Search Demo

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org County Client abuse on page 2 June 28, 2013 Issue #2013-12 For fiscal year 2012-2013 DSS allocated $432,203,000 to California’s 58 counties to pay for Welfare-to-Work (WtW) childcare. The third-quarter allocation-expendi- ture report reveals that only $207,964,462 has been given to Welfare-to-Work participants. Over 51% of the total 2012-2013 Child Care Allocation ($224,275,877) remains available to pay for childcare in the last fiscal quarter. Counties paid an average of $69,321,487 per quarter. Annualizing this number means that approximately $154,964,390 will be returned to DSS even though ap- proximately 50% of the WtW participants do not receive childcare according to the April 2013 CW115 reports. County 2012-2013 Child Care Al- location Amount Spent During 3 Quarters Unspent Amount for last quarter Percent- age of Unspent Amount for last quarter Alameda $21,701,221 16,185,955 5,515,266 25% Fresno 19,226,151 6,787,768 12,438,838 36% Kern 12,959,313 5,230,686 7,728,627 80% Los Angeles 133,557,273 52,117,699 81,439,574 46% San Joaquin 9,014,365 2,325,805 6,688,560 66% Solano 4,704,049 1,527,005 3,177,044 41% It is fascinating to look at the utilization of childcare from county to county. Riverside, Alameda and San Ber- nardino pay for childcare to over 80% of the unduplicated participants. On the other hand only 19 % of the undupli- cated participants received childcare in Sacramento, 22% in Stanislaus, 28% in Tulare, 29% in Contra Costa, 40% in San Diego, 43% in Orange and 46% in Los Angeles. See Chart #1. Why do 80% of the unduplicated participants in River- side, Kern and Alameda need and receive childcare while neighboring Los Angeles and San Diego County only provide 40% of the unduplicated participants childcare? It just does not add up. Could it be that in Los Angeles and San Diego 80% of the participants need childcare, but only 40% receive it? On June 19, 2013, the United State House of Representa- tives presented legislation cutting over $20 billion out of the SNAP program over a 10-year period. The ma- jor cuts included elimination of categorical eligibility and the eat and heat program. Speaker Boehner said the Farm Bill (HR 1947) is one of the priorities of the house. Majority Leader Cantor supported the legislation. Pennsylvania Republican Tom Marino proposed an amendment to HR 1947 to require that FNS estab- lish a Soviet style surveillance plan to snoop and de- termine what soldiers, veterans, underpaid workers and other families purchases with SNAP benefits. Another proposed amendment would limit farm welfare checks (also known as farm subsidies ) to recipients with less than $250,000. 15 members of Congress receive farm subsidies. Congressman Fincher of Tennessee, who between 1999-2013 received $3,483,823 dollars, said on the floor that if you don’t work, you can’t eat , repeat- ing what his comrade Vladimir Lenin said in 1920s. Republican Congressman Richard Hudson of North Carolina proposed that all SNAP recipients be drug test- ed, but forgot to mandate that the 15 members of Con- gress getting farm subsidies also be tested. He also did not require drug testing of the major corporations with income over $250,000 who get welfare checks from the Department of Agriculture under the Farm Bill. Even with a majority in the House, the Republicans could not get it passed. There were several California Democrats who voted for the Farm Bill including Ami Bera, Julie Brownley, Jim Costa, Sam Farr and John Garamendi. 62 Republicans, or 25% of the Republican caucus voted against HR 1947. This is a major embar- rassment for the Speaker and a major victory for the beneficiaries of the SNAP program. With time running out, it looks like there will be no Farm Bill in 2013 be- cause Congress will be working on budgets and immi- gration reform. The farm bill programs will continue through an instrument called continued resolution Chart #1 Counties Fail to Use the Child Care Allocation for CalWORKs Welfare- to-Work Counties Fail to Use the Child Care Allocation for CalWORKs Welfare- to-Work CCWRO Welfare News June 28, 2013 #2013-12 – Page 2 Con’t from Page 1 l Los Angeles DPSS Staff Hang Up on Custom- ers- Ms. B1NG224 conference called the Los Ange- les County DPSS office to talk to her worker with the advocate being on the second line. After ringing over 10 times, a clerk by the name of Vema picked up the phone and informed Ms. B1NG224 that her worker was not available to talk to her. When asked to be con- nected with the supervisor Vema rudely instructed Ms. telephone interview that was scheduled on June 4, 2013 @ 12:15p.m. Your letter to me is incorrect. I did not receive a phone call from you or anyone from the Chatsworth office on June 4, 2013 @ 12:15p.m. In fact, I waited until 1:00p.m. on June 4. You did not attempt to con- tact me otherwise! In fact, the number listed on the notice page (866-613-3777) along with other various corre- spondence, is a voice mailbox that is full during work- ing hours of 8-5 p.m. I have attempted to contact you via phone, mail and through other means of voice con- tact. Unfortunately, I have gotten no response from you! This is completely frustrating on my end. How can I reach a social worker, if their business voice mail- box is full? How is it that the Dept of Social Services allows you to have a voice mailbox that is full for sev- eral months? And how is it that you are employed with the State of California? I just don’t understand how you can get away with your unprofessional conduct! This re- ally needs to be brought to management’s attention. You should not be working with individuals that need assis- tance. You should not be work for the State of California! I am requesting that Dept of Social Services change my so- cial worker immediately to someone that can be contacted, has a working telephone number and someone who is pro- fessional. Again, it is impossible to contact you otherwise. With this said, I am requesting a hearing to the Ap- peals and State Hearing Section. I will also in- dicate that you are unprofessional, unreason- able and with a doubt, the worse social worker! A copy of this letter will be accompanied the Ap- peals & State Hearing Section, State Welfare Rights Organization and the Local Legal Aid Office. NOTE THAT YOU PURPOSELY HAVE NOT CORRECTED MY NAME ON EACH CORRE- SPONDENCE. YOU HAVE MY LAST NAME LISTED AS ITEEG . AGAIN, FOR THE 100TH TIME, MY LAST NAME IS STEEG . UP- DATE YOUR RECORDS ACCORDINGLY!!! l Contra Costa County Denies Emergency Food Stamps Wrogfully and More. Contra Costa County de- nied Ms. R.N 502017’s CalFresh expedited service on 12\/27\/12 without any reasons cited. That was ERROR # 1. On 1\/16\/13 the worker requested verification that Ms. R.N 502017 is no longer a student when the county already had this verification. ERROR # 2. Finally Contra Costa County denied the application by sending out a notice of action on 1\/28\/13, which is over 30 days. ERROR #3. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VICTIM REPORT B1NG224 that she cannot talk to the supervisor and hung up. How dare a DPSS customer want to talk to the supervisor. That must certainly be against DPSS policy of customer service. l Los Angeles DPSS Cancels Two Interviews and Cal- Fresh Applicant Gives up on Getting Food Stamps. Ms. R.N. 501016’s case record shows she applied for CalFresh on 12\/27\/12 and was given an appointment for 1\/7\/13. On 1-25-13 the application was denied based on reason code withdrawal at the client’s request. There was no signed withdrawal form on file. Ms. R.N. 501016 states that the 1-7-13 interview was canceled at the request of the DPSS worker. The interview was rescheduled, but that interview was also cancelled by the DPSS worker. Ms. R.N. 501016 stated that she was never given any notices regarding missed appointments, or the status of the application. Ms. R.N 501016 decided not to pursue the application after the second cancellation due to the inconvenience of having to take time off from her employment to attend a face-to-face interview that is cancelled by DPSS. Mission accomplished. One less CalFresh recipient. The DPSS corrective action plan was more training and telling caseworkers to document – docu- ment even if the documentation is a lie for the ultimate goal is to discourage applicants from receiving food stamp benefits. l Los Angeles DPSS Denies CalFresh for Failure to Pro- vide Verification that DPSS Already Had. Ms. R.N. 501019 applied for CalFresh in Los Angeles County on 12-26-12. The applicant was screened for expedited service, but the interview was scheduled for 1\/7\/13. On 1\/25\/13 the application was de- nied for failure to verify identity. DSS states that the appli- cant was already known to the system since she was receiving CalFresh benefits for several months until August, 2012, and had been J-verified in the MEDS system which lists her name, DOB and SSN as verified. Per ACIN-I-45-11 if identity has been verified via MEDs, then the verification of identity re- quirement in the CalFresh is considered to be met. DPSS’ corrective action plan was to continue to deny food stamp applications for failure to verify identity even if the county is able to verify the identity as provided in ACIN I-45-11. l Los Angeles DPSS Customer Disservice Exposed. B1BZC57 received a notice for a missed telephone in- terview. B1BZC57 wrote a letter to Los Angeles County I have received your letter indicating that I have missed the ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org January 9, 2014 Issue #2014-01 DSS denied food stamps to veteran who presented adequate verification ac- cording to welfare law. Mr. Conception, a veteran who risked his life fight- ing for his country, applies for CalFresh. He has no photo ID and has not eaten a decent meal for a week or so. His food stamps were stopped be- cause the county said he did not get his report in, although he mailed it to the county. The county im- mediately denied the expedited CalFresh applica- tion because he had no photo ID even though he gave the county his social security number. The county informed Mr. Jones that the county has 30 days to process his application. This process is in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code 18905.1 which provides: The department shall not impose any additional requirements for verification of eligibility for expe- dited service other than those minimum require- ments that exist under federal law. While it is true that federal law requires verifi- cation of identity to receive CalFresh, there are many ways to verify identity. One way is known as J verify. The county enters the veteran’s social security number into the MEDS system. MEDS will verify the identity the same day if he or she has previously received benefits from any county, or will verify the next working day, well before the three-day limit to issue expedited service. But, it seems many California counties are not interest- ed in assisting applicants to qualify for CalFresh. The cultures of both DSS and counties is to deny applications rather than assist to make the appli- cant eligible for benefits. DSS gives counties flexibility to send folks like Mr. Conception to the garbage cans of California to eat. The fact that Mr. Conception, and thousands like him, go hungry should be considered when adopting food stamp policies, however, county flexibility outweighs all other considerations. During the last quarter of 2012 counties made ex- pedited service determinations for 311,089 cases. Of those, 210,076 were denied. That is a 67% de- nial rate. These are all persons who have stated under penalty of perjury that they have less than $100 in resources and less that $150 income. We would argue that most of these denials were unlawful and mean-spirited. These denials are also in violation of due process of law. Mr. Conception, who served his country, did not even get his due process notice telling him why his expedited ser- vice application was denied. What Happens when CDSS Breaks The Law Regarding DFA 296X CalFresh Expedited Service Quarterly Statistical Reports? Welfare & Institutions Code 18913 says that DSS shall collect quarterly expedited service data on the number of applications and the disposition of the applications, on a county-by-county basis and shall publish those statistics quarterly. DSS does not comply with this provision. Unlike Mr. Concep- tion, DSS suffers no consequences for non compli- ance. The 2013 January-March, April-June, and July-September reports, have yet to posted on line. In fact, DSS admits that posting has been delayed. DSS and counties fail to admit that the delay is a blatant violation of 18913, which does not autho- rize the department to delay publication because there are discrepancies. The Legislature was fully cognizant of this possibility, but failed to authorize a delay in posting the information that DSS received from counties. In fact, often DSS posts reports that are later corrected for about a 10-year period. CCWRO Welfare News January 9, 2014 # 2014-01 The July-September 2004 report was corrected on 10\/19\/07 three years later. The October-Decem- ber 2009 report was corrected on 11\/4\/11 about 2 years later; a complete list is set forth in Table #1. DSS has also issued a revised DFA 296X as evidenced by ACL 13-65 published August 12, 2013. This ACL does not effect the Janu- ary-March, 2013, April-June, 2013, yet even after six (6) months the January-March, 2013, April-June, 2013, reports that have not been published – a direct violation of Welfare and Institutions Code 18913. The directions for the DFA 296X quarterly statistical report provides basic aggregate data on the num- ber of CalFresh expedited service (ES) requests received and dis- posed of during the quarter. The posting of reports starting with the January – March report quar- ter have been delayed due to data discrepancies. The CDSS is cur- rently working to resolve the data discrepancies and once resolved, the CDSS will update and release. Please refer to ACL 13-65 dated August 12, 2013 regarding the Revised DFA 296X quarterly re- port form. The submission of the July – September 2013 and Octo- ber – December 2013 quarterly re- ports are due by January 20, 2014. DFA 296X – CalFresh Expe- dited Service Quarterly Statisti- cal Report can be found at http:\/\/ www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/ PG354.htm Report Month Updated File Format October – December 2012 08\/13\/13 PDF Excel July – September 2012 02\/11\/13 PDF Excel April – June 2012 02\/11\/13 PDF Excel January – March 2012 02\/11\/13 PDF Excel October – December 2011 08\/07\/12 PDF Excel July – September 2011 01\/31\/12 PDF Excel April – June 2011 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel January – March 2011 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel October – December 2010 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel July – September 2010 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel April – June 2010 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel January – March 2010 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel October – December 2009 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel July – September 2009 11\/04\/11 PDF Excel April – June 2009 12\/10\/09 PDF Excel January – March 2009 08\/03\/09 PDF Excel October – December 2008 08\/03\/09 PDF Excel July – September 2008 05\/14\/09 PDF Excel April – June 2008 05\/14\/09 PDF Excel January – March 2008 05\/14\/09 PDF Excel October – December 2007 09\/04\/08 PDF Excel July – September 2007 09\/04\/08 PDF Excel April – June 2007 05\/14\/09 PDF Excel January – March 2007 04\/16\/08 PDF Excel October – December 2006 04\/16\/08 PDF Excel July – September 2006 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel April – June 2006 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel January – March 2006 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel October – December 2005 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel July – September 2005 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel April – June 2005 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel January – March 2005 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel October – December 2004 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel July – September 2004 10\/19\/07 PDF Excel Table # 1 ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org February 14, 2014 Issue #2014-02 SAWS 1 – Minutes of the January 9, 2014 meeting of the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) Medi-Cal Committee reflects that the Solano County representative asserted that the new SAWS1 does not have a place for the applicant to write in the social se- curity number (SSN) or the birthdate. FACT: The new SAWS 1 does have a space for SSN. There is no place for the applicant’s birthdate. Is there a legal re- quirement for the date of birth to be on the SAWS1? DSS continues to withhold DFA 296X reports – Minutes of the January 9, 2014 CWDA CalFresh Com- mittee show that DSS updated the group on the DFA 296X report for the quarter ending June 2013. DSS said that the report forms for the third and fourth quar- ter use a different format and will be available on Janu- ary 20, 2014. (Cont’d. pg.2) 2014 Farm Bill The 2014 Farm Bill of 2014, Public Law 113-79, will authorize the food stamp program for 5 years. The bill cuts about $8 billion over a 10-year peri- od. There are many punitive provisions in the bill designed to demean food stamp recipients by en- acting alleged anti-fraud provisions when the real fraud at Wall Street goes unchecked. One such cut is the elimination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments when the consumer did not incur utility payments. (Section 4007 – Standard utility allowances (SUA) based on the receipt of energy assistance payments In Con- ference Report 113-333 in Congressional Record H1269-1425.) The final resolution is that LIHEAP payments above $10 would trigger a SUA deduc- tion. (Section 4003) How Would the LIHEAP Change Impact California? Negligible for California. The LIHEAP automatic utility deduction took effect in California on July 1, 2103 through AB 6 sponsored by California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA). CFPA asserted that Heat & Eat would increase benefits by $20 a month for each household. In comparing the CDSS DFA 256 monthly reports from July 2012, to the most recent data, as de- tailed in Table # 1 reveal that an average household benefit increase did not occur. Since LIHEAP did not increase the month- ly CalFresh benefits in July 2013, we expect that the elimination of a SUA deduction for Heat & Eat will not have a major impact. However DSS estimates that as many as 300,000 families who have net incomes below the federal poverty line (FPL) may have reduced benefits as a result of this change in federal law. In summary we will not have to be fighting for food stamps for the next five (5) years. TABLE # 1 Month Amount of CalFresh Benefits Issued Number of Households Receiving CalFresh Benefits Average Amount of CalFresh Benefits Issued Per Household July, 2012 $609,760,244.81 1,843,341,000 $330.79 August, 2012 $614,545,679.03 1,860,414,000 $330.33 Sept., 2012 $613,450,671.59 1,865,844,000 $328.78 Oct., 2012 $622,629,034.75 1,887,860,000 $329.81 Nov., 2012 $617,936,794.60 1,883,965,000 $328.00 Dec., 2012 $621,268,047.67 1,892,630,000 $328.26 January, 2013 $642,102,018.40 1,919,085,000 $334.59 February. 