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
118565110
label
[Welfare] - Governoräó»s Task Force on Public Assistance (Control #1), December 1970 (2 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565110
contentType
document
title
[Welfare] - Governoräó»s Task Force on Public Assistance (Control #1), December 1970 (2 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
118565110
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
6b5e4c80ba7d1911
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 #1), December 1970
(2 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/
#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
Facts and Discussion:
The regulations as set out above are discriminatory in
that they require more income to be included when determining
liability of the married son as compared to the liability
of the married daughter. 42-509.11c says that the couple's
total net community income, excluding the income of the
spouse, will be included in determining the married son's
liability, whereas the married daughter's liability is
dedicated solely on her own separate income.
#18 INCOME EXEMPTED AS CASUAL OR INCONSEQUENTIAL Reg. 44-101.4
Recommended Action:
Recommend entire "interpretation" section be deleted
from this regulation.
Current Regulation:
(The following are illustrations given for casual,
hence exempt, income.)
44-101.42b - The income from occasional sale of products
or resulting from work engaged in wholly or
primarily for its therapeutic value, such
as knitting, art work, cabinet work, etc.
.42e - The return from home produce from garden,
orchard, farm livestock, poultry, firewood,
etc., which is sold or exchanged.
Facts and Discussion:
Section 44-101.4 defines casual income as being unpre-
dictable as to amount and time; of short duration; and
of negligible importance in meeting continuing needs
under recipient aid standard. Income from an inconsequential
resource is net return from an interest in real or personal
property which makes no appreciable contribution to the
continuing needs of the recipient. The section contains
some interpretation of what constitutes casual income
(e.g. the above examples). This interpretation could be
"liberally interpreted" by the county worker to exclude
the sale of hippie art work or small contract jobs from
the income amount used in determining a grant. The
example appears to allow considerable leeway for rural
recipients to supplement through roadside stands.
V-27
#19 SPECIAL NEED IN ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION Reg. 44-201
Recommended Action:
Amend section to clarify as current State policy that
eligibility shall be determined by minimum needs. The
last sentence should read "The minimum standard of need
described in this chapter shall be used as one of the
determining factors for eligibility for aid. A combination
of minimum need plus special needs applicable to the
recipient shall be used in determining the amount of aid
to be granted."
Current Regulation:
44-201.1 - Total Need. The total need of an applicant or
recipient is the money amount necessary to
provide those itmes of support, set forth in
the subsequent sections of this chapter, as
minimum needs and special needs. Standards of
need described in this chapter are used as one
of the determining factors for eligibility for
aid and the amount of aid to be granted
(emphasis added).
Facts and Discussion:
It is frequent practice in the public assistance program
to determine eligibility based on a combination of minimum
need plus special need. This practice is extended to
include non-recurring or one-time special needs.
A non-legal review was made of State regulations, State
law, and federal regulations regarding the determination
of eligibility. At the present time there are no
specific statements which restrict eligibility to minimum
need only. 44-201.1 is interpreted by State authorities
to indicate that eligibility should be determined on the
basis of both minimum need and special need. The argument
is that the phrase "standards of need prescribed in this
chapter are used as one of the determining factors of
eligibility for aid " mandates this policy. In other
words, since the word "standards" is plural, it is
interpreted to mean both the minimum and special need
standards. The above recommendation would not change the
fact that both standards of need are needed to determine
eligibility and the amount of aid to be granted; the
minimum is used to determine eligibility and the
combined minimum plus special need is used to determine
the amount of aid to be granted.
V-28
This recommendation has significant cost implications
in that it would limit eligibility and would prevent
those people who have a single "needy" month from
becoming permanently dependent on aid. For example,
a mother with two children applying for AFDC may have,
for purposes of argument, a minimum need of $300 per
month. Her income is $500 per month. It is reasonable
to assume that she is ineligible for aid because her
minimum needs are exceeded by $200 monthly income.
Suppose, however, that in the month she applies her
refrigerator has broken down. This item is a special
need in AFDC under 44-272.23. The allowance for a
refrigerator is $217 under 44-245. During this month,
then, a combination of minimum need of $300 and special
need of $217 makes the applicant's total need $517, or
$17 more than her income. This deficit of $17 makes
her eligible for aid plus a Medi-Cal card.
In the next month the applicant no longer has a need
for a refrigerator, but is still making $500 a month.
In recomputing eligibility, the applicant is now
eligible for the $30 and 1/3 exemption ($197), decreasing
her applicable income to $303. Subtract from that, say,
$60 working expenses and the applicable net income
becomes $243, making her eligible for a grant of $57
($300 need - $243 net income = $57 grant).
#20 FAIR HEARING DECISIONS
Recommended Action:
Recommend regulation be adopted to prohibit counties
from using State Department of Social Welfare Fair
Hearing Decision Digest as case law on welfare cases.
Facts and Discussion:
It is apparent that county welfare departments use the
annual State Department of Social Welfare digest of Fair
Hearing Decisions as case law in determining fine points
of eligibility, grant determination, etc. The W & I
Code, Section 10964, requires that the State publish
annually a digest of fair hearing decisions and distribute
it to each county and make it available to the public.
Nowhere in the Code is it stated that this digest of fair
hearing decisions shall be used as administrative law
in determining recipient claims. Decisions made at fair
V-29
hearings are reported in this digest in four or five
sentence paragraphs which include the facts, the issue,
and the conclusion developed by the fair hearing referee.
Counties appear to have interpreted the distribution of
the digest to mean that decisions made at fair hearings
and reported in the digest should be used in border-
line cases. For practical purposes, county departments
tend to generalize cases into categories and decide all
cases in line with the closest fair hearing decision.
V-30
D. RECOMMENDATIONS ON ABSENT PARENT CHILD SUPPORT
In response to the Governor's request, a survey of California's
public assistance problems was undertaken. The Welfare Task
Force suggested that a report be made on problems of obtaining
support from absent parents, including recommendations to save
tax dollars based on changes and cuts in programs. Consideration
was given to existing programs in social welfare services, as
well as the interrelationship between various public assistance
programs.
In the limited time available, field studies were not conducted
and reliance was placed upon reports of others. Various recent
reports were examined including:
State Social Welfare Board - Preliminary Report of the
Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support - October 1970;
County Supervisors Association of California and County
Welfare Directors Association of California - Final
Report - a County Government Study and Platform for
Public Welfare - April 1, 1970;
Letter dated November 6, 1970, from Lucian B. Vandergrift
to Ned Hutchinson, with enclosures thereto consisting of
letters and memoranda written by Mr. Vandergrift during
the years 1966, 1968, 1969 and 1970 describing and commenting
upon welfare reform;
Series of articles published by the Sacramento Union during
July 1970 on the subject "Sacramento County's Welfare Mess";
Letter dated June 5, 1970, from Ellis P. Murphy, Director,
Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services,
to Lucian B. Vandergrift with an enclosed list of state
regulations and policies which result in administrative
complexities and unnecessary expenditure of public funds;
Letter dated August 17, 1970, from Richard P. Simpson,
Regional Director of Local Affairs, California Taxpayers
Association, to Ned Hutchinson on the subject "Welfare
Administration Reform Study Method";
Letter dated July 22, 1970, from Richard P. Simpson,
Regional Director of Local Affairs, California Taxpayers
Association, to James J. Crumpacker, Cabinet Secretary,
Office of Governor Reagan, on the subject "Welfare Re-
form" with an attached bibliography of reports on sixteen
major studies of the welfare system accomplished in the
past ten years;
V-31
Updated (1970) 55-page summary of forty-seven items of
potential state and county welfare costs savings de-
fined by two task forces.
