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

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

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 June 17, 2012 Issue # 2012-10 CCWRO Welfare News Social Engineers want to Tell The Poor How to Eat The social engineers are at work again. For the past several years some of the so-called think tanks and their confused allies have decided to tell food stamps recipients what kind of food to buy and eat. One would think that these social engineers would have the intellect to know that the food stamp program now called supplemental nutrition assistance program does not meet all of recipients’ food needs. In fact the average food stamp household gets about $133 a month. That is about $4.50 a day or $1.50 a meal. It is a miracle that people in this country are able to manage not to die from starvation with amount of food stamps they get every month. Rather than applauding food stamp recipients for being so inventive and fiscal geniuses, groups like the Center of Science and Public Interest are proposing to dictate to receipients how to use their meager benefits. Do not buy sodas. Buy fresh food. They have also found allies in some misguided food banks in Oregon who have Senator Wyden doing a press release supporting his amendment to force food stamp recipient to choose what they call healthier diets. The problem is healthier food is more expensive. What happens when this healthy diet results in having nothing to eat the last two weeks of the month? Would these social engineers be willing to give those hungry people a credit card to eat at an organic restaurant? http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org On July 5, 2011, Joyce Fields, program Manager for the Solano County Human Services Agency asked: We have a single- parent family applying for CalWORKs, The mother is still under a WtW sanction. The family is over income with the mother excluded. The mother want to cure her sanction, so her family came be approved for CalWORKs. Can we allow her to cure her sanction during the 45-day period we have to process the CalWORKs application? On April 5, 2012, about nine (9) months later, DSS responded as follows: The Manual of Policies and Procedures is silent on this question. The CWD may give the applicant a chance to cure her sanction during the 45 day application period, and if the applicant fails to cure she would remain in sanction status and the AU would be ineligible. This is a real timely answer. Solano County can now take this answer, go back in time and in lieu of denying the application for being over income, allow her to cure the sanction while the application was pending.. State law does not preclude any person from curing a sanction at any time . We will admit that MPP 42-721.48 is very poorly drafted and does not say that a person can cure the sanction at any time. The statute provides that the sanction will stop anytime the noncomplying participant complies. (Welf. & Inst. Code 11327.5(d).) Any reasonable person would assume that this means a person should be allowed to cure the sanction. In fact several years ago counties received several hundred million dollars to help sanctioned person cure CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian Sanction is the Purpose of the WtW Program CCWRO New Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org June 17, 2012 #2012-10 On May 3, 2012, Tracy Donovan of HHS asked DSS whether or not California exempts pregnant women from participation in the WtW program. Tracy also informed California that most states exempt pregnant women in the woman’s third trimester. Joel Reynolds of DSS responded on May 3, 2012 that in California, a pregnant woman in any trimester is required to participate 32 hours per week (or up to 35 hours per week if in a two- parent family) in a welfare-to-work activity as a condition of eligibility for cash aid under CalWORKs. Joel continued saying However, a woman who is pregnant is exempt from welfare-to-work participation if the pregnancy impairs her ability to be regularly employed or participate in welfare-to-work activities. An exemption based on a medically-verified pregnancy may also be granted when the CWD determines that participation will not readily lead to employment or that a training activity is not appropriate. Mr. TANF ID. 013CB860405 is working 35 hours a week and meeting the federal work requirements. When reporting their feeral work particiation a county did not enter status code 19 for this individual meeting the 35 hours work participation rates because the individual was being sanctioned by the county while meeting the federal work participation rates. It appears that the federal government caught this county\/ state error and entered the right status code and the State of California got credit for this sanctioned individual being punished for not meeting the WtW requirements. Sanctioned Persons Work Hours Counted for Meeting States Federal Work Participation Rates sanctions. Despite that, DSS says that the regulation do not require counties to allow applicants to cure a previous sanction while the application is pending. DSS knows very well that many sanctions can be cured by simply actions such as having the participant go to orientation\/appraisal. That could have been done on the date of application in some cases. It is unfortunate that CDSS seems to be encouraging decreasing benefits instead of curing sanctions. SB 1011 is the CalWORKS trailer bill that will be considered by the State Legislature. The sections effecting CalWORKs start at Section 6 that continues the current exemption for families with children under 2 savings of $327 million for 2012-2013. This cut does not hurt any impoverished families or the kids living in the family. The Legislature has the option of exempting families with kids under 6 as they did under Governor Reagan and save two or three times that amount without hurting any impoverished families and their kids. It should be noted that any exempt recipient who wants to participate in the WtW program can still volunteer to participate under current law. SB 1011 also will restore the CalLearn program and require reporting on the program from DSS. ]With the enactment of AB 6, which provides for semi-annual reporting, California’s federal work participation rate may get a boost. Currently when a person is meeting the work participation in the data month , those participation hours for the data month are projected for the next three months. With semi-annual reporting if the individual meets the federal work participation during the semi-annual data month those hours are projected over the next 6 months. This change will go into effect when California updates its Work Verification Plan for Fiscal Year 2014. SAR Helps State Federal Work Participation rates Pregnancy in Ant Trimester Does not exempt from WtW 2012-2013 Budget Trailer Bill SB 1011 CCWRO NUMBER OF THE WEEK Child Poverty Rate Under 18 Years of Age 2010 In California 22% ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 July 4, 2012 Issue # 2012-11 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian CalWORKs Cuts This year, CalWORKs endured cuts totaling $467 million while contributing over $1 billion dollars to balance the state budget. How do CalWORKs recipients contribute to the State Budget? The CalWORKs budget is funded with $3.6 billion from the federal government. The state had to spend $2.9 billion to access that $3.6 billion ($2.9 billion + $3.7 billion= $6.5 billion total CalWORKs budget). California budget-writers and the Governor were able to manipulate the budget to take over $1 billion of the $6.5 billion and use it for nonCalWORKs items such as foster care and CalGrants. This year the time limit on CalWORKs was reduced from 48 months to 24 months. We wonder if any of the writers of this budget would be willing to limit their pensions or social security benefits to 24 months? Doubt it. There are certain exceptions to the 24-month time limit. DSS will be inviting advocates to participate in the formulation of the policies to implement these exceptions that may ameliorate the immense negative impact that the 24-month limit would have upon CalWORKS families in California. There will be more information coming soon. The Governor’s web page, touting Governor Brown signs 2012-2013 Budget , explains that the budget reforms welfare by building a reserve of nearly $1 billion. The web page goes on to explain that the budget has a reserve of $948 million to protect the state against unforeseen costs that, unfortunately, come out of the mouths of California’s impoverished families. CHILD CARE CUTS The Governor’s budget proposed to transfer childcare Stage 2 and 3 to Department Social Services (DSS). The State Legislature rejected this proposal. CalWORKs recipients will continue to get their childcare from a fractured system that has a hundred and one different rules depending on what county one lives in, and in many cases, what part of the county one lives in. Stage 1 is administered by DSS. California Department of Education (CDE) administers stage 2 and 3. DSS has regulations that provide a meaningful process and real due process for Stage 1 recipients. By contrast, Stage 2 and 3 do not have specific rules to guarantee due process. CDE has had a couple of meetings with providers and advocates to address these issues, but the process is very slow, meanwhile stage 2 and 3 CalWORKs recipients are losing their child care often without a fair process to challenge the allegations made against them. Once they lose their child care, they may also lose their job and will not be able to meet the federal work participation rates. The budget cuts about $160 million from child care. http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org 2012-2013 Budget for CalWORKs and Child Care in Brief Ms. UADCBF6 has a child who was born at home. The child, a son whose name is Jamuary, is now 12-years old. For some reason, a computer changed his name to January. The county is trying to pursue child support. The child has been on CalWORKs for several years. He is in school and the county has been verifying his school attendance for several years. Now, the Exposition Park Office is DEMANDING that she provide a copy of January’s birth certificate. Her son’s name is Jamaury, not January. She does not have a copy of Jamaury’s birth certificate. On June 2, 2012, Ms. UADCBF6 received a notice of action terminating her benefits for failing to provide proof of age for January. The notice of action fails to provide the regulation MPP Section 42-411 that outlines what is acceptable verification. Moreover, the county insisted that she apply for a birth certificate and never offered to pay the $20 fee. She is only receiving aid for one person as she has timed out. This family is living on a fixed income equal to 25% of the poverty level. Her advocate contacted Ms. Andrea Flowers, a CalWORKs deputy for DPSS’s Exposition Park office. Ms. Flower’s promised that this victim’s aid would be on the card on the first of the month. This was another promise that was not kept by DPSS. On July 1, 2012, her benefits were not on the card. Now her only means of communication her cell phone will be disconnected for failure to make payment on the 1st of the month. DPSS has also asked her to bring her 12-year old child to the welfare office on July 9, 2012 so they can eyeball the child. Why? Because the social security office has erroneously stated that Jamaury is a female and not a male. This has been labeled as an inconsistency. Who committed the inconsistency? The Social Security Office. Program violations by DPSS in this case: COUNT 1. Failure to issue a notice of action that