSITION: Support l AB 1057 – Beall( D) This Bill would create a semi-annual reporting system for CalWORKS and Food Stamps. l AB 1058 – Beall( D) This Bill rescinds current asset\/propert limitations. For CalWORKS ap- plicants the maximum asset limit would be $7,000. This includes the primary residence. For Cal WORKS recipients the propert limitations would be removed, exept as provided by federal law. CCWRO POSITION: Support if amended. l AB 325 – Brownley ( D) This bill would increase money for community college education targeted to CalWORKS recipi- ents. CCWRO POSITION: Support l AB 1193 Strickland (R) This bill would require the county district attorneys office to search the house of every applicant for CalWORKs before aid is autho- rized. CCWRO POSITION: Oppose – This could cost millions of dollars in bureaucratic costs for doing these meaningless home searches for the crime of being poor. l AB 1479 Duvall (R) This is a spot bill for a welfare reform bill. CCWRO POSITION: None 2009-2010 California New Welfare Bills ”

” CCWRO 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 March 9, 2009 Issue 09-06 \u2029 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co- Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian The California Budget Project published a paper in collaboration with California Welfare Directors Associa- tion (CWDA) entitled Stretched Thin 2008 revealing that state budget cuts undermine California’s human ser- vices programs. The 28 page document explains that some counties subject to budget cuts and actually felt some pain; pain that welfare recipients live with at the hands of budget cuts that result in CalWORKs recipients being paid the same amount as in 1989. There is no statement in these 28 pages that county workers are receiving the same wages that they received in 1989. Many of these counties impose mean spirited sanctions against impoverished families for a variety of reasons. These sanctions reduce their benefits by another 25%. Maybe California Budget Project and CWDA should write a report on how poor families are irreparably harmed by budget cuts and county sanctions. The report fails to show that coun- ties negatively impact impoverished families by imposing sanctions or ter- minating benefits solely for procedural reasons. The report fails to mention that over 40% of Welfare-to-Work participants are not paid transportation. This means impoverished families living on a 1989 fixed income use their precious benefits for transportation. The report does not reveal how counties treat the impoverished that they have responsibility for – General Assistance recipients. Benefits are generally limited to three (3) months and each case gets a miserable $227 a month. The report does not reveal that in 2006, the California State Legislature passed AB 1808 giving counties $230 million annually to increase welfare to work engagement and reduce sanc- tions. To pay for it, the 2006-2007 state budget suspended the meager Cal- WORKs COLA that would have cost only $143 million. The 2007-2008 state budget again suspended the CalWORKs COLA that would have only cost $124 million pre year. The $230 million has been of part of county single allocation since 06-07. What did taxpayers get for $230 million? In January, 2007, 67% of the enrollees were engaged in Welfare-to- Work. In January , 2009, 68% were engaged. In January, 2007, over 20% of the cases were sanctioned. In 2009 it is still over 20%. This report can be downloaded at:http:\/\/www.cbp.org\/ pdfs\/2008\/StretchedThin2008FINAL.pdf COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT New Born Not timely Added To Grant and no food stamps after 120 days. Ms. J.M. of Sacramento had a baby on 11-16-08. Within a couple of days she reported this to her welfare worker. Her welfare worker said she will mail her some forms to add her baby to the assistance unit. Sometime in December Ms. J.M. received form CW8A to add her baby. The baby was added to the assistance unit effective January 1, 2009. As of March 1, 2009, the baby is still not getting food stamps. The County alleges that they received the pregnancy verification on 11-21-08. When the victim filed for a state hear- ing, her worker called her and coerced her into dropping the hearing alleging that she has received all that was due. Child Care taken away for doing what Sacramento Child Action said to do & violations of Due Process of Law. Ms. G.L. of Sacramento County received a letter terminating her child care benefits from Child Action. Child Action is a non-profit organization that has a contract with the county to issue child care payments to current and former CalWORKs recipients. In this case, Ms. G.L.’s schedule for child care hours stated she will receive child care from 8:30 am to 8:55 am. She called her Child Action case manager and told the case manager that she is not using the child care services for that time period. Child Action case man- ager Irina Walters instructed Ms. G.L. to complete the time sheet based on the authorized hours. On February 26, 2009 she received a letter stating Effective 3-17-09, your child care services will be terminated because you falsified information on the attendance forms. The Notice of Action states that This action is based on: CDE Regulations. The California child care program is famous for ram- pant violations of due process of law. The notices of action violate many due process rules. Child Care hearings do not meet due process requirements. Hearings are not taped. Hearings are conducted by the agency taking the negative action, so there is no trier of fact. Trustline takes months and months. Working poor not paid by Child Ac- tion. Ms. L.H. of Sacramento County cannot use the child care provider of her choice because her provider has not been registered with the trustline reg- istry . On 7-21-08, Ms. L.H.’s provider went to Child Action and completed the trustline registration forms. The next day she was fingerprinted. She has no criminal record. As of March 2, 2009, her chosen provider has not been registered with the trustline. On October 25, 2008, she had to forego her chosen provider and get a new child care provider. Her provider, a low-income worker, was not paid for her labor from 7-12-08 through 10-25- 08 because she has not been registered with the Trustline Program. Counties Hurting? How about Cal- WORK recipients? NOTE: These are a frac- tion of the victims of county welfare depart- ment abuse in California. ”

” CCWRO 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 March 16, 2009 Issue 09-07 \u2029 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co- Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media-Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief l Christine Webb-Curtis, the Bureau chief for Employment Servic- es has been promoted to Food Stamp Branch chief effective 3-16-09. Cora Myers, supervisor of the Eligibility Bureau has been promoted to Chief of the Child Care Bureau. Christine Brinks, who used to be Christine Sanchez before she got married, sued to work for the employment bureau has been promoted to the position of Manager of Food Stamp Branch Em- ployment and Special Projects Unit. l The newly enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill, suspended the 3-month limit for able bodies adults, ABAWDS , until September 30, 2010. This means that thousands of eligible ABAWDS not getting food stamps today because their 3 months expired will be eligible for food stamps after April 1st. There are no plans by California to get these folks back into the food stamp program. l The ARRA money can also be used to subsidize employment, such as work-study. ARRA would put up 80% of the money and the state or counties could put up 20%. This al- location would enhance California’s ability to meet the federal work par- ticipation rates and get folks working. l Some counties are now refus- ing to accept cell phone numbers and demand that recipients use land lines. Counties do not pay for the telephone, but demand a land line. Having a land-line is not a condition of eligibil- ity for CalWORKs, Food Stamps or Medi-Cal. l ARRA is estimated to provide California $220 million for childcare. 5% of that money can be used for ad- ministrative costs and 4% for what is called quality of care . The Califor- nia Department of Education is sup- posed make a spending plan for this new money. Child Care in California is run locally by childcare bureaucrats (APPs) who often treat welfare recipi- ents worse than the welfare depart- ment. These child care bureaucrats will terminate child care benefits on a dime if a poor mom is alleged have failed to report something to the high minded child care bureaucrats. There is no due process. Notices of actions violate due process and the hearings are simply a chat with a co-worker that took the negative action and a let- ter confirming the initial determina- tion l The California Food Stamp Policy Advocates discussed means to increase Food Stamp participation. The presentation focused on Louisi- ana’s experience with increasing food stamp participation. As food stamp participation increased, procedural terminations went down, the error rate did not go up. This was done by instituting a culture change from the top. Treat welfare recipients like you would want to be treated. One of the interesting points was how to deal with whereabouts unknown . Often families and households are ter- minated for whereabouts unknown only to come back on the program as an applicant. It is more expensive to process an application than a continu- ing case. Louisiana required super- visory approval before the family was terminated for whereabouts un- known and checked the school to see if the kids are still in school. l Counties are complaining about not having money and laying off workers. DSS is seeking a waiver of face-to-face Food Stamp interview that would have a county option. Thus, counties who are do not want to save state money can waste it with these interviews. The county should pay for the interviews with county dollars only. l President Obama has promised to abolish child hunger by 2015. That can’t happen with the current TANF grant levels. The Trigger Debate in Sacramento The recently passed legislation, AB 16, Chapter 5, statutes of 2009, pro- vides for a host of cuts to go into ef- fect if the state receives less than 10 billion from the federal government. The cuts include elimination of dental services for adults, a further 4% cut in CalWORKs grants that are current- ly at the same level that they were in 1989 and a host of other cuts in human services. By April 1, 2009 the Depart- ment of Finance and the Treasurer would have to certify that the federal money received by the state is more than $10 billion to stop these cuts, otherwise they go into effect. To date the Department of Finance has estimated that only $8 billion of ARRA money would be available. The Schwarzenegger Administration obsessed with screwing the poor has resorted to understating the money California from P.L. 111-5, the 2009 Recovery Act so the slaughter of the poor can start. The Department of Fi- nance underestimated $1.1 billion of Medicaid federal funds. According to the Office of Senator Feinstein Cali- fornia will get over 10 billion dollars. At a legislative hearing, Assembly- man Feuer was able to get a represen- tative of the Legislative Analyst to ad- mit that letting these barbaric cuts go into effect would deprive California of millions of federal dollars. The final decision would be made by April 1, 2009. There is a possibility of litigation if the Department of Fi- nance uses this phony estimate. The sad thing is that it is not a felony for state officials to practice dishonesty and harm the impoverished of Cali- fornia. It should be. ”

