Search Demo

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

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 May 18, 2011 Issue # 2011-06 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 During 2010-2011 there was $1,368,351,845 appropriated for welfare to work activities. What did counties spend each month to get one person a job that resulted in termination of CalWORKs benefits? December , 2010 – $33,866 January, 2011 – $33,410 February, 2011 – $34,596 What is the ratio of number of participants sanctioned versus participants who got jobs that made them self-sufficient? December 2010 – 21 sanctions to 1 self sufficiency job January 2011 – 21 sanctions to 1 self sufficiency job February 2011 – 22 sanctions to 1 self sufficiency job SOURCE: The source of this information and the chart below is from the CDSS WtW 25 reports: http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG276.htm Feb. 2011 Jan. 2011 Dec. 2010 Unduplicated Participants (WtW 25 Part B. 30) 139,362 138,960 136,803 Participants First Sanction ( WtW 25 Part C. 31) 25,982 24,480 25,407 Total Sanctions ( WtW 25 Part A.3a & Part C.31) 73,477 71,901 71,438 Dollar Loss Due to Sanctions This Month Estimated @ $125.00 per sanction $9,184,625.00 $8,987,625.00 $8,929,750.00 Participants who got jobs that lead to self-sufficiency WtW 25 Part A. 5) 3,296 3,413 3,367 Not getting transportation (WtW 25 Part B. 30 minus Part D. 33) 69,302 69,756 69,170 Dollar Loss For Participants Not Getting Transportation Esti- mated @ $100 each $6,930,200.00 $6,975,600.00 $6,917,000.00 Percentage of Unduplicated participants sanctioned this month 19% 18% 19% Percentage of Unduplicated participants getting self-sufficien- cy jobs 2% 2% 2% Percentage of Unduplicated participants getting transportation 50% 50% 49% California Welfare-to-Work Update By not paying for transportation ex- penses counties are fleecing welfare recipients who are forced to partici- pate in WtW activities out of $7 million dollars each month with impunity. Sanctions, which research shows are mostly due to lack of supportive servic- es, such as transportation, resulted in another monthly $9 million dollar loss to impoverished families. See a brief description of the victims of the California’s Welfare-to-Work Program on Page 2 CCWRO New Welfare News ccwro.org May 18 , 2011 #2011-06 Page 2 COUNTY WtW CLIENT ABUSE REPORT Alameda County Victim – In October 2009, Ms. 2010299230 applied for CalWORKs for her- self and two children in Alameda County. The County determined that one child was a MFG child. The county granted benefits for one child and immediately sanctioned Ms. 2010299230 because she was previously sanctioned. The County issued no notice of action stating why she was excluded from the assistance unit. At the hearing, the County insisted that it was appro- priate to exclude a parent without any evidence that she continues to refuse to cooperate with the Alameda County Welfare-to-Work program. Santa Clara County Victim – On May 18, 2010, Santa Clara County issued a notice of action imposing a sanction against a parent who has been a victim of domestic violence, homeless and suffers from mental health problems. The County received verification of these problems existed on June 6, 2010, but did not identify the onset dates for these conditions. Thus, Ms. 20102871889 was sanctioned. The County refused to contact the doc- tor to obtain clarification of the onset dates. Ms. 20102871889 later filed a state hearing request and obtained another CW61 that showed that the on- set date was June 2005. The sanction was reversed. San Bernardino County Victim – Ms. 2010272550 received a notice of action dated September 15, 2010 from San Bernardino Coun- ty imposing a sanction effective October 1, 2010 for failure to do job club. DSS Regulation 42- 721.23 states: Upon determination that an in- dividual has failed or refused to comply with program requirements, the CWD shall send the individual a notice of action effective no ear- lier than 30 calendar days from the date of is- suance. San Bernardino County failed to fol- low the law and issue a 30-day notice of action. At the hearing, the County insisted that their un- lawful sanction should be upheld. Ms. 2010272550 submitted evidence that she was remote which is good cause for not being sanctioned. The County countered that remoteness does not ap- ply to community services. The good news is that the ALJ reversed the County’s sanction. NEW CDSS DIRECTOR UPDATE Merced County Victim – Merced County imposed a sanction against Mr. 2010237412 for failure to provide verification of the WTW ex- emption. The County did ask for exemption verification that had expired. However, the County never asked Mr. 2010237412 to partici- pate. A person who is not exempt should be re- quired to participate. The law only allows for sanctions if a person fails to participate. If a per- son fails to verify their exempt status, then they are nonexempt and required to participate. When the victim did not provide the verification, the County issued a notice of action dated August 16, 2010, imposing a sanction effective September 1, 2010. This unlawful notice of action and the un- lawful imposition of the sanction was upheld by ALJ. This victim was not only victimized by the county, but also by the State. On May 10th, 2011, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors ratified an agreement with the State of California. Santa Clara County agreed to as- sign Will Lightbourne as an Executive on Loan to the State of California from May 2, 2011 through December 31, 2014. The maximum amount of the agreement is for $1,257,018.24. The services will be performed at 744 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. The services shall be provided during nor- mal State agency days and hours excluding des- ignated holidays. Under the contract, Mr. Lightbourne will recuse himself from making decisions on any material issues that specifically relates to or impacts the County of Santa Clara or which impact the County of Santa Clara in as to such issues, Lightbourne will defer any needed decisions on which he might potentially have a conflict to Diana Dooley Secre- tary of the Health and Human Services Agency or her designee. The Board has approved this agreement and Will Lightbourne started working on May 11, 2011. Effective May 11 former Director John Wagner has moved to the State Community Services Depart- ment. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 1, 2011 Issue # 2011-07 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 (con’t on page 2) California Fair Hearings Conducted with No Case File Contrary to State and Federal Law Former Department of Social Services (DSS) Director John Wag- ner has left DSS. John opened more doors for recipients and the legal services community than any other direc- tor. Historically, public social services recipients and their advocates have not had the same access to state officials that county welfare directors have had nor do they have a large lobbying staff in Sacramento. John’s predecessors neglected to solicit or were not willing to accept input from the advocate community. Currently, DSS meets monthly with County Welfare Directors Asso- ciation (CWDA) Committees on CalWORKs, Child Care, Food Stamps, Children’s Services, Legislative, Child Care, Fiscal, Self-Sufficiency, Adult Services and Information Technology. Only the CWDA Medi-Cal Committee had in- vited certain advocates to participate in their meetings. Before John arrived in 2007, advocates were meet- ing with DSS on Welfare-to-Work issues four times a year. At one point, DSS stopped the advocates’ meet- ings while continuing the monthly meetings with CWDA. John Wagner agreed not only to restart the Welfare- to-Work advocates meetings but expand the advo- cates meetings to include IHSS and Child Welfare Services. For years, DSS solicited input from CWDA regard- ing draft All County Letters (ACLs) and All County Information Notices (ACINs). In fact, DSS has a pub- lication that showed CWDA was part of the clearance process before an ACL or and ACIN was published. At John’s confirmation hearing we shared this infor- mation with him and asked why couldn’t advocates also get copies of the draft ACLs and ACINs. John agreed to consider our request and soon it became DSS policy to share draft ACL\/ACINs with advocates that would be shared with CWDA. It made sense to be transparent and get the advocates viewpoint. This relationship has been beneficial to both advo- cates and DSS in that problematic issues have been resolved at the local level avoiding litigation and the costs associated with it. Thank you, John. Thank You John Wagner Ms. Brown filed for a hearing because her CalWORKs, Medi- Cal and Food Stamp benefits stopped. In preparation of her hearing, she asked the county if she could review her case file. The county told her, there is no case file to review because it is all in the computer. The worker informed Ms. Brown that the county would print a copy of the documents if Ms. Brown identified the documents that she wanted. Ms. Brown did not know what documents were in the case file that would aid in her case. As Ms. Brown didn’t know what to request, she left. She went to the hearing and there was no case file. The DSS Administrative Law Judge did not even ask where the case was. The sham hearing continued. Claimants often lose the hearing even though the hear- ing was conducted unlawfully because case files are not available during the hearing. The law requires that a claimant’s case file be available for examination before and during an administrative hearing. The California State hearing process handles hearings for public benefits programs that are controlled by federal and state law. Often hearings are conducted on multi-program issues. MPP 22-051.2 states: 22-051.2 The claimant shall have the right prior to and CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org June 1 , 2011 #2011-07 Page 2 during the hearing, to examine non privileged information which the county has used in making its decision to take the action which is being appealed. The availability of the case file mandate applies to Medi- Cal hearings 42 CFR 431.242; Food Stamp hearings 7 CFR 273.15(p) and hearings conducted under 45 CFR 205.10(a)(13). When counties started going paperless in 2006, this federal requirement has been violated in all counties of California. Advocates have raised this issue with DSS since 2006. To date, DSS has issued numerous All County Letters and All County Information Notices ( ACIN I-33-06; ACL 07-29; ACL 09-50 and ACIN I-97-10). None of these notices have required counties to adopt written policies to make case files available to welfare recipients or their representatives. Further, many counties have as the written county policy: Case files containing non privileged information must be made available for review when requested by the applicant\/ recipient. Yet, the written policy fails to set a standard for constitutes’ non privileged information. Last year, advocates convinced DSS to get copies of county policies for access to case files. Copies of the county pol- icy can be obtained by contacting CCWRO. The review of these policies reveal that 23 counties do not have writ- ten policies as required by MPP 11-501.3. Counties are required to develop written standards for areas of the Cal- WORKs program in which they have discretion to adopt specific standards and make the written standards available to the public for review. Some of the county policies that have been adopted are appalling, such as: Contra Costa County provides that clients can access their case files through the California Public Records Act. Orange County’s policy pertains to subpoenas, public records act requests, claims and lawsuits. It says nothing about claimants or client looking at their own case file. San Diego does not let claimants or client look at IEVS reports on their case. Overpayments may be based upon IEVS reports, but claimants and client are not allowed to see the foundation of the alleged overpayments. In San Luis Obispo, narratives are removed from case record unless the case review pertains to fair hearings. For the past five years, Californians’ basic due process rights have been trounced upon, in that hearing decisions have been issued unlawfully, denying claims when the case file was not available for the claimant to get a fair hearing and due process of law. In the 21st century, when millions are banking on-line, there is no reason why any DSS customer should not be able to access his or her case electronically from his or her house or at the local library. All recipients have a Personal Identification Number (PIN) to use their EBT card. This same number can be used to access their case file. There can be a disclaimer for recipients who opt to use the system in their homes or libraries rather than at the county welfare office of the danger of being hacked, but that is a choice that we all make when we bank via computer. Legal Citations for Accessing Case Files W&IC 11206. In case of dispute, the application and sup- porting documents pertaining to his case on file in the de- partment or on file in any county office shall be open to in- spection at any time during business hours by the applicant or recipient or his attorney or agent. MEDI-CAL – 42 CFR 431.242 Procedural rights of the applicant or recipient. The applicant or recipient, or his representative, must be given an opportunity to: (a) Examine at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing and during the hearing: (1) The content of the ap- plicant’s or recipient’s case file; and . . . . FOOD STAMPS – 7 CFR 273.15(p) Household rights dur- ing hearing. The household may not be familiar with the rules of order and it may be necessary to make particular efforts to arrive at the facts of the case in a way that makes the household feel most at ease. The household or its representative must be given adequate opportunity to: (1) Examine all documents and records to be used at the hearing at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing as well as during the hearing. The contents of the case file including the application form and documents of verification used by the State agency to establish the household’s ineli- gibility or eligibility and allotment shall be made available, provided that confidential information, such as the names of individuals who have disclosed information about the household without its knowledge or the nature or status of pending criminal prosecutions, is protected from release. If requested by the household or its representative, the State agency shall provide a free copy of the portions of the case file that are relevant to the hearing. Confidential informa- tion that is protected from release and other documents or records which the household will not otherwise have an op- portunity to contest or challenge shall not be introduced at the hearing or affect the hearing official’s decision. . . . (2) Examine all documents and records to be used at the hearing at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing as well as during the hearing. The contents of the case file including the application form and documents of verification used by the State agency to establish the household’s ineli- gibility or eligibility and allotment shall be made available, provided that confidential information, such as the names of individuals who have disclosed information about the household without its knowledge or the nature or status of pending criminal prosecutions, is protected from release. If requested by the household or its representative, the State agency shall provide a free copy of the portions of the case file that are relevant to the hearing. Confidential informa- tion that is protected from release and other documents or records which the household will not otherwise have an op- portunity to contest or challenge shall not be introduced at the hearing or affect the hearing official’s decision. . . . AFDC\/CHILD WELFARE – 45 CFR 205.10 (a)(13) The claimant, or his representative, shall have adequate oppor- tunity: (i) To examine the contents of his case file and all docu- ments and records to be used by the agency at the hearing at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing as well as during the hearing. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 10, 2011 Issue # 2011-08 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 (con’t on page 2- FNS Audit Response ) FNS 2010 California State Agency Management Evaluation Corrective l On June 8, 2011 the California State Assembly an Sen- ate Budget Committees took the following actions: Cal- WORKS: Restores approximately $90 million related to ad- ditional grant cuts for safety net and child-only cases that exceed 60 months. Also restores $50 million of the single allocation, which is the funding used by counties to provide welfare-to-work services. CalWORKs took a $1,1 billion hit in March of 2011. While the restoration of the Incremental Grant Cuts (IGR) was welcome news, the restoration of the $50 million to the county single allocation means now families with children between ages 24 and 36 months would be subject to the WtW punitive sanctions that reduces grants by 25%. The WtW program sanctions 22 families for every one (1) family that find employment that may make them self-suf- ficient. The primary force behind the repeal of the Incremental Grant Cuts was Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles and the Latino Caucus plus the advocates who worked tirelessly to get the IGR repealed. l What has TANF meant for poor families? The alleged successful welfare reform program touted by Republicans and many Democrats? In 1994-1995, just before TANF’s creation, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children pro- gram (AFDC, TANF’s predecessor) served 75 families with children for every 100 families with children who lived in poverty. In 2008-2009, TANF served only 28 families for every 100 in poverty. This ratio varies among states; in seven states in 2008-2009, TANF served fewer than 10 families for every 100 in poverty. Source: Center on Budget Policy and Priority. l In a letter dated March 24, 2011 Beverly Beasley of San Mateo County was informed that San Mateo county has committed an underissuance of $94 to a HH by not authorizing the Standard Utility Deduction when the case file had verification of a PG&E bill, even though SUA is not a mandatory verification item. On September 30, 2010 Food Nutrition Servic- es issued a 2010 State Agency Management Evaluation pointing out, among other things, that Los Angeles and Riverside are not allowing applicant to apply the same day and are refus- ing to assess applicants for Expedited Service Food Stamps (ES-FS). These have been statewide problems for de- cades. Counties rarely make applications avail- able to applicants for Food Stamps and ES-FS rules have been consistently ignored by coun- ties with the acquiescence of the single state agency – California Department of Social Ser- vices. In a letter dated March 17, 2011 DSS transmit- ted a so-called corrective action plan by Riv- erside and Los Angeles county. These are serious problems. Babies and chil- dren go hungry when counties violate ES-FS rules. The response from Riverside County was a No- vember 17, 2010 two page letter from Patricia Reynolds of Riverside DPSS. Los Angeles County had a similar response, but they had more than a two page response. In response to the fact that some house- holds are not allowed to file an application on the same day . . . Los Angeles and Riverside counties stated that staff has been issued a re- minder and that this topic will be covered during