Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564886
label
Issues - Welfare (1 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564886
contentType
document
title
Issues - Welfare (1 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564886
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
23bbf83ce2ee6e9c
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issues - Welfare (1 of 3)
Box: P32
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Wilfare
GOVERNOR'S PRESS CONFERENCE
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1969
Remarks By
Gilbert L. Sheffield, Director
California State Department of Human Resources Development
Thank you Spence and thank you Governor for declaring HRD in operation.
First, I'd like to briefly give you an idea of what the Department of
Human Resources Development is to be;
Second, I very much want you to meet the strong staff of Deputy Directors
who will be working with me in shaping HRD's future.
Then, I'd like to turn the meeting over to you for your questions.
Governor Reagan and Spencer Williams have filled you in on the key events
which preceded my appointment as HRD's Director.
Since then, with their invaluable guidance and with the daily help of the
staffs of HRD's components, I have been working toward this moment -- when we sign
the formal document to activate the new department.
The Department of Human Resources Development is formed by bringing together
four state government organizations:
The Department of Employment
The Service Center Program
The State Office of Economic Opportunity
And, the California Commission on Aging.
The purpose of bringing these bodies together is to create a single state
agency to deliver job training and placement services to the hardcore unemployed,
as well as to continue administration of other employment and manpower-related
programs vital to the citizens of California.
HRD has the same source of funds, both federal and state, which our
components have had. The intention is for us to be innovative and creative in
the use of these resources - to find new approaches to solving one of society's
most important problems.
A large part of the answer to how successful we will be depends on our
ability to marshal and coordinate the many resources and programs which now exist.
Much of our effort will be devoted to involving the private business sector, local
government, and people of disadvantaged communities in the necessary solutions for
each community.
One of the most interesting parts of A.B. 1463 is its creation of a new civil
servant position, the job agent, with a new work-style. He won't be bound to a desk.
He will have personal responsibility for a caseload of hardcore unemployed.
He will work closely with his clients to develop an employability plan for each, and
will be responsible for the accomplishment of this plan. The end objective is to
remediate a client's difficulties and problems so that he can be a productive,
contributing member of society by virtue of having meaningful sustained employment.
2
This job agent must be equally at home and as effective in a disadvantaged
community or in the office of a corporate vice-president.
By the end of the year, we expect to have 140 job agents at work in some two
dozen disadvantaged communities throughout the state.
We also will be searching out ways to make California's manpower program a
coordinated, orderly effort. There is money to be saved here and certainly more
people to be served.
We are aware, of course, that it costs a lot more to work with a person who
has no saleable skills -- to prepare him for a decent job and hope for a decent
life -- than it does to refer a qualified person to an existing job vacancy,
So, we don't expect to be able to measure our success by traditional methods --
how many people have we placed in the period of a month, or a year?
We'll be using new criteria, new yardsticks, which should tell us
how
are we doing with the really hard cases? What are we doing for the man who has been
given up as impossible, and who perhaps has given up hope himself?
We begin this new organization with an innovative attitude, with a desire to
be more responsive to the needs in California, and most importantly with a sincere
dedication to purpose.
And that is, by working with the community, with business, with industry, and
with the tools provided us by the taxpayers of the state and nation; our aim is to
provide every Californian with an opportunity to share in the good life of our state.
HRD EXECUTIVE STAFF
BRIEF BIOGRAPHIES
Gilbert L. Sheffield, 40, was appointed Director, Department of Human
Resources Development, in February, 1969. He was formerly assistant vice
president, personnel, Pacific Telephone Company, responsible for management
training, minority employment, minority relations and urban affairs activities.
He played a key role in the formation by Bay Area employers of the Management
Council for Bay Area Employment Opportunity to promote minority employment and
training.
Sheffield was born in Oakland and is a 1951 graduate of the University
of California at Berkeley, majoring in personnel and industrial relations.
Between 1951 and 1953 he served in the U.S. Army Infantry, was decorated for
gallantry in action in Korea. He joined Pacific Telephone in 1953, working as
a traffic staff assistant in Sacramento and Fresno, was promoted district traffic
manager, Stockton, in 1961, division traffic manager, Los Angeles, 1962, and
general traffic manager, Bay Area, 1964. He is married, has two daughters,
two sons.
James W. Connor, 38, HRD's assistant director for planning, joined the
department's planning group in March, 1969, from the Department of Water
Resources, where he was deputy comptroller, and before that, since 1963, budget
officer. He entered state service in February, 1958, serving subsequently as
budget analyst with the Department of Finance, and assistant fiscal officer
with the Board of Equalization. He served two years as controller at
Hastings College of Law, University of California, then joined Water Resources
as budget officer in 1963, receiving the Department's "Award for Management
Excellence" in 1964. A native of Chicago, he received a B.S. degree in business
administration from the University of Illinois in 1953, then served as an
Air Force officer 1953 through 1956 in Korea and Japan.
Sigurd I. Hansen, 49, deputy director heading HRD's Tax Collection and
Insurance Payments Division, was formerly chief of the Bureau of Employment
Agencies and Bureau of Electronic Repair Dealer Registration. He entered state
service in 1967 after 12 years as business manager, Lafayette School District,
two years as purchasing director, Hayward High School District, five years with
Burroughs Corporation in accounting machine systems. He is a graduate in business
administration from the University of California, Berkeley. During World War II
he was a naval aviator, serving in the South Pacific.
Benjamin Hargrave, 51, northern region deputy director of HRD's Job Training,
Development and Placement Division, was previously education officer for the
Economic Opportunity Council in San Francisco. Prior to that he had spent
22 years as teacher and principal in the Oakland Unified School District. When
he joined HRD, he was serving as president of the West Oakland Area Council, a
member of the Oakland Manpower Commission, and advisory member for Educational
Opportunities Clearinghouse (PACT) and the East Bay Skills Center. He is also
a director of Oakland NAACP and Alameda Negro Leadership Conference. A veteran
of World War II, Hargrave is a graduate of Springfield College, Mass. He obtained
his M.A. at San Francisco State College and did graduate work at U.C. Berkeley
and Stanford University.
Louis J. Johnson, 43, southern region deputy director of HRD's Job
Training, Development and Placement Division, was previously principal of
Jefferson High School, Los Angeles, and has been a teacher and administrator
in the Los Angeles City School System since 1954. A native of Texas, Johnson
graduate from Howard University, Washington, D.C., and the University of
Southern California. He is a member of the National Principals Advisory Committee
for Upward Bound and the Council of Black Administrators. He has been active
in manpower training programs in disadvantaged communities.
Daniel R. Lopez, 51, deputy director heading HRD's Job Training, Development
and Placement Division, was previously manager of the State's East Los Angeles
Service Center. A native of Oxnard, Lopez attended Vallejo Junior College,
University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Southern California.
He began state service in 1948 and worked in the Department of Corrections until
joining the Service Center Program in 1966.
Alan C. Nelson, 35, HRD's assistant director for legal affairs, was
previously Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, since 1964. A native
Californian, he is a graduate of the University of California's School of
Law (Boalt Hall), Berkeley, after which he spent five years as a private attorney
with a San Francisco law firm. In Alameda County, he strengthened the Family
Support Division of the district attorney's office and was president of the
District Attorneys California Family Support Council.
James W. Pool, 54, HRD assistant director, evaluation, began state service
in 1966 as a publications coordinator. He joined the staff of the Human Relations
Agency in 1967 as Assistant to the Secretary, Spencer Williams. A native of
Neosho, Missouri, he is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley.
After three years as an NBC news editor, 1939-42, and four years of military
service, Pool joined Ventura County government, rising in 15 years from clerk
to chief executive. From 1961 to 1966 he was Cost Reduction Administrator,
Atomics International, a division of North American Rockwell, Inc.
Lynwood B. Steedman, 55, deputy director heading HRD's Management Services
Division, was previously assistant director, administration, Department of Employment,
the agency's principal administrative officer. He joined the department in
Sacramento 33 years ago as deputy registrar of employers, rose through positions of
increasing responsibility to the top post in 1963. He is a graduate in economics
and personnel administration from the University of California, Berkeley.
William H. Tolbert, 61, deputy director heading HRD's Farm Labor Services
Division, held the same position in the State Department of Employment. He was
appointed by Governor Reagan in 1967. From 1947 to 1967 he was manager of
Ventura County Citrus Growers Committee, during which time he also served 12 terms
as president of the National Farm Labor Users Committee. He is a graduate in
animal husbandry from New Mexico State University. He was deputy administrator
of the Department of Agriculture's Farm Labor Administration in 1942, and labor
branch of the War Food Administration and was ultimately regional director in
1945-6 for the seven Western states.
October 28, 1969 CE
FACT SHEET
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
800 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-9212
Director:
Gilbert L. Sheffield. Age 40. Appointed by Governor Ronald Reagan in
February, 1969, after having served as Assistant Vice-President, Personnel
with the Pacific Telephone Company.
Department
Created as a component of the Human Relations Agency (Spencer Williams,
Origin:
Secretary) by the 1968 Human Resources Development Act, landmark bipartisan
legislation passed nearly unanimously by the State Legislature. (Assembly,
May 28, 1968; Senate, August 1, 1968) Signed by Governor Reagan, August 24,
1968.
Components:
State Department of Employment ( 9,097 funded positions)
Service Center Program - excluding Employment (591 funded positions)
State Office of Economic Opportunity (30 funded positions)
California Commission on Aging (12 funded positions)
Legislative
To create a single state agency and single state fund to deliver, along
Intent:
established lines of priority, a total system of job training and placement
services to provide the hardcore unemployed with an unbroken sequence of
services from intake through placement on the job and periodic follow-up
and evaluation.
Unique
Job Agents: By the end of 1969, a total of 140 job agents will be at
Aspects:
work in two dozen disadvantaged communities throughout California, each
with specified caseloads of hardcore unemployed for whom they will have
personal responsibility. The job agent is a new breed of civil servant,
recruited this fall primarily from disadvantaged areas. Working with
clients with long histories of unemployment or underemployment, he will
be charged with motivating his clients, providing them proper training,
securing them meaningful employment, and maintaining regular communication
with them until they have completed 18 months on the job.
