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
118565112
label
[Welfare] - Governoräó»s Task Force on Public Assistance (Control #15), December 1970 (1 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565112
contentType
document
title
[Welfare] - Governoräó»s Task Force on Public Assistance (Control #15), December 1970 (1 of 2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565112
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
f5375fdeecde732d
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: [Welfare] - Governor's Task Force on
Public Assistance (Control #15), December 1970
(1 of 2)
Box: P39
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/
Control #15
CONFIDENTIAL
GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE
ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
December 1970
This document is a confidential communication
and is privileged under Sections 1040 and 917
of the Evidence Code and Section 6254 of the
Government Code. Any unauthorized distribution
of this document or its contents will constitute
a violation of Section 19572 of the Government
Code and appropriate action will be taken by the
authors hereof.
Inasmuch as preliminary information of this
nature recently has been furnished without
authorization to litigants against the State
of California, it is felt necessary to stress
the applicability of the above statutes.
CONFIDENTIAL
i
Governor's Task Force
on Public Assistance
WORKING PAPER
Task Force Members
Chairman - Ned Hutchinson
John Mayfield
Jerry Fielder
Robert Carleson
Editor - Tom McMurray
December 1970
Assisted by Ronald Zumbrun
and John Svahn
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
I
Table of Contents
I
II The Charge - - The Number One Priority
II
III Organization and Operation of Task Force
III
IV Study Group One/Findings and Recommendations
IV
V
Study Group Two/Findings and Recommendations
V
VI Study Group Three/Findings and Recommendations
VI
VII Review of the Interdepartmental Welfare Task Force
VII
Recommendations
Appendix A: References
F
Appendix B: Review of the State System of Audit and Control
E
of County Determinations of Eligibility for
Welfare and Medi-Cal
iii
I. Table of Contents
I. Table of Contents
I-1
II. The Charge - The Number One Priority
II-1
A. Governor Reagan Memorandum to Cabinet
II-2
and Staff
III. Organization and Operation of Task Force
III-1
I
A. Organization
III-2
B. Operation
III-3
II
IV. Study Group One/Findings and Recommendations
IV-1
A. Introduction and Summary
IV-2
III
B. Response Summary of County Welfare Interviews
IV-3
1. Interviews
IV-3
2. Education
IV
3. Working level
4. Prior employment
5. Reason for entering profession
6. Work functions
7. Employ likes
IV-4
8. Employ dislikes
9. Work preference five years from now
10. Welfare program purpose
11. Contribution to purpose
12. Opinion of purpose
13. Differing grant level problems
IV-5
14. Cause of grant level inequities
15. Opinion of solution to inequities
16. Creation of inequities problems
17. Functional help to recipient
18. Functional help to taxpayer
IV-6
19. Hinderances to functional performance
20. Cause of hinderances to performance
21. Essential profession skill requirements
22. Profession skill development
I-2
23. Management and administrative development
IV-7
24. Recommended principal change
25. Recommended principal policy institution
26. Work frustration
27. Cause of work frustration
28. Leisure time
IV-8
29. Most important work function
30. Least important work function
I
31. Work productivity measurement
32. Planning of time utilization
33. Inside organization affects on performance
IV-9
34. Cause of inside organization affect
35. Outside organization affects on performance
36. Cause of outside organization affect
37. Principal problem not presently addressed
38. Principal recommendation to Governor
39. Other questions that should be asked
IV-10
40. Is interview effort on right track
IV
V. Study Group Two/Findings and Recommendations
V-1
A. Summary and Justification of Major Features
V-2
V
B. General Recommendations
V-4
#1 Replace MPB with equitable apportionment
V-4
#2 Eliminate open-end budget
#3 Flat grants
#4 Annual reports to the legislature
#5 Eligibility based on minimum needs
V-5
#6 Reduce welfare eligibility to working poor
level
#7 Earned income and Section 11008
#8 Judicially test maximum earned income in 11008
#9 Standard deduction for work-related expenses
#10 Average income
V-6
#11 Flat grants to counties for special needs
#12 New approach to standard of need
#13 Separate program for employable recipient
I-3
#14 Reduce work-incentive deductions amount
V-7
#15 Enact legislative direction
#16 Revise the "fair hearing" procedures
#17 Property assets utilization for special needs
#18 Increase OAS responsible relative scale
#19 Legal staffing
#20 Absent parent support obligation
V-8
#21 Gathering statistical data
#22 Audit system
#23 Strikers
#24 Employment of recipients in child care centers
I
#25 OAS recipient employment
#26 Eliminate non-federally funded AFDC-U programs
#27 State administration of welfare
#28 Property liens
V-9
C. Regulation Change Recommendations
V-10
#1 Fraud referral. Reg. 20-007.2
V-10
#2 Protective services for children. Reg. 30-103
#3 Aid to seasonal workers. Reg. 30-157.6
V-11
#4 AFDC-U registration with HRD. Reg. 30-155
V-12
#5 Agency responsibility in AFDC application
V-13
process. Reg. 40-115.223
V
#6 Immediate need. Reg. 40-129.4 & .5
V-14
#7 Eligibility of child up to 21 years of age
V-16
for AFDC. Reg. 41-103.2
#8 AFDC eligibility after recipient ceases to
be student. Reg. 41-103.4 & .5
#9 Aid payment made to recipients living in other
V-18
states. Reg. 41-207
#10 Property. Reg. 41-301
V-19
#11 Value of personal property to be excluded
V-20
in determinating eligibility. Reg. 41-313.21
#12 Life estate in real property. Reg. 41-313.212
#13 Aid paid during period of ineligibility due to
V-21
transfer of property to qualify for aid.
Reg. 41-321.4
#14 AFDC-U. Reg. 43-340
V-22
I-4
#15 College students on aid. Reg. 42-340.12
V-23
#16 Proof of deprivation of parent for AFDC.
V-25
Reg. 42-350
#17 Responsible relative - OAS income. Reg. 42-509
V-26
#18 Income exempted as casual or inconsequential.
V-27
Reg. 44-101.4
#19 Special need in eligibility determination.
V-28
Reg. 44-201
I
#20 Fair Hearing Decisions
V-29
D. Recommendations on Absent Parent Child Support
V-31
#1 Parental responsibility
V-32
#2 Prompt referral to district attorney
V-33
#3 Welfare worker responsibility
#4 Parental relationship
#5 Criminal sanction enforcement
V-34
#6 Coordinated efforts
V-35
#7 Computerized registration and central
registry
#8 Absent parent estate inheritance
V-36
V
#9 Enforcement Officers Manual and Guide to
V-37
the Absent Parent Problem
#10 Conciliation Courts
#11 Other recommendations
a. Out of state assets
V-37
b. Civil file transfers
V-38
C. Extradition procedure
d. District Attorney office funding
e. Attachment of federal employee income
f. Reduce application to referral time
g. Judiciary education
h. Interstate collection methods
i. Active role at state levels
j. Employment help to unemployed fathers
k. Federal insistence of enforcement
#12 Conclusion
V-39
I-5
VI. Study Group Three/Findings and Recommendations
VI-1
A. Introduction
VI-2
B. Recommendations
#1 Work related expense deductions from earned
VI-2
income (AFDC)
#2 Ceiling on "disregard income", the 30 and 1/3
exemption on earned income in AFDC
I
#3 Redefine unemployment to 30 hours or less
VI--3
#4 Reduce personal needs allowances for recipients
receiving out-of-home care to $5
#5 Attendant Service Special Need or Adult
VI-4
Homemaker Services elimination
VII. Review of the Interdepartmental Welfare Task Force
VII-1
Recommendations
A. Interdepartmental Welfare Task Force
VII-2
Recommendations Summary
B. Task Force Review
VII-3
#1 "Cash accounting" budget method
VII-3
#2 Foster care services
#3 Redefinition of unemployment
VII-4
#4 Income allocation to spouse
#5 Unwed minor mothers - parents to support
VI
#6 "High income" families
VII-5
#7 Wage attachments
VII-6
#8 Enforcement of out-of-state relatives
VII
responsibility
#9 WIN counseling
#10 Supervisory ratios
VII-7
#11 Standard deduction for work-related expenses
#12 Income from room and/or board
VII-8
#13 Blood relatives as family heads in same
home
#14 Value of automobiles
VII-9
#15 Families living together without marriage
I-6
#16 Number of dependents claimed
VII-10
#17 Past crop losses as income deductions
#18 "In kind" contribution
#19 Definition of residency
VII-11
#20 Illegal Aliens
#21 Eligibility for foster care
VII-12
#22 Annual income
:
#23 Eligibility during leave of absence from job
VII-13
#24 Single category for adult aids
VII-14
#25 Property liens
# 26 Potentially self-supporting blind
VII-15
#27 Real property limitations
#28 Unnecessary Medical C Payments
VII-16
#29 Nonsupport complaints
#30 State-County sharing ratios
VII-17
#31 Non-recurring lump sums
VII-18
# 32 Income-producing property
#33 Woman assuming role of spouse
#34 Stepfather's responsibility
VII-19
#35 "Casual" income
Appendix A
A-1
References
A-2
VI:
Appendix B
B-1
Review of State System of Audit and Control
B-2
1
Draft Progress Report/November 30, 1970
B-3
Forward
B-4
A. Progress Report
B-5
I
B. Review Objectives
I-7
C.