new hire training. We wonder how many people have been hired during 2010 and 2011? In Brief What is WtW Really About For every twenty-two 22 families sanctioned by counties that means reduction of tehir fixed in- come by 25% one (1) family finds employment that may result in self-sufficiency. (con’t on page 2) CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org June 10 , 2011 #2011-08 Page 2 l On February 26, 2011, Ms. Monica Gonzales of Los Angeles County DPSS was cited for wrongfully denied an eligible applicant ex- pedited service food stamp benefits. On October 22, 2010, Ms. R.N. 511020 applied for food stamps. Her net income was less than her rent and utilities. This was an invalid negative action against an eligible ap- plicant for food stamps eligible for emergency food stamp benefits. l On February 4, 2011, Fresno County Director Pat Cheadle re- ceived a letter informing her that a Fresno County client applied for food stamps on 9-22-10. The application was denied 10-26-10 for allegedly failure to provide mandatory forms and verification. The DSS review showed that the county had refused to issue the MPP 63-300.37 re- quired form for verification: .37 Written Statement of Verification Requirements At the time of application and at recertification the CWD shall provide the household with the FS 8. The notice shall inform the household that the CWD will assist them in obtaining required verification, pro- vided that the household is cooperating with the CWD as specified in Section 63-505.1. The Fresno County denial was invalid. l Nevada County received a letter dated 2-2-11 from DSS informing them the DSS Food Stamp Management Evaluation has discovered that the Nevada City District office does not make application readily available as required by MPP 63-300.34. Nevada County also does not inform applicants of their eligibility for ES-FS benefits. l In a letter dated February 10, 2011 Plumas County was informed the DSS Food Stamp Management Evaluation has discovered that CalFresh applications are not readily available in the lobby. Applicants are not verbally informed of ES and how to apply for it. Applicants are asked to sign the SAWS 1 without any information on ES. Observa- tions show that if questions 14 through 17 of the SAWS 1 are blank, the receptionist will instruct the applicant to line out the area on ES and initial to indicate they have no interest in requesting ES. l On February 25, 2011 Ingrid Harita, Director of Orange County was informed that the DSS Food Stamp Management Evaluation has discovered that potential applicants arriving after 3 p.m. were given an application and instructed to return the applications the next day. Ap- plicants were deterred from applying for Food Stamps the same day in Orange County. Moreover, applicants who complete a DFA 285 and turn it in to the county are forced to complete a SAWS1, in essence forcing applicants to complete two (2) different applications. In 2009 Orange County was cited for not making applications available to ap- plicants. Not much has changed. l In a recent DSS Food Stamp Management Evaluation report dis- covered that Madera County was not allowing applicants to file an application during regular working hours and for refusal to access and process ES-FS in accordance with state regulations. This is a typical bureaucratic re- sponse to a major human prob- lem. We will remind staff and we will train them. How would private enterprise re- spond if somebody complained that customers are not allowed to come into the store and buy products? Private enterprise would fire the responsible work- ers. Then they would sit down and decide what to do in order make sure people customers are properly served. An example in this case would be ensuring that applications are available when customers walk in the door and not forcing people to stand in line to get an application. Does River- side or Los Angeles County want people eligible for food stamps to get a food stamp application? Their corrective action plan gives the impression that they do not. In Los Angeles County, custom- ers often cannot even get into the welfare offices often without standing in the cold or heat for hours. Once people get in, they cannot even get an application. Often staff discourages appli- cants from filing a food stamp ap- plication. Los Angeles and Riverside Coun- ties were also cited for refusing to issue ES-FS to eligible clients. The county corrective action plan was the same reminders and training. A true corrective action plan would be to enter the infor- mation from the SAWS1 into the computer and then have the com- puter decide if the applicant is eligible for ES-FS. Unfortunately, the county corrective action plans do not seem to address the root of these problems. (Con’t from page 1 – FNS Audit Response )(con’t on page 2) ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 14, 2011 Issue # 2011-09 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 http:\/\/blogs.sacbee.com\/the_state_ worker\/101014%20john%20wagner. jpg Ms. X and her one child received $533 CalWORKs benefits in June. She was asked to come to a Welfare-to-Work appointment in May, but she could not because she did not have childcare and money for transportation. She left a message for her worker that she need- ed childcare and transportation, but the worker did not return her call. The coun- ty imposed the WtW sanction so effec- tive July 1, 2011 she will only get $300. That is a 44% reduction in her fixed in- come. In 1975 the grant level for a family of two (2) was $311. Lack of childcare and\/ or transportation is a good reason for not participating in the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program, but research shows that thousands of families have been sanctioned when they were not given supportive services.. On the other hand it is not unusual to hear welfare officials talking about integrity. In fact DSS has a so-called integrity division just to make sure that people think that the operators of the California welfare program believe in law and order and want to uphold law. There are many rules that welfare re- cipients are subject to and there are devastating consequences for failure to obey the rules. For example, for Ms. X, the WtW sanction left her with $300 that would not even cover the rent. If a child has is not immunized because the parent cannot afford to go to the doctors office, the family’s fixed income that is at the same level of what it was in 1984 is reduced by 25%. If the parent has been found to not be cooperating with the Local Child Sup- port Agency because of to lack of mon- ey to buy gas for up to $4 a gallon, the family’s fixed income that is at the same level of what it was in 1984 is reduced by 25%. With these kinds of severe conse- quences imposed on impoverished families by welfare officials, one would assume that these officials would be a shining example of what it is to obey the rules that govern their behavior. Ironi- cally there are zero consequences for welfare officials who violate the welfare rules. The WtW program is not only way wel- fare officials break the law. Recently it has been discovered that some counties are requiring inter-county transfer (ICT) cases to complete a SAWS2. MPP 40- 121.33 provides: 40-121.3 The Application Form An application shall not be required for: .33 Any intercounty transfer. (See Section 40-187.) Some counties have insisted on forc- ing ICT recipients to complete a SAWS2. Counties are aware that this is not right, but they do it anyhow and the state sin- gle agency, California Department So- cial Services (CDSS), is aware of this unlawful practice of counties and refuses to halt this unlawful practice. Another unlawful practice that we have discovered is counties requiring food stamp recipients to complete a QR7 as a condition of completing the Food Stamp recertification process. The process re- quired for food stamp recertification is set forth in MPP 63-504.253. There is nothing in this regulation that states food stamp recipients have to complete a QR- 7, yet counties are unlawfully requiring food stamp recipients to complete the QR7. Counties are aware that this is not right, but they do it anyhow and the state single agency, CDSS is aware of this un- lawful practice of counties and refuses to halt this unlawful practice. If a food stamp recipient does not complete the QR7 as unlawfully required by the counties, they will lose their food stamp benefits while the county workers and their bosses keep their jobs. For the past 10 years, 50% of WtW participants have not received transpor- tation supportive services. This money comes out of the counties single alloca- tion , thus, counties have an incentive to not provide legally mandated transporta- tion payments. There is no statute that allows wel- fare recipients to sue the state for breaking the law and impose equi- table penalties against the state or county welfare officials as they face everyday. COUNTY VIOLATION OF THE LAW HAS NO CONSEQUENCES COMPARED TO THE PENALTIES AGAINST WELFARE RECIPIENTS Adel Baroni of Calaveras County asked DSS on 1\/20\/11 whether or not a Cal- WORKs recipient working as an IHSS provider should be paid mileage to take his employer to a dialysis appointment. On 2\/10\/11, DSS responded that accord- ing to MPP Section 42-750.11 WtW participants are entitled to reimburse- ment from the county for transportation to and from their WtW activity(ies) includ- ing employment as stated in MPP Sec- tion 42-750.1, but not for tasks that are assigned to them by their employer as a part of their job. If the participant is work- ing in either subsidized or unsubsidized employment, the county is responsible for their costs of performing the job itself, only if the county has entered into such an agreement with the employer. The problem is that MPP 42-750.11 actually states: [n]ecessary support- ive services shall be available to ev- ery participant in order to participate in the program activity to which he or she is assigned or to accept or retain employ- ment. Under MPP 42-750.11, transpor- tation is not limited to going to and from employment, but includes all transporta- tion necessary to keep the job. Part of the job of an IHSS worker is to take the IHSS client to medical appointments. Transportation necessary for employ- ment, including transporting IHSS recipi- ents to medical appointments, should be covered by supportive services. A wel- fare recipient living on a fixed income at the same level as 1989 does not have the money to pay up to $4.00 a gallon gasoline plus wear and tear on his or her car to take the IHSS recipient to dialysis center. This is clearly an underground rule made up by DSS to help counties deny transportation money which should be paid. DSS PROMULGATES UNDERGROUND RULE TO IMPROPERLY DENIES TRANSPORTATION PAYMENTS ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 30, 2011 Issue # 2011-10 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 May 19, 2011 the Center on Budget Policy & Priorities (CBPP) released a document showing how States have been fleecing the TANF program. The document reveals that during 1994-1995, un- der the AFDC program designed to protect impoverished fami- lies, 75 out of every 100 families who lived in poverty were being aided. In 1996 Bill Clinton signed the most devastating piece of legislation to harm poor families called the Temporary Assistance to needy Families (TANF). Under TANF the CBPP docu- ment reveals that a meager 28 out of every 100 families in poverty are now aided. Moreover, in sev- en (7) states in 2008-2009, TANF served fewer that 10 families for every 100 families in poverty. Some advocate increasing the TANF block grant. There is no ev- idence that increasing the TANF block grant means states would provide assistance to more fami- lies, unless the increase can only be used for payments to fami- lies . The evidence shows that under the AFDC program 70% of the money was used for payments to families. Under the TANF pro- gram with their state rights and state flexibility , only use 30% of the TANF funds for payments to families or what is now called basic assistance to impover- ished families. In FY 2009 states spent $30 billion on TANF with- out American Recovery and Rein- vestment Act ARRA funds. $10.5 billion was used for assistance and $19.5 billion was used for non-assistance . During FY 2009 States were not in need of more money to help im- poverished families. The TANF DHHS expenditure reports shows that during FY 2009 states re- ceived $18.5 billion in TANF mon- ey from the federal government. About $3 billion was transferred to the Child Care Development Block Grant and the Social Ser- vices Block Grant while only aid- ing 28 families out of 100 families in poverty. Moreover, at the end of the year there was an unobli- gated balance of $1.4 billion. This does not look like states needing more money to aid the poor fami- lies. It looks like States just don’t want to aid the severely impover- ished families in the United States of America. The real problem is that there is no federal mandate that the ma- jority of the TANF monies be used to meet the basic assistance needs of TANF families. Since the enact- ment of TANF the State of Cali- Only 28 out of every 100 families in poverty are now receiving TANF assistance in America. fornia has taken over $18 billion from poor families to balance the state budget. And now welfare recipients in California live on a fixed income grant of what they received in 1984. States need to be mandated to spend 70% of the federal and State MOE money on basic assis- tance or payments to families and STOP fleecing the TANF pro- gram as they have been doing for over one decade without shame. FNS Makes a Policy that is Inconsistent with Federal Law California Department of Social Services is in the process of im- plementing 7 CFR 273.31 which provides that when Transition Food Stamp five-month period ends, on the 5th month the state agency can either (1) extend the certification period in accordance with 273.10(f)(5) unless the household’s certification period has already been extended past the maximum period specified in 273.10(f) in accordance with 273.27(a); or (2) allow the house- hold to recertify. DSS has decided to establish a policy to start the recertification process during the 4th month in lieu of the 5th month as clearly stated in federal regulation. As to how 5th becomes 4th is mind- boggling, but then twisting of the law has been a long time practice for our state. The State asked FNS if the federal regulation requires the process Con’t on Page 2 IN THIS ISSUE Only 28 out of every 100 fami- lies in poverty are now receiving TANF assistance in America. FNS Makes a Policy that is In- consistent with Federal Law CCWRO CORRECTION – Coun- ties Demanding Excess QR7s CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org June 30, 2011 #2011-10 Page 2 single agency, CDSS is aware of this un-law- ful practice of counties and refuses to halt this unlawful practice. If a food stamp re- cipient does not complete the QR7 as unlaw- fully required by the counties, they will lose their food stamp benefits while the county workers and their bosses keep their jobs. We received an email from DSS alerting us that MPP 63-504.61(c) requires counties to have a QR-7 at hand to complete the recerti- fication process if the QR-7 is due during the month of the recertification and the county has not received the QR7. We agree. We are sorry that this exception was overlooked. However, that does not justify counties de- manding a QR7 during recertification even when the QR7 is not due during the month of the recertification. MPP 63-504.61 (c) Timely Application for Re- certification (QR) QR households which file a complete QR 7 on or before the 11th of the last month of the certification period, and an application no lat- er than the recertification interview shall be considered to have made a timely application for recertification. Moreover, it should be noted that there is no federal regulation that allows the counties to require a QR7 report even in this situation. There is nothing in 7CFR 273.12 or 273.14 that requires the submission of a quarterly report as a condition of completing the recer- tification process. Federal regulations only require that state or local food stamp agencies notify house- holds being recertified with a reporting form. 7CFR 273.12(a)(4)(ii) Notification of the quarterly reporting requirement. The State agency must notify households of the quar- terly reporting requirement, including the con- sequences of failure to file a report, at initial certification and recertification. Of course that does not mean that the Food and Nutrition Service would not come back and say notify means require the submis- sion of a reporting form to make sure there is more paperwork and waste in the food stamp administrative process. start during the 5th month means the State agen- cy can start the process during the 4th month. In a recent email, FNS stated that under 7 CFR 273.31 DSS may start the recertification process during the 4th month for transitional food stamps under 273.31. The fact that this is clearly inconsistent with the federal regulation made no difference. Here is the federal regulation. What do you think? 