WCLP and PILP eliminate $40 medical deduction from GA grants for most of California
September 25, 2014 – General Assistance/Relief (GA or GR) is a public benefit of “last resort” for people who cannot qualify for any other cash aid. This is a state-mandated, county-funded program designed to “relieve and support” all indigent County residents “when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions.” Welf. & Inst. Code § 17000.
Welfare & Institutions Code § 17000.5(a) authorizes counties to deduct up to $40 dollars for the monthly actuarial value of medical care. Prior to January 1, 2014, approximately 21 counties reduced GA/GR recipients’ grants by this amount, based on the fact that most GA/GR residents received health care through their county indigent health programs. However, beginning January 1, 2014, many GA recipients became newly eligible for Medi-Cal under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
We are pleased to announce that after sending a demand letter and negotiating with counties, all except one have agreed to cease reducing GA grants for those receiving Medi-Cal. This means that the $40 medical deduction has essentially been eradicated from California, resulting in about 14,200 recipients receiving more money, amounting to approximately $570,000 each month. The minimum benefit amount is extremely low, but this $40 makes a huge difference for the poorest Californians.
It is important to note that the ACA did not obviate Counties’ responsibility to provide indigent health care.
Many thanks to Western Center on Law & Poverty, an essential partner in nearly completely eliminating these harmful medical deductions.
Report by Hilda Chan, Soros Justice Advocacy Fellow 2012-2014
April 11, 2014 – Since 1997, San Diego County has required all families applying for welfare (“CalWORKs”) to submit to warrantless, suspicionless, unannounced home searches and interrogations by District Attorney Investigators. As of June 2013 about 150,000 families, or about 9,300 families each year, have been subject to these searches. This policy, called Project 100% (“P100”), is cost-ineffective, duplicates existing staff work, and has not been shown to achieve its stated purposes of verifying eligibility, detecting fraud, or deterring fraud.
“They looked under the beds, under everything. For the first time, my daughters saw me as someone who could not protect them. My daughter asked, ‘Mom, are they going to kill you?’”
–S.G., a working mother of three girls
San Diego County remains the sole locality in the nation that has imposed a blanket home search policy on families applying for CalWORKs. All other localities use targeted investigations, initiating investigations only after a discrepancy is detected in an application.
For 10 years, Los Angeles County implemented a modified blanket home search program, using social workers rather than law enforcement officials. Its home search program was discontinued in 2009 because it was highly cost-ineffective—it cost $4.7 million annually but uncovered fraud in less than ½ percent of homes searched. Abandonment of its blanket home search policy allowed 83 staff to be redeployed to alleviate workload in other areas.
In San Diego County, at least $28.5 million—$1.76 million per year—in CalWORKs funds has been diverted from aid to needy families to fund the DA’s costs of the County’s blanket search program. While these costs are likely underestimated, the cost-avoidance figures have been verified to be overestimates. Unfortunately, historically flawed data classification methods have made it impossible to more precisely assess P100’s cost-effectiveness. Even accepting the County’s figures and flawed data classification methods, however, P100 is still cost-ineffective. P100’s yearly cost of $1.76 million could instead be used to hire 42 new welfare-to-work employment counselors to assist clients on the road to self-sufficiency.
Despite claims of P100’s efficacy, County officials cannot demonstrate that the home searches actually detect or deter fraud. For the past 18 years, the DA’s Office has represented to public and legislative officials that P100 detects fraud in 25 percent of all applicants that would otherwise have been granted. The welfare agency, called Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), has verified that this purported fraud rate has been historically inflated, systematically including non-fraudulent situations and denials unrelated to P100 such as:
- Applications withdrawn for any reason
- Denials because the applicant was not home during the DA investigator’s two surprise visits
- Denials resulting from the normal eligibility process, rather than P100 results
- Cases denied due to P100 investigations but subsequently approved after reapplication or fair hearing.
Dr. Richard Berk, UCLA Professor, Department of Statistics, concluded in his 2002 study of P100:
I have seen nothing that would lead to a credible conclusion that Project 100% has succeeded in increasing fraud detection at the levels claimed by the Chief of the Public Assistance Fraud Division of the DA’s Office.
Data trends suggest that P100 is no more effective in determining eligibility than the normal, less invasive eligibility verification tools relied upon by other localities. If P100 actually added a new, effective layer of fraud or ineligibility detection, the application denial rate would have risen at the introduction of P100. This did not occur; the CalWORKs application denial rate of 43 percent remained exactly the same in the 6 months before and after P100’s inception in June 1997. P100 also does not deter ineligible families from applying; the application rate increased slightly at P100’s introduction. Both the welfare agency and the DA’s Office have been aware that “the numbers just don’t add up.”
Other counties in California have opposed legislation that sought to impose P100 home searches on all families statewide that apply for cash aid.