Scope of Review
B-6
D.
Progress to Date
E.
Summary of Recommendations: Eligibility
B-7
Control System - Available Information
#1 SDSW formal reporting system
B-7
#2 Issue monthly reports
#3 Direct reports to State and county
officials
# 4 Adjust next advance for actual errors
#5 Require 30 day county reaction period
#6 Determine county corrective steps within
60 days
F.
Summary of Findings: Eligibility Control
B-7
Bureau
G. Summary of Findings: Field Audits Bureau
B-9
H. Summary of Findings: : Master Persons File
I. Summary of Findings: Medically Needy
Operations Bureau
J. Plan for Completing Review
B-10
I-8
II. The Charge -- The Number One Priority
INTRODUCTION
Study Group Two's effort, as described in Section Three
of this report, originated as a review of the State
phase of the public assistance program. The group, led
by Robert B. Carleson, included Ronald A. Zumbrun and
John A. Svahn. Fiscal assistance and review was pro-
vided by Kenneth J. Wagstaff and Robert F. Gray.
In conducting their studies, the group visited San Diego
County, Los Angeles County and Sacramento County.
A
summary and justification of major features resulting from
the efforts of Study Group Two follows in Section A of this
report. Specific recommendations and recommended regula-
tion changes are included in Sections B and C, respectively.
State of California
Memorandum
To
$
Cabinet and Senior Staff
Date
:
August 4, 1970
Subject:
The Number One
Priority
Ran
From I Governor Reagan
Until the beginning of this Administration, expenditures for state services
increased at a rate far in excess of population growth, resulting in a
critical excess of expenditures over available revenues. In those program
expenditures subject to normal legislative and executive determinations, we have
successfully curbed the prior excessive rates of expenditures. However, in
the public assistance and education programs of our State - which are virtually
out of our realm of authority because of outmoded constitutional and statutory
requirements and federal laws and regulations - we are continually confronted
with outrageous demands for increased expenditures with no corresponding
guarantee of an improvement in these programs. We are not getting our dollar's
worth.
I consider it vital to the economic health and prosperity of California that
State government conduct both of these programs in the most business-like
and economical manner, and that the people of this state be assured that their
tax dollars are spent wisely. We will not permit public assistance and
education to continually place a heavy burden on our taxpayers without being
held accountable.
I am, therefore, initiating a team effort to conduct a study of California's
education and public assistance programs. We will ask proven leaders in business,
labor, industry, local government and state government to volunteer to research
for avenues so that we can improve and adjust these programs to make them
operate within the normal levels of revenue growth. This effort must, of course,
be closely coordinated with the members of the Cabinet and Staff.
This study will place heavy emphasis on the taxpayer as opposed to the taxtaker;
on the truly needy as opposed to the lazy employable; on the student as opposed
to educational frills; on basic needs as opposed to unmanageable enrichment
programs; on measurable results as opposed to blind faith that an educator can
do no wrong.
By January 1971, I expect to have recommendations directed at
1. Providing immediate improvement opportunities that can be realized by
executive or administrative order. Some improvements will be implemented by
department heads during the course of this study.
2. Suggesting operating and organizational improvements of a long-range
nature for consideration by the legislature and suggesting a specific action
plan to develop the required legislation.
II-2
To: Cabinet and Senior Staff
-2-
August 4, 1970
3. Pinpointing problems with the federal government - purposefully
distinguishing between federal statute and federal regulation - and proposing
a specific action plan to obtain the necessary changes.
4. Focusing attention on local government's accountability by making
clearly visible their responsibility to the people for their administrative
and management actions or lack of actions while at the same time clarifying
the relationships between the State and local government.
This study is to be broadly concerned with policy, administrative and
operating functions of all levels of government in the State's public
assistance and education programs. It will consider and deal with expendi-
ture programs including those not now directly subject to legislation or
executive determinations such as those program expenditures required by the
constitution or authorized by statute and shall make recommendations on
bringing all such expenditures under some reasonable control.
This study will in no way conflict with on-going task forces but will
coordinate and bring them together in a unified effort.
I am determined to reduce these programs to essential services at a cost the
taxpayers can afford to pay. This is our NUMBER ONE priority.
We must bring all our resources to bear on this endeavor. Therefore, I am
asking you to make available your best employees including directors for this
all-out war on the taxtaker.
If we fail, no one ever again will be able to try. We must succeed.
II-3
III. Organization and Operation of Task Force
A. ORGANIZATION
The Governor's memo to Cabinet and Senior Staff of August 4, 1970
established a team effort to conduct a study of California's
public assistance program. In this memo the Governor stated that
proven leaders in business, labor, industry, local government,
and State government would be used to research this program for
improvements necessary to make it conform to normal levels of
revenue growth. The Governor appointed Ned Hutchinson, Appoint-
ments Secretary as Chairman; Jerry Fielder, Director, Department
of Agriculture; Robert B. Carleson, Chief Deputy Director, Depart-
ment of Public Works; and John Mayfield, Deputy Director, Depart-
ment of Conservation, to be the nucleus of the Task Force on Public
Assistance.
An initial decision was made by the Task Force to divide the public
assistance program into the three broad areas of federal, state and
county participation and assigned Fielder, Carleson and Mayfield,
respectively, to a single area.
The Task Force decided that, due to time constraints, each member
would recruit a small staff to assist him in reviewing his assigned
area. The staffs were as follows:
John Mayfield
1) M. E. Youngreen, Business Assistance Company
Huntington Beach
2) Six interviewers recruited from the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Public Works on
a short-term basis
Jerry Fielder
1) Walter S. Rountree, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles
Robert B. Carleson
1) Ronald A. Zumbrun, Attorney at Law, Department of
Public Works
2) John A. Svahn, Special Assistant, Department of
Public Works
Ned Hutchinson
1) Neil Papiano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles
a) Jules Markowitz, Electric Systems Company
Los Angeles
b) Jerry Salzman, Portfolio Security Corporation
Los Angeles
III-2
c) Brian Sweeney, California Thoroughbred Breeders
Association
d) Richard Moore, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles
B. OPERATION
A plan was developed by the Task Force nucleus to focus their
efforts at both long-range and short-range solutions to the
problems in welfare. Formal study began the second week of
August 1970. The Task Force began with the initial objectives
expressed in the Governor's memo of August 4. They were:
1) Providing immediate improvement opportunities that
can be realized by executive or administrative
order. Some improvements will be implemented by
department heads during the course of this study.
2) Suggesting operating and organizational improve-
ments of a long-range nature for consideration by
the legislature and suggesting a specific action
plan to develop the required legislation.
3) Pinpointing problems with the federal government--
purposefully distinguishing between federal statute
and federal regulation--and proposing a specific
action plan to obtain the necessary changes.
4) Focusing attention on local government's account-
ability by making clearly visible their responsi-
bility to the people for their administrative and
management actions or lack of actions while at the
same time clarifying the relationships between the
State and local government.
The Task Force agreed on certain broad areas for initial inves-
tigation. Fielder was to coordinate and review the Federal
program and the Family Assistance Plan. In doing this it was
anticipated that he would make contacts with HEW and with
Jim Jenkins in Washington to set up a method to check the Task
Force's final recommendations through the federal structure.
Carleson's group was to study the State program and isolate
problems within its administration. In addition, he was to
review State regulations for loopholes allowing welfare abuse
and for reform to bring them into line with the minimums re-
quired by State and federal law.