contains the correct regulation outlining the various options this victim has in verifying her child’s age. MPP 22-001(a)(1): Adequate Notice- A written notice informing the claimant of the action the county intends to take, the reasons for the intended action, the specific regulations supporting such action COUNT 2. Failure to inform the victim of her options Los Angeles County Client Abuse Report CCWRO Welfare News htpp:\/\/www.ccwro.org July 4, 2012 #2012-11 for verifying her child’s identity as mandated by MPP 40-126.32 Notice of Required Evidence -Within ten calendar days of application, the county shall provide written notice to the applicant of the required evidence and examples of alternative evidence, if any, to determine eligibility. COUNT 3. Refusal to pay third party fees as mandatory fees as mandated by MPP 40-126.332 when the county requested the birth certificate. MPP 40-126.332: Third Party Fees – If necessary, the county shall pay a third party fee to obtain existing evidence of eligibility on behalf of the applicant. COUNT 4. Requesting additional verification that is already in the county’s possession. The county has had school verification of the child’s age for several years. MPP 40- 126.35 Retrieve Case File – The county shall retrieve and examine those existing case files which are in the possession of the county or its agents, in a timely manner, to determine if needed evidence of eligibility is already in the possession of the county when: (b) There is a cost associated with obtaining the evidence. COUNT 5. Soliciting verification when the county already had in their possession. MPP 40-126.31. Require Only Evidence of Eligibility – The county shall require only evidence necessary to determine past or present eligibility for the amount or delivery of aid. COMMENT: This could have Number of Unduplicated Participants During April 2012 120,078 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned During April 2012 48,227 Number of Participants Sanctioned During April 2012 22.567 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants Sanctioned During April 2012 51% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanc- tions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During April 2012 $7.6 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of Cal- WORKs During April 2012 3,249 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During April 2012 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During April 2012 $51,675.98 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transpor- tation by the County During April 2012 56,100 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During April 2012 46% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation at an Estimated $100 Per Participant During April 2012 $6.5 million April 2012 California Welfare-to-Work Program OutcomesReport How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $943,381 million 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Child Appropriation $1,071,362.569 million Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG276.htm very likely been avoided had the county used the CW 2200 form that was designed by counties and advocates in 2008. To date counties refuse to use the form they helped developed, thus, counties are willfully and grossly violating state laws and regulations on verification daily in full acquiescence of the Staet Department of Social Services. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 July 21, 2012 Issue # 2012-12 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian On July 12, 2012 the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance released TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 informing states that pursuant to Section 1115 of the Social Security http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t on Page 2 Do 1115 Waivers Repeal TANF? Republicans Cry yes . But the Heritage Foundation and Republicans may change their mind again and become proponents of state flexibility once they conclude that it can be used to reduce benefits to poor families and children. A number of legal aid advocates, including Amy Chen of Bay Area Legal Aid, have been concerned about the number of aged out foster care children losing their Medi-Cal benefits because their whereabouts is unknown to the Medi-Cal worker. This happens when the county mails out a Medi-Cal recertification packet to the aged out youth and the packet comes back to the county wrong address. To determine the scope of the problem, we looked at the data embodied in SOC 405 reports for the first quarter of 2012. The report reveals that in California during this quarter there were 608 aged out youth and the county knew the whereabouts of 518 of the youth. Thus, 85% of the youth have an address that is known to the county. However, many counties have zero percent of the aged-out foster youth receiving Medi-Cal, such Contra Costa, Fresno, Humboldt, Kings, Merced, Orange, San Francisco, San Jouquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, and Tulare. What seems to be the problem? It is simple. The Medi- Cal worker does not check with the child welfare service worker before mailing out the Medi-Cal certification packet to make sure that it is going to the right address. When the packet is mailed to the old address that the Med-Cal worker has and did not update, the aged out youth whose whereabouts is known by the child welfare services side of the house is terminated from Medi-Cal for whereabouts unknown. Can this be remedied? Yes. The Medi-Cal worker needs to confirm the address with the child welfare worker before sending out the packet and the aged out foster care youth would not be without health care in many cases. On page 2 there is a Table #1 which reveals the number of known aged out foster care youth in each county and the number of the known aged out foster care children eligible for Medi-Cal actually receiving medical assistance. This chart is based upon the SOC 405 report of DSS for the first quarter of 2012. Aged Out Children Not Getting Medi-Cal Act they have the flexibility to submit experimental or pilot projects for their state TANF programs that would meet the objectives of the TANF program. The Obama Administration is giving the states flexibility as every other Administration has done. This infuriated the anti-flexibility forces within the right wing and the first one to launch an attack against state flexibility was Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. For years Rector has been stating that welfare recipients receive about $25,000 a year, which is not true. The Heritage Foundation did an article in the The Daily Caller attacking the Obama administration for allegedly repealing the TANF program by informing States that they have the authority under existing law to seek waivers. In addition, Rep. Dave Camp, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senator Orrin Hatch of the Senate Finance Committee a wrote letter to Secretary Sebelius alleging that TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 is a violation of existing law. They also introduced bills; H.R. 6140 and S.3397 touting the 1996 Welfare Deform Act to be a success and leaving out any mention of the truth that most of the TANF funds are used for the running the foster care program, as stated by Senator Hatch during a recent hearing on TANF. On July 18, 2012 the Secretary issued a letter to Mr. Camp informing him that TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 merely implement existing law and is responsive to a letter from Republican Governors dated May 19, 2005 pleading for flexibility to do experimental and pilot projects under TANF. The letter from Republican governors was signed by 30 governors lead by Mitt Romney. Today, Romney opposes allowing states the flexibility to obtain waivers to do experimental projects. Historically, state flexibility has been disastrous for the poor because waivers have been used to reduce benefits. It is amazing to see the Heritage Foundation opposing state flexibility just because the Obama Administration supports it. Waivers were the instruments used to destroy the AFDC program and replace it with the current TANF program that spends less than 30% of its money on payments to poor families. (AFDC spent over 70% of the money for payments to families ) A lot of the money is used for State Budget Relief that has nothing to do with supporting America’s impoverished families with needy children. http:\/\/www.acf.hhs.gov\/programs\/ofa\/policy\/im-ofa\/2012\/im201203\/im201203.html http:\/\/www.ccwro.org http:\/\/dailycaller.com\/2012\/07\/13\/will-obama-get-away-with-it\/ http:\/\/www.govtrack.us\/congress\/bills\/112\/hr6140\/text http:\/\/www.govtrack.us\/congress\/bills\/112\/s3397 http:\/\/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov\/media\/pdf\/112\/2005_Romney_Letter.pdf http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/research\/PG1940.htm http:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/ http:\/\/tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com\/PDF\/Chairman%20Camp%20TANF%207%2018%20.pdf http:\/\/www.ssa.gov\/OP_Home\/ssact\/title11\/1115.htm CCWRO Welfare News July 21, 2012 #2012-12 Page 2 County Youth where- abouts known eligible for Medi- Cal Youth Receiv- ing Medical Assis- tance % of Youth Receiving Medical Assis- tance Butte 3 0 0% Contra Costa 2 0 0% El Dorado 7 0 0% Fresno 3 0 0% Glenn 1 0 0% Humboldt 1 0 0% Inyo 0 0 0% Kings 3 0 0% Lake 2 0 0% Madera 1 0 0% Mendocino 2 0 0% Merced 9 0 0% Modoc 1 0 0% Napa 3 0 0% Nevada a\/ 3 0 0% Orange 11 0 0% San Diego 11 0 0% San Francisco 28 0 0% San Joaquin 9 0 0% San Luis Obis. 3 0 0% San Mateo 10 0 0% Santa Barbara 4 0 0% Santa Clara 2 0 0% Stanislaus 5 0 0% Sutter 2 0 0% Tulare 6 0 0% Tuolumne 1 0 0% Yolo 1 0 0% Lassen 10 1 10% Sacramento 30 3 10% San Bernard. 70 7 10% Riverside 34 4 12% Alameda 30 4 13% Imperial 5 1 20% Sonoma 5 1 20% Los Angeles 169 34 20% Kern 9 2 22% Marin 3 1 33% Placer 3 1 33% Yuba 3 1 33% Shasta 2 1 50% Solano 2 1 50% Santa Cruz 6 4 67% Monterey 1 1 100% Ventura 2 2 100% Mariposa 0 0 – Mono 0 0 – Plumas 0 0 – San Benito 0 0 – Sierra 0 0 – Siskiyou 0 0 – Tehama 0 0 – Trinity 0 0 – Alpine 0 0 Amador 0 0 Calaveras Colusa 0 0 CC County Youth where- abouts known eligible for Medi- Cal Youth Receiv- ing Medical Assis- tance % of Youth Receiving Medical Assis- tance The LOW Number of Aged Out Foster Care Youth Who Have Medical Assistance When the County Human Service Agency Knows Their Whereabouts ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 August 6, 2012 Issue # 2012-13 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org In Brief Con’t on Page 2 On January 17, 2012, the State Department of Social Services released an All County Information Notice ACIN-I-03-12 stating: CDSS strongly encourages counties to place the information on their own county department websites as soon as administratively possible to maximize access for all applicants and recipients of the CalWORKs program. Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Section 11-501.3 requires, for those areas of the CalWORKs program in which CWDs have discretion to adopt specific standards that affect a client’s eligibility, grant amount, and welfare-to-work activities, including supportive services, policies and procedures must be in writing and shall be made available to the public upon request. ACIN I-03-12 was issued over six (6) months ago and to date no county has any of their written policies available on their webpage for the public. There may one or two counties that have some policies available, but then they are buried somewhere in the county webpage that makes it impossible for the general public to access their policies. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services has some of their policies on the web, but they do not post their administrative memorandums and administrative directives or their newsletters of the various programs. There is a rumor that San Diego County has put their policies on-line, but it is not very apparent when the public visits their webpage. The only other way to access these policies is to go to the county department of human services and ask for a copy of their policies. We have periodically tested whether or not the county human services department receptionist will provide our testers the requested California County Human Services Department Refuse to Make Their Policies Transparent – Do They Have Something to Hide?n eSignatures are now being used by C-IV, which represents about 39 counties, for CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and Food Stamp applications. n At a recent County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) CalFresh Committee meeting, a Ventura County representative wondered if the MEDS computer shows that a food stamp recipient is getting SSI, can the county stop the food stamp benefits. Counties agreed that food stamp benefits cannot be stopped until they get the QR7. Counties cannot automatically act on MEDS information. n Counties are having problems with email Inter- County-Transfer (eICT) process. CWDA has mailed a questionnaire to counties regarding the eICT process. n EDD has a new requirement for individuals who are coming to the end of their Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits Customers must have a face-to-face interview with an EDD employee. If the customer does not attend the interview, they could get discontinued from UI. Does this effect food stamps? The CalFresh CWDA Committee decided that Applying for or receiving all other benefits they may be eligible for is not a requirement or CalFresh, therefore, losing their EDD benefits will not affect CalFresh eligibility. n A conference entitled Modernizing CalFresh: Improving Program Performance Process and Participation will take place on September 5th and 6th in Sacramento (Embassy Suites). The conference is closed to the public. Only 80 county representatives will be attending including state and federal representatives. The conference is paid for by FNS and FNS will sponsor the presenters. n MEDS Issue Security CDSS has been told by SSA that CDSS does not have role-based security. MEDS is an antiquated system. This only impacts county staff ability to access MEDS for Kin-Gap, Fed- Gap, CalWORKs for recent non-designated entrants and CFAP programs. This may result in duplicated benefit issuance. http:\/\/ccwro.org\/ http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/entres\/getinfo\/acin\/2012\/I-03_12.pdf http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/lettersnotices\/entres\/getinfo\/acin\/2012\/I-03_12.pdf http:\/\/www.ladpss.org\/ http:\/\/www.sdcounty.ca.gov\/hhsa\/programs\/ssp\/ http:\/\/www.cwda.org\/ CCWRO Welfare News August 6, 2012 #2012-13 Page 2 Con’t from Page 1 policy and every time the receptionist had no idea what the tester was talking about. The fact is that counties make policy. Those policies are not transparent and counties REFUSE to put them on their webpage. We wonder why? Ms. H. was confused about how her income was computed. She received a NA 1239 Notice of Action stating how her unearned income will be computed. The right side of the notice has 49 lines but only 15 of those lines were completed. Ms. H. did not understand why the other lines were not completed. Is the welfare department trying to cheat me out of money? she asked. She may be right. Why does one form address earned income, disability income, self-employment income and unearned income, CalLEARN and more? It does not make sense unless it is designed to confuse the CWD and DSS customers. Why not have one form for earned income, one for disability income, one for self- employment and one for unearned income? It’s not hard to simplify the system. Yes, there may be some cases where the household or assistance unit would have earned income, self-employment income and unearned income. But for those who just have earned income like Ms. H., the computer could put out a notice that only has lines that are applicable to earned income. Are California’s multi-billion dollar computer systems that incompetent? Monthly Cash Aid Amount Section A. Countable Income, Month of ___________ 1. Total Self-Employment Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ___________ 2. Self-Employment Expenses: a. 40% Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – ___________ OR b. Actual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – ___________ 3. Net Earnings from Self-Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 4. Total Disability-Based Unearned Income (DBI) (Assistance Unit + Non-Assistance Unit Members) . $ ___________ 5. $225 DBI Disregard (if #4 is greater than $225) . . . . – ___________ 6. Nonexempt Unearned Disability-Based Income . . . . = ___________ OR 7. Unused DBI Disregard (up to $112) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 8. Net Earnings from Self-Employment (from above) . . + ___________ 9. Total Other Earned Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + ___________ 10. Unused Amount of $225 (from #7) or $112 (whichever is less) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – ___________ 11. Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 12. Earned Income Disregard 50%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – ___________ 13. Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 14. Nonexempt Unearned Disability-Based Income (from #6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + ___________ Are Welfare Notices by DSS Confusing on Purpose? It Sems so. 15. Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 16. Other Nonexempt Income (Assistance Unit + NonAssistance Unit Members) . . + ___________ Net Countable Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ Section B. Your Cash Aid, Month of ____________ 1. Maximum Aid ______ Persons (Assistance Unit + Non-Assistance Unit Members) . . $ ___________ 2. Special Needs (Assistance Unit + Non-Assistance Unit Members) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + ___________ 3. Net Countable Income from Section A (above) . . . . . – ___________ 4. Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 5. Maximum Aid ______ Persons (Assistance Unit only) (Excluding MFG, or Penalized Persons) . . . . . . . . . . $ ___________ 6. Special Needs (Assistance Unit only) . . . . . . . . . . . . + ___________ 7. Maximum Aid Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 8. Full Month Aid Subtotal (Lowest Amount on Line 4 or 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 9. Line 8 Prorated for Part of Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = ___________ 10. Adjustments: 25% Child Support Penalty(ies) . . . . . . – ___________ Other Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – ___________ Overpayment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – ___________ School Bonus ($100 or $500) . . . . . . . + ___________ 11. Monthly Cash Aid Amount The NA 1239 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/NA1239.pdf ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 September 13, 2012 Issue # 2012-14 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org American banks gouge welfare families of California. view correspondence and notices of actions and other documents in their case. These functions would bring transparency to the California safety net programs administered by county human ser- vices departments. The system continues to prevent CalWORKs welfare-to-work participants participating in a welfare-to-work activity from submitting travel or reimbursement for ancilliary services on-line. There is no reason why a QR-7 or the SAR7 should not be submitted on-line as an option for beneficiaries of California’s safety net programs. There is no reason why a CA-8 or a CA-8A add- ing a person to the case should not be done on-line. The CMIPS II IHSS new computer system that has been on the drawing board since the last century went live July 30, 2012 in Yolo and Mer- ced Counties. San Diego County went live on September 4, 2012. The remaining counties will come on-line as follows: First Waiver – December 4, 2012- Alam- eda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Stanislaus. Second Waive – February 5, 2013 Sutter, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Men- docino, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, San Bernardino, Shasta, Tehe- ma, Trinity and Yuba Third Waive – April 3, 2013- Los Angeles County Fourth Waive – June 3, 2013 Alpine, Ama- dor, Calaveras, El Dorado, Imperial, Inyo, Kings, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Mon- terey, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Siskiyou, So- noma, Tulare, Tuolumne and Ventura. In 2011-2012, the same major U.S. banks that re- ceived billions in interest free loans reaped a wind- fall profit from CalWORKs families. Advocates are working with DSS to address this problem. C-IV already uses e-Signatures for on-line ap- plications for 39 counties. We encourage CalWIN and and LEADER to follow suit. Meanwhile, DSS established a workgroup to come up with a state- wide e-Signature policy. The California on-line application systems, Ben- efitsCalWIN, C4yourself and LAYourBenefitsNow, are improving. The functions range from allowing recipients to check their benefits on-line, checking the next benefit amount and payment date, report- ing changes in income or the mailing address to submitting scanned documents as verification. WHAT’S MISSING? The case file for benefi- ciaries of California’s safety net programs is avail- able electronically. The SAWS system is devel- oping a method by which recipients can access their case files via mobile smart phones. Yet, the three on-line systems do not allow beneficiaries to Bank Surcharge Collected from Welfare Families During FY 2011-2012 Bank Profits for FY 2011-2012 Bank of America $3,897,301 $24 billion JP Morgan Chase $2,450,372 $19 billion Wells Fargo $2,403,579 $19 billion California Welfare Computer Systems Update IHSS CMISP II system rolls out ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 October 24, 2012 Issue # 2012-18 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t on Page 2 e-Inter-County Transfer Mess in California For example Ms. Jones moves from the Napa County to Sutter County. Sutter County has three working days to request the ICT from Napa County from the date the client requests the transfer to Sutter County. Once Sutter County has con- firmed the client is a potential ICT, Sutter County requests the ICT within three working days. Once Napa County is notified of an ICT request, Napa County will initiate the ICT within seven calendar days for Medi-Cal and seven working days for CalWORKs or non- assistance CalFresh. The seven-day starts with the date of receipt of request in the Sending County. (For CalWORKs\/ Medi-Cal cases the time frame follows CalWORKs time frame.) Once an eICT is received in the Sutter County, the process- ing time frames will be completed by program, as follows, with the intent to meet regulations: CalWORKs – EAS Manual 40-187, 40-188, ACL 03-18 and ACIN I-29-04: The 30-day transfer period begins with the postmarked date or the date of the initiation of the electronic transfer Medi-Cal – ACWDL 03-12 and 04-14: The 30-day transfer period begins with the postmarked date or the date of the initiation of the electronic transfer. CalFresh (formerly Food Stamps) – ACL 11-22 implements CalFresh ICT regulations. The 30-day transfer period be- gins with the postmarked date or the date of the initiation of the electronic transfer. SHASTA COUNTY WANTS THE CUSTOMER TO DO WHAT THE COUNTY IS PAID TO DO 1. Ms. B395616 left Sacramento County on 9-10-12. 