HRD Centers: The Department expects to open a total of 18 HRD Centers
within the next few months. These will be established in the following
areas: Bakersfield, Compton, Fresno, Los Angeles (Avalon-Florence,
Central), Long Beach, Oakland (East Area-Fruitvale, West Area), Pasadena,
Sacramento, Santa Ana, San Bernardino, San Francisco (Mission District,
Bayview-Hunter's Point, Chinatown), San Jose and Vallejo.
HRD's initial 140 job agents will be working out of these centers and
the eight established Service Centers located in East Los Angeles,
South-Central Los Angeles, East Fresno, West Fresno, Richmond, San Diego,
San Francisco and Venice.
Activation:
Legislative deadline was January 1, 1970. Activation steps began October 1.
Effectuation document signed by Governor October 28, designating Friday,
October 31, as the formal activation date for HRD.
For further
Lionel Holmes 5-4529
information:
Charlie Ericksen 5-4262
Statement by Spencer Williams, Secretary
Activation of Human Resources Development
State Capitol
October 28, 1969
We in the Human Relations Agency take a special pride in the birth of
the Department of Human Resources Development.
The department - with a legislative deadline of January, 1970, for
activation - has developed with miraculous speed over the last year.
I'd like to thank the many employees of all elements of the new
department for their help in its formation. I'd like also to commend
my Assistant Secretary - Lucian Vandegrift - who served as acting
director of HRD during its initial weeks, and did a fine job of
keeping things moving until Gil Sheffield came aboard.
Today, through the efforts of Gil Sheffield and his able staff, the
department is ready to undertake an assignment unique in our 50 states.
It is not unusual for California to pioneer new ways to meet old problems,
and with the Department of Human Resources Development, we're at it again.
No other state in our country has yet dared to develop an attack on
the ills of poverty, unemployment and burgeoning welfare rolls as is
being prepared by this new department.
Now I would like to invite Governor Reagan and Gil Sheffield to join
me in signing the documents which will officially activate the new
department, as of the final day of this month.
==========
State of California
Governor
Department of Human Resources Development
Ronald Reagan
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Commission
on
Human Relations Agency
Aging
Spencer Williams
Charles Skoien, Jr
Secretary
5-8822
Department of Human Resources
Office of
Boards
Development
Economic
and
Gilbert L. Sheffield
-
Opportunity
Advisory
Director
James E. Deasy
Councils
5-9212
5-7011
Public
Evaluation
Planning
Legal
Information
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Lionel Holmes 5-4529
Director
Director
Director
Charles Ericksen 5-4262
James W. Pool
James W. Connor
Alan C. Nelson
5-2923
5-5310
5-3576
Tax Collections
Job Training,
Farm Labor
Management
and Insurance
Development &
Services
Services
Payments Div.
Placement Div.
Division
Division
Deputy Director
Deputy Director
Deputy Director
Deputy Director
Sigurd Hansen
Daniel R. Lopez
William H. .Tolbert
Lynwood B. Steedman
5-0867
5-6491
5-4028
5-8891
Northern
Southern
Region
Region
Deputy Director
Deputy Director
Benjamin Hargrave
Louis J.Johnson
(415) 557-2476 (pub.)
(213) 776-2222 (pub.)
8-597-2476 (ATSS)
8-623-2222 (ATSS)
OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
10-28-69
#590
Governor Ronald Reagan today issued the following statement:
"Today, I would like to talk briefly about history, red tape, a
talent search and a helping hand.
"Let us begin with the history.
"Before we came to Sacramento we promised the people of California
that we intended to to our best to make jobs--not welfare--an accepted
way of life for the less fortunate citizens of this state.
"We were convinced that the majority of the hardcore unemployed
and the disadvantaged wanted a helping hand---not a handout.
"When we arrived in Sacramento we took a close look at the
programs that were supposed to be helping the unemployed and disadvantage
get back on their feet.
"We found a maze of overlapping, expensive and often competing
manpower programs that simply were not doing this job.
By executive order, we created the Job Training and Placement
Council and asked it to clear a path through the maze of red tape.
"The Council did its work well. It reviewed and evaluated the
public-funded training programs in existence, chopped away the red tape
and came up with specific recommendations on how to get the disadvantaged
off their knees and on to their feet.
"One of the first facts that became obvious was the need to gather
the proliferation of manpower programs together into a single agency.
"In our reorganization plan, we proposed the creation of a
department of Human Resources Development to accomplish this.
"The result was the Human Resources Development Act which passed
both houses with bi-partisan support and was signed into law last fall.
"That is the history. Now to the talent search. To direct this
new department, it was obvious that we needed a man with the executive
ability and the creativity to administer a department that would be
responsive to our state's needs.
"But we needed another talent--a feeling for people and a sensitive
understanding of their needs. We found those qualities in Gil Sheffield
and those who will be working with him.
"I am very proud of Gil's accomplishments in bringing HRD to life
well in advance of the legislative deadline for its activation.
"Now I would like our Human Relations Agency Secretary, Spencer
Williams, who has been working closely with Gil Sheffield and the HRD
staff to bring the new department to life, to introduce Gil."
WAS
# # #
OFFICE or 100 GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
10-28-69
#591
445-4571
Governor Ronald Reagan today formally activated California's new
manpower arm, the Department of Human Resources Development, as a major
step towards getting "the disadvantaged off their knees and on to their
feet. "
Created by the 1968 Human Resources Development Act, the department
will formally join the state's Human Relations Agency on Friday,
October 31.
Headed by Gilbert L. Sheffield, it unites the state's Department
of Employment, Service Center Program, Commission on Aging and Office
of Economic Opportunity.
While continuing the services presently provided by its components,
HRD will focus greater attention on the special employment needs of
the state's disadvantaged areas.
Within the next few months, it will introduce HRD Centers to
18 communities throughout the state. A "new breed" of civil servant--
the job agent--will be working out of these centers and California's
eight established Service Centers to give individual attention to
specified caseloads of clients with long histories of unemployment.
A major goal of the new department, according to Governor Reagan,
is to "make jobs, not welfare, the accepted way of life for the less
fortunate citizens of this state."
Signing the official HRD effectuation document with the Governor
were Sheffield and Spencer Williams, Human Relations Agency secretary.
Sheffield, was named by Governor Reagan to direct HRD last February.
Targeting on a January 1, 1970, activation deadline set by the
legislature, Sheffield brought the department into existence two months
ahead of schedule.
Sheffield described HRD as a department which "will aim to get
maximum use out of our manpower dollars, without losing sight of our
real objective: To provide every Californian with an opportunity to
share in the affluence of our state"
He said that HRD is operating with the same funding sources which
its components had, and that the department's total staffing has not
been increased by new programs or new positions such as the job agent.
A total of 140 job agents will be at work by the first of the year,
Sheffield said. These were selected from a list of more than 4,000
candidates recruited in a campaign which centered in disadvantaged areas.
"The job agent will be the focal point of our new thrust, Sheffield
added.
"Our success will be measured by his ability to communicate
effectively with his clients and to work in harmony with the employer
community," continued Sheffield, and added, "Only with the full
participation of the business community will our department be able to
reach its goals."
###
WAS
Welfare
THE STATES SEAL ( STATE
The Recipient
THE
Fraud Incidence Study
Conducted by
THE FRAUD REVIEW PANEL
for the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
THE
st
PART II
Recommendations
JANUARY 1970
January 7, 1970
Mr. Robert Martin, Director
State Department of Social Welfare
744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Martin:
The results of the study to determine the incidence of undetected
recipient fraud in the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) caseload
have been reported to you under separate cover on this date.
In conducting this study new benchmarks have been established in coopera-
tive relations between county and state government. The major part of the study
work has been performed by District Attorneys and members of their staffs. In
spite of the extreme pressure of other responsibilities, these individuals and
agencies have given generously of their time, sometimes at personal sacrifice.
In addition, a number of county welfare departments have also contributed investi-
gative and other valuable staff services.
The taxpaying public which has the responsibility of caring for those
who are truly in need deserves to have confidence that the regulations governing
the welfare program are scrupulously adhered to. For the same reason, those who
are in any way involved in the administration of the system have the absolute duty
to insure that such is the case. Only in this way can the proper concept of
public support of welfare programs be realized.
In conducting this study the Fraud Review Panel was given a unique
opportunity to survey and critically examine many of the procedures and problems
related to the program.
Mr. Robert Martin
-2-
January 7, 1970
Our observations and the study findings clearly indicate a serious
problem is present which will require continuing attention. It appears most
advisable that a program be developed which will constantly assess the level of
administrator and recipient compliance with the law and regulatory requirements.
We recommend that a program be adopted which will provide for continuing review
and monitoring of that compliance.
Accompanying this letter are further recommendations developed during
the conduct of the study. Many are not new. Many have been discussed elsewhere.
The Panel believes, however, that the study findings add a new note of urgency,
and it is for this reason that they are restated here. The findings in the report,
the comments and observations above, and the accompanying recommendations should
be viewed in a positive context. It has been the Panel's goal to establish the
extent of fraud and to suggest ways in which waste can be curtailed to the end
that those truly in need may be most benefited.
Very truly yours,
FRAUD REVIEW PANEL MEMBERS
Reette Jahnson
Keith C. Sorenson, District Attorney
San Mateo County ).
John Miniz M
John M. Price, District Attorney
Sacramento County
Richard N. Parslow, Jr., District Attorney
Orange County
Ray Ray T. T.Sullivan, Sullivan, Jr., County
Counsel
Riverside County
Theres in
Rudolf H. Michaels, Chief, Legal Office
State Department of Social Welfare
RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED FROM A
STUDY TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF RECIPIENT FRAUD IN THE
AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN WELFARE PROGRAM
January, 1970
RECOMMENDATIONS
State and County Administration
A significant portion of welfare fraud losses result from the failure
to report changes in family composition and income; either earned income, income
in-kind, or income received from other sources. Related to this is the need for
a clearer understanding on the part of the recipient of his responsibility to
report such circumstances, and improvement in the system by which such reports
and status changes are received and processed by the counties.
It is clear there is room for improvement in all of these areas. The
recipient-oriented caseworker must realize the serious implications for the
recipient as a result of his (the caseworker's) failure to insure the recipient's
understanding of these requirements. The consequence of such a failure can lead
to prosecution. While this fact should be impressed on the recipient, the case-
worker must also understand that failure to adequately cover this subject in his
discussions with the recipient may be exposing both to needless difficulty.