2013 $640,714,871.89 1,906,946,000 $335.99 March, 2013 $648,264,624.18 1,930,552,000 $335.79 April, 2013 $643,737,602.85 1,926,913,000 $334.08 May, 2013 $645,093,271.37 1,931,074,000 $334.06 June, 2013 $642,192,269.44 1,930,773,000 $332.61 July, 2013 $646,222,485.23 1,942,832,000 $332.62 August, 2013 $648,100,017.31 1,950,031,000 $332.35 Sept., 2013 $647,568,879.00 1,922,812,000 $336.78 Oct., 2013 $659,937,818.00 1,945,520,000 $339.21 Nov., 2013 $615,819,332.00 1,950,657,000 $315.70 CCWRO Welfare News February 14, 2014 # 2014-02 Page 2 In direct violation of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18913, DSS withheld the first and second quarter reports from the public. Moreover, it is now February and there is nothing available to the public for the entire year of 2013. Can MAGI Medi-Cal be denied for failing to provide verification of an application for UIB or SDI? The an- swer provided to the CWDA Medi-Cal Committee is that ACA verification requirements are less restrictive. Coun- ties can accept an attestation that they have applied without proof. There is no adverse action if the client does not pro- vide proof of application for proof of unconditional income. Do not ask for it and do not take negative action. At this time CalHEERs has not interfaced with CalWIN, C-IV and LEADER. Until the interface is achieved counties shall not take any negative action on Medi-Cal cases. As of January 1, 2014 Covered California received 73,000 paper applications. All paper applications must be entered into the computer by Covered California staff. The households with complete applications received benefits January 1, 2014. Those households whose applications were not complete will receive benefits February 1, 2014. DSS will have data dash board information (county and state) that will be available to the public on the DSS webpage. DSS will not put any county data on the dash- board until the county has reviewed the data that the county submitted to the DSS. The dashboard will provide county specific data food stamps also known as SNAP or CalFresh. This will provide useful county approved information that counties can use for planning and self-assessment. WPR & lunch hours – DSS has informed counties that they can count lunch hours as a TANF activity time if par- ticipants multi-tasked by eating lunch and work at the activ- ity at the same time. Source: Email from Donald Hamilton DPSS of Los Angeles County to Vandy Wongsavanh DSS, dated November 20, 2013. Child care money not spent – Unlawful Policy – San Benito County states that We had a Deputy Director who stated that clients could not have their child care paid if they submitted their reimbursement forms and\/or verifications four or more months after care was provided. This is why child care money is not being spent by counties. In 2012-2013, San Benito County received a Stage 1 alloca- tion of $755,146 and only used 587,660. San Benito County failed to use 22% of its total child care allocation by having this policy. Statewide the numbers are more puzzling. See Table #2. Napa County violates application processing timelines – A CalFresh application was filed in July 2013 but Napa County did not issue benefits until November 17, 2013. This is about a 120-day delay in issuing benefits to the food insecure. Napa County underpays food stamps – In a DSS letter to Napa County dated October 14, 2013, DSS states: The CF budget has not been updated since September 2012. The EW failed to process the shelter verification submitted by the HH on February 22, 2013, and did not update the budget to include shelter cost. The letter does not say when this error was dis- covered or how long the household remained underpaid. Another Napa Violation – In another case a self-employed person was not allowed the 40% deductions for self-employed. It appears that C-IV knows that the income is self-employ- ment, but does not know to allow the 40%. Marin County denies applications for CalFresh through the use of a verbal withdrawal . The applicant is told by the county that he\/she is not eligible for CalFresh and should withdraw the application. Federal regulation 273.29(c)(6) states: Withdrawing application. The household may voluntarily withdraw its application at any time prior to the determination of eligibility. The State agency shall document in the case file the reason for withdrawal, if any was stated by the household, and that contact was made with the household to confirm the withdrawal. The household shall be advised of its right to re- apply at any time subsequent to a withdrawal. In September 15, 2003 the federal government cited California for being in violation of this regulation. DSS issued an ACIN I-48-03, but that did not do the trick. Counties just can’t resist imposing their will upon the food insecure seeking assistance. Often applicants are told to withdraw the application when they are actually eligible for benefits. Sacramento County denied application for nonexistent income – Sacramento County Welfare Director Paul Lake was informed on November 5, 2013 that a CalFresh household of one was terminated from food stamps because the household’s CalWORKs benefits of $1,200 exceeded the gross income lim- its. There was no evidence that this person was getting Cal- WORKs. We are not aware of any assistance unit of one get- ting $1,200 a month from CalWORKS. San Joaquin County wrongful denies of on-line applica- tion – San Joaquin County Welfare Director Joseph Cheli re- ceived a letter from DSS dated November 13, 2013 regard- ing an unlawful denial of an on-line application. The victim applied on June 10, 2013. A phone interview was completed on June 10, 2013. The letter does not state whether or not the household was eligible for expedited service. Why? Given the over 50% expedited service denial rate one would think that DSS would look at the expedited service issuance also. On June 20, 2013, the household provided the requested verifica- tion to the county. On July 5, 2013 the application was de- nied for allegedly not completing the application process and the Agency has not received the requested documents for the CalFresh application. The requested verification was re- ceived June 20, 2013. Maybe the computer was not told about Fiscal Year Child Care Allocation Amount of Child Allocation Not Spent by Counties 2011-2012 $432,203,000 $125,048,422 2012-2013 $432,203,000 $143,427,591 TABLE # 2 (Cont’d from pg. 1) (Cont’d on pg. 3) CCWRO Welfare News February 14, 2014 # 2014-02 Page 3 it? The San Joaquin County Action Plan to make sure this does not happen again is that San Joaquin County has gra- ciously agreed to remind workers of denial frames and failure to provide issue. How comforting. What a plan. Tuolumne County closes a food stamp case for no QR-7 that was received by the county – On November 12, 2013, Ann Connolly, Director of Tuolumne County received a let- ter from DSS regarding Ms. 507107. Ms. 5070107 turned in her QR-7 that she received in the beginning of on July 12, 2013. On July 12, 2013 at 10:01 am Tuolumne County issued a notice of action stopping Ms. 507107’s food stamp benefits. Ms. 507107 actually called the county on July 19, 2013 and informed the county that she had submitted her QR-7. The county noted the call in the case record, but did not stop the termination of food stamp benefits the apparent purpose of the Tuolumne County Food Stamp program. Tuolumne Coun- ty objected to the error in that they stated that food stamp re- cipients are required to get the QR-7 in by the 11th day of the month. It appears that Tuolumne County is willfully, and with the concurrence of DSS, violating MPP 6-504.621 which reads: QR) If the certification period ends in the QR Submit Month, the QR 7 shall be mailed to the household at the normal mail- ing time or along with the notice of action informing them of the expiration of their certification period. Return of both the QR 7 and the application is required to complete the recerti- fication. (a) The QR 7 shall be submitted and completed as specified in Section 63-508.66. (b) The application form shall be submitted to the CWD no later than the time of the interview. (c) If the household has not previously filed a complete QR 7, the household may submit it at the interview. In no event shall the reapplication be considered timely if a complete QR 7 is submitted after the 11th of the last month of the certification period. A Fresno County approved case stopped by he CalWIN computer – On November 19, 2013 San- dy Moore of Fresno County was notified by DSS of a county error in the case of 508010. See Table #3 as to how CalWIN handled this case and how many other cases have been closed after benefits have been approved. It boggles the mind that after the benefits have been approved CalWIN would terminate the case. There is no reason to believe that CalWIN will be fixed to not erroneously allow approved cases to be terminated for missing an intake appointment that was not missed. Sacramento County denies application for verifi- cation that the county never asked for – On Novem- ber 27, 2013 Mr. Paul Lake, County welfare director of Sacramento County received a letter from concern- ing a county CalFresh error in terminating benefits of Ms. 508065 for failure to provide verification when no verification was requested or due from Ms. 508065. Table # 4 shows the sequence of this county error. Santa Clara County closes food stamp case for no QR-7 that was received by the county – On October 14, 2014 Bruce Wagstaff, Agency Director for Santa Clara County welfare department received a letter from DSS about RN506061. On June 17, 2013, the county received the QR 7 from RN506061 as evidenced by the date stamp on the QR-7. On June 22, 2013, Santa Clara County’s Cal- WIN system issued a notice of action (NOA) terminating the case for allegedly not receiving the QR-7. The benefits stopped based on an invalid NOA, causing RN506061 to endure even greater food insecurity. Yet, the county con- tinued to get paid for sending out erroneous NOAs that were false. Date of Action County Action July 5, 2013 Applied for CalFresh via SAWS1 July 8, 2013 10:45 am Scheduled for intake interview July 8, 2013 11:15 am Case comment states client no show July 8, 2013 1:09 pm Phone interview completed. Both expedited service & regular CalFresh approved. And issued July 9, 2013 Notice of Missed Appoint- ment issued stating You were scheduled for an interview July 8, 2013, but you did not keep this appointment. You must complete your interview with us by August 4, 2013. August 5, 2013 CalWIN discontinued the newly approved case. Date of Action County Action August 15, 2013 5:07 pm Case comment that recertifi- cation interview took place 8-14-13. August 15, 2013 5:07 pm Completed QR7 was received and no change was reported. August 15, 2013 Notice of Action mailed to Ms. 508065 that the recertification was completed and the new certification period was from September 1, 2013through August 31, 2014. August 15, 2013 9:30 pm CalWIN decides to terminate the case for failure to provide verification. August 16 2013 CalWIN issues a NOA termi- nating CalFresh benefits for verification never requested by the county. TABLE # 4 TABLE # 3 (Cont’d from pg. 2) ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. ccwro.org March 19 , 2014 Issue #2014-03 WtW 17 form – Designed to Make Sure No one is Screened for Learn- ing Disability Learning Disability Screening Learning disabilities are a major reason for sanctions in the CalWORKs pro- gram. The propaganda is that the Welfare-to-Work program is designed to assist participants to remove barriers to self-sufficiency. In order to remove that barrier CDSS, in concert with counties, concocted the WtW 17, Waiver of CalWORKs Learning Disabilities Screening and\/or Evaluation. The WtW 17 informs the participant that unless a learning disability is iden- tified, the participant will receive no special treatment and the participant will be subject to sanctions. If the participant signs the WtW 17 and marks the Learning Disabilities Screening box and\/or Learning Disabilities Evaluation box the participant waives the right to have an assessment. If the participant refus- es to sign the WtW 17 form, the participant is deemed to waive the right to an assessment. The question becomes how DOES the participant get a learning disabilities screening and assessment. In many counties, they don’t. Generally when a partici- pant attends WtW orientation he\/she is told to cooper- ate with the worker or face a sanction. Later, when the worker gives the participant the WtW 17, the partici- pant reads the form and wonders what is the difference between signing or not signing the WtW 17, since both results in a waiver of the learning disabilities screening and evaluation. The participant then signs the WtW 17, the worker enters the note that the participant un- derstood the waiver and that he or she understand that the participant can change his\/her mind anytime, but our experience tells us that this is rarely done. When the participant makes an oral request for a learning dis- abilities screening and assessment, there is no paper trail that the request was ever made. Most CalWORKs recipients sign the WtW 17 and no learning disability evaluation is performed. This helps the county achieve the primary mission of the WtW program sanctioning families for failure to partici- pate due to a learning disability. In January 2014, there were 117,845 participants in a WtW activity. In that same month, 57,606 families were being sanctioned for allegedly failing to participate many with learning disabilities. In that same month, counties imposed new sanctions against another 13,285 families, many with learning disabilities. Sanctioned families lose the CalWORKs benefits attrib- uted to the parent. That means a family of two receiv- ing $490 in CalWORKs benefits would receive $300 a month. This is clearly felony economic child abuse by CDSS and counties that is celebrated in California. No wonder California has the highest child poverty rate in the US and DSS has no plans to take remedial action to stop the misery endured by poor children of Califor- nia. These sanctions also result in children becoming homeless. See TABLE #1. What is the impact of sanctions on families? Sanctions Family of one parent and one child CalWORKs Payment Amount Percentage of the federal poverty level Percentage of the supplemental poverty level $515 without sanction 40% 30% $315 with sanc- tion 24% 19% Where are the DFA 296Xs ? It has been over a year and DSS continues to be out of compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code Section 19813 that mandates quarterly reports (DFA 296X) on expedited services processing. This report provides ba- sic aggregate data on the number of CalFresh expedited service (ES) requests received and disposed on during the quarter. The last report that DSS posted is for the October-December 2012 quarter that was revised on August 13, 2013. Apparently, all of the later quarter- Table # 1 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/WTW17.pdf http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG354.htm http:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/ CCWRO Welfare News March 19, 2014 # 2014-03 ly reports have been delayed due to data discrepancies. DSS is still trying to resolve the data discrepancies and will then issue the DFA 296Xs. The submission of the July-September 2013 and the October-December 2013 reports were due January 20, 2014. Our most recent in- formation from CDSS is no promises for the next 30 days . Food and Nutrition Service’s (FNS) Secret Documents The national office and each FNS regional office have adopted a 2014 Priority Plan. Public funds paid for all of these plans. Yet the plans are not available to the public. They are internal documents hidden from the public and taxpayers. FNS also has a procedure called SWIM to handle state policy requests. Swim is the method used by states to contact the regional office and the regional office for- wards the request to the national office for policy deci- sions. These decisions directly impact