III-3
The county group, under Mayfield, was assigned the task of
developing the interview survey of county welfare personnel
to provide the Task Force with the county input to the problems
of welfare.
The Los Angeles group, under Papiano, was to do a legal review
tracing current welfare practices through State regulations,
State law, federal regulations and federal law.
Each group developed its own plan for carrying on its part of
the study. Fielder initiated contacts with Jim Jenkins in
Washington and was given the names of a number of individuals
in HEW. He talked to Charles Cubbler who had been recommended
by Dr. Earl Bryan and to Marguerite Adams, an HEW eligibility
standards specialist. His primary thrust at this time was to
get background in the operation of HEW and its views on the
California welfare program. At the same time, Walter Rountree
began a legal review for applicable federal regulations and
federal law in anticipation of checking the final Task Force
recommendations through the federal structure.
The State group began by familiarizing itself with SDSW views,
organization and operations. Interviews were made with key
personnel in SDSW, and as a result, that Department and the
Department of Health Care Services requested that the Task
Force initiate a field audit of the eligibility process in the
counties. These requests were discussed and the decision was
made to have these studies conducted by the Department of
Finance Audits Division rather than under the auspices of the
Governor's Task Force on Public Assistance. The justification
for this decision was twofold: 1) the State group did not have
the personnel resources nor the experience to conduct a valid
field audit of the eligibility process, and 2) it was felt that
the audit would be better received by the counties if conducted
by the Department of Finance rather than the Governor's Task
Force. Carleson then assigned one member of his team to review
State regulations and, in conjunction with this, to attend
meetings of the State Department of Social Welfare's Regulation
Task Force.
The county group began its task by developing a questionnaire
to be used in the interviews of county personnel. Contacts were
made with the counties that were to be interviewed and appoint-
ments were set up for them. The Task Force Chairman joined
Mayfield and Youngreen in the county interviews. It was decided
by the Task Force that the interviews offered an opportunity for
the Administration to develop some favorable public relations
with the counties and the interviews were conducted with this
factor in mind.
III-4
The Task Force Chairman asked his Los Angeles group to begin
researching the welfare program for recommendations for reform
and to couple this with their assignment for legal review.
The Los Angeles group centered its efforts primarily in Los
Angeles County, which comprises 40% of the welfare population
in the State of California. In addition, they contacted San
Diego County, Riverside County and Ventura County for addi-
tional information. Starting with the County Supervisors
Association Report "Time For Change" as a basis for their
analysis of the welfare problems, the Los Angeles group de-
veloped some tentative hypotheses. In reviewing these with
Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, they
began to branch out and isolate specific areas where reform
was needed.
At the end of September, the Task Force was reorganized and
redirected. Due to a time constraint of January 1 for the
final report and the pressing budget crisis in the welfare
area, a decision was made to reconstitute the Task Force and
to narrow the scope of its components. At the time this
decision was made, various alternatives were considered to
meet the Governor's charge. They were:
1) increase staffing of the Task Force
2) narrow the scope to specific areas
3) restructure the goals and objectives of the Task Force
4) restructure Task Force assignments.
The decision was made to use a combination of alternatives two
and four.
Because of the Federal conformity issues and a pending court
case, it was decided the Task Force should not upset any balance
of power by continuing contacts with HEW. In addition, the
county interview effort was proving to be a greater task than
had originally been anticipated. Therefore, Fielder was re-
assigned to the county group (now called Study Group One) and
began assisting in the interviews. Walter Rountree was given
the task of investigating the problem of absent parent support
payments. Hutchinson gave directions to the Los Angeles
group (now called Study Group Three) to continue with the
plan it was currently following. The State group, under
Carleson, became Study Group Two and was assigned the respon-
sibility of analyzing major problem areas as they emerged from
the county surveys. In order to accomplish this review and to
gather the necessary fiscal data, Carleson requested assistance
from the Department of Finance. Two analysts were assigned to
III-5
Study Group Two to perform cost analysis. They were: Kenneth J.
Wagstaff, Principal Project Budget Analyst, and Robert Gray, Con-
sultant, Program and Policy Office. The three groups continued
on this course throughout October.
During the second week of November, another redirection was made
in Study Group Two. With the concurrence of Ned Hutchinson,
Carleson instructed his group to resume its initial direction of
reviewing the State program and regulations and develop recom-
mendations for reform in the State program. In addition to this
assignment, Study Group Two continued to analyze major problem
areas assigned by Study Group One as a result of the county
survey.
On November 23 and 24, 1970, all participants met in Los Angeles
for a discussion of the problems and to develop preliminary recom-
mendations. At that time, information was received which indicated
that the Task Force should direct itself solely toward the making
of recommendations that were short-range in effect and that could
be made a part of the SDSW budget package. Recommendations were
developed during a two-day meeting and Mayfield was assigned to
finalize them and present them to Hutchinson. Because of the
budget crisis, long-range recommendations were not discussed.
The Task Force discussed the implementation of the recommendations
and it was decided that all material gathered by the Task Force
should be turned over to the Director of the Department of Social
Welfare. All relevant data was given to Mayfield for inclusion in
the report to Hutchinson.
For budget purposes, the Chairman selected four of the recommenda-
tions for presentation to the Cabinet. The four recommendations
to be accomplished by administrative action accounted for approxi-
mately $94 million in savings to the State of California. In
addition, other recommendations were made which required legisla-
tion. The presentation showed that the passing of these favorable
proposals would result in an additional $100 million in savings.
Some of these recommendations were approved by the Cabinet and
appropriate deductions were made in the SDSW budget.
The Task Force prepared a report including all recommendations
with the assistance of Mr. Tom McMurray, Special Assistant to the
Governor, which was submitted to the Governor and to the Cabinet
on January 1, 1971.
III-6
IV. Study Group One/Findings and Recommendations
A. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The county group effort was focused on interviews with county personnel.
A team of interviewers led by Ned Hutchinson conducted 768 interviews of
county welfare employees. A sample was selected in each county, including
the County Welfare Director, his management team, and a random sample of
other employees at all levels. The following counties were included:
Alameda, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Francisco,
Siskiyou and Tulare.
In summary, four major points were made by county personnel throughout
the interviews:
1. The purpose of the welfare program is to provide financial
assistance to recipients.
2. The major problem associated with the program is inequity
caused by administrative confusion and outdated concepts
such as the Maximum Participating Base in Aid to Families
with Dependent Children.
3. Emphasis should be placed on eliminating administrative
confusion and inequities by reorganizing the welfare
program and developing a flat grant system.
4. Adequate training of personnel is lacking at all levels of
county and state administration of the program.
Interview questions and a tabulation of the responses follow.
IV-2
B. RESPONSE SUMMARY OF COUNTY WELFARE INTERVIEWS
1. a) Number of interviews
768
b) Average age of interviewee
38.6 yrs.
c) Average number of years in the profession
7.8 yrs.
2. Education:
a) Average years of education of interviewees
15.8 yrs.
b) Major field of study
Social Sciences
46.1%
Liberal Arts
34.0%
Education
9.2%
Business
6.1%
Physical Sciences
4.6%
3. Working level of employees:
# Interviewed
% of Total
Middle Management (supervisory personnel)
212
27.6%
Social Workers
167
21.7%
Eligibility Workers
154
20.1%
Upper Management (directors, deputy
directors)
89
11.6%
Clerks and Aides
61
7.9%
Unidentified
85
11.1%
4. Job held prior to entering welfare profession:
Fiscal and Management
137
17.8%
Social Security and Rehabilitation
132
17.2%
Clerical
135
17.6%
Student
112
14.6%
Trades
82
10.7%
Education
59
7.7%
Domestic
52
6.8%
Other
59
7.7%
5. Reason for entering profession:
Interest in the work
340
44.3%
Needed a job
258
33.6%
Promotion
56
7.3%
Miscellaneous
114
14.8%
6. What functions do you currently perform?
May be determined from raw data
IV-3
7. What do you like most about your position?
# Interviewed
% of Total
Client contact (likes working with people)
407
53.0%
Challenging nature of the job
150
19.5%
Administrative aspects (training,
supervision)
52
6.8%
Miscellaneous
159
20.7%
8. What do you like least about your job?
Lack of flexibility and conflicting
regulations
158
20.6%
Excessive paper work
119
15.5%
Excessive work load
113
14.7%
Poor organization leadership
88
11.5%
Lack of sufficient funds
63
8.2%
Miscellaneous
227
29.6%
9. At what level or where do you visualize
yourself five years from now?