A significant portion of the fraudulent conduct and many of the errors
identified in this study commenced or were permitted to continue unabated because
some caseworkers were not sufficiently aware of the danger signals. The apparent
lack of training and/or interest on the part of some caseworkers may be viewed as
a significant factor associated with the incidence of fraud and error.
There is a serious lack of uniformity between the counties as to
(1) when during the month such reports of changes in family composition and income
are due, (2) the manner of processing the reports, and (3) the ease with which the
information contained in the reports can be applied to the grant. In connection
with these problems the Panel recommends that:
-1-
1. Regulations provide for a mandatory, timely, simplified and uniform
system for reporting income and changes in family composition by
recipients throughout the State.
2. Regulations and forms on this and other subjects be written in a clear
and concise manner to the end that ambiguity is eliminated. For
example, the word "prompt" would be better understood if a specific
period of time were substituted; the words "Income" and "Family
Composition" would be better understood if they were clearly defined
and their definitions impressed on recipients.
3. Monthly detailed status and income reports be required as a pre-requisite
of paying aid.
4. The recipient be instructed, before being asked to complete any document
relating to eligibility for aid, that any false statement will subject
him to criminal penalties.
5. Regulations regarding signatories on affirmations and reaffirmations
require that all adults in the home who affect the grant must sign
these documents, as well as any and all adults responsible for the
child.
6. Greater attention be given to those cases in which there is variable
income or income from self-employment, as well as during those periods
in which there are five weekly pay periods.
7. Consideration be given to pressing disciplinary and/or legal action
against caseworkers and others who deliberately or negligently overlook
illegal situations or who aid and abet in the commission of welfare
fraud.
8. It be required that each applicant for aid receive a pictorial pamphlet
outlining his responsibilities; and this document be followed up with
-2-
mailings at intervals in the future. An example of such a brochure
accompanies this report as Appendix A.
9. Efforts to simplify AFDC program regulations be continued. The extensive
detail involved in policy, regulations and calculation of the need and
the grant, results in confusion and misunderstanding of the program
requirements.
In the course of the study the Fraud Review Panel was exposed to some
of the administrative complexities of the internal system at both the state and
county level. The vastness and costs of these systems would seem to justify
close and continuing scrutiny to insure that the internal mechanism functions as
efficiently and economically as possible. While payment documentation is a
necessity, attention should be given to simplifying the steps, eliminating
unnecessary steps and providing some tracking system in order to determine without
delay the number and amounts of grants received in a particular case in a given
period. Reports of all kinds should be carefully evaluated to insure they are
still justified in terms of their usefulness and purpose and, if so, that they
are both accurate and timely. Although these comments are of a general nature,
the Panel recommends that:
10. Continuing attention be given by the State Department of Social Welfare
to updating the Master Persons File and developing procedures which
will assure that it remains current. In this connection it is important
that the counties continually provide current information for input
into the file.
11. Regulations concerning the final payment of aid in the month of discon-
tinuance be improved. At this point substantial overpayments can be
made which are difficult or impossible to recover due to the inability
of the system to respond promptly to change.
-3-
12. Notices advising recipients of discontinuance contain in bold print
that there is no further entitlement; that any warrants received should
not be cashed but returned to the welfare department. Further, that
such notice recite the penalty for non-compliance with this requirement.
13. As an aid to maintaining better controls, support contributions received
by the probation or other departments of county government in all cases
be uniformly transmitted to the welfare department to offset the grant
instead of being paid directly to the recipient.
In their review of sample cases in this study, members of the Panel have
identified a number of problem areas associated with the payment of aid and the
policies and regulations related thereto. As a means of resolving these problems,
the Panel recommends that:
14. A system of closer followup be established to insure that extra sums
paid recipients to meet specific special needs are actually used for
the purpose intended.
15. A policy be adopted which will provide for the discontinuance of
aid when a recipient absents himself from the state for thirty days for
whatever reason.
16. Regulations require the listing of parent social security numbers as
well as other potential employable family members on the application
for aid, and a greater effort made to obtain these numbers on current
cases. Applicants for aid who do not have social security cards can be
assisted in completing the simple application at the time the applica-
tion for aid is taken.
17. In cases involving fraud, the guilty party not have the benefit of
deductions for work-related expenses and/or other exemptions in
computing the amount of the overpayment.
-4-
18. Caseworkers alone not have the authority of declaring individuals
incapacitated. Supervisory staff should participate in this decision
after appropriate evaluation and verification.
The Panel makes two observations with regard to existing statutes and
the need for legislative action. First, the wording in Section 10500, Welfare
and Institutions Code is such that it is being used for purposes contrary to its
intent. Secondly, Section 11482 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as related
to Section 487.1 of the Penal Code causes a distinction to be made between welfare
recipients and non-welfare recipients.
The Panel recommends that legislation be introduced for the purpose
of amending:
19. Section 10500, Welfare and Institutions Code reads as follows:
"Every person administering aid under any public assistance
program shall conduct himself with courtesy, consideration, and
respect toward applicants for and recipients of aid under that
program, and shall endeavor at all times to perform his duties
in such manner as to secure for every person the maximum amount
of aid to which he is entitled, without attempting to elicit any
information not necessary to carry out the provisions of law
applicable to the program, and without comment or criticism of
any fact concerning applicants or recipients not directly related
to the administration of the program."
This section should contain language which speaks to the recipients'
responsibility and, further, sets forth the requirement that welfare
benefits are to apply as a supplement to all other benefits to which
the recipient may be entitled, and after property which exceeds the
limitations has been utilized.
20. Section 11482, Welfare and Institutions Code reads as follows:
"Any person other than a needy child, who willfully and knowingly,
with the intent to deceive, makes a false statement or representation
or knowingly fails to disclose a material fact to obtain aid, or who,
knowing he is not entitled thereto, attempts to obtain aid or to
continue to receive aid to which he is not entitled, or a larger
amount than that to which he is legally entitled, is guilty of a
misdemeanor."
-5-
This section should be amended so it is consistent with Section 487.1 of
the Penal Code; that is welfare fraud resulting in an overpayment of
less than $200 should be considered a misdemeanor and in excess of $200
should be defined as a felony. Such a change would clarify the present
law.
Caseworker-Recipient Relationships
Efforts of caseworkers, both eligibility and social workers, are directed
toward assisting the recipient in obtaining financial independence and self-
determination, as well as improving his self-image and his physical and emotional
environment as well as that of his family. The tools used by the caseworker in
achieving these objectives are the various financial aid and service programs
supported by the public or private organizations within certain limits and guide-
lines. The caseworkers' responsibility to render aid in a humane and understanding
manner is obvious. Their responsibility in administering public funds and the
public trust involved is just as obvious.
There appears to be however, a minority of caseworkers who overlook and
encourage acts by recipients which are contrary to the letter and intent of the
prescribed limits and guidelines. Aside from fostering greater dependency in the
recipient, these few caseworkers should realize that welfare cheating is a morally
degrading act. Unlawful acts are just as degrading when committed by a welfare
recipient as when committed by an individual who is financially independent. For
these caseworkers to fail to shoulder their responsibility in this area - to
deliberately overlook or in other ways to encourage this behavior in recipients
is directly contrary to basic social work philosophy. An indication of this
adverse and negative attitude manifested itself recently when some caseworkers
advised their co-workers and recipients not to cooperate in this study, a study
-6-
which was instituted and conducted within the jurisdiction of welfare administra-
tion. Public employees have the same obligation to taxpayers, as employees of
private organizations have to their employers, and such activities should be dealt
with accordingly.
Welfare recipients specifically and the public in general have a right
to expect that caseworkers will be trained and knowledgeable in their areas of
responsibility. Although recognizing there is a great amount of detail involved
in this work, the Panel believes that a significant part of the administrative
error and fraud identified in its report could have been avoided with improved
caseworker training,
On the general subject of caseworker-recipient relationships, the Panel
recommends that:
21. Greater emphasis be placed on developing in caseworkers, a sophisticated
awareness of the possibility that they may be deceived. This subject is
discussed at greater length below.
22. Increased emphasis be placed on supervision and review of case record
material by caseworkers and supervisory staff. More than isolated
instances were noted where glaring errors and omissions requiring
follow-up did not receive necessary attention or were subject to
unnecessary delay.
Detection and Prevention of Fraud
In general terms, one of the most pressing needs in connection with
preventive programs is a systematic training program for caseworkers and eligibil-
ity workers. Such training should be included in the initial caseworker orientation
and furthered by the use of in-service training programs. Involvement should be
mandatory. A suggested plan for developing such a comprehensive program is contained
in Appendix B.
In the area of detection and prevention, the Panel recommends that:
-7-
23. In consideration of the extent of welfare fraud and administrative
error revealed by the fraud study, county governments carefully
review the present level of fraud investigation and staffing to
determine whether they are adequate to cope with the size of the
existent problem.
24. A method be developed for identifying, for closer follow-up, those cases
in which the recipient has previously been suspected of welfare fraud
or has, in fact, been convicted of welfare fraud.
25. The State utilize information developed by state and federal agencies
as aids to administering the program. Systematic obtaining of informa-
tion on recipients earnings, benefits and property would be of signifi-
cant benefit in this regard.
26. Cases involving large monthly totals of aid payments and other income,
and cases involving unemployed or incapacitated parents, be scheduled
for special and more frequent follow-up.
27. In instances where recipients are not furnished caseworker services,
provision be made for frequent review of eligibility.
28. County governments be encouraged to expand their investigative staffs
to meet the problems identified by the study. Smaller counties should
receive assistance in developing investigative staffs in the areas of
child support and welfare fraud, perhaps through a county pooling
arrangement.
29. Where school attendance is a condition of receipt of welfare the
caseworker contact the school with sufficient frequency to insure that
eligibility continues to exist.
30. The policy of non-scheduled home visits by caseworkers during normal
business hours be adopted by all counties.