7 C FR 273.31 Closing the transitional period. In the final month of the transitional benefit period, the State agency must do one of the following: (a) Issue the RFC specified in 273.12(c)(3) and act on any information it has about the household’s new circumstances in accordance with 273.12(c)(3). The State agency may extend the household’s certi- fication period in accordance with 273.10(f)(5) un- less the household’s certification period has already been extended past the maximum period specified in 273.10(f) in accordance with 273.27(a); or (b) Recertify the household in accordance with 273.14. If the household has not reached the maxi- mum number of months in its certification period during the transitional period, the State agency may shorten the household’s prior certification period in order to recertify the household. When shortening the household’s certification period pursuant to this sec- tion, the State agency must send the household a notice of expiration in accordance with 273.14(b). CCWRO CORRECTION Counties Demanding Excess QR7s In our 2011-09 newsletter dated June 14, 2011 we states that: Another unlawful practice that we have discovered is counties requiring food stamp recipients to complete a QR7 as a condition of completing the Food Stamp recertifica- tion process. The process required for food stamp recertification is set forth in MPP 63-504.253. There is nothing in this regula- tion that states food stamp recipients have to complete a QR-7, yet counties are unlawfully requiring food stamp recipients to complete the QR7. Counties are aware that this is not right, but they do it anyhow and the state Con’t from Page 1 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 July 6, 2011 Issue # 2011-11 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 Ms. G.K. who is over 60 years old applied for food stamps and general assistance on June 16, 2011 at the Sacramento County E-100 bureau office. The county referred her Food Stamp case to the General As- sistance office and scheduled an appoint- ment for June 23, 2011. Ms. G.K. had no money at all. She was clearly eligible for Food Stamp Expedited Services. The 16th was a Thursday. She should have received her food stamps on Monday, the 20th. Her appointment was set up for the 23rd, which was the next week, thursday. And this happened in one of the better counties, Sacramento County. One wonders what is happening in other counties. We wanted to see if this is a statewide problem or an aberration. We reviewed the DFA 296X reports (http:\/\/www.cdss. ca.gov\/research\/PG354.htm). The data reveals that statewide 45% of food stamp applicants are considered for expedited services. The counties with a low rate of considering expedited services are Merced at 18%, Riverside at 20% and Alameda at 29%. On the other hand Orange County consid- ers 73%, Solano 70% and Fresno 61% of food stamp applicants for expedited ser- vice. There is no evidence that food stamp ap- plicants in Alameda, Merced or Riverside have more resources than the applicants in Fresno, Orange and Solano. Riverside and Merced counties were mentioned in the 2009 DSS Food Stamp Management Evaluation reports revealing that Merced is not complying with the FS- ES rules. Riverside County was cited for disobeying the FS-ES rules in 2008 and 2009. Statewide 8% of the cases received ex- pedited services after the third day from the date of application. The law requires FS-ES be issued no later than the third day from the date of application. DSS has set a 10% standard for compliance. This means that counties who issue expedited services in less than 10% of the cases are not sanctioned by the state. Similar treatment has never been accorded to recipients when it comes to complying with county worker demands for verification. If 100% of the verification is not submitted, benefits are ter- minated and children may go hungry. Coun- ties and the welfare industry have always demanded and received 100% compliance from applicants and recipients. Table #1 reveals a list of counties who ex- ceeded the 10% threshold. It should be noted that counties violating the 10% threshold are not required to submit a corrective action and they face zero consequence. The report also shows how many cases were carried over from the previous month. For example on March 30, 2011 statewide there were 38, 322 expedited service request cases that were not acted on. We looked at how may cases each county processed every day and divided the average daily processed cases by the number of cases left at the end of the month. The result was how many days would it take to catch up. Statewide it would take four days to process the carried over cases. Some of the more Food Stamp Expedited Service Review for First Quarter of 2011 TABLE # 1- Percentage of ES-FS cases approved after three days Statewide 8% Sonoma 66% Santa Cruz 48% Santa Clara 41% Santa Barbara 34% Placer 29% Contra Costa 23% Shasta 20% Riverside 20% San Luis Ob. 19% Alameda 18% San Mateo 14% Statewide 4 8% San Mateo 48 49% Nevada 28 42% Contra Costa 14 23% San Diego 13 4% Yolo 12 7% Napa 12 4% Sonoma 10 66% Tulare 10 3% Sacramento 9 2% Days Needed to Pro- cessing Carried Over ES Cases % of ES Re- ceived After Three (3) Days Con’t on Page 2 egregious counties were San Mateo at 48 days, Contra Costa at 14 days, and San Di- ego at 13 days. See Table #2. The most fascinating part of table #2 is that Tulare County would need 10 days to pro- cessed the carried over cases , but is has only 3% of cases issuing FS-ES after the mandatory three day timelines. By contrast, Sonoma also only needs 10 days to process their carried over cases but has 66% of the cases FS-ES cases issuing benefits after the three-day timelines. Both of these counties retrieve reports from the CalWIN computer. Somebody is submitting reports that seem inaccurate. The same analysis applies to Sacramento at an alleged 2% of the FS-ES benefits being issued after three days. TABLE # 2 – Counties ES left processing days for carried over cases FS-ES Received After 3 days FOOD STAMP EXPEDUTED SERVICES STATE REGULATIONS MPP 63-301.51 Entitlement to Expe- dited Service CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org July 6 , 2011 #2011-11 Page 2 The following households, if otherwise eligible, are entitled to expedited service: .511 Households with less than $150 in monthly gross in- come as defined in Section 63-502.1 provided their liquid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; .512 Migrant or seasonal farmworker households who are destitute as defined in Section 63-503.43 provided their liq- uid resources as defined in Section 63-501.11 do not exceed $100; or .513 Households whose combined monthly gross income and liquid resources are less than the household’s monthly rent or mortgage, and utilities. .52 Identifying Households Needing Expedited Service The CWD’s application procedures shall be designed to identify households eligible for expedited service at the time the household files an application. .521 A CWD employee or volunteer shall inform potential applicants orally of the right to expedited service for eli- gible households and how to initiate the process, the avail- ability 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 telephone of the expedited service processing standards for eligible households. The CWD shall assist an applicant, upon request, in filling out forms and completing the application process. .522 The screening shall consist of a review of the DFA 285- A1 or the SAWS 1 CA1\/DFA 285-A1 if the applicant elected to complete the expedited service section. The CWD shall immediately forward the application for processing when it is determined that the applicant is entitled to expedited service. .531 Expedited Service Households (a) For households en- titled to expedited service at initial application, the CWD shall make the authorization document, access device or coupons available to the recipient either by mail or for pickup at the household’s request, no later than the third calendar day following the date the application was filed. For purposes of this section, a weekend (Saturday and Sun- day) shall be considered one calendar day. However, if the third calendar day is a nonworking day when coupons can- not be issued, the CWD shall make coupons available on or before the working day immediately preceding the non- working day. FEDERAL FOOD STAMP PROPOSED LEGISLATION H.R.350 : Anti-hunger Empowerment Act of 2011 Sponsor: Rep Serrano, Jose E. (introduced 1\/19\/2011) Cosponsors (8) WHAT DOES THE BILL DO? H.R. 350 amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (formerly known as the Food Stamp Act of 1977) to replace current Supplemental Nutri- tion Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) ad- ministrative cost provisions with provisions authorizing 75% reimbursement for specified state activities to increase pro- gram access. States that fingerprinting shall not be required for program participation. Committees: House Agriculture Latest Major Action: 3\/9\/2011 Referred to House subcom- mittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture . H.R.377 : Food Assistance to Improve Reintegration Act of 2011 Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara (introduced 1\/20\/2011) Committees: House Agriculture WHAT DOES THE BILL DO? H.R. 377 amends the Per- sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to repeal the denial of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) eligibil- ity for a person convicted of a felony which has as an el- ement the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled substance. Latest Major Action: 3\/3\/2011 Referred to House subcom- mittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture H.R.530 : Worker Eligibility Fairness Act of 2011 Sponsor: Rep Baca, Joe (introduced 2\/8\/2011) Cosponsors (5) WHAT DOES THE BILL DO? H.R. 530 amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to eliminate the provision making a federal, state, or local government employee who is dis- missed for participating in a strike against the federal gov- ernment, the state, or a political subdivision of the state in- eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps). Committees: House Agriculture Latest Major Action: 3\/9\/2011 Referred to House subcom- mittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture . Con’t from Page 1 Sandra Trevino, who worked for Assembly- woman Nancy Skinner has been a great ad- vocate for the poor of California. She has left the Assembly to further her education. Good luck and thanks for all you did for us and hopefully will do again. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 September 6, 2011 Issue # 2011-15 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 In Brief are Sacramento, Fresno, Tulare, Napa, Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Humboldt, and Marin. Consortia will be conducted soon. Call newcomers and then will follow up with folks 6 months later only regarding Food Security recipients can opt out if they don’t feel comfortable. AB 6 has passed the Senate and it was sent to the on the governor’s desk on September 2, 2011. It is expected that the Governor will sing the bill. For AB 6 informa- tion go to: http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/cgi- bin\/postquery?bill_number=ab_6 &sess=CUR&house=B&author= fuentes The federal Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has been urging California to adopt a semi-annual reporting system for several years. This bill would implement semi- annual reporting, which means CalWORKs and Food Stamp re- cipients would have to submit two (2) reports a year with reporting requirements in excess of what is required by federal law. It would also repeal finger-imaging for food stamp recipients and use the Low-Income Energy Assistance Outreach Funds to pay a nomi- nal portion of all food stamp re- cipients utility costs to assure that they all get a standard utility de- duction. The bill was opposed by the Cali- fornia District Attorney’s Asso- AB 6 – Fuentes ciation who would like to keep the current quarterly reporting system so they can charge more counts of perju- ry when prosecuting for welfare fraud. The California quarterly reporting system has been operating on repeated FNS waivers that have allowed Cali- fornia to make the food stamp pro- gram more punitive than allowed by current federal regulations. The state has been allowed to terminate an es- timated 48,000 households from food stamp benefits for not reporting an address which is not a condition of eligibility, but is one way of terminat- ing food stamp benefits that result in more hunger and malnutrition in Cali- fornia. AB 6 continues this address reporting requirement despite the fact that it is not required. (See 7 CFR 273.12(a)(5)(iii)(E) and (v).) The bill provides that DSS can seek federal waivers from FNS to maintain reporting requirements in excess of what the federal law requires to saddle impoverished California households with hunger and malnutrition. AB 6 goes into effect no later than July 1, 2012. m On-Line Application Link on EDD Web Page: Los Angeles DPSS called Brian Tam of DSS a few months ago asking about putting a link on the EDD web site about food stamps. DSS asked other counties what they thought of the idea. The CWDA Food Stamp Committee said that they would rather have one cen- tral location. As of September 5, 2011, Labor Day there is no link for food stamp applications on EDD’s web page. DSS has a link on their web page where any person can ap- ply for food stamps on-line. This link can also be on EDD’s web page. Hopefully this will happen soon to help the unemployed get food stamp benefits. m State Plans Not Transparent: The Food Stamp Employment and Training Program state plan has to be submitted to the federal govern- ment by September 23, 2011. State plans are often submitted to the fed- eral government without any pub- lic involvement. Only the Commu- nity Services Block Grant state plan has a legislative hearing every year to assure public transparency. The Brown administration asserts that it believes in transparency and simpli- fication. The Brown Administration should take steps to make state plans submitted to the federal government transparent. m Mathematica Study: A few months ago DSS announced a Food Security Survey through Mathemat- ica for newcomers to the program. Has now resurfaced and the State is moving forward with that survey. Counties selected for the survey CCWRO NUMBER OF THE WEEK DSS DPA 482 Welfare Fraud IIEVS Management Report re- veals during April-June of 2011 counties processed 173,960 re- ports and only 12,553 had a dis- creptancy. That is: 93% Waste ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 October 14, 2011 Issue # 2011-18 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, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Chapter 1200, Section 1222 – Interestingly, the word advance does not appear in this section designed to inform participants of their rights. Participants are unaware the county MUST provide them advance trans- portation and ancillary services so that par- ticipants need not use their personal funds. DPSS has no form for participants to re- quest transportation or advance transpor- tation and ancillary services. At a mini- mum, DPSS should provide a form for participants to request advance payments for transportation and ancillary services to avoid being sanctioned. The rule is that the participant must go to or call the wel- fare office to request transportation, which is burdensome given the lack of access to workers. DPSS employees request travel reimbursements by simply getting a claim form and submitting it for payment. WtW\/ GAIN participants could be given claim forms with pre-stamped envelopes when they attend orientation, during GAIN sanc- tion Home Visit Outreach interviews, upon enrollment into any program activity, or at the three-month employment re-verifica- tion. The three-month employment re-verifica- tion problem explains why most employed CalWORKs participants in Los Angeles County do not get transportation. Working participants cannot go to the three-month employment re-verification interview but their work hours are counted for the Federal Work Participation purposes. Their income is used to reduce their meager CalWORKs benefits, but as far as GAIN is concerned they no longer work and are not entitled to supportive services because they did not show up for the three-month re-verification interview because they were working. Determining Availability, Accessibility and the Two-Hour Round Trip Rule. 1222.111 and 1222.221 The two-hour rule to get payment for mile- age in lieu of bus fare does not instruct staff that they must include the time that it takes for the participant to walk to the bus stop During July 2011, 47% of the unduplicated partici- pants in Los Angeles County did not receive trans- portation. Source: WtW 25 reports. We determined the percentage of unduplicated participants receiving transportation by dividing the number of participants receiving transportation by the number of unduplicated participants. This is a very disturbing picture. It is hard to imagine people in Los Angeles County not needing trans- portation, but 47% is outrageous. This is like saying that over 47% of DPSS employees fail to submit travel claims when they are entitled to a travel re- imbursement. The reason for this problem is Los Angeles County policies governing the issuance of transportation supportive services consistent with the ill-conceived county flexibility policy. These policies are reflect- ed in DPSS regulations, Section 1220. http:\/\/www. ladpss.org\/dpss\/gain\/handbook\/pdf\/Chapter1220. pdf In Section 1221, the second bullet states, trans- portation may be paid . It then states, Generally payments are made in advance so that participants need not use their personal funds . The message is very clear, the words may and generally mean that if a participant is using his or her personal funds and needs transportation, the county does not have to pay it in advance. This sentence should read: State regulations mandate that transportation pay- ments shall be made in advance so that the partici- pant need not use personal funds to pay for these services. Given the fact that welfare recipients are living on fixed incomes equal to what they received in 1984, transportation payments should always be made in advance unless the participant states that they do not need advance transportation. Often children go hungry because participants are using their limited money to cover their transportation expenses while waiting for a reimbursement. Welfare recipients do not have the luxury of living on a credit card while waiting for reimbursements. ccwro.org WtW TRANSPORTATION SERVICES UNLAWFULLY DENIED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY TO 47% OF UNDUPLICATED PARTICIPANTS Percentage of Unduplicated WtW Participants Receiving Transportation Supportive Services Statewide 50% Tulare 8% Ventura 11% San Luis Ob. 13% Lake 16% San Mateo 16% Napa 17% Siskiyou 20% Santa Barbara 26% Orange 26% Contra Costa 27% Alameda 27% Placer 28% Tehama 29% Stanislaus 31% Shasta 34% Yolo 34% Sacramento 36% Fresno 37% Mendocino 37% Imperial 39% San Benito 41% Merced 42% Santa Cruz 43% San Francisco 44% San Diego 49% Butte 50% Sonoma 50% Solano 51% Los Angeles 53% Source: DSS WtW 25 and 25A reports CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org October 14, 2011 #2011-18 from his or her house and from the bus stop to the activity. That time is included in the two-hour determination. Thus, the county must contact the participant to determine how long it takes to get to the location where the participant re- sides to the bus stop and from the bus stop to the location of the activity. This determination should be made in Sections 1222.111 and 1222.221. Making this determination is not re- flected in Sections 1222.111 and 1222.221. Verification of Residence to Get Mileage – Another reason that many participants are not paid transportation or under- paid is because GAIN requires verification of the residence of the participant as a condition of receiving mileage. This verification is in the eligibility file, but Section 1222.444 for some reason wants the same documentation to be in the GAIN file from the participant and not the from the eligibility worker. In fact, .444(a) states: participants are required to provide verification of residence address to be eligible for mileage as specified above. There is nothing in the Welfare and Institu- tions Code or the state regulations that make the proof of residence a condition to receive private vehicle transporta- tion. We would recommend that Section .444 be deleted as an unlawful requirement that puts DPSS in the posi- tion being liable for legal action. Three-Month Cap on Transportation for All Practical Pur- poses – The major reason why Los Angeles County has over 65% of unduplicated participants not getting transportation is because transportation is generally authorized for three months. Section 1222.62 states that transportation is only authorized for three months and five months for SIPs. It does not state what happens after three months. Is this a DPSS cap on transportation? Sure sounds like it in light of the fact that there is no provision for reauthorization of transporta- tion. DPSS Urging Participants to Find Another Job When Mileage is High Section 1200.811D urges DPSS staff to tell people with high travel costs to find another job. This is perplexing to say the least. There is an 11% unemployment rate in California. Telling a person to find another job close to their home is counter-productive. The flowchart chart at 1223.1 does not mention advance pay . The same is true for mileage for all practical purposes. There was nothing to: 1. Determine if the participant has a car; 2. Determine how long it takes to walk from their house to the bus stop; 3. Determine, based on Section 1222.26, if the round trip to work and back would take longer than two hours. Conclusion – If DPSS wants to make sure that par- ticipants are receiving the supportive services they are entitled to, they should remove the barriers that they have erected preventing WtW\/GAIN participants from receiving supportive services. During July 2011, 47% of the participants were DENIED supportive services. That should raise a big red flag for DPSS and DSS. On the other hand, if the purpose of these regulations is to erect barriers between participants and the sup- port services they were lawfully entitled to, then these regulations are doing a fine job in achieving that goal. Client Abuse Report Ms. E.R says believes CalWIN lied to her. She applied for food stamps on-line on or about 9\/6\/11 in San Diego Coun- ty and requested expedited service food stamps. After three days she hoped that her and the other three people living with her would have some food to eat as they were promised on- line. They soon discovered that they were misled. She called San Diego County just about every day for twenty days. The computer kept saying that they were processing her application. She filed for an expedited hearing using the CCWRO Expedited Hearing form at: http:\/\/ccwro.org\/in- dex.