The Federal Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, and related
federal laws were inspected; also certain provisions of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code and the support of
children provisions of the California Family Law Act (Civil
Code Sections 4700, et seq.).
In addition, a number of public officials who are knowledgeable
in the area covered by the investigation were conferred with in
person or by telephone. Some of these persons are: Lucian B.
Vandergrift, Secretary, Human Resources Agency; Robert E.
Mitchell, Chairman, State Social Welfare Board; Mrs. Gloria F.
De Hart, Deputy Attorney General; Earl Osadchey, Head Deputy,
Child Support Division, Office of the Los Angeles County District
Attorney; Richard N. Parslow, Jr., Deputy District Attorney,
Family Support Division, Orange County; Michael Barber, Deputy
District Attorney, Domestic Relations Division, Sacramento County.
The parties most involved in collecting child support from absent
fathers are the mother, her attorney, County Welfare Department,
District Attorney, probation departments, the judiciary, public
agencies responsible for service of process, boards of super-
visors, State Department of Social Welfare, and U. S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare.
#1 PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Concurrance is made with Recommendation Number 1 of the Social
Welfare Board preliminary report which states that there
should be a clear restatement of public policy that parents
have primary responsibility for the care and support of their
children and that a family breakdown, separation, divorce or
private dispute does not absolve them of this moral and legal
obligation - an obligation just as binding on the unmarried
parent as on the legitimate spouse.
The first suggestion, therefore, is that the Governor, at all
appropriate occasions restate this principle of fundamental
morality and urge the educators, the clergy, members of the
bench and bar, as well as welfare workers and all of the con-
cerned taxpayers, to join you in a drive to restore the moral
fiber of parents in times of stress.
V-32
#2
PROMPT REFERRAL TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Under the existing state of affairs, a distressed mother
whose husband has failed to meet this obligation sooner
or later finds her way to the County Welfare Department.
At that point, speed of action is needed. Long periods
of time are frequently consumed while the County Welfare
Department conducts its investigations and attempts to
restore family harmony and, incidentally, to persuade the
husband to provide support for his children.
The second suggestion is that County Welfare Departments
immediately refer such cases to the District Attorney for
investigation. Members of the District Attorney's staff,
including both lawyers and investigators, are by training
and by legal mandate the proper office to investigate
child neglect cases.
#3
WELFARE WORKER RESPONSIBILITY
District Attorneys' offices point out that an abandoned
mother who has a divorce decree may not have sought public
welfare, but is unable to secure or protect the rights of
herself and her children privately. Often she has found
that her private lawyer is unwilling to enforce the child
support provisions of the decree. Thus, she may have a
legal right to child support and a husband who could pay
it if forced to do SO. However, without a lawyer to assist
in enforcing her judgment, she is practically helpless.
Civil Code Section 4702 (b) permits the Court to direct the
District Attorney to appear on behalf of such minor children
in any action to enforce such order. It is suggested that
the provisions of Civil Code Section 4702 (b) be brought to
the attention of welfare workers in all proper cases. One
District Attorney submits that it ought to be standard
practice to use public enforcement where the income of both
parties is below $15,000 per year; and, further, that suffi-
cient public funds should be provided to allow for such en-
forcement. "It would be a good investment not only of county
funds, but state and federal funds to prevent welfare cases
from starting."
#4
PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP DECLARATION AND RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITY
In cases when a man denies that he is the father of the
neglected children, the District Attorney's office can
promptly have that doubt removed by causing an Action for
Declaration of Parental Relation to be brought under
Section 231 of the Civil Code. The District Attorney can
V-33
enforce the provisions of Section 11353 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code to compel the delinquent father to pre-
pare a statement of his current monthly income, total in-
come over past twelve months, number of dependents for
whom he is providing support, the amount he is contributing
toward the support of all children, current monthly living
expenses and such other information as is pertinent to de-
termining his ability to support his children. Under the
authority of this section, the investigator should elicit
information regarding bank accounts, savings and loan
accounts, stocks and bonds, real estate equities, state and
federal pensions, life insurance and annuities. The inves-
tigator should obtain information concerning all tangible
personal property, such as motor vehicles, boats, aircraft,
jewelry, house trailers, guns and rifles, binoculars, golf
clubs and all items capable of being turned into liquid
assets. A violation of Section 11353 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code is a misdemeanor. This section, therefore,
is a valuable tool in the hands of a skillful investigator
operating out of the District Attorney's office. It is
questionable whether the average welfare worker could make
the maximum use of it. Nevertheless, the investigation made
by the District Attorney should be augmented by information
obtained by the County Welfare Department to provide the basis
for the enforcement of Relatives Responsibility Provisions of
Section 11350 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Recovery
of moneys under the last mentioned section could reimburse the
county for assistance paid to families with dependent children.
#5
CRIMINAL SANCTION ENFORCEMENT
The District Attorney, with the cooperation of the Welfare
Department, can enforce criminal sanctions against fathers
who abandon or neglect their children under the provisions
of Section 270 of the Penal Code. It is stressed again that
control of the investigation should be in the hands of the
District Attorney.
Vigorous methods are needed. Too often creditors of an
absent husband assert vigorous pressures to collect and do
collect 100 percent of their claims, at the expense of the
hungry children. The District Attorneys have the legal
resources to meet the competition of commercial creditors.
They should be urged to do so. In fact, the child support
payments should stand in a preferred creditor classifica-
tion and the Courts ought to recognize such priority; but,
V-34
to disappear and avoid apprehension for failure to pay
child support. Pursuant to the revised Uniform Recip-
rocal Enforcement of Support Act which was recently
signed by the Governor, the Attorney General's office
has additional responsibilities in the enforcement of
civil child support orders for children in this State
when the fathers are in another state. The incoming
Attorney General has announced that he intends to create
a section in the Attorney General's office that will
assist District Attorneys in all counties of this State
do a better job in this area. This new section would
also be responsible for assisting District Attorneys in
setting up better procedures for enforcement of civil
support orders under the new Family Law Act where the
Court directs such enforcement.
The next recommendation is that the Governor request the
incoming Attorney General to proceed with his plans and,
in addition, to harmonize record keeping facilities of
State Department of Social Welfare and other state agencies
with county facilities.
#8
ABSENT PARENT ESTATE INHERITANCE
The matter of recovery of child support funds owed by
defaulting fathers by levying upon bank accounts and
other tangible personal property is mentioned above.
Occasionally, absent parents inherit estates of deceased
persons. Each county, through its Public Administrator,
could establish a method of periodically checking the names
of distributees in probate Court Orders of Final Distribu-
tion of decedents' estates against the names of fathers who
are delinquent in their child support payments. The next
suggestion, therefore, is that the District Attorneys'
association and the Public Administrators be urged to
undertake a study of the foregoing suggestion and to draft
such legislation as may be proper to accomplish that pur-
pose. There are, on the staff of the Office of the Attorney
General, deputies who are experienced in probate matters
(Charitable Trust Section). The Attorney General should be
asked to lend the services of one or more of these deputies
to assist in the proposed study. Maximum use should be made
of Reciprocity Statutes and Treaties which permit citizens
of California to inherit estates of foreign decedents.