-8-
DOES
ABOUT MONEY YOU GET FOR YOURSELF OR YOUR CHILDREN
YOUR
from your job
from a child's father
[⁻]
SOCIAL
0000
from a child's job
0000
from rent
C
from your family
[ ]
000
from disability
from unemployment
[ ] from social security
from any other source
WORKER
[_]
from your friends
[_] from workmens' compensation
KNOW
ABOUT PEOPLE IN YOUR HOME - WHEN ANYONE MOVES IN,
?
MOVES OUT, OR VISITS
8 a friend
a family member
[] another adult or child
[] your child
ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY - THINGS YOU OWN OR BUY
if you are buying or selling:
[ ] a home
8 [_] appliances
a car
[] other property
[⁻] 8 furniture
if you are buying life
insurance
HAVE YOU MOVED LATELY? ARE YOU PLANNING TO MOVE?
Does your social worker know your new address? []
SCHOOL
Do you have a child over 15 who does not go to school? []
IF YOUR SOCIAL WORKER DOES NOT KNOW THE THINGS YOU
HAVE CHECKED ABOVE, call him and tell him now this
is for your PROTECTION I
#93
(a) Aug., 1968
PROTECT
For your child
to get the right
WHAT
A few people do not
tell their social
YOURSELF
amount of aid,
your social worker
IS
worker all the facts.
must know about:
FRAUD
These people can be
TELL
arrested for fraud.
YOUR
MONEY you or your
child get - no
?
What is FRAUD?
SOCIAL
matter who or
where it is from.
Fraud is a crime. A
WORKER
person may have to
THINGS you own or
pay a fine and he
are buying.
may be put in jail
for fraud.
PEOPLE who live
with you - no
When a person gets
matter who they
aid that he should
are.
not get, he may be
guilty of fraud
PLANNING
Have you told your
WITH
social worker ALL
IF the aid was paid
YOU
he must know to
because he lied.
To
Help
pay aid for your
child?
IF the aid was paid
because he told only
STOP
Don't wait for him
part of the truth.
to ask. Tell your
FRAUD
social worker ALL
IF the aid was paid
THE FACTS now :
because he did not
tell all the facts
right away.
You can help stop fraud. Check
DEPARTMENT
the list inside this folder. If
your social worker does not know
all these facts about you and
your family - tell him NOW !
ERESNO SQUATE WALFARE
SUGGESTIONS FOR DEVELOPING A
FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION TRAINING PROGRAM
1. The Director of the State Department of Social Welfare would have
responsibility for mandating this program in all counties.
2. The curriculum would be developed by a group consisting of representatives
of the County Welfare Directors' Association and the District Attorneys'
Association who have demonstrated an interest in this area. Included would
be a Deputy District Attorney with experience in welfare fraud and child
support, an experienced casework and eligibility supervisor, a county
welfare investigator and district attorney investigator as well as selected
executive staff of the State Department of Social Welfare.
3. Each new caseworker and eligibility worker would receive fraud detection
and prevention training as a part of his orientation.
4. Within the first six months the new staff member would participate in a
full days fraud prevention and detection training activity.
5. Advanced courses would be provided for supervising staff at regular intervals
and participation would be mandatory. Subject matter would be varied.
6. Programs would include a heavy emphasis on prevention, as well as:
a. Identification of clues and leads
b. Actions to be taken
C. Referral procedures
d. Recipient responsibility
e, Staff member responsibility
f. Case examples to illustrate
APPENDIX B
Tele
Welfare
CALGOVROFC SAC
CALGOVROFC WSH
TO: JIM JENKINS
FROM: JANE S.
DATE: JAN. 8, 1970
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:
Telex
MR. TWINAME, WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU EXPECT CALIFORNIA TO STRAIGHTEN
THEMSELVES OUT IN SHORT ORDER, DO YOU HAVE A DEADLINE IN MIND?
HOW LONG WILL YOU PERMIT THIS THING TO DRAG ON?
A- IT IS NOT OUR INTENT TO USE THIS COURT ACTION OF YESTERDAY AS
AN EXCUSE FOR ANOTHER LONG, DRAWN OUT DELAY.
union
COULD YOU GIVE US A MORE SPECIFIC TIME? 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS?
A- I WOULD EXPECT THE ACTION BE CERTAINLY TAKEN BEFORE APRIL 1ST
DATE THAT WAS INDICATED BEFORE THERE WAS THE DATE OF THE CUT OFF.
WHAT WAS YOUR DECISION THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY MAILED AND ARE NOW
RESCINDING? WHAT WAS THE CONTENT?
A- I WILL GIVE YOU A COPY OF THAT.
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED
WAS APPROXIMATELY $684 MILLION.
Telex
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT COMPLICATIONS.
A- NEITHER DO I.
WHAT IS GOV. REAGAN GOING TO DO THAT WILL EXPEDITE THE COURT
SITUATION?
A- THE TAXPAYERS' SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN LOS ANGELES COURT RESTRAINING
THE STATE FROM IMPLEMENTING ITS REGULATIONS FOR ONE REASON AND THE
WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION SUIT BROUGHT IN SACTO. RESTRAINING THE
STATE FROM IMPLEMENTING ITS REGULATIONS FOR ANOTHER REASON. THE
GOV. HAS ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSOLIDATE THE TWO CASES AND
MAKE ONE JUDGEMENT AND ASSUME JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO GET OUT OF
THIS JUDICIAL DEADLOCK.
SUPPOSE THE COURT MOVED THEOTHER WAY AND AGREES WITH THE STAE
Telex
LEGISLATURE COUNSEL, AGAINST THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE
REAGAN ADMINISTRATION CANNOT SHIFT WELFARE RULES UNILATERALLY
WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE CONCURRENCE AND SUPPOSE BY APRIL 1ST, THE
STATE LEGISLATURE HAS~NOT ACTED, CAN YOU TELL US INDEFINITELY
UNDER THOSE TWO CONDITIONS YOU WILL ORDER CUT OFF?
A7 THERE ALWAYS SEEM TO BE NEW CIRCUMSTANCES. IF THE COURT RULES
AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIF. WE WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO CUT
union
OFF THE FUNDS.
END FOR NOWO
A0941X
vvxuiv
URGENT
California elfare Lead
WASHINGTON AF - The Lixon administration reversed today
its decision to cut off 700 million in aid te California after
Gov. Renald Reagan premised to cenrly with federal relief
regulations.
An aide to Elliot Pichardsen- Secretary of Realth. Iducation
and elfare, said the receipt of o teleoram from Reggan this merning
caused edministration officials to reverse their earlier decision to
end matching welfare financial aid to California because of the
state's alleged violations ef federal regulations.
The aile said California promised to alter its meximum payment
to femilies-receiving aid for dependent children as soon as
courts allowed the change.
At issue in California's surresed failure to fulfill the 1967
law requiring 2 cest-of living adjustment in maximum rayments to
AFDC families. But states are allowed to rey less than the full
maximum they establish.
A federal, etc., 7th graf A065
By G. C. THELEN Jr.
Associated Fress Writer
Lt94:aes Jan. 8
1970
PB
Welfare Social Security
FYI
State of i "fornia
file
Human Relations Agency
Memoradum
To
: Edwin Gray
Date :
April 1, 1970
Associate Press Secretary
Governor's Office
File No.:
25:24
State Capitol
Subject:
Status of Social
Security Pass-On
From : Office of the Secretary
The federal Tax Reform Act of 1969 increased Social Security benefit
payments by approximately 15% effective January 1, 1970. Sections
of the Act require that all of the increases received by beneficiaries
for the months of January and February are to be disregarded for the
purpose of computing public assistance grants excluding Aid to the
Potentially Self-Supporting Blind. In addition, four dollars ($4.00)
of the increases for the months of March, April and May are required
to be disregarded (excluding Aid to Families with Dependent Children
and Aid to the Potentially Self-Supporting Blind) in computing aid;
"passed along", in other words. As a result:
1. California is passing on the increase to the extent required
by federal law, but no more;
2. Public Assistance recipients who have OASDI income will get
the full 15% increase for January and February. In March,
April and May they will get $4 of the increase. Thereafter,
they will get none of the increase, as permitted by the
Social Security Amendments of 1969;
3. The additional Social Security income saves the State $19
million in aid payments in 1970-71. This has been antici-
pated in the Governor's Budget;
4. Congress, however, may pass emergency legislation to mandate
the $4 "pass on" in 1970-71;
5. The California Legislature is also considering bills to re-
quire passing on up to $7.50 in the next (70-71) fiscal
year;
6. The Legislature is also currently considering several mea-
sures which would increase the public assistance grants of
persons not receiving social security benefits by four
dollars ($4.00). This department is opposing these measures
on the basis of the cost of living adjustments granted in
December, 1969. Passing on $4.00 to social security recipients
would cost an estimated $6.2 million for Fiscal Year 70-71. If
$4.00 were also given those not receiving Social Security, it
would cost another $4.5 million.
-2-
The State Department of Social Welfare has issued Department
Bulletin No. 6557 (attached) to implement the Tax Reform Act.
This bulletin provides the legal authority for California to
carry out the federal mandate. The pass-on provisions apply
only to those public assistance recipients who receive Social
Security benefits.
This month, Social Security beneficiaries will receive a lump
sum check from the Social Security Administration for the amount
of increase applicable to January and February. This check will
have no effect on the grant received by public assistance recip-
ients excluding Aid to the Potentially Self-Supporting Blind.
Social Security checks received after April 1, 1970, will reflect
the 15% increase for beneficiaries. The amount of this increase,
less $4.00, will be deducted from public assistance grants re-
ceived by Welfare recipients for the months of April, May and
June, excluding Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Aid
to the Potentially Self-Supporting Blind.
WALTER L. BARKDULL
Assistant to the Secretary
Human Relations Agency
CC: Jerry Martin
Dennis Flatt
State of California
Health and Welfare Agency
Memorandum
To
:
Paul Beck, Press Secretary
Date
:
April 21, 1970
Office of the Governor
file
Subject:
Preliminary Information
on U.S. Supreme Court
Decisions--Percy V.
Montgomery; Lewis v.
Stark
From : Department of Social Welfare
744 P Street, Sacramento 95814
The Supreme Court reversed the three-judge district court by upholding health
and welfare federal regulations dealing with the income of a step-father and
a man in the house.