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=70 The rules for expedited hearings can also be found at: http:\/\/cc- wro.org\/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=173 Expedited hearings are scheduled within 10 working days from the date of the hearing request and the decision is is- sued within five (5) working days from the date of the hear- ing. Kevin Shepard of Venice Welfare Rights reports that the Los Angeles County Rancho Park office refused to accept an application from a person trying to apply for Food Stamps. Ms. CG was informed by the Rancho Park welfare officials that Los Angeles County does not accept CalFresh applica- tions from SSI recipients. Mr. Shepard has tried, without success, to find the law or regulation that states SSI recipi- ents cannot apply for Food Stamps. Los Angeles County apparently cannot distinguish between the right to apply for benefits and being eligible for benefits. Mr. E.G. received CalFresh with his girlfriend in Los An- geles County. In December, they broke up and he moved out of the home. In January 2011, E.G. reported the change to DPSS and asked for CalFresh benefits for himself. After a month, when he did not see money on his EBT card. He con- tacted DPSS again and was told that he needed to formally apply for food stamps. On February 23, 2001 he submitted his application for food stamps when he was homeless. He was denied expedited ser- vice food stamps because his ex-girlfriend was still getting food stamps for him. Again and again he visited his DPSS office to ask for food stamps. DPSS repeatedly told him that they have not yet de- cided. After going to Neighborhood Legal Services he got food stamps effective May 11, 2011. To date Mr. E.G has yet to get the food stamps for February, March, April and May 1 through the 10th. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 November 7, 2011 Issue # 2011-20 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, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/blogs.sacbee.com\/the_state_worker\/101014%20 john%20wagner.jpg Counties and their allies are trying to restore the $276 million reduction in the CalWORKs single county allo- cation that occurred in 2009-2010. This reduction was achieved by making participation in the inefficient WtW program, voluntary for parents with a child between the ages of 12 months through 24 months, and families with two or more children under the age of 6 years. The proponents want to make participation in the WtW program mandatory for parents with a child between the ages of 12 through 24 months, and families with two or more children under age 6. Many parents are still breastfeeding their babies at the age of one year. Moreover, the WtW program has a re- cord for every one participant that finds a job yielding income that make the family ineligible for CalWORKs, 10 participants are sanctioned and their meager ben- efits reduced by 30-40%. CalWORKs benefits are at the same level as they were 25 years ago. Who will benefit from the $276 million restoration to the county Single Allocation? County Welfare Directors would have more money under their control. Who will be hurt? Thousands of families will see their benefits reduced by 30%-40%. Thousands of families will be forced to participate in a WtW activity and will not receive transportation services (about 50% do not get transportation in California). Many newborn babies will not have the benefit of being breastfed. In a recent call welfare advocaes participating in a con- versation about this proposal concluded that the resto- ration of the $276 million by restoring the exemptions would hurt their clients. Con’t on Page 2 On Tuesday, November 1, the Senate passed H.R. 2112, a bill that proposes to protect funding for hunger-relief programs. h t t p : \/ \/ t h o m a s . l o c . g o v \/ c g i – b i n \/ b d q u e r y \/ z?d112:h.r.2112 That does not mean the fight is over in fact it is only beginning. All congressional committees are to make recom- mendations to the recently appointed Super Com- mittee created by President Obama to balance the budget. We have to make sure our leaders know that budget cuts should not fall on our most vulnerable citizens. There are many places in the process where cuts to these programs could happen. Here are some key dates\/steps to this process (and are subject to change).November 1 Passage of Agriculture Appropriations bill by the Senate which protects hunger-relief programs. First week of November House and Senate Ag riculture Committees work to find a balance be- tween the two different Appropriations bills. Recommendations Made These recommen- dations are sent to the Super Committee. NOTE: There is no way to predict what these recommen- dations could include. The recommendations may propose cutting SNAP (food stamp) by up to 4 to 5 billion dollars. November 23 Super Committee deadline to vote on its recommendations. ecember 2 The Super Committee releases its recommendations for Congress to review prior to their vote. December 23 Deadline for Congress to vote on the Super Committee proposals. http\/\/www\/ccwro.org Congressional Supercommittee Food Stamps Update Should the Legislature Restore the $276 million Single Allocation? In a recent teleconference call participating welfare advocates concluded that this pro- posal restoring the $276 million that would also restore the exemptions to parents with babies and minor kids would hurt their clients. CCWRO New Welfare News http\/\/www.ccwro.org November 7, 2011 #2011-20 Noteworthy Considerations To date, welfare advocates have not had any com- plaints from CalWORKs clients regarding this budget reduction. That is because, for the most part, current exempt families can volunteer and get services. The volunteering process can be improved immense- ly. If there is extra money to give to the county, the first place it should go is towards grants for CalWORKs im- poverished families who are experiencing increased homelessness due to the slashed CalWORKs grant levels. Imperial County Unlawfully De- nies Application – Ms. 201145360 applied for CalWORKs, food stamps and Medi-Cal on April 21, 2011. On May 20, 2011, her application was denied. She filed for a state hearing and DSS upheld Imperial County’s discrimina- tory action in Imperial County. Although she was most likely eligible for Immediate Need and Expedited Services, those benefits were denied without a notice of action, which is common practice in California during these hard times. Ms. 201145360 was born in Brawley, California and is a U.S. citizen, but she is also Latino. It appears that she was told that she needed to have an address in order to receive Cal- WORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal. She had an appointment on April 28, 2011. When she applied for CalWORKs she indicated that she as living on Villa Av- enue in El Centro, California. She had a lease, but had not paid the $300 rent which is why she was applying for public assistance. She was getting all of her prenatal care in Mexi- cali, Mexico because she was not able to get medical care in the United States until she qualified for Medi-Cal. Her mom had Mexican medical insurance that covered her. Rather than foregoing care for her newborn, she chose the responsible way and made sure that she received care. Imperial County decided to have a welfare fraud investiga- tor verify that she lived at the Villa Avenue address. While Ms. 2011147360 was still in immediate need, a welfare fraud investigator went to the Villa Avenue address. DSS found in a hearing decision that, On May 20, 2011, at approximately 2:30 PM the investigator conducted a home visit. The claimant was not there. The investigator met the homeowner who stated the claimant moved in late March and pays $300 per month rent. The homeowner stated that a lady picks the claimant up (might be her mother). The ho- meowner stated the claimant does not stay there all week, maybe three days a week. She answered questions about food preparation and indicated the claimant did not have any food in the home. The investigator was shown a bedroom and found many items on the walls and pictures that belong to the homeowner’s 17-year-old granddaughter. She found only one drawer with baby clothes (which appeared to be used). There was no baby crib; no formula, no bottles and no clothing of the claimant were found. The investigator spoke to the homeowner’s granddaughter, who pointed out most items in the dresser drawers were hers and the dresses hanging in the closet were also hers. The claimant testified that she stays with her mother even though she rents an apartment at Villa Avenue. While staying with her mother, she is able to eat meals, whereas, at the Villa Avenue apartment there was no food available to her. It appears in the record that Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Alan Lenefsky, found it strange that the claimant, who was destitute, did not have new baby clothes or a crib. In fact, the hearing record makes a point that the claimant did not have new baby clothing or a crib. The decision contains no evidence that this victim lives in Mexico. The evidence shows only that she was getting med- ical care for her baby in Mexicali (because she could not get health care in the United States). The law is very clear: As a condition of eligibility one does not need an address. An applicant can use a mailing ad- dress. Moreover, the applicant or recipient does not have to be a resident of a particular county, but simply, a resident of the State of California. But welfare recipients are guilty until proven innocent and in this case, the applicant failed to meet the standard of proof even after signing a state- ment under penalty of perjury stating that she was a resi- dent Imperial County. The county, having no evidence that she lived in Mexico, denied her application for CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal. The decision was upheld by ALJ Alan Lenefsky. Riverside County Unlawfully Ter- minates Food Stamps for an Al- leged Fleeing Felon Who Was never Convicted of a Felony – Ms. 2011151021 applied for food stamps on December 6, 2010. The county granted the application and issued the claimant $167 in Cal- Fresh benefits for December 2010, and $200 in benefits for January 2011. The county subsequently learned that a bench warrant had been issued for the claimant’s arrest on Novem- ber 18, 2010 and had been recalled on January 7, 2011. The county determined the existence of the warrant made the claimant a fleeing felon and ineligible to receive CalFresh benefits in December 2010 and January 2011. On March 10, 2011, the county sent the claimant a notice of action stat- ing that she had been over-issued $367 in CalFresh benefits for December 2010 and January 2011 because she failed to disclose that she was a fleeing felon when she applied for benefits on December 6, 2010. The claimant requested a state hearing. At the state hearing, County WelfareDepartment ClIENT ABUSE REPORT CCWRO New Welfare News http\/\/www.ccwro.org November 7, 2011 #2011-20 the county presented superior court records showing that the claimant was arrested on September 18, 1996 and charged with felony possession of a controlled substance (Health and Safety Code, 11377(a)) and misdemeanor marijuana possession (Health and Safe- ty Code, 11357(b).) At the state hearing in this matter, the claimant stated she could not be considered a fleeing felon because she was not convicted of a felony. The claimant noted she ultimately prevailed in court as the case against her was dismissed in January 2011. The claimant also indicated she wanted to discuss various actions that the county has taken over the past 14 years. When asked why she did not request state hearings in the past to dispute these past actions, the claimant stated she wanted to contest the actions at the time they were taken but that she did not know how to adequately de- fend against the county’s actions. The claimant stated she now has that knowledge. In this case, she was never convicted of a felony, yet the county imposed an overpayment against her with- out any evidence that she was a fleeing felon. This victim has been denied food stamps for years by this county, which cannot be remedied because the victim only has 90 days to ask for a hearing when food stamps are unlawfully stopped. Such is justice, but at least Ad- ministrative Law Judge Mark Hammond stopped this long line of injustices that victim #2011151021 has en- dured for almost a decade. Los Angeles County Causes The Expedniture of $3,000 to Col- lect An Alleged $188 Overpay- ment – COunty Was Wrong– On June 1, 2011, Los Angeles County mailed a notice of action to Ms. #2011168089 alleging that she had a WtW overpayment of $188. She filed for a state hear- ing contesting the frivolous overpayment by Los An- geles County. ALJ Peter Hemenway presided over the hearing. Los Angeles County insisted that they should collect the $188 overpayment, even when the cost of collecting the alleged overpayment would be over $3,000. This is a violation of federal law which provides that states should compromise overpayments when the cost of collecting exceeds the overpayment amount. The claimant was referred to and attended Job Club. She missed several days of the job, but had good cause for missing those days. She did not complete the job club because of her missed days. The county provided her with a bus pass and clothing allowance. The ALJ ruled: The regulations require that a notice shall be sent to the WtW participant that if he or she receives an ad- vance supportive services payment the unused portion shall be considered an overpayment, subject to recov- ery. There is no evidence that the county ever sent such a notice to the claimant. The only notice sent in regard to the alleged transportation overpayments alleged that the reason for the overpayments was because the claimant did not have a good reason for failing to par- ticipate in job club. But the evidence does not establish that the claimant did not have good cause for her failure to participate in her WtW activity. The county would not have indi- cated that the failure to attend job club had been re- solved . And the county would have sanctioned the claimant if her failure had been without good cause. Since the reason given for the alleged transportation overpayment on the notice and at the hearing has been shown to be without merit (and the county did not send the required notice informing the claimant that the unused portion of a supportive services advance payment would be considered an overpayment, nor did the county establish that there was an unused por- tion of the travel advance) the transportation overpay- ment is set aside. It has been found that the claimant did provide receipts for her clothing advance, and that there was only one clothing advance for which she could have provided receipts. (In addition, as stated in the above paragraph, the county never notified the claimant that an advance supportive services payment that went unused would constitute an overpayment.) Therefore, it is concluded that there was no clothing overpayment. Orange County Denies Medi- cal Exmeption By Substituting Their Nonmedical Judgmnent for that of the Medical Evic- nce Not Upheld in a State Hear- ing– Ms. 2011159342 of Orange County has a child with medical problems. Her child constantly has problems breathing and also frequently urinates. The child suffers from bladder infections caused by the urinations. The claimant administers medications (albuterol) to the child four times daily, approximately every 3-4 hours to prevent wheezing and other medi- cations to address wax buildup in her ears. She also must monitor all urinations by documenting each in- stance and by using a urine hat to save the urine for testing. The child’s recent caregiver has quit because the child requires too much attention. The claimant believes that she is the person best suited to care for her daughter at this time. She requested an exemption from the WtW program, which was denied by Orange County. Orange County refused to accept the medical statement of her doctor that she could not work because of her child’s medical condition. Orange County decided that they are better suited to make medical decisions than her doctor. In this case ALJ Jack Alanis concurred with the doctor. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 November 14, 2011 Issue # 2011-21 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, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CCWRO received a comment from Jodie Berger of Legal Services of Northern California who stated there is a transparency problem with the county single allo- cation. Counties are supposed to serve exempt partic- ipants who volunteer if they have the money to do so. However, counties do no inform exempt participants of this right. Given the fact that counties do not inform volunteer participants of their right to services, the only reasonable option to mandate counties to serve volun- teers unless they publicize that volunteers have a right to request services from counties. In addition, when the single allocation was reduced, Los Angeles County stopped its policy of home visits of all applicants. The restoration of the $376 million could cause the return of mandatory home visits in Los Angeles County which could have an adverse impact on impoverished families of Los Angeles County. Under AB 109, which provides that non-violent felons will be placed in county jails in lieu of state prisons, counties have the flexibility to find alter- natives to county jail time, such as home arrest, etc. It is possible that CalWORKs recipients and Food Stamp household members (HH) members will no longer be incarcerated and, if under house arrest, could be members of the CalWORKs assistance units (AU) or food stamp household. Counties have received no guidance from DSS as to how to treat these AU and HH members. Are they eligible for CalWORKs and Food Stamps? Are they re- quired to meet the federal work participation rates if they are under home arrest? California has lost 1.2 million jobs since 2007. California has been growing and will need another 650,000 more jobs, in addition to the lost 1.2 mil- lion jobs to catch up in 2012. There are 14 people applying for every three available jobs. Today in CalWORKs every parent with one child over the age of 2 years, and parents with two or more children who are both over age six, are forced to go to job club to compete for these scarce jobs. Valuable taxpayer dollars are spent to force recipients through this charade that they are going to get a job and become self-sufficient. California spends over $1.5 billion on jobs and services. Notably, 53% of the WtW participants are already working as of August 2011. Moreover, an estimated 50% of welfare recipients who are participating and working are not receiv- ing the transportation supportive services that they are entitled to. This means that the coun- ties are wrongfully denying an estimated $50 million a year from poor families to have more money available in their so-called single alloca- tion . This estimate is based on the assumption that the average cost of monthly transportation is $62 a month which is an underestimate. The true cost of transportation is about $1.39 a mile. http:\/\/ commutesolutions.org\/external\/calc.html Welfare recipients incur higher costs because their cars are not energy efficient. The WtW program should be a mandatory pro- gram if and when there are jobs available and not when there are 14 people fighting for three jobs. CCWRO Newsletter #2011-20 stated that counties lost $276 million from their single allocation. That was an error. The correct amount is $376 million. http\/\/www\/ccwro.org AB 109 – law Enforcement Realingment CalWORKs Impact Welfare-to-Work Where are the Jobs? In addition, when the single allocation was re- duced, Los Angeles County stopped its policy of home visits of all applicants. The restoration of the $376 million could cause the return of mandatory home visits in Los Angeles County which could have an adverse impact on impoverished families of Los Angeles County. CCWRO NEWSLETTER ERRATA #2011-20 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 December 27, 2011 Issue # 2011-25 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief each county has their own scanning system. Sacra-mento County uses a system called FileNet which does not talk to the CalWIN system where case actions are taken.. Sacramento County’s corrective action plan is to re- mind staff that they need to have the SAWS1s, SAWS2 and QR7s in the CalWIN system and to adopt some policies and procedures to make sure the forms are en- tered in CalWIN. We wonder what the old policy was and how the new policy is different. . This information is not included in the so-called corrective action plan u Yolo County was cited in a federal audit for not hav- ing an IEVS report in the casefile. The audit points out that this a repeat condition from 2009. In 2009 there were 13 cases without an IEVS report while in 2010 there were 4. Maybe in 2020 all cases will have an IEVS report. This is like Yolo County receiving a QR-7 that did not answer 4 questions. What would happen to that family? All aid would be terminated immediately for failure to submit a complete QR7. What happens to Yolo County when they fails in 13 cases and fail a year later in four (4) cases? Yolo County contends that it made significant progress by reducing the number of IEVS errors from 13 to 4. We wonder why this same standard does not apply to processing QR7? Kevin Shephard of VWRO is advocating for welfare recipients in Los Angeles County. On December 16, 2011 Kevin went to the Rancho Park office with a per- son needing help with food stamps. On December 16, 2011 Kevin was ordered by Acting Director of the DPSS Rancho Park Office Mr. Americo Garza not to assist the poor because he is poor and on welfare. Mr. Garza contends that a welfare recipient helping another welfare recipient is a conflict of inter- est. Mr. Garza made clear that if Kevin approached someone struggling with a welfare process he be would be arrested. He was told that he could only assist the person he came in with and was ordered to sit next to the person he was with and not to try to help anybody. It appears that Los Angeles County has a county ordinance pro- u TANF was reauthorized for 60 more days on De- cember 23, 2011 by HR 3765. The TANF reauthoriza- tion was part of the payroll tax extension and unem- ployment insurance benefits extension package. This was a clean extension of TANF with no riders. This extension ends March 1, 2012. u Homeless Assistance – On 10-4-11 Gary Alvarez of Fresno County asked DSS about homeless assistance eligibility in this situation: a client with one child is living with her father in the City of Sanger. Her father evicts her from his home stating that he cannot afford to keep them on, client and child are now homeless. Client applies for an get temporary homeless, but later request permanent homeless to move into an apartment owned her father in the City of Reedley? On 10-17-11 DSS responded The client was not re- turning to the same house or apartment she lived in pri- or to becoming homeless. As long as the client meets all other Homeless Assistance eligibility requirements, she should have been approved for permanent home- less assistance. u On 9-21-11 Kasey Rogers of Riverside County asked DSS about a CalWORKs recipient who owns several horses. None of which are income pro- ducing. Would the horses be considered property and the value counted in the property determination or would they be considered pets like a cat or a dog? On 10-14-11 DSS responded Animals that are kept as pets have not value and would not be considered and counted as property. In this case, the horses are excluded as personal property, because the horses are not used as a resource that producing income to sup- port the family. u In a recent federal audit, Sacramento County was informed that in four (4) CalWORKs cases there were no SAWS1s, SAWS 2 and QR7s. It is ironic that af- ter spending billions on computer systems that prevent cases from going forward when mandatory forms are not in the system that an audit can find these forms are missing from cases. One possible reason is that http\/\/www\/ccwro.org Los Angeles County DPSS forbids poor people to help other poor people CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org December 27, 2011 #2011–25 Number of Unduplicated Participants THIS MONTH Gross Number of Participants Being Sanctioned THIS MONTH Number of Participants Sanctioned THIS MONTH Percentage of Gross Participants Sanctioned THIS MONTH Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction THIS MONTH Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs THIS MONTH Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of Cal- WORKs THIS MONTH Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County THIS MONtH Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs THIS MONTH Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County THIS MONtH Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 per participant THIS MONTH mulgated by Mr. Garza prohibiting welfare re- cipient from assisting other welfare recipients said Kevin Shepard. Kevin continued to say that next thing I know two sheriffs are standing in front of me laugh- ing. After talking to Americo Garza then seeing two sheriffs pop up standing in front of me I felt like I was in the Soviet Union so I went home. Ms. B1DP678 receives Food Stamps in Los Angeles County. Ms. B1DP678 is working and actually has a job during the Great Recession. She submitted her quarterly report to DPSS, but DPSS did not like the report. Next thing she knew people at work knew she was get- ting Food Stamps. How did this happen? DPSS asked the employer to verify her income for the quarterly report. Ms. B1DP678 was livid. Her confidentiality was violated by DPSS. Her scheduled promo- tion at work was down the drain food stamp recipients are not promoted some places. She contacted Garegin Manasarian, DPSS IEVS supervisor for the Rancho Park office who told Ms. B1DP678 that DPSS can mail a letter to her employer anytime without her consent request- ing income information. On Friday, December 16, 2011 she spoke with Deputy Director Americo Garza. Ms. B1DP678 said Mr. Garza position, to put in succinctly, was aggressive and arrogant especially when I asked what right does DPSS have to contact my employer. My conversation resolved nothing, but it did raise some questions about confiden- tiality. Mr. America Garza also told Ms. B1DP678 that she should not seek assistance from any person from welfare rights. It appears Mr. Garza does not like welfare recipients getting assistance from somebody of their choosing. We called Mr. Garza and he confirmed that it is DPSS policy not to allow poor people to help other poor people because it is a violation of confidentiality, but saw nothing wrong with happened to Ms. B1DP678. California Welfare-to-Work Update Periodically CCWRO updates its readers of the progress that California’s welfare-to-work (WtW) program is making during the current Great Recession. Whle counties receive about $1.3 billion to opreate a WtW pro- gram that includes child care and providing the working poor on CalWORKs transportation, the number reveal that about 43% of the participants still do not receive transportation in California. The devastating WtW sanctions reduced the fixed income of CalWORKs that is in the same dollar amount that it was in in 1985 is reduced by at least 25% or more causing undue hard- ship on innocent children who are the real victims of this sanc- tion program . Research reveals that most sanctions are caused by the fact that the participant was not denied supportive services that the needed, such as child care and transportation. 129,708 49,505 28,020 22% $6,188,125 4,921 4% 55,944 $23,172 43% $5,594,400 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 & The Outcomes? Los Angeles County DPSS Violates Confidentiality of Working Poor Getting Food Stamps. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 February 21, 2011 Issue # 2011-02 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 Fresno County ETimeStudy is County Institutionalized Fraud – Fres- no County has recently instituted what is called eTimeStudy. Time Study is a process whereby counties claim federal funding. CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and Food Stamps workers are asked to claim the time they spend on each program. Generally, time is claimed in such a way to maximize federal and state dollar draw down and minimize county matching notwithstanding the actual time worked on the various programs claimed. It is not unusual for workers to assign time spent on processing GA cases as Food Stamps or Medi-Cal work. This type of potential fraud has been institutionalized in counties for many years and neither the state nor the federal government ver- ify these claims in any meaningful way. With eTimeStudy claiming this may have gone to another level. Immediate Need Verification – On 10-28-10 San Luis Obispo inquired what verification can the county require as a condition of receiving an Immediate Need Payment. On 11-15-10 DSS re- sponded that per MPP 40-129.2 Immedi- ate Need can only be denied for failure to provide verification alien status and pregnancy or when the applicant has he verification in their possession and refus- es to hand it over to the county. Immediate Need Overpayment – On 11\/2\/10 San Luis Obispo County asked whether an Immediate Need payment can result in an overpayment when the applicant subsequently receives unan- ticipated income. On 11\/16\/10, DSS responded; MPP 44-450.15 states that an overpayment is any amount of any aid payments an AU received to which s\/he was not eligible, including, imme- diate need payments. Therefore, if the applicant was apparently eligible for CalWORKs and met all other immediate need requirements (per MPP 40-129.2) at the time that the immediate need pay- ment was approved, then s\/he was eligi- ble for that payment even if the applicant was subsequently found ineligible for CalWORKs. In Brief Mrs. Prado that his wife was working 3 hours a day. He also informed the fraud investigator that he had not called his worker and told her about this new job because the income was below the IRT and he was waiting to get his regular QR-7 to report this new income. The fraud investigator told Mr. J.S. that he was required to report his wife working right away. This is false and a gross vio- lation of the state regulations. It is not unusual for Los Angeles County to issue notices of action that state reason(s) that are not true or erroneous. Los Angeles County Arrogantly Re- fuses to Take Corrective Action and Insist On Going To a State Hearing – On 11\/1\/10, DPSS issued a notice of ac- tion asserting that Ms. B194S60’s bene- fits are being reduced from $957 to $855 for failure to cooperate with the child support unit. The county position state- ment asserts that the overpayment was not caused due to a child support sanc- tion, but due to income. On 10\/13\/10 Ms. B194S60 had received a notice of action stating that there was a $570 overpayment due to failure to co- operate with the child support unit. The county position statement states that the reason for the overpayment was due to change in income and DPSS asserts that the action was correct. On 11\/24\/10 Ms. B194S60 received an- other NOA stating that he was overpaid $102 due to household change. The DPSS position statement argued that the action should be sustained by the ALJ even though the 11-24-10 alleged over- payment was actually caused due to al- leged income and not household change. When Ms. B194S60 filed for a state hearing the county appeals representa- tive Jose Cordova, his Supervisor, Betty Gonzalez, and her Supervisor Dietrich Tucker all admitted that the notices of action were wrong, but insisted that the county action was correct and they were ready to defend these baseless actions at an administrative hearing. COUNTY ClIENT ABUSE REPORT 2011-2012 State Budget News Senate and Assembly Budget Commit- tees agreed to take about $2 billion from the CalWORKs Program in 2011-2012 budget cycle and transfer that money to the State General fund. This money would not be used to the benefit of Cal- WORKs recipients. The Committees also agreed to reduce the current Cal- WORKs benefits by 5% which are cur- rently equal to 1989 grant levels. The Budget Committees agreed to reduce time limits on parents from 60 to 48 months and to reduce the earned income disregards to further reduce the work in- centives. These draconian cuts on impoverished families could have been avoided by just changing the work requirements to start with families with children over the age of six (6) in lieu of over the age of three (3). This option was rejected by he Senate and Assembly Budget Com- mittees because it would have meant less money for the child care contrac- tors. For more details see attached. Los Angeles County Wrongfully Terminates Benefits and Has Welfare Fraud Investigator Disseminate False Information – On 2\/8\/11 Mr. J.S. of Los Angeles County received a notice of action (NOA) terminating his benefits per his request . Mr. J.S. had never asked DPSS to close his case. He called his worker about this lie. The worker informed him that the real reason for the termination was the fact that the Los Angeles County fraud investigator dis- covered that he had two cars parked in front of his house and had only reported one car. A further reason was that his wife worked full time which was not re- ported to DPSS. In January, the fraud investigator came to his house unannounced. Mr. J.S. told February 18, 2011 Assembly and Senate Budget Committee Actions CalWORKs Cuts That Hurt and Don’t Hurt Families 2010-2011 Savings 2011-2012 Savings CalWORKS Family Impact Statement Extend WtW exemptions from current 2 years to 3 years DOES NOT HURT POOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN $475 million No negative impact. Elimination of $225 disregard for Working CalWORKs parents HURTS POOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN $17 million $200 million This would take money away from working CalWORKs parents. Currently, working CalWORKs recipients see about 50% of their CalWORKs benefits disappear as well as another 50% of their food stamps. Thus, they end up working for about $2 an hour. This would hurt the work incentive for 50% of the CalWORKs recipients required to work who are working today. Reduce CalWORKs grant by 5% – HURTS POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN $195 million This would reduce the benefits of family of three in Region 1 from $694 down to $659 Region 2 from $661 down to $628 Limit CalWORKs parents eligibility from 60 months to 48 months HURTS FAMILIES AND CHILDREN $13 million $158 million This would reduce benefits by 25% to 30%. These families would be living on fixed incomes equal to 1982 levels. Stage 1 child care cuts DOES NOT POOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN $65 million No negative impact. In fact this can be a benefit to impoverished families with children. Families who cannot get childcare are not required to participate in workfare. Thus they would not be vulnerable to the punitive WtW sanction that reduces benefits by about 25% for failure to participate in workfare. TOTAL $30 million $1, 093 million Does the Legislature have to hurt poor families? No. The Legislature could have achieved approximately the same amount of saving by increasing the work exemption to 6 years of age rather than to three (3) years of age and thereby aligning the CalWORKs work participation with the food stamp program. This alternative was rejected because it would have meant less money for child care providers. Thus, CalWORKs families are now being forced to endure $553 million dollars of misery and face the punitive WtW sanctions that primarily harm children and families. . And this is after the budget steals about $2 billion from the CalWORKs program for the California State General Fund. Prepared by Kevin Aslanian, CCWRO, 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 916-736-0616 [email protected] ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 March 28, 2011 Issue # 2011-03 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, Seth Blackmon, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. Stage 3 Child Care – Last year, the Legislature terminated Stage 3 childcare. The court stopped the cut, but according to county officials many families never got back on Stage 3. Moreover, many families were unable to afford childcare and have ended up on welfare. The State Department of Education is crafting new regulations regarding a va- riety of programs including: Latch Key, Attendance, Timely Payments and Trust line. CDE has a long-standing policy of operating in secrecy and without trans- parency. They have intentionally re- fused to work with representatives of the childcare program consumers, choosing instead to cooperate only with providers. CalFRESH (Food Stamps) At the 2-3-11 CWDA CalFresh Com- mittee Meeting, DSS stated that if the food stamp recipient fails to check the resource box on the QR-7, it is not in- complete for CalFresh. The big ques- tion is how this would affect CalWORKs recipients. Would a failure to check the resource box also mean the QR-7 is not incomplete for CalWORKs? Food Stamp NOA Waiver – Utah received a FNS waiver to send Food Stamp Notices of Action by email. DSS has agreed to distribute the Utah waiver to counties throughout California that are interested in pursuing similar waiv- ers to enable them to send Food Stamp NOAs by email. This is not being al- lowed in California, yet. For advocates, one county that has expressed an interest in the waiver is Los Angeles. Voter Registration – Voter Regis- tration is a hot topic in the office of the Secretary of State. They are revising a manual designated for public agencies. There is a workgroup that is working on this issue. The law provides that voter registration must be offered to all house- holds at application, recertification and when there is a change in address. In Brief Was it necessary to take $690 million out of the mouths of poor women and children? Again, the short answer is no. But it certainly was politically expedi- ent. Simply aligning the CalWORKs work requirement exemption age with the food stamp program work require- ment (e.g. families with children over the age of six (6)) could have saved the $690 million. Amazingly, this seem- ingly reasonable approach was rejected. One can’t help but wonder at the pro- priety of treating the resources used to support the poor as bargaining chips for political popularity. But perhaps that’s the legacy we will leave for future gen- erations. The budget battle is not over. Califor- nians needs to mobilize to protect their most fragile citizens. Currently before state legislators is an initiative to create a June ballot to raise $12 billion in taxes. If this initiative fails, the budget battle will begin anew in June 2011. On the positive side, the ill-conceived CalWORKs so-called long-term re- forms enacted in 2009 were repealed. 