For the sake of fiscal responsibility and good governance, the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors must end P100 blanket home searches and return to the smarter, more cost-effective policy of targeted investigations.
Special Thanks to the Open Society Foundation and the Caring Council, and Supportive Parents Information Network (SPIN)
San Benito County Board of Supervisors to Implement Mandate to Provide Aid to County’s Neediest Residents
April 2, 2014 – On April 1, 2014, the Board of Supervisors in San Benito County adopted General Assistance regulations for the first time in at least three decades. After California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) and The Public Interest Law Project (PILP), on behalf of the County’s most disadvantaged residents, called for increased access to General Assistance (GA) benefits, the County immediately agreed to update its regulations. This historic event moved the County toward compliance with its legal obligation to provide the County’s neediest residents with the last resort assistance to which they are entitled. The County’s old regulations were out of date, illegal in many respects, and not being used. Instead, almost no extremely low income county residents, despite very high poverty and unemployment rates, have been provided with aid.
The GA program is mandated by state law. It requires counties to provide about $330 dollars per month to severely impoverished lawful residents who have nowhere else to turn. Recipients often are homeless, most are unemployed and unemployable. Many recipients have disabilities, are veterans or both. A significant number are survivors of domestic violence, fleeing their abusers. GA allows these individuals to find modest shelter, such as a shared room, and to begin to become self-sufficient.
San Benito County’s program, however, has been largely non-existent. People who asked for help were told that this county had no such program, and were turned away. “The GA benefit is no Cadillac of benefits,” said CRLA attorney Gretchen Regenhardt, one of the public interest attorneys who first became aware of the problem. “But even this small amount, only about $11 dollars a day, can be lifesaving.” Last year, she said, desperate clients began to appear at CRLA’s offices. They told her that they had asked the County for help, but had been told that there was no GA program, or that they didn’t qualify for any help because they were homeless, or because they had no children, or for some other reason. Phyllis Katz, also an attorney with CRLA, saw many such clients. “I didn’t think that our county was deliberately abandoning such needy persons to destitution and homelessness,” she said. “I felt certain that our Board and social services agency were simply unaware of the County’s legal obligations to these needy citizens, and may have mistakenly believed that help was available from the state or federal government.” However, there was no other help available because by definition, GA is the last resort benefit.
“The problem is not confined to San Benito County,” said Lauren Hansen, a staff attorney at PILP. “Our ongoing Rural General Assistance Project, (Rural GAP) is designed to remedy the fact that so many rural counties have tiny or nonexistent GA programs, probably due to simple unawareness of the law.”
“We’re pleased that the County has been willing to listen to us in a spirit of good will,” said Gretchen Regenhardt. Lauren Hansen agreed, “but we are disappointed that the County included in its regulations a time limit of only three months of aid per year for recipients who are deemed ‘employable,’ but who haven’t actually been able to get jobs, despite their best efforts.”
“A three month time limit means that an ‘employable’ person only gets about $2.75 per day on an annual basis, and that’s not enough to help a person begin to get back on his feet,” said Lauren Hansen. “We believe the Board should not have adopted the time limit, because it is fiscally unwise as well as inhumane,” said staff attorney Judith Gold of PILP. “Employable” recipients whose GA lifelines are cut off will end up on the streets, or in the County’s emergency rooms, at enormous cost.
Great progress has been made, thanks to County employees listening with an open mind. Even while informal discussions have been ongoing, the number of persons receiving help has grown from zero to about thirty-five. “The new regulations are a vast, vast improvement,” said Lauren Hansen. CRLA continues to assist individuals in getting and keeping their GA benefits in San Benito County and beyond.
About CRLA and the Public Interest Law Project
California Rural Legal Assistance, founded in 1966, also a non-profit, provides free legal assistance to indigent and low income individuals and families in rural communities from the Mexican border to Northern California. The Public Interest Law Project is a non-profit public interest law firm focusing on advocacy on behalf of low-income Californians and providing support to legal services programs like CRLA.
March 17, 2014–In a lawsuit filed several days ago in Alameda County Superior Court, an impoverished mother is asking the Court to order the state to require that county welfare agencies give California’s neediest families the help they need to lift themselves to self-sufficiency – assistance the law mandates but which the agencies too often do not provide, or provide too late.
In a scenario that is playing out throughout California, one of the petitioners, Loraine Jones, is about to lose critical CalWORKs benefits despite the law’s requirement that cash payments be accompanied by education, job training and similar services. Had those services been given to Jones years ago, she and her 5-year-old child might now have a chance to escape crushing poverty. But for over three years, the Alameda County welfare department never offered welfare-to-work services. Rather, the County let the 4-year clock run out on her CalWORKs benefits and will now cut her off with no employment skills, and with almost no money to house or feed herself and her child.