The gist of the opinion is that, in the absence of proof of actual contributions
by a substitute father, the state may not assume that the income of the man in
the house is available for the support of a dependent children family. In other
words, no benefits can be denied or reduced until such income is actually avail-
able for current use on a regular basis.
The State of California had heretofore interpreted language in the Social
Security Act which permitted the state to consider for grant purposes, funds
from the man in the house. However, a federal regulation ran counter to that
interpretation and the court favored the federal regulation.
The step-father provision was written into law in California in 1951; the man-
in-the-house provision became a state regulation in 1956. It was enacted into
law in 1961.
An approximate estimate of what this decision will cost is as follows:
State General Funds
$11,675,000
County
11,621,000
Federal
16,870,000
Total $40,166,000
34,167,200
The court's opinion will definitely influence and perhaps preclude Sections 60
and 61 of Duffy's Bill AB 1360. The decision, of course, will reduce fraud
as postulated in the department's fraud study because the court has eliminated,
for all intents and purposes, the crime involved.
As Lowell Thomas used to say, "There's good news tonight." In this case, we
have just received word that the Supreme Court has vacated the judgment of the
District Court in Kaiser V. Montgomery. The case is being remanded to the
District Court for further consultation in light of the Dandridge decision.
Nothing will happen until there is a further hearing in the U.S. District Court
in San Francisco. Kaiser looks like a winner.
Robert Mantan
70-71
Est. fiscal
ROBERT MARTIN
8,470,900 G.F Countries
impact in
Director
4,081,800
Fed.
1970-71
12,251,000
cc: Lucian B. Vandegrift
24,810,800 Tot
Welfare
State of California
Human Relations Agency
Memorandum
To
:
Date
Rus Walton
May 7, 1970
Program Development Secretary
File No.:
21:23
From : Office of the Secretary
file
Subject:
California's ranking in
Public Assistance payments
For your consideration in preparing any statements for the Governor,
I am transmitting herewith a memorandum prepared by Dennis Flatt, of
our staff, regarding California's ranking in Public Assistance payments.
These items often come into controversy, and I felt should be available
to the Governor for whatever value they may be in dealing with averages.
LUCIAN B. VANDEGRIFT
Secretary
ce: Paul Beck, Press Secretary
Robert Martin, Director, Department of Social Welfare
LBV:sm
encl
as
DEL
СОЛЕВИОВ?
COAE
State of California
Human Relations Agency
Memorandum
To
:
Lucian B. Vandegrift
Date : May 1, 1970
Secretary
File No.: 26:35
Subject: California's Ranking
in Public Assistance Paymen
From : Office of the Secretary
For your information, I have extracted a few statistics from the
November, 1969 edition of Public Assistance Statistics, which is
a publication of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. I think that it is important to keep on top of Califor-
nia's ranking with respect to other states, since this question
is frequently asked.
Name of
California's U.S. Average California's
Program
Ranking
Payment
Payment
Old Age Assistance (OAS)
#3
$73.40
$107.70
Comment: California is exceeded by the
state of New Hampshire, which
pays $117.70; and the state of
Iowa, which pays $109.35.
Aid to the Blind (AB)
#1
$98.25
$150.75
Comment: The next closest state is
Massachusetts, which pays $146.85
Aid to the Permanently
and Totally Disabled (ATD)
#3
$89.15
$126.70
Comment:
California is exceeded by the
state of Iowa, which pays $135.45
and the state of Hawaii, which
has an average payment of $130.25
Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC)
#18
$44.80
$ 49.75
Comment: To keep this memo concise, I
won't list the states which
exceed California, but you may
be interested to note how the
other large states compare with
California. New York has an
average payment of $64.05 per
recipient; Illinois, $50.30;
- 2 -
Pennsylvania pays an average
of $52.15; Massachusetts pays
$68.65.
I'll try to keep you informed as these figures change from time
to time.
Dennis
DENNIS O. FLATT
Assistant to the Secretary
Remarks before a Joint Meeting of the
Senate Finance Committee and
Assembly Ways and Means Committee,
June 8, 1970
Gentlemen:
May I express my appreciation to both Chairmen and all members for
their willingness to hear this presentation in joint session.
I come before you with news of a reduction in anticipated
revenues and, at the same time, facts concerning expenditures, largely
beyond our control, that will exceed original estimates.
With your permission, I should first like to turn to fiscal year
1969-70, the year which is just now drawing to a close. Our revenue
estimates for this year were made about December, 1968 and were
presented to the Legislature in early February, 1969. Few economists
in this country predicted at that time that nearly a year later the
stock market would suffer a substantial decline, cutbacks in the
aerospace industry would increase unemployment and some weak spots
would appear in the economy.
Nevertheless, these events did occur and it is not surprising to
any of us that, as a result, we will receive from various tax sources
this year less money than originally anticipated. It now appears that
revenues will fail to achieve our projected goals by only $9 million.
Welfare expenditures will be substantially above original
projections. It was originally anticipated that the State would pay
out for welfare $526 million. Subsequently, this was increased
$26 million to a new total of $552 million. It is now apparent that
expenditures will exceed even this amount by $20 million, for a full
year total of $572 million. There is some correlation between a soften-
ing economy and an increase in welfare payments, although it is less
than might be expected. Many of those who have recently become
unemployed have substantial unemployment insurance. Additionally, many
are skilled persons from the aerospace industry who normally do not
become welfare recipients. Either their own financial resources or
exceptionally strong motivation toward reemployment keeps them off
welfare rolls. However the award of the B-1 contract to California,
announced Friday by Senator Murphy, will certainly ease the unemployment
problem in Southern California.
The Director of Social Welfare does tell me, however, that welfare
rolls continue to expand beyond original projections in part due to
activity of those who advise potential welfare recipients of additional
benefits available. The Director further informs me that some of these
advisors are employed by the federal government.
-1-
It is not my purpose here to debate the philosophy of this activity
but only to apprise you of its financial implications.
The total population of California now slightly exceeds 20,000,000
and the number of welfare recipients at the city, county and state
level is currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of $1.8 million.
This includes the categorical aids at the state level and indigent aid
at the county level. In these categories, it appears that approximately
one out of eleven persons in this state is receiving some form of
welfare grant.
The Medi-Cal program has stayed within its budget for 1969-70,
but to leave this impression without some explanation would be
misleading.
Medi-Cal expenditures have actually exceeded original projections
by approximately $18 million. However, diligent work on the part of
auditors for the Department of Health Care Services has simultaneously
discovered overpayments made during earlier years. These overpayments,
which we term audit recoveries, were made in large part to counties and
amount to approximately $18 million.
An opinion was obtained from the Attorney General that these audit
recoveries were properly creditable to this year's operation and they
have been so credited.
The situation, however, is not as simple as merely expending
$18 million more than was anticipated and balancing this by unanticipated
audit recoveries in like amount. The audit recoveries are not in cash,
but over a period of months must be retrieved from the counties in
order to disrupt as little as possible their cash flow.
Had no further administrative actions been taken, the budget for
the Department of Health Care Services would have been in balance, but
their cash flow would have been short by the approximate figure of
$18 million. This situation was compensated for by the fact that the
Department of Health Care Services did not pay to the Department of
Mental Hygiene billings of some $19 million in the current fiscal year.
This will be reflected as an amount payable at the end of the year by
the Department of Health Care Services and an amount receivable by the
Department of Mental Hygiene, and can be liquidated as the audit
recoveries are reflected in cash.
At the same time, I should point out to you administrative actions
taken by the Director of Health Care Services which will have an effect
upon the 1970-71 fiscal year. It became increasingly apparent that
-2-
bills submitted by providers to the intermediaries were improperly made
out. Therefore, in August, 1969, the Director of Health Care Services
sent a letter to the intermediaries, stating that commencing April 1,
1970, the intermediaries would return all bills not fully made out.
This action actually began in May 1970 after notification to all providers
The effect, however, is certainly to postpone from 1969-70 to
1970-71 a certain amount of payments.
We are greatly impressed with the C.H.A.P. project in Sacramento
County which has greatly reduced the average stay in hospitals here.
This concept can now be exported statewide with a corresponding reduction
in hospital stay. We are hopeful that this can be done with the support
of the California Medical Association.
Departments funded from the General Fund will make additional
savings in the current fiscal year of approximately $38 million. These
savings are over and above all budgeted savings and come about through
stringent efforts of department heads to economize.
These savings more than offset the drop in revenue and the increase
in welfare expenditures. The net result will be a surplus $9 million
larger than anticipated at the end of fiscal year 1969-70. To this
$9 million can be added $4 million reported to us by Departments as
prior year savings. This totals $13 million.
I should like now to turn to the revenue picture for 1970-71.
When I first presented the 1970-71 budget to you, I indicated
General Fund revenues would be $4.76 billion if inflation continued at
its current pace, but $4.65 billion if an economic dip took place.
Because economists nationwide were evenly split on the course
of the economy, we advised you that we were arbitrarily choosing a
middle ground of $4.707 billion.
It is now evident that economic trends have followed the latter
course; that is, a slight hesitation.
Our current projection of General Fund revenues is $4.636 billion,
very close to the lower estimate made in February but a drop of $71
million from the middle projection chosen.
I would like now to turn to the picture on welfare and Medi-Cal
both insofar as the State is concerned and also the federal government
and the counties.
There is ample evidence financially that we have created services
for our people which are rapidly growing beyond our ability to pay.
On the federal level, let me give you an example. There is now before
-3-
Congress a bill to make administration of welfare services a closed
end appropriation and to set the limit at 110 percent of this year's
figure. If administration were used as that term is commonly understood,
there should be little difficulty in living with a 10 percent increase.
Unfortunately, however, administration in the welfare sense is far
different.
Under administration the federal government lists, for example,
all of the salary of each social worker. The need for social workers
is determined by caseload. The size of caseload and the eligibility
are in large measure determined by federal statutes and regulations.
Thus, on one hand, the federal government is telling us who may
be a welfare recipient and how many employees we will need to process
this caseload. On the other hand, it is informing us that we cannot
expect more than a 10 percent increase in federal funds to cover this
expense, no matter how large it grows. The result, obviously, is to
shunt off a tremendous burden to the states and the counties.