” CCWRO 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 April 7, 2009 Issue 09-08 \u2029 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian LAO’s ATTEMPT TO RATIONALIZE LOW CALWORKS GRANTS On March 18, 2009, at an Assembly Budget Committee Sub #1 hear- ing, the Legislative analyst, who has been promoting the reduction of CalWORKs benefits which are now at 1989 levels, handed out a docu- ment containing misleading infor- mation describing how the further reduction of CalWORKs benefits are not as devastating as they appear. The analyst reached this misleading conclusion by assuming that all Cal- WORKs families receive more food stamp benefits than they actually do. The analyst’s error exceeded 10% of every estimate. The analyst alleged that a family of three would receive $423 in food stamps every month. According to the USDA, FNS the average amount of food stamps is actually $271 a month. See http:\/\/www.fns.usda. gov\/pd\/19SNAPavg$HH.htm. Figure #1 reveals how the impact of grant reduction is real and brings poor families on fixed incomes un- der 70% of the poverty level. CALIFORNIA CUTS GRANTS While the Obama Administration has poured billions into the California state coffers, the Governor and the Legislature continued their four year attack on poor families. This year poor families were, again, denied a COLA, although 80% of it would have been funded with federal money. The COLA would have cost $80 million. Worse yet, the poor have another 4% cut in benefits effective May 1, 2009. That is another $147million, totaling $227 million. California declined $182 million dollars from the federal government while poor families and children suffer in poverty. The $227 million would have stimulated the economy and produced economic activity of to- taling $613 million in California. While food stamp benefits have been increased, benefits decline assuring that the poor continue to live in misery. How is TANF\/CalWORKs Spent in California? (1) $2.4 Billion (B)- Payments to Families (2) $2.6 B – Program Operation Costs (3) $1.5 B – Contribution to the Genera Fund 2009 1-09 4-09 7-09 3-09 6-09 12-09 CalWORKs Grant $723 $723 $694 Actual Food Stamps (FS) Amounts $271 $308 $318 LAO’s Incorrect FS Amounts $423 $486 $495 2009 poverty level for a family of 3 $1,526 $1,526 $1,526 Actual Percent of Poverty 65% 68% 66% LAO’s Incorrect Poverty Levels 75% 79% 78% Degree of LAO’s Error 10% 11% 12% CalWROKs Grant $689 $689 $661 Actual FS Amounts $271 $308 $318 LAO’s Incorrect FS Amounts $423 $486 $495 2009 poverty level for a family of 3 $1,528 $1,526 $1,526 Actual Percent of Poverty 63% 65% 64% LAO’s Incorrect Poverty Levels 74% 78% 76% Degree of LAO’s Error 11% 13% 12% High Cost Counties Other Counties Figure #1 ”

” CCWRO 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 April 15, 2009 Issue 09-09 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2029 In Brief COUNTY BREAKS THE LAW AND DSS DOES NOTHING On February 3, 2009, Mendocino County asked DSS if ACL 00-53 is correct. This ACL states that even in cases of chronic abuse, the CWD cannot offset a recipi- ent’s grant or child care payment without the recipient’s agreement. However, Mendocino County adopted the practice set forth in WtW 11, which provides that If you don’t pay the overpayment or contact the county within 10 days after the date of the overpay- ment notice, the county will col- lect the overpayment by lowering the supportive services payments. After over 60 days, DSS has not told Mendocino County to stop their illegal procedure. How long will this lawlessness continue? CAN STAGE 1 CHILD CARE BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FAMILY FEE? A San Diego County Program Spe- cialist asked DSS if San Diego County can terminate Stage 1 child care for failure to pay the family fee. DSS responded that paying the family fee is not a condition of eli- gibility for Stage 1 child care. EBT TRANSFER TO ACS SET FOR SEPTEMBER, 2009 The Electronic Transfer of Ben- efits contract has been awarded to ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc. for $69 million. ACS did not get this contract out of the blue sky. They paid dearly-ACS contributed $50,000 to Governor Schwar- zenegger. Arnold has repeatedly said that he will not take dona- tions from government employee unions, but seems to have no prob- lem taking money from a govern- ment contractor. ArnoldWatch is calling on Governor Schwarzeneg- ger to return the ACS contribution and commit to never hiring the firm because of the conflict that has been created. During June, 2009 DSS will be training county trainers. The overnight cutover of EBT services to ACS is set for September 19-20, 2009. STATE HEARINGS DIVISION INFORMATION County representatives want to appear by phone for out-of-county cases. DSS will be holding a state hearings conference in Monterey County, Asilomar. Counties are identifying issues which DSS will train the counties on. Advocate involvement repre- senting the other community that DSS serves is unclear at this time. State hearing requests are going up due to line staff who tend to make more mistakes due to inex- perience. Counties are looking at settling certain overpayment\/overissuanc- es. For example, San Bernardino County would agree to suspend any overpayment over four (4) years old for a former welfare re- cipient with the understanding that when the former recipient comes back on aid, the county can recoup the overpayment from the grant. Counties also suggest that DSS have a duty judge who would be on call by telephone for coun- ties to talk to when resolving is- sues. The suggestion includes the proposal that if the county can- not persuade claimants to drop their hearings because the county believes there is no merit to the claim, the Judge could do the trick. Counties also suggest that the duty judge do stipulated decisions rather than waiting for the hearing to be scheduled for a stipulated decision. Would the duty judge be avail- able to claimants and their repre- sentatives? San Bernardino and Tulare coun- ties have stopped assigning failure to provide (FTP) cases to hearings specialists. These counties send the cases to their Quality Review staff who find the information and settle the case. Of the 120 FTP filings, only 2 cases had to go to hearing. The state hearing division con- templates a new hearing location in Alameda County that lacks ad- equate and client-friendly pub- lic transportation that violates the American Disabilities Act. ”

” CCWRO 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 April 25, 2009 Issue 09-10 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian NEW SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT TAKES AIM AT IMAGINARY RAMPANT FRAUD IN THE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM. The March 23, 2009 Sacramento County Grand Jury Report focused on the Sacramento County In-Home Sup- portive Services (IHSS) Program. The Jury noted that [T] he lack of fiscal controls and oversight at IHSS has made it an easy target for those who are greedy and allowed rampant abuses to occur. The Jury described the IHSS program as: At best, it is dysfunctional plagued by upper management who refuse to make meaningful changes or even to look into matters that will be beneficial to the truly needy people it is pledged to help. The Jury interviewed such fraud propagandists as District Attorney staff, the County Sheriff, County fraud investiga- tors and State Department of Justice representative. Also testifying were current and former IHSS social workers, the IHSS Director, and DSS representatives and the Ex- ecutive Director of the CWDA. The Jury reviewed such credible and pertinent docu- ments as unidentified news articles, unidentified policy reports, unidentified research studies, past Grand Jury reports from other counties, a Little Hoover Commission Report, State IHSS legislation, Legislative Analyst’s Of- fice reports and a published news report that the Gover- nor’s Office estimates the Statewide fraud rate for IHSS is 25% . Sacramento County created an IHSS Registry as a Public Authority with the five-member county Board of Supervi- sors as the governing authority. The Registry investigates the qualification and background of potential providers, provides 12-week training courses pertaining to tax prepa- ration, nutrition, hospice, coping with grief and loss and administration of medication for recipients and provides and performs other functions related to delivery of IHSS services. Unlike most counties where 50-70% of the IHSS providers are hired from the Registry list, only 1% of IHSS providers are from Sacramento County’s Registry list. The Jury compared the IHSS program and operating costs: The Jury did not acknowledge that while IHSS services increased by 32%, the bureaucracy grew by 51%. The Grand Jury showed that for the 2004-2005 fiscal year administrative costs increased by 1.1 million while IHSS services decreased by $600,000. However, the sense is that fraud caused the program costs