Advancement in agency
287
37.4%
Out of social work entirely
194
25.3%
Same position
175
22.8%
Uncertain
112
14.6%
10. What do you believe the purpose of the
current welfare program to be?
Provide financial assistance to needy
347
45.2%
Rehabilitation
129
16.8%
Perpetuation of the poverty cycle
43
5.6%
Prevention of social revolt
29
3.8%
Miscellaneous
220
28.6%
11. How do you or your group contribute to that
purpose?
Help people cope with their problems
207
27.0%
Process paper and other support activities
134
17.4%
Determine eligibility
105
13.7%
Administrate programs
38
4.9%
Miscellaneous
285
37.1%
12. In your opinion, what should be the objective
of the public assistance program?
Provide financial assistance
324
42.2%
Rehabilitate
214
27.9%
Break the welfare cycle
26
3.4%
Miscellaneous
204
26.6%
IV-4
13. What problems do you see that are created by
# Interviewed % of Total
differing grants between recipients?
Major inequities create hostility
329
42.8%
Public relations problems
69
9.0%
No problem
51
6.6%
Minimum grants are not enough to live on
30
3.9%
Miscellaneous
289
37.6%
14. What is the specific cause of these inequities?
Red tape and conflicting laws
188
24.5%
The State minimum law
110
14.3%
Individual circumstances of clients
68
8.9%
No reason
64
8.3%
Political issue
33
4.3%
Miscellaneous
305
39.7%
15. What do you think can be done to eliminate a
specific equity problem?
Rewrite, amend and standardize rules and
regulations
164
21.4%
Establish flat grant based on cost of living
150
19.5%
Eliminate State maximum
111
14.5%
Do not believe there is an equity problem
77
10.0%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
266
34.6%
16. Generally who or what brings these problems into
existence?
Legislature
150
19.5%
Laws, rules and regulations - (inadequate)
129
16.8%
Social Welfare administration
67
8.7%
State administration - Executive
43
5.6%
Lack of funds
31
4.0%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
348
45.3%
17. How does the function of your group help the
recipient?
Financial aid
238
31.0%
Counseling
176
22.9%
Rehabilitation
71
9.2%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
283
36.8%
IV-5
18. How does the function of your group help the
# Interviewed % of Total
taxpayer?
Expenditure control
170
22.1%
Rehabilitation to productive status
138
18.0%
No way - doesn't help or unknown
98
12.8%
Lessens anti-social behavior
57
7.4%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
305
39.7%
19. What factor (s) hinder the performance of your
function?
Working conditions. (Workload, paper work,
administration, poor training, poor
regulations.)
432
56.3%
Attitude of Public and administration
44
5.7%
Lack of funds for recipient
39
5.1%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
253
32.9%
20. What causes these factors to exist?
Working conditions
249
32.4%
Attitude of public and administration
76
9.9%
Politics
55
7.2%
Economic - conditions
45
5.8%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
343
44.7%
21. What special skills or talents do you believe are
essential for the social welfare profession?
Concern for people, understanding, empathy
345
44.9%
Ability or training to communicate
126
16.4%
Education - general
112
14.6%
Special knowledge
67
8.7%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
118
15.4%
22. How can these skills be developed and improved?
Training - (on the job)
362
47.1%
Selection and screening of personnel
142
18.5%
Education
89
11.6%
Experience
61
7.9%
Cannot be acquired - innate
43
5.6%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
71
9.2%
IV-6
23. How are management and administrative skills
# Interviewed % of Total
to be developed for the growing welfare profession?
Training, education, experience
247
32.2%
Exposure to the community and the clients
242
31.5%
Open line of communication between staff
and line
76
9.9%
Improved hiring practices
44
5.7%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
159
20.7%
24. If you were the county director, state director,
or federal director of the welfare programs, what
one change would you make in operations?
Reevaluate and reorganize
235
30.6%
Flat grants
201
26.2%
Increase staff to reduce case load
105
13.7%
Adjust or eliminate State maximum
63
8.2%
Standardize eligibility
62
8.1%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
102
13.3%
25. What program or policy would you institute?
Review, reorganize and streamline the
Department of Social Welfare
180
23.4%
Decrease case load or increase staff
166
21.6%
More training for personnel and rehabili-
tation of clients
92
12.0%
Eliminate or increase State maximum
63
8.2%
Revise and tighten up eligibility rules
63
8.2%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
204
26.6%
26. What is the most frustrating aspect of your work?
Rules and regulations not consistent and
constantly changing
200
26.0%
Inability to provide for clients needs
129
16.8%
Paper work and workload
115
15.0%
Red tape
102
13.3%
Internal problems in office and organization
86
11.2%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
136
17.7%
27. Who or what causes it?
Untrained and unqualified personnel at all
levels
201
26.2%
Management - All levels including administration
149
19.4%
Poor system (organization)
115
15.0%
Case load
66
8.6%
Laws - Rules and regulations
59
7.7%
Paper work
51
6.6%
Miscellaneous (Hostile: Answer does not
relate to question, no answers, etc.)
127
16.6%
28. How do you spend your lesiure time?
# Interviewed % of Total
Sports and outdoor activities
181
23.6%
Family activities
174
22.6%
Reading and education
117
15.2%
Movies - TV - social
71
9.2%
Hobbies
60
7.8%
Miscellaneous
110
14.3%
No answer
55
7.2%
29. What is the most important function you or your
group performs?
Counseling
237
30.8%
General office work
141
18.3%
Financial assistance - child support
135
17.6%
Eligibility determination
63
8.2%
Miscellaneous
192
25.0%
30. Least important (not necessarily frustrating) ?
Paper work
247
32.2%
Everything is important
92
12.0%
Clerical functions
63
8.2%
Miscellaneous
66
8.6%
No answer
300
39.0%
31. How do you measure the productivity of yourself
or your people?
Time and number of cases
270
35.1%
Feedback and client response
106
13.8%
Deadlines
67
8.7%
Can't
28
3.6%
Miscellaneous
297
38.7%
32. How do you plan for the effective utilization of
your or your people's time?
Priorities, schedules, assignments
311
40.5%
Time and/or number of cases
67
8.7%
Don't
63
8.2%
Critical (no way - workload too heavy -
too many variables and interruptions)
58
7.5%
Miscellaneous
269
35.0%
IV-8
33. What other division or operation of this agency
# Interviewed % of Total
affects the good performance of your operation?
Clerical or computer
182
23.7%
Social worker or eligibility worker
100
13.0%
Supervisor or management
89
11.6%
Budget
71
9.2%
Critical
25
3.2%
Miscellaneous
132
17.2%
No answer
169
22.0%
34. How do they do this?
Question apparently not understood (Too many
miscellaneous answers - many critical -
particularly of computer)
278
36.2%
Miscellaneous
116
15.1%
No answer
374
48.7%
35. What other governmental agencies affect the good
performance of your job?
State departments
(HRD, WIN, SW, MH, Public Health)
297
38.7%
Miscellaneous (Courts, police, county)
127
16.5%
Federal (HEW, Social Security, Vet.)
75
9.8%
Miscellaneous
170
22.1%
No answer or critical
99
12.9%
36. How do they affect you?
Scantily or not answered - many critical
256
33.3%
No effect
90
11.7%
Miscellaneous
422
54.9%
37. What specific problem should be serviced by welfare
that isn't?
Critical (none - no more - too much now)
232
30.2%
Need more money and/or services
185
24.1%
More aid to children
36
4.7%
More housing
35
4.6%
Miscellaneous
280
36.4%
38. What one recommendation would you make to the
Governor?
Reevaluate and reorganize
246
32.0%
Hostile and/or critical
62
8.1%
Separate State and Federal
37
4.8%
Miscellaneous
282
36.7%
No answer
141
18.3%
IV-9
39. If you were doing my job, what other questions
# Interviewed % of Total
would you ask?
Ask welfare workers' opinion of the
Administration
122
15.9%
Ask opinions of applicants and recipients
23
3.0%
Miscellaneous
197
25.6%
No answer
426
55.5%
40. Are we on the right track?
Yes
301
39.2%
No or skeptical as to whether it will be used
227
29.6%
Miscellaneous
54
7.0%
No answer
186
24.2%
IV-10
V. Study Group Two/Findings and Recommendations
A.