(See Probate Code Sections 259, et seq. Clark V. Allen, 331
U.S. 503 (1947) .)
V-36
#9
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MANUAL AND GUIDE TO THE ABSENT PARENT
PROBLEM
Some years ago, there was prepared by the Office of the
Attorney General a publication entitled "Enforcement
Officers Manual and Guide to the Absent Parent Problem
In California". New state and federal laws and regula-
tions and drastic changes in the social and economic
climate of California would seem to dictate that this
manual be revised and brought up to date. The next sug-
gestion is that the Attorney General be requested to
accomplish such revision and republication of "Enforce-
ment Officers Manual and Guide to the Absent Parent
Problem in California".
#10 CONCILIATION COURTS
Under the authority of Sections 1730-1732, Code of Civil
Procedure, the Superior Courts in the following counties
have established conciliation Courts: Alameda, Contra
Costa, Imperial, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino,
San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sonoma and Yolo. Effec-
tive January 1, 1970, the legislature amended the concili-
ation Court statute to harmonize with the California new
divorce statutes. It has been suggested that a further
reform be made to expand the functions of the Court to
allow something like a small claims action on behalf of
married women at the inception of their divorce. Simpli-
fication of forms and removal of time lags in getting
support orders would hopefully allow women to pursue their
child support on their own without the need for public
help.
#11 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
Time does not permit the full development of all sugges-
tions for meeting the problem of child support by absent
parents. But, the following list of additional reforms
are submitted for study, analysis and appropriate action.
a. Revision of statutes and judicial practices to
simplify methods of executing against out-of-
state assets.
V-37
b. Simplification of the method for transferring
civil files for enforcement within the State.
District Attorneys find that Uniform Reciprocal
Enforcement of Support Act is ineffective for
this purpose and creates more confusion than it
is worth.
C. "Beefing up" the extradition procedure. Out-
of-state Courts and officials are lax and dis-
inclined to act vigorously. Were there federal
funds available for extradition, this problem
would soon cure itself.
d. More money for lawyers, investigators, and com-
puterized case review, for District Attorneys'
offices.
e. Power to obtain wage assignments and attachments
from federal employees incomes.
f. Reduction of the time lost between application
for public assistance and referral to a child
support unit of the District Attorney.
g. Greater education of the judiciary in the impor-
tance of this matter in relation to welfare.
h. Improvement in interstate collection methods in
support of child support orders.
i. A more active role on the part of the State De-
partment of Social Welfare, the District
Attorneys' Association and the Attorney General
to institute child support programs in counties
where they do not now exist, or to upgrade them
where they are plainly inadequate.
j. Where the basis of failure to provide is inability
of the father to find work, county welfare depart-
ments and local employment agencies should attempt
to help the unemployed father or the father whose
earnings are insufficient to support his family
to find extra parttime jobs. Such additional
support money would be substantial.
k. Seek amendment of the regulations of HEW to re-
quire that federal moneys to states contain re-
quirement that states tighten up on insistence
that absentee fathers live up to their responsi-
bilities to contribute to support of their children.
V-38
California, in determining the "standard of need for each
eligible family", would then be required to consider court-
ordered father contributions and place the responsibility
on the county welfare departments and District Attorneys
to take steps to enforce collections and withhold payments
until there has been exhausted all efforts to make collec-
tions from delinquent fathers.
California could do this. For in King V. Smith, 88 S Ct.
2128 at 2133, it states, "States have considerable latitude
in allocating AFDC resources, since each state is free to
set its own standard of need and to determine the level of
benefits by the amount of funds it devotes to the program."
#12 CONCLUSION
The foregoing analysis of problems and suggestions for re-
forms in collecting absent parent child support funds is
submitted to you with the knowledge of the writer (and
probably of most readers of this report) that uncollected
child support funds like other social welfare problems is
complicated and frustrating to all concerned. The summary
of the problems set forth in State Social Welfare Board
Preliminary Report of the Task Force on Absent Parent Child
Support is considered to be as complete and concisely set
forth as any written studies which came to our attention.
Reportedly, the S.S.W.B. Task Force will in the near future
complete a more expanded report on absent parent child support
which will include in-depth recommendations for changes in
laws, regulations and procedures. Considering the expertise
of the S.S.W.B., it may be expected that the final report
could be the basis for a sound legislative program to submit
to the legislature in January. In addition, the report may
be available in time for use in upcoming conferences with
federal officials in Washington.
V-39
VI. Study Group Three/Findings and Recommendations
A. INTRODUCTION
Specific recommendation for budgetary savings were presented to
Cabinet by the Governor's Task Force on Public Assistance. The
following are excerpts from studies prepared by the Los Angeles
legal group and which formed the basis for many of the budgetary
recommendations presented to Cabinet.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
#1 WORK RELATED EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS FROM EARNED INCOME (AFDC).
FINDING: The State has not correctly applied the work
related expense deductions in determining eligibility
or in determining the grant. The State can place a
maximum ceiling on the amount of such deductions from
earned income. In lieu of actual expenses and some
maximums, it can use a flat maximum deduction in all
cases.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a. Repeal and rewrite SDSW Regulation 44-111.25 to correctly
follow Federal regulations allowing states to completely
disregard Work Related Expense Deductions in determining
eligibility in all cases.
b. Eliminate most of the deductions in determining the
amount of the grant as expenses not reasonably related
to the earning of income.
C. Establish a maximum ceiling on the Work Related Expense
Deduction of $50.00; $100.00, including child care.
#2 CEILING ON "DISREGARD INCOME", THE 30 AND 1/3 EXEMPTION ON EARNED
INCOME IN AFDC.
FINDING: The State is not correctly applying the earned income
exemptions in determining eligibility. The State
can place a ceiling on the 30 and 1/3 exemption for
earned income, thereby reducing the large number of high
income families still receiving aid.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a. Repeal and rewrite SDSW regulation 44-111.25 to correctly
follow Federal regulations allowing states to completely
disregard the $30 and 1/3 exemption in determining
eligibility in all cases.
b. Adopt a regulation that establishes a ceiling on gross
earned income and resources available to a family as an
eligibility requirement in AFDC.
VI-2
#3 REDEFINE UNEMPLOYMENT TO 30 HOURS OR LESS
BACKGROUND: This will reduce the number of eligible recipients.
The SDSW states the lowest income families, such as migrant
farm workers, will be shifted through this change to strictly
county-supported General Relief or surplus commodity programs.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend SDSW Regulation 42-340, Section 1.,
Deprivation Due to Unemployment to read as follows:
"Deprivation of a child due to unemployment of a parent
exists when either parent is not working or is working
less than 130* hours per month in an industry which full-
time work is 173 or more hours per month, or if full-time
work is under 173 hours, is working less than 3/4** of the
number of hours established by the Department of Human
Resources as full-time work in the industry, and:"
*Changed from 152 hours
**Changed from 7/8
#4 REDUCE PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCES FOR RECIPIENTS RECEIVING OUT-
OF-HOME CARE TO $5.00.