to be out of control because IHSS is an easy target for those who are greedy and allowed rampant abuses to occur. The Jury noted that IHSS providers who are family mem- bers or acquaintances get paid at $10.40 per hour, while the median starting hourly rate for a Registry provider is $9.25 per hour. Unlike Registry hires, family members and acquaintances do not require a criminal background check, an assessment of the provider’s ability to provide care, a tuberculosis test or training. The Jury also noted that more than 3,400 providers who work over 85 hours per month receive Medi-Cal and dental benefits. Although some of the Jury’s fraud concerns were proper, e.g., claims submitted by incarcerated providers or claims by providers of deceased recipients, the spurious fraud allegations overwhelmed legitimate concerns. In con- cluding that fraud was rampant, the Jury’s Report relies on anecdotal instances of fraud that were unsubstantiated by actual cases. The Jury is gravely concerned with the following types of rampant fraud: -Claims inflated by under the table check-splitting be- tween recipient and provider. -Recipients with conditions of severe forgetfulness, asthma or restricted mobility going to Indian casinos for six to ten hours, several days a week. -Claims of mental illness stage-managed by using magic words such as he wanders or acts strange and is disoriented. -Claims of Medi-Cal conditions unverified by Medi-Cal professionals. -Fraud by able and available spouse. -Fraud by social worker. -Service not given by IHSS providers as required. -Use of false Social Security numbers by recipients or pro- viders. (Tax fraud) Costs (In Millions) 03-04 07-08 % IHSS Payments $44.4 $65.4 32% IHSS Admin. $11.8 $24.2 51% IHSS Registry Admin $1.07 $1.56 46% \u2029 \u2029 CCWRO New Welfare News April 25, 2009 #2009-10 Page 2 -False representation of need by recipients -Payment to providers when recipient is in nursing facility or hospital. Currently, Sacramento Fraud in- vestigations are based on reports of suspected fraud by the public and on IHSS social worker referrals. Cases of fraud of $1,500 or greater are ac- cepted by the District Attorney’s Of- fice for prosecution, other the cases are referred to County Collections. IHSS Fraud Case Referrals Fiscal Year Referrals DHHS to DHA Investigations DHA to DA Prosecuted DA Cases Filed 2004-05 236 23 24 2005-06 341 16 15 2006-07 397 31 25 2007-08 N\/A 28 24 The Jury argues that the small number of fraud prosecutions is not indicative of the magnitude of fraud actually occurring. There would be more fraud prosecutions if fraud prevention efforts were strengthened. Additional fraud problems include: -Social workers’ denials of requested IHSS services are routinely over- turned on appeal. -Fraud restitution is insignificant. -Annual reassessments of recipients are seriously in arrears. -Inability to track and identify physi- cians who routinely authorize IHSS services. -Number of ‘Registry-screened providers is less than 1% of the total County providers. Now that we have covered the rea- sons that IHSS is allowing rampant fraud, we review the Jury’s meaning- ful changes that will be beneficial to the truly need people it is pledged to help. The Recommendations include: -Requiring both recipient and provid- er thumbprints on the supplemental time sheets as well as to sign under penalty of perjury. First, will the County provide every IHSS recipient with an ink stamp for the prints. Second, what good are thumb- prints if they are not run through the database. Third, does violation of IHSS statutes and regulations mean anything? -Enforce the annual Recipient reassess- ment requirement. Sacramento County does not have enough staff to conduct reassessments. They are laying off staff. -Require unannounced home visits on a random basis to reduce stage managed reassessments. Would the Grand Jury or social workers like unannounced home visits? -Require that social workers inform recipients of their right to have criminal background checks conducted on their providers and require that all provid- ers have and pay for a fingerprint-based criminal background check which will be given to the recipient. Wouldn’t recipients probably know that a family member or an acquaintance has been jailed? Who will run the background check? DOJ? The Sheriffs Office? Sacramento has over 19,000 providers, where is the staff to run these checks? Who gets het money for the criminal background check? What about justice? Served the time, still guilty? Encourage the County Board of Super- visors to evaluate the Registry functions, workload and level of funding. If IHSS recipients were encouraged to obtain Registry providers in excess of the current 1%, then millions of dollars would be required. Require all providers to pass a tubercu- losis test. Who will pay for the TB test? Where in the law is this authorized? How often would the TB test be taken—once is not enough to achieve their goals. Require all current providers to undergo a face-to-face meeting with an IHSS representative to verify identification, receive a program orientation that is verified by the provider’s signature. If Sacramento County does not have the time to complete annual assessments, who will conduct the interview? Where in the law is this authorized. Develop a fraud data management system capable of detecting fraud. Give us a break. CalWIN has prob- lems with issuing benefits even after Sacramento has paid millions to EDS. Establish an independent pool of physician’s to periodically review re- cipient files of Medi-Cal and mental conditions to provide both quality control and certification of claimed needs and services. This is a fantastic deal for unem- ployed physician’s who like to be paid without seeing patients, although there are no specific IHSS regulations to support this. The Grand Jury charged that the Sacramento County IHSS Program is plagued by upper management who refuse to make meaningful changes. What the Jury failed to consider is that many, if not all, of these MEAN- INGFUL CHANGES VIOLATE THE LAW and cost REALLY BIG BUCKS either to implement or for continuing operations. For a copy of the Sacramento Grand Jury Report go to: http:\/\/www.sac- grandjury.org\/reports\/08-09\/Grand- Jury-Report-IHSS.pdf WHAT IS IT THAT THE GRAND JURY DID NOT LOOK AT? The grand jury did not look at the fact that IHSS has become an ATM machine for denying the Sacramento impoverished elderly, disabled and blind of hours to which they are en- titled by law. This is a statewide trend. We have re- ceived calls from advocates of IHSS recipients who continuously go to a hearings and are able to prove that the county has cheated the impover- ished elderly, disabled and blind out of thousands of hours. This amounts to stealing millions from the impov- erished elderly, disabled and blind of California, including Sacramento. But stealing from the impoverished elderly, disabled and blind has never been a concern of the Grand Jury and the people who testify before the grand jury. ”

” CCWRO 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 May 4, 2009 Issue 09-11 \u2029 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian \u2029REPORT ANALYSIS The California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) and County Supervisors Association of Califor- nia (CSAC) issued a 26-page report, dated April 2009 discussing the cur- rent economic crisis and its impact on human services. The California Human services system is composed of recipients and providers . CWDA and CSAC represent the provid- ers . The plight of the real victims of this recession, the PEOPLE those human services is designed to serve the recipients , was not focus of the report. It focuses instead on the struggles county social service agen- cies are going through. Some argue that happy providers means happy beneficiaries, just like the Reagan-Bush 1 and 2 trickle down theory of giving the rich huge tax cuts that proved to be wrong. Actually, often happy providers means more unhappy beneficiaries . For example, more county workfare workers means more workfare sanc- tions. Workfare sanctions means that a family of three would be forced to live on 56% of the poverty level. The report noted that Butte County is eliminating home visits for non-com- pliant and sanctioned cases and will be granting good cause exemptions for participants in remote locations who lack transportation. This means happy recipients . The report fails to discuss the enormous hits that CalWORKs families have been taking living on the 1989 income level without regard to inflation. The CalWORKs grants for a family of 3 in 1991 were $693. Today, in Region 2, a family of three gets $689 and effective July 1, 2009 it plummets to $661. A drop in benefits to 1988 levels. CWDA and CSAC em- ployees area not getting paid the same salary as in 1988. Neither are the proponents of CalWORKs cuts working in the Governor’s Office, Department of Finance, DSS or the people who voted for the Cal- WORKs 4% benefit reduction and no COLA for 2008-2009. Yet welfare recipients are. A fact that was ab- sent in the 26-page report. The report asserts that the new poor often are not able to access pub- lic benefits due to the current minimal asset tests. That may be true, but that it not the primary obstacle that the new poor face in obtaining benefits. The real obstacle is that counties are given enormous flexibility and can impose enormous procedural obstacles to prevent hungry people from accessing benefits. During January, 2009, 38% of CalWORKs applications were denied due to failure to meet the county pro- cedural requirements . This means families who were most likely eligible, but could not overcome the county bureaucratic obstacles placed before them by the county welfare system were denied benefits. In most cases, these obstacles have nothing to do with the shortage of welfare workers but everything to do with the county imposing unnecessary steps on ap- plicants to qualify for aid. Another revealing fact excluded from the report was the fact that in January, 2009, 22% of the applicants were denied because their income exceeded the CalWORKs income limits, which, as we pointed out above, comes from the previous century. PUBLIC BENEFIT STIMULATIVE IMPACT The CWDA\/CSAC report correctly points out that CalWORKs, Food Stamps and In-Home Supportive Ser- vices have the highest multipliers or ratios