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 – January 8, 2010 Issue 2010-01 CCWRO Welfare News ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Welfare Recipients Deprived of Over $300 Million by Counties Counties, with the support of State Department of Social Services, have been depriving welfare recipients of WtW transportation supportive servic- es since 1998 in an amount exceeding $300 million. State regulations require that transpor- tation be paid in advance to make sure welfare recipients are not using their fixed welfare benefits which are at the same level that they were in 1989. County Welfare Department Victim Re- port on the following page, cites exam- ples of victims working or participating in a county-assigned activity who are not being paid the transportation assis- tance that they are entitled to. Table #1, on this page, shows DSS’s WtW 25 reports which reveal the amount of dollars not paid to welfare- to-work (WtW) participants for WtW transportation supportive services dur- ing October of 2009. In October, 2009, there were 148,122 welfare recipients living on fixed incomes below 50% of the poverty level, who were required to participate in a welfare-to-work ac- tivity and entitled to transportation. But only 76,443 families (48%) were given transportation assistance. In October of 2009, this cost California’s poor $3.6 million. State regulations governing WtW trans- portation services are governed by the following regulations: 42-750.112 Transportation. Trans- portation costs shall be governed by regional market rates as determined below: (a) The least costly form of public transportation, including CWD provided transportation, that would not preclude participation in welfare-to-work activities pursuant to Section 42-721.313. Counties October, 2009 Statewide Tulare Napa Ventura Lake San Luis Obispo Yuba Madera Glenn Trinity Mendocino Santa Barbara Kern El Dorado Imperial San Mateo Shasta San Benito Amador Stanislaus Butte Colusa Contra Costa Tehama Orange Placer Alameda Sacramento San Joaquin Sutter Tuolumne Yolo Calaveras Santa Cruz Fresno Merced Solano Nevada San Francisco Kings Humboldt Sonoma Riverside San Diego Los Angeles Monterey Santa Clara Families Not Receiving Transp. 75,033 3,580 142 1,779 317 1,114 574 516 148 54 331 741 3,692 275 779 559 730 205 46 1,814 610 21 2,373 283 3,304 488 3,841 8,056 2,660 341 115 498 87 444 4,956 995 575 152 938 383 278 605 3,536 4,361 15,062 406 1,207 Percentage of Families Not Receiving Transp. 50.24% 94.94% 91.61% 89.22% 84.76% 83.13% 80.50% 77.71% 77.49% 76.06% 74.89% 74.70% 74.54% 74.53% 74.12% 72.79% 72.56% 72.18% 71.88% 71.76% 70.85% 70.00% 69.53% 68.86% 66.35% 64.38% 64.28% 63.54% 63.12% 63.03% 61.50% 60.66% 60.42% 59.20% 57.39% 55.93% 53.84% 51.70% 50.68% 48.18% 46.72% 45.90% 42.29% 41.80% 40.99% 33.61% 25.05% Number of Children Affected 225099 10740 426 5337 951 3342 1722 1548 444 162 993 2223 11076 825 2337 1677 2190 615 138 5442 1830 63 7119 849 9912 1464 11523 24168 7980 1023 345 1494 261 1332 14868 2985 1725 456 2814 1149 834 1815 10608 13083 45186 1218 3621 Amount of Money Not Paid to Poor Families $3,751,650.00 $179,000.00 $7,100.00 $88,950.00 $15,850.00 $55,700.00 $28,700.00 $25,800.00 $7,400.00 $2,700.00 $16,550.00 $37,050.00 $184,600.00 $13,750.00 $38,950.00 $27,950.00 $36,500.00 $10,250.00 $2,300.00 $90,700.00 $30,500.00 $1,050.00 $118,650.00 $14,150.00 $165,200.00 $24,400.00 $192,050.00 $402,800.00 $133,000.00 $17,050.00 $5,750.00 $24,900.00 $4,350.00 $22,200.00 $247,800.00 $49,750.00 $28,750.00 $7,600.00 $46,900.00 $19,150.00 $13,900.00 $30,250.00 $176,800.00 $218,050.00 $753,100.00 $20,300.00 $60,350.00 (b) If there is no public transporta- tion available which meets these requirements, participants may use their own vehicles. Participants shall be reimbursed at one of the fol- lowing rates: (1) The county shall select an existing reimbursement rate used in the county, or (2) The county shall develop a rate that covers necessary costs. (3) The reimbursement rate may not include a cap, or maximum monthly reimbursement amount, beyond which additional miles driven are not reimbursed. (c) Parking for welfare-to- work participants shall be reim- bursed at actual cost. Participants shall submit receipts for this pur- pose, except in cases where parking meters are used. (d) Participants who choose to use their own vehicles when pub- lic transportation is available will be reimbursed at the least expensive reimbursement. 42-750.2 Supportive Servic- es Payments .21 Payments for supportive services, except child care as de- scribed in Chapter 47-100, shall be advanced to the participant when necessary and desired by the partic- ipant so that the participant need not use personal funds to pay for these services. Here are some examples of victims of the county welfare depart- ment fleecing welfare families out of money to which they are entitled to. County Welfare Department Victim Report LAKE COUNTY VICTIM A Lake County welfare recipient was only given $35 in transportation reimburse- ments after accumulating 1,101 miles going to and from work. The recipient requested a State hearing. The hearing decision made the following finding: It is Lake County’s position that the claimant was correctly approved for the use of her private car for 1,101 miles, but was only entitled to re- ceive payment for a $35 bus pass for the other 462 miles since she could have used public transportation during the time she drove those 462 miles. The latter 462 miles were driven from July 15 through July 31, when the claimant was not going to school Mr. 09259162 is a WTW participant in Fresno County. He began working on June 8, 2009. At that time, he requested WTW sup- portive services related to transportation costs to and from work using of his own vehicle. He asked that he be reimbursed at the Coun- ty’s mileage reimbursement rate of 55\u00a2 per mile. County wanted to pay bus fare in lieu of mileage as required by State law and regula- tions. He requested a state hearing. The hear- ing decision states that since beginning work, he has submitted to the county monthly WTW Private Auto Mileage Records indicating he travels 22 miles one-way to work. The county presented a print out from the MapQuest website indicating that the dis- tance from the claimant’s home to his work is 14.96 miles one-way. Mr. 09259162 testified he used the trip odometer on his vehicle and measured the distance to work as 22 miles one-way. The claimant acknowledged that the County’s MapQuest route is a route from his home to work. The claimant stated, however, that he uses a different route, and he described that route at the State hearing. The County noted that the route described by Mr. 09259162 is an indirect route us- ing freeways and that in using this route the claimant travels out of his way. The County noted that the 14.96 miles MapQuest route that uses primarily city streets and roads is a more direct route for travel from the claim- ant’s home to work. Mr. 09259162 testified that he uses the free- way route because portions of the city street and road route on the MapQuest map are not safe to travel through. The claimant noted that he travels to work at 2:00 a.m., and believes the MapQuest route is even more dangerous at this time. Fresno County’s written mileage rate policy states that the Internal Revenue System mile- age rate of 55\u00a2, which became effective Janu- ary 1, 2009, is to be used for mileage claims made after January 1, 2009. (Director’s Of- fice Memorandum No. 082, December 23, 2008.) The County failed to present details of the area depicted on the MapQuest route, other than that this route is 14.96 miles one-way us- ing mostly city streets and roads. The claim- ant, however, gave sworn and credible testi- mony that portions of the city street and road route on the MapQuest map are not safe to travel through. The hearing decision noted: There is no indication that the county has considered the claimant’s safety in deciding that the Map- Quest route is a suitable route for the claim- ant to take to and from work. It therefore is determined that the county has not considered all relevant facts in making this decision Based on the claimant’s sworn and credible testimony and the lack of any further evidence of the area depicted on the MapQuest route, it is determined that reimbursement based on a travel distance of 22 miles one-way is a sup- portive service that is necessary for the claim- ant to participate in WTW activity and working as she had during the first 14 days of July, but was working and not at- tending school. The transportation reimbursement for use her own car is 39 cents a mile. According to the County’s public trans- portation route analysis if the claimant left her home in the morning, walked 0.34 miles to the bus stop in Middletown, took a bus at 8:30 am, transferred to a second bus which would drop her off at Lakeport, arriving there at 9:55 am and then she could walk to the workplace which is 0.14 miles from the bus stop. Coming home, she could take a bus leaving Lakeport at 5:25 pm, transfer once, and arrive at Middletown at 6:52 pm. Excluding the walk to and from her home, and to and from her place of work, the to- tal time involved using the bus would be 2 hours and 52 minutes a day. Based on the distances from the home to the bus station, and the bus station to work, and the claimant’s testimony that it prob- ably takes about five minutes to walk to the bus stop from her home, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds that total time using public transportation exceeds three hours, if everything goes smoothly, and the buses run on time, and the claimant manages to arrive not to early at the bus stop so as to minimize her wait, and not too late so as to miss her bus. The county considers the $35 bus pass adequate to have met her needs in the month of July. The county acknowl- edges that it did not buy her a bus pass. However, as of the date of the hearing, the County had not even authorized the bus passes for July. State regulations, Section 42-721.31, provide that if the round trip travel time exceeds two hours in a day, good cause ex- ists for not participating in Welfare to Work activities such as employment or training. By using her own car, the travel time was reduced to approximately one and one-half hours daily, which means that the Welfare to Work activity was not too remote. (In addition, Ms. 09261023 has a four year old and a 15 year old child.) The hear- ing decision states: Based upon this analy- sis of the necessary travel time, as well as the age of the younger child, the time of day the claimant would be required to leave her own home, and the fact that the claimant would have been able to claim an exemption from the Welfare to Work activ- ity if she had used public transportation, it is concluded that public transportation was not reasonable available. The claimant is entitled to reimbursement at 39 cents per mile for the 462 miles she drove her own car to participate in Welfare to Work activi- ties during the period from July 15 through July 31, 2009 FRESNO COUNTY VICTIM CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org January 8, 2009 #2010-01 Page 2 ”

” 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 – January 8, 2010 Issue 2010-01 CCWRO Welfare News ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Welfare Recipients Deprived of Over $300 Million by Counties Counties, with the support of State Department of Social Services, have been depriving welfare recipients of WtW transportation supportive servic- es since 1998 in an amount exceeding $300 million. State regulations require that transpor- tation be paid in advance to make sure welfare recipients are not using their fixed welfare benefits which are at the same level that they were in 1989. County Welfare Department Victim Re- port on the following page, cites exam- ples of victims working or participating in a county-assigned activity who are not being paid the transportation assis- tance that they are entitled to. Table #1, on this page, shows DSS’s WtW 25 reports which reveal the amount of dollars not paid to welfare- to-work (WtW) participants for WtW transportation supportive services dur- ing October of 2009. In October, 2009, there were 148,122 welfare recipients living on fixed incomes below 50% of the poverty level, who were required to participate in a welfare-to-work ac- tivity and entitled to transportation. But only 76,443 families (48%) were given transportation assistance. In October of 2009, this cost California’s poor $3.6 million. State regulations governing WtW trans- portation services are governed by the following regulations: 42-750.112 Transportation. Trans- portation costs shall be governed by regional market rates as determined below: (a) The least costly form of public transportation, including CWD provided transportation, that would not preclude participation in welfare-to-work activities pursuant to Section 42-721.313. Counties October, 2009 Statewide Tulare Napa Ventura Lake San Luis Obispo Yuba Madera Glenn Trinity Mendocino Santa Barbara Kern El Dorado Imperial San Mateo Shasta San Benito Amador Stanislaus Butte Colusa Contra Costa Tehama Orange Placer Alameda Sacramento San Joaquin Sutter Tuolumne Yolo Calaveras Santa Cruz Fresno Merced Solano Nevada San Francisco Kings Humboldt Sonoma Riverside San Diego Los Angeles Monterey Santa Clara Families Not Receiving Transp. 75,033 3,580 142 1,779 317 1,114 574 516 148 54 331 741 3,692 275 779 559 730 205 46 1,814 610 21 2,373 283 3,304 488 3,841 8,056 2,660 341 115 498 87 444 4,956 995 575 152 938 383 278 605 3,536 4,361 15,062 406 1,207 Percentage of Families Not Receiving Transp. 50.24% 94.94% 91.61% 89.22% 84.76% 83.13% 80.50% 77.71% 77.49% 76.06% 74.89% 74.70% 74.54% 74.53% 74.12% 72.79% 72.56% 72.18% 71.88% 71.76% 70.85% 70.00% 69.53% 68.86% 66.35% 64.38% 64.28% 63.54% 63.12% 63.03% 61.50% 60.66% 60.42% 59.20% 57.39% 55.93% 53.84% 51.70% 50.68% 48.18% 46.72% 45.90% 42.29% 41.80% 40.99% 33.61% 25.05% Number of Children Affected 225099 10740 426 5337 951 3342 1722 1548 444 162 993 2223 11076 825 2337 1677 2190 615 138 5442 1830 63 7119 849 9912 1464 11523 24168 7980 1023 345 1494 261 1332 14868 2985 1725 456 2814 1149 834 1815 10608 13083 45186 1218 3621 Amount of Money Not Paid to Poor Families $3,751,650.00 $179,000.00 $7,100.00 $88,950.00 $15,850.00 $55,700.00 $28,700.00 $25,800.00 $7,400.00 $2,700.00 $16,550.00 $37,050.00 $184,600.00 $13,750.00 $38,950.00 $27,950.00 $36,500.00 $10,250.00 $2,300.00 $90,700.00 $30,500.00 $1,050.00 $118,650.00 $14,150.00 $165,200.00 $24,400.00 $192,050.00 $402,800.00 $133,000.00 $17,050.00 $5,750.00 $24,900.00 $4,350.00 $22,200.00 $247,800.00 $49,750.00 $28,750.00 $7,600.00 $46,900.00 $19,150.00 $13,900.00 $30,250.00 $176,800.00 $218,050.00 $753,100.00 $20,300.00 $60,350.00 (b) If there is no public transporta- tion available which meets these requirements, participants may use their own vehicles. Participants shall be reimbursed at one of the fol- lowing rates: (1) The county shall select an existing reimbursement rate used in the county, or (2) The county shall develop a rate that covers necessary costs. (3) The reimbursement rate may not include a cap, or maximum monthly reimbursement amount, beyond which additional miles driven are not reimbursed. (c) Parking for welfare-to- work participants shall be reim- bursed at actual cost. Participants shall submit receipts for this pur- pose, except in cases where parking meters are used. (d) Participants who choose to use their own vehicles when pub- lic transportation is available will be reimbursed at the least expensive reimbursement. 42-750.2 Supportive Servic- es Payments .21 Payments for supportive services, except child care as de- scribed in Chapter 47-100, shall be advanced to the participant when necessary and desired by the partic- ipant so that the participant need not use personal funds to pay for these services. Here are some examples of victims of the county welfare depart- ment fleecing welfare families out of money to which they are entitled to. County Welfare Department Victim Report LAKE COUNTY VICTIM A Lake County welfare recipient was only given $35 in transportation reimburse- ments after accumulating 1,101 miles going to and from work. The recipient requested a State hearing. The hearing decision made the following finding: It is Lake County’s position that the claimant was correctly approved for the use of her private car for 1,101 miles, but was only entitled to re- ceive payment for a $35 bus pass for the other 462 miles since she could have used public transportation during the time she drove those 462 miles. The latter 462 miles were driven from July 15 through July 31, when the claimant was not going to school Mr. 09259162 is a WTW participant in Fresno County. He began working on June 8, 2009. At that time, he requested WTW sup- portive services related to transportation costs to and from work using of his own vehicle. He asked that he be reimbursed at the Coun- ty’s mileage reimbursement rate of 55\u00a2 per mile. County wanted to pay bus fare in lieu of mileage as required by State law and regula- tions. He requested a state hearing. The hear- ing decision states that since beginning work, he has submitted to the county monthly WTW Private Auto Mileage Records indicating he travels 22 miles one-way to work. The county presented a print out from the MapQuest website indicating that the dis- tance from the claimant’s home to his work is 14.96 miles one-way. Mr. 09259162 testified he used the trip odometer on his vehicle and measured the distance to work as 22 miles one-way. The claimant acknowledged that the County’s MapQuest route is a route from his home to work. The claimant stated, however, that he uses a different route, and he described that route at the State hearing. The County noted that the route described by Mr. 09259162 is an indirect route us- ing freeways and that in using this route the claimant travels out of his way. The County noted that the 14.96 miles MapQuest route that uses primarily city streets and roads is a more direct route for travel from the claim- ant’s home to work. Mr. 09259162 testified that he uses the free- way route because portions of the city street and road route on the MapQuest map are not safe to travel through. The claimant noted that he travels to work at 2:00 a.m., and believes the MapQuest route is even more dangerous at this time. Fresno County’s written mileage rate policy states that the Internal Revenue System mile- age rate of 55\u00a2, which became effective Janu- ary 1, 2009, is to be used for mileage claims made after January 1, 2009. (Director’s Of- fice Memorandum No. 082, December 23, 2008.) The County failed to present details of the area depicted on the MapQuest route, other than that this route is 14.96 miles one-way us- ing mostly city streets and roads. The claim- ant, however, gave sworn and credible testi- mony that portions of the city street and road route on the MapQuest map are not safe to travel through. The hearing decision noted: There is no indication that the county has considered the claimant’s safety in deciding that the Map- Quest route is a suitable route for the claim- ant to take to and from work. It therefore is determined that the county has not considered all relevant facts in making this decision Based on the claimant’s sworn and credible testimony and the lack of any further evidence of the area depicted on the MapQuest route, it is determined that reimbursement based on a travel distance of 22 miles one-way is a sup- portive service that is necessary for the claim- ant to participate in WTW activity and working as she had during the first 14 days of July, but was working and not at- tending school. The transportation reimbursement for use her own car is 39 cents a mile. According to the County’s public trans- portation route analysis if the claimant left her home in the morning, walked 0.34 miles to the bus stop in Middletown, took a bus at 8:30 am, transferred to a second bus which would drop her off at Lakeport, arriving there at 9:55 am and then she could walk to the workplace which is 0.14 miles from the bus stop. Coming home, she could take a bus leaving Lakeport at 5:25 pm, transfer once, and arrive at Middletown at 6:52 pm. Excluding the walk to and from her home, and to and from her place of work, the to- tal time involved using the bus would be 2 hours and 52 minutes a day. Based on the distances from the home to the bus station, and the bus station to work, and the claimant’s testimony that it prob- ably takes about five minutes to walk to the bus stop from her home, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds that total time using public transportation exceeds three hours, if everything goes smoothly, and the buses run on time, and the claimant manages to arrive not to early at the bus stop so as to minimize her wait, and not too late so as to miss her bus. The county considers the $35 bus pass adequate to have met her needs in the month of July. The county acknowl- edges that it did not buy her a bus pass. However, as of the date of the hearing, the County had not even authorized the bus passes for July. State regulations, Section 42-721.31, provide that if the round trip travel time exceeds two hours in a day, good cause ex- ists for not participating in Welfare to Work activities such as employment or training. By using her own car, the travel time was reduced to approximately one and one-half hours daily, which means that the Welfare to Work activity was not too remote. (In addition, Ms. 09261023 has a four year old and a 15 year old child.) The hear- ing decision states: Based upon this analy- sis of the necessary travel time, as well as the age of the younger child, the time of day the claimant would be required to leave her own home, and the fact that the claimant would have been able to claim an exemption from the Welfare to Work activ- ity if she had used public transportation, it is concluded that public transportation was not reasonable available. The claimant is entitled to reimbursement at 39 cents per mile for the 462 miles she drove her own car to participate in Welfare to Work activi- ties during the period from July 15 through July 31, 2009 FRESNO COUNTY VICTIM CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org January 8, 2009 #2010-01 Page 2 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 2, 2010 Issue # 2010-03 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian The Administration’s budget proposal generally extends the TANF block grant (along with supplemental grants). It appears that this proposed extension is in lieu of a full scale reauthorization proposal for 2010. The budget, does, however, include several areas of ad- ditional funding and some changes in law. A. Extension of the TANF Emergen- cy Fund (along with increasing state max and adding funds) with some changes. 1. Extends the TANF Emergency Fund The Administration’s budget proposes to extend the fund for one year beyond its current termination date, through September 30, 2011. 2. Provides incentives to states to cre- ate subsidized jobs. States would be reimbursed for 100 percent of the costs associated with providing subsidized jobs to eligible individuals. Currently, states are reimbursed for 80 percent and some states have indicated they have had difficulty identifying state funds to cover the remainder of the costs. 3. Expands allowable uses of the fund to include increased expenses for work activities and work supports that last longer than four months. Many states are serving more families in their TANF programs than prior to the recession. This has resulted in the need for states to expand their work programs, includ- ing the work supports (such as trans- portation assistance) families need to participate in such programs. This ex- pansion of the TANF Emergency Fund will make it possible for states to cover any expansion in work programs that last for longer than four months. (Work activities and associated work supports lasting four months or less can already be covered as a one-time non-recurring benefit.) 4. Provides states with a new maximum allocation. All states would receive a new maximum allocation for FY 2011 equal to 50 percent of their TANF block grant. Any funds drawn down in 2009 and 2010 will not count against the new maximum allocation. 5. Provides additional money to cover the extension and expansion. The Administration’s budget includes $2.5 billion in FY 2011 to cover the expansion and extension of the TANF Emergency Fund. (This includes any funds that are remain by the end of 2010 from the $5 billion appropriation in ARRA.) B. Adds funds to the regular TANF Contingency Fund The regular TANF Contingency Fund from which 19 states received money in 2009 or 2010 ran out of funds in De- cember 2009. The budget proposals adds $1.8 billion to the fund. A state would be limited to 20% of the block grant amount for one year and the max- imum that a state could receive under the combined Contingency Fund and Emergency Fund for 2011 would be 50% of a state’s block grant. C. Replaces the $150 Million Healthy Marriage Promotion and Respon- sible Fatherhood Grants with a new $500 Million Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund The new $500 million fund would have two equal funding streams of competi- tive grants to states that are ready to conduct and evaluate comprehensive responsible fatherhood programs (in- cluding those with a marriage compo- nent) that relay on strong partnerships with community-based organizations and comprehensive demonstrations geared toward improving child out- comes by improving outcomes for cus- todial parents with serious barriers to self-sufficiency. The goals is to build a stronger evidence base about what service intervention models would to remove barriers to employment, in- crease family functioning and parent- ing capacity that could be replicated within TANF, Child Support Enforce- ment, and other state and community- based programs. The Family Innovation portion of this fund will develop promising new ap- proaches in areas such as: \u00b7 Identifying families that have serious barriers to employment \u00b7 Implementing strategies to address these barriers and also to prepare for employment \u00b7 Promoting child well-being in highly disadvantaged families including child- only cases \u00b7 Supporting those with barriers who find jobs to sustain employment. By Liz Schotts and Donna Pavetti, Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, Inc. – cbpp.org Fiscal Year 2010 U.S. Proposed Budget ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 17, 2010 Issue # 2010-04 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Child Protective Services’ inves- tigation ruled illegal. Greene v. Camretta 588 F.3d 1011 (2009) – On December 10, 2009, Judge Ber- zon of the U.S. 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruled on the issue of whether the actions of a child protective services caseworker and deputy sheriff, exceeded the bounds of the constitution. The Judge found that the CPS work- er and deputy sheriff violated the Fourth Amendment when they had a school official take a minor out of class and interviewed the minor in a private school office for two hours without having parental consent for the interview, a warrant or a court order. Such action constituted a seizure and interrogation. The social worker also excluded Ms. Greene, the mother, from the minor’s medical examination at the KIDS Center. Judge Berzon noted that Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1142, establishes that par- ents and children maintain clearly establish familial rights to be with each other during potentially trau- matic medical examinations and, as such, the right may be limited in cer- tain situations to presence nearby the examination, if there is a valid reason to exclude family members from the examination room. The ac- tion by the social worker to exclude Ms. Greene from the premises entirely violated her constitutional rights under Wallis. The full decision can be reviewed at: http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts. gov\/datastore\/opin- ions\/2009\/12\/10\/06-35333.pdf Restoration of Non-Assistance Food Stamp Benefits Without An Application DSS received a waiv- er from Food Nutrition Services (FNS) to restore Non Assistance Food Stamp benefits to recipients who were terminated for less than 30 days and have cured whatever caused the termination. For exam- ple, a household (HH) is terminated effective February 1, 2010 for fail- ure to submit a QR7. On February 5, 2010, the HH submits a complete QR-7. This waiver permits the food stamps restoration without submit- ting a new application. This waiver does not apply to Cal- WORKs cases. There is a draft ACL being developed to implement this waiver that may be released in March or April, 2010. $25 Disregard for Unemployment Insurance Benefits (UIB) for Food Stamps, but not CalWORKs Ef- fective November 1, 2009, Public Law 111-92, provides that the first $25 of UIB is not counted as income for Food Stamp purposes. DSS is- sued an All County Letter on De- cember 19, 2009 implementing this provision. Counties were instructed to restore benefits for persons who did not get the benefit of P.L. 111-92. However, the $25 disregard was not applied to CalWORKs cases. Income from a new job that begins in the submit month cannot be used until the next quarterly report is re- ceived by the county – On November 2, 2009, Tulare County asked DSS what to do if a CalWORKs recipient reports on a September QR7 that on October 3rd a job was offered. Do we use the anticipated income in the following quarter, November in this case? Or do we instruct the client to report it on her next QR 7, as the change did not occur in the data month? On November 25, 2009 DSS re- sponded, Since in this scenario, the client did not know about the new job until the submit month, this information will not be used to calculate the upcoming quarter’s grant amount. 