BACKGROUND: SDSW estimates the State would save $5.5 million by
this adjustment without affecting the general level of care
provided by the facility. In a discussion with SDSW it was
stated that the recipient of out-of-home care normally only
receives one grant check for the maxima amount. This check
is signed over to the facility who then rebates to the recipient
a sum of money which normally is only $15.00. This practice
is followed because the personal and incidental needs frequently
are provided by the facility for an additional service charge
which equals the State allowance. SDSW states that a cut in
this need will not affect the general level of care provided by
the facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend SDSW Regulation 44-209, Section .3, Needs
Chart-Recipient Living in Nonmedical Out-Of-Home Care Facility,
line b., Personal and Incidental Needs, to provide $5.00 for
both Group I and Group II recipients. (Currently Group I -
Minimum to Moderate Care and Supervision-Clients receive $38.00
a month and Group II - Extension Care and Supervision-Clients
receive $24.00.)
CONFORMITY: This change is in keeping with the intent of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, Article 3., Out-of-Home Care,
Section 13922., which states: "In the establishment of the
rate schedules the Secretary of the Human Relations Agency
shall consider, in addition to any other factors he deems to be
relevant, the availability of such homes in the community, cost
of living, appropriateness of the facility, the cost of providing
care under the required standards, and activity programs
required for the maintenance or restoration of function of
aged and disabled persons.'
VI-3
#5 ELIMINATION OF ATTENDANT SERVICE SPECIAL NEED OR ADULT HOME-
MAKER SERVICES FOR SERVICE WHICH IS PREDOMINATELY HOUSEKEEPING
OR DOMESTIC LABOR.
BACKGROUND: In an interview with Mr. C. Hobbs, Deputy Director,
SDSW, he states that the Department attempted to reduce the cost
of Homemaker services last July and after 10 days, repealed the
changes. The Department made two specific amendments to the
regulations. The first change was the elimination of allowances
for services which are predominately housekeeping or domestic
labor. He estimates this would eliminate the small--under
$50 claims and for a fiscal year should save about $7.5 million.
Very little opposition was raised about this portion of the
cutback.
The second cutback area was to reduce the maximum allowances
from $300 to $150. This portion created major newpaper, county,
and other political pressures which required an immediate revision
of all the proposed regulation changes. The reduction in these
maximum allowances would have saved $2.5 million.
It also should be noted that these regulation changes were made
on an emergency basis without public hearings. This recommendation
restates the need to amend the Homemaker program with the use of
public hearings. We are not suggesting the maximum allowance be
cut because it apparently costs considerably more to maintain a
person in a home as opposed to out-of-home care. Secondly, to
cut the maximum allowances of the Homemaker program would promote
the movement of some recipients to out-of-home care facilities
which is not in keeping with the objectives of the program which
aim to help aged, blind and disabled adults remain in or return to
their homes (SDSW 30-501). However, the program was not designed
to simply provide predominately housekeeping or domestic labor
services and if a client cannot provide these services for his or
herself, it is most proper they seek out-of-home care.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend SDSW Regulation 30-503 by adding the following
paragraph:
".6 No allowances shall be made for homemaker service
which is predominately housekeeping or domestic labor."
Amend SDSW Regulation 44-239.
CONFORMITY: This proposed change does not conflict with
Sections 12152, 12652, or 13700 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code which states: "If the physical condition of a recipient of
aid under this chapter of this part is such that he requires the
services of a full-time or part-time attendant or other special
services, he shall be entitled to an additional grant in an amount
sufficient to enable him to pay for those services, but not to
exceed three hundred dollars ($300) in any month. The grant
payable to a recipient under this section shall not be considered
in computing the grant payable to the recipient under Sections
12650, 12651, 13100 and, 13101 of this code, and shall not be
subject to the monetary limitations set forth in those sections."
VI-4
VII. Review of the Interdepartmental Welfare
Task Force Recommendations
A.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL WELFARE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
On June 1, 1970, a Regulation Task Force was organized within the
State Department of Social Welfare. This task force examined
twelve volumes of regulations consisting of approximately 6,000
pages, and issued a preliminary report on November 2, 1970. On
November 20, 1970, twenty persons, including members from the
Department of Finance, Human Relations Agency, Department of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Health Care Services, the New Car
Policy Review Board, Professional and Vocational Standards,
County Welfare Directors, and the Department of Social Welfare,
met to intensively review and price out the approximately 70
regulation changes that had been proposed. On November 23, 1970,
this Interdepartmental Welfare Task Force submitted 35 of the
departments' recommendations to the Secretary of the Human Relations
Agency.
On November 24, 1970, the Interdepartmental Task Force Recommen-
dations were distributed to the Budget Committee of Cabinet.
Formal presentation was deferred until the Governor's Task Force
on Public Assistance reported its findings. The following are the
narrative portion of the 35 Interdepartmental Welfare Task Force
Recommendations together with the applicable comments of the
Governor's Task Force on Public Assistance. Each of the recom-
mendations was concurred with as stated except for Recommendation
Nos. 5, 6, 11, and 12. Special comment was necessary concerning
Nos. 1, 4, and 28.
VII-2
B. TASK FORCE REVIEW
#1
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: "CASH ACCOUNTING"
BUDGET METHOD
EXISTING SITUATION: When a recipient has income which will
affect the grant amount, the county may use, at its option,
actual income earned in the last month or an estimate of
income to be received during the grant month.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Restrict counties to use of actual income
earned in last month to prevent overpayments based on estimates
which then cannot be recovered.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
generally concur with SDSW recommendation that procedures
should be developed to prevent overpayments in grants. The
proposed change recommends use of actual income earned in
last month rather than estimate of income to be received
during grant month. This change appears to leave open the
possibility for error in cases where an individual did not
work during the preceeding month but was anticipating work
during the grant month. Provision should be made to take
this into account.
Steps also should be taken to assure that overpayments based
on incorrect estimates can subsequently be recovered.
#2
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: FOSTER CARE SERVICES
EXISTING SITUATION: Rates now paid for foster care include many
services other than basic necessities. Medical, dietary,
clothing and other services may be provided. No distinction
is made, however, between basic costs versus additional services
costs. This results in a loss of federal funds.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Segregate the costs of added services from
basic care. Federal funds can then be claimed at fifty percent
for basic costs and seventy-five percent for services costs,
replacing the current practice of claiming fifty percent
federal funds for all foster care costs.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement change by circular letter
to counties.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
VII-3
#3
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: REDEFINITION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT
EXISTING SITUATION: Current regulations define unemployment as
35 hours or less of work per week. HEW regulations require
states to use not more than 35 hours and not less than 30 hours.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Define unemployment as 3/4 of normally
expected hours of work for that occupation or 30 hours per
week, whichever is less.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#4
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: INCOME ALLOCATION
TO SPOUSE
EXISTING SITUATION: An Aged (OAS) recipient can allocate his
income to his needy spouse, thus increasing the combined
welfare grant. This feature is enjoyed solely by the Aged.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Eliminate this "income splitting" technique
to gain excessive welfare grants.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation. However, we recommend
that the proposed change be pended for further study in that
it relates solely to OAS recipients.
Prior to decision on implementation, investigation should
be made as to the origin of this regulation and its intent.
#5
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: UNWED MINOR MOTHERS -
PARENTS TO SUPPORT
EXISTING SITUATION: Current law does not require the parents
of unwed minor mothers to support their children. Upon deter-
mination of pregnancy the minor can apply for and be eligible
for public assistance.
VII-4
PROPOSED CHANGE: Require the parents to support their unwed
minor children who become parents.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation procedure.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
question whether by regulation change parents can be
required to support unwed minor children who become
parents. A formal legal opinion would be necessary
before we could concur that this recommendation could
be established without legislation. However, we do
support the concept of this recommendation.