SUMMARY AND JUSTIFICATION OF MAJOR FEATURES
The purpose of welfare is to assist those who, through no
fault of their own, cannot meet their minimum needs for
urvival. The program also provides work incentives to
encourage recipients to meet their own needs and to eventu-
ally improve themselves to the point where public assistance
is no longer necessary.
California's present program needs substantial reform as the
system fails to meet the needs of the truly needy and fails
to adequately protect the taxpayer. The current system
penalizes the most needy recipient by meeting a smaller per-
centage of his total need than it meets for a recipient with
outside income. For example, a person with substantial in-
come who remains on welfare due to work incentives can have
over 100% of his total needs met through the welfare system
while still enjoying the comforts of the work incentive in-
come exemptions. On the other hand, an unemployable mother and
three young children receive substantially less than their
minimum needs regardless of their particular circumstances.
Due to this inequitable system, the taxpayer is faced with
burdens and demands while at the same time he is not provided
with any budgetary controls to assure that his taxes will be
directed to those who are truly needy and deserving. Because
of the open-end budget which is unique to the welfare program,
the normal incentives toward fiscal responsibility are lacking
throughout this program.
The proposed Welfare Reform Program has two main features: It
redirects both money and incentive toward meeting the full needs
of those who are truly needy. At the same time it restores fiscal
responsibility by placing welfare on the same footing as every
other social need.
The present Aid to Families With Dependent Children program
utilizes a maximum participating base concept which places a
maximum limitation on the amount of grant. In practice, this
has resulted in artificially limiting grants to all recipients
at a single level without considering the difference in need.
This has a significant impact on those who are the most needy,
while not affecting those who are less needy. It is proposed
that the maximum participating base concept be entirely
eliminated and that the welfare program be based upon full need
rather than the current inequitable and unfair artificial base.
At the same time, the taxpayer will be protected in that funds
will be equitably apportioned between recipients in such a way
that more funds will be redirected to those who are the most
needy. The total dollar amount expended will remain at present
V-2
levels, however, the needs of the truly needy will be met more
fully. The net effect of this proposal would be a curtailment
of the welfare spiral and the fiscal chaos associated with it.
The primary task that would remain would be to remove the non-
needy from the existing welfare program and to eliminate the
needs of those who presently are truly needy through their
qualifying for and receiving meaningful employment.
Concurrent with the redirection of the Welfare System, procedures
should be developed to reduce the basic underlying failure by
striving to restore fundamental morality as well as the moral
fiber of parents in times of stress. Also, the administration of
the program implementing and enforcing the support obligations
of the absent parent should be strengthened and stressed.
The balance of the Welfare Reform Proposal is directed at
developing an administratively efficient system and reducing
the financial and administrative burdens placed on local
government. Under the new program, the savings will result
in making more funds immediately available for meeting the
needs of the truly needy. As these needs are more fully met,
it is anticipated that the State's fiscal crisis will be
relieved and there will no longer be a need for endless
appropriations for welfare.
If this proposal is adopted, the financial burden, both on
State and local government, will be significantly reduced.
To accomplish this, we make the following recommendations:
V-3
B.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Most of these recommendations are based on various studies
de by this group. Reference to these studies is made in
Appendix A of this report. Some of the recommendations are
conclusions drawn from general observations. Policy impli-
cations are definitely intermeshed with these recommendations
and are central in the considerations of implementation.
#1
REPLACE MPB WITH EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT
That the Maximum Participating Base concept be replaced
by an equitable adjustment process whereby all recipients
would be paid their full needs subject to being propor-
tionally reduced on an equitable basis in order to meet
budgetary limitations.
#2
ELIMINATE OPEN-END BUDGET
That the open-end budget approach to public assistance be
replaced by a closed-end budget. New case load would be
handled within the equitable adjustment process. This
best could be accomplished by regulations or legislation
which would provide that needs would be equitably adjusted
by applying a percentage factor, to be determined quarterly
by the State Director of Social Welfare, subject to approval
by the State Director of Finance and subject to the pro-
visions of the public assistance appropriation contained
in the budget act.
#3
FLAT GRANTS
That if the recommendations pertaining to an equitable
adjustment process and a closed-end budget are implemented,
that the State adopt a flat grant concept whereby minimum
needs and those special needs that are recurring for the
majority of recipients would be averaged for grant purposes
from which income would be deducted. The balance of special
needs would be regulated by the State but would be adminis-
tered as County programs with some State participation.
#4
ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE
It is proposed that the Department of Social Welfare be
required to present a detailed annual report to the legis-
lature furnishing all statistical data necessary to the
welfare budget process. Consistent with the equitable
apportionment and closed-end budget principles, is the
concept that the budget process will establish the level
of welfare benefits. Individual grants, however, will
V-4
increase or decrease on an equitable basis depending on
administrative efficiency, case load level and the extent
to which available income offsets needs. For the legis-
lature to properly appropriate funds, it is essential that
they be fully advised of the extent to which needs are
being met. The annual report would include projected
information as well as the actual experience during the
current and previous fiscal years. Counties would be
required to make a quarterly report to the Director of
Social Welfare furnishing the necessary information
including that pertaining to all county relief programs.
The extent to which the federal programs have contributed
to meeting needs also would be reflected. The report
should show the full picture and not just the equitable
adjustment percentage chosen for the State program.
#5
ELIGIBILITY BASED ON MINIMUM NEEDS
That special needs not be considered in determining
eligibility.
#6
REDUCE WELFARE ELIGIBILITY TO THE LEVEL OF THE WORKING POOR
That eligibility for welfare be based on whether an
applicant's gross income, less a realistic standard
deduction for work-related expenses, exceeds the
applicant's standard of need.
#7
EARNED INCOME AND SECTION 11008
That Section 11008 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
be amended to provide that to the extent required by
federal law earned income will not be deducted from the
amount of aid. The present provision provides that
earned income must not be considered "to the maximum
extent permitted by federal law".
#8
JUDICIALLY TEST THE MAXIMUM EARNED INCOME PROVISION OF
SECTION 11008
That in the event Section 11008 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code cannot be amended legislatively,
that a regulation be adopted setting forth an eligibility
or grant limitation based on a specified "spendable
income". This would be the State's strongest test case
concerning the regulation authority in this area.
#9
STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR WORK-RELATED EXPENSES
That a standard deduction of $50 be established for
work-related expenses, plus an additional $50 for child
care when applicable. This standard deduction would apply
V-5
to the determination of eligibility. It also would apply
to the grant computation unless it is legally determined
that California can eliminate this entirely due to the
duplication of the $30 and 1/3 exemptions.
#10 AVERAGE INCOME
That income be averaged on a yearly basis for the purpose
of determining eligibility and the amount of grant. For
grant purposes, the recipient would be allowed to average
income only during the months when actual income was less
than the applicable standard of need. Also, an equalization
factor would be applied in order to make the averaging
process equitable to the recipient.
#11 FLAT GRANTS TO COUNTIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
That the State's fund of special needs be accomplished by
providing each county with a fixed flat grant for this
purpose. This recommendation would not apply if recom-
mendation #3, FLAT GRANTS, was adopted.
#12 NEW APPROACH TO STANDARD OF NEED
The standard of need includes items which are duplicated by
other public assistance programs. Food is a primary
example inasmuch as welfare recipients have the food stamp
and school lunch programs available and some receive "in
kind" food allotments. These available programs in fact
reduce the recipient's needs and should be reflected in
the needs standard.
Also, if an equitable adjustment process is adopted whereby
needs are proportionally reduced to meet budgetary limita-
tions, it would be advisable to present these other programs
when discussing the percentage factor to be applied. If
grants are based upon 75% of the standard of need, this
does not mean that the entire public assistance program
has failed to meet the recipient's full needs for survival.
Medi-Cal features and "in kind" programs play a significant
role.
#13 SEPARATE PROGRAM FOR THE EMPLOYABLE OR POTENTIALLY EMPLOYABLE
RECIPIENT
That those recipients who are employable or potentially
employable be placed in a separate "job oriented" program
under the full responsibility of the State Department of
Human Resources Development.
V-6
#14 REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WORK-INCENTIVE DEDUCTIONS
That the income exemptions be reduced from 33-1/3% to
25% based upon "net" rather than "gross" income. Changes
in federal regulations would be required.