18 year old pregnant woman only (PWO) eligible for cash aid based on her eligibility to the Cal- Learn Program – On September 23, 2009, Riverside County asked DSS, whether an 18 year old preg- nant woman only (PWO) is eligible for cash aid based on her eligibility to the Cal-Learn Program or must she have already entered the Cal- Learn Program in order to be eli- gible to cash aid? On November 25, 2009, DSS re- sponded that, If the teen meets the Cal-Learn program requirements specified under MPP 42-762.1 and provides verification indicating that she is in her first or second trimes- ter of pregnancy, she can be aided as a CalWORKS PWO Assistance Unit (AU) of 1 under MPP 42-762.7 with a pregnancy special needs payment under MPP 44-211.6. Riverside County Policy on So- cial Security Number (SSN) denies aid to eligible families – Riverside County Department Policy 40-106 \/ 45-201B provides that an applicant must not only provide his or her so- cial security number, but must also show the county a copy of the SSN card before they can be given im- mediate need. The county policy provides options for SSN verifica- tions. The first option is to view the card; the second option is the SSA award letter; the third option is a Medicare card; the fourth option is the MC 194 referral to the social of- fice, and the final option is MEDS or IEVS screen print showing the In Brief person’s name, SSN, and a J veri- fication code. The policy does not explain how the applicant needing immediate need can get a MEDS or IEVS printout. The Riverside County Department Policy states: A person who refuses to furnish, to make application for or to verify a SSN for himself\/herself is sanc- tioned, ineligible for assistance and excluded. What sanction? Does Riverside County not only sanction the fam- ily, but also excludes the person and also find them ineligible? Why doesn’t the worker look at MEDS or IEVS before asking for verification? Riverside County Policy Violates MPP 40-105.5(c)(C) Riverside County Department Policy 40- 105A, recites the good cause rea- sons for failure to provide verifica- tion of immunization. However the policy omitted MPP 40-105.5(c) (C) . 40-105.5(c)(C) – Their right to file an affidavit claiming that immuniza- tions are contrary to their personal and\/or religious beliefs or for medi- cal reasons. We could find no exclusion for Riv- erside County to accord the MPP 40-105.5(c)(C) and MPP 40- 105.5 (c)(C) is not a county op- tion. We wonder how many families have been unlawfully sanctioned by Riverside County for willfully and unlawfully refusing to obey the state regulations? ABAWDS waiver goes to Septem- ber 30, 2011 – In a January 29, 2010 memo FNS issued a notice that the ABAWDS waiver for 49 states will be extended until September 30, 2011. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org February 17, 2010 #2010-014 Page 2 The county informed R.H. that the county has 45 days to process the application, even if the county has all requested verification. The state regulations provide that aid shall be issued promptly . It ap- pears that for San Diego County promptly means 45 days. Madera County Unlawfully De- lays Immediate Need. Ms. N. S applied for CalWORKs on Febru- ary 12, 2010 and requested Imme- diate Need. N.S. stated that she needed diapers for her one-year old and money for transportation. Madera County unlawfully refused to process the Immediate Need re- quest, refused to issue a notice of action denying the request for Im- mediate Need and instead sched- uled an appointment for March 15, 2010. Madera County informed N.S. that it could take another 30 days after the March 15 appoint- ment before she gets any cash aid. San Bernardino County Violates Expedited Service Food Stamp and CalWORKs Immediate Need Laws. On 2-4-10 Ms. K.H, case # 2334701, who is seven months pregnant, applied for CalWORKs and Food Stamps. When she ap- plied, she had no income and no resources. This information was on her SAWS-1 dated 2-4-10. San Bernardino County scheduled an appointment for 2-10-10. At the appointment she provided the county with pregnancy verification, her birth certificate and a copy of her social security card. Several days after the appointment she re- ceived a letter from her worker, Ms. Lambert that she is not eligible for CalWORKs because she does not have any eligible children. The list of laws violate by San Bernardino are long. (1) Refusal to schedule an immediate need appointment on the date of application, but no later than the net working day; (2) refusal to issue consider the ap- plicant for expedited services, (3) refusal to issue aid to a pregnant woman with no other children. Family of Four (4) Denied Food Stamps – No Notice of Action – Mr. K.T. applied for food stamps on 1-20-09 in Sacramento Coun- ty for himself and his 4 children. He completed all forms and pro- vided all verification requested by the welfare office. After he submitted all the verification, he was told that because his spon- sor completed an I-134 form, he was not eligible for food stamps. As of February 13, 2010 he yet to receive a Notice of Action de- nying his application. Placer County Wrongfully De- nies Food Stamps to a Family of 6 Moving from Sacramen- to for Several Months -V.M. moved from Sacramento County to Placer County. Sacramento County assigned V.M. to ESL as the Welfare to Work activity and V.M. was receiving transporta- tion. The oldest daughter is 18 and still in school. Placer County ap- proved CalWORKs for five peo- ple, but approved Food Stamps for only three people. V.M. had to make a separate application for Food Stamps because Cali- fornia has chosen to force peo- ple to reapply for Food Stamps when they move from one county to another within the State. Why Food Stamps were approved for only 3 people, instead of the 5 people on the CalWORKs case, is unclear. San Diego County Unlawful- ly Delays Application – R.H. (BY44587) applied for Cal- WORKs on January 6, 2010. R.H. was in immediate need, but only received food stamps. R.H. provided all of the requested verification on January 6, 2010, but San Diego County refused to issue CalWORKs benefits. COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORT COMING The Quarterly\/Semi-Annual Reporting Update; Stage 2 Child Care Hearing in Sacramento Vio- lates Basic Tenets of Due ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News March 18, 2010 Issue # 2010-07 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 FRAUD INVESTI- GATOR REFUSE TO OBEY DSS CIVIL RIGHTS REGULA- TIONS California Welfare Fraud in- vestigators are intentionally, and with the full knowledge of the State Department of Social Services, refusing to obey civil rights standards outlined in Di- vision 21. Contracts that counties have with district attorneys are not complying with Division 21, as the agreements that counties enter into with the local District Attorneys offices do not cross reference the mandates out- lined in Division 21. 21-103 These requirements shall apply to the California Department of Social Servic- es (CDSS), all county welfare departments and all other agencies receiving federal or state financial assistance through CDSS for the admin- istration of public assistance, food stamps, child support enforcement, fraud investiga- tion and social services. STRANGE LAWS IN CALIFORNIA – MIND-BOGGLING For the past several decades California’s budget making process has become more and more like legislating in the former fallen empire. Last year a major piece of legislation was put in bill form one day and passed into law the next day. There were no committee hear- ings. Nobody knew what the bill really entailed. The Budget process in Cali- fornia has become the follow- ing: the Central Committee, composed the of the Governor, Assembly Speaker, Assembly Minority Leader, Senate Presi- dent Pro Tem and the Senate Minority Leader, meet on the first floor of the Capitol in the Governor’s Office, without any cameras or public scrutiny, and agree to a budget deal and a collection of legislation called trailer bills . The agree- ment is taken to the Deputies, also known as the Senate and Assembly, who vote on the agreement up or down. One of the results is that current law enacted in 2009 provides that the State Department of Social Services in consultation with CWDA shall develop a process prior to 1-1-11 so welfare recipi- ents can reengage in welfare- to-work activities by 7-1-01. The statute does not explain what time machine will be used to take the process developed no later than 1-1-11 back to 7-1-01, but there must be one around. If you open any law book you will find the word in set forth below. 11320.2(g) (2) The State De- partment of Social Services, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, shall develop a process prior to January 1, 2011, to assist clients with reengagement in welfare-to- work activities by July 1, 2001. Reengagement activities may include notifying clients of the expiration of exemptions, po- tential reassessments, and identifying necessary support- ive services. WtW 25 Information December, 2009 DSS publishes monthly infor- mation regarding counties op- erations of the Welfare to Work program. The reports reveal how unprofessional California’s welfare system is. These reports are based on information provided to DSS by each individual county. Un- like quarterly reports submit- ted by welfare recipients, that are signed under penalty of perjury, these reports are not signed under penalty of per- jury. In December, 2009, Kings County reported that they only had 123 individuals participat- ing in a welfare-to-work activity, yet they alleged that they paid for the transportation of 443 individuals. They have sanc- tioned 190 individuals. They have 1,264 individuals enrolled in the WtW program and 1,111 of these enrollees are exempt. This leaves 153 persons who can be either sanctioned or participating. The numbers in Kings County just don’t add up. 53% of the participants in Cali- fornia were not provided with transportation supportive ser- vices during December of 2009. Thousands of families had an Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org March 18, 2010 #2010-07 Page 2 already tough Winter made al the more difficult compliments of the California Welfare System for they had to use their fixed income to pay for transportation. Some more blatant counties are: County Percentage of Recipients Not Receiving Trans- portation Aid Alameda 70% Contra Costa 70% Fresno 60% Kern 74% Los Angeles 49% Mendocino 74% Orange 68% San Joaquin 63% San Mateo 88% Santa Barbara 63% Shasta 76% Santa Cruz 65% Siskiyou 93% Stanislaus 72% Ventura 90% Yolo 69% Yuba 75% RIVERSIDE COUNTY FORCES A WOMAN WITH A 6 MONTH OLD CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN WTW. – Ms. A.A. of Riv- erside County is a dyslexic mother of a six (6) month old child. She should be exempt according to ACL 09-46 for having a child under 2 years of age. She recently received a letter from her worker demand- ing she come to her office to sign a WtW contract. Her GAIN worker Tasha Green knows that it takes Ms. A.A. over 2 and half hours by bus to get to the WtW activity location, but still insists that she come in. Ms. Green has threatened to sanction Ms. A.A. if she does not obey Ms. Green and come in to sign the contract. Ms. Green should know that she couldn’t sanction Ms. A.A. as provided in MPP 42-721.313. An advocate for Ms. A.A. tried to contact Ms. Green, but she never answered her phone. When the advocate pushed zero, nobody answered. 42-721.3 Good Causes for Failure or Refusal to Comply with Program Requirements .31 No sanctions shall be applied for failure or refusal to comply with program requirements for reasons related to employment, an offer of employment, an activity, or other training for employment includ- ing, but not limited to, the following reasons: .313 The employment, offer of em- ployment, activity, or other training for employment is remote from the individual’s home because either: (a) The round-trip travel time re- quired exceeds a total of two hours, exclusive of the time neces- sary to transport family members to a school or place providing care, or (b) Walking is the only available means of transportation and the round-trip is more than two miles, exclusive of the mileage necessary to accompany family members to a school or a place providing care. MONTEREY COUNTY RE- FUSES TO FOLLOW ITS OWN RULES Ms. 09243033 was authorized $2,000 to repair her car. The car was repaired, but it did not work. She successfully filed a claim and got the $2,000 back that she gave back to the county. But the car still needed to be repaired. She requested ancillary services for repairing the car again. The county denied the request because they had already paid $2,000 to repair the car. When she questioned that denial, Monterey County rescind- ed the denial and came back with a new denial the repairs exceeded 80% of the blue book value for the car. It turns out that repair costs where less than the actual value of the car based on the Kelly Blue Book value and the county was ordered to pay for the repairs in accordance with county policy. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OR- DERED TO ISSUE TRANSPOR- TATION Ms. 09273481 filed for a state hearing on 9-21-09 saying that she had not been paid for transportation since 11-14-08. The county admitted during the hearing that Los Angeles County had refused to issue transporta- tion to a WtW participant who was lawfully entitled to transpor- tation. The county was ordered to pay transportation. Los Angeles County resisted paying the trans- portation until they were ordered by a judge to do so. COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORT Total Cases 48,595 100% No Eligible Child 3,251 7% No Deprivation 1,216 3% Excess Resources 297 1% Excess Income 6,841 14% Whereabouts Unknown 1,984 4% Recipient Initiative 8,210 17% QR7 22,529 46% ICT 835 2% Other 3,414 7% Kin-Gap & AFDC-FC 18 .2% WHY ARE CalWORKs CASES TERMINATED? According to the Oc- tober, 2009 CA 237 CalWORKs discon- tinuence reports there were 48,595 cases terminated from Cal- WORKs. 46% of the terminations were related to failure to submit a QR-7. ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News April 12, 2010 Issue # 2010-09 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 The Governor’s 2010-2011 pro- posed budget proposes cutting CalWORKs grants by 15.7%. This will save $130 million for the General Fund. This will bring Cal- WORKs grants down to what re- cipients were getting in 1985. How much will CalWORKs families contribute to the General Fund in 2010-2011 under the Governor’s proposed budget? $1.3 billion. How much have California’s im- poverished families contributed to the General Fund since the enact- ment of the anti-family TANF\/Cal- WORKs program? About $13.7 billion. This is accomplished by using federal TANF dollars for non-CalWORKs expenditures. Source: Swarzanegger Adminis- tration. A copy of the document verifying this fact is attached here- to. The California Department of Social Services CalWORKs Eli- gibility Bureau is now down to 10 people. Of those 10, Angela Scott and Jennie McKendrie are on medical leave. Linda Johnson has returned from retirement as a unit manager. She has Dennis Ragasa, Beverly Brown and Mat- thew Deverux in her unit. Pau- lette Dreher is a unit manager with 2 people out on medical leave and has one analyst, Mahsa Patton. Finally there is Peggy Hansen, whose unit has two vacancies, She has Owen Stewart and Cyn- thia Stone in her unit. Maria Her- nandez is the Bureau chief. ACIN 63-99 reveals that this bureau used to have 22 authorized posi- tions. filed by recording on the application the date it was received by the food stamp office. This is required to protect the date that the application was filed with the county. 3. Individuals requesting Non-Assistance Food Stamps in the Southwest Special District office or Rancho Park office are not provided the food stamp application at initial contact in violation of MPP 63-300.31 which states Each house- hold shall be advised of their right to file an application, either paper or elec- tronic, on the same day they contact the Food Stamp office during office hours. The report states Applicants are given a pre-interview work sheet to complete and asked to wait until they are called by the reception or the case opening clerk. The application (SAWS 1) is computer generated for the applicant’s review and signature. If the person leaves the office prior to returning the pre-interview form, the household would lose an opportunity to obtain and file an application on the initial day of contact. This is also a violation of MPP 63- 300.21 that states: Screening Applicants shall not be required to com- plete any CWD developed prescreening form. This violation was not mentioned in the DSS report. 4. Individuals requesting Medi-Cal and FS or General Relief (GR) and FS in the Southwest Special and Rancho Park Dis- trict offices are given two different FS applicants (SAWS 1 and DFA 285 A1) to complete. The applicant should be given only one of these required applications. MPP 63-300.2. 5. In violation of MPP Section 63-300.34, Los Angeles County refuses to take food stamp application from persons not liv- Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org County Food Stamp Law Violations In California DSS publishes Food Stamp Manage- ment Evaluation Reports of various counties as required by federal regu- lations. These reports are not posted on the web even though the Adminis- tration was directed to post all moni- toring reports on the web. We have secured these reports under the Cali- fornia Public Records Act in our con- tinued efforts to monitor county com- pliance with the laws and regulations governing public assistance programs of California. Los Angeles DPSS Ignores State Regulations Designed to Protect the Hungry On 2-8-09 through 2-13-09 DSS con- ducted a review of the Los Angeles County Food Stamp system and found some issues that may be present in many other counties of California. 1. The report shows that many ap- plicants were seen standing in line to get a food stamp application when they should be able to pick up an ap- plication without standing in line. The report states that The county should ensure that all offices have the FS ap- plications readily available in the lob- by to allow eligible households (HH) access to applicants without having to stand in line to request one from recep- tion (MPP 63-300.34) 2. The report reveals that Rancho Park District Office receptionists do not date stamp the application. The intake worker placed the date on the applica- tion during the intake interview. MPP 63-300.33 states The CWD shall document the date the application was CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org April 12, 2010 #2010-09 Page 2 ing in the zip codes covered by the office that the applicant initially contacts. MPP Section 63-300.34 requires that an application can be filed at any County Welfare Depart- ment office, and the application is to be forwarded to the correct office for an interview. 6. In all offices reviewed by DSS food stamp applicants were not ver- bally informed of expedited service (ES) and how to apply for it. In most instances, applicants are just asked to sign the SAWS1 at recep- tion without clear information on ES. 7. Los Angeles County continues to fail to review cases for Expedited Service. Los Angeles County was cited for the same failure during DSS’ 2008 review. The report does not discuss whether any of the Los Angeles County Of- fices were in compliance with MPP 11.601.314 that states: Post notices in prominent locations within the CWD’s offices and in the public areas, including the doors, immediately outside the CWD’s of- fices which inform the public of the following: (a) The working days, or the regular eight hours of a working day, when the offices will be closed; (b) The procedures for obtaining and filing applications for Food Stamp and AFDC benefits during these hours of office closure; and (c) The procedures for applying for and receiving expedited Food Stamp, immediate need AFDC, and homeless assistance benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law, during these hours of office closure. Most of the offices do not comply with this regulation. It seems like Los Angeles County is refusing to obey several laws designed to protect food stamp re- cipients. These kinds of repetitive and callous violations of the law by county officials hurt poor house- holds and innocent children. Los Angeles County uses a pre- screening form in violation of the law. Los Angeles County refuses to allow applicants to complete a SAWS1 as required by state regulations while they terminate recipient’s benefits for any alleged failure. Ventura County Review In a Ventura review conducted by DSS in January of 2009, DSS made the following findings: Application filing date is not recorded on the application upon receipt in violation of MPP 63-300.33. The normal business hours are not dis- played in the exterior of the Oxnard of- fice in violation of ACL 04-55 and MPP 11.601.314. The Oxnard office refuses to accept food stamp applications 2 p.m. They require applicants to return the next day to file the application. This results in the loss of benefits for between one and three days depending on which day this unlawful county act occurs. Ventura County refuses to verbally advise applicants of the availability of Food Stamp Expedited Service as required by law. Riverside County Review A food stamp management review was done by DSS during May of 2009. The re- port made the following findings: Like other counties, Riverside County fails to make applications available as mandated by MPP 63-300.34. Individuals have to stand in a long line to get their application for Food Stamps. Applicants are not provided with the op- portunity or advised of their right to file an incomplete application on the initial day of contact at the Indio District Office (MPP 63-300.31 and .32.) This occurs in situa- tions where an applicant is unable to stay in the office to complete the application pack- et, thus not protecting the date of aid. An incomplete application requires only the applicant’s name, address and signature. This was also a finding from the last FFY’s ME. It appears that Riverside County is ignoring laws and regulations designed to protect food stamp recipients by intention- ally not complying after being told in writ- ing of their violations. Applicants are asked to sign the SAWS1 under penalty of perjury that they have been informed of their right to Food Stamp ES when the county is refusing to do so upon application in violation of state regulations. In one case, a Riverside County Eli- gibility Worker refused to issue ex- pedited services to a homeless family for failure to provide verification of residency. The worker also said that he would deny both Food Stamps and CalWORKs to this homeless family for failure to provide verification of residence. Neither Expedited Service food stamp nor CalWORKs benefits can be denied to homeless families for failure to have an address. Another worker at the Hemet office re- fused to issue FS-ES benefits for fail- ure to provide a copy of the social se- curity card, although the applicant did provide verification of identity. Placer County Review Placer County was found not posting hours of operations in violation of MPP 11.601.314, refusing to make appli- cations available without the necessity of standing in line at the food stamp of- fice, and not telling applicants that they can file an application without waiting for a hour or more to be prescreened. Moreover, the monitoring report states Placer County workers are not aware of FS-ES rules. Humboldt County Review Humboldt County refuses to allow ap- plicants file an incomplete application to protect their date of application. Re- ception staff does not know the FS-ES rules, thus they are not able to verbally inform applicants of their right to FS- ES as required by law. CONCLUSION The Management Evaluation reports show continued widespread violations of food stamp regulations. The reports state that many of the violations were found in previous reports but were not corrected. Unfortunately, the Cali- fornia Department of Social Services seems unable to compel County Wel- fare Departments to correct these vio- lation. CalWORKs and TANF Funding Chart 4\/11\/10 Historical CWs-TANF Funding 2010-11 GB 032510 (2).xlsx FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Governor’s Budget 2010-11 Governor’s Budget Total TANF Grant\/Required MOE 6,640,971,000 6,639,655,000 6,457,111,000 6,439,482,000 6,425,431,000 6,425,952,000 6,420,148,000 6,408,523,000 6,406,842,000 6,402,415,000 6,583,092,000 6,577,997,000 6,568,562,000 CalWORKs Program (Actuals) \/1 5,452,464,887 5,644,024,929 5,228,224,151 5,065,837,696 5,234,304,599 4,726,460,275 4,977,898,939 4,827,632,403 4,780,360,853 5,035,819,569 5,341,526,077 5,584,669,000 5,257,562,000 Grants 3,728,895,597 3,409,184,226 3,110,590,925 3,128,453,615 2,998,104,490 3,058,377,136 3,272,331,000 3,067,470,861 2,949,089,178 3,006,359,917 3,275,881,220 3,429,131,000 3,167,478,000 Administration 518,317,463 563,062,953 539,640,224 554,944,600 499,797,000 477,145,347 477,510,368 534,258,293 555,745,996 584,572,008 579,578,620 603,204,078 585,065,548 Services 450,275,279 569,166,870 659,554,385 725,821,297 766,605,000 593,584,707 666,412,363 692,825,442 717,380,363 804,993,424 829,198,822 862,999,589 837,048,928 Child Care 360,733,329 524,045,984 571,661,082 537,865,541 548,577,000 486,111,807 451,267,208 428,742,096 450,703,076 526,040,292 542,554,111 564,670,333 547,690,524 Substance Abuse\/Mental Health Svcs 21,212,219 67,946,896 96,777,535 98,752,643 118,377,109 111,241,278 110,378,000 104,335,711 107,442,240 113,853,928 114,313,304 124,664,000 120,279,000 County Share of Admin\/Svcs \/2 80,807,136 82,344,889 70,220,490 63,070,804 65,344,000 53,410,000 61,429,000 57,462,000 27,550,000 36,489,082 27,214,878 8,368,000 0 Tribal TANF\/3 71,001,000 77,092,000 88,385,000 Performance Incentives(budgeted) 373,031,000 510,618,000 250,000,000 20,000,000 302,844,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Probation 201,413,000 201,413,000 201,413,000 201,413,000 201,413,000 201,413,000 67,138,000 0 0 0 0 Student Aid Commision 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,336,000 KinGAP 0 0 25,519,000 69,859,000 76,232,000 88,318,000 94,308,000 96,340,000 137,425,000 120,737,000 114,052,000 112,113,000 114,828,000 ARRA Subsidized Employment – ECF 158,508,000 41,327,000 Non-CalWORKs MOE\/TANF in CDSS (11,269,000) (8,429,000) (7,708,000) (14,356,000) (2,330,000) (12,363,000) (10,322,000) (10,219,000) (197,460,000) (192,378,000) (196,041,000) (188,607,000) (146,323,000) Other MOE\/TANF in CDSS 305,663,000 334,380,000 344,605,000 402,604,000 384,872,000 331,849,000 315,403,000 331,194,000 214,330,000 263,857,000 271,073,000 306,246,000 297,985,000 MOE In Other Department Budgets 402,839,000 410,869,000 466,450,000 474,184,000 377,043,000 461,401,000 411,967,000 500,527,000 476,424,000 1,005,748,000 714,079,000 668,044,000 627,301,000 State Support 29,016,000 26,714,000 26,592,000 29,198,000 23,979,000 27,242,000 27,462,000 26,060,000 24,909,000 25,774,000 28,131,000 29,958,000 29,906,000 Total Expenditures \/4 6,380,126,887 6,608,971,929 6,285,095,151 6,228,739,696 6,295,513,599 5,824,320,275 5,883,854,939 5,771,534,403 5,435,988,853 6,259,557,569 6,272,820,077 6,748,023,000 6,329,307,000 Federal TANF 3,472,973,887 3,703,134,929 3,561,802,151 3,523,075,696 3,603,900,599 3,132,186,275 3,422,342,000 3,297,312,000 2,972,412,000 3,722,511,000 3,560,047,000 3,903,844,000 3,494,563,000 General Fund 2,733,123,474 2,708,262,505 2,545,307,737 2,477,681,856 2,521,316,388 2,487,383,000 2,490,171,000 2,483,755,000 2,518,089,000 2,498,949,000 2,715,820,000 2,705,199,000 2,657,569,000 Other State Funds (ETF) 0 30,000,000 30,000,000 86,700,000 30,000,000 56,432,000 40,475,000 38,010,000 20,087,000 45,000,000 35,000,000 20,000,000 Other State Funds (DAPT) Other State Funds (Prop 10) 73,000,000 County Funds 174,029,526 167,574,495 147,985,263 141,282,144 140,296,612 148,319,000 155,684,000 152,940,000 134,848,000 124,648,000 133,454,000 118,980,000 104,175,000 Total TANF transfers 284,965,000 531,654,000 606,149,000 497,376,000 636,521,000 675,546,000 475,396,000 689,917,000 798,270,000 468,773,000 442,017,000 447,936,000 458,848,000 Non-CalWORKs Transfers 0 0 5,339,000 0 70,793,000 100,135,000 85,579,000 191,489,000 176,409,000 175,403,000 169,793,000 176,613,000 217,697,000 Transfers to Stage 2, Title XX for Child Care, Tribal TANF & Reserves 284,965,000 531,654,000 600,810,000 497,376,000 565,548,000 575,411,000 389,817,000 498,428,000 621,861,000 293,370,000 272,224,000 271,323,000 241,151,000 TANF Grant\/Required MOE 6,640,971,000 6,639,655,000 6,457,111,000 6,439,482,000 6,425,431,000 6,425,952,000 6,420,148,000 6,408,523,000 6,406,842,000 6,402,415,000 6,583,092,000 6,577,997,000 6,568,562,000 General Fund Above Base MOE 0 0 Prior Year TANF Carryforward 617,020,000 854,309,000 520,661,000 503,004,000 283,783,000 509,190,000 545,245,000 638,369,000 424,356,000 457,466,000 119,532,000 75,374,000 7,265,000 ARRA – Emergency Contingency Funds 259,212,000 391,345,000 171,001,000 ARRA – Subsidized Employment 158,508,000 41,327,000 Net TANF Block Grant Unspent Performance Incentives 600,000,000 0 0 0 High Performance Bonus 14,219,000 7,044,000 12,922,000 0 0 0 Total Available Funding 7,257,991,000 7,493,964,000 6,977,772,000 6,942,486,000 7,309,214,000 6,949,361,000 6,972,437,000 7,059,814,000 6,831,198,000 6,859,881,000 6,961,836,000 7,203,224,000 6,788,155,000 Total TANF\/MOE Expends 6,665,091,887 7,142,163,682 6,880,657,505 6,708,379,364 6,916,571,463 6,472,469,139 6,584,068,000 6,661,934,000 6,234,258,853 6,728,330,569 6,714,837,077 7,195,959,000 6,788,155,000 NET TANF Carry-over Funds 592,899,113 351,800,318 97,114,495 234,106,636 392,642,537 476,891,861 388,369,000 397,880,000 387,492,000 0 75,498,000 7,265,000 0 CalWORKs contribution to the General Fund 708,502,000 745,249,000 1,021,913,000 1,126,647,000 1,088,940,000 1,163,238,000 1,087,321,000 1,299,448,000 1,184,134,000 1,745,291,000 1,268,997,000 1,263,016,000 1,276,147,000 Excess MOE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 492,498,000 172000000-324000000 115,800,000-265,800,000 CDE Child Care Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,149,000 72,000,000 78,000,000 After School MOE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225,349,000 100,000,000-252,000,000 37,800,000-187,800,000 Community College Fee Waivers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CalGrants MOE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223,000,000 0 Total Contribution to $13,702,696,000.00 Date \/1 CalWORKS Program Expenditures (except Performance Incentives and Tribal TANF) represent actuals for FY 1998-99 through 2008-09. Other expenditures represent budgeted figures; however, the Services, Administration and Child Care figures reflect an adjustment to display the budgeted dollars based on actual expenditure levels. \/2 This is a non add line because the estimated county share is included in the CalWORKs actual budgeted expenditures. \/3 The Tribal TANF funds reflected in FY 2008-09 were formally included in the Grants, Admin and Services sections but are now shown separately. \/4 The Total Expenditures are based on actual figures for prior years and estimated amounts in current and budget year. The sharing of expenditures is based on estimated amounts. Revised: March 25, 2010. Note: CalWORKs Contribution to the General Funds Includes KinGAP, Other MOE in CDSS, Other Department MOE, Non CalWORKs TANF Transfers and the WPR adjustment for meeting the rate. ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News May 3, 2010 Issue # 2010-11 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 San Diego County ranks last with the low- est participation rate in the state. San Di- ego County prides itself for insisting that welfare recipients obey the welfare rules with vigorous welfare fraud enforcement and 100 percent home visit program. Yet, it has a record of disregarding the rules governing the food stamp program. Recently, the Department of Social Ser- vices completed a food stamp compli- ance review to determine how well San Diego County complied with federal and state expedited food stamp rules. In a March 11, 2010 letter to San Diego County, Welfare Director Nick Macchione cited San Diego County for the following violations: VIOLATION #1 – Failure to comply with the signage requirement of MPP 63-300.35. The report found that some San Diego County offices did not have signs as man- dated by MPP 63-300.35 which requires counties to post signs in the certification office which explain the application pro- cessing standards and the right to file an application on the day of initial contact. VIOLATION #2 Failure to accept food stamp applications as required by MPP 63-300.32. The household shall be advised that the household does not have to be interviewed before fil- ing the application and may file an in- complete application form as long as Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org SAN DIEGO COUNTY VIOLATES FOOD STAMP LAWS VIOLATION # 6. Food stamp applicants are not verbally informed of expedited services (ES) as required by MPP 63- 301.521 at the point of reception when the SAWS1 is received and prior to being re- quired to be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury that it was explained. MPP 63-301.521 provides: A CWD em- ployee or volunteer shall inform potential applicants orally of the right to expedited service for eligible households and how to initiate the process, the availability of assis- tance in filling out the application and shall be responsible for screening applications as they are filed. The CWD also shall ad- vise individuals who inquire about the Food Stamp Program by telephone of the expe- dited service processing standards for eli- gible households. The CWD shall assist an applicant, upon request, in filling out forms and completing the application process. DSS reviewed 32 randomly selected cas- es. Three of eight food stamp denials at the Centre City office were found to be in- valid. Centre City staff did not issue notices of action in 2 food stamp denial cases. Four of fifteen food stamp denials re- viewed at the North Inland Office were invalid. In one case, staff denied the ap- plication 44 days after the application date, no copy of the appointment letter was in the file and the SAWS1 was also not in the file. One case had no docu- mentation supporting the denial action. In another, DSS found that the CalWIN comments did not match the notice of ac- tion (NOA) reasons for the denial. This applicant applied February 24, 2009 and failed to keep the first appointment. The second appointment was scheduled for March 26, 2009, which is outside of the 30 day timeline for processing food stamp ap- plications. Verification was requested to be returned by April 6, 2009. The NOA deny- ing the application was issued on May 3, the form contains the applicant’s name and address, and is signed by a respon- sible member of the household or the household’s authorized representative. The report showed that the North In- land Office rejects incomplete or mail- in applications that only contain the name and address of the applicant. VIOLATION # 3 Failure to mail FS ap- plications as required by MPP 63-300.34. If a household contacting the food stamp office by telephone does not wish to come to the appropriate office to file the appli- cation that same day and instead prefers receiving an application through the mail, an application form shall be mailed to the household on the same day the telephone request is received. An application shall also be mailed on the same day a written request for food assistance is received. VIOLATION #4 Failure to accept FS ap- plication on date received as required by MPP 63-300.3. The North Inland office does not accept Food Stamp applications left in the drop box. San Diego County con- tacts the applicant and tells the applicant they have to come back and apply in person. DSS report states: The application should be accepted and the date received should be recorded\/date stamped on the applica- tion. The applicant should not have to com- plete a second application. MPP 63-300.3 VIOLATION #5. The application date is not recorded or date stamped on the food stamp application as required by MPP 63-300.33. The review found that in some offices San Diego County failed to document the date that the application was filed with the county. MPP 63-300.33 required that the CWD document the date the application was filed by recording on the application the date it was received by the food stamp office. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org May 3, 2010 #2010-11 Page 2 2009 for failure to provide verification to San Diego County by March 26, 2009. On January 30, 2010 the State De- partment of Social Services issued a Fiscal ACL to all counties as required by Chapter 75, Statutes of 2006 (AB 1808). DSS, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA), developed a survey instrument in FY 2007-08 to capture the costs of county administration of the human ser- vices programs for the Budget process. The letter states that Completed budget worksheets are due to CDSS by March 1, 2010. Please submit your completed package of worksheets via email to the analyst assigned to your county (as listed on Attachment I included in the instruc- tion package). Counties were given 60 days to submit information. These same counties only give recipients of human services programs 10 days to provide requested information. As of April 21, 2010, six counties failed to provide DSS with completed budget worksheets. The counties that failed to comply with the State Department of So- cial Services are: Calaveras Napa Santa Clara Santa Cruz Siskiyou and Stanislaus Several of these counties informed DSS that they would provide the worksheets to DSS. However, Stanislaus and Santa Clara counties simply ignored the re- quest for information. We asked DSS if there are any conse- quences for these counties refusing to comply with a lawful request and discovered that there are none. Counties can simply ignore what their superiors ask for and nothing hap- pens. We wonder if these same counties give their clients the same leeway? We discovered that these six counties termi- nate benefits to impoverished families without any hesitation for failure to provide verification within 10 days. To see if these counties allowed recipients the same latitude when failing to comply with Coun- ty Welfare Department demands, that the coun- ties took in submitting reports to DSS, one only needs to look at the County Statistical Reports for December of 2009. County Failure to Meet Procedural Requirements-Recipient\/ Applicant Calaveras 51 Napa 72 Santa Clara 1,246 Santa Cruz 197 Siskiyou 59 Stanislaus 640 SOURCE: DSS CA 253 and 255 reports County Recipient Failure to Submit a QR-7 Calaveras 25 Napa 39 Santa Clara 859 Santa Cruz 138 Siskiyou 21 Stanislaus 76 SOURCE: DSS CA 253 Reports County WtW Sanction Calaveras 5 Napa 54 Santa Clara 350 Santa Cruz 57 Siskiyou 40 Stanislaus 524 SOURCE: DSS WtW 25 Reports County Refusal to Pay for Transportation of Unduplicated WtW Participants Calaveras 131 80 61% Napa 159 139 87% Santa Clara 4,652 1,408 30% Santa Cruz 705 438 62% Siskiyou 195 184 94% Stanislaus 2,489 1,800 72% Press release Date 24\/3\/10 Nothing in budget for children living in poverty today In response to today’s Budget, End Child Pov- erty expresses its disappointment at the lack of any immediate help for low income families fac- ing poverty. The campaign does, however, wel- come the universal access to bank accounts and support for the international bank levy. Sam Hyde, Director of the campaign said: The failure to prioritize children means that Government will continue to fall far short of the important milestone of halving child poverty, and is a serious set back on the road to ending child poverty by 2020. It’s a missed opportunity to improve the lives of thousands of children, who will today be growing up with a poorer fu- ture. The recession and the deficit are no excuse. The children of today are the workers who will pay off the national debt tomorrow and we can- not afford to see their life chances slip away. We’ve seen government find money for what it thinks are priorities and we are disappointed that it doesn’t consider important its commit- ments to the Child Poverty Bill, which will gain Royal Assent this week. http:\/\/www.endchildpoverty.org COUNTIES SANCTION AND TERMINATE BENEFITS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WHILE FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW Unduplicated Participants Unduplicated Participants NOT Receiving Transportation Perc. of Undupl. Part. NOT Receiving Transp. SOURCE: DSS WtW 25 Reports News From Englad CCWRO New Welfare News May 3, 2010 #2010-11 Page 3 California Welfare-to-Work Program Update How Much Do we Spend and What Do We Get? 2009-2010 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $1,013,810.00 2009-2010 Welfare-to-Work Child Appropriation $515,197.00 Number of Unduplicated Participants Number of Participants Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Sanctioned Dollar Loss to Families and Chldren Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Who Entered Employment Number of Participants Who Entered Employment that Resulted in Termina- tion of CalWORKs TOTAL JOBS TOTAL SANCTIONS IMPOSED HOW MANY MORE PARTICIPANTS WERE SANCTONED V. FOUND EMPLOYMENT? Number of Unduplicated Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County Estimated Dollar Loss to the Family Not Being Paid Transportation by the County Jan. 2010 141,566 46,183 25,495 $5.5 million 7,628 3,369 10,997 25,495 14,498 77,866 $7.8 million Febr. 2010 140.909 45,104 25,523 $5.6 million 7250 3,400 10,650 25,523 14,473 76,339 $7.6 million Analysis During January of 2010 18% of participants were sanc- tioned by the Welfare-to-Work Program. 10% of partici- pants found employment. Thus, 8% more participants were sanctioned compared to the percentage of participants who found employment. This difference provides significant statistical evidence that the program is slanted toward sanctioning partici- pants rather than making participants self-sufficient. Sanctions resulted in the loss of $5.6 million dollars each month for California’s impoverished families. During January of 2010 55% of participants who are entitled to transportation did not receive these benefits. The law provides that needed transportation assistance be paid in advance to assure that participants do not use money from their fixed incomes; incomes which are at the same level that CalWORKs recipients received in 1989 for transportation. Over 90% of the participants have to use some means of transportation to reach the location of their WtW activity. During January of 2010 CalWORKs recipients were denied 7.6 million dollars in transportation services by county welfare departments with the cooperation of the State Department of Social Services. CCWRO has voiced concerns for these issues for over 10 years. ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News June 6, 2010 Issue # 2010-14 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 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org San Bernardino County Imposes a Sanc- tion without a 30-day Notice in viola- tion of MPP 42-721.23. Ms. 20106009 received a notice of action dated Decem- ber 14, 2009 imposing a sanction effective January 1, 2010. This victim filed for a state hearing and the Administrative Law Judge, retired annuitant Jack Wright ignored the law that mandates a 30-day notice of ac- tion before imposing a Welfare-to-Work sanction and upheld the unlawful sanction. 42-721.23 Upon determination that an individual has failed or refused to com- ply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the individual a notice of ac- tion effective no earlier than 30 cal- endar days from the date of issuance. Alameda County Refuses to provide sup- portive services to a working CalWORKs family while using the income to reduce his CalWORKs grant each month. Mr. 2010026106 has been working 24 hours a week since June of 2009. The hearing deci- sion states that he is a CalWIN participant. This is wrong. He is a CalWORKs recipient and a WtW participant. In this case supportive services were not paid for over 6 long months while the earned income of Mr. 2010026106 was being used to reduce his CalWORKs grant every month. Although the earnings reported were being used to reduce Mr. 2010026106’s CalWORKs grant each month, Alameda County continued to refuse to pay supportive services because they were unable to verify that he was actually working. The hearing officer ruled that the county should pay supportive services as required by law. Sacramento County Cannot Meet the Work Participation Rates and Tries to Stop a Family Meeting the Work Partici- pation from Meeting Such Rates. Mr. and Mrs. 1B18D27, a Sacramento Couple on Cal- WORKs, are working 36 hours a week work study because they are attending school 8 hours a week. Sacramento County is refusing to pay for supportive services for the 8 hours a week of school that can result in their losing 36 hours a week employment at the school. In Federal Fiscal Year 2008 Sacramento County missed the 90% participation rates for couples by 66%. No wonder. They try to discourage people actually meeting the participation rates by coming up with all kinds of bureaucratic schemes not to pay for supportive services. (More on Page 2) Los Angeles County Imposes Sanction for Future Acts of the Claimant. Ms. Latoya O. (B100Q79) applied for aid in 2005 for herself and her minor child. For one month she received aid. Then her aid was reduced due to alleged failure to cooperate with the child support bureau- cracy. For the last five (5) years has never received aid for more than one person. On January 23, 2008 she received a notice of action stating that her aid would be re- duced from $359 to $17 for failure to co- operate with the Los Angeles County WtW program known as the GAIN program. The reason given on this notice of ac- tion (NOA) was our records show that you did not: Participate or make good progress in your Job Club with Orientation activity because you did not comply with GAIN requirements. The next sentence gave her an appoint- ment with the county for 2-4-08 to talk with you about this problem. A complete search of all WtW regulations, All County Letters and All County Infor- mation Notices did not reveal any WtW activity called Job Club Orientation. Maybe Los Angeles County has promulgat- ed it’s own state regulations. Who knows? Ms. Latoya O filed for a state hearing that was conducted late May of 2010. Ms. Eb- ony Lewis from DPSS Appeals and States Hearing Section represented the county at the hearing. Ms. Lewis testified under oath that Los Angeles County sanctioned Ms. Latoya O. with the NOA dated 1\/23\/08 for failure to attend the 2\/4\/08 and the 4\/13\/08 meetings. After being questioned about the absurdity of sanctioning some for their fu- ture acts, she insisted that the sanction is correct and the county issued a NOA dated 1\/23\/08 imposing the sanction for failure to attend the 2\/4\/08 and 2\/13\/08 meetings. Ms. Lotaya O. is waiting for a de- cision and hopes that she can win the case, but one never knows. In Brief Recent data reveals that TANF is not On March 30, 2010, every county was in- formed of the county participation rates for Federal Fiscal Year 2008. Only one county meet the 50% federal participation rate Glenn County. Every other county, after spending over $1 billion for the welfare to work bureaucrats and over $.5 billion on childcare, failed to meet the 50% participa- tion rates, but they sanctioned many poor families as evidenced on page 2. No county met the two-family 90% participation rates. Overall child care expenditures for the State declined by 16% and the number of families served declined by 11% from July 2009 to January 2010 because of short term exemp- tions enacted last year which exempted fami- lies with children under two (2) and families with one of more child under six (6) from participating in Welfare-to-Work activities. The California Department of Education (CDE) has 13 regulation packets that they are working on that are being withheld from advocates, but freely shared with the County Welfare Department Association (CWDA) and others. Also it will take CDE 5 months to respond to reasonable Public Records Act requests. CDE seems to reject Open Govern- ment and Practice Closed\/Secret government. On the other had CDE has requested that DSS share their draft ACL\/ACINs with CDE. Los Angeles CalWORKs Client getting paid for 20 hours from TANF ECF money and then being force to perform 15 hours of UNPAID LABOR doing the same job. A client in Los An- geles is working for 20 hours a week doing one of the 100,000 jobs that Los Angeles County developed for CalWORKs recipients with the TANF ECF for Subsidized Employment. The same client is mandated to do another 15 hours of unpaid labor at the same job location doing the same identical work. 20 hours paid 15 hours unpaid. Why not pay for 35 hours? County Client Abuse Report CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org May 14, 2010 #2010-12 Page 2 California Welfare-to-Work Program Update How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2009-2010 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $1,013,810.00 2009-2010 Welfare-to-Work Child Appropriation $515,197.00 Number of Unduplicated Participants Gross Number of Participants Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Sanctioned THIS MONTH Dollar Loss to Families and Chldren Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Who Entered Employment Number of Participants Who Entered Employment that Resulted in Termina- tion of CalWORKs TOTAL JOBS TOTAL SANCTIONS IMPOSED HOW MANY MORE PARTICIPANTS WERE SANCTONED V. FOUND EMPLOYMENT? Number of Unduplicated Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County Estimated Dollar Loss to the Family Not Being Paid Transportation by the County Jan. 2010 141,566 46,183 25,495 $5.5 million 7,628 3,369 10,997 25,495 14,498 77,866 $7.8 million Febr. 2010 140.909 45,104 25,523 $5.6 million 7250 3,400 10,650 25,523 14,473 76,339 $7.6 million Analysis During March of 2010 17% of partici- pants were sanctioned by the Welfare-to- Work Program. 9% of participants found employment. Thus, 8% more participants were sanc- tioned compared to the percentage of participants who found employment. This difference provides significant statistical evidence that the program is slanted to- ward sanctioning participants rather than making participants self-sufficient. Sanctions resulted in the loss of $5.5 mil- lion dollars each month for California’s impoverished families. During March of 2010 51% of partici- pants who are entitled to transportation did not receive these benefits. The law provides that needed transportation assistance be paid in advance to assure that participants do not use money from their fixed incomes; incomes which are at the same level that CalWORKs recipients received in 1989 for transportation. Over 90% of the participants have to use some means of transportation to reach the loca- tion of their WtW activity. During March of 2010 CalWORKs recipi- ents were denied $7 million in transporta- tion services by county welfare depart- ments with the cooperation of the State Department of Social Services. March 2010 142,799 44,286 23,673 $5.5 million 9,136 3,501 12,664 23,673 11,009 70,231 $7 million ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News June 6, 2010 Issue # 2010-14 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 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org Los Angeles CalWORKs client getting paid for 20 hours of work from TANF ECF mon ey, then forced to perform 15 hours of UNPAID LABOR doing the same job. A client in Los Angeles is working for 20 hours a week doing one of the 100,000 jobs that Los Ange- les County developed for CalWORKs recipients with the TANF ECF for Subsidized Employ- ment. The same client is mandated to do another 15 hours of unpaid labor at the same job location doing identical work. 20 hours paid 15 hours unpaid. Why not pay for 35 hours? Los Angeles County imposes sanction for future acts of the claimant. Ms. Latoya O. (B100Q79) applied for aid in 2005 for herself and her minor child. For one month she received aid. Then her aid was reduced due to alleged failure to cooperate with the child support bu- reaucracy. For the last five (5) years she has never received aid for more than one person. On January 23, 2008 she received a Notice of Action stating that her aid would be reduced from $359 to $17 for failure to cooperate with the Los Angeles County WtW program known as the GAIN program. The reason given on this notice of action (NOA) was our records show that you did not: Participate or make good progress in your Job Club with Orientation activ- ity because you did not comply with GAIN requirements. The next sentence gave her an appointment with the county for 2-4-08 to talk with you about this problem. A complete search of all WtW regulations, All County Letters and All County Infor- mation Notices did not reveal any WtW activity called Job Club Orientation. May- be Los Angeles County has promulgated it’s own state regulations. Who knows? Ms. Latoya O. requested a state hearing which was conducted in late May of 2010. The county representative testified under oath that Los Angeles County sanctioned Ms. Latoya O. with the NOA dated 1\/23\/08 for failure to attend the 2\/4\/08 and 4\/13\/08 meet- ings. After being questioned about the absurdity of sanctioning Latoya O. for future acts, she insisted that the sanction was correct. Ms. Lotaya O. is waiting for a decision. San Bernardino County imposes a sanction without a 30-day Notice in violation of MPP 42-721.23. Ms. 20106009 received a notice of action dated December 14, 2009 imposing a sanction effective January 1, 2010. This victim requested a state hearing and the Administra- tive Law Judge, retired annuitant Jack Wright, ignored the law that mandates a 30-day notice of action before imposing a Welfare-to-Work sanction and upheld the unlawful sanction. 42-721.23 Upon determination that an individual has failed or refused to com- ply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the individual a notice of ac- tion effective no earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of issuance. Alameda County refuses to provide supportive services to a working CalWORKs family while using the income to reduce his CalWORKs grant each month. Mr. 2010026106 has been working 24 hours a week since June of 2009. The hearing deci- sion states that he is a CalWIN participant. This is wrong. He is a CalWORKs recipi- ent and a WtW participant. In this case, supportive services were not paid for over 6 long months while the earned income of Mr. 2010026106 was being used to reduce his Cal- WORKs grant every month. Although the earnings reported were being used to reduce Mr. 2010026106’s CalWORKs grant each month, Alameda County continued to refuse to pay supportive services because they were unable to verify that he was actually working. The hearing officer ruled that the county should pay supportive services as required by law. Sacramento County cannot meet the work participation rates but tries to stop a family who are meeting the work participation, from meeting such rates. Mr. and Mrs. 1B18D27, a Sacramento couple on CalWORKs, are working 36 hours a week work study because they are attending school 8 hours a week. Sacramento County is refusing to pay for supportive services for the 8 hours a week of school that can result in the loss of 36 hours a week employment at the school. In Federal Fiscal Year 2008 Sacramento County missed the 90% participation rates for couples by 66%. No wonder. They try to discourage people who are actually meeting the partici- pation rates by coming up with all kinds of bureaucratic schemes not to pay for supportive services. In Brief County Client Abuse Report On March 30, 2010, every county was informed of the county participa- tion rates for Federal Fiscal Year 2008. Only one county, Glenn, met the 50% federal participation rate. Every other county, after spending over $1 billion for the welfare to work bureaucrats and over $.5 billion on childcare, failed to meet the 50% participation rates, but they sanctioned many poor families as evidenced on page 2. No county met the two-family 90% participation rates. Overall child care expenditures for the State declined by 16%. The number of families served declined by 11% from July 2009 to January 2010 because of short term exemptions enacted last year. These exemptions exempted families with children under the age of two and families with one of more children under the age of six from par- ticipating in Welfare-to-Work activities. The California Department of Educa- tion (CDE) is working on 13 regulation packets that are being withheld from advocates, but have been shared with the County Welfare Department Asso- ciation (CWDA) and others. It will take CDE 5 months to respond to reason- able Public Records Act requests. CDE seems to be rejecting the idea of open government and instead is practic- ing closed\/secret government. On the other had CDE has requested that DSS share their draft ACL\/ACINs with CDE. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org June 6, 2010 #2010-14 Page 2 California Welfare-to-Work Program Update How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2009-2010 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $1,013,810.00 2009-2010 Welfare-to-Work Child Appropriation $515,197.00 Number of Unduplicated Participants Gross Number of Participants Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Sanctioned THIS MONTH Dollar Loss to Families and Chldren Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Who Entered Employment Number of Participants Who Entered Employment that Resulted in Termina- tion of CalWORKs TOTAL JOBS TOTAL SANCTIONS IMPOSED HOW MANY MORE PARTICIPANTS WERE SANCTONED V. FOUND EMPLOYMENT? Number of Unduplicated Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County Estimated Dollar Loss to the Family Not Being Paid Transportation by the County Jan. 2010 141,566 46,183 25,495 $5.5 million 7,628 3,369 10,997 25,495 14,498 77,866 $7.8 million Febr. 2010 140.909 45,104 25,523 $5.6 million 7250 3,400 10,650 25,523 14,473 76,339 $7.6 million Analysis During March of 2010 17% of partici- pants were sanctioned by the Welfare-to- Work Program. 9% of participants found employment. Thus, 8% more participants were sanc- tioned compared to the percentage of participants who found employment. This difference provides significant statistical evidence that the program is slanted to- ward sanctioning participants rather than making participants self-sufficient. Sanctions resulted in the loss of $5.5 mil- lion dollars each month for California’s impoverished families. During March of 2010 51% of partici- pants who are entitled to transportation did not receive these benefits. The law provides that needed transportation assistance be paid in advance to assure that participants do not use money from their fixed incomes; incomes which are at the same level that CalWORKs recipients received in 1989 for transportation. Over 90% of the participants have to use some means of transportation to reach the loca- tion of their WtW activity. During March of 2010 CalWORKs recipi- ents were denied $7 million in transporta- tion services by county welfare depart- ments with the cooperation of the State Department of Social Services. March 2010 142,799 44,286 23,673 $5.5 million 9,136 3,501 12,664 23,673 11,009 70,231 $7 million ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News June 25, 2010 Issue # 2010-15 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 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org ORANGE COUNTY VIOLATES FOOD STAMP LAWS VIOLATION OF MPP 63-301.521 Refusal to inform applicants of expe- dited service. The evaluation finds that, Applicants are not verbally informed of ES and how to apply for it (MPP 63-301.521). This was also a finding for the FFY 2008 ME. The report recommends that, Steps should be taken to ensure that all poten- tial applicants are verbally informed of ES and how to initiate the process (MPP 63-301.521). This should be accom- plished prior to applicant signing the SAWS 1. MPP 3-300.521- A CWD employee or volunteer shall inform potential ap- plicants orally of the right to expedited service for eligible households and how to initiate the process, the availability of assistance in filling out the application and shall be responsible for screening applications as they are filed. The CWD also shall advise individuals who inquire about the Food Stamp Program by tele- phone of the expedited service process- ing standards for eligible households. The CWD shall assist an applicant, upon request, in filling out forms and completing the application process. The evaluation reveals that this is the second year in a row that Orange County has been informed that they are violating MPP 11-601.314.