“This isn’t the way the welfare system is supposed to work,” said Public Interest Law Project attorney Patti Prunhuber, who represents Jones. “The CalWORKS program sets up mutual responsibilities between the agency and the recipient. Recipients are responsible for participating in welfare-to-work and are penalized if they don’t. The County is responsible for providing needy families with a small cash grant, along with the welfare-to-work services that will allow them to get a job and become self-sufficient. Loraine Jones asked for this help – twice – but the County ignored her. Making sure that counties provide this welfare-to-work assistance is the state’s duty, and by reneging on its responsibilities the state is letting everyone down.”
The problem is not confined to Ms. Jones or to Alameda County. The lawsuit identifies a state-wide, systemic failure by the California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”) to ensure that counties follow the law and make the necessary efforts to provide all eligible CalWORKs recipients the skills they need to achieve economic self-sufficiency. “CDSS is not taking the minimal steps necessary to see that California’s 58 counties follow through on their obligation to timely provide welfare-to-work services. Rather, they just count the months until the time is up, and then cut CalWORKs recipients loose,” said Chris Douglas, of the East Bay Community Law Center, which is also representing Jones and the other petitioners.
The lawsuit asks the court to order the CDSS to require counties to make sure that CalWORKs recipients receive all welfare welfare-to-work services in a timely manner. Additionally, the suit demands that when they fail to do so, that people such as Jones not be terminated from CalWORKs cash aid until they get the welfare-to-work services the Legislature felt they needed to prepare themselves to enter the workforce.
According to Douglas, “Unless people such as Jones receive welfare-to-work training, the problems of poverty will only get worse statewide. In a state where one in four children lives in poverty, that is intolerable.”
About The Public Interest Law Project and the East Bay Community Law Center
The Public Interest Law Project is a public interest law firm focusing on impact litigation and policy advocacy on behalf of low-income Californians. The East Bay Community Law Center is the largest provider of free legal services in the East Bay, and has been advocating for families on welfare since its founding in 1988.
October 28, 2013–In rural counties throughout California, eligible people cannot easily access last resort General Assistance (GA) benefits. Over 20 counties, with high numbers of people living in poverty, have less than 40 people receiving GA. Some have zero, or less than 10. Counties have unlawful and often unwritten eligibility requirements and improperly low grant levels. Some admit that they have no GA program at all. Through its Rural General Assistance Project (Rural GAP), the Public Interest Law Project (PILP) seeks to increase access to these critical benefits and assist local advocates in enforcing counties’ legal duty to provide GA to all needy county residents.
October 11, 2013—The Governor signed AB 325 (Alejo) extending the statute of limitations to challenge a housing element. The bill partially restored the exception to the short 90 day limitations period to challenge a general plan element or zoning ordinance, which had been severely limited by an appellate court decision. The legislation provides that members of the public and other interested groups have up to three years to file a suit attacking an element found out of compliance by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Litigants will have up to 17 months to attack the adoption of an element that HCD finds substantially complies with the Housing Element Law. The legislation was sponsored by Western Center on Law & Poverty and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and PILP provided drafting, negotiation assistance and research. Here’s a link to the chaptered bill: Assembly Bill No. 325
Similar legislation had been passed by the Legislature twice before, but the first was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger and the second was vetoed by Governor Brown. The version adopted this year was the result extensive negotiations with all the stakeholders. For housing elements found out of compliance by HCD, advocates have two years to send a 60 day notice to the local government explaining the deficiencies in the housing element. After the 60 day period there is an additional one year period to bring suit. For elements found in substantial compliance by HCD, advocates have 270 days to send a 60 day notice, followed by a six month period to file suit.
The bill also sets up to a 14 month period for challenging a zoning action, growth caps that lack adequate findings or the adoption of density bonus ordinance that violates state Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915). Finally, the legislation provides that the remedy for failure to adopt an adequate general plan element cannot abrogate or impair rights already vested pursuant to a development agreement or vested subdivision map.
For more information, contact Michael Rawson, email@example.com or 510-891-9794, ext. 145.
Albany residents file suit seeking adoption of a housing element that plans for affordable housing needs
October 4, 2013–A lawsuit was filed yesterday by residents of Albany and the Bay Area against the City of Albany challenging the City’s failure to adopt a housing element as required by state law. Petitioners maintain that the City’s failure – for decades — to make affordable housing a priority harms local residents.
California Housing Element Law requires Albany and all local jurisdictions to periodically assess existing and projected housing needs, including the needs of special populations, and to set forth specific goals, policies, and programs to encourage the preservation and development of housing. Despite these requirements, Albany has failed to update its Housing Element since 1992, leaving Albany’s poorest and most vulnerable residents homeless, or only able to access overcrowded or substandard living spaces.