9-10-12 – Ms. B395616 went to the Shasta County Depart- ment of Human Services for an inter-county transfer. Shas- ta County made her reapply for aid. She completed all of the application forms. 10-16-12 Still no money and no food for this impover- ished family. She was told by Shasta County that they were still waiting for information from Sacramento County. On 3-21-2011, the three (3) California consortias agreed to a document governing e-inter-county-transfers in California set fforth below in part. Executive Summary The California Counties, the California Consortia (C-IV, Cal- WIN and Leader), in association with the California Welfare Director Association (CWDA), created a Statewide California electronic inter-county transfer interface (eICT) between the California Consortia. The purpose of a statewide inter-county transfer (ICT) is to provide a seamless transfer of client data and documents from one California County to another with- out a break in benefits to the recipient. This document, titled Inter-County Transfer Communication Protocol, is to provide an agreement to guide California Counties through the ICT business processes used in conjunction with each California Consortia detailed design documentation of their eICT inter- face. The content of this document has been agreed upon by the California Counties as the standards for processing a recipient of benefits when they move from one county to another, within the State of California. 1.1 – Requesting an eICT – The requesting county will have three working days to request the ICT from the Sending County, when the client is in the Receiving County requesting an ICT. Once the Receiving County has confirmed the client is a poten- tial ICT, the county will request the ICT within three working days. 1.2 – Sending an eICT – Once the county is notified of an ICT request, the Sending County will initiate the ICT within seven calendar days for Medi-Cal and seven working days for Cal- WORKs or non-assistance CalFresh. The seven-day starts with the date of receipt of request in the Sending County. (For CalWORKs\/Medi-Cal cases the time frame follows CalWORKs time frame.) At this time, the following programs are included with the ini- tial eICT interface between the three California consortia: CalWORKs RCA (Refugee Cash Assistance) Medi-Cal CalFresh COUNTY VICTIM OF eITC REPORT CCWRO Welfare News October 24, 2012 #2012-18 Con’t. from Page 1 This is information that Shasta should have requested from Sacramento County on by 9-23-12 and Sacramento should have provided to Shasta County by 10-11-2. 2. SACRAMENTO COUNTY eICT NIGHTMARE – Mr. 1B4HD54 moved to Sacramento County from Mendocino County. 8-27-12 – Client applied for CalFresh in Sacramento. He was receiving benefits in Mendocino County, but is now in Sacra- mento County. 8-31-12 – Had a telephone intake and was told the information would be transferred from Mendocino County. 9-10-12 – Client had not heard from Sacramento County and had not received any benefits from either county. The Sac- ramento Service Center told Mr. 1B4HD54 that his case was in the ICT department. He was further informed that Sacra- mento County could not do anything until they got the case information from Mendocino County. Mr. 1B4HD54 wants to speed up the process and turns in SAWS2 and verifications to Sacramento County in person. He calls the county again at the end of September is and told that he should wait. 10-01-12 – Mr. 1B4HD54 still has no benefits. He has been calling the Service Center and has been told that they were un- able to access his case because it was in the ICT department. He contacted a supervisor because the case had been pend- ing for over 30 days and was told that the supervisor would contact the ICT department. The Sacramento ICT department contacted Mr. 1B4HD54 and said that because Mendocino closed the case on 8\/31 they were unable to transfer his case. Mr. 1B4HD54 was told that his case would be sent back to intake for processing. 10-05-12 – Mr. 1B4HD54 had a second telephone intake and was told he would receive a packet in the mail with paperwork to complete and send back. He received paperwork and mailed it back. He called the Service Center a few days later and was told to wait one more time. 10-19-12 – Another call to the Service Center. He was told that his case was denied for failing to turn in verifications but, they received them the previous day. Mr. 1B4HD54 was told they would be opening the case again and the documents would be tasked to a worker and he should call back next week. 3. LOS ANGELES COUNTY REFUSES TO CONTACT SACRAMENTO COUNTY-WANTS THE FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT TO DO THE COUNTY’s WORK. Ms. 1B4F779, of Sacramento County, moved to Los Angeles County. On September 28, 2012 she visited the Los Angeles County Rancho Park office and informed Los Angeles County that she was now living Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles County worker told her that she would have to let her worker in Sacramento know to close her case so Los Angeles County could pick it up. Again, current policy states that the Request- ing County will inform the Sending County within three (3) days that there was a request for eICT, but why follow policy when the customer can do your work for you? NEXT STEPS for eICT: It is interesting to see that the three (3) computer consor- tias have decided to take charge of the welfare system in California. We are not sure how this happened when we have a single state agency – the State Department of Social Services. The problem is that there is no information available for the public or the administrators to know how this system is working. There should be monitoring data asking: l Did the receiving county request information from the sending county within 3 days of knowing that the family was in the receiving county? l\u00ad\u00ad \u00adDid the receiving county request information from the sending county after 3 days of knowing that the fam- ily was in the receiving county? l\u00adDid the receiving county request information from the sending county after 7 days of knowing that the fam- ily was in the receiving county? l\u00adDid the receiving county request information from the sending county after 10 days of knowing that the family was in the receiving county? l\u00adDid the receiving county request information from the sending county after more than 10 days of knowing that the family was in the receiving county? l\u00adDid the sending county respond to the request from the receiving county within 7 days? l\u00adDid the sending county respond to the request from the receiving county after 7 days? l\u00adDid the sending county respond to the request from the receiving county within 14 days? l\u00adDid the sending county respond to the request from the receiving county after 14 days? l\u00adWas the transfer completed by the receiving county within 30 days of receiving the electronic information from the sending County? l\u00adWas the transfer completed by the receiving county after 30 days of receiving the electronic information from the sending County? ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 October 24, 2012 Issue # 2012-18 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t on Page 2 Counties Object Doing their Job – Assisting CalWORKs Application (a) Assisting the Applicant The county is responsible for assisting applicants or recipients in understanding their rights and responsi- bilities in relation to application for aid; for evaluating the capacity of the applicants or recipients to discharge their responsibilities as set forth in Section 40-105; for assisting them as needed in establishing their eligibility and helping them to realize the maximum personal in- dependence of which they are capable, including self- care and self-maintenance. To date there is no process for applicant to inform their worker that they are not able to secure the requested in- formation. The CW220 would empower CalWORKs, Food Stamp and Medi-Cal applicants to state in CW that if the applicant cannot get the proof you need, we may be able to get it for you. Fill out this form and return it to your worker by _________ date. Ms. Hufft interpreted this to mean Misleading cli- ent will sign this expect the CWD to obtain all the info removing the responsibility from the client. The form does not say the county will must or shall be able to get it for you, it says may. Moreover the form says If you cannot get the proof you need and not if you want us to get the proof even though you are able to get the proof then complete this form. CW2200 would allow Ms. Jones to tell the worker that she needs help to get birth certificates. Ms. Hufft al- leges that Counties always offer to assist the client if they are having difficulties in obtaining any verifica- tion\/information that has been requested. Tell that to Ms. Jones and thousands of other applicants whose ap- plications are denied daily because they are not able to secure the requested verification. It is important that parents of impoverished children are treated with dignity and respect and are at least empowered to state in writing that they need help to secure the county requested verification. Why is that so bad? Ms. Jones has two kids and is homeless. She has one MFG child. The family is homeless. She is fleeing from domestic violence and just arrived in California from New York. When she applied, the county gave her a form requesting copies of the birth certificates of all members of the family. However, she lost them fleeing from New York for her and her childrens’ life. The county never offered to help her. The county gave her 10 days to come up with all of the requested verification. After 10 days she received a notice denying her applica- tion for failure to provided requested verification. To help people like Ms Jones, advocates and county rep- resentatives developed a verification request form that would comply with state and federal law several years ago. The current county forms do not comply with federal and state laws and regulations. The form was named a CW2200 and everybody on the workgroup established by DSS agreed to make it a mandatory form. The form then went to a committee of the County Wel- fare Directors Association (CWDA) who demanded that the form be permitted. The form has never been pro- grammed into the CalWIN computer system that is used by 18 counties in California. No county uses the form today. CDSS is now considering making the form man- datory and CWDA is still fighting this effort to assist ap- plicants in receiving the benefits that they are entitled to and assure that counties are not in violation of federal and state laws and regulations. Recently Marti Hufft of Mendocino County chairing the CWDA County Advisory Team (CAT) transmitted county feedback to the CW2200. The form has three pages. The last page is a release of in- formation form for the applicant to authorize the county to assist the applicant to secure verification that the applicant is not able to secure. This is in response to State Regula- tion 40-107 that states: 40-107 COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY Month\/Year Amount Banks Fleeced From CalWORKs Recipients January, 2012 $1,619,319 February 2012 $1,593,889 March 2012 $1,620,811 April 2012 $1,599,531 May 2012 $1,615,788 June 2012 $1,638,473 July 2012 $1,627,446 August 2012 $1,646,531 September 2012 $1,690,641 Grand TOTAL $14,652,429 Con’t. from Page 