of economic activity generated to dollar spent. The report correctly points out that the more funding provided to low-income families and individuals results in a stimulated economy, low-income folks can’t afford to save money, rather, they spend what they have needed goods and services . The report points out that for 2009- 2010 the federal government would match 80% of any additional state dol- lar spend on increased benefits of its high simulative impact on the econo- my. The report found that the multiplier effect for spending a state dollar on CalWORKs benefits is 7.35, meaning that state expenditures on CalWORKs grants increased by $1 million, output would increase by $7.35 million, and employment would experience a com- parable boost. LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO GET $1.6 BILLION BY SPENDING $226 ON POOR FAMILIES The Legislature could still take action to bring $1.6 billion into the California economy by restoring the CalWORKs COLA and rescinding the 4% CalWORKs grant cut. The restora- tion of these two cuts would mean that the California General Fund would get $226 million less from CalWORKs. Currently CalWORKs contributes $1.5 billion to the state general fund out of a total of $6.6 billion that is spending on CalWORKs. It should be noted that a meager 34% of the $6.5 billion is used for payment to impoverished families while $3.6 billion is used to operate the CalWORKs program and $1.5 billion is used as contribution to the State general fund. The Legislature could still take action to bring $1.6 billion into the California economy by re- storing the CalWORKs COLA and rescinding the 4% Cal- WORKs grant cut at the cost of $226 million. CWDA\/CSAC Report Human Services in TImes of Crisis Some Good Information The report found that the multi- plier effect for spending a state dollar on CalWORKs benefits is 7.35, meaning that state expen- ditures on CalWORKs grants\/ COLA increased by $1 million, output would increase by $7.35 million, and employment would experience a comparable boost. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT CLIENT ABUSE REPORT CCWRO New Welfare News May 4, 2009 #2009-11 Page 2 What Happens to $6.5 billion dollars designated for the impoverished families with babies and minor children in California? Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director CCWRO Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 Phone: (916) 736-0616 Fax: (916) 654-1401 Cell: (916) 712-0071 ”

” CCWRO 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 May 11, 2009 Issue 09-12 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian ity and pays their county welfare director and workfare workers 45\u00a2 or more a mile. ACL 03-15 requires that before the county implements a new change in travel reimbursement rates it shall be submitted to DSS for review and certification. The deci- sion reveals that on September 17, 2002, San Joaquin County changed their reimbursement rate from 32.5\u00a2 a mile to 10\u00a2 a mile for welfare re- cipients. Thus, effective 9-17-02 San Joaquin County was paying 10\u00a2 a mile in lieu of 32.5\u00a2 a mile. On May 6, 2003, this change was submitted to DSS for review and certification. There was no evidence in this hear- ing decision that the change was approved by DSS. Her fair hearing was denied because state regulations allow counties to set travel reimbursement rates simply by identifying any changes in the rate in their county and submitting the proposed changes to DSS for review and certification. FRESNO COUNTY SANC- TIONS A FAMILY WORK- ING 35 HOURS A WEEK – Ms. 08352413 had a baby in December 2007 and by February 2008 was working 35 hours a week. Her income was being used by the county to reduce her CalWORKs benefits for many months. Effective June 1, 2008, she was sanctioned for not participating in WtW. It ap- pears Fresno County has a policy of punishing impoverished families for working. She filed for a state hear- ing. The hearing decision provides that she would be allowed to provide verification of working 35 hours a week since 9-08 so the county can rescind the illegal sanction. However, the illegal sanction for June, July and August stands. DSS unlawfully witheld the date of the filing from CCWRO. Payments to States for Home Visi- tation. This is about 50% of what States get from TANF. It seems like a program to fund social workers to go snooping into the homes of impoverished families who are liv- ing in deep poverty and then lecture them for not having food in the house. Payments for Foster Care and Adoptions will be increased. This is because more and more timed out children are ending up in foster care – a product of welfare reform . The food stamp program would have a $3 billion contingency reserve because the food stamp costs are not fully predictable. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT CLIENT ABUSE REPORT SACRAMENTO COUNTY NOA – On 1\/29\/09 Ms. M.M. received an NOA stating Effective 2\/28\/09, your Food Stamp benefits have been stopped. Here’s why: Your gross income exceeds the Food Stamp gross income limit. What was Ms. M.M.’s gross income? What are the Food Stamp gross in- come limits? These numbers should have been stated on this widely used CalWIN NOA, but were not. This erroneous form is being used in 18 California counties. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PAYS 10\u00a2 A MILE – Ms. 0611623 requested a state hearing objecting the fact that San Joaquin County was paying her 10\u00a2 a mile. She asserted that the county pays welfare recipients 10\u00a2 a mile for par- ticipating in a welfare to work activ- In Brief n Kristin Brinks, formerly Kristin Sanchez, is the new FSET Manager in the CDSS Employment Bureau. First she gets married and then a promotion. Congratulations Kristin. n AB 643- DSS Opposed- DSS has informed counties that it is opposed to AB 643 which would make the Food Stamp inter-county- transfer (ICT) process similar to the cost effective CalWORKs ICT process where inter-county transfers continue to receive benefits without reapplying in the new county. n Dept. of Finance Blocks Expanded Face-to-Face Waiver – Department of Finance (DOF) won’t let DSS implement a federal waiver for expanding the face-to-face interview. A CWDA representative wondered under what authority is DOF blocking a fed- eral waiver? However, Los Angeles County will be implementing this waiver effective June, 2009. 2010 Obama Budget in Brief The Obama 2010 Budget is out. It is a novel budget. It does not launch an attack on the poor like the Schwarzenegger budget. It proposes no changes in TANF. It notes that P.L. 111-5 provides $5 billion in emergency contingency funds for TANF. This money can be used to pay for increased costs of payments to families and the federal govern- ment would provide an 80% match. California has not availed itself to these funds even though impover- ished families are living on fixed incomes of 1989. The Budget proposes $8.6 billion for \u2029\u2029 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 August 6, 2009 Issue 09-20 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Counties have wide discre- tion in how they operate their WtW program. Counties have the option of limiting the num- ber of individuals who are required to participate in the WtW program. See AB 4, Chapter 4, statutes of 2009, Section 14 – subsection(f) of W&IC 11320.3. This subsec- tion provides that if the county does not have money for sup- portive services, then they can issue good cause. Coun- ties can provide good cause to any category of individuals that they deem appropriate given the fiscal realities. To assure that they get the maxi- mum bang for their limited dollars, counties can decide that the limited supportive services money would be bet- ter utilized for those who want to be in WtW program. Coun- ties are authorized to exempt families with one child under 2 or families with 2 children under 6. The 2009 cuts are contained in four different bills. Chap- ters 4,7,8 and 19 Statutes of 2009. The provisions in these bills never had a committee hearing. They were born on July 24, 2009 and passed on July 24, 2009. (See how to download these bills at the end of this report.) This year there were 21 trailer bills comprising of 738 pages. Once the Big Five agree, the 120 legislators get together and rubber stamp what the Big Five have decided. The public has no clue what is being voted upon. None of these bills go to a committee hearing. There are many drafting errors in many of these bills because they have not gone through the so-called democratic process. The press goes along with this charade saying nothing about this sovi- et style lawmaking and budget enactment process going on in California. For example, most of the provisions in AB 8 go into effect on July 1, 2011. Why did this bill have no public com- mittee hearing? The bill was in printed on July 23 and 24. 