#6
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: "HIGH INCOME"
FAMILIES
EXISTING SITUATION: After a family becomes eligible for welfare
(AFDC), it can earn high amounts of income without losing welfare
payments through excessive income exemptions mandated by federal
law.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Supplement federal law and regulation by
imposing a limitation on "spendable income" above which no
grant will be paid.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
strongly support the concept of this recommendation
which is to impose a limitation on "spendable income"
above which no grant will be paid. However, we question
whether this could be accomplished solely by regulation
change (see Welfare and Institutions Code, Section
11008).
It is our recommendation that this recommendation be
implemented through appropriate legislative change.
(See comments on Recommendation #11)
VII-5
#7
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: WAGE ATTACHMENT
EXISTING SITUATION: The amount of court-ordered wage
attachments is currently considered exempt income to the
extent that it exceeds the amount of other income exemptions.
As the exempt income increases, so does the grant payment.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Discontinue policy of allowing wage
attachments to increase exempt income.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation procedure.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#8
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: ENFORCEMENT OF
OUT-OF-STATE RELATIVES RESPONSIBILITY
EXISTING SITUATION: Adult children of Aged (OAS) recipients
living out-of-state are not defined as responsible relatives
and therefore not required to contribute to the support of
their parents.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Require all adult children of Aged recipients,
no matter where they reside, to contribute to support of parents.
Explore all avenues of collecting from children as alternative
to welfare.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this proposal to redefine parent support
requirements to include out-of-state adult children of
Aged (OAS) recipients. It is assumed that this proposal
relates to Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 12100,
and Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1650, which is the
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.
#9
Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: WIN COUNSELING
EXISTING SITUATION: Recipients who refuse to cooperate in WIN
are allowed to receive aid up to 60 days while participating
in counseling related to this problem. No limit is prescribed
for number of times a recipient may take advantage of this.
VII-6
PROPOSED CHANGE: Recipients will be limited to one counseling
period.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#10 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: SUPERVISORY RATIOS
EXISTING SITUATION: Current regulations provide that Protective
Service Units shall not average more than five (5) caseworkers
per supervisor.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Protective Service Units shall not have a
prescribed ratio of caseworkers per supervisor since all other
staffing ratios have been abolished.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Circular Letter is currently in
process to advise counties that regulations will be forthcoming
to abolish these supervisory ratios.
Implement change through normal public hearing regulation
procedure.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#11 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: STANDARD DEDUCTION
FOR WORK-RELATED EXPENSES
EXISTING SITUATION: Current regulations allow exemption of a
number of work-related expenses such as child care and trans-
portation. Each grant must be individually computed to consider
these expenses. This is administratively time consuming and
expensive, and allows the social worker considerable discretion.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Reduce work-related expenses to the minimum
required by federal law. Establish a standard deduction schedule
for employment expenses. Provide for exceptional cases only to
the extent required for federal conformity.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
VII-7
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation. However, there
is a question of the legality of implementing this
recommendation by change in regulations.
We suggest that a priority be given to implementing
this recommendation through appropriate legislation.
#12 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: INCOME FROM ROOM
AND/OR BOARD
EXISTING SITUATION: Regulations provide two methods of
computing net income derived from room and/or board, one
for the adult programs and one for Families. The adult
aids method subtracts actual costs from gross room and
board income; the AFDC method allows a 90% deduction, without
regard to actual costs.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Adopt a single method for all programs: allow
a deduction which averages 50% through all programs.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: The
proposed change has some serious policy considerations
inherent in it in light of exemptions allowed for work-
related expenses in AFDC and those allowed as expenses
incurred in gaining income for State and Federal tax
purposes. We suggest this recommendation be pended for
further study.
#13 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: BLOOD RELATIVES
AS FAMILY HEADS IN SAME HOME
EXISTING SITUATION: Most frequent situation is teen-aged
daughter with her own child, in home where mother and siblings
receive aid. Daughter and mother are treated as separate
family units.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Treat blood relatives in the same home as
a single family unit, with a single head, in such situations.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Withhold implementation regulation
pending further study.
VII-8
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#14 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: VALUE OF
AUTOMOBILES
EXISTING SITUATION: Present regulations provide two different
methods for determining the value of an automobile that a
recipient may possess for essential transportation. Both
methods relate to a $1,500 allowable ceiling. Two methods
create confusion.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Use a single method; namely, the market
value of the automobile, without regard to problems of
equity and encumbrances. The value should be determined
by multiplying the annual license fee (minus the registration
fee) by 50.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#15 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: FAMILIES LIVING
TOGETHER WITHOUT MARRIAGE
EXISTING SITUATION: When a man and a woman live together,
without marriage, and have no children in common, but each
one has minor children, present regulations treat them as
two separate families.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Rewrite regulations to treat such a couple
as if they constitute one family. (This is now the procedure
if they happen to have a child in common.)
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation procedure.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
VII-9
#16 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: NUMBER OF
DEPENDENTS CLAIMED
EXISTING SITUATION: There is no effort to control number of
dependents claimed for tax withholding for recipients with
earnings. If the recipient claims fewer dependents, his
paycheck is smaller, his welfare grant is larger, and he
gets more tax refund at the end of the year.
PROPOSED CHANGE: The county welfare department shall compute
the amount of grant based on the correct number of dependents
regardless of the number claimed by the recipient.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through circular letter
to counties.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#17 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: PAST CROP LOSSES
AS INCOME DEDUCTIONS
EXISTING SITUATION: Crop losses in previous years are now
allowed as an income deduction. By adjusting their current
income to welfare levels, persons not truly needy are able
to become eligible for aid.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Disallow past crop losses as an income
deduction.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation procedure.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#18 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: "IN KIND"
CONTRIBUTION
EXISTING SITUATION: Various rules apply in determining the value
of "in kind" contributions received by welfare recipients.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Establish uniform procedure for determining
the value of "in kind" contributions based on amounts in the
assistance standard. The dollar value thus derived would be
deducted from the grant as income.
VII-10
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION : Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#19 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: DEFINITION OF
RESIDENCY
EXISTING SITUATION: Regulations defining residency for grant
purposes are vague. There are no indicators by which "intent
to reside" in California can be judged for welfare purposes,
and the result is ambiguity of interpretation and abuse of the
system.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Establish criteria for judging "intent to
reside". Make residence a matter of physical presence except
in extraordinary and temporary circumstances subject to close
scrutiny.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation process.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#20 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: ILLEGAL ALIENS
EXISTING SITUATION: It is possible for illegal aliens to receive
welfare because existing regulations and procedures do not
require proof of citizenship or legal alien status in deter-
mination of eligibility.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Require proof either of U. S. citizenship
or legal alien status as a prerequisite to eligibility deter-
mination. On detection of possible illegal alien, require
counties to immediately inform Immigration Service.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through emergency
regulation.
VII-11
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation. Current U. S.
Supreme Court proceedings on this matter should be
carefully watched and consideration should be given
to California participation in this matter.