Turning for a moment to the county level, we find county super-
visors strongly protesting the welfare burden which is placed upon them
by the federal government. Supervisors are vigorous in blaming
substantial tax increases on these activities. In Los Angeles, for
example, the supervisors have proposed a 94 cent tax increase. The
present county tax rate is $2.90 per $100 assessed valuation, so the
new rate represents almost a 33 percent increase in one year.
Of the 94 cents additional need, the County Administrator informs
me 57 cents is brought about by welfare and 61/2 cents by Medi-Cal type
expenses.
There, the number on welfare is expected to be 842,000 next year,
up 156,000 from this year. One out of nine will be on welfare.
Recipients on AFDC numbered 304,000 in April, 1968, when the courts
ruled out duration of residence. By June 30, 1971, three years later,
the number is expected to be 672,000, or more than double. While the
entire growth is not attributable to this ruling, a portion of it is.
Ventura County has had a long history of small annual county tax
increases and even some decreases. Prior to this year, the largest
increase was 9 cents. This year it is programmed at 44 cents, with
10 cents alone being allocated to welfare increases.
When I presented the budget in early February, I pointed out that
the four year budgeted growth in both welfare and Medi-Cal had been
80 percent and that there was no letup in sight. I am now before you
-4-
to state that even our original estimate of some 16 percent increase
in the budget year coming up for these two services is below reality.
Current projections indicate that welfare will increase an additional
$40 million and Medi-Cal an additional $30 million.
These spiraling increases must be brought to a halt if the
taxpayer is not to be crushed or normal functions of state and county
governments squeezed out of existence.
This Administration has spoken out repeatedly on the need for
limits on welfare spending. Recently the Governor communicated directly
to the President his concerns regarding a proposed welfare program
before the Congress.
We are working directly to achieve modification of federal regula-
tions which are unnecessarily costly.
As an example, the courts recently held that a welfare recipient
is entitled to a hearing before his payment benefits can be discontinued.
The judge did not specify the type of hearing. California has a two-
step process an evidentiary hearing held by the county, where many
cases are quickly and fairly disposed of, and a more formal, "fair
hearing" conducted by the state.
Under the latter, a miniature trial is conducted, with a full and
complete transcript kept and typed, a recommended decision made which
must be reviewed and passed on at a higher level.
The Secretary of HEW now proposes that all cases being discontinued
or receiving a reduction in payments must go through the full "fair
hearing" process, effective July 1, 1970. This will increase costs
tremendously. The state will have to hire an estimated 100 referees
and support personnel to pick up the extra workload. Meanwhile, the
state must bear the cost of continuing welfare payments pending the
outcome of the more burdensome "fair hearing" procedure, no matter how
unjustified the claim.
This proposed regulation goes beyond the limits imposed by the
United States Supreme Court. The court did not specify hearings for
payment reductions, nor did the courts specify formal "fair hearings."
In fact, the court supported the use of evidentiary type hearings.
Therefore, there is no good reason why these federal regulations should
not strictly comply with the lesser requirements set forth by the court.
The Director of Social Welfare will be prepared, at your later
convenience, to give you additional examples of instances in which
regulations have exceeded statutory law. No longer can we in the State
or the counties bear the unnecessary burden of regulations which go
beyond legal requirements,
-5-
There have been many suits carried to the Supreme Court by welfare
recipients, anxious to enlarge their benefits. There have been few by
cities and counties, seeking to limit spending which is depriving the
majority of their citizens of other services which they very much want.
We are confident that, working in cooperation with Washington, we
can obtain consideration of this problem. In the event we are
unsuccessful, we will have no hesitation in joining with our cities
and counties in an effort to get relief through the courts.
We recognize that changing federal welfare regulations will be a
lengthy procedure, necessitating the prediction that welfare expenditures
will be $40 million more than originally anticipated.
The drop in revenues plus the increases in welfare and Medi-Cal
add up to a total of $141 million. Since the Governor's budget must be
in balance, I should like now to turn to the ways in which we expect to
meet that figure.
We originally predicted a free surplus of $28 million at the end
of 1970-71. We have this evening noted that the current year will end
$13 million better than anticipated.
These figures total $41 million, all of which is available to meet
the projected shortage of $141 million.
The Department of Finance has already forwarded letters to the
Budget Committees, reducing the Governor's budget by a net $15 million,
of which we may now take note. We are now faced with a problem of
finding $85 million.
After careful deliberation, one ofyour committees voted to elimin-
ate salary increases for instructional and instructional related
positions at the University and the other voted similar action at the
State Colleges. We now indicate our willingness to accept that
decision and are suggesting a decrease in the budget of $19 million,
which was the total of your separate actions.
We are also agreeable to your action in declining to fund the
Academic Senates of the two segments of higher education, a reduction
of approximately $1/2 million.
Originally, the Governor's budget contained $34 million in capital
outlay from the General Fund for higher education. Some of this is for
projects which are started, or for equipping facilities which are near-
ing completion. We propose the elimination of $20 million from General
Fund projects presently available or included in the Governor's budget.
-6-
By agreement made several years ago, overhead funds provided
through contracts with the federal government are divided between the
University and state government. In the current year these funds
exceed original estimates by $5 million and the General Fund share is
$2½ million. This does not involve any renegotiation. In fact, the
University will also be receiving from this source $2½ million more than
expected.
I have already spoken out strongly against the unchecked spending
in welfare. In the limited field available to us, we propose to reduce
this crushing blow upon taxpayers by $211/2 million through the following
actions:
Reduce homemaker and attendant care
$10 million
Reduce special needs
2 million
Eliminate special home repair allowances
1½ million
Redefine unemployment at 30 hours
1½ million
Reduce educational stipend
1/2 million
Reduce personal grants---out of home care
5½¹₂ million
Cut Department of Social Welfare budget operations
1/2 million
$21½ million
I also have been informed that there is approximately $5½ million
available through increased audit recoveries of the counties in the
Social Welfare program. We hope that once put on notice that the
counties will put their house in order and thereby reduce costs as
reflected in the ongoing program rather than as audit recoveries.
A total of $4 million will become available to the General Fund as
a result of federal matching in the childrens' centers program. The
Departments of Education and Social Welfare have developed an inter-
agency contract which will provide for improvements in the existing
program and will produce federal matching funds. The improvements in
this program will result from meeting the Federal Interagency Day Care
Standards required for federal matching.
There will be available in 1970-71, including prior year funds,
$12 million on a cash basis for reimbursement of local expenditures for
flood control projects. The program has been moving very slowly as it
depends largely on federal funding and the federal government has major
budgetary problems. We believe a reduction here of $4million will leave
sufficient funds to sustain the program at the 1969-70 level of
reimbursement.
We originally requested $1 million for the Title V-Manpower
Development and Training Act in the expectation the program would be
funded at the federal level. The federal funds have not been forth-
coming, therefore State funds will not be necessary.
-7-
Two minor shifts to federal funding, in vocational educational
funding and Public Health regional diagnostic centers, will make avail-
able $1½ million.
Textbooks are normally printed on a multi-year cycle but need not
be. By printing only one year's needs, not a single student will be
deprived of a single text, but $1½ million can be saved. Obviously
this is a deferment to a "pay as you need" basis.
Property tax relief for senior citizens amounted to $7.8 million
two years ago, and $8.2 million this year, an increase of $400,000. Even
if this increase were to double to $800,000 in the budget year, a total
of $9 million would suffice. Since we had budgeted $10 million, we can
safely lower this estimate $1 million.
We can withdraw $2½¹₂ million from capital outlay designed for
development at San Clemente State Beach and $1/2 million from Agricultural
District Fairs and the Exposition for $3 million in reductions. I have
been informed it would not be possible to spend the San Clemente money
in 1970-71 in any event.
This balances the budget but I would like to return momentarily
to higher education. With the passage of Proposition 7, sale of higher
education bonds becomes possible again. The Treasurer has already
announced an offering of $50 million for June 16 which must be considered
when evaluating the $20 million cut proposed.
Thank you very much.
Verne Ove.
Director
Dept. of Finance
-8-
WELFARE REFORM
6-11-70
C. - 2.
1. Pending enactment and implementation of national welfare
reform legislation, Congress should immediately amend Title
IV A of the Social Security Act so as to provide that,
irrespective of any other provisions of law, families with
total gross income from all sources which is equal to the
income received by a specified percentile (lower 25%) of all
families in a particular state or the poverty level, which-
ever is lesser, would be ineligible for any aid payments in
which the Federal Government participates.
2. Insure that any federal welfare legislation passed by the
Congress contains the following provisions:
a. Clearly establish that its purpose is to assure
a national minimum standard to support those unable
to take care of themselves;
b. Establish a method for determining an acceptable
range of state effort in support of aid payments.
This might be expressed as a relationship between
state expenditures for welfare and such bases as
per capita income; total state budget; federal income
taxes collected in that state, etc.
C. Specify that the Federal Government would share
national revenues with the states in whatever amount
is needed to make up the difference between state
fiscal resources and effort (as determined in accordance
with "b" above) and the cost of maintaining national
minimum standards of aid.
d. Establish minimum standards for aid which take into
account national differences in the cost of living.
e. Provide financial incentives to states to administer
on an integrated basis all the aid payment programs
in that state regardless of funding source.
f. Provide financial rewards to states which demonstrate
the capacity to administer these programs at some
specified level of efficiency above national norms.
4. Immediate action by the Secretary of HEW to:
a. Establish "net" earnings as the basis for determining
the amount of earned income to be disregarded under
current provisions of law.
b. Maintain the present two-step fair-hearing process as
authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
C. Make the use of simplified methods of determining
eligibility for AFDC completely optional with the
states.
5. Hunger and malnutrition exist in the states. Current food and
nutrition programs are diffuse and tangled in conflicting
administrations. They are ineffective in reaching the most
seriously deprived families and children. To combat hunger
and malnutrition:
a. Consolidate state and local administration of food
programs under one agency to increase efficiency and
fiscal control.
b. Make programs more accessible to the most needy -
persons with little 'or no income, lacking transportation,
having insufficient cash for food stamp purchase,
ignorant of help available.
C. Remove existing provisions prohibiting counties and
cities from participating in both the Food Stamp
Program and the Federal Commodities Distribution
Program.
d. Reduce the purchase requirements for food stamps.
e. Generate broad community understanding and partici-
pation through public information and enlistment of
volunteers to help in consumer education and training
of low income people in purchase and use of food.