Petitioners Amber Whitson and Betty Stephenson are homeless and desperately need affordable housing. Whitson, who currently resides at the Albany Bulb, says, “I look forward to the day when I, and others of the same income level, have more options for somewhere to live in Albany, other than the Landfill.” Another Petitioner, Albany Housing Advocates (AHA), is a nonprofit corporation of Albany residents dedicated to the production of affordable housing. AHA’s mission is to support the need of all persons to have safe and secure housing, promote fair housing opportunities, and ensure the City’s compliance with fair housing and housing element requirements. “I’m looking forward to the time when the City of Albany has a Housing Element that is not only in compliance with state requirements, but that also demonstrates a welcoming and all-inclusive attitude toward people at all income levels.” Julie Winkelstein, AHA President.
Petitioners also claim that Albany violates important fair housing laws, because its failure to comply with state land use and planning laws has an unlawful discriminatory effect on protected groups, including persons with disabilities and racial and ethnic minorities. Albany is the only community of 109 jurisdictions in the Bay Area that has not formally submitted a housing element update to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the current planning period which began in 2009. It also failed to keep its commitment to update its Housing Element as a member of the Alameda County Consortium that receives federal funding for housing and community development.
Petitioners are represented by Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal), the largest provider of free legal services to low-income Bay Area residents and The Public Interest Law Project (PILP). PILP is a state-wide, non-profit support center for legal services programs with expertise in land use and planning and fair housing laws. “Albany has violated the law with impunity since at least 1999 when its last housing element was due,” said Lauren Hansen, an attorney with the Public Interest Law Project. “Given the City’s lack of attention to its neediest residents, it is no surprise that the City has such a large population of people who are chronically homeless.” David Levin, an attorney with BayLegal agrees: “Unfortunately we need to seek a court order requiring the City of Albany to comply with the same legal obligations that other Bay Area jurisdictions have been working to meet.”
Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Inclusionary Zoning—Affordable Housing Groups & San Jose Successfully Defend the City’s Ordinance
June 6, 2013–In California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose the Court of Appeal upheld San Jose’s recently adopted inclusionary zoning ordinance against a constitutional attack by the CBIA. The court held that inclusionary zoning ordinances are valid so long as they are “reasonably related” to a legitimate public purpose, which the court found includes addressing a community’s existing need for affordable housing.
PILP, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented intervenors Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, Housing California, California Coalition for Rural Housing, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, and San Diego Housing Federation in the successful defense of the City’s ordinance against the CBIA’s attack.
The CBIA had argued that an inclusionary zoning ordinance was invalid unless it was justified by the need for affordable housing created by new market rate development.
The case puts to rest this theory which had been used as the basis of a spate of recent litigation attacking local inclusionary housing ordinances. [As of this writing, CBIA has petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, so there is a slight possibility the issue will go up to another court.]
San Jose’s ordinance requires that 15 percent of all units in new residential housing be affordable to lower and moderate income residents. The City joins over 170 local jurisdictions in California that have some form of inclusionary housing policy. These laws are adopted in response to the critical unmet need for housing affordable to lower and moderate income households that continues to plague many Californian communities trying to meet the housing needs of their workforce and dismantle historic patterns of segregation.
For more information contact Michael Rawson. The Court of Appeal’s opinion is available here.
California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1373 (2013)
Partial Success in Challenge to Exclusionary Zoning in Napa County—Court of Appeal Orders County to Grant Density Bonus to Inclusionary Housing
July 11, 2013–In a suit brought by low income farmworkers in Napa County, the Court of Appeal reversed in part the trial court judgment and held that the state Density Bonus Law requires the County to grant a density bonus to developers of affordable units under the County’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. Now residential developers will be more likely to include affordable housing in their developments rather than opting for alternatives. The case is Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa Y Solano v. County of Napa co-counseled by PILP, California Rural Legal Assistance and Relman, Dane & Colfax.
After the state Department of Housing and Community Development found that the County’s housing element failed to make available adequate sites for the County’s need for affordable housing Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa Y Solano, an organization of farmworkers active in Napa County and Solano County, filed suit attacking the validity of the housing element, the County’s density bonus ordinance and the discrimination against affordable housing and minorities caused by the County’s exclusionary zoning laws. Although the Court of Appeals declined to reverse the trial court’s rejection of the housing and fair housing claims, it did not publish those parts of the decision, so they will have no precedent on other courts.
The Court of Appeal nevertheless warned the County that its opinion “should not be read as an endorsement of the county’s plan to encourage the development of affordable housing…Should the county renew its housing element with the knowledge that there is no realistic possibility that it will result in actual development of affordable housing…such an action might well provide evidence of proscribed discrimination.” For more information contact Michael Rawson or Craig Castellanet.
Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa Y Solano v. County of Napa, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1160 (2013)