the food security of millions of impoverished children but are not avail- able to the public. SWIM communications are the pri- vate property of the FNS not to be shared with those pesty taxpayers and voters. FNS Implements LIHEAP cuts Keeping in mind that FNS has yet to fully implement the 2003 and 2008 Farm Bills, FNS has issued a non-public directive to states instructing them to immediately implement the LIHEAP cuts. Contrary to the mandates of the federal law that mandates the Secretary to make certain determi- nations, FNS has issued no guidance on implementing the cuts. It should be a illegal for FNS to issue directives implementing provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill when they have not even finished implementing the 2003 and 2008 Farm Bills. ACA Application Not Considered a CalFresh Application The Covered California application includes a place for persons applying for benefits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to also connect with food stamps. The current application asks the ACA applicant if he\/she wants to be referred for CalFresh. Answering yes to this question only means that the county will eventually contact the individual concerning the submission of a CalFresh ap- plication. The State, with great deliberation, decided that the date that the ACA application was signed is irrel- evant for purposes of establishing the CalFresh applica- tion date. This leaves millions of federal dollars on the table that could have been transferred to Cali- fornia’s economy if the ACA application was also considered an application for CalFresh. But then why do that? That would create jobs in California. The bureaucrats obviously oppose more California jobs and more money for Californians. The Leader Replacement System (LRS) Intentionally Built For Inefficiency California has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars to replace Leader, the Los Angeles Coun- ty computer system. The new system is Leader Re- placement System (LRS). The LRS consortia will include Los Angeles County and the 38 C-IV coun- ties. Computers can be designed to enhance efficiency and reduce worker errors. However, the people building this system do not believe in efficiency. The new system will allow any county to turn off an automatic eligibility determination so as to al- low the worker to make the eligibility determina- tion which will lead to more worker errors. For example, if a person states that they have a social security number 111-22-3333 the computer can verify that automatically. But if a county has a business practice of requiring the applicant to show their SSN card or go to the Social Security office and apply for a new card, the worker will have to input that information. This creates more hoops for the applicant to jump through, more work for both the county worker and the social security office, but it does adhere to the counties wasteful & inef- ficient business practice. LRS should be built to maximize the efficiency features and not to allow counties to turn off LRS functions that can result in errors and inefficiency. Any county disabling an automatic function of the LRS system should be required to go through a public hearing process at the local level to justify its decision and receive written permission from the state entity that is responsible for the statewide administration of the California TANF and SNAP program. Someday maybe FNS and ACF will wake up from their deep sleep and stop this fleecing of taxpayer dollars by county welfare departments and real- ize that county practices contribute to the lowest CalFresh participation in the nation and the highest child poverty rate in the nation. http:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov\/ http:\/\/dpss.lacounty.gov\/dpss\/LRS_RFP\/ CCWRO Welfare News March 19, 2014 #2014-03 – Page 3 Number of Unduplicated Participants During September, 2012 120,078 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned 48,227 Number of Participants Sanctioned During September, 2012 12,567 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants be- ing Sanctioned During the Month of January 2014 51% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanc- tions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During the Month of January 2014 $7.6 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of Cal- WORKs During the Month of January 2014 3,249 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During the Month of January 2014 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During the Month of January 2014 $455,242.97 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transpor- tation by the County During the Month of January 2014 64,582 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Be- ing Paid Transportation by the County During the Month of January 2014 46% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant During the Month of January 2014 $6.5 million January 2014 California Welfare-to-Work Program OutcomesReport How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2013-2014 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $1,479,084,400 million Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports. 0% 20% 40% 60% Found Jobs Sanc2oned Did not received Transporta2on Series1 46% 51% 3% http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG276.htm ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org April 28 , 2014 Issue #2014-04 Many kids in foster care are a by-prod- uct of California’s punitive CalWORKs Program. In California, 84% of children are placed in foster care because of neglect, which is the result of deep poverty. California’s children have the highest supplemental poverty rate in the United States. This is partially because the ma- jor program designed to combat child poverty CalWORKs has been raided by the Governor and the Legislature by more than $20 billion since 1998. This year the Governor’s proposed budget for 2014-2015 would raid the CalWORKs program for more than $1.6 billion. State budget documents call this CalWORKs contribution to the general fund . We call this CalWORKs INVOLUNTARY contribution to the general fund . The cost of keep- ing a child on CalWORKs is $200 a month while the same child in foster care is over $2,300 a month. California is one of a few states with less than a 60-month clock – California imposes a 24-month and a 48-month clock on CalWORKs parents while 39 other states have a 60-month time clock, 21 of the 39 states are red states. There are only two (2) other states that have a 24-month or less clock Arkansas and Connecticut. The 24-month clock is extended for parents who were allowed by counties to participate during the first 24 months, or is meeting the stringent fed- eral work participation after the 24th month. The 24-month clock started January 1, 2013. On 1-1-15, after 24 months, thousands of parents will be terminated from CalWORKs even though DSS has never completely implemented the intent of the Legislature in enacting the 24-month time clock. The tool to process appraisals before the 24-month start date has not even been launched. DSS is still in the process of developing that tool. Effective January 1, 2014 there was supposed to be a family stabilization program available to participants whose 24-months would start to click. The county plans were due March 31, 2014. In Brief When the county will implement family stabilization is unknown. There has been no significant change in the types of activity that participants have been allowed to do. The idea that all participants have choices is a pipedream even though there may be some counties that have allowed choices. The 24-month clock needs to be restarted on 1-1-16 or repealed as it is clearly a program that inflicts government induced economic child abuse upon children and poor families of California. May revise may have a new program to address the drought impact on the eco- nomically challenged – The Brown Adminis- tration is working on a drought resistant mecha- nism for counties where jobs have been impacted due to the drought, especially in the recreational mountain areas of California. This plan is a ven- ture being developed by DSS and Department of Finance. It is possible that this plan will be reflected in the May Revise. ACA Covered California Fair Hearing Data Activities Cases Hearing Filed 929 Hearings Scheduled 194 Hearings Conducted 85 Hearings Withdrawn 162 Hearings Verbally Withdrawn 197 Hearings Granted 14 Hearings Denied 10 Hearings Denied in Part 10 Hearings Dismissed 8 Source: State Department of Social Services as of 3-31-14. CCWRO Welfare News April 28, 2014 # 2014-04 IEVS MESS IN CALIFORNIA County Percentage Statewide 94% Alpine 100% Butte 100% Inyo 100% Lake 100% Lassen 100% Mariposa 100% Modoc 100% Santa Cruz 100% Sierra 100% Nevada 100% Glenn 99% San Joaquin 99% Tehama 99% Orange 99% Del Norte 99% El Dorado 98% Fresno 98% Plumas 98% Tulare 98% Sonoma 98% Calaveras 97% Madera 97% Yuba 97% Imperial 97% Merced 97% San Diego 97% Santa Clara 97% Tuolumne 95% Kern 95% San Bernardino 94% Los Angeles 94% Monterey 94% Yolo 94% Riverside 94% Amador 94% Humboldt 93% Napa 93% Siskiyou 93% Stanislaus 92% Kings 92% Shasta 92% Contra Costa 91% San Francisco 90% Sacramento 90% Table # 1 Whenever a person applies for Cal- WORKs, CalFresh or Medi-Cal, the coun- ty worker generally reviews the IEVS re- port to make sure the applicant has told the county about all of his or her income and resources. Counties also receive information from IEVS when the income reported to the SAWS system is inconsistent with the in- come reflected in the IEVS system gar- nered from IRS and SSA. These reports are knows as IEVS reports or abstracts . Once a report is received, the county is supposed to process the re- port within 45 days according to state and federal law. Often counties do not process these re- ports. This causes huge overpayments that are then referred to welfare fraud for investigation and eventually for persecu- tion by the district attorney for an over- payment caused by the county. Often wel- fare parents are jailed for overpayments caused by the welfare department’s re- fusal to do their job. In many cases, the kids end up in foster care costing taxpay- ers over $2,300 a month for each child. When the overpayment is recouped the county gets a bounty of 12.5% of the collected overpayment even though the county never invested 12.5% in the grant payment. The last IEVS reports on the DSS webpages reveal that the cause of the delay is because counties are processing thousands of reports that do not reveal any discrepancy. Statewide only 6% of the reports received showed any discrepancy. This means that during the last quarter of 2013 out of 296,039 re- ports processed only a meager 18,524 cases revealed a possible discrepancy. During the last quarter of 2013 counties had 780,685 reports and were only able to process 296,039 or 38% of the reports. This means that 62% of the reports, or majority of the reports were not touched by the county and if any of those 62% cases were causing an overpayment, the overpayment will con- tinue with the full knowledge of the government a county welfare department-induced overpayment whose delayed collection provide additional funding for counties and more victims for the local district attorney’s office to persecute. Table # 1 reveals county-by-county the percentage of IEVS reports processed with no discrepancy. Percentage of Cases IEVS Reports Reviewed with No – CCWRO Welfare News April 28, 2014 #2014-04 – Page 3 Number of Unduplicated Participants During February, 2014 118,858 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned During the month of February, 2014 58,035 Number of Participants Sanctioned During February, 2014 16,172 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants being Sanctioned During The Month of February, 2014 62% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanc- tions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During February, 2014 $16.5 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During February, 2014 2,876 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During February, 2014 2% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During February, 2014 $514,285 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transpor- tation by the County During February, 2014 52,312 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During February, 2014 44% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant During February, 2014 $5.2 million February 2014 California We l f a r e – t o – Work Program Outcomes Report 2013-2014 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $1,479,084,400 million Source: CDSS Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 Report February, 2014 California Welfare-to- Work Activity Report ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org June 2, 2014 Issue #2014-05 In Brief The CalHEERs Blues State and county employees developed California’s new computer system called CalHEERS without any meaningful input from the consumer community. Like other computer systems CalWIN and LEADER there are numerous problems that need to be fixed. Millions of dollars will be wasted because the sys- tem was not programmed correctly in the first place. n CalHEERS distinguishes between native born and naturalized US citizens. The system has a different set of questions for naturalized citi- zens. This is wrong and CalHEERS has agreed to use more taxpayer dollars to fix this error. n CalHEERS asks applicants to identify the pri- mary tax filer . This confuses applicants. How does an applicant answer this question if the ap- plicant has no earned income and does not file an income tax return. When applicants do file tax re- 2014-2015 CalWORKs Average Grant Payments & Various Poverty Levels Family SIze 2014 Federal Poverty Level 2014 Supplemental Poverty Level 2014-2015 CalWORKs Avarege Grant % of Federal Poverty Percentage of Supplemantlal Poverty Level 1 $973 $1223 $276 28% 23% 2 1311 1708 452 34% 26% 3 1649 2431 600 34% 23% 4 1966 2832 668 34% 24% 5 2326 3193 760 33% 24% 6 2664 3586 853 32% 24% Family SIze 2014 Federal Poverty Level 2014 Supplemental Poverty Level 2014-2015 CAlWORKs Avarege Grant % of Federal Poverty Percentage of Supplemantlal Poverty Level 1 $973 $1223 $00 0% 0% 2 1311 1708 $276 21% 16% 3 1649 2431 452 27% 19% 4 1966 2832 600 28% 20% 5 2326 3193 668 29% 21% 6 2664 3586 760 29% 21% CalWORKs Average Monthly Benefits Compared to the 100% FPL & SPL for CalWORKs Families with 1 Excluded Person Due to a Variety of CalWORKs Penalties and Sanctions. CalWORKs Average Monthly Benefits Compared to the 100% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) & the Supplemental Poverty Levels (SPL) 2014-2015 State Budget $1.5 billion will be taken from CalWORKs as INVOLUNTARY contribution to the State General Fund. TABLE # 1 n The United States of America, the so-called compassionate country, is very hypocritical when it comes to its own people. The childhood poverty rate in the United States is 21%. In 2012, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) issued a report finding that the United States had the second highest childhood poverty rate in the developed world. Only Romania had a higher child- hood poverty rate. Whereas many developed countries have a much lower rate. Finland’s child poverty rate is 4%, Denmark’s is 4%, Sweden’s is 5%, Norway’s is 5% and Holland’s is 6%. In most developed countries no food stamp programs or nutrition programs exist because these countries provide income support that is often above 50% of median household income. That means the family can buy their own food rather than relying on food coupons and other 20th Century means of supporting the poor. n How much is the State of California stealing from CalWORKs families? The answer is $1,522,450,000. Yes, that is $1.5 billion. In his recently released May revised budget, the Governor con- tinues to steal money from the CalWORKs program while forcing impoverished families to suffer in deep poverty. TABLE # 1 reveals the CalWORKs average grants and compares the average grants to the Federal Poverty Level and the Supplement Poverty Level. n Each month, CalWORKs clients who live in deep poverty, are forced to pay over $75,000 in EBT fees just so they can access their meager CalWORKs grant. From January through April 2014, banks have fleeced welfare recipients out of $302,775.37 in surcharges. Con’t. on page 1 CCWRO Welfare News June 2, 2014 # 2014-05-Page 2 Con’t. from page 1 turns, CalHEERs gets a copy of the tax re- turn which shows the primary tax filer. Can’t people at the county and the state read English? n CalHEERs freezes whenever the applicant states that he or she is a noncitizen. The current remedy for this problem is to LIE to CalHEERS and say that the person is a citizen, then go back and correct it after completing the application. n CalHEERs only accepts USA addresses. If an applicant lists a tax dependent who lives outside of the USA, the system refuses to accept the infor- mation. Again people completing the forms have been told that they should lie and not input the ad- dress of a person who does not have a US address. n CalHEERs sends applications to the wrong county that delays the pro- cessing of the Medi-Cal applications. n CalHEERs refuses to recognize the unmarried parent who lives in the home but files a separate tax return. This problem improperly reduces the family size that may impact the child’s Medi-Cal eligibility. n Some Medi-Cal eligible applicants are told that they are eligible for Medi-Cal while CalHEERs di- rects the applicants to select a non-Medi-Cal plan. n The Covered California Certified Eligibil- ity Counselors (CEC) who assist applicants with the Medi-Cal application are not allowed to as- sist their clients with the