1 Each month CalWORKs recipients living on a fixed in- come that is at the same level that they received in 1985 have to pay to large banks over $1.6 million to access their CalWORKs benefits. Chart #1 shows how much CalWORKs recipients pay to banks each month to ac- cess their meager benefits. Chart #2 shows the average amount of money CalWORKs recipients pay to banks each month to access their meager benefits in each county. It is estimated that in 2012 banks will take over $20 mil- lion dollars from welfare recipients. Table #1 shows the latest information available revealing fees paid to banks by CalWORKs recipient. SAN DIEGO & RIVERSIDE COUNTIES FAIL TO eICT A CASE On July 31, 2012, Mr. 1B3G876 notified San Diego County that the family had moved and requested an intercounty transfer to Riverside County. COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTVICTIM REPORT On October 10, a Riverside County worker left Mr. 1B3G876 a message stating she had re- ceived information from San Diego County re- garding the intercounty transfer, and mailed Mr. 1B3G876 a notice setting an October 23 intake appointment. On October 23, Mr. 1B3G876 completed an ap- plication with the Riverside County worker. On October 31, the Riverside County worker left Mr. 1B3G876 a message stating that Riverside County had not approved benefits for Novem- ber and that November benefits may be coming from San Diego County. Mr. 1B3G876 immediately contacted San Diego County and found out the county had closed the case and would not issue November benefits. Mr. 1B3G876 requested San Diego County issue November benefits because Riverside County had not completed the intercounty trans- fer. Mr. 1B3G876 requested a state hearing against both San Diego County and Riverside County, and aid paid pending. On November 2, San Diego County notified Mr. 1B3G876 that it had issued November WTW transportation payments (Mr. 1B3G876 is a SIP), but, effective November 1, client’s CalWORKs, Medi-Cal and CalFresh cases were intercounty transferred to Riverside County and that San Di- ego County could no longer issue benefits. This was confirmed by the email below from San Diego County. From: Laura.Hernandez@sdcounty. ca.gov Subject: RE: 1B3G876 – intercounty trans- fer not effective until 12\/1\/2012 Date: November 2, 2012 4:42:42 PM PDT Effective November 1,2012 the CalWorks, Me- di-Cal and CalFresh cases were inter-county transferred to Riverside County as previously clarified. We can no longer issue benefits out of San Diego, and ongoing eligibility determina- tions now fall to the County in which you reside. Laura Hernandez County of San Diego – HHSA Manager-CalWORKs\/WTW Programs 1255 Imperial Avenue, Room 433 San Diego, CA 92101 \uf028 (619) 338-2949 Welfare Recipients Pay Millions to American Banks to Access Their Limited CalWORKs Fixed Income T A B L E # 1 CCWRO Welfare News November 12, 2012 #2012-19 CCWRO Welfare News November 12, 2012 #2012-19 MS:W414 \uf028 laura.hernandez@sdcounty. ca.gov Other than the WTW transportation payment, client has no November benefits from either county. The interruption in benefits is contrary to ACL 11-22 at p.3: It is critical that CWDs communicate with each other throughout the ICT process to ensure that no case is terminated until the receiving county has indicated that the transfer has been completed to ensure that the household is not subject to an interruption in benefits. There is to be no interruption or overlap of aid payments when a recipient moves from one county to another. The sending county is re- sponsible for continuing eligibility and aid pay- ments during the transfer period. LOS ANGELES COUNTy TERmINATES BENEFITS WIThOUT AN ADEqUATE NOTICE OF ACTION. Ms. B07WG55 did not receive her CalWORKs benefits on 11-1-12. She applied for CalWORKs on 9-21-12 and was issued an Immediate Need check of $97.00. She received a check of $285 for the month of October 2012. When she con- tacted the Lancester DPSS office on 11-3-12 she was told by Ms. Enga Garnett, a Deputy Director for Quality Assurance that her October 2012 $285 check was issued as a presump- tive eligibility check. When she was asked for the State Regulation that provides for the is- suance of a $285 check for October as pre- sumptive eligibility she was not able to give Ms. B07WG55 a coherent answer. Ms. Garnett also stated that the reason for the termination of benefits effective 11-1-12 was based upon a Los Angeles County pre-interview notice of verification requirement that has a NA9 back issued on 9-21-12. Ms. Garnett stated that the case was closed because the 9-21-12 verifica- tion request form asked for verification of Ms. B07WG55 application for unemployment. Ms. B07WG55 had provided this information to the county on or about October 1, 2012 and had a receipt from DPSS to this effect. Ms. Gar- nett insisted that the termination based on the 9-21-12 verification request form was valid and it would be upheld. When Ms. Garnett re- viewed the case she discovered that the coun- Con’t. from Page 2 ty indeed had the verification that Ms. B07WG55 said she gave the county, but the verification was not scanned into the Los Angeles County LEADER computer and thus, her aid was unlawfully stopped in blatant violation of Ms. B07WG55 basic due pro- cess rights because she was never given a notice of action terminating her benefits for failure to provide requested verification. SACRAMENTO COUNTY WORK TO WELFAR PROGRAM MR. 1B0YZ33 found a job as a weld- er. His employment started, and he had 30 days to secure his own tools. He submitted a request for ancillary services from Sacramento County Welfare Department. Mary Sabillo, assistant director for em- ployment services of Sacramento County informed him and his representative that in Sacramento Coun- ty in order to qualify for ancillary services for main- taining a job, the job had to pay twice the minimum wage amount. Now Mr. 1B0YZ33 has to leave his job another success story of Sacramento County’s Work-to-Welfare program. SACRAmENTO COUNTy REFUSES TO ISSUE EXPEDITED SERVICE FOOD STAmPS AND ImmEDIATE NEED TO TEEN PREGNANT mOm On 10-16-12 Ms. 1B0TY22 applied for CalWORKs and food stamps. She is homeless and in her third trimester of pregnancy. She answered yes to 3 of the 5 SAWS1 questions for question #18. She had an appointment on 10-17-12. She was sent back to the streets of Sacramento with a demand to produce an I.D., apply for a Social Security Card and a state- ment from somebody saying she stays with them. As of 11-12-12 Ms. 1BOTY22 was still homeless, foodless and moneyless. We cannot even begin to list of number of laws that Sacramento County has violated in this case. STATISTIC OF ThE WEEK We hear continously how counties assert that they can’t do this or that because they o not have the money . Counties for CalWORKs receive a block grant called a single allocation During 2011-2012 counties were allocated $1,955,670 million. how much Did Counties Fail to Spend? $181,466 million ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 December 17, 2012 Issue # 2012-21 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t on Page 2 Counties Give Back $180 Million In Unspent CalWORKS Funds SAN FRANCISCO $ 1,170,708 TUOLUMNE $ 1,105,230 SUTTER $ 1,047,373 Many of these counties pay less than the IRS mileage reimbursement rates to WtW participants, if the partic- ipant is lucky enough to receive transportation. Return- ing money to the State is not an aberration for counties. It seems to be standard practice as reflected Table #1 below. Ms. Jones was sanctioned by the WtW program be- cause she did not attend a WtW meeting that conflicted with her community college attendance. After being granted for assistance, Ms. Jones started college when the county did not contact her for WtW. After starting school, the county called and told her that she must drop out of college to participate in WtW. She refused to abandon her quest to self-sufficiency and she was punished her CalWORKs and Food Stamp benefits were reduced effective November 1, 2012. Need- less to say she had nothing to give thanks for this Thanksgiving for they had run out of food and there was no money. It is now December and the Food Stamp sanction is still in place. It looks like the Jones family is going to have a foodless Christmas too. Food Stamp regulation section 63-407.531 provides that the first instance of noncompliance in a WtW Usually counties complain that they do not enough money to provide necessary services to Cal- WORKs recipients. So we looked at how much money the counties received and how they used it. Food Stamp Sanctions Stop In Red States but Go On and On In The Blue State of California TABLE #1 State Fiscal Year CalWORKs County Single Allocation (CSA) Not Used By Counties Percent- age of Total CalWORKs CSA Spent By Counties Food Stamp General Fund CSA Not Used By Counties Percent- age of Total Food Stamp CSA Spent By Counties 2009-2010 $148 million 93% $52 million 87% 2010-2011 $156 million 93% $37 million 92% 2011-2012 $182 million 90.80% $45 million 91.56% During 2011-2012 counties received $1,955,670,000 and spent $1,775,820,923. Approximately $182 million was returned to the State while about 50% of the Cal- WORKs parents who met their man- datory participation requirements in a workfare activity were not paid transpor- tation. This is an act of fleecing over $60 million a year from impoverished fami- lies living on a 1986 fixed income level. The counties returning over $1 million for 2011-2012 are: LOS ANGELES $52,084,869 SAN BERNARDINO $17,877,861 RIVERSIDE $11,966,679 SACRAMENTO $10,389,426 ORANGE $10,117,936 KERN $ 9,910,181 SAN DIEGO $ 7,914,165 SANTA CLARA $ 6,990,291 TULARE $ 4,990,988 FRESNO $ 3,911,535 STANISLAUS $ 3,825,582 SOLANO $ 3,734,664 SAN JOAQUIN $ 3,467,248 SAN MATEO $ 3,232,766 VENTURA $ 2,940,847 SANTA BARBARA $2,153,803 SAN LUIS OBISPO $ 2,108,761 KINGS $ 1,630,930 MENDOCINO $ 1,599,567 MADERA $ 1,593,717 PLACER $ 1,502,434 BUTTE $ 1,491,480 MERCED $ 1,399,779 YUBA $ 1,372,928 activity by a mandatory participant will be sanc- tioned first for a minimum of one month. We are puzzled if the minimum is one (1) month, what is the maximum? How long does Ms. Jones have to wait before she submits an appli- cation to add a person to the household? Two months? Three months? Five months? Going without food adversely affects children’s men- tal and physical development and constitutes child abuse on the part of the State of California. How other States handle this situation? Red State of Kansas – At the end of the first disqualification which is one month, Kan- sas automatically adds the person back onto the case. Since the remaining household mem- bers have been getting benefits. A one-person household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of South Dakota – Immediately changes the individual’s status to eligible for the month following the month the sanc- tion ends. The computer alerts field staff of the change. Example: The disqualification period ends May 31 2012, the welfare department adds the individual to the household effective June 1st. South Dakota does not require any type of review\/interview\/etc. because all of the informa- tion should be known and budgeted. A one-person household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Montana – The case manager au- tomatically changes the sanctioned person from DQ to eligible. The case manager sets an alert reminder to take action. A one-person house- hold whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Missouri – If the individu- al is in an active eligibility unit the indi- vidual is automatically added to the eligi- bility unit at the end of the disqualification. Iowa – The eligibility system alerts workers to add a member back to the household when the ineli- gibility period ends. If the case is still active in the last month of the disqualification, the system automatically reinstates the disqualified person effective the first of the next month and sends a Notice of Decision with the new benefit amount. There is no difference in procedure based on the length of the disqualification. A one-person household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Utah – If the person still lives in the household, Utah automatical- ly adds them into the assistance unit, re- gardless of the length of time. A one-person CCWRO Welfare News December 17, 2012 #2012-21 household whose case was closed must reapply. Red Colorado – The automated system reinstates a disqualified member of a household still receiv- ing SNAP at the end of the disqualification peri- od, regardless of the length of time. A one-person household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Wyoming – Benefit specialists monitor their IPV clients. If the case is ongoing the disqualfied person is reinstated at the end of the disqualification period. There is no additional review, form, or interview required. A one- person household whose case was closed must reapply. Why can’t the three California computers (CalWIN, C-IV and LEADER) automatically add the sanctioned or penalized individual into the household at the end of the disqualification period? This is our last newsletter for 2012. ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 December 17, 2012 Issue # 2012-21 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t on Page 2 Counties Return $180 Million in Unspent CalWORKS Funds YUBA $ 1,372,928 SAN FRANCISCO $ 1,170,708 TUOLUMNE $ 1,105,230 SUTTER $ 1,047,373 Many of these counties pay less than the IRS mileage reimbursement rates to WtW participants, if the participant is lucky enough to receive transportation. Returning money to the State is not an aberration for counties. It seems to be standard practice as reflected Table #1 below. Often, counties allege that they do not have enough money to provide neces- sary services to CalWORKs recipients. So we looked at how much money the counties received and how they used it. During 2011-2012 counties received $1,955,670,000 and spent $1,775,820,923. Approximately $182 million was re- turned to the state while about 50% of the CalWORKs parents, who met their mandatory participation requirements in a workfare activity, were not paid trans- portation. Thus, fleecing over $60 mil- lion a year from impoverished families who live on 1986 fixed income levels. The counties returning over $1 million for 2011-2012 are: LOS ANGELES $52,084,869 SAN BERNARDINO $17,877,861 RIVERSIDE $11,966,679 SACRAMENTO $10,389,426 ORANGE $10,117,936 KERN $ 9,910,181 SAN DIEGO $ 7,914,165 SANTA CLARA $ 6,990,291 TULARE $ 4,990,988 FRESNO $ 3,911,535 STANISLAUS $ 3,825,582 SOLANO $ 3,734,664 SAN JOAQUIN $ 3,467,248 SAN MATEO $ 3,232,766 VENTURA $ 2,940,847 SANTA BARBARA $2,153,803 SAN LUIS OBISPO $ 2,108,761 KINGS $ 1,630,930 MENDOCINO $ 1,599,567 MADERA $ 1,593,717 PLACER $ 1,502,434 BUTTE $ 1,491,480 MERCED $ 1,399,779 Food Stamp Sanctions Stop in Red States But Go On and On in the Blue State of California State Fiscal Year CalWORKs County Single Allocation (CSA) Not Used By Counties Percent- age of Total CalWORKs CSA Spent By Counties Food Stamp General Fund CSA Not Used By Coun- ties Percentage of Total Food Stamp CSA Spent By Counties 2009-2010 $148 million 93% $52 mil- lion 87% 2010-2011 $156 million 93% $37 mil- lion 92% Ms. Jones was sanctioned by the WtW program for not attend- ing a WtW meeting that conflicted with her community college attendance. After being granted for assistance, Ms. Jones start- ed college when the county did not contact her for a WtW activ- ity. After starting school, the county called and told her that she must drop out of college to participate in WtW. She refused to abandon her quest for self-sufficiency and was punished her CalWORKs and food stamp benefits were reduced effective No- vember 1, 2012. This Thanksgiving, the family had little food and no money. It is now December and the food stamp sanction is still in place. Food Stamp regulation section 63-407.531 provides that the first instance of noncompliance in a WtW activity by a mandatory participant will be sanctioned first for a minimum of one month. We are puzzled if the minimum is one (1) month, what is the maximum? How long does Ms. Jones have to wait before she submits an application to add a person to the house- hold? Two months? Three months? Five months? Going without food adversely affects children’s mental and physical development and constitutes child abuse on the part of the State of California. How do other States handle this situation? Red State of Kansas – At the end of the first disqualification which is one month, Kan- sas automatically adds the person back onto the case since the remaining household mem- bers have been getting benefits. A one-person household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of South Dakota – Immediately changes the individual’s status to eligible for the month following the month the sanc- tion ends. The computer alerts field staff of the change. Example: The disqualification period ends May 31 2012, the welfare department adds the individual to the household effective June 1st. South Dakota does not require any type of review\/interview\/etc. because all of the informa- tion should be known and budgeted. A one-person household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Montana – The case manager au- tomatically changes the sanctioned person from DQ to eligible. The case manager sets an alert reminder to take action. A one-person house- hold whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Missouri – If the individu- al is in an active eligibility unit the indi- vidual is automatically added to the eligi- bility unit at the end of the disqualification. Blue State of Iowa – The eligibility system alerts workers to add a member back to the household when the ineligibility period ends. If the case is still active in the last month of the disqualification, the system automatically reinstates the disquali- fied person effective the first of the next month and sends a Notice of Decision with the new benefit amount. There is no difference in procedure based on the length of the disqualification. A one-person household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Utah – If the person still lives in the household, Utah automatically adds them into the assistance unit, regardless of the length of time. A one-person house- hold whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Colorado – The automated system re- instates a disqualified member of a household still receiving SNAP at the end of the disqualification period, regardless of the length of time. A one-per- son household whose case was closed must reapply. Red State of Wyoming – Benefit specialists monitor their IPV clients. If the case is ongo- CCWRO Welfare News December 17, 2012 #2012-21 ing the disqualified person is reinstated at the end of the disqualification period. There is no addition- al review, form, or interview required. A one-per- son household whose case was closed must reapply. Why can’t the three California computers (CalWIN, C-IV and LEADER) automatically add the sanctioned or penalized individual into the household at the end of the disqualification period if they are members of households already receiving food stamp benefits? Aligning California’s food stamp restoration policy with the red state policies set forth above would mean less child abuse in California. Research has revealed that when poor families have less money, children suffer and that it is government-caused child abuse. Be back in 2013! From CCWRO ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 September 20, 2012 Issue # 2012-15 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org More on Page 2 MERCED COUNTY FORCES APPLICANTS TO SIGN FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY Counties are asking CDSS whether outbound au- tomated calls qualify as a Balderas personal con- tact CDSS is considering this. The purpose of the Balderas personal contact is to have a con- versation with the beneficiary about the QR-7 or the SAR-7 to find out if there is a problem with the report, if the person understands the importance of reporting, and explaining why the report is alleged- ly incomplete. It appears that counties are treating the Balderas personal contact as an impediment that they can circumvent by asserting a robo-call is a personal contact. The question is does DSS think that a robo-call is a personal contact ? DSS has decided that during 2013 no CalFresh management review (ME) will be done for Fres- no, Kern, Monterey, Orange, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare Counties because their negative error rate is below the national aver- age. Counties and CDSS have always said that the national negative error rate does not reflect the true error rate in the county because the number of cases that are reviewed is too small to be a statis- tically a valid sample. Thus, while these counties may be out of compliance in many ways, CDSS will be turning a blind eye to them and not even doing the very cursory ME reviews for 2013 that is generally performed. This means that 23% of the cases in these counties will not be reviewed to assure that they are in compliance with the food stamps laws and regulations. See chart below. Sutter county beneficiaries of the public assis- tance programs having been receiving calls from people identifying themselves as representatives of the State of California requiring that they attend an appointment or have their benefits terminating. Any valid appointment should be with a letter and not a call. The CDSS Food Stamp Branch is reformatting their Policy Interpretation (PI) request forms. The new PI should be submitted to the county food stamp analyst. Fresno County issued a Notice of Action (NOA) dated 4-12-12 terminating the benefits of R.N. 504008 for failure to submit a completed QR-7 effective 4-30-12. Fresno County received the completed QR-7 on 4-19-12 and scanned it into the system on that day. Although the QR-7 was received and scanned, the county refused to pro- cess the QR-7 until 4-25-12. On 4-21-12 CalWIN showed that the QR-7 had not been received and benefits or 5-1-12 were not issued on time. According to the CDSS Food Stamp Management Evaluation report Merced County asks applicants if they have an emergency before they are allowed to complete questions 14-18 of the SAWS-1, the questions relating to expedited service. Also ap- plicants are forced to commit a felony in Merced County by signing the SAWS1 stating that they have been informed about expedited services when they have not been informed of expedited services by the county. CDSS’ report did not ask Merced County to stop forcing applicants to sign the SAWS1 under penalty of perjury that they have been informed about food stamp expedited service when they have not been so informed. It also ap- pears that Merced County is improperly telling ap- plicants not to complete questions 14-18. IS A ROBO-CALL A PERSONAL CONTACT? NO STATE OVERSIGHT FOR 23% OF THE STATE FOOD STAMP CASES (also known as CalFresh) in 2013 In Brief Statewide Cases 1,810,901 Fresno 88,124 Kern 57,167 Monterey 19,160 Orange 95,164 San Francisco 31,507 San Joaquin 43,152 Stanislaus 39,855 Tulare 43,808 TOTAL 8 county cases 417,937 CCWRO Welfare News September 20, 2012 #2012-15 Page 2 Con’t from Page 1 On May 5, 2012 Mr. E.A. received a notice of action (NOA) dated May 3, 2012 from Sacra- mento County stating that effective