(b) by inten- tionally refusing to post a sign inform- ing applicants that they can simply take the application home, complete it and bring it back or that they can simply put down their full name and address and place it in a drop box rather than waiting around for hours or standing in line. MPP 11-601.314 – Post notices in prominent locations within the CWD’s offices and in the public areas, includ- ing the doors, immediately outside the CWD’s offices which inform the public of the following: (a) The working days, or the regular eight hours of a working day, when the offices will be closed; (b) The procedures for obtaining and filing applications for Food Stamp and AFDC benefits during these hours of office closure; and (c) The procedures for applying for and receiving expedited Food Stamp, immediate need AFDC, and homeless assistance benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law, dur- ing these hours of office closure. VIOLATION OF MPP 634-300-.31. Applicants are not allowed to apply during normal business hours on the initial day of contact with the office. The evaluation states: At the point of contact with reception and\/or concierge, applicants are only allowed to submit an application after 3:00 P.M. if they assert that they have an emergency. Ap- plicants who wait in line at reception or concierge desk are informed of intake screening hours (7 A.M. to 3 P.M.) and given the option of taking the applica- tion home and returning the next day or mailing in the application. From August 17 through August 24, 2009 DSS conducted their annual Food Stamp Management Evaluation (FSME) of Orange County. The FSME is a feder- ally required monitoring of the Food Stamp program. This is one of the rare monitoring actions done by DSS. DSS views counties as their partners instead of agents of the State administering the welfare system as set forth in state law. See W&IC 10553. The evaluation revealed the following violations: Violation of MPP 63-300.34-Applica- tions not readily available in the food stamp office. The evaluation found that, food stamp applications in the North Region FSS Office are not readily available in the lobby (63-300.34). MPP 63-300 .34 – Contacting the Food Stamp Office – The CWD shall make application forms readily accessible to potentially eligible households. The application form shall be provided to anyone who requests the form. The evaluation goes on to say that, Individuals must wait in line for the customer service\/concierge or wait in line at window 1 or 2 to request a FS ap- plication from a receptionist. Individual should not have to wait in line in order to request an application. Applications should be made available in the lobby for anyone who would like an applica- tion with the option of taking the appli- cation home to complete or standing in line. VIOLATION OF MPP 11-601.314 (b)-No signs telling applicants how to apply and submit complete\/incomplete food stamp applications and where to drop off the application if the individual is unable to stay or wait in line. County Single Allocation In Brief In 2009-2010 counties received over $1.5 billion single allocation money to operate the CalWORKs and Welfare-to- Work programs. Similar to a block grant counties can spend the money however they choose. Some counties hire many welfare fraud investigators. Others hire more welfare workers. Some counties are management heavy while others are not. This is one of the reasons some counties have a longer wait time to see a worker, while others do not. The re- sources serving clients are not allo- cated consistently throughout the state. ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News June 25, 2010 Issue # 2010-15 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 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org ORANGE COUNTY VIOLATES FOOD STAMP LAWS VIOLATION OF MPP 63-301.521 Refusal to inform applicants of expe- dited service. The evaluation finds that, Applicants are not verbally informed of ES and how to apply for it (MPP 63-301.521). This was also a finding for the FFY 2008 ME. The report recommends that, Steps should be taken to ensure that all poten- tial applicants are verbally informed of ES and how to initiate the process (MPP 63-301.521). This should be accom- plished prior to applicant signing the SAWS 1. MPP 3-300.521- A CWD employee or volunteer shall inform potential ap- plicants orally of the right to expedited service for eligible households and how to initiate the process, the availability of assistance in filling out the application and shall be responsible for screening applications as they are filed. The CWD also shall advise individuals who inquire about the Food Stamp Program by tele- phone of the expedited service process- ing standards for eligible households. The CWD shall assist an applicant, upon request, in filling out forms and completing the application process. The evaluation reveals that this is the second year in a row that Orange County has been informed that they are violating MPP 11-601.314.(b) by inten- tionally refusing to post a sign inform- ing applicants that they can simply take the application home, complete it and bring it back or that they can simply put down their full name and address and place it in a drop box rather than waiting around for hours or standing in line. MPP 11-601.314 – Post notices in prominent locations within the CWD’s offices and in the public areas, includ- ing the doors, immediately outside the CWD’s offices which inform the public of the following: (a) The working days, or the regular eight hours of a working day, when the offices will be closed; (b) The procedures for obtaining and filing applications for Food Stamp and AFDC benefits during these hours of office closure; and (c) The procedures for applying for and receiving expedited Food Stamp, immediate need AFDC, and homeless assistance benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law, dur- ing these hours of office closure. VIOLATION OF MPP 634-300-.31. Applicants are not allowed to apply during normal business hours on the initial day of contact with the office. The evaluation states: At the point of contact with reception and\/or concierge, applicants are only allowed to submit an application after 3:00 P.M. if they assert that they have an emergency. Ap- plicants who wait in line at reception or concierge desk are informed of intake screening hours (7 A.M. to 3 P.M.) and given the option of taking the applica- tion home and returning the next day or mailing in the application. From August 17 through August 24, 2009 DSS conducted their annual Food Stamp Management Evaluation (FSME) of Orange County. The FSME is a feder- ally required monitoring of the Food Stamp program. This is one of the rare monitoring actions done by DSS. DSS views counties as their partners instead of agents of the State administering the welfare system as set forth in state law. See W&IC 10553. The evaluation revealed the following violations: Violation of MPP 63-300.34-Applica- tions not readily available in the food stamp office. The evaluation found that, food stamp applications in the North Region FSS Office are not readily available in the lobby (63-300.34). MPP 63-300 .34 – Contacting the Food Stamp Office – The CWD shall make application forms readily accessible to potentially eligible households. The application form shall be provided to anyone who requests the form. The evaluation goes on to say that, Individuals must wait in line for the customer service\/concierge or wait in line at window 1 or 2 to request a FS ap- plication from a receptionist. Individual should not have to wait in line in order to request an application. Applications should be made available in the lobby for anyone who would like an applica- tion with the option of taking the appli- cation home to complete or standing in line. VIOLATION OF MPP 11-601.314 (b)-No signs telling applicants how to apply and submit complete\/incomplete food stamp applications and where to drop off the application if the individual is unable to stay or wait in line. County Single Allocation In Brief In 2009-2010 counties received over $1.5 billion single allocation money to operate the CalWORKs and Welfare-to- Work programs. Similar to a block grant counties can spend the money however they choose. Some counties hire many welfare fraud investigators. Others hire more welfare workers. Some counties are management heavy while others are not. This is one of the reasons some counties have a longer wait time to see a worker, while others do not. The re- sources serving clients are not allo- cated consistently throughout the state. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 JULY 6, 2010 Issue # 2010-16 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On June 24, 2010 the Los Angeles Times published a demonizing article stating that welfare recipients are ac- cessing money using ATM machines at card clubs and casinos with no evidence that one penny was used for gambling. ACT I A Los Angeles Times reporter con- tacted CDSS in January of 2010 ask- ing for copies of all purchases made by welfare recipients. That request was denied. The Los Angeles Times was asked to narrow its request. Sub- sequently, CDSS provided the Los Angeles Times with documents show- ing that there are 162 ATM machines in California’s casinos and card rooms that accept an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card. The information provided to the Los Angeles Times re- vealed that 45% of those ATMs were never used to withdraw CalWORKs money. This information was not reflected in any of the Los Angeles Times articles. The information also revealed that majority of the withdrawals were made in small counties and rural ar- eas that do not have many locations where welfare recipients can use their EBT cards to get their benefits. Eight of the eleven major casinos in Cali- fornia (such as Thunder Valley and Red Hawk) had no CalWORKs EBT withdrawals in three years. The other three casinos were used because they were the most convenient for fami- lies to access their meager benefits to 1. DSS shall immediately take all necessary steps to ensure that Cal- WORKS recipients may not access state-provided cash benefits from ATMs in gambling establishments. 2. DSS shall take all necessary steps to ensure that CalWORKS recipients must acknowledge that the intent of the cash grant is to meet the basic subsistence needs of the recipient’s family. 3. DSS shall provide an action plan, within seven days of this order, proposing other methods to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the dis- bursement of CalWORKS benefits. FURTHERMORE, IT IS RE- QUESTED that members of the pub- lic report suspected misuse of Cal- WORKS funds, using the toll-free hotline available at 800-344-8477. When the Executive Order was is- sued, CDSS convened a call of stake- holders to get input for the DSS plan to implement the Executive Order. ACT IV A July 1, 2010 memo to Scott Reid, Cabinet Secretary, from John Wag- ner, Director of DSS via Kimberly Belshe, Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency terminat- ing ATM machines in all casinos and card clubs around the State for the purpose of denying CalWorks re- cipients access to their benefits. This action leaves thousands of poor fam- ilies without convenient means to ac- cess their benefits and forces them to incur higher bank surcharges. meet their basic survival needs with- out paying exorbitant surcharges to banks at other ATM locations. ACT II An article was written to demonize welfare recipients in California. The Los Angeles Times had no evidence that one penny of the money with- drawn was used for anything other than meeting the needs of the poor family. Rather than alleging that the money was used for gambling, they simply reported that welfare recipi- ents are withdrawing money from casino ATM machines and let the readers and the public assume that this money was being used for gam- bling. ACT III Governor Schwarzenegger, who according our legislative sources hates welfare recipients has issued Executive Order S-09-10 – http:\/\/ gov.ca.gov\/executive-order\/15423\/, stating that the purpose of the Cal- WORKs program is to provide cash aid and services to needy families with children help those families meet basic needs, including housing, food, and clothing, until they become self sufficient. The executive order further provided: NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby order effec- tive immediately: LA Times Demonizes Welfare Recipients in Casino Story The plan provides that welfare re- cipients will be required to sign a statement that the intent of the cash grant is to help them provide for some of their family’s basic needs. The statement will not include any language that CDSS and Governor Schwarzenegger will require Cal- WORKs recipients to pay more of their meager benefits to banks in or- der to access their benefits instead of using the money to help those families meet basic needs, includ- ing housing, food, and clothing, un- til they become self sufficient. The plan also asks the public to report welfare recipients who may be committing alleged fraud. The reader should remember that there is not an iota of evidence that wel- fare recipients are using their cash aid for gambling, but that does not prevent the Los Angeles Times, the Governor’s Office and CDSS from implying that CalWORKs funds are being used for gambling. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org July 6, 2010 #2010-016 Page 2 bureaucrats, the state should set aside a certain amount for supportive ser- vices for welfare recipients to become self-sufficient. The plan also provides for a New State-Level Fraud Investigative Re- source Unit and a Welfare Fraud Ana- lytics Reporting System. Many of these changes need legisla- tive authorization. In the final analysis, the Los Angeles Times was able to deprive thousands of poor families access to their mea- ger benefits without any evidence of wrongdoing and forces cause welfare recipients to pay more to banks from the money meant to help those families meet basic needs, includ- ing housing, food, and clothing, until they become self sufficient. The order would also pour more money into a Hotline for Welfare Fraud and a major revision of the Hotline. This despite a $19 billion state budget shortfall and proposals to further slash benefits to impover- ished families with needy children. The order states that county welfare fraud units have lost 33% of their staff as many counties are forced to cut back on their staff. The order does not show the percentage of staff cutbacks for other county staff. The plan proposes that the county single allocation be modified to set aside a certain percentage for the welfare fraud bureaucrats. (Currently coun- ties get a single allocation that is then allocated by the county for dif- ferent welfare functions to promote county flexibility and local control.) Welfare fraud bureaucrats are inef- ficient as 70% of the investigated cases they accept for investigation are dropped for insufficient evi- dence. Instead of more welfare fraud MOST OF THE CASINO & CARD ROOM WITHDRAWALS OCCUR IN SMALL COUNTIES THAT ARE THE ONLY POINT OF ACCESS WITHOUT EXUBERANT BANK SURCHARGES * County Percentage of 2007 2008 Caseload ** TOTAL 4.67% Total Funds Withdrawn from Casinos and Poker Rooms $960,549.00 $856,612.00 Percentage of all Funds Withdrawn from Casinos and Poker Rooms in small counties 71.79% 56.04% * There are some locations in large counties that have large withdrawals. The reason is that these locations are the most cost effective locations for accessing the CalWORKs money. ** This is the percentage of total statewide caseload for March of 2010. $50,773.00 $89,697.00 $75,990.00 $119,708.00 $30,567.00 $112,408.00 $114,952.00 $95,503.00 $689,598.00 $3,105.00 $96,884.00 $60,143.00 $88,277.00 $36,958.00 $98,603.00 $61,260.00 $34,827.00 $480,057.00 0.06% 0.15% 0.30% 0.21% 0.08% 0.27% 0.94% 2.66% Amador Del Norte Humbold Lake Lassen Mendocino Santa Barbara Tulare ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 JULY 6, 2010 Issue # 2010-16 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On June 24, 2010 the Los Angeles Times published a demonizing article stating that welfare recipients are ac- cessing money using ATM machines at card clubs and casinos with no evidence that one penny was used for gambling. ACT I A Los Angeles Times reporter con- tacted CDSS in January of 2010 ask- ing for copies of all purchases made by welfare recipients. That request was denied. The Los Angeles Times was asked to narrow its request. Sub- sequently, CDSS provided the Los Angeles Times with documents show- ing that there are 162 ATM machines in California’s casinos and card rooms that accept an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card. The information provided to the Los Angeles Times re- vealed that 45% of those ATMs were never used to withdraw CalWORKs money. This information was not reflected in any of the Los Angeles Times articles. The information also revealed that majority of the withdrawals were made in small counties and rural ar- eas that do not have many locations where welfare recipients can use their EBT cards to get their benefits. Eight of the eleven major casinos in Cali- fornia (such as Thunder Valley and Red Hawk) had no CalWORKs EBT withdrawals in three years. The other three casinos were used because they were the most convenient for fami- lies to access their meager benefits to 1. DSS shall immediately take all necessary steps to ensure that Cal- WORKS recipients may not access state-provided cash benefits from ATMs in gambling establishments. 2. DSS shall take all necessary steps to ensure that CalWORKS recipients must acknowledge that the intent of the cash grant is to meet the basic subsistence needs of the recipient’s family. 3. DSS shall provide an action plan, within seven days of this order, proposing other methods to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the dis- bursement of CalWORKS benefits. FURTHERMORE, IT IS RE- QUESTED that members of the pub- lic report suspected misuse of Cal- WORKS funds, using the toll-free hotline available at 800-344-8477. When the Executive Order was is- sued, CDSS convened a call of stake- holders to get input for the DSS plan to implement the Executive Order. ACT IV A July 1, 2010 memo to Scott Reid, Cabinet Secretary, from John Wag- ner, Director of DSS via Kimberly Belshe, Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency terminat- ing ATM machines in all casinos and card clubs around the State for the purpose of denying CalWorks re- cipients access to their benefits. This action leaves thousands of poor fam- ilies without convenient means to ac- cess their benefits and forces them to incur higher bank surcharges. meet their basic survival needs with- out paying exorbitant surcharges to banks at other ATM locations. ACT II An article was written to demonize welfare recipients in California. The Los Angeles Times had no evidence that one penny of the money with- drawn was used for anything other than meeting the needs of the poor family. Rather than alleging that the money was used for gambling, they simply reported that welfare recipi- ents are withdrawing money from casino ATM machines and let the readers and the public assume that this money was being used for gam- bling. ACT III Governor Schwarzenegger, who according our legislative sources hates welfare recipients has issued Executive Order S-09-10 – http:\/\/ gov.ca.gov\/executive-order\/15423\/, stating that the purpose of the Cal- WORKs program is to provide cash aid and services to needy families with children help those families meet basic needs, including housing, food, and clothing, until they become self sufficient. The executive order further provided: NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby order effec- tive immediately: LA Times Demonizes Welfare Recipients in Casino Story The plan provides that welfare re- cipients will be required to sign a statement that the intent of the cash grant is to help them provide for some of their family’s basic needs. The statement will not include any language that CDSS and Governor Schwarzenegger will require Cal- WORKs recipients to pay more of their meager benefits to banks in or- der to access their benefits instead of using the money to help those families meet basic needs, includ- ing housing, food, and clothing, un- til they become self sufficient. The plan also asks the public to report welfare recipients who may be committing alleged fraud. The reader should remember that there is not an iota of evidence that wel- fare recipients are using their cash aid for gambling, but that does not prevent the Los Angeles Times, the Governor’s Office and CDSS from implying that CalWORKs funds are being used for gambling. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org July 6, 2010 #2010-016 Page 2 bureaucrats, the state should set aside a certain amount for supportive ser- vices for welfare recipients to become self-sufficient. The plan also provides for a New State-Level Fraud Investigative Re- source Unit and a Welfare Fraud Ana- lytics Reporting System. Many of these changes need legisla- tive authorization. In the final analysis, the Los Angeles Times was able to deprive thousands of poor families access to their mea- ger benefits without any evidence of wrongdoing and forces cause welfare recipients to pay more to banks from the money meant to help those families meet basic needs, includ- ing housing, food, and clothing, until they become self sufficient. The order would also pour more money into a Hotline for Welfare Fraud and a major revision of the Hotline. This despite a $19 billion state budget shortfall and proposals to further slash benefits to impover- ished families with needy children. The order states that county welfare fraud units have lost 33% of their staff as many counties are forced to cut back on their staff. The order does not show the percentage of staff cutbacks for other county staff. The plan proposes that the county single allocation be modified to set aside a certain percentage for the welfare fraud bureaucrats. (Currently coun- ties get a single allocation that is then allocated by the county for dif- ferent welfare functions to promote county flexibility and local control.) Welfare fraud bureaucrats are inef- ficient as 70% of the investigated cases they accept for investigation are dropped for insufficient evi- dence. Instead of more welfare fraud MOST OF THE CASINO & CARD ROOM WITHDRAWALS OCCUR IN SMALL COUNTIES THAT ARE THE ONLY POINT OF ACCESS WITHOUT EXUBERANT BANK SURCHARGES * County Percentage of 2007 2008 Caseload ** TOTAL 4.67% Total Funds Withdrawn from Casinos and Poker Rooms $960,549.00 $856,612.00 Percentage of all Funds Withdrawn from Casinos and Poker Rooms in small counties 71.79% 56.04% * There are some locations in large counties that have large withdrawals. The reason is that these locations are the most cost effective locations for accessing the CalWORKs money. ** This is the percentage of total statewide caseload for March of 2010. $50,773.00 $89,697.00 $75,990.00 $119,708.00 $30,567.00 $112,408.00 $114,952.00 $95,503.00 $689,598.00 $3,105.00 $96,884.00 $60,143.00 $88,277.00 $36,958.00 $98,603.00 $61,260.00 $34,827.00 $480,057.00 0.06% 0.15% 0.30% 0.21% 0.08% 0.27% 0.94% 2.66% Amador Del Norte Humbold Lake Lassen Mendocino Santa Barbara Tulare ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News July 12, 2010 Issue # 2010-17 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 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org child care retroactive back to August 3, 2009. Her child care provider was the mother of the absent parent. The child care was being provided in the house of the mother of the absent parent. When the child care provider completed the forms, she accidently wrote that she was providing the care at the house of the claimant where the absent parent lives. When the claimant was told that child care was being denied because the father of the child was living with her, she and the child care provider met with the county and explained that this was an error. The father lives with the provider and not the claimant. Fresno County would have none of this. Child care denied – period. She had to file another hearing and this time the Administrative Law Judge, ruled Fresno County shall, as oth- erwise eligible, grant the claimant childcare benefits for the period August 3, 2009 through March 5, 2010 for those times when child- care was needed in order for the claimant to participate in approved WtW activity. Does this mean Ms. 20063004 will finally receive childcare? Not really. The judge’s order left a lot of loopholes for Fresno County to contin- ue to deny childcare to this victim. They could ask if child care was really needed or is it an approved activity? We can only imagine what other creative ways Fresno County could deny childcare to persons who are eligible. Meanwhile the cost of a state hearing is an estimated $2,500 per hearing. FAIR HEARING DECISION UNCLEAR Mr. 20047367 received a notice of action stat- ing that Sacramento County will reduce his benefits from $808 a month to $699 because he was not attending CWEX. He had en- rolled in a local community college and was participating in a CWEX activity. The county still scheduled him for a CWEX orientation even though he was already participating in a CWEX activity. At orientation he informed the county CWEX worker that he was already doing his CWEX hours, but the CWEX county worker insisted that he must sign a CWEX agreement and do his hours with the county and not the community college. He refused to do so. He was sanctioned. He requested a Monterey County was asked to identify factors that affected their ability to meet the federal work participation rates. Monterey County answered: Federal and State regulations differ, such as with a single parent household with children under the age of six (6). The Fed- eral regulations state that a person with a child under age six (6) needs to participate 20-hours a week in order to meet the Feder- al work participation rate. State regulations require that this same individual participate 32-hours a week. State regulations require that counties attempt to engage these individuals to the 32-hours a week require- ment. If the customer cannot or will not participate beyond 20-hours a week to meet the State 32-hours requirement, the State then requires counties to sanction the indi- vidual. Counties then sanction individuals meeting Federal participation requirement of 20-hours a week, this process provides the customer with no incentive to continue to work or participate 20-hours a week; thereby negatively impacting our Federal WPR. Many sanctioned customers have multiple barriers and are difficult to engage in the WtW program. They are not forthcoming with information related to Learning Dis- abilities, Drugs & Alcohol, and\/or Mental Health issues. CCWRO has heard from parents who once they admit to having these problems are visited by CPS and many lose their kids to the State. CHILDCARE UNLAWFULLY DENIED. STATE HEARING DECISION INCONCLUSIVE. Ms. 20063004 of Fresno County is working. From August 3, 2009 through March 3 2010 she did not received childcare. She had a hearing decision issued on October 29, 2009 stating that Fresno County shall pay In Brief STATE LAW REQUIRES SINGLE PARENTS WITH CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 6 TO WORK 32 HOURS A WEEK WHEN FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES ONLY 20 HOURS A WEEK. A BARRIER TO COUNTIES MEETING THEIR TANF WORK PARTICIPATION RATES Riverside County IHSS officials are con- templating making providers ineligible for IHSS employment if they refuse to sign their Social Security card, according to Rea Bell of Riverside. Fortunately, Marshall Browne of CDSS informed Riverside County that the card is still valid even if it is not signed. There is nothing in federal or state law that provides the SSN Card is invalid without a signature. Mahsa Patton, former an analyst for the CalWORKs Eligibility Bureau is now a Unit Manager. Her unit has two analysts, Beverly Brown and Matthew Devereux. Conrad Trinidad of Los Angeles County asked CDSS to confirm that there iss no time period for entry in the US for the le- gal non-citizen to qualify for CAPI. Mar- shall Browne of DSS responded promptly that . . . MPP 49-010.141 says there is no period of residence requirement. How- ever, 49-010.24 states they must be in the US for 30 days to be found eligible. Elizabeth Locano of San Diego County informed CDSS that San Diego County is planning to implement an Extended Hours Pilot in two of their East Region Family Re- source Centers. The centers will be open from 7 am to 7 pm. Services in these of- fices will include; accepting food stamps, Medi-Cal and CalWORKs applications, adding a person to a program providing orientation, fingerprinting, making address changes, accepting verification and QR7s and providing EBT & BIC cards. Applica- tions will be accepted from 7 am to 6:30 pm and same-day interviews will be conducted for applications submitted before 4:45 pm. CCWRO hopes other counties will emu- late this feature of the San Diego Program. The Food Stamp Quality Control Error Re- port for the last quarter of 2009 revealed that of 110 errors committed, 86 errors were made by the county welfare departments. The ma- jor reasons for errors were policies were incorrectly applied and reported information was not processed by the county. There were only 24 client errors. Thus 78% of the errors were caused by the county welfare de- partment, while only 22% were client errors. County Client Abuse Report CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org July 12 2010 #2010-17 Page 2 state hearing where the county stipulated that the college-based CWEX was adequate. The decision directs Los Angeles County to reinstate the claimants’ benefits. Why should Los Angeles County fix the mess of Sacramento County? MENDOCINO COUNTY UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF TRANSPORTATION UPHELD BY DSS. Mr. 20028465 is working as an IHSS provider. Part of his job is to take the IHSS recipient to the doctor. Mendoci- no County refused to pay for the welfare-to-work transportation costs directly related to transporting the HIS client to and from the doctors office. Mendocino County claimed that transporta- tion costs for employment is limited to and from the location of employment. ALJ #293 relied on an underground rule embodied in ACL-03-15 states: The goal in providing necessary transporta- tion services is to assist CalWORKs participants in commuting to and from Welfare-To-Work (WTW) activities or employment. There are various transportation services available to participants. Therefore, it is important that counties evaluate each participant’s transportation needs to ensure they are receiving the transporta- tion services necessary to successfully participate in approved WTW activities and employment. In this decision the ALJ #293 points to the first paragraph and completely ignores the last paragraph. Moreover, the ALJ totally disregards MPP 42-750.11 which states: Necessary supportive services shall be available to every par- ticipant in order to participate in the program activity to which he or she is assigned or to accept or retain employment. If nec- essary supportive services are not available, the individual shall have good cause for not participating under Section 42-713.21. The last paragraph of the ACL and 42-713.21 make it crystal clear that the purpose of transportation is to help people work. In this case, this victim’s job is to take his employer, the IHSS recipient, to the doctor. If he does not do that, the employer would fire the recipient and find someone who would take the employer to the doctor. This is contrary to the intent of the WtW program get people to work. On the other hand, maybe the real intent of the program is to deny people their benefits. This victim did not get any relief from the State Department of Social Services that upheld Mendocino County’s unlawful practice that only transportation to and from work could be paid. New Maximum Basic Standard of Adequate Care (MBSAC) Payment Standards July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 Region 1 $548 899 1114 1322 1509 1696 1864 2030 2202 2390 Add $20 for each extra person Source: California State Dpeartment of Social Services. ACL 10-34 and WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS (W&I) CODE SECTIONS 11450, 11452, and 11453 Region 2 $520 854 1058 1258 1435 1614 1770 1932 2088 2273 Add $20 for each extra person Assistance Unit Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ”