21 bills consisting of 738 pages passed the legislative process in two days. 2009 started off with the Gover- nor proposing to eliminate Cal- WORKs, CAPI, Food Stamps for Immigrants, 90% of the IHSS caseload, Medi-Cal for immigrants. In the end, CAPI and food stamps for immigrants survived. So did Medi-Cal for immigrants. CalWORKs took a $375 million cut in the single allocation that counties get for running the CalWORKs and Welfare to Work (WtW) pro- gram. 2009-2010 State Budget Wrap Up 2009 has been a wild roller coast- er ride for welfare advocates. Ideally, democracy is based on transparency. For example, in California a bill is introduced. It must be available for public re- view for 30 days before it can be set for hearing in committee. Another example is the budget process. Governor proposes a budget then budget hearings oc- cur in each house. Each house passes a budget. The budget goes to a Budget Conference Committee where the differences between each house are recon- ciled and the product of the con- ference committee would go to each house for approval. If the bill passes both houses, it is sent to the Governor who can either sign the budget, after he blue-pencils appropriations he disagrees with, or he can veto the bill. This is the Democratic way of legislating. What actually happens in Califor- nia is that the Big Five, composed of the Governor, the Assem- bly Speaker, Assembly Minor- ity Leader, Senate President Pro Tem and the Senate Minority Leader, meet sometime in late May or early June. These FIVE people decide what the budget contains. They may also agree to substantial changes in the law that sometimes has nothing to do with the budget. CCWRO Welfare News The 2009 cuts are contained in four different bills. Chap- ters 4,7,8 and 19, Statutes of 2009. The provisions in these bills never had a committee hearing. They were born on July 24, 2009 and passed on July 24, 2009. (See how to download these bills at the end of this report.) It should be noted again that most of the CalWORKs changes that would impact families and children nega- tively go into effect July 1, 2011. To determine what changes these bills have, it is better to download the last amended version, which for every trail- er bill is July 24, 2009. All of these bills were amended on the same day that they were voted upon and passed both houses of the Legislature. AB 4. This bill enacts changes in Human Services. Section 1. This bill authorizes the State Department of Child Support to impose a $25 fee on a parent needing children sup- port services who has never been on welfare. The fee will be accessed if $500 or more child support is collected. Section 3. State Department of Child Support shall submit an- nual reports to the Legislature by March 1 of every year setting forth certain outcomes. Section 11. This section allows counties to use Federal Stimulus Money for wage subsidies and homeless assistance programs. Section 13. Allows the four (4) computer consortium to move less than $100,000 or 10%, whichever is greater, from one line item to another without prior approval from the State. Section 14. Adds subsection (B) (7) to section 11320.3 to allow counties to exempt families with a child under 2 or families with 2 or more children under 6. Section 15. Provides the TAP program shall go into effect Oc- tober 2011. CCWRO New Welfare News August 7, 2009 #2009-20 Page 2 Section 17. Allows counties to use mental health services money for other purpose until July 1, 2011. However, this section shall not limit the availability of mental health and substance abuse ser- vices to those in need of such ser- vices. Section 18. This section allows counties to limit participation in WtW activities for certain catego- ries of individuals given the ap- proximate 40% reduction in the county single allocation. Section 25. This section reduces the benefits of SSI couples within 90 days of the enactment of this bill to the minimum required by federal law to make sure the SSI couple is eligible for Medi-Cal. Section 26. This section elimi- nates supplementary payments for certain SSI recipients as of Oc- tober 1, 2009 who are receiving IHSS services. Section 28. Requires DSS to con- vene a stakeholder’s workgroup to develop and issue a report evalu- ating the implementation of qual- ity assurance and fraud prevention and detection enacted from 2004 to present. The report is due to the Legislature on December 1, 2010. Section 29. Effective September 1, 2009, IHSS recipients ranked three or below will not receive domestic or related services ex- cept for those who need protective supervision, paramedical services or receive more than 120 hours of services each month. This section will go into effect through an All County Letter (ACL) and\/or emer- gency regulations. Section 30. Effective September 1, 2000 IHSS recipient, whose functional index score below 2.0 shall not be eligible for any IHSS services… This does not include IHSS recipients who need pro- tective supervision, paramedical services or receive more than 120 hours of services each month. This section will go into effect through an ACL and\/or emergency regula- tions. Section 33. This is the Work In- centive Nutritional Supplement (WINS) program. This program is for former CalWORKs recipients who are meeting the federal work participation rates. They will get $40 a month on their EBT card as food stamps. This allows California to count these folks in the TANF work participation rates. This pro- gram will go into effect until 10-1- 11. DSS must implement the WINS program in consultation with stake- holders. DSS shall develop WINS automation in tandem with a pre- assistance employment readiness (PAERS) program. If the work- group determines that the PAERS program would be beneficial, it shall prepare a proposal by 3-31- 11 for consideration the legislative budget subcommittee process in 2011. Section 40. The eligibility thresh- old for the use of additional Com- munity Services Block Grant funds received under the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) (ARRA), and the annual allocation of Com- munity Services Block Grant Funds for the 2009 and 2010 federal fiscal years, as provided by ARRA, shall be increased to 200 percent of the federal poverty level exclusively, as determined by the Department of Community Services and Devel- opment, or any other Department through which these federal funds are administered by the state. Section 41. The State Department of Social Services shall consult with stakeholders, including at a minimum, representatives of coun- ties, foster youth, and organizations or entities that have experience providing family search and en- gagement services or technical as- sistance, to determine how best to ensure that existing best practices for family search and engagement and participatory case planning, in- cluding, but not limited to, training or technical assistance, are institu- tionalized statewide. To the extent possible, the Department shall also consult with birth parents or rela- tives, and caregivers. Beginning in 2010, the Department shall provide information at future budget hear- ings regarding the implementa- tion of these efforts, including any available outcome data. Section 42. The State Department of Social Services shall develop a risk management form, with input from the counties and stakehold- ers representing recipients and pro- viders, no later than 90 days from the date of approval of the 1915(j) State Plan Option. Upon receipt of this input, and within this 90-day period, the Department shall com- mence testing the form in three rep- resentative counties, in order to as- sess implementation costs and any operational issues. Counties and stakeholders shall remain informed of the results of this testing. To the extent that the actual implementa- tion costs differ from the amount estimated in the budget, the Depart- ment shall submit a revised budget to the Legislature based on actual costs to support statewide imple- mentation. AB 7. This is called Public social services: statewide enrollment process This will be Part 1.75 of the Wel- fare and Institutions Code. Section 10200 (a). Identifies the outcomes for the statewide en- rollment process for CalWORKs, food stamps and Medi-Cal, such as better access, elimination of inef- ficiencies. The outcomes shall be developed in consultation with a stakeholders group. Section 10200(b). Provides that a plan shall be developed for a state- wide enrollment process for Cal- WORKs, food stamps and Medi- Cal that would include a project description, business case, busi- ness and technical requirements and cost benefit analysis. It shall also assess what other states are do- ing who also have a statewide en- rollment process for CalWORKs, food stamps and Medi-Cal, includ- ing risk assessment, a transition plan and more. Section 10200 (c). – It allows DSS and DHCS to use a contractor and a strategy to inform the public and beneficiaries of the statewide en- rollment process for CalWORKs, food stamps and Medi-Cal. Section 10200 (d). Requires that DSS and DHCS submit a compre- hensive plan to the fiscal and ap- plicable policy committees 45 days prior to request for an appropria- tion. Section 10200 (e). Contingent upon legislative approval, DSS and DHCS may proceed with pro- curement activities consistent with the plan approved by the Legisla- ture. Any contractor, county con- sortia, non-profit provider, or any partnerships shall be authorized to compete for any aspect of this process. Any such entity shall make accurate determinations and redeterminations of eligibility for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal, coordinate with CBOs to assist individuals with the ap- plication process in their own lan- guage, represent the Department at state hearings, assist applicants and recipients, meet federal technology standards. Section 10200 (f). If the plan is approved by the Legislature, then DSS and DHCS shall have the au- thority to implement this part. Section 10200 (g). DSS and DHCS may contract with other state agen- cies as appropriate. Section 10200 (h). DSS and DHCS shall convene a stakeholder’s steer- ing committee for consultation in developing a statewide enroll- ment process for CalWORKs, food stamps and Medi-Cal. Section 10200 (i). This section shall only go into effect if there is federal financial participation available. Section 10200 (j). DSS and DHCS may seek federal waivers needed to implement this part. Section 10202. This section pro- vides that this part does not au- thorize the modification of the CalWORKs, Food Stamp or Me- di-Cal programs. Section 10203. This section al- lows DSS and DHCS to imple- ment AB 7 without going through the regular APA process. Section 10205. This section states that for the purposes of this part, all references to county in the various laws shall mean the state Department. AB 8. Human services Section 1. This section provides once every six (6) WtW partici- pants shall meet with their wel- fare workers to assess their prog- ress of becoming self-sufficient. The second self-sufficiency re- view (SSR) shall be conducted on the same day of that the annu- al redetermination appointment. The county shall mail a 60-day advance notice about the SSR and the recipient may reschedule the SSR on a date not to exceed 20 calendar days beyond the scheduled SSR. If the recipient fails to attend the SSR, the coun- ty shall issue a notice of action (NOA) reducing the benefits by 50% after 30-calendar day, un- less the recipient has already done the SSR or had good cause for failing to attend the SSR. This section is effective July 1, 2011. By January 1, 2013 each county shall provide DSS with an evalu- CCWRO New Welfare News August 7, 2009 #2009-20 Page 3 ation of the effectiveness of the SSR. DSS shall forward these evaluations to the relevant fiscal and policy committees. Those