Employ the poor in such programs.
f. Test innovative programs and procedures in critical
poverty areas. Prepare for extension of successful
ventures into all communities of the most neady persons.
California comments June 11, 1970
National Governors' Conference
61st Annual Meeting
Colorado Springs, Colorado
August 31 - September 3, 1969
C. - 2.
WELFARE REFORM
1. Substitution, on a phased basis, of a federally financed system
of welfare payments for the current federal-state program for the aged,
blind, disabled and dependent children, and including also the general
assistance programs now financed by the states themselves. Eligibility
and grants would be determined by the federal government; the system would
be state administered under federal guidelines. The system should include
realistic income exemptions to provide incentives for persons to seek
employment. Adequate daycare for children of working mothers and an
expanded federal job training program should also be assured.
2. Increase in the present levels for all payments under the Old Age
Survivors Disability Insurance Programs with a minimum payment of $100 per
month.
3. Transfer of the present Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Permanently
and Totally Disabled and Aid to the Blind programs to the Social Security
Program, with payments being made from federal general revenues to the Social
Security Trust Fund to cover the increased cost.
4. Review by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare of federal
regulations promulgated by his predecessor as to their adverse effect with
respect to the following:
a. The use of the declaration system for determining welfare
eligibility.
b. The continuation of welfare payments during the pendency
of appeal to persons whose grants are reduced or who are
determined ineligible, and the requirement that states assure
the provision of attorneys for appellants.
5. To combat hunger and malnutrition:
a. Increased federal funds for the Food Stamp Program so that
welfare recipients and low-income persons in all states
could be covered by the Food Stamp Program.
b. Removal of existing provisions prohibiting counties and
cities from participating in both the Food Stamp Program
and the Federal Commodities Distribution Program.
C. Reduction of the purchase requirements for Food Stamps and,
where necessary, provision of free stamps to welfare recipients.
d. Consideration of providing food stamps in lieu of a portion
of welfare payments, subject to the approval of the recipient.
WELFARE REFORM (cont'd.)
Page 2
e. Transfer of the Food Stamp Program, programs under the
School Lunch Act and the Commodity Distribution Program
from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
f. Expansion of federal, state and local programs to provide
nutrition education.
National Governors' Conference
61st Annual Meeting
Colorado Springs, Colorado
August 31 - September 3, 1969
listers policy
C. - 3.
HEALTH
1. Adoption by the federal government of a national universal health
insurance program coupled with hospital cost controls as the primary method
of keeping rising health costs from preventing all people from receiving
the medical care they need. Such a program should utilize the existing
private enterprise medical system. Publicly paid programs such as Medicaid
should be used only as a secondary program for those who have used up their
insurance benefits. Medicaid should be 100% federally financed.
2. Adequate funding by the federal government of (a) the Federal Sup-
plementary Food Program for low-income groups vulnerable to malnutrition to
make selected nutritious foods available to infants, pre-school children,
pregnant women and nursing mothers, and (b) programs to provide free or
reduced-priced lunches and breakfasts through schools, summer recreational
programs, and daycare centers to assure all children from low-income families
one or two nutritious meals per day.
3. Expansion of federal and state programs of grants and loan payments
to encourage the development and rehabilitation of health facilities particu-
larly in low-income areas where maternal and child health care is inadequate.
4. Review of the formula for the allocation of federal funds for the con-
struction and modernization of health facilities to assure that the funds are
being devoted to meeting the Nation's most urgent needs.
5. Assurance that the allocation within a state of federal funds for
the construction and modernization of the various types of health facilities
be based on priorities developed by the state and be in accordance with plans
developed through state comprehensive health planning.
6. Placement of responsibility for comprehensive health planning in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health and Scientific Affairs of the
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Such a designation by
the Secretary of HEW would be complementary to the major responsibility and
reliance placed on such efforts by Governors and enhance the possibilities
of achieving a federal-state "partnership" for the improvement of health
services.
tional Governors' Conference
61st Annual Meeting
Colorado Springs, Colorado
August 31 - September 3, 1969
C. - 5.
MANPOWER TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
1. Enactment of federal legislation which would consolidate federal
manpower programs, provide for flexible funding of these programs, and
enable the states to coordinate all manpower training and development
activities within a state.
2. Review by Governors of the state administrative structure for
manpower programs to assure that each state has (a) an effective mechanism
to develop a comprehensive statewide manpower plan and (b) an agency which
has the capability to administer a unified system of manpower services.
3. Establishment of a national computerized job bank which would
provide information regarding available jobs and job applicants.
4. Provision for systematic review and assessment of the effectiveness
of manpower programs.
5. Establishment of State Manpower Training Staffing Centers with
federal financial support to assure an adequate supply of trained personnel
to plan and administer manpower programs.
6. Increased efforts by states to work with private business to increase
job opportunities for the disadvantaged. Specifically, Governors should work
with the National Alliance of Businessmen in the development of statewide
"Jobs" program.
C. action 5.
MANPOWER TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
1. Enactment of federal legislation which would consolidate
federal manpower programs, provide for flexible-funding-of-these
programey-and-enable-the-etatee- block grants and delegate to
the states the authority necessary to plan and coordinate all
manpower training and development activities within a state.
2. Review by Governors of the state administrative structure
for manpower programs to assure that each state has (a) an
effective mechanism to develop a comprehensive statewide manpower
plan and (b) an agency which has the capability to administer
or contract for a unified system of manpower services.
3. Establishment of a national computerized job bank which
would provide information regarding available jobs and job
applicants.
DELETE ORD Explanation: On the basis of today's technology,
this is not economically feasible. In addition, the
practicability of considering the entire nation
as a job market for the purpose of matching workers
with jobs should be seriously challenged.
Items 4, 5, 6 - no changes.
California comments June 11, 1970
Welfare
State of California
Human Relations Agency
Memorandum
To
:
Honorable Ronald Reagan
Date : August 10, 1970
Governor
File No.: 24:34
Attn: James Crumpacker
Subject: Press Briefing
Cabinet Secretary
From :
Office of the Secretary
1. Unruh said in a television interview Sunday that the welfare system is a mess,
that recipients who can work must be found, that we must insist on their
doing something and get them jobs. He said the State was without plans.
Syd Kossen Sunday identified unemployment as a critical campaign issue.
Watts unemployment is reported worse than in 1965 and general unemploy-
ment in California is up from 6 in June to 6.2 for July.
I am glad that Mr. Unruh agrees with me that welfare is a mess, but I
would prefer that he help do something about it.
The Facts:
AB 1360, administration supported welfare reform bill, provides for a public
works employment program to be established by the Department of Human
Resources Development. It would provide that all employable welfare
recipients be referred to the program or to the Work Incentive Program
in those counties that have the latter.
When the bill came to the Assembly floor for passage, Mr. Unruh was
absent on personal business. The bill was approved, however, and is now
in the Senate. (A hearing was to start at 3:30 P.M. today.)
This may lead to a question whether in view of the State Social Welfare
Board's attack on the fraud provisions of AB 1360 the administration
still supports AB 1360.
The bill does have our strong support in general. We share the Board's
view that the fraud provisions were weakened by Assembly amendments and
are working with the author to correct this problem.
The subject may also lead to questions about the WIN "cut". We have not cut
WIN. The current appropriation for training is the same as was spent last
year. We budgeted the same for training-connected expenses of the enrollees
such as transportation. Later we found that actual expenditures for the
-2-
training-connected expense only exceeded the amount budgeted. One of the
problems was that individual counties had no way of relating their expenditures to
the total appropriation. To correct that, we have established an allocation system
so that each county will know how much it can spend for this purpose. Meantime
we have instructed the counties to continue at their present levels while we analyze
the cause of the higher rate of spending and explore various possibilities of funding.
There have been no cuts in the training program.
Perhaps because of his absences, Mr. Unruh seems unaware of other actions we
have taken.
For example, the State Department of Rehabilitation completed a survey of more
than 167, 000 welfare recipients and identified more than 20, 000 who are potentially
eligible for rehabilitation services. County welfare departments are now in the
process of making formal referrals of these cases to the department. In the
last fiscal year the department rehabilitated more than 3, 600 welfare recipients
for a savings of about $3. 5 million in welfare costs.
Just last week the Department of Human Resources Development announced a pilot
program to pit state workers against private employment agencies in finding jobs
for welfare recipients. Both the welfare recipient and the taxpayer will be the
winners in this unusual contest and I don't see how anyone can lose. About 5, 000
welfare recipients will be involved in this test program.
There may be a question about CSEA opposition. The Governor should express
confidence in the State workers. This is not a slap at them. There is,
unfortunately, more than enough persons on welfare to keep both the department
and the private sector busy.
Another plan to find jobs is also getting underway. HRD is making a concerted
effort to make employers aware of the problem and enlist their help in getting
persons off the welfare rolls and on to payrolls.
They are using the slogan "Give a hand up -- save a handout. 11 The Department
isn't just sloganeering, however. We are asking employers to tell us what they
need. The Department will then try to motivate and train welfare recipients to
fill the employer's need. That's a brand new approach.
The adjusted rate of unemployment was 6. 2 for July, up from 6.0 in June. The
rise was associated with the slowing of the pace of the economy related to the
campaign against inflation.
We have taken steps to stimulate employment in California without increasing
inflation. For instance, I have asked release of road-building funds. I have
signed legislation that, if approved by the voters, will permit a much-needed
improvement in local sewer system
to help them win the fight against pollution
and also help the construction industry. We have increased the interest on bonds -
making them marketable - and continued the water project and others.
-3-
The State won a partial victory in the long-hair case. The class action and the
restraining order were lifted. This means local office managers can continue
to use their own discretion on paying UI benefits based on availability for
work. It should be emphasized that each manager makes his own decisions.
All UI determinations can be appealed.
2. Prison Problems. I attach suggested responses for the basic questions that may
be anticipated. In addition, it should be noted that the administration approved
and the department implemented a five-post coverage system that gives greater
security early this year in the Department of Corrections. Eighty-one new
positions were authorized, 33 of them at Soledad.