county. The county refuses to talk to them because they are not authorized representatives. The MC 210 Sec- tion 8 had a space for the applicant to autho- rize the assistor to talk to the county. The Cal- HEERs application does not have this feature. n When a CEC wants to review information con- tained on a prior page of the application, CalHEERs thinks that the application has been amended. If no change has been made, the application freezes. Thus, the CEC must enter different information that is a LIE, and then after completing the information reenter the true information; just a lot of waste. CalFRESH Expedited Services Benefits Not Getting to the Hungry For a whole year CDSS did not release re- ports on CalFresh Expedited Services which detail the number of applicants reviewed for expedited services and how many received it in 2013. Finally in May 2014, CDSS posted the 2013 DFA 296X reports and 2013 was a very mean year for the hungry in California. Federal law requires that every SNAP\/Cal- FRESH applicant be considered for expe- dited services. In 2012, FNS realized that California was out of compliance with fed- eral law in that not all applicants were be- ing considered for expedited services. CDSS alleged that the law needed to be changed and the Legislature enacted AB 1359, chap- ter 468, Statutes of 2012 effective January 1, 2013. During 2013, the counties only evalu- ated 22% of the CalFresh applicants for ex- pedited services. That means that California violated federal law by not evaluating the re- maining 78% of the applications. To put it in human terms, 6,898,281 hungry people made applications but only 1,542,244 applications were even reviewed for Expedited Services. But wait it gets worse. Of the 6,898,281 house- holds that should have been considered for expe- dited services, only, and we mean only, 537,668 households were found eligible for Expedited Services. Fewer than 10% of the applicants were approved for expedited services in 2013. TABLE # 2 reveals county-by-county the per- centage of applicants whose cases were ap- proved. Many of the households denied had to con- tinue to endure hunger and food insecurity in the State of California. CCWRO Welfare News June 2, 2014 #2014-05 – Page 3 COUNTY Applications Received by the County During 2013 Expedited Service Food Stamps (FS-ES) Issued During 2013 Percentage of Applications Received FS-ES During 2013 Statewide 6,898,281 537,668 8% Alameda 299,009 18,434 6% Alpine 337 60 18% Amador 7,943 842 11% Butte 64,723 6,308 10% Calaveras 9,122 1,063 12% Colusa 3,811 322 8% Contra Costa 110,734 6,585 6% Del Norte 8,339 978 12% El Dorado 28,845 3,456 12% Fresno 207,887 19,407 9% Glenn 4,509 511 11% Humboldt 46,997 4,899 10% Imperial 58,181 4,258 7% Inyo 4,363 457 10% Kern 237,666 21,029 9% Kings 62,347 3,523 6% Lake 18,732 1,673 9% Lassen 7,261 791 11% Los Angeles 1,625,436 127,971 8% Madera 55,314 3,312 6% Marin 24,585 2,185 9% Mariposa 3,471 337 10% Mendocino 26,981 3,448 13% Merced 66,101 6,865 10% Modoc 2,613 173 7% Mono 3,943 385 10% Monterey 75,363 7,379 10% Napa 19,094 1,346 7% Nevada 17,985 1,819 10% Orange 364,466 21,848 6% Placer 26,184 2,569 10% Plumas 4,497 408 9% Riverside 526,803 44,417 8% Sacramento 340,354 15,165 4% San Benito 12,517 1,037 8% San Bernardino 588,001 60,440 10% San Diego 542,049 34,759 6% San Francisco 98,375 8,269 8% San Joaquin 179,489 13,239 7% San Luis Obispo 32,769 2,426 7% San Mateo 117,504 4,783 4% Santa Barbara 39,728 2,613 7% Santa Clara 144,216 7,262 5% Santa Cruz 55,024 2,919 5% Shasta 55,929 4,794 9% Sierra 551 79 14% Siskiyou 13,711 1,136 8% Solano 56,196 5,669 10% Sonoma 62,532 4,780 8% Stanislaus 146,713 15,731 11% Sutter 19,985 2,067 10% Tehama 15,061 1,900 13% Trinity 4,279 433 10% Tulare 149,168 13,600 9% Tuolumne 12,648 1,251 10% Ventura 119,856 8,252 7% COUNTY Applications Received by the County During 2013 Expedited Service Food Stamps (FS-ES) Issued During 2013 Percentage of Applications Received FS-ES During 2013 Source: CDSS WtW 25 and 25A. TABLE # 2 . This table reveals the number of households that applied for food stamps during calendar year 2013, and the meager number of households is- sued expedited service food stamp benefits, which was 8% statewide. CCWRO Welfare News June 2, 2014 #2014-05- Page 4 Number of Unduplicated Participants During March, 2014 122,258 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned During the month of March of2014 56,818 Number of Participants Sanctioned During March of 2014 11,409 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants being Sanctioned During March of 2014 56% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During March of 2014 $18.5 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During March of 2014 2,869 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During March of 2014 2% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During March of 2014 $42,961.67 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During February, 2014 53,422 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During March of 2014 44% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant During March of 2014 $5.3 million 2013-2014 Welfare-to- Work Services Appropriation $1,479,084,400 million Source: CDSS Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 Report ACTIVIES M A R C H 2013 M A R C H 2014 P e r c e n t a g e Change Number of Unduplicated Participants 117,122 122,258 4% Number of Participants Already Being Sanctioned 50,529 56,818 12% Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Re- sulted In Termination of CalWORKs 3,865 2,869 -35% Number of Participants Being Paid Transportation by the County 42% 42% 0% March 2014 California Welfare-to-Work SB 1041 Program Participant Impact Report March 2014 California Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes Report Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 Report ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento CA 95816 Telephone (916) 736-0616 Cell (916) 712-0071 Fax (916) 736-2645 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, and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org June 14, 2014 Issue #2014-06 In Brief CHILD CARE UPDATE DSS reviewed county claims for child care and found no- table variances when counties move cases from Stage 1 to Stage 2. In part, the variances occur because counties de- fine stable differently, which is a prerequisite of transfer- ring a child care case from Stage 1 with administration in house) to Stage 2 with administration contracted out. DSS plans to form a workgroup that will include DSS’ fis- cal and program divisions, CWDA and various counties. Missing from this workgroup are representatives of the consumer\/customers of the child care program. This work- group will examine the methods that counties use to track any work done during the month, how counties get Alterna- tive Payment Programs (APP) in order to provide accurate data and will clarify such difficult concepts as the federal definition of assistance and nonassistance , employ- ment , safety net policy was not available in the Stage 1 regulations and CalLearn . Los Angeles County DPSS The CalFresh Recertification Churning Machine DSS reported that during the fourth quarter of 2013, Los Angeles County completed 98% of the recertifications so that CalFresh benefits continued. Statewide, 78% of the CalFresh recertifications were completed. We strongly believe these percentages are fabricated and have nothing to do with the real world. CCWRO estimates that there is a 50% chance that a LADPSS CalFresh recipient going through the recertification process will be terminated for not completing the recertification process. Disabled Woman Endures Hunger Compliments Of Los Angeles DPSS Ms. B1H9X34 has chronic liver sclerosis and is on a donor transplant list waiting for a liver. Her liver damage was caused by a prescription drug prescribed by a doctor in the United States. She is also hungry in Los Angeles County because, for the fourth time, she has been a victim of churning. Ms. B1H9X34 received her packet from Los Angeles County in April. The due date for the package was May 5th. She completed the packet, went to the post office, paid for the postage, and mailed it to DPSS on or about April 25th. (While other counties send prepaid envelopes to CalFresh recipients Los Angeles County makes it dif- ficult and expensive for CalFresh recipients.) DPSS never n On April 29, 2014, the Georgia Republican Legisla- ture passed HR 772 requiring drug testing as a condi- tion of getting food stamps. On June 3, 2014 the USDA, FNS office informed Georgia that they will be violat- ing federal law if Georgia implements this inhumane bill.. In most developed countries no food stamp programs or nutrition programs exist because these countries provide income support that is often above 50% of median household income. That means the family can buy their own food rather than relying on food coupons and other 20th Century means of supporting the poor. n Counties track the 12-month Vocational Edu- cational activities in SAWS through the Consortia. CalWIN Counties C-IV Counties LEADER Vocational Educa- tion information is tracked monthly and can be found in the Manage- ment Reporting feature. Vocational Educa- tion hours are tracked each month. The system tracks the amount of months used for the WPR, and shows months used and months remaining. Leader uses GEARS to capture WtW activities that includes vocational education. GEARS captures the activ- ity start and end dates to track the 12-month allowable limit. n C-IV counties have noticed that the IEVS informa- tion in MEDS and in C-IV are not the same. C-IV sug- gested that counties maintain a remedy ticket log, but it is not clear how counties reconcile the inconsistencies. n On-Line CalWORKs Appraisal Tool (OCAT) is being tested in Fresno, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Sonoma and Tulare Counties. The testing generated 110 pages of changes that were implemented by the so-called OCAT Control Board. Counties are now revising this tool in secret without involving the customer\/consumer community. n San Bernardino County’s WtW Sanction program has a new plan to enhance WtW sanctions schedule students for a monthly interview and when they do not show up because the interview conflicts with the school schedule, impose a sanction. WtW program mission accomplished. Is it possible that San Bernardino County workers are way underworked? Why require monthly meetings with students working hard to overcome pov- erty? Grades are issued at the end of each semester and not every month. Oh yeah–forgot, this means more sanctions the primary purpose of the San Bernardino County WtW program. http:\/\/www.calwin.org\/ http:\/\/www.c-iv.org\/ http:\/\/dpss.lacounty.gov\/dpss\/lrs_rfp\/default.cfm http:\/\/www.cwda.org\/ http:\/\/www.legis.ga.gov\/legislation\/en-US\/display\/20132014\/HB\/772 CCWRO Welfare News June 14, 2014 # 2014-06Page 2 Con’t. from page 1 scheduled an interview. During the first week of May, she called the DPSS Exposition Park office and was told that the county did not receive her packet. DPSS was nice enough to send her another packet, which she completed and had a friend drop it off at Exposition Park Office on May 15th be- cause she was too sick to deliver the package. Ms. B1H9X34 then received a notice of action dated May 1, 2014 stating that effective May 31, 2014 she will no longer get CalFresh. In June she is foodless compliments of the wonderful Los Angeles Food Stamp Program designed to try every trick in the book to deter the hungry from getting food stamps. A working mom endures hunger-compliments of Los Angeles DPSS. Ms. 2014122067 has been forced to reap- ply for CalFresh for several years. Each time, she mails in the information, sometimes the worker never gets it. When the worker does receive it, there are other tricks, such as VERIFICATION, to insure that the household is not recerti- fied. In Ms. 2014122067’s case the Deputy Director of the South Central office insisted that Ms. 2014122067 failed to verify income. When Ms. 2014122067 asked what income was not verified, the Deputy Director refused to specify the income, but did admit that Ms. 2014122067 did report and verified income. However, since the income is less than her rent, Ms. 2014122067 must have additional unreported income. How sick. Yes, there are people in America whose income is less than their rent, this is not an anomaly. DPSS also demanded a copy of her and her son’s social security card, birth certificate for her son, her birth certificate and her daughter’s school report card for CalFresh. When her ben- efits did not show up, she went to the South Central Office to find out what happened to her CalFresh. She was informed that the county closed her case since DPSS did not receive the packet. The county did not offer her an application so that she could complete it and be interviewed the same day while they have her in the office. No, that would be cus- tomer service and that is not the mission of Los Angeles DPSS. Epilogue – Today Ms. 2014122067 finally received her food stamps DPSS Pilots On-Line Recertifiction DPSS is piloting an on-line recertification process where recipients complete the recertification documents. The on-line process requests un- necessary verification. When the on-line process does work, DPSS uses the interview process to close cases. Upon the completion of the interview, the worker fails to let the com- puter know that the interview was completed. The computer then issues a notice of action stating that the recipient did not complete the interview, which means no benefits, which means hunger. If DPSS really wants to stop this rampant churning, why not just add a chat function to the On-line Recertification so before the application recertifcation forms and verification are submitted, the recipient can be interviewed on-line by a worker to make sure that the recipient does not have to take time off work to do this often meaningless interview. The next column contains data from the fourth quarter of 2013 showing the percentage of food stamp recertifications that failed. Source: CDSS WtW CalFresh Dashboard California 22% Mono 59% El Dorado 51% Plumas 46% Inyo 46% Nevada 45% Colusa 45% Humboldt 45% Amador 44% Tuolumne 43% Lassen 42% Butte 42% Calaveras 42% Yuba 42% Napa 42% Sierra 41% Glenn 41% Mariposa 40% Trinity 40% San Benito 40% Tehama 40% Shasta 40% Modoc 40% Sutter 40% Mendocino 40% Marin 39% Alpine 38% Kings 37% Riverside 37% Siskiyou 36% Lake 36% Del Norte 35% Stanislaus 35% Monterey 35% Kern 35% San Bernardino 33% Merced 31% Madera 31% San Joaquin 30% Imperial 29% San Francisco 25% Solano 23% Sonoma 22% San Diego 22% Alameda 22% Ventura 21% Santa Cruz 21% Placer 21% San Mateo 20% Contra Costa 19% San Luis Obispo 19% Yolo 17% Santa Barbara 17% Santa Clara 16% Orange 15% Sacramento 15% Fresno 13% Tulare 12% Los Angeles 2% County Percentage County Percentage Percentage of CalFresh Recertifications Completed During the Last Quarter of 2013 http:\/\/www.cdsscounties.ca.gov\/foodstamps\/ ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 (916) 736-2645 (fax) (916) 712-0071 (cell) 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, and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www.ccwro.org July 9, 2014 Issue #2014-07 2014-2015 State Budget Steals $1.1 Billion from CalWORKs Children All TANF Funding Contribu1on to the General Fund $5.6 billion for CalWORKs $1.1 billion stolen from CalWORKs The Bad The 2014-2015 state budget stole $1.1 billion from CalWORKs children and families. The federal government gives California $3.7 billion to operate the TANF program known as CalWORKs. The state must match $3 billion to get $3.7 billion in federal dollars. For 2014-2015, California will use less than $5.6 billion for the CalWORKs program. Meanwhile, CalWORKs grants are at the same level they were in 1988. The Good 1. A 5% grant increase effective 4\/1\/15; 2. No longer deny CalWORKs CalFresh and General Assistance to persons who were convicted of certain drug crimes; 3. State funding of the LIEAP’s $20 annual payment assures that all CalFresh (food stamp) recipients receive the Standard Utility Allowance deduction. This helps 320,000 households at a cost of $10.5 million; 4. A $20 million allocation for county homeless assistance programs; 5. A $30 million allocation for foster care payments to non-parent relatives who are not federally eligible for foster care, provided the children have been placed with the relative by child protective services (CPS). These non-parent relatives who were not federally eligible for foster care due to income levels, were receiving $300 a month; they will now receive about $800 a month. LESSON – Therefore, if you are a poor non-parent relative with one child receiving $515 a month, you are required to do workfare for the CalWORKs check. If that same nonparent places the same child\/chil- dren with CPS, counties will most likely place the child\/childern back with the same nonparent relative giving them $800 a month per child with no workfare requirement. The reason the child will be placed back with the non-parent relative because to keep a child in foster care costs on the average $2,500 a month. CCWRO Welfare News July 9, 2014 # 2014-07 Page 2 Counties AB 1359 increase\/de- crease in CF-ES benefits for first quarter 2014 compared to first quarter 2013 Statewide $20,503,858.52 Alameda $1,339,520.40 Alpine $(3,041.12) Amador $16,145.16 Butte $189,166.96 Calaveras $17,184.32 Colusa $7,875.04 Contra Costa $335,067.68 Del Norte $17,582.72 El Dorado $77,077.12 Fresno $330,864.56 Glenn $16,141.84 Humboldt $81,755.00 Imperial $121,475.48 Inyo $27,808.32 Kern $870,620.20 Kings $220,780.00 Lake $75,032.00 Lassen $26,287.76 Los Angeles $3,543,980.48 Madera $238,654.88 Marin $100,596.00 Mariposa $13,612.00 Mendocino $78,624.24 Merced $164,622.20 Modoc $8,505.84 Mono $30,477.60 Monterey $306,621.92 Napa $82,269.60 Nevada $37,250.40 Orange $1,079,644.08 Placer $(21,832.32) Plumas $24,697.48 Riverside $1,385,270.00 Sacramento $393,858.24 San Benito $41,085.00 San Bernardino $1,685,633.72 San Diego $1,456,656.64 San Francisco $65,277.84 San Joaquin $720,048.24 San Luis Obispo $94,739.52 San Mateo $271,024.88 Santa Barbara $94,178.44 Santa Clara $206,935.60 Santa Cruz $36,490.12 Shasta $221,842.40 Sierra $2,715.76 Siskiyou $5,298.72 Solano $184,721.48 Sonoma $120,084.40 Stanislaus $278,059.96 Sutter $74,617.00 Tehama $42,562.40 Trinity $20,637.12 Tulare $637,440.00 Tuolumne $36,287.60 Ventura $483,093.20 Yolo $186,676.96 Yuba $97,910.12 Counties AB 1359 increase\/de- crease in CF-ES benefits for first quarter 2014 compared to first quarter 2013 TABLE # 1 AB 1359 YIELDS $20 MILLION FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN IMMEDIATE NEED FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE AB 1359, authored by Assemblywom- an Nancy Skinner of Berkeley and sponsored by Western Center on Law & Poverty, was gutted and amended during the last days of the 2012 session. The bill was signed by the Governor as Chapter 468, Statutes of 2012, on Sep- tember 23, 2012 because the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) had put Cali- fornia on notice that the state was in violation of federal law. This was a bill that the administration needed to come into compliance with federal law. Prior to AB 1359’s passage, counties refused to make a determination of Cal- Fresh Expedited Service (CF-ES) in all applications, violating federal law for two decades. Often, counties only considered CF-ES if the county deter- mined that they were actually eligible for CF-ES. Under AB 1359 all ap- plicants must be reviewed for CF-ES. TABLE #1 shows a county-by- county increase\/decrease of the is- suance of CF-ES from first quarter 2013 compared to first quarter 2014. Thank you, Assembly Member Nancy Skinner. CCWRO Welfare News July 9, 2014 #2014-07 – Page 3 Stanislaus County failed to process Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Reports timely – On 7\/29\/13 Kathy Harwell, Stanislaus County Welfare Director, was informed by CDSS that a review of the County’s Income and Eligibil- ity Verification System (IEVS) found that 52% of the cases were not processed within the 45 days pro- cessing requirement by federal and state regulations. Kern County refused to obey the US Constitution by denying applications without a Notice of Ac- tion – On 1\/24\/14, Kern county received a CalFresh application from Ms. 502012. On the same day, the county sent an appointment notice to Ms. 502012 for a 2\/3\/14 appointment in which she missed. On 2\/4\/14 Kern County issued a notice of missed ap- poinment stating that Ms. 502012 had until 3\/4\/14 to complete the interview. The county never mailed Ms. 502012 a notice of action denying her application. Los Angeles DPSS unlawfully denied family Cal Fresh benefits on Christmas – On 12\/26\/13, Los Angeles County stopped CalFresh benefits for Mr. 512017 for failure to provide proof of citizenship. The denial reason code was 415-105 a frequent unlawful denial code used by Los Angeles DPSS to inflict food insecurity upon impoverished households residing in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles DPSS had already J-verified Mr. 512017 in the MEDS system and IEVS system which lists his name, date of birth and social security number as verified. Per ACIN I-45-11 if citizenship has been verified via MEDS, then the verification of citizenship requirement in the CalFresh is considered to be met. Eventhough citizenship was verified, this household had a foodless Christmas. Santa Clara County puts 10 year old autistic child at risk – On 8\/1\/13 Santa Clara County denied pro- tective supervision to Mr. 2013 255-198. The medi- cal evidence showed that Mr. 2013 255-198 met the legal criteria for receiving protective supervision, but the social worker testified that the case was de- nied because it was a close call. Luckily this vic- tims’ parents asked for a state hearing and the so- cial worker’s anti-social behavior was reversed. Los Angeles County wastes tax dollars to recoup $122 overpayment. Los Angeles County issued a no- tice of action to Ms. 2013 252 020 because of an $122 county agency error. Ms. 2013 252 020 did not think she should be liable for the overpayment caused by the county and asked for a state hearing. The county appeared at the hearing to defend the $122 county- caused overpayment. Taxpayers spent over $2,000 to defend a $122 Los Angeles County error overpayment. Los Angeles County unlawfully denied IHSS pro- tective supervision to a victim of Alzheimer’s dis- ease. On 11\/18\/13, Los Angeles County DPSS issued a notice of action denying protective supervision to Ms. 2013 239 108 who had medical verification that she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. Her doctor stated, she requires 24 hour supervision for her safety. An- other doctor stated that Ms. 2013 239 108 has severe impairment of memory and judgment. This doctor also diagnosed Ms. 2013 239 108 with Alzheimer’s disease and stated that she requires supervision 24\/hr for safety. Los Angeles County DPSS social workers decided they knew better than two licensed California doctors and denied protective supervision, which should be considered elderly abuse. Fortunate- ly, Ms. 2013 239 108’s family member took this to a state hearing which did not uphold the unlawful denial of IHSS protective supervision to Ms. 2013 239 108. Los Angeles County’s unlawfully reduced ben- efits for impoverished family and failed to assist the family in getting needed verification. Mr. 2013 282 003 had his meager CalWORKs fixed income reduced because he allegedly did not provide veri- fication that his child was attending school and did not provide other information. However, Mr. 2013 282 003 had a receipt from Los Angeles County DPSS showing that the county received report cards, school attendance records, vehicle registration and bank statements. Mr. 2013 282 003 was unable to get a signature from the school officials, thus, he au- thorized the county to get that information for him. The county refused to assist this victim in securing verification of school attendance notwithstanding MPP 40-107 that clearly mandates that the county assist applicants and recipients to obtain documenta- County Welfare Department Victim Report Con’t on page 4 CCWRO Welfare News July 9, 2014 #2014-07- Page 4 Con’t from Page 3 tion that the applicant or recipient is unable to do so. Administrative Law Judge, Laura Korson sustained Los Angeles County’s DPSS unlawful action. Los Angeles County denies application for non submission of verification previously submit- ted – Ms. 2013 289 048 received a notice of action (NOA) in August terminating her CalFresh benefits effective 8\/31\/14. Another NOA terminated Cal- WORKs and Medi-Cal benefits effective 10\/31\/13 for failure to provide verification of income for October of 2012 and, failure to provide verifica- tion that she applied for unemployment insurance benefits in October of 2012; 2012 is not a typo. The matter appeared for a state hearing be- fore Judge Lisa Halko. At the hearing Ms. 2013 289 048 testified under oath that she had provided this information to the county. The county agreed to a stipulation to rescind the NOAs discontinuing benefits for CalFresh ben- efits effective 8\/31\/14, CalWORKs and Medi-Cal benefits effective 10\/31\/13, and reinstate all ben- efits. How sad that Ms. 2013 289 048 had to ask for a state hearing at the cost of over $2,000 just to get Los Angeles County DPSS to correct their horrible mistake of terminating benefits in late 2013 for allegedly failure to provide verification in October 2012, some 10-12 months in the past. Los Angeles County terminated cash aid for failure to provide verification that the recipient was no longer eligible for unemployment ben- efits (UIB) – Ms. 2013 338 314 was receiving CalWORKs benefits that were stopped on 9\/1\/13 because she was unable to provide documenta- tion that her UIB benefits had stopped. Accord- ing to ACIN I-50-09, Before the CWD requires an applicant or recipient to apply for UIB, the CWD shall review the EDD on-line, real-time UIB claims database for wage and claims information via the Income and Eligibility Verification System. If the CWD does not have access to the internet, the CWD may request an abstract of the wage and claim information, via form DE 8720. Please see ACIN I-27-07 for additional details on the process to access the EDD data to make this determination. In fact, since 1995 it has been the state’s policy that the county shall verify UIB. Senate Bill 520, also known as Chapter 544, Statutes of 1995 provides that SB 520 would give the State Department of Social Services and county wel- fare departments access to computer informa- tion maintained in the files of the Employment Development Department in order to deter- mine whether public social services applicants or recipients may be eligible for unemploy- ment insurance or disability insurance benefits. The bill would permit a county, if it determines that a public social services applicant or recipi- ent is eligible for unemployment insurance or disability insurance benefits, to require that the person make an application for these benefits. However, for the past 20 years Los Angeles Coun- ty has continuously and unlawfully terrorized the working poor by denying them public benefits to which they are lawfully entitled by unlawful- ly requiring impoverished applicants to provide verification that the county has or should have. During the state hearing of Ms. 2013 338 314 the Los Angeles County representative stated under oath that they could not get the required informa- tion from the IEVS system as attempts to do so indicated that the information was confidential. Fortunately, Ms. 2013 338 314 testified under oath that she had made numerous calls to the UIB office without success in order to get the verification that the county was demanding, information that she did not have. Thus, AlJ Brian Dahlstedt found that Ms. 2013 338 314 had made a good faith effort to get the verification and restored her benefits. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd Sacramento CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 (916) 736-2645 (fax) (916) 712-0071 (cell) 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, and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www.ccwro.org July 9, 2014 Issue #2014-07 2014-2015 State Budget Steals $1.1 Billion from CalWORKs Children All TANF Funding Contribu1on to the General Fund $5.6 billion for CalWORKs $1.1 billion stolen from CalWORKs The Bad The 2014-2015 state budget stole $1.1 billion from CalWORKs children and families. The federal government gives California $3.7 billion to operate the TANF program known as CalWORKs. The state must match $3 billion to get $3.7 billion in federal dollars. For 2014-2015, California will use less than $5.6 billion for the CalWORKs program. Meanwhile, CalWORKs grants are at the same level they were in 1988. The Good 1. A 5% grant increase effective 4\/1\/15; 2. No longer deny CalWORKs CalFresh and General Assistance to persons who were convicted of certain drug crimes; 3. State funding of the LIEAP’s $20 annual payment assures that all CalFresh (food stamp) recipients receive the Standard Utility Allowance deduction. This helps 320,000 households at a cost of $10.5 million; 4. A $20 million allocation for county homeless assistance programs; 5. A $30 million allocation for foster care payments to non-parent relatives who are not federally eligible for foster care, provided the children have been placed with the relative by child protective services (CPS). These non-parent relatives who were not federally eligible for foster care due to income levels, were receiving $300 a month; they will now receive about $800 a month. LESSON – Therefore, if you are a poor non-parent relative with one child receiving $515 a month, you are required to do workfare for the CalWORKs check. If that same nonparent places the same child\/chil- dren with CPS, counties will most likely place the child\/childern back with the same nonparent relative giving them $800 a month per child with no workfare requirement. The reason the child will be placed back with the non-parent relative because to keep a child in foster care costs on the average $2,500 a month. CCWRO Welfare News July 9, 2014 # 2014-07 Page 2 Counties AB 1359 increase\/de- crease in CF-ES benefits for first quarter 2014 compared to first quarter 2013 Statewide $20,503,858.52 Alameda $1,339,520.40 Alpine $(3,041.12) Amador $16,145.16 Butte $189,166.96 Calaveras $17,184.32 Colusa $7,875.04 Contra Costa $335,067.68 Del Norte $17,582.72 El Dorado $77,077.12 Fresno $330,864.56 Glenn $16,141.84 Humboldt $81,755.00 Imperial $121,475.48 Inyo $27,808.32 Kern $870,620.20 Kings $220,780.00 Lake $75,032.00 Lassen $26,287.76 Los Angeles $3,543,980.48 Madera $238,654.88 Marin $100,596.00 Mariposa $13,612.00 Mendocino $78,624.24 Merced $164,622.20 Modoc $8,505.84 Mono $30,477.60 Monterey $306,621.92 Napa $82,269.60 Nevada $37,250.40 Orange $1,079,644.08 Placer $(21,832.32) Plumas $24,697.48 Riverside $1,385,270.00 Sacramento $393,858.24 San Benito $41,085.00 San Bernardino $1,685,633.72 San Diego $1,456,656.64 San Francisco $65,277.84 San Joaquin $720,048.24 San Luis Obispo $94,739.52 San Mateo $271,024.88 Santa Barbara $94,178.44 Santa Clara $206,935.60 Santa Cruz $36,490.12 Shasta $221,842.40 Sierra $2,715.76 Siskiyou $5,298.72 Solano $184,721.48 Sonoma $120,084.40 Stanislaus $278,059.96 Sutter $74,617.00 Tehama $42,562.40 Trinity $20,637.12 Tulare $637,440.00 Tuolumne $36,287.60 Ventura $483,093.20 Yolo $186,676.96 Yuba $97,910.12 Counties AB 1359 increase\/de- crease in CF-ES benefits for first quarter 2014 compared to first quarter 2013 TABLE # 1 AB 1359 YIELDS $20 MILLION FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN IMMEDIATE NEED FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE AB 1359, authored by Assemblywom- an Nancy Skinner of Berkeley and sponsored by Western Center on Law & Poverty, was gutted and amended during the last days of the 2012 session. The bill was signed by the Governor as Chapter 468, Statutes of 2012, on Sep- tember 23, 2012 because the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) had put Cali- fornia on notice that the state was in violation of federal law. This was a bill that the administration needed to come into compliance with federal law. Prior to AB 1359’s passage, counties refused to make a determination of Cal- Fresh Expedited Service (CF-ES) in all applications, violating federal law for two decades. Often, counties only considered CF-ES if the county deter- mined that they were actually eligible for CF-ES. Under AB 1359 all ap- plicants must be reviewed for CF-ES. TABLE #1 shows a county-by- county increase\/decrease of the is- suance of CF-ES from first quarter 2013 compared to first quarter 2014. Thank you, Assembly Member Nancy Skinner. CCWRO Welfare News July 9, 2014 #2014-07 – Page 3 Stanislaus County failed to process Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) Reports timely – On 7\/29\/13 Kathy Harwell, Stanislaus County Welfare Director, was informed by CDSS that a review of the County’s Income and Eligibil- ity Verification System (IEVS) found that 52% of the cases were not processed within the 45 days pro- cessing requirement by federal and state regulations. Kern County refused to obey the US Constitution by denying applications without a Notice of Ac- tion – On 1\/24\/14, Kern county received a CalFresh application from Ms. 502012. On the same day, the county sent an appointment notice to Ms. 502012 for a 2\/3\/14 appointment in which she missed. On 2\/4\/14 Kern County issued a notice of missed ap- poinment stating that Ms. 502012 had until 3\/4\/14 to complete the interview. The county never mailed Ms. 502012 a notice of action denying her application. Los Angeles DPSS unlawfully denied family Cal Fresh benefits on Christmas – On 12\/26\/13, Los Angeles County stopped CalFresh benefits for Mr. 512017 for failure to provide proof of citizenship. The denial reason code was 415-105 a frequent unlawful denial code used by Los Angeles DPSS to inflict food insecurity upon impoverished households residing in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles DPSS had already J-verified Mr. 512017 in the MEDS system and IEVS system which lists his name, date of birth and social security number as verified. Per ACIN I-45-11 if citizenship has been verified via MEDS, then the verification of citizenship requirement in the CalFresh is considered to be met. Eventhough citizenship was verified, this household had a foodless Christmas. Santa Clara County puts 10 year old autistic child at risk – On 8\/1\/13 Santa Clara County denied pro- tective supervision to Mr. 2013 255-198. The medi- cal evidence showed that Mr. 2013 255-198 met the legal criteria for receiving protective supervision, but the social worker testified that the case was de- nied because it was a close call. Luckily this vic- tims’ parents asked for a state hearing and the so- cial worker’s anti-social behavior was reversed. Los Angeles County wastes tax dollars to recoup $122 overpayment. Los Angeles County issued a no- tice of action to Ms. 2013 252 020 because of an $122 county agency error. Ms. 2013 252 020 did not think she should be liable for the overpayment caused by the county and asked for a state hearing. The county appeared at the hearing to defend the $122 county- caused overpayment. Taxpayers spent over $2,000 to defend a $122 Los Angeles County error overpayment. Los Angeles