recipients who are meeting the CalWORKs hours of participation shall be exempted from the self-sufficiency reviews. Section 3. This is the new WtW sanc- tion statute that is effective July 1, 2011. The changes start at 11327.5(d) (2). This section provides for what is called graduated sanction steps . STEP 1. After being sanctioned for three months the county shall review and assess to see of the individual has barriers to participation, assess the need for supportive services and connect the participant with the ser- vices by a social worker or employ- ment service worker. The county shall make a good faith effort to re- mediate any barriers that are identi- fied. If barriers relating to substance abuse, mental health, or domestic violence are suspected, the county shall schedule assessments with an employment specialist or social worker for the individual in order to assess and review for treatment. This review shall occur within 30 days after the grant reduction made. If the county does not do this re- view or the county determines that the individual has complied or is exempt, the sanction shall be ter- minated. If failure to conduct a re- view or remediate an issue is the result of the recipient’s noncompli- ance, the sanction shall continue. If the sanction is not cured, the child only benefits shall be reduced 25%. STEP 2. After imposing the 25% of the child-only benefits sanction for three months, the county shall review and assess to see of the in- dividual has barriers to participa- tion, assess the need for supportive services and connect the participant with the services by a social worker or employment service worker. The county shall make a good faith ef- fort to remediate any barriers that are identified. If barriers relating to substance abuse, mental health, or domestic violence are suspected, the county shall schedule assess- ments with an employment spe- cialist or social worker for the individual in order to assess and review for treatment. This re- view shall occur within 30 days after the grant reduction made. If the county does not do this re- view or the county determines that the individual has complied or is exempt, the sanction shall be terminated. If failure to conduct a review or remediate an issue is the result of the recipient’s noncom- pliance, the sanction shall continue and after three months the child- only benefits shall be reduced by another 25%, a cumulative 50% reduction of the child only grant. STEP 3. At the 42nd month of sanc- tion, the county shall schedule an- other review. If by the 48th month the individual is not participating, their benefits shall be reduced by another 25%, a total of 75%. STEP 4. At the 54th month of sanc- tion, the county shall schedule an- other review. If by the 59th month the individual is not participating, their benefits shall be reduced by another 25%, a total of 100%. Section 11327.5(d)(5) provides that child-only cases where the parents are ineligible aliens or have been convicted of a drug possession felony with the intent to sell, shall be required to meet the state WtW participation rates in order to continue to get full child only benefits. On the 54th month the county shall determine if the parent is exempt or not. If not exempt, then the parent will be required to meet the state partici- pation rates (SPR) provided there are childcare and transportation funds appropriated for this pur- pose. If the parent does not meet the SPR within 3 months, after the 60th month, then the child- only benefits shall be reduced by 25% as a sanction for not meet- ing the SPR. If the noncompli- ance persists for three cumula- tive months after the review and the county has made supportive services available, then the child- only grant shall be reduced by another 25% for a total of 50%. Section 4. This section eliminates the CalWORKs COLA put into law by Ronald Reagan in 1970. Section 6. This section will count sanctioned months against the 60-month time clock. Section 7. This section eliminates the SSI COLA. Section 8. This section re- quires that DSS collaborate with stakeholders in implement- ing this bill with legislative staff, advocates and counties. Section 9. This section allows DSS to implement these chang- es through emergency regula- tions and All County Letters. AB 19. This bill enacts changes in IHSS Section 1. This section provides that effective January 1, 2010, the application for in-home sup- portive services shall contain a notice to the recipient that his or her provider(s) will be given writ- ten notice of the recipient’s au- thorized services and full number of services hours allotted to the recipient. The application shall inform recipients of the Medi-Cal toll-free telephone fraud hotline and Internet Web site for report- ing suspected fraud or abuse in the provision or receipt of supportive services. Section 2. On or before Decem- ber 31, 2011, the Department, in consultation with county welfare Departments and other stakehold- ers, shall develop a process to ensure that a provider of services under this article receives a list specifying the approved duties to be performed for each recipient under the provider’s care and a complete list of supportive service CCWRO New Welfare News August 7, 2009 #2009-20 Page 4 CCWRO New Welfare News August 7, 2009 #2009-20 Page 5 tasks available under the IHSS Program. Section 3. Effective November 1, 2009, all prospective IHSS pro- viders shall complete a provider orientation. This orientation shall explain what IHSS does, its IHSS rules, etc. Section 4. This section provides that there shall be a time sheet which tracks the work the IHSS provider has done that shall be signed by the recipient and the provider. This section also con- tains a fraud penalty for providers who allegedly misrepresent facts. Effective July 1, 2011, each timesheet shall contain spaces for the fingerprint of the provider and the recipient. Section 5. The Department shall develop an appeal process for providers who have been rejected by the county. Section 6. On or before July 1, 2010, the Department, in con- sultation with the State Depart- ment of Health Care Services, counties, and other stakeholders, shall ensure that a standardized curriculum and training materi- als for county social workers are developed for the purpose of pre- venting fraud within the program. Section 7. This section authoriz- es counties to make unannounced home visits to the homes of IHSS recipients. Section 8. This section provides that all IHSS recipients and pro- viders shall be fingerprinted. Section 9. This section allows counties to investigate IHSS fraud. It also provides that the Department, in consultation with county welfare directors and oth- er stakeholders, as appropriate, shall develop uniform statewide protocols for acceptable activities to be performed and acceptable measures to be taken by the De- partment, the State Department of Health Care Services, and the counties for purposes of fraud prevention. Section 10. The provider shall provide the county with his or her physical address and not a mail- box. A paycheck for a provider shall not be mailed to a post office box unless the county approves a written or oral request from the provider, which shall include an explanation of the circumstances that make the use of a post of- fice box appropriate or neces- sary. The county shall document an oral request received pursuant to this subdivision the provider’s request and the county’s approval or disapproval shall be retained in the provider’s file. Section 11. This section provides that effective October 1, 2009 the county shall investigate the back- ground of a person who wants to be a provider who is not listed in the registry as provided in Wel- fare and Institutions Code Sec- tion 12301.6. No later than 7-1-10 the county shall complete a criminal back- ground check of all IHSS provid- ers. If the county gets information that the provider has been con- victed of a crime listed in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12305.81, then t CCWRO Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 (Phone: (916) 736-0616 ~ Fax: (916) 654-1401 Cell: (916) 712- 0071 kevin.aslanian@ccwro.org he provider working for the IHSS recipient shall be terminated by the county. The provider will be given a chance to clarify the information and a right to an appeal. Section 12. DSS shall convene a stakeholders’ meeting to imple- ment Section 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this bill. Section 13. This section autho- rizes that the provisions of this bill be enacted through emergen- cy regulations. THE END For more information contact Kevin AslanianCoalition of California Welfare Rights Orgazations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 (Phone: (916) 736-0616 ~ Fax: (916) 654-1401 Cell: (916) 712-0071 kevin.aslanian@ccwro.org AB 4 – http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi-bin\/postquery?bill_number=abx4_4&sess=CUR&house=B&author=evans AB 7 – http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi-bin\/postquery?bill_number=abx4_7&sess=CUR&house=B&author=evans AB 8 – http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi-bin\/postquery?bill_number=abx4_8&sess=CUR&house=B&author=evans AB 19 – http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi-bin\/postquery?bill_number=abx4_19&sess=CUR&house=B&author=evans Effective Date Department Action Item March 1, every year DCSS Report on Child Support Outcomes October, 2011 DSS Implement the Temporary Assistance Program (TAP) Effective August 1, 2009 through July 1, 2011. DSS Counties may use mental health and substance abuse funds for other WtW activities July 1, 2011 DSS Implement Semi-Annual self-Sufficiency Reviews July 1, 2011 DSS Implement gradual sanctions. July 1, 2011 DSS Reduce Benefits of Child Only cases by up to 50% for not meeting state participation rates October 1, 2011 DSS Implementation of the WINS program March 31, 2011 DSS Stakeholder report for legislative consideration of the PAERS program Beginning 2010 DSS Report on family search and engagement for foster care. 45 days before request for appropriation DSS DSS shall submit a plan for public social services statewide enrollment process. October 1, 2009 DSS Eliminates State Supplemental Payments to SSI Couples December 1, 2010 DSS Report Due from Stakeholders Group on IHSS Fraud and Quality Assurance September 1, 2009 DSS IHSS applicants and recipients ranked three (3) or below will loose domestic and related services September 1, 2009 DSS IHSS applicants and recipients functional ranked two (2) or below will no longer be eligible for IHSS services. January 1, 2010 DSS Notice to IHSS providers and recipients about authorized services and fraud hotline On or before December 31, 2011 DSS Develop a process to ensure that the provider gets a list of approved services and IHSS services available. November 1, 2009 DSS All perspective providers shall complete IHSS orientation July 1, 2011 DSS All timecards shall have a space for a fingerprint of the recipient and provider. July 1, 2010 DSS DSS shall have a standardized training program developed in consultation with DHCS and stake holder groups October 1, 2009 DSS The county shall investigate the background of all new IHSS providers July 1, 2010 DSS All IHSS provider background checks shall be completed Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) Department of Social Services (DSS) Effective Dates Summary ”