WALTER L. BARKDULL
Assistant to the Secretary
Attachment
AUG 10 1970
HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
State of California
Memorandum
Mr. Walter L. Barkdull
To:
Assistant to the Secretary
Date: August 10, 1970
Human Relations Agency
915 Capitol Mall, Room 200
File No.:
Sacramento, California 95814
Subject:
From: Department of Corrections, Sacramento 95814
Here are some possible subjects which may arise at the Governor's
Press Conference and the comments we think would be appropriate.
This is in response to your request.
Courtroom Security and Convicts
The procedures followed in individual courtrooms should
remain the responsibility of the court and local law
enforcement agencies. The Department of Corrections must
continue to comply with requirements laid down in such
matters by the courts. While the tragic incident in
San Rafael involved inmates from San Quentin, the same
situation might well arise any time with defendants
housed in the local jail, that is, an armed accomplice
entering the court and kidnapping hostages. Suggestions
have been made that all the courtrooms should initiate
strict security provisions for persons entering. Another
suggestion would involve the holding of court for inmates
in the prisons themselves. Both suggestions involve
legal and monetary factors which should receive thorough
study by local authorities.
Prison Problems Generally
The current concern growing out of several violent inci-
dents, comes at a time when the overall operation of the STATE
prison in the entite correctional system is going along
quite well. The prison return rate has dropped sharply
ffew}
in the last five years. Prison intake is down consistent
with the aims and purposes of the Probation Subsidy Pro-
gram. Innocuous offenders are being retained in the
community under the supervision and control of probation
officials. The state prison system is receiving a much
higher percentage of offenders who have been sent to
prison for crimes of violence. Ten years ago, violent
offenders made up only 33 percent of the state prison
population. Today, the proportion is up to 46 percent.
Mr. Walter L. Barkdull
- 2 -
August 10, 1970
Generally speaking, prison operations and activities
reflect similar situations in the free world. If there
are racial problems in the free world, you can expect
to find them in prison. Only, prison problems will be
more serious since they occur in a smaller, closed
society and since prisons contain individuals who repre-
sent the extremes of racial hostility in the world.
If there is an increase of violence in the general
society, we might expect an increase in prison violence,
especially since non-violent offenders are being
systematically removed from the state prison picture.
Our prison system, in the opinion of nearly all prison
authorities, is one of the nation's best. We place
great emphasis on rehabilitative programming. There are
academic classes ranging from literacy courses through
college. We teach 45 job skills. There is great emphasis
on group counseling. The prison industries program
provides practical work experience. The people who work
in our prisons have a very difficult job. They must deal
with hostile, aggressive and maladjusted individuals try-
ing both to retain firm control on the one hand and also
extend an opportunity through correctional programs for
offenders to re-establish themselves as law-abiding
citizens.
Special Investigations
I believe that the investigation which is being conducted
by local authorities into the terrible tragedy in Marin
County may reveal security deficiencies or other factors
which should be studied by those responsible for courtroom
security in other locations.
With respect to any suggestions concerning a general look
at the state prison system, this is already being done
under the auspices of the Board of Corrections. The Board
is looking at the entire criminal justice system in this
state since you can't really consider one phase without
getting involved in the problems experienced by other
segments. I do want to emphasize that our prison and
parole operations are under constant scrutiny and are
staffed with experienced, dedicated professionals. There
Mr. Walter L. Barkdull
- 3 -
August 10, 1970
are probably more experienced administrators and line
employees in the California Department of Corrections
than in any other similar department in the country.
They are our experts in dealing with the hard problems
and challenges which face persons in the Corrections
field.
L. M. STUTSMAN
Chief Deputy Director
State of California
Health and Welfare Agency
Memorandum
To
:
Governor's Cabinet
Date : December 9, 1970
Governor's Senior Staff
VIA Lucian Vandegrift, Secretary
Human Relations Agency
file
Subject: Welfare Summary
Sheet
From : Department of Social Welfare 744 P Street, Sacramento 95814
At the end of December and every month thereafter, you will receive a
wallet-sized monthly statistical summary of public assistance caseloads
and expenditures published by the State Department of Social Welfare.
The front side of the summary sheet contains breakouts by public assistance
program of caseloads and expenditures for the most recent month, for the
month previous, and for the most recent month" one year ago. The three
months of data allow a monthly comparison and a twelve month comparison.
Also shown on the front side under the column "payments" are the average
monthly payments per recipient for the various programs.
Information on the reverse side of the sheet remains unchanged from month
to month unless altered by State or Federal legislation or regulation. The
data relate to State, County, Federal cost sharing formulas for various
public assistance programs. Also listed are maximum grants allowed for the
typical case in various programs.
If either content or presentation of the information falls short of your
needs, please send me comments or suggestions for improvements.
Roberthant Robert Martin
Director
GOVERNOR'S CABINET
J. Earl Coke
James Hall
Verne Orr
Norman Livermore
Lucian Vandegrift
GOVERNOR'S SENIOR STAFF
Edwin Meese
James Crumpacker
Paul Beck
Michael Deaver
Ned Hutchinson
Alex Sheriffs
Edgar Gillenwaters
Herbert Ellingwood
Robert Keyes
Jerry Martin
George Steffes
State of California
Human Relations Agency
Department of Social Welfare
Research and Statistics
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES
November 23, 1970
October 1970
Aid recipients & persons certified
for medical assistance only
Payments
Program
Oct. p/
Sept.
Oct.
Oct.
Sept.
P.
Oct.
1970
1970
1969
1970
1970
1969
TOTAL
Grand total, cash grant and
2,263,745
2,274,338
medical assistance
1,840,688
$
NA
$
NA
$197,098,695
Cash grant subsistance
1,980,664
1,942,710
1,560,516
141,763,258
138,939,176
113,206,066
Med. assist. only
179,673
230,019
211,344
XXX
***
Medical assistance
***
xxx
XXX
XXX
NA
NA
General home relief
80,723,049
103,408
101,609
68,828
4,089,654
4,263,291
3,169,580
Average
AGED PERSONS
Cash grant subsistence
319,302
318,525
311,944
107.64
106.98
109.87
Med. assist. only
57,091
60,704
58,294
***
Medical assistance
***
***
***
XXX
XXX
NA
NA
73.52
BLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)
Cash grant subsistence
13,947
13,861
13,170
156.67
154.75
Med. assist. only
151.12
1,026
1,040
919
Medical assistance
XXX
XXX
xxx
***
XXX
***
NA
NA
77.40
DISABLED PERSONS
Cash grant subsistence
181,988
179,821
157,529
127.86
124.91
Med. assist. only
125.57
15,168
17,611
15,345
XXX
Medical assistance
XXX
XXX
xxx
XXX
XXX
NA
NA
118.42
FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Cash grant subsistence:
Family groups:b/ children
856,225
839,064
665,150
76.13
76.11
69.87
cases
348,606
341,085
258,825
186.98
187.23
total persons
179.57
1,196,716
1,172,276
917,419
54.47
Unemployed cases:children
54.48
50.66
141,684
136,602
82,294
74.45
73.52
68.85
cases
49,680
46,543
25,337
212.33
total persons
215.78
223.63
234,802
224,611
Bdg. Homes & Inst:children
129,484
44.93
44.71
43.76
33,909
33,616
Medical assistance only:
30,970
153.55
150.95
133.27
Family groups:
cases
34,933
47,967
total persons
41,977
XXX
XXX
XXX
96,824
141,189
8dg. Homes & Inst:children
129,751
XXX
XXX
XXX
9,564
Medical assistance:
9,475
7,035
XXX
XXX
XXX
Family groups:
XXX
XXX
Bdg. Homes & Inst
***
NA
NA
24.51
XXX
XXX
XXX
NA
NA
23.59
GENERAL HOME RELIEF
Total persons
103,408
101,609
68,828
39.55
41.96
Family cases
46.05
16,285
16,167
9,952
63.93
67.08
67.19
Persons in family cases
58,395
61,158
36,193
17.83
17.73
One-person cases
18.48
45,013
40,451
32,635
67.72
78.59
76.63
Unemployed in labor force (%)
5.9
5.8
3.72
XXX
Civilian population (excluding
XXX
XXX
military)
19,909,700
19,881,200
19,582,7002
XXX
XXX
XXX
Medical assistance averages based on persons in cases "open" during the month. Cash grant averages for adult
aids computed from "net" person counts. Excludes U cases Includes U cases Preliminary
NA - Not available
Revised January 13, 1970
GRANT PARTICIPATION
SHARING
PROGRAM
MAXIMUM GRANTS
FEDERAL
STATE
COUNTY
ADULTS
OAS
$195.00
50%
6/7 Rmdr.
1/7 Rmdr.
AB
202.00
50%
3/4 "
1/4 "
APSB
202.00
-
5/6 Grant
1/6 Grant
ATD
Based on Statewide
Average of $122.00 per
month for Fiscal Year
50%
6/7 Rmdr. 1/7 Rmdr,
CHILDREN
MAXIMUM STATE BASIS
No.
Children
I ER
2 ER
AFDC
I
$148
$166
50%
67/- Rmdr. 32/2 Rmdr.
2
172
191
3
221
239
4
263
282
5
300
318
6
330
349
7
355
373
8
373
392
9
386
404
10
392
411
11
399
417
12
405
424
13
412
430
14
418
437
15
424
443
Plus $6 for each additional AFDC child in FBU.
AFDC-BHI
FEDERAL BASIS
FEDERAL SHARE
STATE BASIS
STATE SHARE
COUNTY SHARE
FEDERAL
The average
50% of the
50% of the average
671% of the
Amount paid
CHILDREN
amount paid
federal
payment up to $100
State Basis
less federal
basis
per child per month
and state
shares.
NON-FEDERAL
The average payment
6712 of the
Amount paid
CHILDREN
up to $80 per child State Basis
less state
per month.
share.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE *
For costs of providing required and recommended services, 75% Federal - 25% County.
Other costs, 50% Federal - 50% County.
STATE SUBVENTION
$65 State for each new or reissued license up to cost of administration for each fiscal
year.
ADOPTION'S ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
100% State for budgeted costs.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES *
Federal 75% - County 25% (Funds limited to federal appropriation.)
*
85% and 15% for AFDC and CPS Services through June 30, 1969.