#21 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: ELIGIBILITY
FOR FOSTER CARE
EXISTING SITUATION: There are no regulations establishing
eligibility criteria for foster care of children in the
Boarding Homes and Institutions segment of the aid to families
program. Eligibility criteria for the basic family program
are clear; additional factors for foster care are not discussed.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Specify criteria for foster care as a distinct
eligibility decision after eligibility is established for the
basic family program.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation procedure.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#22 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: ANNUAL INCOME
EXISTING SITUATION: Present regulations lack clarity in
defining the monthly income of persons whose income is
commonly defined as annual and is not received in 12 equal
monthly installments, such as teachers and farmers.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Clarify regulations to require that income
under such conditions will be considered to be received pro-
portionately for all the months in the year.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Issue Circular Letter immediately.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation. We suggest that
income be averaged for those months in which the
recipient is not working. Provisions should be made
to exclude recipient from grant during months that he
VII-12
is working. If this is not done, a recipient could
make $500 a month for 6 months, which averaged over
a 12-month period would only be $250 a month. This
$250 level would probably tend to make him eligible
for the entire 12-month period, whereas, under the
present system, he would be ineligible for the 6
months he was working. In addition, to make the
averaging process equitable, provisions should be
made to allow exemption of the recipient's normal
grant amount from his income during the months that
he is working and use the sum total of the remainders
for averaging during the months he is unemployed.
The question arises as to whether this annual income
includes unearned income. A clarification is required
to include unearned income.
The estimated fiscal impact by SDSW figures indicate
$40,000 savings to General Fund in 1971-72. We would
suggest that for budget purposes, SDSW be required
to sample cases in all programs to arrive at better
cost figures.
#23 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: ELIGIBILITY
DURING LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM A JOB
EXISTING SITUATION: The counties are not currently required
to determine whether an applicant for aid is on leave from
a job. Thus applicants may take temporary leave from a job
and be eligible for public assistance.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Require the counties to determine, at the
time of application, whether an applicant is on leave from
a job, solely for the purpose of becoming eligible for
assistance. Based on this determination, aid may be denied.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Implement through normal public
hearing regulation procedure.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: This
recommendation is sound. Counties should be
required to determine whether applicant is on leave
from job to qualify for aid.
We suggest that the proposed change indicates counties
are to determine whether applicant is on leave from a
job "solely" for the purpose of becoming eligible. The
term "solely" leaves a loophole in this change and
VII-13
should be deleted from any proposed recommendation.
An individual could take leave of absence from a
job for more than one purpose, i.e., a vacation and
to qualify for aid, and under this proposed change
would not be ineligible.
Implementation method suggests change in State
regulation through public hearing procedure is
required. We question whether or not a change in
regulation is required, as this could conceivably
be implemented through SDSW circular letter clarifying
unemployment.
#24 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: SINGLE CATEGORY
FOR ADULT AIDS
EXISTING SITUATION: The Aged, Blind, and Disabled public
assistance programs provide aid to persons whose living
arrangements and life situation are similar. Considerable
variation exists, however, among factors governing eligibility
and amount of aid grant received.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Combine the three adult aid programs into a
single program with uniform eligibility and aid grant standards
based upon present disabled program.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Withhold implementation regulation
pending further study.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation that we withhold
implementation decision on this change pending further
study. Further explanation is needed concerning the
decision to combine the adult aid programs into a
single program using the present ATD criteria for
eligibility and grant standards. For example, how was
ATD determined as basis rather than AB or OAS.
#25 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: PROPERTY LIENS
EXISTING SITUATION: Current law provides that public assistance
granted to a recipient shall not constitute a lien on the
property of the recipient. (W&I Code, Section 11007)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Repeal current prohibition on property liens.
Establish a law to provide that liens will be placed on the
VII-14
real property of a recipient of adult aid, with recovery
prohibited during the life of the recipient or his surviving
spouse.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and actively support
this legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#26 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: POTENTIALLY
SELF-SUPPORTING BLIND
EXISTING SITUATION: Currently the state supports the Aid to the
Potentially Self-Supporting Blind (APSB) program with the
counties on a 5:1 sharing ratio, with no federal participation.
The program (caseload 223 persons) is designed to lead to self-
support for the recipient. Actual program administration
varies only slightly from the Aid to the Blind program.
Running a separate program creates some administrative dupli-
cation.
(W & I Code, Chapter 5 of Part 3, Sections 13000-13102
inclusive)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Incorporate the features of APSB in the regular
Blind program, merge the caseloads and eliminate APSB, to gain
federal sharing and eliminate unnecessary administrative costs.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Withhold implementation legislation
pending further study.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#27 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: REAL PROPERTY
LIMITATIONS
EXISTING SITUATION: Current law provides two different real
property limitations - one for families and one for the adult
aids. Families are allowed to own homes with a $5,000 maximum
assessed value, while adult aid recipients may own homes without
any maximum assessed value.
(W & I Code, Sections 11151, 11152, 11255)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Establish uniform criteria for real property
limitations for all aids. Adopt the standard which allows
recipients to own a home with $5,000 maximum assessed value.
VII-15
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and actively support
this legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#28 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: UNNECESSARY
MEDICAL C PAYMENTS
EXISTING SITUATION: Welfare now pays an Aged (OAS) recipient
for medical care debts of members of the recipient's family
who themselves are not eligible for welfare.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Eliminate these payments and with them the
unnecessary funding of medical care for people ineligible
for welfare.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and support this
legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
do not fully concur with this recommendation.
We recommend that existing regulation 44-259 be revised
to conform with Welfare and Institutions, Section 12155,
and that legislation be sought to amend Section 12155
so that medical care debts of members of the OAS
recipient's family will be paid only where the family
member is needy. Section 12155 presently requires such
payment where the OAS recipient is legally liable for
the incurred debt regardless of the need status of the
member of the family who incurred the debt.
It is recommended that further study be given to the
policy quesiton of whether the medical debts of a needy
member of an OAS recipient's family for whom the OAS
recipient has a legal obligation of support should be
excluded from the current practice.
#29 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: NONSUPPORT COMPLAINTS
EXISTING SITUATION: Under current law the remaining parent
must file a complaint against the absent parent, to enable
the District Attorney to initiate proceedings to collect
VII-16
child support. Some mothers ultimately refuse to sign the
complaint. In the meantime, aid is paid and considerable
administrative expense is incurred, and no support is
collected.
(W & I Code, Section 11477)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Provide for county to file the complaint
immediately upon application for aid by the mother. Welfare
and Institutions Code, Section 11477 must be revised.
(Revise W & I Code, Section 11477 (b) (c) and 11488)
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Withhold implementation
legislation pending further study.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#30 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: STATE-COUNTY
SHARING RATIOS
EXISTING SITUATION: Many different ratios for state and
county cost sharing are now used in the different welfare
programs. Counties tend to make program decisions based on
the most favorable ratio rather than basing them on overall
impact.
(W & I Code, Sections 15200, 15201, 15202, 15203, 15204)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Establish a single percentage for state and
county cost sharing for all programs, in such a way as to
maintain equity for the counties.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and actively support
this legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation. However, in proposing
legislation to establish a single percentage for cost
sharing in all programs, consideration should be given to
potential for increased costs to the State General Fund
in this recommendation. Prior to implementation,
consideration should be given to the impact of a change
in ratio as it applies to each program.
VII-17
#31 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: NON-RECURRING
LUMP SUMS
EXISTING SITUATION: Presently non-recurring lump sum payments
are considered personal property reserves instead of income.
(W & I Code, Section 12052)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Consider non-recurring lump sum payments
as income in the month received, and treat the balance as
personal property thereafter. This will reduce or terminate
grants because monthly income limitations are much lower than
personal property limitations.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and actively support
this legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#32 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: INCOME-PRODUCING
PROPERTY
EXISTING SITUATION: Recipients may own real property, in
addition to a home, for producing income. Limits on the value
of such property vary among the adult aids and the family
program. There is no limit in the blind program.