” COALITION OF CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 Office (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 www.ccwro.org January 25, 2010 The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) has been providing advocacy in public benefits since the early 1980s. CCWRO is a statewide nonprofit organization providing back-up services to qualified legal service field programs and representing welfare recipients. In Brief January 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 14) Federal Register no- tice advises that, pursuant to sec- tion 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, the 2009 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pov- erty guidelines will remain in ef- fect until updated 2010 poverty guidelines are published, which shall not take place before March 1, 2010. According to Legal Mo- mentum recent HHS caseload report reveals that from 12\/07 to 9\/09 the TANF case load increased by 12% while the food stamp case load increased by 35%. The HHS data does not include Michigan for reasons unknown. http:\/\/www. legalmomentum.org\/ American Public Health Services Association’s (APH- SA) Director Jerry Friedman, has been replaced. The new director will be Cari DeSantis. Ms. DeSan- tis was President of the APHSA Board of Directors from 2007 through 2008 during her second term as Cabinet Secretary for the Delaware Department of Children, Youth and their Families. Most re- cently, she was the Executive Vice President for Public Affairs & Communications for Casey Fam- ily Programs, a private children’s foundation based in Seattle. On January 21, 2010 in a let- ter to stakeholders, DSS revealed that they have issued several Elec- tronic Bulletin Board Notices and two Board of Supervisors letters after the enactment of ABX4 4 and ABX4 19. None of this informa- CCWRO State Budget Update – #2 same person in a nursing home will cost about $50,000 a year. The implied suggestion from the legislative analyst is to limit IHSS eligibility to those who are elderly, receiving over 80 hours a month and not receiving services from family members. The report also alerts the Legislature that these cuts would have a negative impact on the qual- ity of life. There are also federal law impediments to implement this ill- conceived proposal. The proposal assumes that family members would continue to provide free IHSS services. The report fails to produce evidence that support this conclusion. The report also re- veals that if more than 32% of the IHSS recipients end up in nursing homes, there would be a net loss to the California State General Fund. The report admits that this proposal can only be implemented if Califor- nia can get a federal waiver from the Obama Administration to terminate IHSS services to thousands of dis- abled persons. Now that Governor Schwarzeneg- ger has opposed health care reform, it is unlikely that he will get a waiv- er from the Obama Administration. The report fails to show what per- centage of Medicaid recipients are placed in nursing homes in states without an IHSS program compared to the number of Medi-Cal recipi- ents in nursing homes in California. (cont’d. on page 2) tion is publicly available. So far, the consultation process required by the Legislature has been done by mailing cop- ies of draft ACLs and ACINs to stakeholders for comments. The 1\/21\/10 letter promises to have more inclusive stake- holder process regarding unannounced home visits, re- cipient fingerprinting, targeted mailings to persons who have not complied with program re- quirements, adding recipient fingerprints to the time sheets, ongoing information about technology and a legislative re- port. We’ll see. Legislative Analyst IHSS Report ILLEGAL SOLUTIONS On January 21, 2010 the Leg- islative Analyst office produced a 25-page report that suggested cutting the IHSS program by policies that are inconsistent with federal law. Some of the data that the report is based upon is not publicly available, thus, many of the as- sumptions of the report cannot be verified by the public. The analysis assumes that IHSS recipients who are elderly, re- ceiving more than 80 hours of services a month and not liv- ing with family or receiving services from family members, will end up in a nursing home. IHSS costs about $10,000 a year, however, placing the CCWRO New Welfare News #2010-02 www.ccwro.org January 25, 2009 vider could have made up the hours in subsequent days. Moreover, is it fraud when the county approves 1 hour but the provider stays another hour to complete the job without getting paid for it? Today there are mandatory orien- tations for the elderly and disabled which focus on IHSS fraud, fright- ening them with threats of fraud investigations. This has increased anxiety among the frail, elderly, dis- abled and blind, conceivably affect- ing their health and their very lives. Finally, counties use their dwindel- ing money to do random house visits as if our elderly, disabled and blind Californians are criminals. Lee Collins, Director of the San Luis Obispo County Department of So- cial Services stated: I have no doubt that there is some fraud in every program including the In Home Supportive services but there is nothing to suggest that this program compared to any other pro- gram is particularly ripe for fraudu- lent intent. In the absence of data, it’s simply trumpeting at a ghost. Collins accused state officials of making cuts on dishonest grounds. But what they’ve tried to do is to have their cake and eat it too which is to say that we’re cutting the program because we think there’s a lot of fraud. I think it is its own brand of fraud and the worst most cynical ugly kind of politics because of whom they’re targeting. It is too easy a target to pick on folks who don’t have the ability to fight back. The requirement for current pro- viders to complete fraud orien- tation is effective July 1, 2010. Unions are recommending their members wait to see how it all plays out before they go through the demeaning new IHSS ori- entation process crafted by the Schwarzenegger Administration which is due July 1, 2010. Welfare Fraud Investigators Dishonestly Allege Rampant IHSS Fraud Last year, both California welfare fraud investigators and district attorney officials decided to tar- get the In Home Supportive Ser- vices Program (IHSS). The effort was well coordinated. They en- gineered a number of grand jury reports that alleged IHSS fraud without any actual statistically valid evidence to confirm their findings. Most of the reports relied on hearsay. The fraud bureaucrats met with Governor Schwarzeneg- ger to beat the drums of alleged IHSS fraud. One of the examples of alleged fraud was the allegation that pro- viders claim hours on their time- cards on a given day in which they did not work. The IHSS pro- ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 22, 2010 Issue # 2010-05 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Today, food stamp applicants can apply for food stamps on- line in 21 states. Many of these States also accept TANF, Medi- Cal and GA applications. The technology leading the State of California does not have on-line application. Frank Mecca of the Califor- nia Welfare Directors Associa- tion wrote an article published in the Sunday, February 21, 2020 issue of the Sacramento Bee. The article titled My View: Whitman, Poizner deeply distort CalWORKs begins by saying: Throwing punches at families who receive welfare may be a good way to score cheap political points, but it won’t do anything to improve the lives of people in our state. The article goes on to point out that CalWORKs recipi- ents have contributed over $12 billion to the General Fund. The false allegations that guberna- torial candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner have made about CalWORKs California’s welfare-to-work program are not only flat-out wrong, they’re deeply disappointing. Califor- nians deserve better from two people who want the job of lead- ing California out of the worst economic crisis in three genera- tions and the worst state bud- get crisis ever. He also points out the benefits that CalWORKs brings to California in that What Californians haven’t heard from the candidates is that CalWORKs brings $3.9 billion in federal funds to the state, boosting our econo- my with $7.1 billion in economic output, 137,000 private and pub- lic-sector jobs and $130 million in sales tax revenues. The rest of the article can be read at: http:\/\/www.sacbee. com\/2010\/02\/21\/2550932\/whit- man-poizner-deeply-distort.html 89% of the proposed July 1, 2010 grants will be spent for housing costs without utilities. Ac- cording to DSS, the average rent paid by food stamp recipients in California is $506 a month. Gov- ernor Schwarzenegger propos- es to reduce CalWORKs grants to a maximum average of $571 a month for a family of three. Thus, the average housing cost without utilities will take up 89% of the grant. On January 26, 2010 working mom Ms. D.V. was handed a notice of action (NOA) by her Stage II Sacramento Child Action child care worker, dated January 7, 2010, stating that: Effective 01\/26\/2010 your child care ser- vices will be terminated because you provided Child Action, Inc. with false or misleading informa- tion regarding your employment and income from 2\/2008 through 3\/2009. This action is based on: CDE Regulations The notice of action did not cite any specific regulation in sup- port of the proposed action. State Child Care regulation 18119(b) states that: The con- tractor shall mail or deliver the notice of action to the parents at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the effective date of the intended action… The notice of action did not meet any of the due process requirements. It also failed to state that she could continue to receive Stage 1 childcare if she is terminated from Stage 2 child- care. Stage 1 childcare provides for a real hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code 10950 et.seq. and Division 22 of the DSS regulations. Ms. D.V. requested a hearing. When she went to the hearing she had no idea about the em- ployment or income information that Child Action referred to. When she left the hearing she still had no idea what the false or misleading information was that she was accused of not pro- viding to Child Action. Hearing Officer, Julie Sher- man who worked for Child Ac- tion, had fat file in front of her of which she referred to now and then and asked questions. Yet, the Hearing Officer refused to allow Ms. D.V. to review the documents that contained the alleged accusations. In Brief Victim of Child Care Agency Child Action Inc Ms. D.V. was also denied the basic right to confront and to cross-examine staff from Child Action who de- termined that her childcare should be denied. The Hearing Officer stated that Ms. D.V. allegedly sub- mitted false employment\/ income reports when she completed Child Action forms on 8\/6\/2009 and 8\/4\/2008, but refused to show Ms. D.V. a copy of the alleged reports. Ms. D.V. is trying to be- come self-sufficient. She has one job as a care provider. She also tried to start a small business. She got a business license and paid rent for two months, June and July of 2008, but never earned any income. She provided Child Action with a copy of her 2008 In- come Tax Returns to prove that she had no income. NOTE: Today we found out that State Department of Education (SDE) has been working on revising their highly deficient state regu- lations governing Stage 2 and 3 due process hear- ings. The proposed regu- lations will soon be filed with the Office of Adminis- trative Law and available for public comment. Child Care stakeholders have al- ready reviewed draft cop- ies of these regulations. We asked SDE for a copy of the regulations, but did not receive an affirmative answer. Thus, CCWRO has submitted a Public Re- cords Act request for cop- ies of the draft regulations that have been shared with non-SDE representatives CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org February 22, 2010 #2010-05 Page 2 The notice of action never informed the applicant that if he could provide verification that his self-employment is less than his maximum food stamp benefits, then Sacramento County would reevaluate the case. County having verification of physical disability for a three (3) year period tries to terminate exemption after a year. Imperial County had a CW-61 form dated 9-18-08 indicating that a welfare-to- work (WtW) recipient has a chronic physical condition that limits her ability to work and that she was re- ceiving ongoing treatment for that condition. The document stated that the condition was expected to last three (3) years. On August 19, 2009, Imperial County issued a notice of action terminating the exemption be- cause she did not provide the county with a new CW-61 after one year. Doctors often charge a fee to WtW participants for completing the CW- 61. Counties do not tell recipients that the county is required to pay the fees charged by doctors for complet- ing the CW-61. Thus, participants are forced to use their CalWORKs grant to pay for these forms that are required by counties. Los Angeles County Refuses to Process Request for Ancillary Services or Offer Advance Pay – Mr. D.M. is a Los Angeles County WtW program participant. He got a job as a security guard. In order to work, he needed a uniform and a se- curity guard card. The county did not pay for these items. He has had ten (10) different GAIN workers during in three years. At the hearing, Mr. D.M. also said that he had not been paid for transportation, but the judge could not address that issue, as it was not before him. The judge or- dered Los Angeles County to pay for the ancillary services that Mr. D.M. requested. Food Stamps Application Denied in Sacramento Because Self-em- ployment Income Exceeds Maxi- mum Food Stamp Benefit Level. Mr. K.T applied for food stamps in Sacramento County. He cleans houses for a San Francisco-based company. The company calls him when they need a house cleaned and then he receives a check. He has no business license. He had a face-to-face food stamp interview with a welfare worker Na- tasha Kokhanyuk on 2-18-10. He informed Ms. Kokhanyuk that for the month of February he expects to receive about $600 from clean- ing houses, but does not know exactly when he will receive the check in the mail from San Francis- co. He was handed a notice of ac- tion (NOA) on the same day: You household’s application for Food Stamps has been denied. Here’s why: Your Food Stamps are being denied because your household’s income exceeds the maximum lev- el for benefit issuance. DFA 377.1A Food Stamp Denial – Various Rea- sons This sounds like an AFDC\/Cal- WORKs NOA and not a food stamp NOA. Food stamps cannot be de- nied because income exceeds the maximum food stamp benefit level. How many food stamps applicants in CalWIN are getting this notice? Further, the notice doesn’t identify the type and amount of disqualify- ing income, the maximum benefit level and the number of the HH. The Sacramento County Food Stamp Office Manager Laurie Carriker reviewed the case and stated: We reviewed this case and appears to be correct and the correct NOA was issued. We used self-employment income averag- ing. We can recalculate once veri- fication of actual is received. COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORT ”

” CCWRO Welfare News March 5, 2010 Issue # 2010-06 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 APPLYING FOR WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS IN CALIFORNIA-A WAITING GAME Ms. Jones and her two young children need to apply for food stamps and cash aid in Los Angeles. They wait outside for several hours before they are called into the welfare office building. Once inside, they wait for several more hours before they see a screener. The county completes the SAWS 1 and instructs her to sign it, which she does. The screener give Ms. Jones a verification list and told her to return it at yet another appointment when she is to meet with an intake work- er. Again, she returns to the DPSS office with her two children. Again, she waits for hours before being called to the win- dow, then more waiting until she is called by her worker. This new worker may ask for more verification even if the county has that verification in their files. In many other counties when a person applies for CalWORKs, they are given an appoint- ment to come back long after the statutory seven (7) day timeline. STATE LEGISLATURE ENACTED AB 7 TO CENTRALIZE APPLICATION AND ELIGIBILITY PROCESS Last year, the California Legislature passed AB 7, Chapter 7, statutes of 2009. AB 7 provides for a statewide centralized eligibility and enrollment process for wel- fare, using technology to save money and make the system more efficient. Today, any person can go to http:\/\/www. snap-step1.usda.gov\/fns\/ and complete the FNS\/SNAP Eligibility Screening Tool to determine if one is eligible for food stamps instead of waiting 30 days for a Food Stamp Eligibility Determination. In most states people can apply for food stamps, TANF or Medicaid on-line. In California, on-line applications are avail- able for food stamps and Medi-Cal. For the rest of the State this is mostly a dream. As enacted, AB 7 envisioned the privati- zation of the welfare system. The Admin- istration had said that, through privatiza- tion, AB 7 would save California $500 million. During the last two meetings it has been made clear that the Administra- tion has abandoned their privatization goals. AB 7 requires that the Administra- tion set up a stakeholders group to start the planning process for implementing AB 7. The Stakeholders group is co-chaired by Kim Belshe, Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency and John Laird, Former Assembly member. There are rep- resentatives from State agencies, counties and advocates. Counties, led by County Welfare Directors Association, insist that there be more than one welfare computer system in Califor- nia. Many oppose more than one welfare computer system, as being inefficient and wasteful. There are currently four com- puter systems for eligibility; LEADER, CalWIN, C-IV, ISAWS, and several other related systems. ISAWS is migrating to C-IV. In 2010-2011, California proposed spending $234 million on welfare com- puter systems which are controlled by the county computer consortias. Yet coun- ties only contribute $14 million, which is about 6%. See the Chart on page 2 for more details. The Eligibility Worker representatives suggested that the welfare programs need eligibility workers and face-to-face inter- views at each step of the intake and eligi- bility determination process. This position ignores the efficiency gained by the use of technology. The Food Stamp calculator is a great example of how eligibility work can be done through technology. An eligibility worker would only be needed to confirm the accuracy the requested verification. The third meeting was held on March 2, 2010. The agenda was designed to have the group break into subcommittees to deal with such issues as program simpli- fication, fiscal and data and governance\/ technology. County representatives tried to slow the process by objecting to the subcommittees. At one point Phil Ansel of the Los Angeles County DPSS suggested that the group take a break and then come back. When they came back, counties said that before any subcommittees meet, the entire group should be a briefed on the current welfare technology. Former Ass- meblyman John Laird suggested that the Administration would do a web presenta- tion of current welfare technology status. After more comments, the group finally agreed to have subcommittees to start do- ing some work. The next meeting will be at the end of March. A final report is ex- pected sometime in November of 2010. On page 2 there is a chart that shows the projected 2010-2011 welfare computer costs and who controls the various com- puter systems in California. LAWS AND REGULATIONS MPP 40-129.33 The County shall not complete the Immediate Need sec- tion of the application or the CA-4, ex- cept at the applicant’s request. Welfare and Institutions Code Sec- tion 11052.5 No applicant shall be granted public assistance under Chapters 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and 5 (commencing with Sec- tion 13000) of this part until the office of the county department or state staff first personally interviews him or her for patients in state hospitals. … The interview conducted pursuant to this section shall occur within seven days after the time of application unless there are extenuating circumstances that justify further delay. California Public Benefits Application Saga – Ineffficient Computer System Needs to be Fixed Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org March 5, 2010 #2010-06 Page 2 Program County State County State Total Cost Control Control Cost Costs EBT Maint. & Oper. No Yes $3,471,000 $7,083,000 $27,038,000 EBT Procurement No Yes $5,622,000 $5,622,000 $20,830,000 SFIS No Yes $371,000 $6,973,000 $17,647,000 C-IV Yes No $2,446,000 $17,402,000 $46,268,000 CalWIN Yes No $4,275,000 $29,059,000 $74,330,000 LEADER Yes No $2,899,000 $2,899,000 $12,256,000 LEADER Replac. Yes No $2,974,000 $18,182,000 $45,579,000 ISAWS Yes No $0 $9,482,000 $23,931,000 ISAWS Migration Yes No $979,000 $12,800,000 $30,549,000 WDTIP No Yes $0 $0 $3,863,000 SAWS Statewide Project Manag. No Yes $0 $2,912,000 $6,639,000 TOTAL $23,037,000 $112,414,000 $308,930,000 County Control of Total Dollars $232,913,000 100% County Share of Total County Control Dollars $13,573,000 6% CALIFORNIA WELFARE COMPUTER COSTS PROJECTED IN THE 2010-2011 GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED BUDGET ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News March 30, 2010 Issue # 2010-08 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 CALIFORNIA COMPUTER SPENDING HALTED BY FNS – On November 10, 2009, Allen Ng, Regional Administrator for USDA, FSN informed California that FNS is suspending funding for LEADER replace- ment services until California makes a deci- sion on centralized statewide eligibility and enrollment process. FNS also informed Cali- fornia that while California has 8% of the Food Stamp caseload, it claims 23% of the total federal money for computers. In 2009 the total amount that States claimed was $199 million. California claimed $43 million. CalWORKs FAMILIES TO CONRIB- UTE $1.3 BILLION TO GENERAL FUND IN THE 2010-2011 STATE BUD- GET – DSS released the estimate of Cal- WORKs contribution to the General Fund in 2010-2011. The answer is $1,276,147,000. This budget proposes to reduce CalWORKs by 15.7% to make sure that welfare families living on the 1985 fixed income level can make this $1.3 billion contribution to the Cal- ifornia General Fund. To date CalWORKs recipients have contributed $14 billion. HOW COLLEGE STUDENTS CAN COMBAT COUNTIES WEL- FARE DEPARTMENTS WRONG- FULLY TERMINATING SIPS – Counties are terminating Self Initiated Pro- gram (SIP) participants for not making sat- isfactory progress during the semester. This may be a violation of state law. Students should file for a state hearing if this happens. There are several arguments that can be made. 1. MPP 42-711.811 provides that The CWD or the service provider shall inform the participant of the standards for meet- ing the regular attendance and satisfactory progress requirements for the program to which they are assigned. Generally this does not happen. It is not in the contract. 2. Satisfactory progress should not be based upon the grade point average (GPA) of just one semester or one class. It should be based on the overall GPA. 3. Finally, if the county has a policy on sat- isfactory progress, it must be publicly avail- able. When state laws or CDSS regulations during the next few months. The Public Stakeholders meetings are teleconferenced where participation is limited. The public must rely on the AT&T operator to allow the stakeholder to talk. Many stakehold- ers were not able to express their views at the March 17, 2010 stakeholder meeting. The March 17, 2010 meeting re- sulted in many participant complaints. There were comments about unan- nounced home visits . In Sacramento County former refugees from the former Soviet Union were alarmed by plans of be- ing subject to unannounced home visits as they suffered during the Soviet regime. Several IHSS providers raised the is- sue of being forced to sign a statement un- der penalty of perjury that they will only do 3 minutes of meal clean-up a day in lieu of 5 minutes when necessary. One DSS of- ficial suggested that all the provider needed to do was to call the social worker and re- quest an additional 2 minutes. In a perfect world, the social worker answers the phone or returns the call. In the real world you leave messages, many messages and maybe some day the overworked social worker will re- turn the call. Most social workers would be highly annoyed with a call from a provider requesting 2 more minutes of clean-up time. The next public stakeholder teleconfer- ence meeting will be held in April of 2010. Meanwhile Government Stakeholders are meeting and developing protocols with the intentional exclusion of the public. There is a simple solution to the alleged confidentially issue. If the issue for discussion is something that cannot be discussed in public given some specific statute, then those issues can be discussed in executive session. But then that would make the system transparent. The legal affairs department of the Depart- ment of Consumer Affairs prepared the Guide to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which includes Amendments through Janury1, 2010. This guide can be found at: http:\/\/ag.ca.gov\/publications\/bagley- keene2004_ada.pdf Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org In Brief authorize counties to adopt specific stan-dards which affect an applicant’s or re- cipient’s eligibility, grant amount, or wel- fare-to-work (WTW) activities, including supportive services, these standards must be in writing and made available to the public on request. ( 11-501.3, effec- tive February 10, 1999; All-County Let- ter (ACL) No. 02-03, January 18, 2002) These county standards must be in compli- ance with translation requirements. ( 21- 115; ACL No. 00-08, January 3, 2000) DSS AND DHCS MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE BAGLEY- KEENE OPEN MEETING ACT AB19, Chapter 17 of Statutes of 2009 contains Welfare and Institu- tions Code Section that provides: The department, in consultation with county welfare directors and other stake- holders, as appropriate, shall develop uniform statewide protocols for accept- able activities to be performed and ac- ceptable measures to be taken by the department, the State Department of Health Care Services, and the coun- ties for purposes of fraud prevention. In compliance with this section Department of Social Services con- vened its first stakeholder meeting on March 17, 2010 via telephone rather than in-person as stakeholder meet- ings have generally been convened. DSS and DHCS services shared the schedule for the meeting from March 2010 through August, 2010. There are two classes of stakeholders: (1) the public and government stakehold- ers; and (2) IHSS\/County stakeholders also defined as Government Workgroup . This Government Workgroup had their separate meeting on March 22, 2010. The nongovernment stakeholders were inten- tionally excluded from this in-person meet- ing because they may discuss confidential protocols. CCWRO contends that careful review of the above language does not au- thorize a separate Government Workgroup meeting as DSS and DHCS convened. The Legislature knew that some pro- tocols could be confidential, yet it still did not exclude the nongovernmental stake- holders from those meetings. Several more in-person Government Stakehold- ers Only secret meetings are scheduled ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News April 25, 2010 Issue # 2010-10 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 Advocate Ty Jones of Virginia reports, There was a good proposal during the session that was killed. This proposal sought to create a statewide TANF fund- ing pool, where there was a competitive grant process for organizations to apply for TANF block grant funds for expanded TANF programs. This process would be in lieu of the current mechanism where organizations that have relationships with certain legislators are able to receive TANF funding. This bill was proposed because in Virginia we currently have a structural imbalance in our TANF block grant because so much TANF money was going in so many other places\/or- ganizations that now we have to make sure we have enough funds for the core services. The Department of Social Services was in support of this bill, but the legislators on the budget commit- tee and those organizations who cur- rently receive TANF funding were all in opposition to the bill. So this bill died. Vermont proposes to cut TANF grants by 20%. They also propose to implement full family sanctions and eliminate transitional food stamps. Last year New York enacted legisla- tion phasing in a 10% increase each year for 3 years in the basic TANF grant [which excludes a separate shelter allow- ance]. This year the Governor proposes to roll back the second two installments, phasing it in at 5% a year over 4 years instead of two. Welfare advocates want to keep the current increases on sched- ule and add increases for the following 2 years, which will still leave the TANF 25 – 40% below the grant levels in 1990. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org Welfare Around the Nation DSS has not taken any steps to pro- tect our vulnerable aged, blind and dis- abled from being victims of a crime by adopting this common sense proposal. San Bernardino County Violates Food Stamp Laws DSS recently released a Food Stamp Program Management Evaluation Report for San Bernardino County. The report re- veals several violations of food stamp laws. MPP 63-300.381 states that a food stamp applicant can file a food stamp application anytime during regular work hours. The Barstow office of San Bernardino County has a drop box for applications. All food stamp applications must be deposited in the drop box, to be picked up and date stamped the day after the application is put in the drop box. This has caused the loss of thousands of food stamp benefits to poor people living in San Bernardino County. MPP 63-301.521 requires that the food stamp workers verbally inform food stamp applicants about expedited ser- vice food stamp benefits. In California, applicants are forced to sign the SAWS1 under penalty of perjury the county has told me of my rights to Expedited Ser- vice. Yet DSS’ Food Stamp Program Management Evaluation Report for San Bernardino County noted that San Ber- nardino County refused to inform food stamp applicants of their right to Expe- dited Service food stamps, but made the applicant sign the SAWS 1 anyway. This problem has been occurring in San Bernardino County for several years. A bill in Illinois this year proposes to raise the TANF grant amount 15% a year over a several year period. Illinois’ Legislature also introduced a TANF- recipient drug testing bill which would have mandated all candidates for the General Assembly to take a drug test. Note: The US Supreme Court has held that candidates for state of- fice (in Georgia) cannot be re- quired to take a drug test. Chan- dler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997). Advocates in New Hamphshire de- feated a bill requiring drug testing of public assistance recipients. Advocates also fought efforts to count SSI income when figuring TANF eligibility. There are ongoing issues regarding adequate funding because of caseload increase. Kansas, Maine, North Carolina, Utah and New Hampshire use EBT cards for Child Care payments. Monterey County Board of Supervisors Suggest Verification of Unannounced Home Visits to Protect the Elderly & Disabled On January 13, 2010 Monterey County Board of Supervisors chair Sharon Thrall mailed a letter to Deputy Direc- tor of the Adult Services Division of CDSS Eva Lopez stating that several IHSS recipients are concerned and ap- palled by the requirement that disabled persons admit any persons into his\/her home who self identifies that he\/she is from IHSS. The letter goes on to say, I am contacting you to request that you implement a verification system so that a recipient can telephone your office to confirm that the person at the door in fact represents your Department. ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News May 14, 2010 Issue # 2010-12 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 In Brief San Diego County ranks last with the lowest participation Imperial County asked DSS whether the 24 months of child care starts from the date that aid is terminated or from the date that the 60-month clock expired. In one case, the case was terminated June 2009, while the 60-month clock ex- pired March 2009. DSS re- sponded that the 24-month clock starts from the month fol- lowing the last month that the CalWORKs recipient was aided. San Diego County asked DSS whether or not the State has Child Care Overpayment Notices of Action (NOA). DSS responded that DSS has no overpayment NOAs. Counties can create their own NOAs. San Diego County wonders if counties must pay childcare to short term exempt recipi- ents who work part-time. After several emails, DSS clarified that anyone working any num- ber of hours exempt or nonex- empt are entitled to childcare. Los Angeles County cur- rently runs four (4) reports on IHSS and Child Care. IHSS cli- ent receiving Child Care Pay- ments are referred to IHSS for fraud investigation. We are unaware of the findings from these reports and the possible false hits they may produce. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org Several clients said that the coun- ty did not assign them to compo- nents that considered the inter- est of the client being assigned. Clients said that lack of child- care and transportation was a barrier to participation. Some clients said they did not know about availabil- ity of childcare until after they started participating. The county should have more evaluation of workers who are rude and need sensitivity training. Provide more education choic- es in community college. Don’t place clients in educational pro- gram for jobs they really don’t like. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this review are that counties fail to provide child- care before forcing CalWORKs participants to participate in an activity. The county assigns participants to components that are conducive to the coun- ty and not to the participant. On May 3, 2010, the Legislative Analyst office released a report entitled Moving Forward With Eligibility and Enrollment Pro- cess Improvements . This re- port can be found at: http:\/\/www. lao.ca.gov\/reports\/2010\/ssrv\/ eligibility\/eligibility_050310.pdf The report reveals that coun- ties receive $3.4 billion a DSS completed a peer review of Tehama County. A peer re- view occurs when DSS and other counties review another county’s program, in this case, the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) pro- gram. Tehama County chose the areas of review. During the review, the county set up a focus group of clients. It is unclear how the clients were selected. The report does not mention that the clients were randomly select- ed; therefore it is assumed that the county selected the clients. Some of the interesting com- ments made by clients were: There are too many peo- ple at each orientation and the room is too crowded. There is only a morning orien- tation. There needs to be an afternoon orientation to make it easier for clients to attend. Provide more notice before scheduling an orientation to ensure clients can arrange their personal schedules. Orientations are not held in the community of the participants, rather it is held at a central- ized location in a rural county. There is too much informa- tion provided at one once to try to remember all of it. Welfare to Work Peer Review of Tehama County Do Counties Need Incentives To Do Their Job? CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org May 14, 2010 #2010-12 Page 2 year to administer the CalWORKs, Food Stamp and Medi-Cal programs. The Cal- WORKs benefits that will be issued dur- ing the same period are about $ 3.4 billion. The report noted that California has four (4) computer systems operated by counties at the cost of $82.7 million. Most of the ISAWS counties have or will migrate to the C-IV sys- tem. There are 18 counties in the CalWIN system whose contract expires the end of 2013. Los Angeles County wants to spend about $530 million to replace the LEADER system with LEADER 2. At this time, LEAD- ER 2 is planned only for Los Angeles Coun- ty. The Analyst wisely suggests that maybe the Los Angeles system should be built to accommodate all counties of California. The Analyst also raises the issue of who would be responsible for the operation of a single computer system. The analyst sug- gests a group of counties should be respon- sible for operating the statewide computer system. In our opinion, the State should operate the system since it is responsible for the administration of the public assis- tance program. DSS is the principal and the counties are simply agents of the state. The Analyst also suggests that informa- tion about the finances of applicants could be obtained from credit reporting agencies. The credit report does not contain infor- mation relative to eligibility determination, such as bank accounts. The credit reports show the FICO scores, identify the charge cards, bankruptcy records, etc. This has nothing to do with eligibility determination and could be viewed as invasion of privacy. One major change that would eliminate a lot of verifi- cation is the SSA Match program already being used by the Medi-Cal program. The Analyst fails to mention that using the SSA match for CalWORKs and Food Stamp would simplify the system and save money. The Analyst states that the Health Care Bills em- bodied in HR’s 3590 and 4782 require that States establish an enrollment website and use electronic interfaces and data matches with existing data- bases to verify eligibility at enrollment and renewal. To rationalize simplification of the welfare programs on page 13 the Analyst states that counties have not received increases in their cost of doing business for CalWORKs and Food Stamps since 2001 and for Medi-Cal since 2008. This is one reason to make the system more efficient suggests the Analyst. Then on page 18, the Analyst suggest that the State needs to provide counties, the agents of the State Department of Social Services, with incentives to save money and streamline the eligibility process. The Analyst states that, Absent such incentives, counties may lack sufficient motivation to undertake the sometimes-difficult changes needed to achieve efficiencies in the system. The Analyst has never suggested any incentives for welfare recipients to date. We wonder why are incentives sensible for counties, but not for poor single moms trying to raise their children on a fixed income level from 1989? The analyst also warns that simplifying the sys- tem and having electronic applications can in- crease the caseload. The caseloads are going up and electronic application are here to stay as most of the county consortia’s are gearing up towards electronic application systems today. In conclusion the California welfare computer sys- tem is a mess and it’s crying out for a change. ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News May 14, 2010 Issue # 2010-12 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 In Brief San Diego County ranks last with the lowest participation Imperial County asked DSS whether the 24 months of child care starts from the date that aid is terminated or from the date that the 60-month clock expired. In one case, the case was terminated June 2009, while the 60-month clock ex- pired March 2009. DSS re- sponded that the 24-month clock starts from the month fol- lowing the last month that the CalWORKs recipient was aided. San Diego County asked DSS whether or not the State has Child Care Overpayment Notices of Action (NOA). DSS responded that DSS has no overpayment NOAs. Counties can create their own NOAs. San Diego County wonders if counties must pay childcare to short term exempt recipi- ents who work part-time. After several emails, DSS clarified that anyone working any num- ber of hours exempt or nonex- empt are entitled to childcare. Los Angeles County cur- rently runs four (4) reports on IHSS and Child Care. IHSS cli- ent receiving Child Care Pay- ments are referred to IHSS for fraud investigation. We are unaware of the findings from these reports and the possible false hits they may produce. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org Several clients said that the coun- ty did not assign them to compo- nents that considered the inter- est of the client being assigned. Clients said that lack of child- care and transportation was a barrier to participation. Some clients said they did not know about availabil- ity of childcare until after they started participating. The county should have more evaluation of workers who are rude and need sensitivity training. Provide more education choic- es in community college. Don’t place clients in educational pro- gram for jobs they really don’t like. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this review are that counties fail to provide child- care before forcing CalWORKs participants to participate in an activity. The county assigns participants to components that are conducive to the coun- ty and not to the participant. On May 3, 2010, the Legislative Analyst office released a report entitled Moving Forward With Eligibility and Enrollment Pro- cess Improvements . This re- port can be found at: http:\/\/www. lao.ca.gov\/reports\/2010\/ssrv\/ eligibility\/eligibility_050310.pdf The report reveals that coun- ties receive $3.4 billion a DSS completed a peer review of Tehama County. A peer re- view occurs when DSS and other counties review another county’s program, in this case, the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) pro- gram. Tehama County chose the areas of review. During the review, the county set up a focus group of clients. It is unclear how the clients were selected. The report does not mention that the clients were randomly select- ed; therefore it is assumed that the county selected the clients. Some of the interesting com- ments made by clients were: There are too many peo- ple at each orientation and the room is too crowded. There is only a morning orien- tation. There needs to be an afternoon orientation to make it easier for clients to attend. Provide more notice before scheduling an orientation to ensure clients can arrange their personal schedules. Orientations are not held in the community of the participants, rather it is held at a central- ized location in a rural county. There is too much informa- tion provided at one once to try to remember all of it. Welfare to Work Peer Review of Tehama County Do Counties Need Incentives To Do Their Job? CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org May 14, 2010 #2010-12 Page 2 year to administer the CalWORKs, Food Stamp and Medi-Cal programs. The Cal- WORKs benefits that will be issued dur- ing the same period are about $ 3.4 billion. The report noted that California has four (4) computer systems operated by counties at the cost of $82.7 million. Most of the ISAWS counties have or will migrate to the C-IV sys- tem. There are 18 counties in the CalWIN system whose contract expires the end of 2013. Los Angeles County wants to spend about $530 million to replace the LEADER system with LEADER 2. At this time, LEAD- ER 2 is planned only for Los Angeles Coun- ty. The Analyst wisely suggests that maybe the Los Angeles system should be built to accommodate all counties of California. The Analyst also raises the issue of who would be responsible for the operation of a single computer system. The analyst sug- gests a group of counties should be respon- sible for operating the statewide computer system. In our opinion, the State should operate the system since it is responsible for the administration of the public assis- tance program. DSS is the principal and the counties are simply agents of the state. The Analyst also suggests that informa- tion about the finances of applicants could be obtained from credit reporting agencies. The credit report does not contain infor- mation relative to eligibility determination, such as bank accounts. The credit reports show the FICO scores, identify the charge cards, bankruptcy records, etc. This has nothing to do with eligibility determination and could be viewed as invasion of privacy. One major change that would eliminate a lot of verifi- cation is the SSA Match program already being used by the Medi-Cal program. The Analyst fails to mention that using the SSA match for CalWORKs and Food Stamp would simplify the system and save money. The Analyst states that the Health Care Bills em- bodied in HR’s 3590 and 4782 require that States establish an enrollment website and use electronic interfaces and data matches with existing data- bases to verify eligibility at enrollment and renewal. To rationalize simplification of the welfare programs on page 13 the Analyst states that counties have not received increases in their cost of doing business for CalWORKs and Food Stamps since 2001 and for Medi-Cal since 2008. This is one reason to make the system more efficient suggests the Analyst. Then on page 18, the Analyst suggest that the State needs to provide counties, the agents of the State Department of Social Services, with incentives to save money and streamline the eligibility process. The Analyst states that, Absent such incentives, counties may lack sufficient motivation to undertake the sometimes-difficult changes needed to achieve efficiencies in the system. The Analyst has never suggested any incentives for welfare recipients to date. We wonder why are incentives sensible for counties, but not for poor single moms trying to raise their children on a fixed income level from 1989? The analyst also warns that simplifying the sys- tem and having electronic applications can in- crease the caseload. The caseloads are going up and electronic application are here to stay as most of the county consortia’s are gearing up towards electronic application systems today. In conclusion the California welfare computer sys- tem is a mess and it’s crying out for a change. ”

” CCWRO New Welfare News May 25, 2010 Issue # 2010-13 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 Food Stamp v. TANF Caseload Imbalance Since the Recession Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 (916) 712-0071 (Cell) (916) 736-2645 (Fax) www.ccwro.org 2.394. Sacramento County has never dem- onstrated support for education as a way to self- sufficiency. They have explored ev- ery loophole to divert welfare moms from education and place them in activities that do not lead to self-sufficiency. In this case, Ms. 2010039064 was lucky. She requested a State hearing where it was ruled that Sac- ramento County was wrong to terminate her right to continue her education just because her GPA for one semester was less than 2.00. Los Angeles County sanction reversed for failure to give a 30-day notice and failure to allow the participant to par- ticipate before imposing the sanction. On November 3, 2009, Ms. 2009342338, who was homeless at the time, was mailed a Notice of Action effective December 1, 2009, imposing a sanction for being late to a job search appointment. Ms. 2009342338 explained that she was homeless and was late due to fact that her child was sick. San Diego County refuses to pay for ancillary services needed by a WtW par- ticipant. On December 14, 2009, San Diego County mailed a Notice of Action denying Ms. 2009356141’s request for a Stentura writing machine that was required for her studies at Sage College. She was referred to Sage College by her WtW worker and re- quired to sign a WtW plan. Ms. 2009356141 provided verification from the college that she need the transcribing machine for her classes, but San Diego County refused to provide her with the same tools needed by other students in the same class. She re- quested a State hearing and received a rul- ing that the county had to obey state laws and regulations and provide her with the re- quired tools to complete her WtW plan. This represents another participant who is on her way to self-sufficiency notwithstanding the barriers of the county welfare department. Fresno County denies childcare for fail- ure to submit a childcare application. Ms. 20093644023 signed a WtW activity assignment on June 18, 2009 and request- ed transportation, ancillary and child care services. When she submitted her county- provided child care claim form which she and the provider completed, Fresno County denied paying the childcare alleging that she had failed to submit a child care application. There is no childcare application requirement in state law or regulations, and yet Fresno County attempted to deprive this mandatory participant’s provider the wages she earned wages that were below minimum wage. Thankfully, she filed for a state hearing and this gross injustice was corrected. We wonder how many other participants are victimized by this unlawful practice of Fresno County. cuts in CalWORKs for a two-year period. Now the Governor is back for more cuts. Over the past 10 years, welfare programs have contributed to over $14 billion to- wards the General Fund. This is achieved by using TANF money for General Fund pro- grams that are not part of the CalWORKs program. This is called creative accounting. On May 18, 2010 the Legislative Analyst Office issued a report opposing the elimi- nation of the CalWORKs program. The state has a $19.7 billion deficit. Even if all programs for the poor were elimi- nated, the budget would not be balanced. The fact is the state has been reduc- ing its revenues by enacting various tax cuts over the years beginning with Prop. 13, while cost of living has been rising. Los Angeles County uses terminated General Assistance income at the end of January to deny food stamp benefits in February. Ms. B16M943 was found to be ineligible for Food Stamp benefits effective February 1, 2010 due to income from dis- ability and General Assistance. However, Los Angeles County had already termi- nated Ms. B16M943’s General Assistance effective February 1, 2010. We wonder how many other Food Stamp recipients have lost their food stamps because of General As- sistance Income that has already been ter- minated. A computer system that cost mil- lions should be preventing these mistakes. Sacramento County tries force a college student to quit her educational activi- ties, do job search and perform unpaid labor know as CWEX. Ms. 2010039064 received a Notice of Action (NOA) order- ing her to change her Welfare-to-Work activity from education to Job Club and County Work Experience. In addition, the county issued a Notice of Action terminat- ing all of her benefits because of where- abouts unknown . The whereabouts un- known charge was a false charge by the county because she had never left the State of California or the County of Sacramento. The reason that Sacramento County ter- minated Ms. 2010039064’s educational activity is because she had a grade point average (GPA) less than 2.00 for the last semester, but the victim’s overall GPA was 12-07to 2-10 12-07 to 3-10 Food Stamp Caseload TANF Caseload 48% 12% Recent data reveals that TANF is not meeting the needs of the poor it was meant to serve. Why has the TANF case- load not kept pace with the needs of re- cipients? TANF gives States flexibility to do whatever they want with the TANF money like spending 30% on payments to families while using 70% for admin- istration and expenditures not directly used to aid TANF families. States and their supporters are seeking more block grant money for Sates. There is no need to give more money to States for TANF unless all of the new money is targeted only for payments to families ONLY. Governor Proposes to Eliminate CalWORKs to Save $1.2 Billion to Have a General Fund Rainy Day of $1.2 Billion On Friday May 14, 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger released his May ver- sion of the 2010-2011 State budget. The budget proposes to eliminate the Cal- WORKs Program to save the $1.2 bil- lion as a reserve for the general fund. Parents who put money in a rainy-day fund while their kids starve would be ac- cused of child abuse. In California, such behavior would result in being charged with a felony for child endangerment. The proposed cuts would cost the State $3.5 billion in federal monies that will impact 1 million poor kids and about 600,000 families in California. In ad- dition, the budget proposes to elimi- nate all funding for childcare, which will save $2.5 billion in General Fund. Last year, the Governor and the Leg- islature reportedly agreed to no major County Client Abuse Report ”

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

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 www.ccwro.org July 28, 2010 Issue #2010-19 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On June 21, 2010, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sac- ramento) and Senator Denise More- no Ducheny (D-San Diego), Chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Re- view Committee, released a detailed outline of the Senate Democratic Restructuring Budget proposal that is a key piece to solving the budget deficit this year and in future years. The proposal increases the county share of costs associated with Pub- lic Safety, CalWORKs\/Child Care and Adult Protective Services. HOW IS IT PAID FOR? Give counties additional revenues to pay for the restructured services. This should take the form of both new revenue streams and author- ity for counties to raise additional revenues on their own to deliver the services and meet the needs of the community -Senate Democrats Multi-year Government Restructur- ing Proposal Total New Local Revenues Need- ed: About $3.2 billion in 2010-11 increasing to about $4.3 billion by 2013-14. Oil severance tax (ongoing, begin- ning in 2010-11) and, transfer VLF funds from DMV to counties (ongo- ing, beginning in 2010-11) – Raises $1.2 billion Continue existing VLF rate that is set to expire in 2011, dedicated to public safety programs (ongoing, beginning in 2011-12). – Raises $1.5 billion CALWORKS RECIPIENT IMPACT ANALYSIS Since the enactment of the Cal- WORKs program in 1998 welfare recipients have suffered immense- ly. Today CalWORKs recipients are living on a grant level that is the same as in 1989. To date these same welfare recipients have contribut- ed over $15 billion to the General Fund by using CalWORKs block grant money for other purposes. Last year the Legislature last year eliminated the automatic cost-of- living increase for CalWORKs. This proposal tries to shift a share of the CalWORKs, WtW services and Child Care costs to the county while leaving welfare recipients un- protected from unequal treatment that can result if counties are given additional flexibility that the pro- posal asserts. CURRENT CALWORKS UNEQUAL OUTCOMES The next four (4) tables reveal the current level of unequal treatment that impoverished families of Cali- fornia receiving CalWORKS have to endure. TABLE #1 CalWORKs Applications Procedural Denials During February of 2010 Statewide 39% Kern 59% Stanislaus 58% Del Norte 57% Riverside 55% Dedicate county savings from fed- eral healthcare reform to restructur- ing services (ongoing, beginning in 2013-14). – Raises $.5 billion Provide bridge funding from de- lay of corporate tax breaks (in 2010- 11 and 2011-12 only). – Raises $1.7 billion Provide a portion of state’s sale tax rate (less than \u00bc cent) to counties for realigned services as secondary bridge (in 2012-13 only). Raises -$1.2 billion WHAT WILL THIS CHANGE FOR WELFARE RECIPIENTS & SAVINGS TO THE STATE GENERAL FUND ? 1, Increase county share of Cal- WORKs grants from 2.5 percent to 25 percent. – State savings for 2010- 2011 – $788 million 2. Increase county share of Cal- WORKs services and administration from 0% to 25 percent. – State sav- ings for 2010-2011 – $401 million 3. Increase county share of county welfare automation from 0% to 25 percent. – State savings for 2010- 2011 – $44 million 4. Shift CalWORKs childcare to counties. – State savings for 2010- 2011 – $1,1412 million During 2009-2010 counties receive $2.3 billion for services and admin- istration of CalWORKs and Child Care and is required to contribute $0. 2010 CalWORKs Realignment Proposed in Legislature San Bern. 45% Contra Costa 44% Sacramento 35% Los Angeles 33% San Diego 27% Ventura 27% Alameda 25% San Francisco 25% Santa Clara 24% Solano 22% Fresno 22% Orange 18% Tulare 15% (Source: CDSS CA255CW reports) http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG286.htm Table #1 represents applications that are denied not because they were not eligible, but because the applicants failed to meet one of the county burdensome proce- dural requirements, like missing one of the three four appoint- ments. This table reveals that while 59% of the CalWORKs applicants in Kern County had their applica- tions denied based solely based on procedural requirements, while at the same time in Tulare County only 15% were denied for procedural requirements. Based on the above data, CalWORks applicants Kern, Stanislaus and Riverside Counties have a 300 to 400 percentage greater chance of having their applications denied than if they had applied in Tulare, Orange or Fresno County. TABLE #2 CalWORKs Application Withdrawals During February of 2010 Riverside 14% Los Angeles 16% San Bernard. 