2011- 2012 State Budget News The Legislature recently voted to cut CalWORKs benefits to families in need to 1984 levels, without any adjustment for inflation. Both Democrats and Re- publicans voted for this cut. In fact, Governor Jerry Brown proposed reduc- ing benefits to families in need by 13%. Through the serious efforts of the pub- lic benefits advocate community and Democratic Legislators we were able to persuade the Governor, and his to team, to limit the cuts to 8%. The recent CalWORKS cuts ensure that families in need are worse off today than they were 35 years ago. No one can ar- ticulate why, including the Governor, welfare recipients should suffer greater hardship simply because the State of California has mismanaged its fiscal affairs. If we really propose to protect liberty and equality for the citizens of this state, perhaps the employees of the Department of Finance, the Gover- nor’s Office, and the Legislature should have their paychecks reduced to levels present in the mid-1980s. Would they lead by example? The short answer, of course, is no. In contrast to negative stigma of welfare recipients in our state Capital, is the fact that children living in impoverished families contributed $2 billion worth of CalWORKs funds to the California State General Fund is frequently overlooked. Similarly over- looked is the fact that welfare recipients, since 1998, have contributed about $20 billion to the General Fund while living on a fixed income that hasn’t changed in over 20 years. Yet, the California Government has made the assessment the easiest route to financial health and freedom is to write off the poor. As we tighten our belts families in need will go without food, shelter, or even the most basic protections that were previ- ously afforded them. W a s h i n g t o n D. C. N e w s The U.S. House of Representa- tives passed HR 1, which would significantly cut programs serv- ing the poor. Women Infants and Children (WIC) was cut by 10%, the Low Income Energy Assis- tance Program (LIEAP) by 7%, family planning was cut 100%, and Headstart was cut by $1 bil- lion. Meanwhile, those persons falling in the top tax bracket will continue to get their tax relief of $700 billion over the next five (5) years. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 August 2, 2011 Issue # 2011-12 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 CalWIN Computer System Re- fuses to Issue Aid paid Pending in Santa Clara County. Mr. R.G. received a notice from Santa Clara County terminating his CalWORKs benefits because she allegedly had received aid for 48 months. He re- quested a state hearing before the action became effective on June 30, 2011. The notice of action she re- ceived said that if she requested a hearing before the effective date of the proposed action, her aid would stay the same. However, as of July 27, 2011, Santa Clara County has not issued aid paid pending because CalWIN has not allowed the worker to issue aid paid pending. Sacramento County Issues a No- tice Reducing Benefits with a No- tice that Cites Has a Buffet of Rea- sons. On June 15, 2011, Ms. K.K. 1BOQO83, Sacramento County is- sued a notice of action stating: As of 07\/01\/2011, your CAPI payments are changed from $835 to $5.40. Here is why: Your income, or the income of your spouse, parent or sponsor changed. Your benefit rate amount has changed. A state law passed which resulted in a reduction of CAPI benefits. Here is a great notice of action. It is a buffet of choices: (1) in- come;(2) income of spouse; (3) par- ent changed; (4) sponsor changed; and (5) state law changed. The no- tice is form NA 692 (09\/98) Benefit Change CAPI- Various reasons. This is a CalWIN notice of action. In Sacramento County CalWIN Computes an 8% Grant Reduc- tion of $661 to be $171. On June 11, 2011, Ms. MK B248207 received a notice of action stating that As of 07\/01\/11, the County is changing your cash aid from $661 to $490. Here’s why: State law has changed. The maximum aid you can get was cut by 8 percent. This is a NA 200 (4\/11) NOA. It appears that for Cal- WIN 8% of $661 is $171. In fact, the reduction should only have been $53. Sacramento County Issues a Five- Day Reduction of IHSS Hours No- tice of Action. On May 25, 2011, Ms. M.N. 3414409254 of Sacra- mento County received a notice of action reducing her IHSS effective 06\/01\/2011. As far as we know, Sac- ramento County has not received a waiver from the State of California from the 10-day notice of action re- quirement Or maybe in the rush to reduce hours Sacramento County has decided to disregard the federal and State law. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is just a sample of county abuses con- fronting by impoverished families in California daily. COUNTY ClIENT ABUSE REPORTCHARRLEE METSKER, DSS DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR WtT DIVISION, TO RETIRE OCTOBER 28, 2011 On July 19, 2011, CharrLee Metsk- er, the Deputy Director of the Wel- fare-to-Work division announced her retirement effective October 28, 2011. Like many state workers CharrLee has been losing money by working. She has also been working late hours given the severe shortage of DSS staffing these days. CharrLee started at the DSS mail- room. She worked in Business Ser- vices and then moved to program. She was part of the small group that started up the GAIN program with Bruce Wagstaff in the eighties at the penthouse of 744 P Street. CharrLee received a master’s de- gree in public administration while working for DSS. On July 19, 2011 CharrLee meet with DSS Director Lighbourne and informed him that she will officially retire on Wednesday, November 2, 2011. Her last day of work will be Fri- day, October 28, 2011. CharrLee has a vacation planned that starts October 31, 2011. Charrlee has agreed to con- tinue to work at DSS as a retired an- nuitant as many state workers do these days. Retired annuitants can work 90 days a year. MORE DSS RETIREES Yvonne Lee, Division Chief for the DSS Integrity Division has also called it quits. Yvonne came from the De- partment of Health Services. She was in charge of the Food Stamp program until she went was appointed to this position. Teri Ellen of the Employment Divi- sion is also baling out. She started the CalLearn Program, one of the few work programs that did not harm par- ticipants. CCWRO NUMBER OF THE WEEK During June of 2011, public assis- tance recipients living on a fixed in- come of what they received in 1984, in order to use their meager benefits were forced to pay California Banks the sum of $1,568,090.00. In 1984 they did not have to pay pay banks millions of dollars to access their fixed income. They got a check. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 August 19, 2011 Issue # 2011-13 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 March 30, 2011 DSS sent FNS a cor- rective action plan (CAP). The CAP includ- ed 20 action items. All of these corrections were supposed to have been in place by July 11, 2011. [While welfare recipients would be forced to sign many welfare documents un- der penalty of perjury, welfare officials are rarely asked to sign anything under penalty of perjury.] The CAP had no teeth. It was not signed under penalty of perjury. It was just another promise promises that state wel- fare agencies often make knowing they can- not keep it. When a welfare recipient makes a promise to provide verification and do not keep that promise- all benefits are stopped. There is zero concern that the family will go hungry, become homeless, suffer misery. As of August 18, over 30 days from the date that DSS promised to make changes in the Benefits CalWIN system in response to the FNS Administrative Notice (AN) 11-06, many of the corrections had not been done. Benefits CalWIN on-line CalFresh applica- tion still does not have all of the mandated SAWS-1 and SAWS-2 questions. alWIN Benefits still discriminates against the homeless. The on-line application refus- es to accept applications if the applicant has no address. The homeless are the population that is in most need of an on-line applica- tion. This was not identified as concern by FNS. So there is no corrective action plan to stop the discrimination against the homeless seeking food stamps benefits. Benefits CalWIN promised USDA, FNS, that system would meet the language require- ments of 7 CFR 272.4(b)& 273(c)(3) by July 11, 2011. As of August 18, 2011, over 30 days from the promised date, Benefits CalWIN continues to be in violation of the federal regulations 7 CFR 272.4(b)&273(c) (3). The system allows the applicant to se- lect a language. When the applicant selects a language other than English, Spanish, Chi- nese, it informs the selector that the language selected is not available at this time. There are 18 language and only three are available at this time. system allows the applicant to state whether or not they want immediate need for CalWORKs or expedited services for food stamps. However, it unlawfully limits California On-Line Applications Saga – Feds Find California Out of Compliance – Corrective Action Plans Not Carried Out by California as Promised CalWORKs Immediate Need (CW-IN) to persons who have an emergency. Benefits CalWIN does not solicit answers to the factors that would be needed to de- termine CW-IN. CalWIN and the counties intentionally included emergency as a re- quirement for CW-IN when they know that a person may have an emergency yet still not be eligible for CW-IN. For example, a 2-parent family applies for CW. The prima- ry wage earner is self-employed and work- ing 40 hours a week. For the past 2 months he has made no money. But he is still work- ing at his business hoping to generate some income. The savings are exhausted and they apply for CW. They have no money. Their utilities are shut off. It is an emergency. Are they eligible for CW-IN? According to Cal- WIN yes , but according the state regula- tion they are not. Thus, Benefits CalWIN is misleading and cruel for it gives false hope to families in deep need. enefits CalWIN promised that food stamp recipients would have the ability to file an CalFresh application with just name, ad- dress and signature as mandated by 7 CFR 273.2(c)(1) buy July 11, 2011. Benefits CalWIN applicants still cannot do so. Yet, there is no penalty against the State for not complying with its CAP. Sadly the poor will suffer; the state and county welfare administrators will continue to get their paychecks while not keeping their promises. alifornia has three distinct on-line welfare application systems . Benefits CalWIN, C4Yourself and Los Angeles DPSS Leader. Whenever an update is needed, instead of having to update one system, all three systems must be updated to do the same thing. three computer systems are CalWIN in 18 counties, C-IV in for 39 counties and LEADER in Los Angeles County. This year, in response to pressures from the federal government, California has decid- ed to go down to two computer systems- CalWIN and the New Leader system that may go live in several years. The plan is that these two systems will talk to each other. The single state agencies adminis- tering the Medi-Cal, Food Stamp and Cal- WORKs (TANF at the federal level) will have access to both systems and will actu- ally have a clue of what is happening with the programs they are responsible for. The CalWORKs, Food Stamps and Medi- Cal programs are required to be adminis- tered by a single state agency. However, currently these programs are operated through multiple systems without the state agencies having direct access to those systems. Child Welfare Services has one system for 58 counties. IHSS has CMISP single system for 58 counties. Child Sup- port has a single system for 58 counties. alWIN received a million dollars to set up an on-line application system from the Food Nutrition Services (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, FNS. FNS just gave the money to this pri- vate profit making company and did not even verify that the on-line system met the federal standards. Several years later, FNS realized that they have contributed taxpayer dollars for a system that is operating in violation of federal law. a December 30, 2010, FNS mailed a letter to DSS, outline multiple violations of to federal law in the CalWIN on-line CalFresh application system funded by the federal government. CCWRO NUMBER OF THE WEEK This year the Legislature cut wel- fare grants by 8% bringing down the monthly fixed income to the same level of 1984. What did welfare re- cipients do for the General Fund this Year? Welfare recipients contributed to the General Fund a sum of $ 1.9 billion. The exact number is: $1,188,007,000 C The C In On C The B ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 August 22, 2011 Issue # 2011-14 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 In Brief On August 19, 2011 FNS pub- lished in the federal register a proposed rule to implement Section 4112 of P.L. 110-246 relative to the Food Stamp fleeing felon rule. The pro- posed rule admits that current federal regulations fail to de- fine what constitutes a fleeing felon or probation or parole violation. Current law assumes that a person is a fleeing felon if there is a warrant out for their arrest. FNS has decided not to follow the Martinez v. As- true settlement about the So- cial Security fleeing felon rule that limits application of the fleeing felon disqualification to persons who have an out- standing warrant for felony for escape, flight to avoid pros- ecution or confinement and flight-escape. FNS believes that P.L. 110- 246, which was passed after the Martinez settlement was approved by the court, forces FNS to include any felony as a basis for disqualification as a fleeing felon. Under the proposed rules in order for the fleeing felon rule to apply, the state food stamp office would have to prove t (1) a felony warrant was issued; (2) the food stamp recipient was aware of the warrant or knew that the warrant was is- sued; (3) that the recipient or applicant has not taken some NEW PROPOSED FLEEING FELON FEDERAL RULES PUBLISHED action to avoid the warrant; and (4) a law enforcement agency must be actively seeking the in- dividuals. The food stamp worker has to have verification that the law enforcement agency is actively seeking the person against whom a warrant has been issued. The regulation also requires that the food stamp agency verify that these four elements are present even if the applicant or recipient states that they have a warrant out for their arrest. FNS states that often applicants or recipients may not understand what type of warrant they have out there or whether or not law enforcement is really interested in catching them. Comments on these regulations are due October 18, 2011. You can view this proposed rule at: http:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/pkg\/FR- 2011-08-19\/pdf\/2011-21194.pdf m On 5-13-11 Mary Harri- son of San Diego County asked DSS if a social worker can sign the SOC 426A form in certain circumstances. On 7-1-11 DSS responded that only authorized representatives are al- lowed to sign the SOC 462A forms. However, if the authorized represen- tative is the provider, then the autho- rized representative cannot sign the SOC 426A. DSS cited no regulation to support this underground DSS statewide rule that authorized rep- resentatives who are also the provid- ers are not allowed to sign the SOC 426A. m On 4-20-11 Nancy Lopez of Los Angeles DPSS asked DSS if the county is supposed to recover the gross or the net overpayments for hospital stays from an IHSS provider who claimed IHSS hours while the IHSS was in the hospital? On 5-4- 11 DSS responded that the hospital stay overpayments would be the net amount of money received by the provider and not the gross. m The recent federal debt limit deal created a special commit- tee to enact deficit reduction mea- sures by January 2012. If the com- mittee does not come up with a plan, then there are automatic reductions that would take place to discretionary programs and the defense programs. The legislation exempted TANF, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal along with Social Security and Medicare from the automatic cuts. On the other hand Legal Services is a part of the discretionary programs that are vul- nerable to these cuts. This does not mean that the exempt programs are not targets for cuts. CCWRO NUMBER OF THE WEEK DSS DPA 266 Fraud Activity re- port reveals during June of 2011 of the cases investigated welfare fraud investigators the percent- age of the cases that did not con- tain sufficient evidence to even support a simple allegation of welfare fraud? The numer is: 72% of Waste ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 September 19, 2011 Issue # 2011-16 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 In Brief (b) Recertify the household in accordance with 273.14. If the household has not reached the maximum number of months in its certification period during the transi- tional period, the State agency may shorten the household’s prior certification period in order to recertify the household. When shortening the household’s certification period pursuant to this section, the State agency must send the household a notice of expiration in accordance with 273.14(b). As of September 9, 2011 California continues to be out of compliance be- cause counties refuse to carry out fed- eral law through workaround and insist on continuing to break the law until the three (3) outdated computer systems are modified. Maybe a law suit would be in order? m DSS is in the process of rescind- ing state regulations that allow Foster Family Agencies (FFA) to perform the monthly social worker visits. By re- scinding these regulation county social workers instead of will be doing the monthly visits. An advocate told us the other day that a client called them complain- ing that the county refused to give her and her family CalFresh benefits even thought her food stamps lasted for only about three weeks each month and she was hoping that she can feed her kids with these CalFresh benefits. She was very distressed and upset. How did this happen? Most people in America are aware of the Food Stamp program. But some people who may have never received food stamps themselves decided that the name Food Stamp has bad con- notations so the name of the program was changed. FOOD STAMP? SNAP? CalFresh? What a Mess Federally the program is now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). There are a whole host of outreach materials encouraging people to apply for SNAP. Many food stamp recipients decided that maybe they could get SNAP in addition to food stamps. Little did they know that SNAP was food stamps. Then California decided that it wanted to change the name of the program also. After several focus groups and meetings, the