County unlawfully denied IHSS pro- tective supervision to a victim of Alzheimer’s dis- ease. On 11\/18\/13, Los Angeles County DPSS issued a notice of action denying protective supervision to Ms. 2013 239 108 who had medical verification that she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. Her doctor stated, she requires 24 hour supervision for her safety. An- other doctor stated that Ms. 2013 239 108 has severe impairment of memory and judgment. This doctor also diagnosed Ms. 2013 239 108 with Alzheimer’s disease and stated that she requires supervision 24\/hr for safety. Los Angeles County DPSS social workers decided they knew better than two licensed California doctors and denied protective supervision, which should be considered elderly abuse. Fortunate- ly, Ms. 2013 239 108’s family member took this to a state hearing which did not uphold the unlawful denial of IHSS protective supervision to Ms. 2013 239 108. Los Angeles County’s unlawfully reduced ben- efits for impoverished family and failed to assist the family in getting needed verification. Mr. 2013 282 003 had his meager CalWORKs fixed income reduced because he allegedly did not provide veri- fication that his child was attending school and did not provide other information. However, Mr. 2013 282 003 had a receipt from Los Angeles County DPSS showing that the county received report cards, school attendance records, vehicle registration and bank statements. Mr. 2013 282 003 was unable to get a signature from the school officials, thus, he au- thorized the county to get that information for him. The county refused to assist this victim in securing verification of school attendance notwithstanding MPP 40-107 that clearly mandates that the county assist applicants and recipients to obtain documenta- County Welfare Department Victim Report Con’t on page 4 CCWRO Welfare News July 9, 2014 #2014-07- Page 4 Con’t from Page 3 tion that the applicant or recipient is unable to do so. Administrative Law Judge, Laura Korson sustained Los Angeles County’s DPSS unlawful action. Los Angeles County denies application for non submission of verification previously submit- ted – Ms. 2013 289 048 received a notice of action (NOA) in August terminating her CalFresh benefits effective 8\/31\/14. Another NOA terminated Cal- WORKs and Medi-Cal benefits effective 10\/31\/13 for failure to provide verification of income for October of 2012 and, failure to provide verifica- tion that she applied for unemployment insurance benefits in October of 2012; 2012 is not a typo. The matter appeared for a state hearing be- fore Judge Lisa Halko. At the hearing Ms. 2013 289 048 testified under oath that she had provided this information to the county. The county agreed to a stipulation to rescind the NOAs discontinuing benefits for CalFresh ben- efits effective 8\/31\/14, CalWORKs and Medi-Cal benefits effective 10\/31\/13, and reinstate all ben- efits. How sad that Ms. 2013 289 048 had to ask for a state hearing at the cost of over $2,000 just to get Los Angeles County DPSS to correct their horrible mistake of terminating benefits in late 2013 for allegedly failure to provide verification in October 2012, some 10-12 months in the past. Los Angeles County terminated cash aid for failure to provide verification that the recipient was no longer eligible for unemployment ben- efits (UIB) – Ms. 2013 338 314 was receiving CalWORKs benefits that were stopped on 9\/1\/13 because she was unable to provide documenta- tion that her UIB benefits had stopped. Accord- ing to ACIN I-50-09, Before the CWD requires an applicant or recipient to apply for UIB, the CWD shall review the EDD on-line, real-time UIB claims database for wage and claims information via the Income and Eligibility Verification System. If the CWD does not have access to the internet, the CWD may request an abstract of the wage and claim information, via form DE 8720. Please see ACIN I-27-07 for additional details on the process to access the EDD data to make this determination. In fact, since 1995 it has been the state’s policy that the county shall verify UIB. Senate Bill 520, also known as Chapter 544, Statutes of 1995 provides that SB 520 would give the State Department of Social Services and county wel- fare departments access to computer informa- tion maintained in the files of the Employment Development Department in order to deter- mine whether public social services applicants or recipients may be eligible for unemploy- ment insurance or disability insurance benefits. The bill would permit a county, if it determines that a public social services applicant or recipi- ent is eligible for unemployment insurance or disability insurance benefits, to require that the person make an application for these benefits. However, for the past 20 years Los Angeles Coun- ty has continuously and unlawfully terrorized the working poor by denying them public benefits to which they are lawfully entitled by unlawful- ly requiring impoverished applicants to provide verification that the county has or should have. During the state hearing of Ms. 2013 338 314 the Los Angeles County representative stated under oath that they could not get the required informa- tion from the IEVS system as attempts to do so indicated that the information was confidential. Fortunately, Ms. 2013 338 314 testified under oath that she had made numerous calls to the UIB office without success in order to get the verification that the county was demanding, information that she did not have. Thus, AlJ Brian Dahlstedt found that Ms. 2013 338 314 had made a good faith effort to get the verification and restored her benefits. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 (916) 736-2645 (fax) (916) 712-0071 (cell) 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, and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www.ccwro.org August 11, 2014 Issue #2014-08 Analysis of the Expanding Opportunities in America by Representative Paul Ryan Children and Families Con’t on page 2 On July 26, 2014, Representative Paul Ryan (Republican from Wisconsin) unveiled his plan entitled Expanding Opportunity in America . The plan would block grant various programs includ- ing SNAP and the Housing Assistance Program. This allows states to use the funds as they see fit. However, for the poor to receive benefits, families would have to enter into a so-called contract that contains work requirements and severe sanctions\/penalties that often result in economic child abuse . The Ryan Plan Falsely Presumes That Safety Net Programs Discourage Work The following programs would be block-granted: SNAP-Food Stamps – CalFresh TANF-AFDC-CalWORKs Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds Child Care Development Fund Weatherization Assistance Program LIHEAP Community Development Block Grant WIA Dislocated Workers 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Civilian nonins\/tu\/onal popula\/on Civilian labor force The Fundamental Problem that the Ryan Plan Overlooks is the Fact 1. Number of People in the USA Who Want to Work — 248,023 million 2. Number of Jobs in the USA – 156,023 million 3. SAD FACT: 156,023 jobs for 248,023 people. The plan is predicated on a long held FALSE propaganda piece of the far right that a family of three receives $25,000 a year from various govern- ment benefit programs. Representative Ryan compares the phantom $25,000 a year received by a welfare family to a family of three earning minimum wage that yields $15,000 a year. He concludes that beneficiaries receiv- ing $25,000 from safety net programs refuse to work minimum wage jobs because they will lose $10,000 a year. We challenge Mr. Ryan to find welfare families of three receiving benefits in the amount of $25,000 a year. According to Mr. Ryan, the $25,000 a year number assumes that a welfare family of three receives benefits from every governmental program in all, 92 programs. That assumption is sim- ply wrong. Most of these programs do not have open-ended funding. A clas- Source: Department of Labor http:\/\/budget.house.gov\/ http:\/\/budget.house.gov\/uploadedfiles\/expanding_opportunity_in_america.pdf http:\/\/www.bls.gov\/news.release\/empsit.t01.htm CCWRO Welfare News August 11, 2014 #2014-08 Page 2 Con’t on page 3 sic example is housing assistance; not every TANF recipient receives Section 8 housing assistance. Mr. Ryan and his staffers should have found this out during the time he spent last year traveling the county- learning from people fighting poverty on the front lines. Ryan Asserts that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program Helps Poor Families And Reduces Poverty Ryan’s plan uses the ill-conceived Temporary As- sistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant as an example of success. What he fails to disclose is the fact that while TANF’s predecessor, AFDC, 70% of the funds were used to assist poor fami- lies and only 30% as assistance to state and local officials . TANF reversed that on its head. TANF allows the use of 70% of the funds for state and local officials while a meager 30% is used to house and clothe needy families. TABLE #1 reveals how TANF resulted in less money for the needy families and children of America and loads of money for the state and local officials. Since the inception of TANF, the State of Califor- nia under Republican and Democratic governors have used over $12 billion from TANF\/TANF MOE to fund programs that are not means tested for impoverished families. The same is true for most states TANF has been godsend for many governors and state legislatures who fleece the TANF program without shame. Moreover, Mr. Ryan alleges that TANF has reduced poverty by asserting the poverty rate was 55% in 1992 under the AFDC Program and it was 39% in 2000. TANF was implemented in 1998-1999. Immediately prior to TANF’s implementation, the poverty rate was 29.9% in 1998. In 2012 the pov- erty rate was 30.9%. Moreover, TABLE #2 reveals that TANF has resulted in increased poverty for women with kids. The Ryan Plan Would Impose Accountability The plan would force the hungry and\/or homeless to sign a contract agreeing to meet measurable benchmarks for success as defined by the state and local welfare officials. Calling this instrument a contract reveals the true nature of Ryan’s intent. A contract is a product of a bargain between two (2) equal parties that can be in writing or orally. A starving family is not an equal party to a welfare department worker. A starving family cannot sanction the state and county officials for violating Year Total AFDC Expenditures Payments to Families Percentage of Total Payments Used for Families 1975 $9,494 ,000 $8,412,000 89% 1976 $10,745,000 $9,676 ,000 90% 1977 $11,565,000 $10,388 ,000 90% 1978 $11,839 ,000 $10,591 ,000 89% 1979 $12,129,000 $10,779,000 89% 1980 $13,435,000 $11,956 ,000 89% 1981 $14,493,000 $12,845,000 89% 1982 $14,613,000 $12,857,000 88% 1983 $15,437,000 $13,607 ,000 88% 1984 $16,069,000 $14,371,000 89% 1985 $16,359,000 $14,580,000 89% 1986 $17,195,000 $15,235,000 89% 1987 $18,456,000 $16,323,000 88% 1988 $19,016,000 $16,663,000 88% 1989 $19,657,000 $17,240,000 88% 1990 $21,200,000 $18,539,000 87% 1991 $23,029,000 $20,356,000 88% 1992 $25,087,000 $22,250,000 89% 1993 $25,242,000 $22,286,000 88% 1994 $26,098,000 $22,797,000 87% 1995 $25,553 ,000 $22,032,000 86% 1996 $23,677,000 $20,411 ,000 86% 1997 $19,603,000 $13,901 ,000 71% 1998 $23,942,000 $13,000,000 58% 1999 $27,008,000 $13,166 ,000 49% 2000 $28,290 ,000 $11,180,000 40% 2001 $28,500,000 $10,143 ,000 36% 2002 $28,372,000 $9,408 ,000 33% 2003 $29,057,000 $10,219,000 35% 2004 $28,542,000 $10,389,000 36% 2005 $28,440,000 $10,739 ,000 38% 2006 $28,446,000 $9,906,000 35% 2007 $30,006 ,000 $9,069 ,000 30% 2008 $30,990 ,000 $8,649,000 28% 2009 $33,517 ,000 $9,324 ,000 28% 2010 $35,848 ,000 $10,699 ,000 30% 2011 $33,324,000 $9,604,000 29% 2012 $31,358 ,000 $8,982,000 29% TABLE # 1 – TOTAL FEDERAL STATE AFDC\/TANF EXPENDITURES – FISCAL YEAR 1975 – in millions Source: Center on Budget Policies & Priorities and HHS Con’t from Page 1 CCWRO Welfare News August 11, 2014 #2014-08 – Page 3 the contract but the state can sanction the beneficiary for violating the contract. The beneficiary will naturally endure severe and often devastating sanctions for breaking the terms of the alleged contract. The basic idea is when the poor get help from the taxpayers; taxpayers should microman- age the use of that money. As the Washington Post points out, conservatives who hate nanny-stat- ism are the first to rail against the regulations that get in the way of busi- nesses. When farmer recipients, corporate welfare recipients, Wall-Street millionaire and billionaire welfare recipients get help from the taxpayers it must be hands-off, no strings attached to the use of government grants. For non-poor welfare recipients, Ryan and his supporters have adopted the live-and-let-live rule. Yet, when it comes to the poor, most conserva- tives lose their live-and-let live attitude. This is also true for the State of California. Annually, California sentenc- es over 500,000 children to be vulnerable to homelessness by subjecting them to economic child abuse through a variety of mean-spirited sanc- tions like the maximum family cap rules, truancy penalty rule, welfare- to-work sanctions, immunization sanctions, etc. Work Requirements For Food Stamps and Housing Programs For years, conservatives have tried to impose failed work requirements on programs other than TANF that serves the poor. Work programs have a history of imposing economic child abuse upon poor families through sanctions that conservatives adore. Although most states do not keep good data comparing the rate of welfare-to- work (WtW) sanctions to WtW participants losing TANF due to finding work, California does. The results are revealing the TANF WtW program is really the Welfare to Sanction (WtS) Program. Table #3 reveals the history of WtW and WtS in Cali- fornia. Conclusion The plan is very simple. Block granted assistance payments have been abused by states as evidenced by the TANF program. Give state and local officials more money and they will reduce the aid payment costs by taking it out of the mouths of impoverished families and children and using it to mostly line their own pock- ets and supplant state budgets. The TANF program is famous for penalizing poor children and families who do not obediently and without question obey the of- ten unreasonable demands of state and local officials running the program. Most, if not all state TANF programs, emphasize state sponsored economic child abuse and there are no civil or crimi- nal penalties for the perpetrators of the economic child abusers . This will be no different but it would also extend the punitive nature and the economic child abuse features of the TANF pro- gram to SNAP, housing assistance programs, energy assistance, Year Poverty rate for families with female head of household 2012 30.9% 2011 31.2% 2010 31.7% 2010 31.6% 2009 29.9% 2008 28.7% 2007 28.3% 2006 28.3% 2005 28.7% 2004 28.3% 2003 28.0% 2002 26.5% 2001 26.4% 2000 25.4% 1999 27.8% 1998 29.9% TABLE TABLE # 2 Source: CDSS WtW 25 reports January Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Whose Aid Stopped Due to Getting a Job Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Endures WtW Sanction and E c o n o m i c Child Abuse 2000 4% 18% 2001 4% 16% 2002 3% 19% 2003 4% 30% 2004 4% 38% 2005 3% 37% 2006 3% 32% 2007 3% 27% 2008 2% 25% 2009 2% 25% 2010 2% 25% 2011 2% 24% 2012 3% 28% 2013 3% 31% 2014 2% 38% Con’t from Page 2 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG276.htm http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/national\/health-science\/paul-ryans-fiscal-policies-are-deeply-rooted-both-politically-and-personally\/2012\/08\/25\/79377ef2-ee16-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_story.html CCWRO Welfare News August 11, 2014 #2014-08- Page 4 Number of Unduplicated Participants During June, 2014 122,800 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned During the month of June of 2014 62,734 Number of Participants Sanctioned During March of 2014 11,409 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants being Sanctioned During June of 2014 60% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During June of 2014 $9.3 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During June of 2014 3,567 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During June of 2014 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During June of 2014 $34,554.82 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During June, 2014 52,490 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During June of 2014 43% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant During June of 2014 $5.3 million 2013-2014 Welfare-to- Work Services Appropriation $1,479,084,400 million Source: CDSS Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 Report ACTIVIES June 2013 June 2014 P e r c e n t a g e Change Number of Unduplicated Participants 115,154 122,800 8% Number of Participants Already Being Sanctioned 52,796 62,734 16% Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Re- sulted In Termination of CalWORKs 3,567 4,090 -15% Number of Participants Being Paid Transportation by the County 57% 53% 4% June 2014 California Welfare-to-Work SB 1041 Program Participant Impact Report June 2014 California Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes Report ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 (916) 736-2645 (fax) (916) 712-0071 (cell) 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, and Diane Aslanian. http:\/\/www.ccwro.org August 11, 2014 Issue #2014-08 Analysis of the Expanding Opportunities in America by Representative Paul Ryan Children and Families Con’t on page 2 On July 26, 2014, Representative Paul Ryan (Republican from