18% Fresno 20% Stanislaus 22% Yolo 22% Sacramento 23% Santa Cruz 24% Contra Costa 25% San Diego 25% San Joaquin 28% Kern 28% CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org July 28, 2010 #2010-019 Page 2 San Francisco 28% Monterey 29% Tulare 29% Santa Clara 39% Orange 41% (Source: CDSS CA255CW reports) http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG286.htm Table #2 is the percentage of appli- cants who are asked by counties to withdraw their applications. With- drawing their applications means they do not receive a notice of action denying their application and afford- ing them due process of law This table reveals that while in Riv- erside County 14% of the applicants withdrew their applications, 40% of applicants withdrew their applica- tions in Orange County and Santa Clara County. Why would there be a 150% difference in application with- drawals between counties if all things were equal? TABLE #3 Food Stamp Expedited Services Denied During First Quarter of 2010 Placer 90% Santa Clara 77% Sacramento 73% Santa Cruz 68% Riverside 66% Monterey 61% Stanislaus 61% Orange 61% San Bernard. 60% Alameda 20% Shasta 17% Del Norte 17% Humboldt 17% Lake 16% Butte 15% Colusa 12% Trinity 6% Lassen 4% Kern 2% (Source: CDSS DFA296X reports) http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG354.htm Table #3 represents households seek- ing emergency food stamp benefits. This table reveals that 90% of the Food Stamp applicants in Placer County were denied expedited ser- vice while in Butte County only 15% were denied. Why? Placer and Butte counties are in the same re- gion and have similar demograph- ics. The vast differences in the outcomes seems solely due to the differing county policies and proce- dures. TABLE #4 WtW Sanctions of WtW Enrollees During May, 2010 Statewide 24% Kern 63% Tehama 57% San Bernard, 51% Trinity 51% Plumas 48% Riverside 42% San Joaquin 41% Kings 38% Monterey 32% Imperial 32% Fresno 32% Merced 30% Santa Cruz 27% Tuolumne 27% Sutter 25% Los An geles 25% San Diego 9% Lassen 8% Santa Barbara 7% Solano 7% Sierra 5% Calaveras 5% Sacramento 4% Del Norte 3% Tulare 3% San Diego 9% Lassen 8% (Source: CDSS WtW 25 & WtW25A reports) WtW-25- http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ research\/PG291.htm WtW-25A- http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/ research\/PG292.htm Table #4 reveals the percentage of enrollees who were subject a WtW sanction during May of 2010. A family being sanctioned means that their fixed monthly income is re- CCWRO New Welfare News July 28, 2010 #2010-19 Page 3 CCWRO RECOMMENDATIONS TO PREVENT UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF IMPOVERISHED FAMILIES OF CALIFORNIA IF REALIGNMENT IS ENACTED: 1. All county policies, procedures and forms shall be approved by the state- wide agency responsible for the program and shall be reviewed by state and local stakeholder groups. 2. All county policies shall be subject to the approval of the Office of Adminis- trative Law. 3. All county policies, procedures and forms shall be posted on the internet to make sure the rules are transparent and accessible to the public. 4. Supportive services shall be issued to all persons entitled thereto. 5. Actual childcare services shall be verified before a participant is referred to participation in a WtW component. This would assure that children are not ne- glected as a result of mandatory participation in WtW activities. Failure to par- ticipate in WtW activities can result in a 25-40% reduction of their fixed income, still at the same level as it was in 1989. Often parents are forced to leave their children home alone to avoid the economically devastating WtW sanctions. 6. Comprehensive monitoring of county actions by the SSA and all monitoring reports and statistical analysis be transparent and accessible on the internet to the public. 7. There be monthly outcome reports that shall include, but shall not be lim- ited to, actions on applications, delays on applications and actions on Cal- WORKs Immediate Need requests. These reporting requirements shall be done through state regulations developed with legislative staff, advocate and county groups with submitting annual reports to the Legislature. duced by another 25-40% a month. This table shows the percentage persons en- rolled in Welfare-to-Work sanctioned during May of 2010. Kern County 63%; San Ber- nardino 51%; Riverside 42%. On the other side of the ledger Sacramento 4%, Solano 7% and San Diego 9%. Riverside and San Di- ego are neighboring counties. Again, the vast differences in the outcomes seems solely due to differing county policies and procedures. RECIPIENT CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED REALIGNMENT Currently, counties have wide discretion in how they administer CalWORKs and WtW servic- es. Enhancing that discretion means more un- equal treatment to children who are similarly situated, but live in a different county. Increasing the county share of grants and services means more unequal treatment across the State. Leg- islation mandating statewide standards to assure that there is statewide uniformity to reduce inappropri- ate service level variations, such as those revealed above, must be enacted. Increasing county flexibility coupled with increasing county fiscal share would give counties incentives to implement policies that negatively impact poor families and increase the unequal treatment of im- poverished California families. If the Legislature decides to revise the funding ra- tios, it should enact legislation to protect impover- ished families to make sure that they are not harmed by this change. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 www.ccwro.org August 16, 2010 Issue #2010-20 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian nOn April 1, 2010, DSS con- tacted United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) asking that FNS reconsider its policy of cashing out all SSI house- holds (HH) and allow California to issue food stamp benefits to pure SSI households (house- holds composed solely of SSI recipients) but continue cash out for mixed SSI households. FNS denied this request. In 1973 when California decid- ed to cash out food stamps for SSI recipients, less than 30% of SSI recipients were receiv- ing food stamp benefits. The primary reason for such low participation was the fact that county welfare departments had many barriers to partici- pation, many of which are still in place today, and the ben- efits were about $10 a month for most HH’s. In CDSS’s pro- posed Food Stamp Cash Out Program, all SSI recipients would have received $10 a month of Food Stamp money with their SSI monthly check. A recent analysis done by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., commissioned by Cali- fornia Food Policy Advocates, revealed that on the average, cashing out food stamps for SSI recipients would not yield nThe July 14, 2010 Federal Register reveals that, nationally during May of 2009, food stamp applicants spent 4,834,224 hours completing food stamp applications. During that same period, food stamp recipients spent 3,887,814 completing an- nual recertification forms. In May of 2009, only 2 states, Minnesota and South Dakota used monthly reporting. Cali- fornia is the only state that uses quarterly reporting. All other states use semi-annual report- ing. nOn July 22, 2010, the Social Security Administration pub- lished a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding proce- dures for hearing determinations and hearings. The proposed rule provides that the advisors of the administrative law judge (ALJ) would review cases. The advisor could propose to is- sue a fully favorable decision without having a hearing. If the proposed decision was partially favorable, the claimant would have an option to accept the de- cision or have a hearing. CDSS could adopt such a policy. It may resolve issues that need not go to a hearing since many county position statements clearly re- veal that counties fail to meet their burden of proof. In Brief much more than the current $10 cash out that SSI recipients cur- rently receive as part of their SSI checks. n Los Angeles County DPSS asked CDSS on June 17, 2010 whether or not the county need- ed a medical statement to classi- fy a food stamp recipient exempt whose unfitness is apparent. On June 21, 2010, Robert Nevin of DSS Food Stamp Division re- sponded: There is nothing in the regulations that requires a doctor’s statement to verify unfit- ness. The CWD would only re- quest such a statement from the client if unfitness was not appar- ent. nThe CalWIN computer con- sortia promulgates forms that are used by CalWIN counties if they want to use them. Such forms are not approved by the single state agency (CDSS) in charge of the Food Stamp program and CalWORKs in California. One of these forms is Form CSC 66 (05\/09) Attendance Sheet, which requires WtW participants to have their participation a WtW activity signed under penalty of perjury by the program provider, such as the job search club, workfare site supervisor or college professors. Following a request from advo- cates, Sacramento County will stop using the CSC 66 form. nIn a June 22, 2010 email CDSS Food Stamp Policy unit informed DPSS that the pro- visions of MPP 63-405.7, regarding obligations of spon- sored immigrants to obtain co- operation of his\/her sponsor, do not apply once the CWD has de- termined the adult-sponsored noncitizen(s) is indigent or oth- erwise exempted from deem- ing. Upon receiving an applica- tion from an adult-sponsored noncitizen seeking food stamp benefits, the CWD must first de- termine whether the household is indigent. To do this, the CWD must first establish whether the noncitizen is ‘unable to obtain food and shelter.’ The term ‘un- able to obtain food and shelter’ has been defined to mean that the sum of the eligible-spon- sored noncitizen household’s own income, the cash contri- bution actually received from the sponsor and others, plus the value of any in-kind assis- tance the sponsor provides, does not exceed 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for the household size. The adult- sponsored noncitizen is entitled to self-declare that s\/he is indi- gent, in which case, a determi- nation of deemed income from the sponsor and verification of the sponsor’s income cannot be required by the CWD; verifi- cation of the sponsor’s income creates a barrier to program ac- cess. Los Angeles County Violates a Slew of State Food Stamp Regulations Venice Welfare Rights Organi- zation in Los Angeles County reports that on August 10, 2010, they went to DPSS District #60 to help people and witnessed widespread violation of the fol- CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org August 16 2010 #2010-020 Page 2 lowing food stamp regulations: MPP 63-300.32. The household shall also be advised that it does not have to be interviewed before filing the applica- tion and may file an incomplete applica- tion form as long as the form contains the applicant’s name and address, and is signed by a responsible member of the household or the household’s authorized representative. MPP 63-300.33. The CWD shall docu- ment the date the application was filed by recording on the application the date it was received by the food stamp office. MPP 63-300.21 — Prescreening Appli- cants. Applicants shall not be required to complete any CWD developed pre- screening form. MPP 63-300.34. The CWD shall make application forms readily accessible to potentially eligible households. The ap- plication form shall be provided to any- one who requests the form. MPP 11-601.311 Provide individuals the opportunity to file an application for and receive Food Stamp and\/or AFDC benefits within the time limits prescribed by federal and state law. (a) Make applications for such benefits readily available to individuals. The state regulations cited above provide that Los Angeles County DPSS must make the SAWS1 ap- plication forms readily available. The workers at District #60 are or- dered not to give out the SAWS 1 until a large assortment of docu- ments (some not part of the state system) are completed and the clients have seen a worker (inves- tigator). Some applicants are unable to stay at welfare office for long pe- riods of time and must leave with- out filing a SAWS1. By the time families have jumped through the hoops to get to the SAWS1, the county has deprived households out of millions of dollars worth of food stamp benefits. This seems to be regular practice at many oth- er DPSS offices in Los Angeles County. Advocates of the Venice Welfare Rights Organization brought this issue to our attention. Sacramento County Welfare Worker Needs a Review Ms. 1B18D27 received sev- eral Notices of Action (NOA) filled with errors. The NOA dated 7\/20\/10, states that Ms. 1B18D27’s food stamps would not change. The next NOA dated 7\/20\/10 changed her food stamp benefits, from $526 to $469 be- cause her income had changed. What income? Then another NOA dated 7\/20\/10, stated that she had reported income of $461 on her QR7 that would be applied to her benefits for the months of August, September and October. On the QR-7 Ms. 1B18D27 reported two checks of $150 and $119, which does not total $461. The second column of the 7\/20\/10 NOA reveals that the worker was using $161 of self- employment and $300 of other nonexempt income. It is un- clear where the worker found the $300 in other nonexempt income. We cannot blame Cal- WIN for this incompetence. CDSS and Sacramento County Department of Human Assis- tance should review all cases by this worker to make sure that oth- er clients are not being cheated out of their benefits. Additional- ly, this worker raised her voice at Ms. 1B18D27 in public, ordering her to work 35 hours a week. Of course, the maximum required for a recipient who must partici- pate In welfare-to-work activities Is 32 hours per week, and that participation does not need to be employment. ”

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

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736–0616 September 3, 2010 Issue # 2010-22 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian – [email protected] A recent study of the effectiveness of TANF conducted by Network, National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, (www.networklobby.org), uncovered numerous concerns among recipients. The study, Net- work’s first looked at TANF since 2001, found: — The program inadequately helps low-income families escape pov- erty. — A high percentage of families struggle financially even when they move off the program’s rolls and into work because of a lack of ba- sic supports for transportation and child care. — The requirement of recipients to find employment is problematic dur- ing recessions and periods of high unemployment and low wages. — Recipients have limited access to education and quality job training, preventing them from finding jobs that could lead them out of poverty. — Recipients struggle to buy enough food for themselves and family members. The 12 member executive commit- tee of the National Association of State Medicaid Directors (NASMD) have voted to break away from the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). NASMD has been affiliated with APHSA for 31 years. APHSA terminated Ann Kohler, who was in charge of the APHSA NASMD staff. She has been re- placed by Rick Fenton, who has worked for the federal government in the area of Medicaid for the past 31 years. Sweeping, vacuuming, wash- ing and waxing of floor surfac- es. (b) Washing kitchen coun- ters and sinks. (c) Cleaning the bathroom. (d) Storing food and supplies. (e) Taking out garbage. (f) Dusting and pick- ing up. (g) Cleaning oven and stove. (h) Cleaning and de- frosting refrigerator. (i) Bring- ing in fuel for heating or cook- ing purposes from a fuel bin in the yard. (j) Changing bed lin- en. (k) Miscellaneous domes- tic services (e.g., changing light bulbs, wheelchair cleaning, and changing and recharging wheelchair batteries) when the service is identified and docu- mented by the caseworker as necessary for the recipient to remain safely in his\/her home. Meal preparation is a related service which is different from domestic service . Related services are set forth in EAS 30-757.12. Related servic- es are not domestic services. There is no authority to prorate related services . 30-763.31 Domestic Services and Heavy Cleaning .313 The need for services in common living areas shall be prorated to all the housemates, the recipient’s need being his\/ her prorated share. In Brief Counties have bilked millions from the frail, sick, aged, blind and disabled receiving IHSS services by prorating related services for meal preparation, meal clean-up and laundry. For the lasts two (2) years there has been a lot of ranting going on about IHSS fraud on the part of recipients and providers. There has been zero ranting about the government defrauding IHSS recipients and providers. Some counties institutionalized the theft of hours from IHSS recipi- ents through unlawful proration of related services such as di- viding allowable monthly hours allocated to meal preparation, meal clean up and laundry by the number of people living in the house and not paying for meal preparation, meal clean up and laundry done by the provider. We also hear from advocates that IHSS county social workers are being told to cut recipient IHSS hours, even when such cutting is not justified. Legally proration of needs is au- thorized only for (1) domestic services, (2) heavy cleaning and (2) protective supervision. Domestic Services are embod- ied in 30-757. 11 which provides: .11 Domestic services which are limited to the following: (a) GOVERNMENT DEFRAUDS IHSS RECIPIENTS OF HOURS TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED .321 When the need is being met in common with those of other housemates, the need shall be prorated to all the housemates involved, and the recipient’s need is his\/her prorated share. 30-763.331 Protective Super- vision 30-763.331 When two (or more) IHSS recipients are living to- gether and both require protec- tive supervision, the need shall be treated as a common need and prorated accordingly. In the event that proration results in one recipient’s assessed need exceeding the payment and hourly maximums provided in Section 30-765, the apportion- ment of need shall be adjusted between the recipients so that all, or as much as possible of the total common need for pro- tective supervision may be met within the payment and hourly maximums. We wait for the government’s quality assurance and fraud workers to turn its eye on itself and stop the systematic abuse of IHSS recipients and provid- ers. Mr. and Ms. M. are hungry and suffering. Mr. M. has brain can- cer. They have had no food stamps for over a month. They requested a state hearing on 7-23-10 contesting the county’s termination of their food stamps. On August 1, 2010, they re- ceived no aid paid pending food stamps. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org September 3, 2010 #2010-022 Page 2 August 1, 2010 was the day that the five (5) working days was up for Santa Clara County to issue aid paid pending as provided in EAS 22-073.1 which states: COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE STATE HEARING 22-073.1 Upon receipt of a request for hearing or notice from the De- partment 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. .11 Such payment shall be either placed in the U.S. Mail or available for hand-delivery to the recipient (if agreed to by the county and re- cipient) 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. Here is a history of noncompliance in this case: August 2, 2010 – No food stamps- 1 day out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 3, 2010 – No food stamps- 2 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 4, 2010 – No food stamps- 3 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 5, 2010 – No food stamps- 4 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 6, 2010 – No food stamps- 5 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 7, 2010 – No food stamps- 6 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 8, 2010 – No food stamps- 7 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 9, 2010 – No food stamps- 8 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 10, 2010 – No food stamps- 9 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 11, 2010 – No food stamps- 10 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 12, 2010 – No food stamps- 11 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 13, 2010 – No food stamps- 12 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 14, 2010 – No food stamps- 13 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 15, 2010 – No food stamps- 14 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 16, 2010 – No food stamps- 15 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 17, 2010 – No food stamps- 16 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 18, 2010 (date of hearing) they failed to attend because of illness. No food stamps- 19 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 August 31, 2010 – No food stamps – 30 days out of compliance with EAS 22-073.1 Mr. and Ms. M. wanted to find out what was happening with their food stamps. Santa Clara County Appeals Acting supervisor Norma Vela of Santa Clara County Department of Social Services said that the county could not issue aid paid pending because Mr. M. failed to ap- pear at the 8-18-10 hearing. She also stated as an excuse, that they were very busy, which is another reason that Santa Clara County has willfully violated EAS 22-073.1. We searched Division 22 to find a provision that states the county does not have to meet the five (5) time lines for Aid Paid Pending if they were busy. The search was unfruitful. There is no such regula- tion. Ms. Vela assured us that if the hearing was reopened, only then would Santa Clara County issue aid paid pending. COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORT ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736–0616 September 11, 2010 Issue # 2010-23 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian – [email protected] m The 40th Annual California Welfare In- vestigators Association Training Confer- ence is being held in South Lake Tahoe at the plush Embassy Suites. They will have classes about IHSS investigations, IHSS anti-fraud best practices, working with EDD, Street Gangs, and alternative entry methods. There are also DA classes that will provide 6 hours of MCLE credit. They will have vendor booths. The registration fee is $250 per attendee. State and federal funds will be use to pay for the registration. We do not expect the regis- tration fees to be paid for by personal funds of attendees. This is a closed meeting. One officer of CWFIA informed us that the meet- ing is only for welfare fraud investigators which apparently includes the D.A.s, vendors and others . The public is strictly excluded from this event. m Ed Barnes, a long time welfare attorney from the early seventies worked as a DSS ALJ about six (6) months. He recently re- turned to East Bay Community Law Center. It is nice to have Ed back. m San Bernardino County, whose Direc- tor Linda Haugan is also the President of the California Welfare Directors Association, has been imposes a school nonattendance penalty upon 16 and 17 years old minors in lieu of referring them to a WtW activity as required by state law. This unlawful practice was vehemently defended by the county at a state hearing by San Bernardino County Of- ficial LuCinda Larson. It is the policy of DSS that if a 16 and 17 year old child fails to attend school, then they shall be referred to WtW. If they fail to participate in a WtW activity, then they will be sanctioned for failure to partici- pate in an assigned WtW activity. See WI&C 11253.5(e). In Brief TANF35% – Goes to Poor Families 65% – Goes to the State and Local Government ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DIST.OF COL. FLORIDA GEORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASS. MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI 33% 59% 36% 12% 62% 17% 20% 44% 13% 24% 18% 21% 18% 6% 35% 42% 40% 66% 22% 77% 21% 31% 27% 18% 30% 33% MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING Total 48% 29% 40% 48% 20% 40% 36% 14% 56% 33% 26% 53% 22% 45% 26% 70% 48% 16% 36% 38% 31% 22% 65% 20% 42% 35% Combined Spending of Federal, State Funds With ARRA Fund Expended in FY 2009 Source: DHHS: http:\/\/www.acf.hhs.gov\/programs\/ofs\/data\/2009\/table_f3_2009.html Percentage of the Total TANF Funds Expended for Payments to Families During Federal, Fiscal Year 2009 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736–0616 September 28, 2010 Issue # 2010-24 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian – [email protected] m On June 29, 2010, Riverside County asked DSS if a person would be eligible to receive permanent housing if she is receiving CalWORKs aid paid pending? On July 2, 2010 DSS re- sponded, The household retains recipient status pending the hearing decision. As such, there is no basis to deny eligibility for permanent housing as- sistance to an AU that is in receipt of CalWORKs aid paid pending. m Tulare County informed DSS that the county is getting reports that TANF clients from Arizona are coming to Tulare County because they are afraid that Arizona will deport them. m San Diego County informed DSS that the county is considering conducting an Extended Hours Pilot in the East Region Family Resource Centers (FRC). The plan is to have the office be open four (4) days a week and closed to staff and the public on alternate Mondays and Fridays. The pilot FRCs will accept ap- plications from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with same-day interviews for applications submitted by 4:45 p.m.. Processes have been identified to meet the expedited timeframes. m On July 8, 2010, LA DPSS asked DSS, when computing an IHSS overpayment, the Los Ange- les District Attorney and California Department of Health Care Services Chief Fraud investigator Chuck Conly claim that they … collect the gross amount rather than the net amount received by the provider when computing the overpayment On July 8, DSS responded stating We have looked into this and determined that for a provider overpayment, the provider should be asked to pay back the net amount of the payments he\/she re- ceived. This is indicated on page XII-B-12 of the CMISP Manual (Special Instructions, Section III). Hopefully, this will stop Los Angeles County from defrauding low wage earners being abused by law enforcement officials. We just wonder how many In Brief other counties are defrauding IHSS providers by demanding gross income in lieu of the net income that they received. m On July 17, 2010, San Luis Obispo Coun- ty asked if an IHSS recipient is living in a con- demned house, could that recipient receive IHSS services? On July 23, 2010, DSS promulgated a new rule that living in a condemned house would not meet the definition of own home since the applicant is living illegally and unsafely at the place his chooses to reside. There is nothing in the state regulations that sup- port this unlawful rule promulgated by DSS. In fact, it is contrary to state regulation MPP 30- 700(o)(2) which expressly sets forth what does not constitute own home and condemned hous- ing is not one of the exceptions. Moreover, the regulation states that own home, means a place that the applicant or recipient chooses to reside and not where the county or the state bureaucrats think they should reside. MPP 30-700.1 The In-Home Supportive Servic- es (IHSS) Program provides assistance to those eligible aged, blind and disabled individuals who are unable to remain safely in their own homes without this assistance. IHSS is an alternative to out-of-home care. Eligibility and services are lim- ited by the availability of funds. MPP 30-700(o)(2) Own Home means the place in which an individual chooses to reside. An in- dividual’s own home does not include an acute care hospital, skilled nursing facility, intermediate care facility, community care facility, or a board and care facility. A person receiving an SSI\/SSP payment for a nonmedical out-of-home living ar- rangement is not considered to be living in his\/ her home. m Los Angeles County is planning an on-line web application system for CalWORKs and Food Stamps to be launched December 31, 2010 simi- lar to the C4 Yourself system. The person head- ing this project is Hayward Gee, DPSS Informa- tion Technology Manager, and Eligibility Systems. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org September 28, 2010 #2010-024 Page 2 m On 9\/1\/10, Ms. B161K21 of Los Angeles County received a no- tice of action stating that she will re- ceive $1,270 in August, 2010, $1,270 in September, 2010 and $1,905 in October, 2010. Ms. B161K21 work hours and wages will be the same for each of the three months. When her advocate called District #31 for clarification, District Director Der- rick Robinson promised to call back or have somebody call back. This never happened. DPSS district #31 is famous for being a bad office in the Los Angeles community. m Ms. B18SF39 of Los Angeles County received a letter from DPSS dated 7-12-10 stating that her worker would call her on 8\/27\/10 for a food stamp annula recertification. Nobody called. Ms. B18SF39 called and called, but could not reach the work- er. The worker only talks to DPSS clients 1 or 2 hours a day. The rest of the day workers are what is called protected time from bothersome customers. When an advocate contacted DPSS, the advocate was told that DPSS included a statement on the notice dated 7\/12\/10 that the county would only call if the recipient re- turns the completed package. Ms. B18SF39 stated that the 7\/12\/10 let- ter did not contain this information. However, Ms. B18SF39 did com- plete the packet and mailed it to Ms. Mora on 9\/3\/10. On 9\/18\/10, Ms. B18SF39 received a notice of action that her food stamp benefits will be terminated for failure to complete the food stamp annual redetermination process. m Ms. L.H. of San Bernardino County was assigned to a job search activity. Her husband also partici- pates in a WtW activity. Ms. L.H. ‘s child has emotional problems and must be picked up from school at 2:30. This means that Ms. L.H must leave the WtW activity before 2:30 p.m. to pick up her minor child. San Bernardino County prohibited her from leaving before 2:30 p.m. to pick up her child from school. She opted COUNTY CLIENT ABUSE REPORTIHSS Data Confidential? to protect her minor child in lieu of obeying the San Bernardino County. As a result San Bernardino seeks to sanction her. Travel to her activity site takes 2 hours and 19 minutes to go by public transportation and 2 hours and 21 minutes to return home. In most civilized counties this is called remote and the participant would not be sanctioned. But San Bernardino County is in a different planet and adheres to different laws. She received a notice of ac- tion (NOA) dated 9\/15\/10 stating that her food stamps would be changed from $0 to $494 because she did not follow the CalWORKs WtW rules. The NOA fails to state what rule she did not follow, when she failed to fol- low these alleged rules and what ex- actly she could do to fix this situation. In September Ms. L.H received $612 in Food Stamps and not $0 as incor- rectly alleged in this NOA. She also received another NOA on 9\/15\/10 stating that effec- tive 10\/1\/10 her monthly cash aid would be changed from $0 to $595. The NOA alleges that the reason for the proposed action is that Ms. L.H ..failed to participate or did not make good progress in an assigned Wel- fare to Work activity. In September Ms. L.H received $710 and not $0 as incorrectly alleged in this NOA. The notices are totally inadequate and not timely. State regulation, MPP 42-721.23 state Upon deter- mination that an individual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the individual a notice of action effec- tive no earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of issuance. There were many other problems with this NOA that would take several pages to describe. This victim has asked for a state hearing. The vic- tims are not sure if San Bernardi- no County would stop the sanc- tion pending the hearing request as required by law. With San Ber- nardino County you never know. The CDSS Disability and Adult programs division, Adult Ser- vices Branch, Adult Programs Systems Unit publishes monthly statistical reports that contain in- formation about service assess- ment summary, management statistical summary, recipient summary characteristics listing and discontinuance from IHSS eligibility by reason. However, don’t look for this report on the website. CDSS does not pub- lish this report. The only report that can be found on the CDSS web page is the IHSS monthly reports that stopped in April of 2003. The reason? The reports are confidential . At least that is what each page of this infor- mation produced with taxpayer dollars that does not contain national security information allege. This may reflect CDSS’s efforts to be transparent hide taxpayer paid information from the public. During August 2010 the report reveals that 1,087 IHSS recipi- ents asked the counties to close their case. It is called recipi- ent request . Anytime we see data showing that recipients are asking the county to stop their benefits raises many red flags and we suspect county abuse of IHSS client. 14 counties state that about 20 percent of the monthly discontinuances occur because the IHSS recipients call and voluntary state, Please stop my IHSS . ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel. 916-736-0616 October 26, 2010 Issue # 2010-25 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian – [email protected] INTRODUCTION Nationally, welfare offices have been devel- oping on-line application portals for Food Stamps and other public benefits programs. The new Health Care law mandates that each state have a statewide on-line applica- tion portal so Americans can access the new Health Care program. Last year the State legislature enacted legisla- tion starting the process for a single applica- tion system for public benefits. CONSORTIUM ACTIVITIES Meanwhile the C-IV Consortium (www.c-iv. org) received $1 million from USDA, FNS to develop the www.c4yourself.com\/c4your- self system for 39 counties. At the same time USDA also gifted San Fran- cisco County $1 million to do an on-line ap- plication system similar to what C-4 is doing. In fact, a careful review will show a lot of similarities of both systems. The San Francisco Model was used to launch Benefits CalWIN for the 18 CalWIN coun- ties. Applying for Welfare on-Line LEADER is currently in the process of developing their system with the C-4 computer language. All 39 counties of the C-4 consortium have an on-line application system for CalWORKS, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal. https:\/\/www.c4yourself.com\/c4y- ourself\/ CONSORTIUM SECRECY C-4 and CalWIN Consortiums have developed these on-line application portals with zero input from ad- vocates or other stakeholders. The California Com- puter Consortiums operated by county welfare departments have never been transparent in the de- velopment and improvements of the C-4 or CalWIN systems. The only exception is LEADER that has re- cently been willing to involve advocates in the de- velopment of LEADER II from the start. That is com- mendable and we hope other Consortiums would follow the fine example of LEADER. CONSUMER VIEW OF WHAT’S BEEN DONE SO FAR If you go to http:\/\/www.co.fresno.ca.us\/Depart- ments.aspx?id=162 which is the web page for Fres- no County Employment and Temporary Assistance, there is a nice sign alerting folks that Access and Benefits CalWIN has arrived, but, double clicking takes one to a pdf document rather than the portal to make an application. It states that one can go to Benefits CalWIN , but that is not even a link. However, if you click on www.benefitscalwin. org it will take the person to the portal to ap- ply for benefits. Why can’t Fresno County con- nect the person to the on-line application im- mediately? Why not make it user friendly? Unlike C-4, CalWIN does not yet include Cal- WORKS applications. None of these systems take General Assistance applications. Coun- ties have admitted that they want to make it as hard as possible for persons in deepest pov- erty to have the hardest time accessing benefits to which they are entitled. CalWIN Implementation Schedule Release Counties Deployment Production Number Release Date Phase I Tulare & Santa Clara May 24, 2010 (COMPLETE) Phase II Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz July 26, 2010 (COMPLETE) Phase III Yolo, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Solano, Sonoma, Ventura and San Mateo Nov. 22, 2010 (Source: CWDA) CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org October 26, 2010 #2010-25 Page 2 ument the date the application was filed by recording on the application the date it was received by the food stamp office. THE SYSTEMS ARE NOT USER FRIENDLY We reviewed over a dozen County Welfare Department web pages from the listings of Human Services Agencies on CWDA’s web- page. http:\/\/www.cwda.org\/links\/chsa. php. None of these web pages had an easily viewed spot how to apply for welfare on-line. If this system is going to work it has to be de- signed for the users – not the designers. As usual, when the welfare system does some- thing, they always put their needs above the needs of the users. None of these systems with the exception for LEADER II were developed with any input from recipient representatives and advocates. Recently CWDA convened a call with the urg- ing of Jessica Bartholow of Western Center on Law & Poverty that was the first time advo- cates were briefed mostly on what was public knowledge. There needs to be more oversight of this new technology. For the federal government to spend $2 mil- lion and not even make sure that it is consis- tent with federal law is malpractice. More- over, $2 million for this system that is simply designed for food stamps and Medi-Cal and CalWORKS to some extent is mindboggling it is like paying $700 for a toilet seat. CONCLUSION Electronic applications are the future. It is important that all stakeholders work togeth- er from the get-go to assure that it is user friendly and consistent with the laws and regulations governing the public benefit pro- grams. CalWIN benefits only allows the applicant to submit the application only after the applicant has provided information about all members of the household in lieu of name and address only as required by 7 CFR 273.2(c). The Authorized Representative (AR) is limited to picking up the food stamps. In the 21st cen- tury people do not pick up their food stamps. Food Stamp recipients can get an EBT card for an AR. There is another function for an AR, which is provided for in MPP 19-000. A food stamp applicant can designate an application assister to be her or his authorized representative and assist the applicant in the processing of the application. To accommodate this, CalWIN can have one box for pick up your food stamps and another box for represent me for food stamp purposes . Finally https:\/\/www.c4yourself.com\/c4your- self\/ does not allow the applicant to designate an authorized representative at all. We hope that LEADER will. When we tested Benefits CalWIN, it refused to proceed when we told it that we had no income. Once we lied and said we had income we were able to move on. Appears people without income need not apply. C-4 1 million dollar system does not let a per- son file an application by putting down her\/his name and address and electronically signing the application. It appears that FNS paid a million dollars for a system that violates basic federal laws. ON-LINE APPLICATION SYSTEM VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW Before anybody can apply for food stamps they must come up with a user name, password and a couple of secret questions. The person would have to go through the entire application process before being allowed to file the application, in violation of 7 CFR 273.2(c) that provides in part: may file an incomplete application form as long as the form contains the applicant’s name and address, and is signed by a responsible member of the household or the household’s au- thorized representative. State agencies shall doc- ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 November 7, 2010 Issue # 2010-26 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Edmund Gerald Jer- ry Brown Jr. is Cali- fornia’s next Gover- nor. According to the Sacramento Editorial Board, the new gov- ernor plans to: (1) protect programs for children and families; (2) refuse to trim spending for the most vulnerable be- cause doing so would create more pov- erty, crime and other costly problems; (3) contain Medi-Cal costs by changing from fee for service to managed care. Unlike most previous Governors, Jerry Brown is not running for President as he starts his governorship in California. This is a major difference between Jerry Brown and his predecessors. In 1973, David Swoap, Director of DSS left when Jerry Brown took office. Jer- ry Prod, Deputy Director of Legal Af- fairs was Acting Director for about six months. In July 1974 Jerry Brown hired Marion J. Woods as State Welfare Direc- tor, the first African-American state wel- fare director in the history of California. His marching orders from Brown were to make sure welfare is not a problem for me. In the first months of 1974, Jerry Brown interviewed CRLA lawyer, Ralph San- tiago Abascal, one of the most prominent welfare attorneys of the time, for the position of State welfare director. Abas- cal told Jerry Brown that he wanted to improve the lives of the poor in Califor- nia by getting as much federal dollars to achieve this purpose and did not want the Jerry Brown was the first Governor to launch an attack on the AFDC COLA that Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1971. As Chart #1 reveals, AFDC re- cipients received COLAs every year until Jerry Brown got the Legislature to stop the COLA for 1977-1978. The next year, Senator Bill Greene introduced Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) that would have re- stored the COLA retroactive. SB 1 did not become law, but AFDC recipients received a 15.2% COLA in the1978- 1979 state budget. Jerry Brown 1.0 cut AFDC benefits by 2.1% in the 1980- 1981 state budget. The next Governor, Republican George Deukmejian Jr., like Reagan, allowed a COLA for each year of his governorship. Department of Finance to microman- age what he could lawfully do as Di- rector with the federal money that had no impact on the State General Fund. He was not hired. Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. – Jerry Brown 2.0 Attorney, Ralph Abascal CHART 1 – California AFDC COLA HISTORY BUDGET BENEFITS THE THE CALIFORNIA YEAR FOR FAMILY COLA GOVERNOR OF THREE AMOUNT 1971-1972 $235 0.9% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1972-1973 $237 2.5% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1973-1974 $243 7.8% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1974-1975 $262 11.8% Ronald Wilson Reagan 1975 $293 8.9% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1976 $319 6.0% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1976-1977 $338 6.3% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1977-1978 $356 0.0% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1978-1979 $356 15.2% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1979-1980 $410 15.4% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1980-1981 $473 -2.1% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1981-1982 $463 9.3% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1982-1983 $506 0.0% Edmund Gerald Jerry Brown Jr. 1983-1984 $526 4.0% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1984-1985 $555 5.5% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1985-1986 $587 5.8% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. 1986-1987 $617 5.1% Courken George Deukmejian Jr. (con’t on page 2) In fairness to Jerry Brown, when DSS’s 17th floor (this is the floor occupied by the DSS hiercy) started talking about workfare, Jerry Brown crushed the idea of poor recipients performing uncompensated labor or doing senseless job search. Jerry Brown 2.0 has already stated that he is going to be slow when appointing new Secretaries to the five (5) state agencies. Jer- ry Brown 1.0 appointed several legal services lawyers to various departments. For example, he appointed James D. Lorenz Jr., founder of California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) in 1966, to be the Director of EDD. He was fired within a year and another former CRLA lawyer, Marty Click was appointed as Director of EDD. Daniel Brunner, a welfare lawyer of then Long Beach Legal Aid was appointed as Deputy Direc- tor for legal affairs. He also ap- pointed Ruben Lopez of CRLA to be Chief Hearing Officer at DSS. In summary, Jerry Brown is a politician, but not in the mold of Bill Clinton. Clinton destroyed the AFDC program by agree- ing to the TANF program which provides only 30% of the money to payments for families while its predecessor, AFDC, provided 70% of the money to payments for families. Currently, TANF sanc- tions 85,000 families a month at a time when there are five people looking for one job. Since the en- actment of TANF in California, welfare families who are living on fixed incomes at 1989 levels have contributed $15 billion to California’s general fund. Wel- fare families living in deep pov- erty contributed over $1,2 billion to the State General Fund in the recently enacted 2010-2011 State Budget. CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org November 7, 2010 #2010-026 Page 2 IHSS FRAUD – DSS ASSUMES IT WOULD GET $6 FOR $1 SPENT FOR IHSS FRAUD ENFORCEMENT DSS published CFL NO.09\/10-54 announcing that counties would have $26.4 million to spend on alleged IHSS fraud. (http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/entres\/getinfo\/ cfl\/2009-10\/09-10_54.pdf) Some of this money given to district attorneys’ offices will be used for non-IHSS fraud costs through creative accounting . The 2009-2010 state budget assumed that the $26.4 gifted to the county law enforcement bureaucracies would save over $156.4 million in 2009-2010. There is no verification of this estimate – just wishful thinking. Recently, the Sacramento County IHSS fraud bureaucrats made an appearance before the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and revealed that during 2009-2010 they received over $4 million to run their IHSS Fraud bureaucratic operation. They also re- ported that this operation discovered about $1.5 million in recipient and provider over- payments. Half of the $1.5 million in overpayments are due to what is called provider overpay- ments which means that the money will continue to be spent for services, except that it would be paid to a different provider thus, there are no real savings. While the Schwarzenegger administration assumed that they would save about $6 for every $1 spent, the facts show that they are spending $4 to save $1.50. (con’t from page 1) Number of Unduplicated Participants Gross Number of Participants Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Sanctioned THIS MONTH Dollar Loss to Poor Families Being Sanctioned Number of Participants Who Entered Employment Participants Geeting Job that that Stops of CalWORKs TOTAL JOBS Total County Sanction Actions How many more participants were sanctioned com- pared to those who found a job this month? Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Paying Transportation Sept. 2010 14,080 24,7171 48,664 $5.8 m. 8,647 4,220 12,867 73,381 60,514 71,225 $7.1 m. California Welfare-to-Work Program Update How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $878,783.000 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Child Appropriation $489.569.000 Analysis During September of 2010 18% of participants were sanc- tioned by the Welfare-to-Work Program. 9% of participants found employment. Thus, 9% more participants were sanctioned compared to the percentage of participants who found employment. This difference provides signifi- cant statistical evidence that the program is slanted toward sanctioning participants rather than making participants self- sufficient. Sanctions resulted in the loss of $5.8 million dollars each month for California’s impov- erished families. During September of 2010, 51% of unduplicated par- ticipants who are entitled to transportation did not receive these benefits. During September of 2010 CalWORKs recipients were denied $7.1 million in trans- portation services by county welfare departments with the cooperation of the State De- partment of Social Services. Source: CDSS WtW 25 reports Sanctions estimated $120 a month Transportation Estimated $100 a month ”

” Address in the County is not a Requirement for Eligibility of Calworks. Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 November 28, 2010 Issue # 2010-27 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian A CalWORKs recipient living in Santa Clara County moved to another county in August 2009 and never tells the coun- ty of the move. In March 2010 welfare fraud investigators discover that the family was living in another county. The family’s circumstances were unchanged. The only difference was that the recipi- ent was not living in Santa Clara County, but in another county within the State of California. The welfare fraud investiga- tors believed that this was a big fraud case of over $5,000 and were ready to commence felony prosecution. The re- cipient filed for a state hearing. On Oc- tober 5, 2010, Santa Clara County asked for a DSS policy interpretation stating …there is an overpayment due to the client’s failure to report the information timely. On October 11, 2010 DSS responded: No, there is no overpayment in this case. While a change of address is one of the mandatory mid-quarter reports un- der quarterly reporting regulations, the county may not asses an overpayment when the client fails to report a change of address unless it involves a move out of state (see also ACL 03-18, page 73). Furthermore, MPP 42-400 specifically states that residence is the county is NOT a requirement for receipt of aid. l CWD Victim Comes in for Scheduled Redetermination Appointment Los An- geles County Welfare Worker at South- west Family District #83 is AWOL. On 10-14-10 Ms. S.G.- B1C5V45 received a letter scheduling her for a redetermination appointment for 11-15-10 at 12 noon. She arrived at the Los Angeles DPSS Southwest Family District #83 office at 12 noon. She checked in the window and waited for three (3) hours and no one called her. Because her ride had other business, so she left af- ter waiting for three hours. She now has a letter terminating all of her benefits because she refused to do her annual redetermina- tion. She wonders if anybody is stopping the paycheck of the people in charge of District #83 who let this happen. l San Diego County Denies Applica- tion for Failure to Provide Something. Mr. R.C. has been trying to apply for Cal- WORKs and Food Stamp benefits for her- self and her child in San Diego County for months. Her last attempt to apply was for November 2010 at the El Cajon Office. She went to the office on 11-12-10 to apply for benefits and asked for immediate need. Her face-to-face appointment was scheduled for 11-15-10. She went to the appointment with her mom to have a witness. She provided all of the verification except for a bank state- ment. The worker told her that she would have to come back the next day for orienta- tion. On 11-16-10 at 9:15 she came in and went through the orientation process. She also submitted the requested bank state- ment. After orientation, she went home with an EBT card, but no money on it. She then received a notice of action (NOA) dated 11-16-10 stating that she had until 11-27-10 to give the county bank veri- fication that she provided on 11\/16\/10. She soon received another letter dated 11-17-10 denying her application for failure to pro- vide . The notice did not state what she failed to provide. l Shasta County Imposes Sanction with- out Timely Notice. Unlawful Action Up- held By Hearing Officer. Ms. 2010027340 received a notice of action (NOA) from Shasta County on January 19, 2010 which stated effective 2-1-10 the benefits would be reduced from $480 to $273 a month. DSS regulation 42-721.23 provides that 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 is- suance. This unlawful action of Shasta County was presented as a valid action under oath at a state hearing by a Shasta County Wel- fare Department representative when a 30- day notice as required by state regulations was not given to the victim. l Kern County Insists that a WtW Sanction is Valid and that the 60-Month Clock Has Run Without Evidence Sup- porting their Contentions. Effective April 2010, Kern County issued an NOA imposed a WtW sanction against Ms. 2010146293 and asserting that her 60-month time had expired. The victim filed for a state hear- ing. At the hearing, the county represen- tative testified under oath that the county could not prove any act that would cause Kern County to impose a sanction. The same county representative also testified that the county could not prove that the 60-month time clock had expired. For- tunately, the Administrative Law Judge did not uphold the county’s unlawful acts against this victim. l Sonoma County Imposes Sanc- tion Against a Working Mom. Ms. 20100152326 has worked part-time at a coffee shop for two (2) years. The cof- fee shop employs her less than 32 hours a week, thus, she is being asked to perform unpaid labor to make up the rest of the hours. She already volunteers at a neigh- borhood animal sanctuary, but that must be approved by another agency contracted with the county to control the unpaid labor part of the Sonoma County WtW program. At the hearing, the victim testified that she had transportation problems and illness problems. However, this did not deter the county and the Judge from upholding the primary purpose of the WtW program sanctioning a working mom. l Sacramento County Terminates Ben- efits for Failure to Submit a QR-7. The County Never Mailed Her a Blank QR-7. Ms. 1B27D44 had just started receiving aid when she received a NOA terminating the benefits for alleged failure to submit a QR- 7. It seems the county never mailed her a blank form. How could she turn in a QR-7 that she never got? COUNTY ClIENT ABUSE REPORT California Homeless Assistance Update During September 2010 coun- ties received 5,483 requests for homeless assistance. Counties acted on 5,249 of those cases. 81% of the cases were approved. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 December 17, 2010 Issue # 2010-28 CCWRO Welfare News\u2002 ccwro.org CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian The New Governor has been in Sacramento for the whole month of December. The tran- sition is happening. Unlike other transitions, this time the Governor-elect’s transition team has not contacted the various departments. Most of the information that the Governor is getting is coming directly from the Depart- ment of Finance and not DSS. This is good in part because of DSS staff loss and is ill equipped to take on a transition . Ana Matosantos, Director of the State De- partment of Finance resigned and was ap- pointed to head up the transition team for the Jerry Brown Administration. She went to school in Stanford and was a consultant for the California State Senate Budget Commit- tee Health and Human Services Subcommit- tee. Schwarzenegger appointed Cynthia Bryant as Director of Finance, but Ana has not even left her office and plans to remain at Finance until the new Governor takes over. On September 22, 2010 CalWIN held its 4th Annual Strategic Planning Meeting and was touted by CalWIN a success. The meet- ing was attended by County Directors and their associates. Absent from the meeting were the representatives and the people that CalWIN actually affect welfare recipients and their representatives. Benefits CalWIN, which is the CalWIN on-line application process is going live all over the state. Its design is completely an- ti-homeless . This is what happens when middle class and upper class members of our society having very little knowledge of the homeless and recipient community they al- legedly serve develop systems in the vacuum. C-IV received another $1 million from FNS to upgrade the C4Yourself in addition to the millions they get from the State and federal government. The C4Yourself system design requires that the applicants lie under penalty of perjury in order to file their application if a necessary field is not applicable to an appli- cant. The system demands exact information and refuses to process the application with an answer unknown as most other civilized systems are designed. Thus, this system forc- es applicants to lie under penalty of perjury that should be a crime, but it is not. Folks from Marshalls Islands, Micronesia and Republic of Palau are eligible for CAPI. Margarita Castro of Sacramento County asked DSS if an individual with an I-94, an- notated CFA\/MIS or CFA\/PAL should be a prucol under the provisions of the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985. Ms. Cynthia Yates from DSS responded the same day stating that those who entered after to 8\/22\/96 would be time limited, but eligible for CAPI benefits. Christine Webb-Curtis is retiring at the end of the year as Chief of the food Stamp Branch of DSS. Venus Garth, who is the Chief of the DSS Child Care and Refugee Services Branch, is also retiring. They will be sorely missed. AB 1- Speaker Perez This bill would re- store funding for Stage 3 childcare. AB 6 Assembly member Fuentes This bill would require California to have a semi- annual reporting system in lieu of the cur- rent quarterly reporting system. It would also repeal the fingerprint requirement for CalWORKs and Food Stamps that would yield savings of 8 million dollars annually. Finally the bill would establish a process whereby all Food Stamp recipients would be entitled to the Standard Utility Deduc- tion. SB 12- Steinberg – This bill would restore funding for Stage 3 childcare. SB 48 – Liu – This bill would make changes in the food stamp employment and training program to make it more efficient and more user friendly. Ms. L. H – 1380652 is a mandatory par- ticipant. The county assigned her to a job readiness activity for 8\/9\/10. She did not attend. She was scheduled for a concilia- In Brief tion appointment on 8\/20\/10. The County appeals representative Alma Banuelos testi- fied under oath that during the 8\/20\/10 inter- view the county determined that Ms. L.H. did not have a good reason to participate, thus was asked to sign a compliance plan , which she did. The worker, Julie Buenrostro testified under oath that Ms. LH signed the compliance plan. Ms. L.H. testified that she went to the office for her 8\/20\/10 meeting with Ms. Julie Buenrostro. Ms. Julie Buen- rostro came out to the lobby and gave Ms. LH the compliance plan and instructed her to sign the compliance plan. She did. The county refused to make a good cause deter- mination as most counties generally do dur- ing conciliation appointments. The County issued a NOA dated Septem- ber 15 imposing the sanction on October 1, 2010. This is not a 30-day legal sanction notice of action as mandated by MPP 42- 721.23, but San Bernardino County did not see anything wrong with the county break- ing state law. At the December 15, 2010 hearing, Ms. LH stated that it takes her more than 3 hours each way to go from her house to the job readiness activity location. When the claimant’s representative stated that this is good cause, Ms. Alma Banuelos stated that under oath that remoteness does not apply to workfare\/CWEX. It appeared that the county representative was either confusing job search with CWEX or was hoping to confuse the judge by misleading the judge to think that CWEX and job readiness is the same thing. Finally, the San Bernardino County Representative Alma Banuelos in- sisted that the sanction should be sustained for there is no good cause for remoteness. The county insisted that Ms. LH could have used somebody else’s car rather than taking the bus. The evidence showed that Ms. LH, like 75% of families on welfare did not have a car. The ALJ Jack Wright was so overwhelmed with the dogmatic insistence of San Ber- nardino County to sanction a family even after it was revealed that the county had al- ready terminated the benefits of the family effective January 1, 2011 because the hus- band is working full time and making $20 a hour. He told the county that he is finding the claimant had good cause and implied that this was a big waste of time on the part of San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County Imposes Sanction on a Full Time Employed Family with a Bad Notice Who Had Good Cause New Welfare Bills Introduced for 2011-2012 California Legislative Sessions. ”