Schwarzenegger admin- istration changed the name of the food stamp program to the CalFresh pro- gram effective October 23, 2010. http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/ entres\/pdf\/PressRelease\/CalFresh_ Press_Release.pdf We recently surveyed recipients of food stamps and they had no idea what CalFresh was for most part, but they do know when they do not get their food stamps. Advocates have never re- ceived a call from a food stamp recipi- ent saying I did not get my CalFresh . Now the State and others are spend- ing thousands of dollars promoting this program called CalFresh. As a result many food stamp recipients come to the welfare office wait for hours to ap- ply for CalFresh only to find out that they are already getting Food stamps which is the same as CalFresh. In Los Angeles people have to wait for several hours in over 100 degree heat to go through the metal detection secu- rity to get into the welfare department and then be told that they are already getting food stamps which is the same as CalFresh. In many other counties people have a make a long trip to apply and then come back again for an ap- pointment only to be told that they are getting food stamps which is the same as CalFresh. And these are people who are hungry and often penniless. It’s not Fair. m CWDA 2012 Officers – 2012 California Welfare Directors Associa- tion (CWDA) officers have been select- ed by the CWDA nominating Commit- tee. The President will be Jo Weber of Sonoma, formerly employed by CDSS. Bruce Wagstaff, who also used to work for CDSS and now works for Sacramen- to County will be the Vice-President at Large. m DPSS Has a New Acting Di- rector – Former Los Angeles County DPSS director Philip Browning has moved to Los Angeles Department of Child Welfare Services. Sheryl Spiller, the current Chief Deputy Director is the acting Director for DPSS. Sheryl started with DPSS way back in 1967. She just graduated from high school and applied for a job with the county. She was a leader is getting over 100,000 children enrolled in the Healthy Families pro- gram. m California In Violation of Federal Law – California has been in violation of Title 7 CFR, Section273.31 that mandates DSS to offer food stamp recipients receiving transitional food stamp benefits in the final month of transitional benefit period a process to continue to get their food stamp benefits for years. Section 273.31 provides: 273.31 Closing the transitional period. In the final month of the transitional ben- efit period, the State agency must do one of the following: (a) Issue the RFC specified in 273.12(c) (3) and act on any information it has about the household’s new circumstances in ac- cordance with 273.12(c)(3). The State agency may extend the household’s certifi- cation period in accordance with 273.10(f) (5) unless the household’s certification pe- riod has already been extended past the maximum period specified in 273.10(f) in accordance with 273.27(a); or ccwro.org ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 October 7, 2011 Issue # 2011-17 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, Seth Blackmon, Steve Goldberg and Diane Aslanian actions. A sure fire way to ensure that welfare recipients remain reliant on the State for benefits is to send letters directly to employers telling them that their employees are welfare recipients who have failed to report their income, without first giving recipients a chance to resolve the issue with the CWDs. Employers take a dim view of em- ployees that they believe are double dipping by taking home money from their employment while also receiv- ing welfare benefits. Similarly, other employers refuse to provide job ref- erences, even for otherwise excellent employees, when they learn that their former employees receive or received welfare. Many welfare offices also re- fuse to hire current or former recipients who have had an overpayment. Other counties have laid-off former welfare recipients when they discovered that they have a welfare overpayment. The impact of these counties practices is to reduce the chance of sustained job stability or future gainful employment for welfare recipients. If the goal is to help people become self-sufficient, per- haps we should treat them like adults and give them a chance resolve these overpayment disputes before involving an employer. Counties Violate California Welfare and Institutions Code 11052.5 – Butte and Nevada Counties regularly schedule face-to-face interviews for CalWORKs two (2) weeks from the date of application. This is a violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code 11052.5 mandates a face-to- face interview take place within seven (7) days. 11052.5. No applicant shall be grant- ed public assistance under Chapters 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and 5 (commencing with Section 13000) of this part until he or she is first per- sonally interviewed by the office of the county department or state staff for pa- tients in state hospitals. The personal interview shall be conducted promptly following the application for assis- tance. If an applicant is incapable of acting in his or her own behalf, the county department shall verify this fact by personal contact with the applicant before aid is authorized. As used in this section, the term public assistance does not include health care as pro- vided in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000). The interview conducted pursuant to this section shall occur within seven days after the time of application un- less there are extenuating circumstanc- es that justify further delay. Counties Violate State Confidential- ity Laws. – Los Angeles, Nevada and Sacramento Counties violate Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10830(a) by conducting fingerprinting activities of more than one person at the same time. In response DSS has simply recommended that counties stop this practice. As part of receiving IHSS fraud fund- ing, counties agreed to provide data demonstrating accountability for the money they received. This data was supposed to be on the Data Reporting Spreadsheet (Enclosure D). Review of the data for 2004-2005 through 2009-2010 reveals that many, if not all of the counties, refused to provide all data elements. What hap- pens when a welfare recipient does not report every data element on the reporting form? All benefits cease im- mediately. What happens when county welfare fraud officials refuse to meet their re- porting responsibilities. The money keeps on flowing. The welfare fraud non-reporters keep on being paid even when they fail to report . DSS has recently released several moni- toring reports regarding various county operations of the so-called program in- tegrity county operations. The review examines the operations of the State- wide Finger Imaging System (SFIS) and income and resource verification system. Counties Policies Regarding Over- payments Stifle Welfare Recipient’s Self-Sufficiency- Recent reviews of Colusa County, Los Angeles County, and Yuba County revealed a grow- ing trend among CWD’s to take action against welfare recipients who have some discrepancy in their actual versus reported income, leading to an over- payment notice of action. The current practice of these counties, when dealing with a failure to report income leading to an overpayment, is to mail letters directly to employers before giving an applicant a chance to clarify alleged discrepancies, in violation of MPP 20- 006.543(b). MPP 20-006.543(b) provides: (b) If the recipient does not respond to the notification or responds and is un- able to provide sufficient information to resolve the discrepancy, the CWD shall contact the appropriate income or ben- efit source. Prior authorization from the recipient is not required for such contacts, except when the unearned in- come source is a financial institution. In those cases, prior authorization is re- quired as outlined in Government Code Section 7460 (Financial Privacy Act). These cases may be referred to the SIU in accordance with Section 20-003.2. In dealing with Overpayment issues, counties need to realize the prejudicial environment surrounding welfare and how direct contact with an employer, prior to attempting to resolve the issue with the recipient can lead to adverse ccwro.org CDSS County Program Integrity Reviews Counties Fail to Report Fraud Data ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 October 24, 2011 Issue # 2011-19 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, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief 1989. His start date has not yet been determined. Todd is married and has one child. He is from Se-attle Washington and loves the Mariners and the Seahawks. DSS has also appointed Greta Wallace as Depu- ty Director for Legal Affairs. Greta was appointed Director of the Department of Child Support by Governor Schwarzenegger and served from 2004 through 2008. Ms. Wallace has more than 13 years of experience practicing law within the De- partment of Social Services. She was an admin- istrative law judge with the Department from 2002 to 2004, when she conducted hearings on child support cases. Ms. Wallace served five years as assistant chief counsel providing legal advice on child and family program issues, and community care licensing. Prior to that, she served as staff counsel, senior staff counsel and supervising se- nior staff counsel for the Department. Ms. Wal- lace has also served as a member of the execu- tive team of the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and as executive assistant to the un- dersecretary of the Health and Welfare Agency where she monitored legislation for the 11 depart- ments within the Agency. Wallace is a member of the Jack and Jill National Association and the Sacramento Women’s Assistance Network. Early this year the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service reviewed the California’s CalWIN (called Benefits CalWIN) and C-IV (called C-IV Yourself) on-line applica- tion system and found that they have major viola- tions of federal law. FNS did not review the Los Angeles on-line application system (called Your Own Benefit). However, Los Angeles County has submitted a corrective action plan to meet FNS’ standards. Con’t on Page 2 -Supervisor Neil Derry of San Bernardino County is very unhappy that the wasteful finger-imaging requirement for food stamp recipients has finally been repealed. Supervisor Neil Derry wants to continue to waste taxpayer dollars to fingerprint food stamp recipients. He has asked that San Bernardino be allowed to waste local, state and federal taxpayer funds to fingerprint food stamp recipients. Just about every state in the United States has stopped wasting taxpayer dollars to fingerprint food stamp recipients when they dis- covered that fingerprinting did not reduce fraud and abuse. -The C-IV computer system operating in 39 coun- ties is having trouble with its document imaging system. Counties have workers that image docu- ments that the county received from applicants and recipients in the system. Recently the imag- ing system has been breaking down. Request # R26868-2011 reveals that the system was down for 45 minutes while C-IV trouble shooters were trying to restore the imaging system. The system also goes down and then workers have to log on before they can start working again. This is cost- ing taxpayers millions of dollars that Accenture, the vendor operating the C-IV system and directly responsible for the down time, has not reimbursed. Todd Bland, who just got a promotion at the Legis- lative Analyst Office as Deputy Legislative Analyst for Health & Human Services, has been appoint- ed Deputy Director for DSS’s Welfare to Work Division replacing retiring CharrLee Metsker. Mr. Bland received his Bachelor’s degree from Yale in 1984 and received his masters in Public Policy in ccwro.org Los Angeles County LEADER Computer System Your Own Benefit Corrective Action Plan DSS News Todd Bland, Deputy Director for WtW Division Greta Wallace, Deputy Director for Legal Affairs CCWRO New Welfare News www.ccwro.org October 24, 2011 #2011-19 Number of the Month How many WtW participants are enrolled in any educational program? 8% Los Angeles County will take corrective action to comply with 7 CFR 273.2(c) (1). This section provides that homeless persons shall be allowed to apply for food stamps. However, Los Angeles County’s corrective action plan will deny homeless food stamp applicants from having a choice of ad- dresses that they may want to use. Los Angeles County will force all homeless applicants to use the county address, rather than a mailing address of their choice. This is also a problem with Ben- efits CalWIN and C-IV Yourself. Moreover, many homeless applicants have an email address where they get their mail. Why can’t they use their email address as a mailing address? It is much more ac- cessible than the county welfare department where sometimes people need to wait in line for an hour just to go through the DPSS security system. The corrective action plan also requires that Your Own Benefit be changed to comply with 7 CFR 273.2(b)(1)(v) that states a person can file an us- ing only the following information: 1. Full name; 2. Address, if any and 3. Signature. On September 30, 2011 FNS published the Fiscal Year 2010 Characteristics of Food Stamp House- holds. One of the revealing numbers was that 26% of California households were not receiving the stan- dard utility deduction. Nationwide it is 27%. Wash- ington has over 99% of households receiving the standard utility deduction. Rhode Island and Ten- nessee have over 41% not receiving the standard utility deduction. Arizona, Illinois, Maryland have more than 40% of the participating households not receiving the standard utility deduction. Many households with children are getting food stamps but not TANF. While 8,947,000 children receiving food stamps, only 1,427,000 children received TANF. The reason is simple. TANF is a block grant program that was not designed to ben- efit children and families. It was designed to punish poor families and children for being poor. Under the AFDC program, which was the former TANF program, 70% of the money went to payments to families. Under TANF only 30% of the money goes to the families and the rest goes to the state bu- reaucracy and contributions to the State General Funds to balance state budgets. Copy of this re- port can be downloaded at: http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/ORA\/menu\/Published\/ SNAP\/FILES\/Participation\/2010Characteristics. pdf#xml=http:\/\/65.216.150.153\/texis\/search\/pdfhi. txt?query=Characteristics+of+SNAP+2010&pr=F NS&prox=page&rorder=500&rprox=500&rdfreq=5 00&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&rdepth=0&sufs=0&or der=r&cq=&id=4e978f1f14 Ms. 1B1JN85\/ SH#11284236 moved from Santa Clara County to Solano County on July 7, 2011. When she arrived in Vallejo, she went down to the Vallejo welfare office and applied for welfare. Both Solano and Santa Clara County are CalWIN coun- ties. She received CalWORKs and food stamps from Santa Clara County for August and September. In September she received a Notice of Action from Santa Clara County stating that her CalWORKs and Food stamps would be stopped because So- lano County has picked up the case. However, she did not receive benefits from Solano for October. On October 2, 2011 she called Solano County to find out why she did not get her benefits for Oc- tober 2011. Solano County politely informed her that the reason for did not received benefits for October was because Santa Clara County has not given Solano County what Solano county wanted to continue her benefits. This victim has filed for a state hearing, but mean- while she is foodless and moneyless compli- ments of Santa Clara and Solano County. Inter-County Transfer- COUNTY ClIENT ABUSE REPORT FOOD STAMP NEWS? ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 November 21, 2011 Issue # 2011-22 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, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian as a CA 42 without first be- ing seen by a worker. A regular business practice would provide that when a person appears at the wel- fare office and says they are homeless they would get a CA42 (homeless assis- tance application) to com- plete. But that is not the practice in most California counties. In practice coun- ties prescreen applicants to make sure the family is eligible for homeless assis- tance before they are given the CA 42 to complete. See Table #2 for county- by-county percentage of homeless assistance ap- plications approved during September 2011, which is the most recent data avail- able to the public. Which counties prescreen homeless assistance appli- cants? Contra Costa, Kings, Placer, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Tulare, Fresno, San Diego, San Francisco, Or- ange, Ventura, Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Solano and more. Con’t on Page 2 At a legislative hearing on November 3, 2011, Phil Ansell, Acting Chief Deputy Director of Los Angeles County presented information that requests for home- less assistance have increased by 98%. Many of the homeless assistance requests are related to the fact that the current CalWORKs benefits are at the same level that they were in 1985. No other segment of the public benefits community has been forced to live like it is 1985. The most recent DSS homeless assistance data called the HA 237 report reveals that counties have erected major barriers between the homeless and homeless as- sistance. http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG283.htm Table #1 reveals that in June of 2011, 43% of Cal- WORKs applications were approved. In September of 2011, 58% of the Food Stamp application were approved and 77% of the homeless assistance appli- cations were approved. To an untrained eye this may seem like counties are approving more homeless assis- tance applications. But a trained eye sees that the devil is in the details. It is a known fact that in most counties when a homeless person appears at the welfare depart- ment seeking homeless assistance they are told to wait and see a homeless assistance worker or their regular welfare worker. Rarely are homeless applicants given a Homeless Assistance Application known http\/\/www.ccwro.org Some Homeless Families Not Allowed to Apply for Homeless Assistance Month June 2011 Sept. 2011 Sept. 2011 Program CalWORKs Food Stamps Homeless As- sistance Applications Received 53,612 182,174 5,600 Applications Approved 22,870 106,330 4,330 Percenatge of Applications Approved 43% 58% 77% TABLE # 2 Sept. 2011 Percentage of HA 237 HA Reqeuests Counties Approved Statewide 77% Contra Costa 102% Calaveras 100% Colusa 100% Inyo 100% Kings 100% Lassen 100% Placer 100% Plumas 100% Sacramento 100% San Benito 100% Santa Clara 100% Santa Cruz 100% Sierra 100% Sonoma 100% Tulare 100% Yolo 100% Yuba 100% Fresno 99% San Diego 99% San Fran 97% Orange 97% Ventura 96% Alameda 96% Santa Barb 95% Merced 95% San Joaq 95% Stanislaus 94% San Mateo 93% Solano 93% Mendocino 91% Shasta 91% Nevada 89% San Luis Ob. 89% Siskiyou 89% Kern 89% Del Norte 88% Imperial 88% Marin 86% Sutter 81% Riverside 81% Tehama 80% Lake 78% Monterey 76% Butte 75% El Dorado 75% Napa 75% San Bern. 70% Humboldt 70% Los Angeles 68% Trinity 50% Tuolumne 50% Madera 41% TABLE #1 During September of 2011, Sacramen- to County received 324 homeless as- sistance applica- tions and approved 324 of the applica- tions. San Diego County received 139 applications and approved 137. Tulare County re- ceived 113 applica- CCWRO New Welfare News http\/\/www.ccwro.org November 21, 2011 #2011-22 tions and approved all 113 of those applications. We wonder