Wisconsin) unveiled his plan entitled Expanding Opportunity in America . The plan would block grant various programs includ- ing SNAP and the Housing Assistance Program. This allows states to use the funds as they see fit. However, for the poor to receive benefits, families would have to enter into a so-called contract that contains work requirements and severe sanctions\/penalties that often result in economic child abuse . The Ryan Plan Falsely Presumes That Safety Net Programs Discourage Work The following programs would be block-granted: SNAP-Food Stamps – CalFresh TANF-AFDC-CalWORKs Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds Child Care Development Fund Weatherization Assistance Program LIHEAP Community Development Block Grant WIA Dislocated Workers 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Civilian nonins\/tu\/onal popula\/on Civilian labor force The Fundamental Problem that the Ryan Plan Overlooks is the Fact 1. Number of People in the USA Who Want to Work — 248,023 million 2. Number of Jobs in the USA – 156,023 million 3. SAD FACT: 156,023 jobs for 248,023 people. The plan is predicated on a long held FALSE propaganda piece of the far right that a family of three receives $25,000 a year from various govern- ment benefit programs. Representative Ryan compares the phantom $25,000 a year received by a welfare family to a family of three earning minimum wage that yields $15,000 a year. He concludes that beneficiaries receiv- ing $25,000 from safety net programs refuse to work minimum wage jobs because they will lose $10,000 a year. We challenge Mr. Ryan to find welfare families of three receiving benefits in the amount of $25,000 a year. According to Mr. Ryan, the $25,000 a year number assumes that a welfare family of three receives benefits from every governmental program in all, 92 programs. That assumption is sim- ply wrong. Most of these programs do not have open-ended funding. A clas- Source: Department of Labor http:\/\/budget.house.gov\/ http:\/\/budget.house.gov\/uploadedfiles\/expanding_opportunity_in_america.pdf http:\/\/www.bls.gov\/news.release\/empsit.t01.htm CCWRO Welfare News August 11, 2014 #2014-08 Page 2 Con’t on page 3 sic example is housing assistance; not every TANF recipient receives Section 8 housing assistance. Mr. Ryan and his staffers should have found this out during the time he spent last year traveling the county- learning from people fighting poverty on the front lines. Ryan Asserts that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program Helps Poor Families And Reduces Poverty Ryan’s plan uses the ill-conceived Temporary As- sistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant as an example of success. What he fails to disclose is the fact that while TANF’s predecessor, AFDC, 70% of the funds were used to assist poor fami- lies and only 30% as assistance to state and local officials . TANF reversed that on its head. TANF allows the use of 70% of the funds for state and local officials while a meager 30% is used to house and clothe needy families. TABLE #1 reveals how TANF resulted in less money for the needy families and children of America and loads of money for the state and local officials. Since the inception of TANF, the State of Califor- nia under Republican and Democratic governors have used over $12 billion from TANF\/TANF MOE to fund programs that are not means tested for impoverished families. The same is true for most states TANF has been godsend for many governors and state legislatures who fleece the TANF program without shame. Moreover, Mr. Ryan alleges that TANF has reduced poverty by asserting the poverty rate was 55% in 1992 under the AFDC Program and it was 39% in 2000. TANF was implemented in 1998-1999. Immediately prior to TANF’s implementation, the poverty rate was 29.9% in 1998. In 2012 the pov- erty rate was 30.9%. Moreover, TABLE #2 reveals that TANF has resulted in increased poverty for women with kids. The Ryan Plan Would Impose Accountability The plan would force the hungry and\/or homeless to sign a contract agreeing to meet measurable benchmarks for success as defined by the state and local welfare officials. Calling this instrument a contract reveals the true nature of Ryan’s intent. A contract is a product of a bargain between two (2) equal parties that can be in writing or orally. A starving family is not an equal party to a welfare department worker. A starving family cannot sanction the state and county officials for violating Year Total AFDC Expenditures Payments to Families Percentage of Total Payments Used for Families 1975 $9,494 ,000 $8,412,000 89% 1976 $10,745,000 $9,676 ,000 90% 1977 $11,565,000 $10,388 ,000 90% 1978 $11,839 ,000 $10,591 ,000 89% 1979 $12,129,000 $10,779,000 89% 1980 $13,435,000 $11,956 ,000 89% 1981 $14,493,000 $12,845,000 89% 1982 $14,613,000 $12,857,000 88% 1983 $15,437,000 $13,607 ,000 88% 1984 $16,069,000 $14,371,000 89% 1985 $16,359,000 $14,580,000 89% 1986 $17,195,000 $15,235,000 89% 1987 $18,456,000 $16,323,000 88% 1988 $19,016,000 $16,663,000 88% 1989 $19,657,000 $17,240,000 88% 1990 $21,200,000 $18,539,000 87% 1991 $23,029,000 $20,356,000 88% 1992 $25,087,000 $22,250,000 89% 1993 $25,242,000 $22,286,000 88% 1994 $26,098,000 $22,797,000 87% 1995 $25,553 ,000 $22,032,000 86% 1996 $23,677,000 $20,411 ,000 86% 1997 $19,603,000 $13,901 ,000 71% 1998 $23,942,000 $13,000,000 58% 1999 $27,008,000 $13,166 ,000 49% 2000 $28,290 ,000 $11,180,000 40% 2001 $28,500,000 $10,143 ,000 36% 2002 $28,372,000 $9,408 ,000 33% 2003 $29,057,000 $10,219,000 35% 2004 $28,542,000 $10,389,000 36% 2005 $28,440,000 $10,739 ,000 38% 2006 $28,446,000 $9,906,000 35% 2007 $30,006 ,000 $9,069 ,000 30% 2008 $30,990 ,000 $8,649,000 28% 2009 $33,517 ,000 $9,324 ,000 28% 2010 $35,848 ,000 $10,699 ,000 30% 2011 $33,324,000 $9,604,000 29% 2012 $31,358 ,000 $8,982,000 29% TABLE # 1 – TOTAL FEDERAL STATE AFDC\/TANF EXPENDITURES – FISCAL YEAR 1975 – in millions Source: Center on Budget Policies & Priorities and HHS Con’t from Page 1 CCWRO Welfare News August 11, 2014 #2014-08 – Page 3 the contract but the state can sanction the beneficiary for violating the contract. The beneficiary will naturally endure severe and often devastating sanctions for breaking the terms of the alleged contract. The basic idea is when the poor get help from the taxpayers; taxpayers should microman- age the use of that money. As the Washington Post points out, conservatives who hate nanny-stat- ism are the first to rail against the regulations that get in the way of busi- nesses. When farmer recipients, corporate welfare recipients, Wall-Street millionaire and billionaire welfare recipients get help from the taxpayers it must be hands-off, no strings attached to the use of government grants. For non-poor welfare recipients, Ryan and his supporters have adopted the live-and-let-live rule. Yet, when it comes to the poor, most conserva- tives lose their live-and-let live attitude. This is also true for the State of California. Annually, California sentenc- es over 500,000 children to be vulnerable to homelessness by subjecting them to economic child abuse through a variety of mean-spirited sanc- tions like the maximum family cap rules, truancy penalty rule, welfare- to-work sanctions, immunization sanctions, etc. Work Requirements For Food Stamps and Housing Programs For years, conservatives have tried to impose failed work requirements on programs other than TANF that serves the poor. Work programs have a history of imposing economic child abuse upon poor families through sanctions that conservatives adore. Although most states do not keep good data comparing the rate of welfare-to- work (WtW) sanctions to WtW participants losing TANF due to finding work, California does. The results are revealing the TANF WtW program is really the Welfare to Sanction (WtS) Program. Table #3 reveals the history of WtW and WtS in Cali- fornia. Conclusion The plan is very simple. Block granted assistance payments have been abused by states as evidenced by the TANF program. Give state and local officials more money and they will reduce the aid payment costs by taking it out of the mouths of impoverished families and children and using it to mostly line their own pock- ets and supplant state budgets. The TANF program is famous for penalizing poor children and families who do not obediently and without question obey the of- ten unreasonable demands of state and local officials running the program. Most, if not all state TANF programs, emphasize state sponsored economic child abuse and there are no civil or crimi- nal penalties for the perpetrators of the economic child abusers . This will be no different but it would also extend the punitive nature and the economic child abuse features of the TANF pro- gram to SNAP, housing assistance programs, energy assistance, Year Poverty rate for families with female head of household 2012 30.9% 2011 31.2% 2010 31.7% 2010 31.6% 2009 29.9% 2008 28.7% 2007 28.3% 2006 28.3% 2005 28.7% 2004 28.3% 2003 28.0% 2002 26.5% 2001 26.4% 2000 25.4% 1999 27.8% 1998 29.9% TABLE TABLE # 2 Source: CDSS WtW 25 reports January Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Whose Aid Stopped Due to Getting a Job Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Endures WtW Sanction and E c o n o m i c Child Abuse 2000 4% 18% 2001 4% 16% 2002 3% 19% 2003 4% 30% 2004 4% 38% 2005 3% 37% 2006 3% 32% 2007 3% 27% 2008 2% 25% 2009 2% 25% 2010 2% 25% 2011 2% 24% 2012 3% 28% 2013 3% 31% 2014 2% 38% Con’t from Page 2 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG276.htm http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/national\/health-science\/paul-ryans-fiscal-policies-are-deeply-rooted-both-politically-and-personally\/2012\/08\/25\/79377ef2-ee16-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_story.html CCWRO Welfare News August 11, 2014 #2014-08- Page 4 Number of Unduplicated Participants During June, 2014 122,800 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned During the month of June of 2014 62,734 Number of Participants Sanctioned During March of 2014 11,409 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants being Sanctioned During June of 2014 60% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During June of 2014 $9.3 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During June of 2014 3,567 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During June of 2014 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During June of 2014 $34,554.82 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During June, 2014 52,490 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During June of 2014 43% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant During June of 2014 $5.3 million 2013-2014 Welfare-to- Work Services Appropriation $1,479,084,400 million Source: CDSS Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 Report ACTIVIES June 2013 June 2014 P e r c e n t a g e Change Number of Unduplicated Participants 115,154 122,800 8% Number of Participants Already Being Sanctioned 52,796 62,734 16% Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Re- sulted In Termination of CalWORKs 3,567 4,090 -15% Number of Participants Being Paid Transportation by the County 57% 53% 4% June 2014 California Welfare-to-Work SB 1041 Program Participant Impact Report June 2014 California Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes Report ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA 95816 (916) 736-0616 (916) 736-2645 (fax) (916) 712-0071 (cell) CCWRO Welfare News http:\/\/www.ccwro.org September 5, 2014 Issue #2014-09 Confusing County CalFresh Expedited Services Reports DFA 296 and DFA 296X During April, May and June 2014, many counties had more people being considered for CalFresh Expedited Ser- vice (CFES) than total applications for CalFresh. (See Table #1, 4th column) Statewide 468,161 CalFresh applica- tions were received and 392,709 were considered for CFES. Yuba County had 955 applicants, yet 1,628 of them were considered for expedited. San Mateo County has 4,095 applicants but considered 5,992 households for expe- dited services\u2014that’s 1,897 more households than the number of applications. Counties Applications received during the report quarter Applications processed under ES received during the report quarter Applications processed under ES exceeding the number of applications received during the report quarter Percentage of Applications processed under ES received during the report quarter Yuba 955 1,628 673 170% San Mateo 4,095 5,992 1,897 146% Napa 907 1,207 300 133% Del Norte 536 708 172 132% Lake 1,248 1,644 396 132% Nevada 1,180 1,533 353 130% Kings 2,207 2,803 596 127% Colusa 246 308 62 125% Madera 1,979 2,443 464 123% Mariposa 227 277 50 122% San Joaquin 9,873 11,900 2,027 121% Merced 4,444 5,317 873 120% Kern 15,533 18,562 3,029 120% Siskiyou 825 963 138 117% Monterey 4,492 5,231 739 116% Stanislaus 9,673 11,150 1,477 115% Shasta 3,343 3,732 389 112% Riverside 32,731 35,889 3,158 110% How does this happen? When the county can’t get their numbers straight, it’s obvious why TABLE #1 10-13 11-13 12-13 1-14 2-14 3-14 4-14 5-14 6-14 TOTAL 3,000 5,000 40,000 45,000 36,000 107,000 67,000 21,000 25,000 349,000 Medi-Cal Affordable Care Act Applications Pending as of August 19, 2014 Source: Department of Health care Serivces TROUBLING NEWS – 70,000 cases have been approved in CalHEERs, but do not show up in MEDS, thus, they are not able to access their approved health care benefits. CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2014 #2014-09 Page 2 there are so many children and families in Cali- fornia suffering economic child abuse . As evidenced by Table #2, Welfare to Work sanctions are high because the program is designed to achieve welfare-to-sanction and not welfare-to-work. Rarely do counties make a determination of good cause before the sanction is imposed. When a WtW participant is sum- moned by the county for a good cause determination, the county does not complete the WtW 27 Request for Good Cause Determination, during the interview so as to allow the participant to establish good cause. The county’s only purpose of the good cause determination interview is to get the participant to sign a compliance plan, the WtW 32. The question why didn’t you participate is rarely asked by the county WtW worker. We challenge DSS to review case files of sanctioned participants to determine if the county actually conduct- Source: CDSS WtW 25 reports Con’t from Page 1 ed a good cause interview and completed a WtW 27 during the interview. Thousands of families and their children are sub- jected to county economic child abuse when they had good cause for not participating which is ignored by the county. These families are forced to survive below 25% of the federal poverty level and below 20% of the federal supplemental poverty level. Since 2006, counties have received over $90 million to reduce WtW sanctions. This money was autho- rized through AB 1808, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2006. TABLE #2 shows that showering counties with millions has not reversed the sanction trend. The primary purpose of the WtW program sanctions thrives. In order for a person to cure the sanction the person needs to know why they were sanctioned. The statute provides that a sanction shall stop at any point that January Month of the Year Unduplicated Participants Participants Sanctioned Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Sanctioned Participants who landed a job that ended wel- fare Percentage Participants who landed a job that ended welfare 2000 190,502 33,571 18% 7,077 4% 2001 181,473 28,410 16% 7,296 4% 2002 184,134 35,891 19% 5,891 3% 2003 149,723 44,847 30% 6,388 4% 2004 121,807 46,030 38% 4,983 4% 2005 110,504 42,046 37% 3,613 3% 2006 104,170 38,504 32% 2,884 3% 2007 111,022 35,107 27% 3,022 3% 2008 120,685 32,461 25% 2,758 2% 2009 138,240 34,315 25% 2,928 2% 2010 141,806 35,273 25% 3,345 2% 2011 138,960 33,834 24% 3,413 2% 2012 119,810 33,148 28% 3,145 3% 2013 116,010 36,124 31% 3,280 3% 2014 117,845 41,225 38% 2,492 2% California’s Welfare-to-Work Program Maintains a High Sanction rate Con’t. on page 3 TABLE #2 CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2014 #2014-09 – Page 3 the participant performs the activity that he or she previously refused to perform. 