#15 ENACT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION
That the underlying principles of public assistance adopted
by this Task Force be enacted into legislation in order to
constitute directions to those implementing the State public
assistance program. These principles should include the
following:
"In order to prevent the dilution of grants to
the truly needy, every attempt shall be made to
redirect funds in their direction and to limit
eligibility. By "truly needy" it is meant
those who, through no fault of their own, are
unable to meet their needs for survival."
#16 REVISE THE "FAIR HEARING" PROCEDURES
That the State's system of "fair hearing" procedures,
opinions and digest of opinions be reviewed in depth and
be substantially revised. The "fair hearing" referee
should be an attorney. Otherwise the program should be
placed under an organization comparable to the Office of
Administrative Procedure.
#17 UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY ASSETS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
That a recipient's assets, in liquid or personal property
form, be used to meet special needs before these needs
are met through the grant.
#18 INCREASE OAS RESPONSIBLE RELATIVES SCALE
That the existing statutory scale for support payments by
responsible relatives of OAS recipients be increased.
#19 LEGAL STAFFING
That the Department of Social Welfare be provided with a
full and complete legal staff with staffing equal to its
responsibilities.
V-7
# 20 ABSENT PARENT SUPPORT OBLIGATION
Strengthen and emphasize the administration of the
program implementing and enforcing the support
obligations of the absent parent. Develop procedures
for reimbursing district attorneys for their efforts
in collecting absent parent support.
#21 GATHERING STATISTICAL DATA
That a full and complete system be established for
collecting statistical data pertaining to public
assistance in order to accommodate adequate planning
and budgeting in this field.
# 22 AUDIT SYSTEM
That the present audit and enforcement processes be
revised, strengthened and updated.
#23 STRIKERS
That regulations be issued instructing counties that
applicants who are labor union members and who are on
strike are not eligible for welfare benefits.
# 24 EMPLOYMENT OF RECIPIENTS IN CHILD CARE CENTERS
That consideration be given to establishing a system of
child care in which welfare mothers are employed by the
State as caretakers for their needy children. Consideration
could be given to placing children without parents in these
individual centers.
# 25 OAS RECIPIENT EMPLOYMENT
That consideration be given to employing OAS recipients,
who voluntarily make themselves available for employment,
in county welfare departments as eligibility workers.
# 26 ELIMINATE NON-FEDERALLY FUNDED AFDC-U PROGRAMS
That the AFDC-U programs that exceed the federal program and
do not receive federal funds be eliminated.
# 27 STATE ADMINISTRATION OF WELFARE
That consideration be given to whether the existing income
maintenance system (eligibility determination and grant
payment) be administered by the State. This could be
financed under existing funding relationships or the
State could consider assuming more of the county share.
V-8
# 28 PROPERTY LIENS
That the current prohibition (W&I Code, Section 11007)
against defining public assistance as a lien on the
property of the adult recipient be repealed. In its
place, establish provisions which place liens on real
property of an OAS, ATD or AB recipient, provided that
recovery shall not be initiated during the recipient's
life or that of his surviving spouse.
V-9
C.
REGULATION CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS
The current Department of Social Welfare regulations should
be revised as outlined in the following recommendations.
Legislation may be required in some instances, but where
the changes can be made through administrative action,
immediate steps should be taken to implement the changes.
#1 FRAUD REFERRAL Reg. 20-007.2
Recommended Action
The entire section on fraud referrals to the District
Attorney should be rewritten for clarity and indicate
that County is required to refer cases to District
Attorney for fraud investigation whenever there are
reasonable grounds to suspect fraud exists.
Current Regulation:
20-007.21 - cases should be referred unless:
.213 - the recipient was not informed or was
misinformed of the necessity to report
the facts.
.214 - the recipient is so mentally deteriorated
or retarded he is not responsible for
his actions.
Facts and Discussion:
Regulations for referrals to the District Attorney in
effect indicate that the only cause for referral is
knowing misrepresentation on the part of the recipient.
The above two regulations are indicative of the leeway
left to the worker in determining whether or not they
should be referred to the District Attorney. In .213
testimony of recipient that he was not informed or was
misinformed would defeat fraud accusation prior to
referral to the District Attorney. .214 leaves inter-
pretation of recipient's mental condition to the
untrained eligibility worker.
#2
PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN Reg. 30-103
Recommended Action:
Add 30-103.3 to provide that those persons whose children
recieve protective services and whose income is above the
V-10
standard of minimum need be charged a reasonable fee
for the value of services rendered to the children.
Current Regulation:
30-103 - Persons served:
.1 - child protection services shall be extended
regardless of family income to children who
may be in need of protection because they:
Facts and Discussion:
Protective services are extended to all children in the
community. They protect and take care of children when
they have been neglected, exploited, abused, etc. While
there can be little doubt that this service is a necessary
one, a provision should be included for recovery of
expenses for services rendered when the family's income
is such that they can afford it. As it now reads, the
county is required to provide short-term shelter care
and other services when the child's welfare appears to
be in danger.
Current law provides criminal sanction for persons who
cause situations which are covered by this section;
however, there is no provision for recovery of funds
expended in providing these services.
#3
AID TO SEASONAL WORKERS Reg. 30-157.6
Recommended Action:
Amend Section to define what "imminent likelihood of
employment" means and specifically exclude those persons
who are regularly unemployed due to the nature of their
occupation.
Current Regulation:
30-157
- a recipient who refuses to apply for, or to
accept referral to employment, or a bonafide
offer of employment or training, shall be
considered to have "good cause" for the
refusal if any one of the following reasons
exist:
.6 - acceptance of the job or training conflicts
with the imminent likelihood of reemployment
of the regular occupation of the recipient.
Current Regulation:
40-115.223 - the agency is responsible for providing
all assistance needed, including gathering
and preparing all the proof.
Facts and Discussion:
40-115.222 states that "the burden of proof of eligibility
rests with the applicant insofar as he has the capacity
to assume this responsibility " Section .223 indicates
that the agency is responsible for providing all assistance
including the gathering and preparing of all of the proof.
These two regulations appear to be contradictory. If
it is the intent of .222 that the counties do not assist
the applicant in the proof of eligibility, the specific
regulation is poorly worded. The regulation allows an
individual eligibility worker's interpretation to be that
it is his responsibility to prove each applicant eligible
for welfare. The requirement that county welfare workers
assist the applicant in the eligibility process is
adequately stated in 40-107.1 (Assisting the Applicant).
#6
IMMEDIATE NEED Reg. 40-129.4 & .5
Recommended Action:
40-129.4 - Amend to indicate that reasonable certainty
must exist prior to issuance of immediate
need and that prior to issuance of immediate
need, application must be reviewed by the
eligibility worker supervisor.
.5 - Strike 25-730.90 as it no longer exists.
Amend to require county to recover any aid
paid to ineligible persons.
Current Regulation:
40-129.4 - Authorization of Aid on Immediate Need Basis
If it appears
that the applicant is in
immediate need, that he meets the eligibility
requirements, and there is no evidence to
the contrary, aid shall be granted pending
final determination of eligibility.
V-14
.5 - Action Following Completion of Determination
of Eligibility. Upon completing the deter-
mination of eligibility, the county shall
authorize or deny continuing aid and make
appropriate grant and claiming adjustments
back to the beginning date for which aid was
authorized. Such adjustments shall conform
to the facts of eligibility, need, and
standard of aid as determined by the county.
(See Sections 25-533 and 25-730.90 regarding
claiming adjustments.)
Facts and Discussion:
The entire 40-129 section appears subject to considerable
misinterpretation and should be rewritten to express the
State of California's policy for immediate need payment.
The above two sections authorize immediate need and provide
for action once eligibility has been determined.
Federal participation in immediate need payments is made
only if eligibility is confirmed. If eligibility is not
confirmed, the State and counties share per their regular
ratio in the cost of immediate needs payments already made.
Observation shows that the eligibility worker initially
makes the decision on facts regarding immediate need and
this is the only determination of eligibility. Higher
levels of review consist only of documents authorizing
a warrant for immediate needs. It is possible that a higher
level of review in immediate need cases will reduce the
number of errors in granting immediate aid.