(W & I Code, Section 11151, 11153, 11255, 12654)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Eliminate provisions in all categories that
permit welfare recipients to own real property other than their
homes.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Withhold implementation legislation
pending further study.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#33 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: WOMAN ASSUMING
ROLE OF SPOUSE
EXISTING SITUATION: Present law considers the contributions
of a man assuming the role of spouse (MARS) in computing a
family's grant. There are no regulations concerning the
woman assuming the role of spouse (WARS). These two situations
should be treated the same.
VII-18
(W & I Code, Section 11351.5)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Contributions of "unrelated persons" to
the family, rather than "unrelated adult male", as the
current law reads, should be subtracted from welfare grants.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and actively support
this legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
#34 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: STEPFATHER'S
RESPONSIBILITY
EXISTING SITUATION: A recent court decision has determined
that a stepfather has no responsibility to support his
wife's children.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Define an expected level of stepfather
contribution to stepchild support. Change the statutes to
enable this contribution to be utilized to the extent that
natural father support is unavailable. This could be done
by establishing a legal concept that the wife's community
property rights extend to her children.
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and actively support
this legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
strongly concur with this recommendation for a law
of general application requiring stepfather's con-
tribution to stepchild's support.
#35 Department of Social Welfare Recommendation: "CASUAL" INCOME
EXISTING SITUATION: The Welfare and Institutions Code now
states that the value of "casual income" and "inconsequential
resources" cannot be considered in computing the amount of
money available to support a recipient.
(W & I Code, Section 11008)
PROPOSED CHANGE: Eliminate this provision from law. Establish
regulation that such income will be considered as income.
VII-19
DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION: Propose and actively support
this legislation.
GOVERNOR'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REVIEW: We
concur with this recommendation.
VII-20
Appendix A: References
APPENDIX A
References
1. December 18, 1970 Response Summary of County Welfare
Interviews.
2. Raw data backup to December 8, 1970 Response Summary
of County Welfare Interviews.
3. Summary of Regulations. Changes as detailed and
researched by Mr. Richard Moore. These changes deal
with the ceiling on disregard income, work related
expense deductions, and the 30 1/3 exemptions on
earned income.
4. Regulation changes as detailed and researched by
Jerry Salzman and Jules Markowitz. These regulations
deal with redefinition of unemployment, elimination of
attendant services, special need and reduction of
personal need allowance for recipients.
5. County welfare interview response graphs. This is the
final statistical report of 768 interviews at the
county welfare level.
6. November 19, 1970 Report to the Honorable Ronald Reagan
from Walter S. Rountree on Absent Parent Child Support.
7. December 16, 1970 Recommendation for Welfare Reform
Package.
8. December 16, 1970 Review of the Interdepartmental Welfare
Task Force Recommendations.
9. November 24, 1970 Interdepartmental Welfare Task Force
Recommendations.
10. November 1970 Governor's Task Force on Public Assistance -
Redbook (Preliminary Draft)
11. November 23, 1970 Recommendations (Dick Moore).
12. November 2, 1970 Status Report, Automated Payment System
13. October 22, 1970 Status Report, Combining Social Security
(OASDI) and Old Age Security (OAS) Payments.
A-2
14. October 28, 1970 Income Exemption Study - Net Earnings
VS. Gross Earnings.
15. November 20, 1970 Preliminary Draft, Flat Grant Proposal.
16. Governor's Task Force Proposed Regulations Change Package.
17. October 27, 1970 Summary of Rosado V. Wyman U.S. Supreme
Court Decision.
18. December 10, 1970 Closed-End Budget Analysis
19. December 3, 1970 Cost Implication Study of Including
Special Needs in Computing Eligibility for Public
Assistance (Revised December 8, 1970 and December 10,
1970).
20. December 14, 1970 Review of Recommendation to Reduce
Work-Related Expenses to the Minimum Required by Federal
Law.
A-3
Appendix B: Review of the State System of Audit
and Control of County Determinations
of Eligibility for Welfare and Medi-Cal
REVIEW OF STATE SYSTEM OF AUDIT AND CONTROL
Concurrent with the other functions of the Governor's Task Force
on Public Assistance, it was decided to form a field audit team
to actually audit and review various welfare fiscal intermediaries,
major county welfare departments and the eligibility control
functions in the State Department of Social Welfare. The purpose
for this audit team was to determine the adequacy of the present
system of eligibility control and post audit and to develop
recommendations pertaining thereto. As an interim measure, the
team was to analyze and present to management for immediate action
the best information available from the current eligibility control
systems.
Due to the sensitivity of such field reviews, it was decided that
this team would function under the auspices of the Department of
Finance and independently of the Governor's Task Force. The
following is excerpted from their November 30, 1970, draft
progress report.
B-2
DRAFT
REVIEW OF THE STATE SYSTEM OF AUDIT AND CONTROL
OF
COUNTY DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY
FOR
WELFARE AND MEDI-CAL
PROGRESS REPORT
November 30, 1970
AUDITS DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
B-3
FOREWORD
We believe that the overall objective of the Welfare and Medi-Cal
programs is to minimize costs while maintaining an acceptable level
of service.
One way of achieving this objective is through enforcing existing
regulations to the letter; equitably, uniformly, impartially,
but firmly, in all counties.
The State system of audit and control of county determinations of
eligibility for welfare and Medi-Cal currently provides a wealth
of information that could be used by State and county administrators
to enforce existing regulations. However, it is not communicated
to enable corrective action.
It is clear that costs could be reduced significantly by reducing
over-payments to recipients in the public assistance program alone.
Available information indicates annual overpayments as follows:
Adult Cash Grants
$17,000,000
AFDC Cash Grants
34,000,000
Total Overpayments
$51,000,000
We do not know what an acceptable overpayment level should be.
However, it is our feeling that every effort should be made to
reduce such large annual overpayments. In this progress report,
we point out that available information is disorganized and not
used. Recommendations are made for reporting available information
to State and county administrators so that overpayments to recipients
may be reduced.
B-4
REVIEW OF THE STATE SYSTEM OF AUDIT AND CONTROL
OF
COUNTY DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY
FOR
WELFARE AND MEDI-CAL
A.
PROGRESS REPORT
Welfare and Medi-Cal determinations of eligibility, amount of grant
(Welfare) and client share of cost (Medi-Cal) are county performed
functions. The primary responsibility for assuring that the
accuracy of these determinations are within acceptable limits is
vested in the State Department of Social Welfare and to some degree
in the State Department of Health Care Services. County, State,
and Federal assistance payments for the Welfare and Medi-Cal
programs exceed $1.5 billion annually.
The current system of audit and control indicates that errors in
eligibility determinations resulting in under or overpayments are
not within acceptable standards. The actual rate and cost of
these errors, and their underlying causes is not accurately known.
Based upon the best information available, the statewide error rate
in the adult programs is as high as 45 to 50% of all determinations.
As the system, to date, has not provided State Welfare and Medi-Cal
Managers with an effective means of developing and implementing the
corrective action required to reduce this excessive error rate
we suggested and the Directors of Social Welfare and Health Care
Services agreed, that the Audits Division, Department of Finance,
should make a review of the system of audit and control of county
eligibility determinations. Subsequently, the review was approved
by the Human Relations Secretary and the Director of Finance.