June 1, 2012 there has been a change. The NOA shows that his IHSS hours for meal clean up were reduced from 3.50 hours to 1.75 hours. Bowel and blad- der care were reduced from 4.20 hours to 2.60 hours. Moving in and out of bed were reduced from 2.80 hours to 1.80 hours and bathe, oral hygiene hours were reduced from 5.07 hours to 1.17 hours. As to what 4.20 hours means, Mr. E.A had to clue. Throughout California, IHSS recipi- ents who are elderly, disabled and blind get these notices and have no idea what these hours mean. What is 1.17 hours? Is this IHSS time? The notice ends with total now hours 115.5, previous hours 154.0. This means -38.5 hours? Who knows. The notice continues that the reason for this re- duction according to the NOA is a result of new state law your total monthly authorized hours of 115.5 have been reduced by 3.6% to 111.4. W&IC 12301.061. Hopefully the new CMIPS II computer system will generate notices that pro- vide usable information. On September 1, 2012 Mr. E.A. filed for a state hearing. On September 7, 2012 Mr. E.A. received a letter from Karlen D. Harmison, Presiding Ad- ministrative Law Judge stating This letter is to notify you that your request for a state hearing dated September 1, 2012 will be dismissed pur- suant to the California Department of Social Ser- vices (CDSS) Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) 22-054.31 because your hearing request was made in response to an automatic 3.6% re- duction of In Home Support Services (IHSS) ben- efits required by a change in California law. As a result of a state law, your hours previously re- duced by 3.6% were temporarily restored for the month of July 2012. As of July 1, 2012 your ser- vice hours went back to your full authorized ser- vice level. These hours are based on your most recent assessment. Beginning August 1, 2012, a new state law (Section 12301.06 of the Wel- fare and Institutions Code, as amended) says the California Department of Social Services must again reduce all IHSS recipients’ total authorized monthly hours by 3.6%. Beginning August 1, 2012, your service hours will be adjusted. This 3.6% service reduction applies to every recipient of IHSS but will first be applied to any documented unmet need (excluding protective supervision). There is no right to a state hearing when state law changes the benefits offered in a social service program. (Welfare and Institutions Code 10950; MPP 22-003.12.) Your hearing request must be dismissed without a hearing and written decision if the issue is not within the jurisdiction or authority of the adminis- trative hearing process. MPP 22-054.4 and 22-054.31. A hearing will not be scheduled at this time. The notice of action shows reductions in several categories as reflected below. The 3.6% reduction from 158 hours would be 5.9 and not 38.5 hours. Clearly there is 32.6 hour dif- ference between 38.5 hours and 5.9 hours. This dismissal of a hearing without an opportunity to challenge what is clearly county error violates due process. To make things worse, the claim- ant does not speak English and said so on the hearing request, yet the dismissal letter was is- sued only in English. IHSS Victim Denied Due Process of Laws by DSS ervices Hours Now Previous Hours Difference Percentage Reduction Meal Clean-Up 3.50 1.75 -1.75 50% Laundry 1.00 1.50 -.50 33% Bowel, Bladder 1.40 4.20 -2.60 66% Move in\/out of bed 00 2.80 -2.80 100% Bathe 3.90 5.07 -1.17 37% Total 115.5 158 38.5 24% IHSS Services Current Hours Old Hours Difference Perentage of Reduction Meal Clean-Up 3.50 1.75 -1.75 50% Laundry 1.00 1.50 -50 33% Bowel\/Bladder 1.40 4.20 -2.60 66% Move in\/out of bed 00 2.80 -2.80 100% Bathe 3.90 5.07 -1.75 37% TOTAL 115.5 158 -38.50 24% ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 September 24, 2012 Issue # 2012-16 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org Con’t on Page 2 COUNTY ClIENT ABUSE REPORT Healthy Families Moves to Counties Effective January 1, 2013 failed to provide verification of citizenship for one child who was no longer in the household. The 9\/1\/12 NOA stated that the information need- ed to be submitted by 08\/05\/2012 (30 days from the application date) or the application would be denied and she would not be receiving another notice. This household will go hungry because Ms. BC71112 failed to provide verification of a child who was no longer living in the household. Santa Clara County should have denied food stamps to the one undocumented child instead of denying food stamps to the entire household. Imperial County denies food to a person who is living in Imperial County just because she was not home when welfare fraud investigator appeared unannounced – On April 25, 2012, Im- perial County issued Ms. 2012132068 a Notice of Action informing him that his CalFresh Program benefits were being discontinued due to the fact that he did not reside in the county. On April 11,12 and 16, 2012, a welfare fraud in- vestigator for the State attempted to make home visits with the claimant at the address listed on his application. On each occasion the investiga- tor was not able to locate the claimant. However, the investigator was able to contact the home- owner who stated that she rented the studio to Mr. 2012132068. Mr. 2012132068 filed for a state hearing. Impe- rial County appeared at the hearing and insisted that she should be terminated from food stamps because she was not at the address when the welfare fraud investigator went out to see him. Fortunately, Lee Douglas, DSS Administrative Law Judge, overruled the county’s unlawful ter- mination of food stamp benefits Sacramento County denies transportation to a working mom just because she did not have a WtW plan saying she is working – Ms. 2012121161 requested that the county pay WTW According to Toby Douglas, Director of the California State Department of Health Care Services, the Healthy Families Program (HFP), which serves over 872,966 families, will be moving to county administration ef- fective January 1, 2013, and will be completed in four phases: PHASE I: (1\/1\/13) 413,746 children who are already in managed care will remain in the same managed care program. PHASE II: (4-20-13) 164,875 children participating in plans that are subcontracted with the Medi-Cal pro- gram such as Kaiser and HealthNet. PHASE III: (8-20-13) 251,668 children in counties where the plan isn’t connected to Medi-Cal, but there is still a managed care in the county, the children will have to change plans. PHASE IV: (9-20-13) 42,985 children in the following small counties will receive fee-for-service medi-Cal: ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, CALAVERAS, COLUSA DEL NORTE, EL DORADO, GLENN,HUMBOLDT, IM- PERIAL, INYO, LAKE, LASSEN, MARIPOSA,MODOC MONO, NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SAN BENITO BREAKING NEWS: During this transfer from HFP to Counties it was discovered that children receiving HFP and then becoming eligible for CalWORKs and SSI continued to be covered by both HFP and Medi-Cal. As a result every month the state was paying two different managed care programs for the same child. Santa Clara County denies food to five people just because they cannot verify the citizenship of one of the children. Ms. BC71112 received a Notice of Action (NOA) dated 9\/1\/12 from Santa Clara County, stating that her food stamp applica- tion for a household of five is denied because she CCWRO Welfare News September 24, 2012 #2012-16 Page 2 Con’t from Page 1 supportive services for child care and transporta- tion related to her employment at Clean Up Nice Hair Salon. On April 18, 2012, the county denied the request on the grounds that the claimant’s approved WTW activity did not include work at Clean Up Nice Hair Salon. The claimant request- ed a state hearing. At the state hearing, the coun- ty reiterated that it denied the claimant’s request for supportive services because the claimant’s approved WTW activity did not include work at Clean Up Nice Hair Salon. The county recom- mended that the claimant meet with her WTW worker and develop a new WTW plan. The applicable regulations specifically state that necessary supportive services shall be available to every participant in order to participate in the welfare-to-work activity to which he or she is as- signed, or to accept or retain employment. ( 42- 750.1, emphasis added.) According to the ALJ, the claimant’s employment at Clean Up Nice Hair Salon was not part of the claimant’s agreed on assigned WTW plan, and the county therefore correctly denied the claimant’s request for WTW supportive services for child care and transporta- tion related to her employment at Clean Up Nice Hair Salon. Fresno County fails to meet their burden of proof by not presenting a written county poli- cy for their action but WtW sanction is still up- held by CDSS – Mr. 2012082377 is attending col- lege in Fresno County. He requested that Fresno County reimburse him for books he purchased for the current semester for the following classes: Computer, Sociology, and Afram 2. Per claim- ant’s WtW Plan, it also calls for Social Work Op- tion (formerly Human Services Certificate). The County requested that claimant provide a current Student Education Plan from the community col- lege in order for the County to issue ancillary pay- ments. The County stated that Mr. 2012082377 also needed to provide his current grades from last semester to ensure that he is currently passing his courses at satisfactory level with GPA level of 2.0. On February 13, 2012, the County sent the claimant a notice requesting that he bring the following items for an in person meeting with his worker on February 28, 2012: Please take the enclosed progress report form ES065 to appropriate school official to complete and return it. Also, please provide a current Stu- dent Education Plan and attendance record. A pre-addressed envelope has been provided for your use. Fresno County never present- ed any written county policy in support of the Fresno County requirements to be eligible for ancillary services. Because Fresno County failed to provide any county written policy, the county has failed to meet their burden of proof. But that does not mean Mr. 2012082377 re- ceived justice. DSS ALJ, Gregory Martin, up- held Fresno County’s wrongful denial of ancil- lary services to a CalWORKs recipient trying to achieve self-sufficiency. San Bernardino County imposes a WtW sanction on a mom with a 2 year old baby who did not have money for transporta- tion and CDSS upholds the unlawful WtW sanction. Ms. 2012157236 is a mom with a 2-year-old child. On April 26, 2012 she re- ceived a letter from San Bernardino County stating that because she did not participate in her assigned WtW activity, her benefits would be reduced from $368 to $225. On May 31, 2012, Ms. 2012157236 submit- ted a Request for Good Cause Determination, stating that she did not have transportation or money for gas. This did not deter San Ber- nardino County from imposing a sanction. Ms. 2012157236 filed for a state hearing. At the state hearing there was no evidence to show that San Bernardino County had given her money for transportation. Ms. 2012157236 lost her hearing, and is now living on $225 a month after being unlawfully victimized by the County of San Bernardino and the State of California State Department of Social Ser- vices. 62%Number of the Month How many WtW undupli- acted participants did not receive transportation in July of 2012? ”

” Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 October 15, 2012 Issue # 2012-17 CCWRO Welfare News CCWRO is an IOLTA funded support center serving IOLTA legal services programs in California. Types of Services Offered: Litigation, Co-Counseling, Fair Hearing, Representation, Consultation, Informational Services, Research Services, In-Depth Consultation and Welfare Training. Programs Covered: CalWORKs, Welfare to Work (WtW), Food Stamps, Media Cal, General Assistance & Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. Refugee\/Immigrant Eligibility. All Rights Reserved. Contributors: Kevin Aslanian, Grace Galligher, Seth Blackmon, Stephen Goldberg and Diane Aslanian http:\/\/www\/ccwro.org The CDSS Food Stamp Integrity Plan submitted to FNS may impose LIFETIME SENTENCE TO HUNGER. the process after getting the second warning letter. Oth- erwise it does not make sense to issue a warning letter to someone that county has concluded has abused to sys- tem and will be facing a lifetime ban from food stamps for misuse over $500. The CDSS plan will do immense harm to the poor of Cali- fornia by sentencing many individuals to lifetime hunger who did not break any law after they got the second warn- ing letter. Here is the FNS Request and the CDSS response. FNS REQUEST: States will initiate action against re- cipients involved in possible trafficking with disqualified retailers. The initial timeframe for actions will be: (1) Investigations completed within 90 days of receipt of Re- cipient Trafficking Case for non-adjudicated cases and 180 days for cases in the hearing process; and (2) Warn- ing letters sent to recipients within 30 days of completing the investigation. CDSS RESPONSE: The warning letters will be issued within 30 days from the date CDSS receives an ALERT case from FNS WRO. A copy of each letter will be sent to the respective CWD to be retained in the recipient’s case file. CWDs will be notified when any household warning letter is returned as undeliverable. For undeliverable let- ters, CDSS will follow up with the CWD to determine ben- efit status and current address. When a current address is determined, the CDSS will send the warning letter to that address. The ALERT case documents and copies of the warning letters will be sent to the CWDs SIU within 10 days of the CDSS issuing the warning letters. Upon receipt of an ALERT case from CDSS, the SIUs will initiate a referral for potential investigation of recipi- ents identified in the ALERT case with $500 or more of suspicious activity in one or more ALERT transaction re- port (SIUs will have the discretion to investigate house- holds with less than $500 of suspicious transactions). The CWD SIUs will determine whether an investigation is conducted and report the outcome whether or not an investigation was conducted. The CWD SIU will complete any investigations within 180 days if pursuing an Intentional Program Violation (IPV) through adjudication (Prosecution, Disqualification Con- sent Agreement, Administrative Disqualification Hearing (ADH), or ADH Waiver). An investigation or assessment of the case will be done within 90 days on cases when the CWD determines administrative action will be taken. On September 14, 2012, California Department of So- cial Services (CDSS) submitted to FNS its CalFresh In- tegrity Plan. This is in response to Food and Nutrition Service’s (FNS) request for a plan to address the alleged trafficking problem that is just about nonexistent in Cal- ifornia. However, there is a high probability that the Plan will impose a LIFETIME SENTENCE TO HUNGER on many Californians. Get ready for people in California coming to food banks because they have a LIFETIME SENTENCE TO HUNGER. The process is rather simple: 1. FNS monitors stores that are trafficking food stamps. This monitoring can go on for 12 to 18 months. Then FNS disqualifies the store owner from accepting food stamps. Many of these owners open another store un- der another name and life goes on for them. 2. What happens to food stamp recipient? Because the recipient has allegedly been misusing his or her food stamps at this store for 18 months, they have used over $500 worth of food stamps. Thus, the county will impose a LIFETIME SENTENCE TO HUNGER even-though the county knew or should have known in the first month of monitoring that food stamps were allegedly being abused but did not issue a warning letter to prevent the alleged abuse. In reality, it is the State and the County that should be punished for refusing to warn food stamp recipients that they are allegedly abusing the system. But the plan wants to get to the LIFETIME SENTENCE TO HUNGER by not mandating that the individual is warned as soon as the county knew or should have known. Under the plan there will be a general warning letter mailed to all Food Stamp recipients. Once the county has evidence of alleged food stamp abuse, another warning letter will go out and then boom LIFETIME SENTENCE TO HUNGER. We believe that the FNS request for a state plan implies that prosecution will only occur if the individual abuses The CDSS plan will do immense harm to the poor of California by sentencing many individu- als to lifetime hunger who did not break any law after they got the second warning letter. CCWRO Welfare News October 15, 2012 #2012-17 Page 2 California has traditionally had one of the lowest food stamp participation rates in the nation. One of the ma- jor reasons for this is the lack of information that policy makers and the public has about the California’s Food Stamp program compared to the California cash aid program known as CalWORKs (previously AFDC). We have looked at the data published by CDSS rela- tive to Food Stamps and CalWORKs. DSS publishes it food stamp data at: http:\/\/www.dss. cahwnet.gov\/research\/PG349.htm We did brief comparison between food stamp infor- mation made public by CDSS and CalWORKs infor- mation. The CalWORKs information is much more detailed compared to the food stamp information that is publicly available from CDSS. There is much more food stamp information in the CalWIN, C-IV and LEADER computer systems that is not made public today that would greatly enhance the ability of policy makers and the public to find way to increase partici- pation in the California’s food stamp program. The publicly available CalWORKs reports contain much more information that is not found in the publicly Food Stamp reports. The CalWORKs information that is missing from the food stamp cases is: 1. Denial of a CalWORKs application — cases with resourc- es that exceed limits 2. Denial of a CalWORKs application — cases with income that exceeds standards 3. Denial of a CalWORKs application — cases that failed to comply with procedural requirements 4. Denial of a CalWORKs application — cases with ineli- gible non-citizen 5. Denial of a CalWORKs application — cases excluded by law for reasons other than time limits and citizenship 6. Denial of a CalWORKs application — cases with nonresi- dents 7. Discontinuing cases with resources that exceed limits. 8. Discontinuing cases with income that exceeds standards 9. Discontinuing cases due to increased Earnings 10. Discontinuing cases due to Benefits or pensions 11. Discontinuing cases due to Support from person inside home increased 12. Discontinuing cases due to Support from person out- side home increase 13. Discontinuing cases due to because client moved or cannot be located 14. Discontinuing cases due recipient initiative. 15. Discontinuing cases due to QR 7 noncompliance 16. Discontinuing cases excluded by law for reasons other than time limits and citizenship 17. Discontinuing cases because case transferred to an- other county. This is a very limited list. There is no reason why CDSS cannot get the same information for food stamp recipi- ents as 25% of the food stamp recipients also receive CalWORKs. UNNECESSARY HUNGER IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY. MS. 1B0RS29 of Santa Clara County has been receiving food stamps since May of 2009. The last time she was recertified was on April 12, 2012. She has proof that she was recertified on 4-12-12. In September, when the gas prices started to go over $4 and climbing to reach $5 a gallon, she received a letter from her worker saying that she has to be recertified again. October 1, 2012 she received no food stamps for refusal to do a recertification. When she finally got a call from her worker, she was told that she was never recertified on 4-12-12 and she needs to come in and reapply. When Ms. 1B0RS29 told the worker that she had verification that she was recertified, the worker said that the county issued documentation is an error. Another family goes hungry in California due to churning. Ms. 1B0RS28 would have been forced to reapply. Fortunately she was one of the few lucky people was able to find an advocate who contacted the county and who got her benefits restored. HOMELESS PERSON WRONGFULLY KICKED OFF FOOD STAMPS BY KERN COUNTY Mr. RN 505016, who was homeless when he applied for food stamps on 1-18-12 was terminated from food stamp benefits for failure to submit a QR-7. A homeless food stamp household is a change reporting household and not a quarterly reporting household as provided in MPP Section 63-505.2. 63-505.211 Migrant farmworker households, as defined in Section 63-102(m). 63-505.212 Seasonal farmworker households, as defined in Section 63-102s. 63-505.213 Households in which all adult members are el- derly or disabled, as defined in Section 63- 102(e), and have no earned income. 63-505.214 Households in which all members are home- less individuals, as defined in Section 63- 102(h)(1). 63-505.215 Households residing on Indian reservations. Why did this happen? Kern County is part of the C-IV computer system. C-IV is not programmed to exclude households who are excluded from the quarterly re- porting system. Thus the computer sends out a QR-7 every three-months and if the computer is not told that the QR-7 was received, a N296X notice of issued and benefits are unlawfully terminated. What is the county plan to fix this? Supervisors will give reminders to staff on the correct procedures . Will this reoccur. Absolutely. Any plans to reprogram C-IV. No. CDSS Food Stamp Statistical Information Dismal ervices Hours Now Previous Hours Difference Percentage Reduction Meal Clean-Up 3.50 1.75 -1.75 50% Laundry 1.00 1.50 -.50 33% Bowel, Bladder 1.40 4.20 -2.60 66% Move in\/out of bed 00 2.80 -2.80 100% Bathe 3.90 5.07 -1.17 37% Total 115.5 158 38.5 24% COUNTY ClIENT ABUSE REPORT County Client Abuse Report Number of Unduplicated Participants During March, 2012 120,078 Gross Number of Unduplicated Participants Being Sanctioned 48,227 Number of Participants Sanctioned During March, 2012 22.567 Percentage of Gross Unduplicated Participants Sanctioned 51% Dollar Loss to CalWORKs Families Due to Sanc- tions this Month Estimates at $125 Per Sanction for During March 2012 $7.6 million Number of Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of Cal- WORKs During March 2012 3,249 Percentage of Unduplicated Participants Who En- tered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During March 2012 3% Taxpayer Cost Per Unduplicated Participants Who Entered Employment That Resulted In Termination of CalWORKs During March 2012 $51,675.98 Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transpor- tation by the County During March 2012 56,100 Percentage of Number of Participants NOT Being Paid Transportation by the County During March 2012 46% Estimated Dollar Amount Poor Families Defrauded by Counties Not Receiving Transportation @ $100 Per Participant During March 2012 $6.5 million April 2012 California Welfare-to-Work Program OutcomesReport How Much Do We Spend and What Do We Get? 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Services Appropriation $943,381 million 2010-2011 Welfare-to-Work Child Appropriation $1,071,362.569 million Source: State Department of Social Services WtW 25 reports ”

” 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 ”