” 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, 2009 Issue 09-21 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian of the EBT card. However Terri Harness of DSS adult services branch advised Ventura County …you should notify the recipient before expunging any benefits from their EBT card. To give you a formal response, we would need to request a legal opinion from our Legal Office. Since there is no case pending with this scenario, and due to limited resources, we are unable to do this at this time. Bottom line, I would say the important thing would be to make sure to notify the recipient before you take ac- tion. So there you have it. There is no official position, but CDSS says the county can go ahead and take the money out of the persons EBT account as long as he client is informed. l LOS ANGELES COUNTY REFUSES TO ISSUE AID PAID PENDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. Ms. C.R. filed for a state hearing on 7-30-09. She is entitled to aid paid pend- ing. State regulation 22-073.11 provides: 22-073.1 Upon receipt of a re- quest for hearing or notice from the Department that a recipient has filed a request for a state hearing, the county shall provide aid pending the state hearing in accordance with Section 22- 072, when entitlement exists. MPP 22-072.11 Such payment shall be either placed in the U.S. Mail or available for hand de- livery to the recipient (if agreed to by the county and recipient) within five working days of the receipt of the hearing request by the appropriate agency as specified in Section 22-004, or the date the regular scheduled aid payment would otherwise have been paid to the recipient, whichever is later. does not meet the work participa- tion rate? Good question. Another example of our irrational welfare system. l NO CAPS FOR CAR RE- PAIRS – Tara Locks of Tehama County informed DSS that she has seen several county plans that place a cap on coverage of car re- pairs as an ancillary service. She wondered if Tehama County can put a cap on car repairs? Geoffey Miller of said the no capping principle applies to vehicle repairs. He referred the county to ACLs 08- 41 and 04-404. l SPONSORS CAPI RECIPI- ENTS WHO GET INDIGENCE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PUR- SUED. Yvonne Buno of Sacra- mento County asked DSS why DSS does not does go after the sponsor in CAPI cases where the recipient has been given an indi- gence exception. DSS responded that it does not pursue the spon- sor because they do not have the resources to do so. l CALWIN COLLECTS OVER- PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. On June 3, 2009, Clara Rayos of Ventura County informed DSS that Ventura County the CalWIN system is collecting 20% from the CAPI benefits of couples rather than 10%. DSS has allowed Ventura to continue to col- lect 20% from couples in violation of state law. l VENTURA COUNTY WANTS TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE CAPI RECIPIENTS’ EBT CARD WITHOUT ANY LEGAL AU- THORITY. Ventura County asked DSS if it can collect a CAPI over- payment from the client’s EBT card? DSS responded that there are no CAPI regulations allow- ing the county to take money out In Brief l RETROACTIVE MFG WAIVER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIO- LENCE. Silva Valencia of Los An- geles County asked DSS on 4-24-09 whether an ex-recipient who was on aid in Los Angeles County a year ago and now lives in Louisiana can apply for a domestic abuse waiver of Maxi- mum Family Grant (MFG) rule for the time she was on aid in Los Angeles County with a MFG child. She said she had been a victim of domestic abuse since 2003. DSS answered Yes, an ex-participant can apply for a retroactive abuse waiver How- ever retroactivity cannot precede the implementation of the CalWORKs domestic abuse provisions on Janu- ary 1, 1998. l LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEARNING DISABILITY INFORMA- TION – According the Los Angeles County DPSS, as of March, 2009 there were 152,410 cases in Los An- geles County and 56,653 have Span- ish as a primary language. In Los Angeles County only 5% of the Eng- lish speaking caseload agree to take the learning disability (LD) test and 25% of those who take the test show a learning disability. . About 63% of people who take the full battery of LD tests show a learning disability. l FLEEING FELONS COUNTED FOR COUNTY PARTICIPATION RATES BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICES- Fleeing Felons cannot receive either CalWORKs or Food Stamps in California. Their location is known because they are getting public assistance for their children and stimulating the economy. It is cheaper than putting the children in foster care. George Paccerelli of DPSS asked DSS why is it that coun- ties cannot provide supportive ser- vices to fleeing felons, yet the county will get penalized if the fleeing felon CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO New Welfare News August 23, 2009 #2009-21 Page 2 the applicant’s failure to cooper- ate in providing evidence of eligi- bility; and (b) The county receives the need- ed evidence within 30 calendar days of the date of denial. Ms. R.G. was mailed a VP 3 offer- ing her three options: Option #1 Vendor Payment; Option #2 – Designate Alternative Cardholder Option #3 – You must contact the WTW worker within two working days; You must complete the WTW orientation by ___ date. You must participate in an ap- proved WTW activity for thirty (30) days from the date you sign the WTW Plan. Santa Clara County was duly in- formed that this policy violates state law and regulations. The specific regulation that this vio- lates is: MPP 42-721.43 Finan- cial sanctions for failing or refus- ing to comply with program re- quirements without good cause shall result in a reduction in the family’s grant by removing the noncomplying family member from the assistance unit until the noncomplying individual performs the activity(ies) he or she previ- ously refused to perform; or if the activity that the noncomplying in- dividual originally failed to perform is no longer available or appropri- ate, the county must specify an- other appropriate activity for the individual to perform. (b) The individual is deter- mined to be in compliance with program requirements, and is oth- erwise eligible. If the individual completes the activity after the first of the month following the date of the request to end the sanction, the county shall issue a supplemental payment, retroactive to the first of the month following the date of the request to end the sanction; or HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (a) Example: An individual who was sanctioned for failing to at- tend orientation contacts the CWD on July 14 and indicates he wishes to end his sanction. The individual signs his curing plan on July 17, attends orientation on July 23 as required by his curing plan, and cures his sanction. On August 1, if the individual is otherwise eli- gible, his cash aid is restored. Santa Clara County was contact- ed to determine what this was all about. Denise Boland, Santa Clara County Welfare Department Em- ployment Services Administrator was informed of the fact that the county policy violates the above cited regulation. The county policy states: On page 8, 7b of the Business Process CalWORKs Sanctioned Client Vendor Payment Pilot Proj- ect you have this language: WtW 29 must be completed for the next appropriate activity, and the client must participate for 30 days regardless if the sanctioned activity was Orientation. No exceptions! On page 10, 9 states: Fails to meet the curing sanction requirements Discontinue CalWORks for the ENTIRE family. On August 21, 2009, after receiving all of this information, Ms. Boland has informed us that Santa Clara County will continue their current practice. SOME FACTS ABOUT SANTA CLARA COUNTY During May, 2009, 31% of Santa Clara County unduplicated par- ticipants were sanctioned. In ad- dition, 60% of unduplicated par- ticipants in Santa Clara County did not receive transportation. This information is based upon the county’s own reports submit- ted to DSS known as the WtW 25 reports that can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ research\/PG276.htm – it is the last group of reports on this web page. There are reports that many sanc- tions are caused because the county does not provide support- ive services. Can the Santa Clara County welfare department officials imagine that 60% of them coming with County Welfare Directors As- sociation meetings do not submit travel claims? Not in this lifetime. There is also a Court Or- der entitled Blankenship v. Saenz that can be down- loaded at: http:\/\/www.ccwro. org\/index.php?option=com_ docman&Itemid=105 On August 21, 2009, Linda Rice of the Los Angeles County Appeals and State Hearings stated that the district office has been ordered to issue aid paid pending. After this statement was made, Linda Tamez, E.W. III of Lincoln Heights ASH\/ OP\/OI Unit-room 107, who is responsible to initiating the aid paid pending stated that she had never received such an or- der. Who is telling the truth? SANTA CLARA COUNTY IMPOSES FULL FAMILY SANCTIONS. Ms. R.G. has been sanctioned for over a year. On 2\/25\/08 she was mailed a letter stating that her aid would be lowered from $526 to $324 for not signing the WtW plan. On 7\/9\/09 received a notice of action stating: As of 07\/31\/2009, the County is stopping your cash aid. Here’s why: You must give us facts and proof we need and do the other things we need you to, as best you can. You have not provided Proof that you have contacted WTW program and attended orientation to lift your WTW sanction, as part of our Vendor Payment Pilot Program. M40-126.342 CW\/RCA\/KG Disc. For failure to provide information Rules: These rules apply. You may review them at your wel- fare office: EAS Section(s) 40- 126.342. We looked up this section and it states: MPP 40-126.342 Rescind De- nial The county shall rescind a denial and grant aid if the appli- cant is otherwise eligible based on the original application when: (a) The denial is based solely on ”