B.
REVIEW OBJECTIVES
#1
Determine the adequacy of the present system of eligibility
control and/or post audit, and develop recommendations which
will:
a. With statistical accuracy, pinpoint the error rate,
type, cause, and financial consequences of errors in
Welfare and Medi-Cal determinations.
b. Achieve this information at minimal cost to the State.
C. Be in conformity with federal requirements.
d. Provide the eligibility information on a timely basis to
the responsible managers in the State and County Departments
so that needed corrective action may be taken promptly; and
so that the information may be used in policy and procedural
formation.
B-5
e. Re-evaluate the results of the corrective actions taken
and of the policy and procedural changes formulated.
# 2
As an interim measure, analyze and present to management for
immediate action the best information available from the
current eligibility control systems.
C.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
#1
Department of Social Welfare
a. Eligibility Control Bureau
b. Field Audits Bureau
C. Master Persons File
# 2
Department of Health Care Services
a. Medically Needy Operations Bureau
#3
County Social Welfare Departments (Eligibility Control
Activities)
a. Alameda
k. San Francisco
b. Alpine
1. San Joaquin
C. Butte
m. San Mateo
d. Los Angeles
n. Santa Clara
e. Merced
O. Santa Cruz
f. Mono
p. Sierra
g. Monterey
q. Solano
h. Orange
r. Stanislaus
i. Sacramento
S. Trinity
j. San Diego
t. Yolo
# 4
Eligibility Control System - Available Information
#5
Plan for Implementation of Improved Eligibility Control Procedures
D.
PROGRESS TO DATE
#1
The review of the system of audit and control of eligibility
determinations in the Departments of Social Welfare and
Health Care Services has been completed.
#2
We are currently visiting county social welfare departments
to review their eligibility control activities.
#3
Examples of available information from the current system of
audit and control of eligibility determinations have been
compiled (see Exhibits A through J included in this report).
B-6
# 4
A summary of recommendations relating to available information
and a summary of findings relating to eligibility control
activities in the Departments of Social Welfare and Health
Care Services is included in the following sections of this
progress report.
E.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: ELIGIBILITY CONTROL SYSTEM -
AVAILABLE INFORMATION
#1
Establish in the Department of Social Welfare a formal
reporting system to inform State and county administrators
of the results of eligibility control activities and to make
recommendations for corrective action.
# 2
Issue monthly reports in a format such as that shown in
Exhibit K included in this report.
#3
Direct reports to the following State and county administrators:
a. Secretary, Human Relations Agency
b. Director, Department of Social Welfare
C. Director, Department of Health Care Services
d. Director, Department of Finance
e. County Board of Supervisors
f. County Welfare Director
g. County Auditor
h. County Administrative Officer
# 4
Consider adjusting the next advance to the counties for actual
errors discovered by the sampling plan.
# 5
Require the counties to notify the department in writing within
30 days of what action was taken to reduce error rates and
overpayment.
#6
Determine within 60 days after the reports have been issued
that the counties have in fact taken adequate corrective
action.
F.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: ELIGIBILITY CONTROL BUREAU
#1
The present system of sampling and investigating is producing
a great deal of significant information. However, because
of the limited use of the information that is available, the
potential benefits of the system are not achieved.
# 2
There is no formal reporting system to communicate the results
of the county sample, or the State sample to State or county
administrators.
#3
A federal report based on the federal sample is produced as
required by federal regulations.
B-7
#4
The federal report is on a statewide basis and contains
information that is too general to be used as an effective
management tool by State or county administrators.
#5
Trend charts on eligibility and accuracy of grants and
estimates of net overpayment have been prepared for some
counties, but only when the bureau planned to meet with an
individual county welfare director.
#6
A formal reporting system can be developed using information
presently available.
# 7
Under the current system any reports prepared would have to
be prepared manually as none of the information available has
been automated.
#8
It has been proposed that counties assemble and analyze test
data for local administrative use, but there is no requirement
that they do so.
# 9
Counties are expected to take some action for improvement
when test results indicate excessive error rates. However,
there is no requirement that they take any specific action
and no formal procedure for follow-up to determine if they
have done so.
#10 There is no present plan to provide State Welfare and Medi-Cal
Administrators with a continuous, systematic reporting procedure
to keep them informed on a current basis of the status of the
eligibility control program and current actions taken to correct
excessive error rates.
#11 There is no present plan to establish a uniform, effective,
statewide system of reporting test results on a regularly
scheduled basis to county administrators for their use in
reducing excessive error rates.
#12 There is no present plan to require counties to report on
a regular basis their current actions to correct excessive
error rates.
#13 Sampling units are presently selected from a universe of
"case actions" rather than "case load". This raises the
question of whether the sample is truly representative of the
total welfare caseload.
#14 Sampling units are selected by county personnel on a systematic
basis with a minimum sampling interval of 8. Systematic
selection by county personnel can subject the sample to
possible manipulation.
B-8
G.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: FIELD AUDITS BUREAU
#1
The sampling plan adopted by the Field Audits Bureau is
statistically sound.
# 2
The plan provides a valid approach for reducing State expendi-
tures in the public assistance programs.
# 3
The plan provides administrators at the Federal, State, and
County levels with information which can be used for more
effective program management. (Sample results are projected
to the universe under review, this is not done in the Eligi-
bility Control Bureau.)
# 4
The bureau effectively reports the audit results to all levels
of management.
# 5
The audit reports are not published on a timely basis. (The
bureau expects to have reports current by December 31, 1970.)
#6
Legal proceedings are under way in Marin County to prevent
the projection of sample results for claim reductions.
H.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: MASTER PERSONS FILE
# 1
The information contained in the file is dependent on the
validity of the information supplied by the counties.
# 2
The error rate is estimated to be approximately two percent.
#3
Statistical reports of eligible persons, by program, eligibility
factor, statewide, and by county are prepared for the Depart-
ments of Social Welfare and Health Care Services.
# 4
The Master Persons File is being enlarged to provide county
reports required by the federal government.
#5
Case load samples may be obtained from the Master Persons File
for Cash Grant and Medical Assistance Only positive actions (ap-
proved applications).
#6
Samples of negative actions (applications denied) cannot be
obtained from the file.
I.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: MEDICALLY NEEDY OPERATIONS BUREAU
#1
A statistical sampling method is used to select sample units
for review.
#2
Sampling results are not projected to provide management with
necessary data for administration and control.
B-9
#3
The clerical check of liability computations is restricted
to a verification of mathematical computations.
# 4
The bureau is checking liability computations for long-term
care patients for which the fiscal intermediaries have
responsibility for providing control.
#5
No determination is made to assure that private insurance
policies are utilized prior to an individual receiving medical
assistance.
#6
The bureau cannot question the public assistance program
deductions allowed by the counties.
# 7
Management reports are of a clerical nature and provide
limited information.
#8
An extensive cross filing system is manually maintained for
approximately 240,000 beneficiaries.
J.
PLAN FOR COMPLETING THE REVIEW
#1
The review of eligibility control activities in 20 county
social welfare departments will be completed by December 4,
1970.
#2
The evaluation of our findings in the Departments of Social
Welfare and Health Care Services and county social welfare
departments, together with recommendations, and a plan for
implementation of improved eligibility control procedures
will be completed by December 30, 1970.
B-10