11327.5 (d) This sanction shall terminate at any point if the noncomplying participant per- forms the activity or activities he or she previ- ously refused to perform. Counties implement this section by requiring the participant to contact the county worker and use the magic words I want to cure the sanction. There is no obligation for the county to periodi- cally contact the participant and offer an oppor- tunity to cure the sanction. Some counties do this, but it is done very poorly and with very bad outcomes. Usually the county uses the WtW 31 to contact the participant about curing the sanction. This form does not identify the activity that the partici- pant refused to perform. Often, the county re- quires the participant to perform activities beyond the scope of the original refusal in order to cure the sanction. The counties memorialize the activities needed in order to cure the sanction by using the WtW 32. Nothing on that form identifies the previous refusal so as to empower the participant to point out that the proposed cure requires more than the activity that the participant previously refused to perform. In most counties, the eligibility worker cannot cure the sanction. The participant must contact the WtW worker. Reaching any worker in most counties is a major undertaking. If one is lucky to reach the WtW office, they will be told that nobody has their case. Before the participant can talk to the WtW worker, the control clerk must as- sign the case to a worker. Eventually, after some time, a day, week or month, the worker may get back to the participant. Although Welf. & Inst. Code 11327.5 (d) states that the sanction ends at any point if the noncomplying participant performs the activity or activities he or she previously refused to perform DSS’ invalid regulations provide that the sanction stops the following month. Ms. Jones was sanctioned because she did not agree with the WtW plan and refused to sign it. Instead of following the law and referring her to a third-party assessment, the county decided to meet the primary purpose of the WtW program Con’t from Page 2 and sanction her. Now that she has been illegally sanc- tioned, she wants to cure her sanction so she can have a place to live rather than being homeless with her three- year old and sleeping in the park or in somebody’s car. In desperation, she contacts the WtW office on Sep- tember 2. She is told there is no worker assigned to her case. She waits and waits but nobody calls her. She calls again on September 8 and again is told that when the case is assigned to a worker they would contact her. After additional calls, Ms. Jones is given the name of the WtW worker and told that she will receive an ap- pointment letter. Finally she gets the appointment for October 5. She appears for the appointment and signs a WtW 32 form that says she has to do 4 weeks of job search in order to cure the sanction. The form does not say that the previous act was not signing the WtW plan. So she signs the form thinking that this is a lawful document and it does not violate her basic human and legal rights. She is not offered any money for transpor- tation and is referred to a childcare program. The next Job Club starts early November. If she com- pletes Job Club in December her benefits would be re- stored January 1 2015. There is no regulation that states a homeless person is exempt from the WtW program. As far as most counties are most counties are concerned all they want to do is meet the Federal Work Participa- tion Rates no matter how much economic child abuse it causes impoverished families and minor children. There are thousands of Ms. Jones’ out there enduring severe county economic child abuse through the unlaw- ful actions of the California Counties. RECOMMENDATIONS TO STOP COUNTY ECONOMIC CHILD ABUSE DSS must revamp the sanction curing process. The sanction should stop the day the participant completes what was not previously done. Revise the WtW 31 to identify the previous action that the participant refused to do that caused the sanc- tion and how to perform that act. The WtW 31 should always accompany the WtW 32. Examples: If the par- ticipant did not go to job club, the WtW 32 should have a date and time that the participant can attend job club. If the participant did not sign the WtW 2 form, a WtW 2 form should be included with a self-addressed envelope for the participant to sign and return to the county. These recommendations may get participants to cure the sanction, something that $90 million a year has not achieved. CCWRO Welfare News September 5, 2014 #2014-09- Page 4 Ms. 1B19726 works for a temp agency and is currently placed at the University of California, Davis in Yolo County. She lives in Sacramento County. Ms. 1B19726’s mother is the childcare provider. For a period of time, Ms. 1B19726 drove her three-year old to her mom’s house. Due to finances, Ms. 1B19726 and her mother moved in together to share a home. There- after, Ms. 1B19726 was told by her caseworker that, as she is now living with her mom, she cannot get childcare. The mom is not part of Ms. 1B19726’s assistance unit. After further research, it was discovered that Sacramento County decided to stop Ms. 1B19726’s Stage 1 child care because her mom did not cooperate with the Stage 2 agency’s requirement of completing an in-person interview with the Stage 2 agency. In 2012-2013 Sacramento County was allocated $23,470,067 for childcare but spent only $12,789,130. Sacramento County left $10,680,937 on the table most likely by unlawfully denying childcare payments like they are trying to do to Ms. 1B19726. State Department of Edu- cation Management Bulletin 07-09 states: California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR), Educa- tion, Section 18409, clarifies the transfer process by which families move from Stage 1 to Stage 2. The regulations specify that the sending Stage 1 program must provide nine data elements to the receiving Stage 2 contractor. The nine data elements specified in 5 CCR, 18409(a) are listed below: 1. The parent’s(s) full name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s); 2. The names and birth dates of all children under the age of 18 living with the family, regardless of whether they are served in the CalWORKs program; 3. The number of hours of childcare needed each day for each child; Working CalWORKs Mom A Victim of Sacramento County Child Care Program Abuse 4. The names of other family members in the household who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption; 5. The reason for needing childcare services; 6. Family size and adjusted monthly income; 7. Employment or training information for parent(s) including name and address of employer(s) or training institution(s) and days and hours of employment or train- ing; 8. Rate of payment; and 9. The name, address, and telephone number of the child care provider. Once the receiving Stage 2 contractor receives these nine data elements and determines that the information is com- plete, the receiving Stage 2 contractor must do the follow- ing: Assume the full responsibility for reimbursing the provider for childcare services provided to the family. Send or otherwise provide a notice to the family that documents the nine data elements, and requires the fam- ily to certify, by signature, that the information is correct or inaccurate. This letter notifies the family of the time frames by which this certification must be returned. The letter also informs the family that if the certification is not returned within the identified time frame, child care will be terminated. There is no requirement for the childcare recipient or the provider to make an appearance at the Stage 2 provider’s office in order to retain childcare. Such terminations are unlawful and illegal. Yet Sacramento County has been conducting this unlawful practice for two decades without shame. We wonder what action the State Department of Social Services will take? Ask the county to take correc- 10-13 11-13 12-13 1-14 2-14 3-14 4-14 5-14 6-14 TOTAL 3,000 5,000 40,000 45,000 36,000 107,000 67,000 21,000 25,000 349,000 Medi-Cal Affordable Care Act Applications Pending as of August 19, 2014 Source: Department of Health care Serivces ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1111 Howe Ave. Suite 150 , Sacramento CA 95825 (916) 736-0616 (916) 736-2645 (fax) (916) 712-0071 (cell) CCWRO Welfare News http:\/\/www.ccwro.org October 13, 2014 Issue #2014-10 In Brief 2 Jodie Berger, Regional Counsel of Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) leaves LSNC effective November 1, 2014 to be a CDSS Administrative Law Judge doing Covered California hearings. Jodie will be sorely missed. Jodie was a former housing lawyer for Contra Costa Legal Services. She then moved to the Employment Law Center and finally settled at LSNC. She has been a invaluable member of our family. 2 Riverside County welfare department refuses to ac- cept CalFresh applications on Fridays after 2 p.m. An applicant was given the CalFresh application forms on a Friday afternoon and told to bring them back on Mon- day. Federal and state law provides that the county must accept the application during regular business hours. 2 Several counties will be piloting the Work Num- ber Verification Process that can verify income with the applicants’ or recipients’ social securi- ty number. After review, DSS plans for statewide implementation of this system. The State of Or- egon already uses this to verify income before ask- ing the applicant or recipient for the verification. Stay tuned for more information on this subject. 2 For Fiscal Year 2014-2015 counties cannot shift the mental health and substance abuse single alloca- tion money to CalWORKs, but they can shift Cal- WORKs money to mental health and substance abuse. 2 For Fiscal Year 2014-2015 counties will have an additional $70 to $80 million dollars for Cal- Fresh administration. It would be nice to tar- get this additional money to same day application processing. In 2012-2013, counties failed to use over $41 million CalFresh administrative dollars. 2 The On-Line CalWORKs Appraisal Tool (OCAT) pilot started September 15, 2014 and will end October 15th. DSS will be making a presen- tation to counties about the pilot. We hope this presentation will be open the other stakeholders. 2 The CWDA Self-Sufficiency Committee re- ported that the $20 million allocation proposals were due Friday, August 15th with the award letters issued by September 5th. The letters were sent in- dividually to each county with fiscal instructions. Senate Bill No. 1041 Chapter 47, Statutes of 2012 Update SB 1041 was championed by the Brown Adminis- tration that reduces the time limits for CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work (WtW) participation from 48 month to 24 months. Most states, including red states, provide 60 month of TANF. California is one of the few states that can be counted on one hand that has a 24-month time limit. SB 1041 also repealed the exemptions of single parents with children under 3 years of age from participating in Welfare-to-Work activities. Sanctions mean that impoverished families live on a fixed income that is below 30% to 20% of the poverty level which is also defined as deep poverty . The provisions of SB 1041 were never discussed at a committee hearing. In addition, the Brown Ad- ministration promised that these changes would not increase sanctions. After almost two years, sanc- tions have increased and the number of participants in the education component has gone down. The table below clearly reveals that the fundemental ac- complishment of SB 1041 was to increase sanctions and reduce educational opportunities to CalWORKs. August 2012-Before SB 1041 and August 2014-After SB 1041 – Percentage of Change Number of Unduplicated Participants 7% WtW Exemptions -35% Number of Participants Already Being Sanctioned 30% Number of Participants Allowed to Par- ticipate in Educational Activities -7% Number of Self-initiated Program (SIP) participants -22% Source: WtW 25 report for August, 2014 CCWRO Welfare News October 13, 2014 #2014-10 Page 2 Con’t from Page 1- In Brief Medi-Cal Authorized Representative 2In previous years DSS has issued ACINs listing the mandated forms for intake and renewal. Accord- ing to the CWDA, DSS has decided not to do this any- more. The intake and renewal mandatory forms will be tracked annually on the County Advisory Team track- ing log. We urge CDSS to put this log on the inter- net so the public will have access to this information. 2 On 8-7-14 DSS informed the CWDA CalWORKs Com- mittee that AB 855 the Family Stabilization (FS) statutory language means that someone on FS can receive housing and other assistance for more than four months. DSS fur- ther clarified that a client cannot be sanctioned for not fol- lowing FS plan; the client would be moved back to regular WTW. When this happens, clients will need to be notified. The state is working on notices and when to send them. FS can stop WTW 24-month clock (by giving good cause, up to 6 months) but doesn’t stop CalWORKs 48 month clock. This is a new statewide rule established by CDSS that has statewide application. Will DSS legalize this rule by completing the Administrative Procedures Act? 2SB 1041- RAND Study This is a requirement for DSS to document the effect of the WTW 24-month clock. The state will submit a report to legislature annu- ally. Six focus counties, Fresno, Sacramento, Los Ange- les, Riverside, Alameda plus one more county will de- termine the impact of SB1041. There will be interview and data components. This report is going to try to an- swer question regarding the effectiveness of the bill. 2 Per the CWDA CalFresh Committee Meet- ing minutes, some counties refuse to imple- ment the elderly\/disabled interview federal FNS waiver until the consortia automates the process. 2 According to the CWDA CalFresh Committee min- utes, FNS takes the position that DSS should have an agreement with their local SSA department to obtain new- born SSNs. California does not have such an agreement. At this time DSS contends that there is no federal author- ity to discontinue a case\/person for not providing a SSN. Department of Health Care Services has been resisting the unfettered right of a Medi-Cal applicant or recipient to appoint any person as the authorized representative. During the 8-7-14 CWDA Medical Care Committee meeting, DHCS announced the following rules which will followed up in a MEDIL: r ARs can receive any information that the customer can receive, including BIC cards, Notices of Actions, etc. r Customers may submit any written signed form to appoint an AR. Assume the customer appoints the AR to act fully on behalf of the customer unless certain condi- tions are listed on the authorization (i.e. cannot receive BIC or NOAs). r An AR must be appointed in writing. A customer verbally may appoint an individual to assist him or her during a single contact (i.e. phone call, lobby visit, etc.). r An AR can be an organization and is not required to be a specific person. r No time limit or expiration on the appointment of an AR an authorization is valid until the customer makes a change. Medi-Cal Religious Exemption for SSN Our new address: 1111 Howe Avenue Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 According the DHCS a person without a SSN can still receive Medi-Cal if they submit a completed IRS form 4029. The link to the form is http:\/\/www. irs.gov\/pub\/irs-pdf\/f4029.pdf DHCS and counties have agreed to the following: r Individuals can claim a religious exemption from providing an SSN. r If otherwise eligible, approve benefits without the SSN and allow the individual a reasonable opportu- nity period to provide verification. r The individual must provide the IRS form 4029 to verify the religious exemption or must provide an SSN within the reasonable opportunity period. r If it cannot be provided, benefits are discontinued. This is based on a person\/individual level and not case-level. There is no definition of reasonable opportunity period or how that period is determined. Will the county assist the applicant or recipient to secure the IRS form 4029? CCWRO Welfare News October 13, 2014 #2014-10 – Page 3 General Assistance Recipient Getting IHSS Services Found to Be Employable in Sacramento County. – Mr. 1BCY43 of Sacramento County applied for General Assistance and Medi-Cal. He is disabled and has applied for SSI benefits. On September 29, 2014, he received a notice of action stating that as of September 4, 2014 his employability status has changed to employable because …review of existing and\/or provided documentation supports the presumption that your are employable . The existing documentation includes medical verification that Mr. 1BCY43 is unable to independently perform one or more activities of daily living (e.g., eating, bathing, dressing, using the toilet, walking, etc.). The doctor also certified that one or more IHSS service recommend- ed in order to prevent the need for out-of-home care. Sacramento County Welfare Department Wel- fare Fraud Investigators Try to Defraud Disabled Grandma. – Ms. 1B12T64 of Sacramento County is a grandmother on SSI who chose to take care of her grandkids rather than placing them in foster care at a cost of $2,500 a month for each child. Her daughter either received general assistance or lives a homeless life without income. The Sacramento County Depart- ment of Human Assistance Welfare Fraud investigators Sacramento County Welfare Department Victim Report launched a major investigation on Ms. 1B12T64. The wel- fare fraud investigators suspected that the children’s mother was living in the house and was not included in the assis- tance unit with the children and Ms. 1B12T64, thus, there was an alleged $31,333 CalWORKs overpayment for the period of November 1999 through November 2012 as well as a $30,059 CalFresh overpayment. Given the fact that the natural mother of the children, who was allegedly living with the grandma, had no income, then there should have been an underpayment starting with the month that the welfare fraud investigators suspected mom was living with the kids. Number of Unduplicated Participants Dur- ing August, 2014 122,800 Gross Number of Unduplicated Partici- pants Being Sanctioned During the Month of August of 2014 62,734 Number of Participants Sanctioned During March of 2014 11,409 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Partici- pants being Sanctioned During August of 2014 60% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanctions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During August of 2014 $9.3 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During August of 2014 3,567 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During Au- gust of 2014 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Partici- pants Who Entered Employment That Re- sulted In Termination of CalWORKs During August of 2014 $34,554.82 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During August, 2014 52,490 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During August of 2014 43% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant Dur- ing August of 2014 $5.3 million August 2014 California Welfare-to-Work Program Outcomes Report Source: CDSS WtW 25 reports ”

CCWRO Welfare News # 2014-10

CCWRO Public Assistance Tables 12-14