When an error does occur and an immediate need payment
is made, the county should be directed to seek out and
recover those payments whenever possible. Apparently
there is a practice among some recipients of entering a
county and approaching various districts to receive a
$50 immediate need warrant in each district office.
After that the recipient moves on until the money runs
out at which time he can stop in another county and go
through the same process. Some capacity should be
developed in the regulations to apprehend these
individuals and reduce the amount of fraud in immediate
need.
V-15
#7
ELIGIBILITY OF CHILD UP TO 21 YEARS OF AGE FOR AFDC
Reg. 41-103.2
Recommended Action:
Amend regulation to delete apprenticeship training.
Current Regulation:
41-103.2 - Regular Attendance in a Training Program.
(Definition) Participation in a planned
coordinated program of work experience,
training (including apprenticeship training)
and related instruction designed to prepare
the child for a vocation.
Facts and Discussion:
Under 41-101.42 a child 18, 19, or 20 years of age must
be regularly attending school or training program in order
to be eligible for AFDC. 41-103.2 indicates that a training
program includes apprenticeship training. It would appear
that from this regulation that a child may be eligible
even though making considerable wages in an apprenticeship
program for a full-fledged journeyman trade.
There does not appear to be any sound rationale for
allowing a child of this age to be a recipient if his
minimum needs are being fully met by his apprenticeship
wages. It would indicate that the true recipient in such
a situation is the "caretaker" rather than the child. The
purpose of the AFDC program is to provide minimum needs
for children who have been deprived of one parent or the
other. The loophole provided in apprenticeship training
allows aid to go to those persons who are not truly needy.
#8
AFDC ELIGIBILITY AFTER RECIPIENT CEASES TO BE STUDENT
Reg. 41-103.4 & .5
Recommended Action:
41-103.4 - Amend to include provision for recovering by
county of aid payments to child during vacation
period when child does not attend school or
training program at the beginning of the next
school year.
.52 - Delete this section of the regulation.
V-16
Current Regulation:
41-103.4 - Eligibility During Vacation Period After
Graduation. A child who has graduated from
high school and plans to attend school or a
training program at the beginning of the
school year is eligible during the vacation
period.
.5 - There is no interruption in eligibility due
to age requirement if the child leaves
employment or drops out of school or training,
provided:
.52 - the child has a bonafide educational plan
to be implemented within the next three
months or at the beginning of the next
school term, whichever is later, as deter-
mined by the Services System (see sections
30-152 and 30-155.6)
Facts and Discussion:
Eligibility during vacation period after graduation appears
to be presumptive, in that as long as a child plans to
attend school or a training program at the beginning of
the school year he will be eligible during the vacation.
The regulation is ambiguous in that it does not state how
long the vacation period may be; that is, will the child
be eligible for nine months if he graduates in January when
the beginning of the school year is in September? In
addition, the regulation has no provision that the
educational plan must be approved or reasonable.
A child could be eligible for a nine-month period based on
his assertion that he plans to attend school or a training
program in September. In September, the child could, under
.52, register for school and then immediately drop out to
accept a referral to WIN within 30 days under 41-103.51.
After referral to WIN, the recipient could then refuse to
accept the WIN program. At such time he is not eliminated
from the WIN program, but is offered a 60-day counseling
period to reconsider his refusal under 30-158.1. As a result,
therefore, a person could conceivably remain on aid for one
year after his period of eligibility is terminated.
V-17
#9
AID PAYMENT MADE TO RECIPIENTS LIVING IN OTHER STATES
Reg. 41-207
Recommended Action:
41-207.22 - Amend to reduce period of time for pre-
sumption of intent to return and also to
to require substantial evidence of intent
to retain California residency.
.23 - Amend to require that a person's absence
for a temporary purpose must be reasonable,
that is, exclude vacation, nomadism, etc.
Current Regulation:
41-207.22 - Absence from the State for More Than a Year.
If the recipient is absent from the state
for over a year, and is prevented from
returning because of illness or other good
cause, such as inability to travel alone
or physical inability to care for himself,
his statement of intent to retain California
residency must be supported by other
evidence.
.23 - Temporary Absence From State. The place of
residence is not changed by a person's
absence from the state for a temporary
purpose.
Facts and Discussion:
This regulation is the basis for scandal such as the
one where the woman from Alameda vacationed in Hawaii
while on aid. There are no records kept as to the number
of cases like this occurring but the regulations interpreted
"liberally" permit considerable leeway.
An argument could be made for a one-year old recipient
child in an AFDC program who is taken out of state by
his needy caretaker mother and still collects welfare
from California upon proof of a doctor's statement that
he is too young to travel by himself.
Fair hearing decisions seem to indicate that these
regulations have been used by a number of OAS recipients
when a recipient leaves the state for health reasons.
There are no records kept as to the number of checks
that are sent out of state each month. Therefore, it is
difficult to determine the extent of this abuse, but one
case in the newspapers is difficult to counteract with
statistics.
V-18
#10 PROPERTY Reg. 41-301
Recommended Action:
(1) Amend Section 41-301 (Objectives - Property) to
indicate the specific future need for which a
recipient may hold the property in reserve (i.e.,
burial plot).
(2) Amend to indicate that the general test does not
exclude property held for a future need from the
property limitations in each individual aid category.
Current Regulation:
41-301 - Objectives - Property. In determining
eligibility with respect to property, it
is necessary to acertain the purposes for
which property is held. A person is eligible
if the property he owns is held for any one
of the following purposes (within certain
limits) :
.3 - to provide him with a reserve to meet a future
need
Regulations in this chapter are
designed to express a general test: does the
property meet a current need or is it held
for some future need? This test should be the
basis of decision in situations not specifically
or exactly covered by the regulations.
Facts and Discussion:
This section of regulations is loosely constructed and
subject to the interpretation that property which is
held as a reserve to meet a future need is excluded from
the overall property limitations, i.e., $600 in personal
property in AFDC. This appears to be left over from a
period of time when AFDC recipients could save money in
trust for future educational needs of children; the
section recently has been repealed.
The regulations should be clarified to expressly state
that in no case may the recipient exceed the property
limitations for real and personal property set forth in
the following sections of the regulations (followed by
the appropriate numerical designations).
V-19
#11 VALUE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE EXCLUDED IN DETERMINING
ELIGIBILITY Reg. 41-313.21
Recommended Action:
Amend the regulation to establish a maximum dollar
amount for value of personal effects.
Current Regulation:
41-313.2 - Personal property to be excluded. The
following are excluded when evaluating
total personal property:
.215 - the value of personal effects (clothing
household furnishings and equipment,
personal jewelry, musical instruments and
other educational items).
Facts and Discussion:
Non-exempt personal property is now limited to a value of
$600 to $1500, depending upon the aid category. Exempted
personal property includes the items in .215 above. The
wording of the regulation makes it possible for a recipient
to hold considerable assets in jewelry, musical instruments,
recreational items and furniture, while still being eligible
for aid. Theoretically there would be no limit to the
excluded items, up to and including, fur coats, boats,
camper-trailers, etc.
It is anticipated that certain savings would accrue from
terminating the eligibility of a number of current recipients
and from restricting future eligibility among those with
substantial personal property. Estimates of savings cannot
be made without a county survey.
#12 LIFE ESTATE IN REAL PROPERTY Reg. 41-313.122
Recommended Action:
41-313.122 should be deleted.
Current Regulation:
41-313.12 - The following items are excluded in evaluating
real property which is subject to the monetary
and/or assessed value limits as set forth in
Section 41-307
V-20
.122 - Real property in which the applicant or
recipient holds life estate.
Facts and Discussion:
A life estate has value as an interest in real property
and should not be exempt. It appears from investigation
that Section 41-313.122, with 41-307.2 and 41-317, is
used to reduce OAS recipients' holdings of real property
to amounts below the limit expressed in 41-307. By
conveying the fee and retaining a life estate in the
property the applicant becomes eligible under these
regulations.
In addition, this section is subject to 41-317, which
requires that the applicant utilize property of which he is
a life tenant in order to make a reasonable contribution
toward his current needs. After applicant is on aid he has
three months in which to initiate a utilization plan. How-
ever, this period can be extended in extenuating circumstances.
Further, an applicant has up to 18 months under 41-317.23
to put the utilization plan into operation. It is conceivable,
therefore, that an applicant can convey the fee to
considerable amounts of land, maintaining it himself as a
life estate, and still be able to collect aid for at
least 18 months without using that real property to
contribute to his maintenance.