if these counties have the same rate of ap- proval for CalWORKs and Food Stamp applications. Homeless families are suffering in California. The county welfare departments have erected major bar- riers between the homeless and the safety net that is available to them. Homeless assistance is only avail- able once in a lifetime with some exceptions. If a family was homeless in the last recession and be- comes homeless during this recession sorry stay homeless is the answer for California’s impoverished families with children many of them babies. And then we say we have compassion. Is this compassion? Kern County Does Not Process Food Stamps in 30 days – Kern County household 2027039 applied in July of 2011 and received benefits September 23, 2011. In response to this enormous delay in issuing benefits to a household that was most likely in need of expe- dited services, the Kern County Welfare Director agreed to provide training at the unit level and continue to have supervisors review negative ac- tions. With these kinds of corrective action this problem is certain to reoccur. Is there a better corrective action plan? Yes. When the case has not been acted upon with- in 25 days an alert should go to the supervisor who should meet with the worker and state in the case file what is being done to make sure that the application is acted upon within 30 days. If on the 30th day the county has not acted upon the application, an alert should go out to the su- pervisor’s immediate boss, the deputy director and the director. Of course, if being late is com- mon in Kern County, then this could be burden- some on the upper management of Kern County. Monterey County Does Not Allow Ap- plicants 30 Days to Complete the Ap- plication. – On September 21, 2011, Monterey County Welfare Director Elliot Robinson was informed that Review Number 507-041 failed to keep a food stamp scheduled appointment on June 30, 2011 relative to the 6\/16\/11 application face-to-face interview. The appointment notice said that the applicant must complete the appli- cation by 7-10-11. This was cited as an invalid negative action. DSS’s letter said that the ap- plicant should have 30 days to complete the ap- plication process, which would have been 7-16-11 and not 7-10-11. DSS’s letter informed Monterey County No reply is required in this instance. It appears that DSS sees nothing wrong with Mon- terey County continuing to shut down application processing before the 30th day. Stanislaus County SIU Terminates Food Stamps Because the Recipient Was Tak- ing Care of a Severely Ill Relative on Or- ders of an SIU Investigator Improperly – Stanislaus County terminated benefits for house- hold 0364936 because he was not living at the last address he gave. EBT usage outside of the project area motivated the agency to contact the client to review residency. The client explained to the agency he was spending time with his ex- tremely ill brother who happens to live in another county. A SIU investigator was sent to meet with the client at the address of record. It was at this time that the client maintained he still resided in Stanislaus County. The investigator’s Case Log makes reference to two other persons who con- firmed the client’s claim, but SIU was of the opinion that the client did not appear to be living where said he was. The agency terminated CalFresh based on the SIU investigative conclusion. State QC must cite an error as there was not sufficient cause to support the agency’s action to terminate benefits. The DSS letter cited MPP 63-401.3 and 63-401-5 in support of their conclusion. What corrective action did Stanislaus County take? StanWORKs management sent a reminder to case manager to follow-up with customers when residency is in question. Will this happen again? Yes. Stanislaus County will continue to terminate food stamp benefits to food stamp recipients who may want to assist an ill relative and terminate benefits per ORDERS from SIU. The corrective action should be an ACL inform- ing workers that they cannot take negative action solely on the commands of SIU because SIU does not determine eligibility. Los Angeles County Fails to Process Expedited Service – Ms. R# 5055017 from Los Angeles County District 11 applied for food stamps on 4-27-11 and was eligible for expedited service. The case was screened and referred to Regular Processing. This was an invalid negative action. There are hundreds like Ms. R# 5055017 in Los Angeles County and no corrective action is being taken. COUNTY ClIENT ABUSE REPORT ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 November 24, 2011 Issue # 2011-23 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, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian l those in the state legislature who voted to reduce CalWORKs grants by 8%, bringing the fixed income of impoverished families in California down to 1985 lev- els. This cut will result in thousands of impoverished families in California going hungry this holiday season because their food stamps and cash benefits have run out-leaving them no money to buy food or money to travel to food banks that may be available; l those who continue to say that TANF was a success when all it did was transfer a large portion of TANF funds from the mouths of babies and children to the states to use to balance their budgets, and for contri- butions to the California State General Fund. l Los Angeles Times reporter, Jack Dolan, who in- sinuated that welfare recipients were using their fixed incomes to gamble because they used an ATM machine at a casino without any evidence that the money was used to gamble; l county welfare officials who reduced fixed incomes by another 25-40% by sanctioning over 30 percent of recipients when most of the sanctions were caused by lack of available supportive services to families; l county welfare department officials who deny trans- portation to 50% of welfare recipients who are partici- pating in the welfare-to-work programs; l county welfare department officials who do not al- low homeless families to apply for homeless assistance by not making the homeless assistance application available to them. l parents who struggle to raise their kids on public as- sistance grants that are now at the same level that they were in 1985 they are true heroes; l DSS Director, Will Lightbourne, who has been a revelation. He has been open, responsive and fair to the advocates of consumers of the programs which DSS administers; l the State Legislature that repealed the gradual reduc- tion of CalWORKs grants for timed-out families; l those in the State Legislature who fought against more cuts during the budget negotiations of 2011- 2012. We will not name names for we will inevitably leave someone out; l our families and friends who support the parents of public assistance programs who raise their babies and children on the deplorable standard of assistance they receive; l our families that support us in our work-fighting for justice every day; l our colleagues who support us in our work- fighting for justice every day; l those who fund us so we can do our work- fighting for justice every day. http\/\/www.ccwro.org We Give Thanks to: We Give No Thanks to: CCWRO Thanksgiving Message ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 December , 2011 Issue # 2011-24 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, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian In Brief Hartley v. Lightbourne, Alameda Supe- rior Court – Collecting Overpayments from From Former Minors Challenged On November 23, 2011, The Public Inter- est Law Center based in Oakland in concert with Western Center on Law & Poverty filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to stop coun- ties recouping overpayments from mem- bers of the family who were minors when the overpayment occurred. In one case the county was trying to recoup an overpay- ment against a family member who was not even born when the overpayment occurred. The attorney filing this case are Patti Prun- huber and Judy Gold of PILC, Antionette Dozier and Dick Rothchild of WCLP. See copy of pleadings at: h t t p : \/ \/ w w w . c c w r o . o r g \/ i n d e x . php?option=com_docman&Itemid=104 David Ouster v. Will Lightbourne, Direc- tor of DSS and Toby Douglas, Director of DHCS IHSS 20% Reductions Stopped Cold On December 1, 2011, federal judge Cladia Wilken issued a temporary restraining or- dering DSS and DHCS not to take any ac- tions to implement the reductions in IHSS services mandated by SB 73. The judge also ordered the department not to make any changes in the IHSS CMISP system to implement the 20% hour reductions. The court ordered DSS and DHCS to stop any actions already taken to implement the 20% reductions immediately. The lead lawyer was Melinda Bird of Cali- fornia Disability Rights. Great work and a real Christmas gift for our impoverished disabled and aged recipients receiving IHSS services. Copy of Order is enclosed. l The California Welfare Directors Association will have a new President in 2012. Bruce Wagstaff, who started at the State Department of Benefit Payments, which was later named the State Department of Social Services, as a food stamp analyst was in charge of implementing the GAIN workfare program. He started on the 18th floor of 744 P Street with a staff of three. He later went on to become Deputy Director for Welfare Programs and then Deputy Director for Child Welfare Services. He then became the Director of the Sacrament County Welfare Department, a position that paid much better than the State. He is currently the Administrator of the Sacra- mento Countywide Services Agency. He holds an MPA from California State University, Sacramento, and a BA Degree from University of California, Davis. The Vice President at Large will be Charlene Reid, the County Welfare Director of Tehama County. l The Obama Administration conducted a secret con- ference call with the American Public Human Services Association with states facing federal work participation rate penalties. Health and Human Services Administra- tion for Children and Families is beginning to respond to states’ good cause requests for 2007. To date, Oregon and Maine have entered into corrective action plans for 2007. California met the federal work participation rates for 2007. l In a letter from the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) dated October 17, 2011, FNS was urged to adopt the SSI Martinez settlement to clarify of Eligibility of Fleeing Felons in lieu of coming up with a whole new method of determining who is a fleeing felon. Welfare advocates of California adopted the same position in their letter to FNS. l Frank Mecca, Executive Director of CWDA, was no- tified on September 21, 2011 that he has been selected to be a member of the National Association of Counties (NACo) Human Services and Education Steering Com- mittee. As a member of the steering committee Frank will have the responsibility to read and understand the estab- lished policy positions in the steering committee’s sec- tion of the American County Platform. Moreover, Frank will have to contact Members of Congress in Washing- ton and in their district and state. Congratulations Frank. http\/\/www.ccwro.org Litigation Update ORDER GRANTING TRO AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE NO. CV 09-04668 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO\/OAKLAND DIVISION DAVID OSTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. WILL LIGHTBOURNE, Director of the California Department of Social Services; TOBY DOUGLAS, Director of the California Department of Health Care Services; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES; and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CV 09-04668 CW ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE Case4:09-cv-04668-CW Document417 Filed12\/01\/11 Page1 of 5 1 ORDER GRANTING TRO AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE NO. CV 09-04668 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue came before this Court for consideration on December 1, 2011. Upon consideration, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the TRO application is GRANTED. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Alternatively, a preliminary injunction could issue where the likelihood of success is such that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor, so long as the plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm and shows that the injunction is in the public interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation and editing marks omitted). A court employs a sliding scale when considering a plaintiff’s showing as to the likelihood of success on the merits and the likelihood of irreparable harm. Id. Under this approach, the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another. Id. In support of this Order, the Court makes the following findings. Defendants’ proposed notices regarding the reduction in most In Home Supportive Services ( IHSS ) recipients’ service hours and regarding Care Supplements raise serious questions of violations of the federal Due Process Clause. In addition, SB 73 also raises serious questions of violations of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396a ( the Medicaid Act ), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12312 ( ADA ) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 ( Section 504 ), by placing IHSS recipients at imminent risk of unnecessary and unwanted out-of-home placement, including in institutions such as nursing homes, board and care facilities, and psychiatric hospitals; by discriminating on the basis of type of disability; and by using methods of administration that will exclude individuals with disabilities from IHSS. The potential Case4:09-cv-04668-CW Document417 Filed12\/01\/11 Page2 of 5 2 ORDER GRANTING TRO AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE NO. CV 09-04668 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for IHSS recipients to apply for relief from the reductions mandated by SB 73 does not cure these defects. The planned IHSS reductions, unless enjoined, will cause immediate and irreparable harm by placing members of the plaintiff class at imminent and serious risk of harm to their health and safety, as well as of unnecessary and unwanted out-of-home placement including institutionalization. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Thus, serious questions going to the merits are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor. The balance of equities strongly favors Plaintiffs because Defendants’ only interest is fiscal, whereas the plaintiff class faces life or death consequences. Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm and that the injunction is in the public interest. The Court finds that no bond is necessary. Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 220 (3d Cir. 1991); Sherr v. Volpe, 466 F.2d 1027, 1035 (7th Cir. 1972); see also Preliminary Injunction Order (Dkt. 198) at 29 (waiving bond requirement in this action because Plaintiffs are indigent and to ensure their ability to access the courts on behalf of themselves and other class members ). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pending an order by this Court as to whether a preliminary injunction should issue, Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting by, through, under, or in concert with Defendants (referred to collectively hereinafter as Defendants ) are enjoined from taking any actions to implement the reduction in IHSS recipients’ service hours mandated by SB 73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants take all actions necessary to ensure that no IHSS consumers’ hours are reduced because of SB 73 during the pendency of this injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants refrain from making any changes to the Case Management, Information and Payrolling System ( CMIPS ) to implement the reductions contemplated by SB 73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Defendants have already taken any actions to implement those reductions, Defendants immediately undo any such actions. This includes, but Case4:09-cv-04668-CW Document417 Filed12\/01\/11 Page3 of 5 3 ORDER GRANTING TRO AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE NO. CV 09-04668 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is not limited to, immediately undoing any changes to the Case Management, Information and Payrolling System ( CMIPS ) made to implement the reductions contemplated by SB 73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants immediately rescind All-County Letter (ACL) No. 11-81 and inform all counties that it has been rescinded and that the reductions in IHSS recipients’ service hours mandated by SB 73 have been enjoined. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants immediately halt issuance of any notices (including but not limited to Notices of Action), letters, time sheets, e-mails, web postings, or any other written materials to IHSS recipients or providers in any way suggesting that their authorized hours have been or will be reduced as a result of SB 73, or as a result of any actions undertaken to implement SB 73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Defendants have already issued any notices (including but not limited to Notices of Action), letters, time sheets, e-mails, web postings, or any other written materials to IHSS recipients or providers in any way suggesting that their authorized hours have been or will be reduced as a result of SB 73, or as a result of any actions undertaken to implement SB 73, Defendants immediately issue notices to those IHSS recipients or providers, informing them that their authorized hours will not be reduced as a result of SB 73, or as a result of any actions undertaken to implement SB 73, due to this injunction. Any such notice shall be accessible to recipients and\/or providers whose primary language is not English, and\/or who have vision impairments. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within five business days from the date of this order, Defendants shall serve and file a declaration verifying that they have complied with this order and detailing what steps, if any, they have taken to do so. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ papers filed in support of their application for a temporary restraining order shall be treated as Plaintiffs’ moving papers for a preliminary injunction. Defendants may file and serve their opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on or before December 7, 2011. In the event that Defendants file their opposition by that date, Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of their motion for preliminary injunction no Case4:09-cv-04668-CW Document417 Filed12\/01\/11 Page4 of 5 4 ORDER GRANTING TRO AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CASE NO. CV 09-04668 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 later than December 9, 2011, and a hearing on Plaintiffs’ request will be held on December 15, 2011 at 2:00 pm. Alternatively, Defendants may file and serve their opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction at their convenience. Plaintiffs shall file a reply brief in support of their motion no later than two full court days thereafter. A hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction will be scheduled for the first or second Thursday after Plaintiffs’ reply is filed, at 2:00 pm. The temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the day the hearing is held. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2011 _____________________________ Honorable Claudia A. Wilken United States District Court Judge Case4:09-cv-04668-CW Document417 Filed12\/01\/11 Page5 of 5 ”