” 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 14, 2009 Issue 09-23 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In- Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Expedited Service Food Stamps Not Being Considered Uniformly in California Hungry people living in Califor- nia should get the same treat- ment for food stamps in all 58 counties. We have been receiving com- plaints from advocates that households in some counties are being considered for emer- gency food stamp benefits, while in other counties they are not. In order to verify this an- ecdotal assertion we examined the DSS reports CA 237, DFA 296 and DFA 296X. Any HH who needs emergen- cy food stamps, also known as FS-ES, shall receive food stamps in three days. The only verification for FS-ES is identity which can be done through documentary evidence or collateral contact , which means talking to somebody who knows the applicant. State 33% of the food stamp applicants were not considered for emergency food stamp as- sistance. Although the rules for FS-ES are the same statewide, there is puzzling differences be- tween counties located next to each other; \/ San Bernardino County CCWRO Welfare News April -June 2009 CW & Food Stamp Applications. April – June Applications Considered for FS-ES April -June % of Applications Considered for FS-ES Large & Medium Counties Statewide 775,059 258,563 33.36% San Francisco 12,557 149 1.19% San Joaquin 21,982 472 2.15% Madera 5,457 300 5.50% Orange 25,301 1,517 6.00% Butte 12,456 1,052 8.45% Marin 3,409 290 8.51% Calaveras 2,052 177 8.63% Kings 8,610 794 9.22% Kern 20,473 3,169 15.48% Santa Barbara 8,182 1,301 15.90% Sutter 1,848 369 19.97% Alameda 26,783 5,964 22.27% Santa Cruz 9,158 2,061 22.50% Solano 8,380 1,914 22.84% Shasta 4,891 1,138 23.27% Fresno 32,298 7,654 23.70% Monterey 6,529 1,673 25.62% San Diego 52,941 17,288 32.66% Santa Clara 19,365 6,600 34.08% Yolo 4,651 1,599 34.38% Contra Costa 17,275 6,443 37.30% Merced 9,386 3,522 37.52% Riverside 35,023 15,022 42.89% Ventura 8,359 3,886 46.49% Tulare 14,159 6,825 48.20% Los Angeles 180,854 87,641 48.46% Placer 3,800 1,974 51.95% Yuba 1,977 1,031 52.15% Sacramento 31,231 19,071 61.06% Stanislaus 11,590 7,136 61.57% San Mateo 6,664 4,741 71.14% San Bernardino 41,196 30,575 74.22% CCWRO New Welfare News September 14, 2009 #2009-23 Page 2 FS-ES Consideration Process What is the process to deter- mine whether or not the ap- plicant may be eligible for FS- ES? Every applicant for food stamps completes a SAWS-1 or a DFA 285. (http:\/\/www.dss.cah- wnet.gov\/cdssweb\/PG164. htm#dfa) Both of these applications so- licit the basic information need- ed to be considered for FS-ES. Why are people in some coun- ties being denied the opportu- nity to be considered for the benefits that they are entitled to by law? California is a county run sys- tem. Every county does what- ever it wants. There is little real supervision by the California single state agency, DSS, that required by law to supervise counties. In reality, the super- vision that DSS provides to counties is very limited. But there is HOPE. The state Legislature has enacted AB 7 (http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi- bin\/postquery?bill_number=ab x4_7&sess=CUR&house=B&a uthor=evans) that may create a statewide computer applica- tion system. The California Welfare Direc- considers 79% of its applicants for ES-FS, while Riverside County is only 48%. Why are there 31% less food stamp ap- plicants considered for FS-ES in Riverside County? Could it be that there is a 31% differ- ence in the economic status of the population between San Bernardino County and River- side County? Doubtful;. \/ In San Jouquin County only 2% of the applicants are considered for FS-ES, one of the poorest counties in the country. Meanwhile neighbor- ing Stanislaus County con- siders 64% of their food stamp applicants for FS-ES. Could it be that there is a 62% differ- ence in the economic status of the population between San Jouqiun County and Stan- islaus County? \/ On the other hand San Francisco County only con- siders 1% of the applicants. We have been told that the county disagrees with the num- bers that they have transmitted to the state and the state has posted on the internet. \/ Sutter County only con- sidered 21% for FS-ES while in Yuba County across the street considered 52%. Why? \/ Sacramento County con- siders FS-ES for 61% of the cases. The county right across the river, Yolo County is only 34% \/ Santa Barbara County only considers 15% of the applicants for FS-ES, while neighboring Ventura County is 46%. \/ Madera County, another poverty stricken county only considers 5% of their appli- cants for FS-ES. Neighboring Fresno County is 24%, which is pretty low, but better than 5% tors Association (CWDA) is op- posed to a single statewide com- puter system. Currently there are three com- puter systems operated by coun- ties. This means when there is a change, money is taken away from the poor and given to com- puter programmers to program three (3) different computer sys- tems rather than just paying once to program the computer that would do the same thing. We are hoping for a system where all applicants can be treat- ed the same throughout the State of California. We are hoping for a system where no child will go hungry just because of the county they live in. LEGAL ISSUE: There is a legal issue in that federal and state law mandates that counties consider FS-ES. They are not. This is a po- tential violation of the law. W&IC 18914; MPP 63-30.52 and 7 CFR 283.2(i)(2). WHERE TO FIND THE DATA? The CA 237 CW – CalWORKs Cash Grant Caseload Movement Report (http:\/\/www.dss.cah- wnet.gov\/research\/PG281.htm) is a CalWORKs report that shows how many people applied for Cal- WORKs each month among other things. DFA 296 (http:\/\/www.dss.cah- wnet.gov\/research\/PG353.htm) is a monthly report showing, among other things, how many households (HH) applied for Food Stamp ben- efits. DFA 296X (http:\/\/www.dss.cah- wnet.gov\/research\/PG354.htm) is a quarterly report that reveals how many HH were considered for ex- pedited service food stamps. Ex- pedited service is the program for hungry people in America and Cali- fornia. FS-ES Eligibility Requirements 1. Less than $150 gross income 2. Less than $100 in liquid re- sources 3. HH whose gross income is less than their rent and utilities; MPP 63-301.51 ”

” 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 9, 2009 Issue 09-24 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In- Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Mark Greenberg Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy A former Californian, and a member of our legal services com- munity, Mark Greenberg is now Deputy Secretary for Policy of United States Depart- ment Health and Human Services. Mark was one major wel- fare litigator in California working for Western Center on Law & Poverty (WC&LP) following Ralph Abascal of San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Aid Foundation (SFNLAF) and Marilyn Katz of WC&LP. Before coming to California he worked at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida. Before joining HHS, Mark H. Green- berg directed the Georgetown Uni- versity Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, a joint initiative of the Georgetown University Law Center and the Georgetown Pub- lic Policy Institute. In addition, he was a Senior Fellow at the Cen- ter for American Progress (CAP) and the Center for Law and Social CCWRO Welfare News Policy (CLASP). He previ- ously served as the Executive Director of CAP’s Task Force on Poverty and as CLASP’s Director of Policy. During his career, Mr. Greenberg has written extensively on issues relating to federal and state welfare reform efforts; work- force policy issues affecting low-income families; child care and early education policy; tax policy; poverty measure- ment; and a range of other low-income issues. In addition, he frequently provided techni- cal assistance to state and local governments regarding poverty reduction strategies. Mr. Greenberg is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Sharon Parrott Counselor to the Secretary on Welfare Reform Parrott worked at the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities based on Washington D.C. from 1993 through August 2009. Parrott was the Director of the Welfare Reform and Income Support Division. This division is responsible for the Center’s work on the TANF program and other federal and state policy issues related to welfare reform, child care funding, and child sup- port enforcement. Parrott played a key role in the Center’s work on the federal budget, the impact of federal budget decisions on low-income populations, low- income tax policy, and policies that ensure that solutions to climate change do not adversely impact low-income households. In 1999 and 2000, Parrott was de- tailed to the District of Columbia’s Department of Human Services where she served as a Senior Policy Advisor on TANF, Food Stamp and Medicaid issues. Par- rott returned to the Center in July 2001. She received both her B.A. in Economics and Masters Degree in Social Work with a social polic emphasis from the University of Michigan. Sharon Parrott, AnCounselor to the Secretary HHH Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201 (202) 690-5400 E-mail: sharon.parrott@hhs.gov Mark Greenberg, Deputy Assistance Secretary for Policy HHS 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20447 (202) 401-1822 E-mail: mark.greenberg@acf.hhs.gov ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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