#13 AID PAID DURING PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY DUE TO TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY TO QUALIFY FOR AID Reg. 41-321.4
Recommended Action:
Recommend that .4 be amended to indicate that aid paid to
a recipient during the period of ineligibility extends the
period of ineligibility the length of the period that aid
was obtained while recipient was ineligible.
Current Regulation:
41.321.4 - Duration of Ineligibility Due to Transfer of
Property. After a transfer of property which
resulted in ineligibility, a period of in-
eligibility begins the first day of the month
following that in which the transfer occurred.
This period is not extended because of income
received during the period.
Aid paid to a recipient during the period of
ineligibility has no effect on the period of
ineligibility.
V-21
.41 - Duration of Ineligibility Due to Transfer
of Real Property. (Shows period is that
which reasonable return for grantor's equity
would have supported the grantor and those
dependent upon him - same applies to transfer
of personal property under 41-321.42.)
Facts and Discussion:
A combination of these two regulations applicable to all
aids, makes it possible for a recipient to transfer property
without notifying the County Welfare Department. If
transfer is not discovered until after period of ineligibility
occurs, no action is taken against recipient.
As an example - a recipient might transfer property which
would result in ineligibility on the 20th of November 1970.
Assume a recipient received $1000 for this property and
recipient has four children. The period of ineligibility
begins on the first of December and extends for that
period which the $1000 would support the recipient.
41-321.43 establishes monthly maintenance allowance to be
used in determining how long the return from property will
support the recipient's family. Under this a family of
four requires $600 a month, therefore, the recipient would
only be ineligible until the middle of January, due to
the $1000. If the County did not discover the transfer
of property until after the middle of January, the period
of ineligibility would have run out and due to .4 the aid
paid to the recipient during that period would have no
effect.
#14 AFDC-U Reg. 43-340
Recommended Action:
Recommend that 42-340.1 be amended to indicate that
unemployment is established only when the applicant is
working less than 3/4 of the number of hours established
by the chart as full time work in the industry. This
would change the definition of unemployment from the
existing 35 hours per week to 30 hours per week.
Current Regulation:
42-340.1 - Deprivation due to unemployment. Deprivation
of a child due to unemployment of a parent
exists when either parent is not working or is
working less than 152 hours per month in an
industry where full time work is 173 or more
hours per month, or if full time work is under
173 hours, he is working less than 7/8 of the
V-22
number of hours established by the Depart-
ment of Employment as full time work in
the industry and .11 is available for and
seeking full time employment
Facts and Discussion:
Currently, unemployment is set at 7/8 of the number of
hours established by HRD as full time work in the industry.
The requirement would appear to be minimal in that a
person would be considered unemployed if he worked 35
hours a week in a job that normally worked 40 hours per
week. Reduction of the number of hours a recipient is
allowed to work and still be considered unemployed, would
be a reasonable change in that by far the majority of the
people in the State of California would not consider a
person working 35 hours a week to be unemployed.
Estimates from the State Department of Social Welfare
indicate that savings resulting from this five hour per
week reduction in the definition of unemployment would
be approximately 2 million dollars.
#15 COLLEGE STUDENTS ON AID Reg. 42-340.12 (30-152)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that these two sections, 42-340 and
30-152 be amended to indicate the upper limits of training
projects the recipients can be engaged in and still
receive welfare.
Current Regulation:
42-340.1 - Deprivation due to unemployment. Deprivation
of a child due to unemployment of a parent
exists when either parent is not working or is
working less than 152 hours per month in an
industry where full time work is 173 or more
hours per month, or if full time work is under
173, is working less than 7/8 of the number of
hours established by the Department of Employ-
ment as full time work in the industry and .12
is accepted for or participating as a beneficiary
in a training project essential to future self
support.
V-23
For purposes of this section, a "beneficiary"
is one who is receiving services for which
the project or program was established, as
distinguished from the person who is employed
as staff in the project or program. A
person being trained for employment by on-
the-job training or receiving education
connected with the training is considered a
beneficiary of the project.
Training projects "essential to future self
support" are:
122 -
training and educational projects and
programs approved by the County Welfare
Department under the provisions of Chapter
30-150, "employment in rehibilitated
services, "
30-152 - Responsibilities of the social services for
employment and rehabilitation services.
.1 - Upon referral of an individual to the social
services system, an assessment should be made
of the potential for immediate employment
or rehabilitation leading to employment and
where indicated, a service plan shall be made
for meeting the objective. The assessment
shall include:
.21 - reasonable assurance that training or employ-
ment leads to stability of employment in a
job that takes full advantage of the individual's
potential.
Facts and Discussion:
The above recommendation is brought about due to the
number of students obtaining college degrees while being
supported by the welfare program, either AFDC-FG, AFDC-U,
AB, APSB, ATD. Argument is made by social workers that
42-340 indicates that once a person is unemployed he can
qualify for welfare as long as he is engaged in a training
program which is approved under the provisions of 30-150.
The social welfare workers in the Department of Social
Welfare indicate that 30-152.21 above gives full authority
to welfare departments to allow persons to remain on
welfare until they complete a training program which
takes full advantage of the recipient's potential.
Cases have been shown where recipients have completed
medical school and law school while collecting welfare
benefits.
V-24
A case in point decided by State Department of Social
Welfare Fair Hearing referee is 66-32a-1. The claimant
was in college with the intention to graduate in four
years and refused regular employment while he was
attending school indicating that regular employment
would jeopardize his plan to reduce his dependence on
AFDC. The county had discontinued aid but was instructed
to reinstate him retroactively by the State Fair Hearing
Officer.
It can be reasonably argued that some training programs
reduce a recipient's dependency on welfare, however,
once a recipient passes a point in his training where he
could cease training and could begin to earn a living,
he should be no longer dependent upon the public
assistance program to provide him with the benefits it
does not provide for other recipients.
#16 PROOF OF DEPRIVATION OF PARENT FOR AFDC Reg. 42-350
Recommended Action:
Entire section of deprivation of parental support or care
is ambiguous and open to consideration. Section should be
rewitten to distinctively define deprivation and continuous
absence.
Current Regulation:
42-350.1 - Definition of "continued absence". "Continued
absence" exists when the natural parent is
physically absent from the home and the nature
of the absence constitutes disassociation,
that is, a substantial severence of marital
and family ties that deprives the child of at
at least one of its natural parents.
A substantial severence of marital and family ties
means that the absence is accompanied by a
definite interruption or marked reduction in
marital and family responsibilities in relation
and compared to previously existing conditions.
Facts and Discussion:
The regulation has been so loosely interpreted that fair
hearings have been decided in favor of recipients who
have moved into an apartment adjoining the residence of
the former husband and father of the children. The hearing
referee found that nothing was in evidence that would
establish that they were living together in a conjugal
V-25
relationship or were maintaining a home together and,
therefore, that deprivation existed (State Department of
Social Welfare Fair Hearing #68-97a-1). Similarly, it was
held by another fair hearing referee that a former husband's
frequent and prolonged visits and his assistance in household
and domestic chores did not dispute a recipient's claim
that there was deprivation because the hearing officer
found no evidence that the recipient and her former husband
were living together in the same house or that they had
engaged in sexual relations. (63-14-4 AFDC)
The above examples illustrate the looseness of construction
in this regulation on continued absence. 42-350.5 states
that deprivation will not be affected when the absent
parent lives apart but visits the home to see the child,
stating that the absent parent should be encouraged to
do this. This, however, has been used by recipient groups
to provide the basis for considerable visitation to the
point where it appears that deprivation no longer exists.
It should be noted that counties consider the unreported
presence of a man in the household where the AFDC family
is made up of a woman and children, as a major cause of
fraud. The looseness of this regulation provides the
vehicle to promote that type of fraud.
#17 RESPONSIBLE RELATIVE - OAS INCOME Reg. 42-509
Recommended Action:
Recommend that income included in determining liability
for married son and married daughter be equalized. To
do this it would be necessary to state that the liability
of either a married son or a married daughter would be
limited to the community property share of his or her
earnings plus the community property share of his or her
spouse's earnings.
Current Regulation:
42-509.1, .11, .12 - The maximum liability of an adult
child shall be determined under the
relatives' contribution scale which
gives consideration to the child's
net income (from specific sources)
and the number of his dependents
V-26