Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08161994 - 2.3 •, t'TO: f BOARD OF SUPERVISORS /" Yotra Is Oosta FROM: Phil Batchelor m' County Administrator '• - ,,. " COl.1 II osrq_coiiK'� Perfecto Villarreal Welfare Dire�ttor DATE: August 16 1 994 SUBJECT: Follow up o Budget Hearings-General Assistance Standards of Aid;GA Residential Alcohol Recovery Beds Community-Based Organization Contracts; and other Community-IlBased Organization Contracts SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(S). 1. ADOPT the proposed resolution amending Resolution 91/606, which establishes Standards of Aid for General ,k, ssistance (GA) as follows: i A. For homeless GA applicants and recipients residing in a County or private shelter, establish the cash grant at $30.00 per month for personal needs and basic transportation effective September 1, 1994. B. For homeless GA applicants and recipients who refuse to accept available County or private shelter, establish the standard aid at $142.00 per month for personal needs, basic transpi rtation and food effective September 1, 1994. C. For all GA alpplicants and recipients, reduce the standard of aid by 2.3% consistent with the State of California's action on AFDC Standards of Aid effective October 1, 1994. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that single GA applicants and recipients are also eligible for Food Stamps worth $112.00 per, month as well as a transportation allowances of $2.00 per day for Workfare, GAADDS and medical appointments . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:YES SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENDATf6N OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER, SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON August 16. 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER SEE'ADDENDUM ATTACHED FOR ACTIONS TAKEN VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ii ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Perfecto Villarreal,313-1577 ATTESTED A RUSt 16, 1994 cc: CRO PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF Social Service Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Legal Services CBO Contractors V18 Social' Services BY ,DEPUTY I� C 'r t 3. ACKNOWLEDGE that the County supports the effort of GA recipients to obtain permanent t housing through its Housing Assistance Program, which pays first and last month's rent plus deposits. 4. ADOPTthe proposed resolution amending Resolution 91/607 to increase the General Assistance income disregard from $�0 per month to $100 per month, effective September 1, 1994. 5. ACKNOWLEDGE that the GA Residential Alcohol Recovery Bed program has been successful 11 in helping GA recipients overcome alcohol dependency and achieve self sufficiency and that it is a highly cost effective program in that it helps reduce the GA rolls. 6. AUTHORIZE application of projected savings from adjustments to the GA standard of Aid to fund the $300,000 of comm nity-based organization contracts for the GA Residential Alcohol 11 Recovery Beds. DIREiCT the Social Service Director to prepare for approval of such appropriation adjustments as are necessary to effectuate this direction. 7. In recognition of the cur dent litigation surrounding the State's 2.3% reduction in aid for AFDC, DIRECT the Welfare Director to report back to the Board of Supervisors if court action on AFDC 11 grants affects the Department's ability to fund the GA Residential Alcohol Recovery Service contracts. i 8. EXPRESS regret that limited budget resources and the need to insure the fiscal integrity of the General Assistance program precludes funding at this time of the Family and Community Services contract ($7,500 Meals on Wheels); Contra Costa Food Bank contract ($67,500); and the Child Abuse Prevention Council contract ($24,700). 9. ADOPT this report and the accompanying report of the Welfare Director that support these recommendations. BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): During its deliberations on the FY 94-95 budget, the Board of Supervisors deferred action on General Assistance (GA) Standards of Aid; funding for three community-based organization contracts (Meals on Wheels, Food Bank and Child Abuse Prevention Council); and funding for the General Assistance Residential Alcohol Recovery ;services. The referral was designed to allow the Welfare Director to meet with the Homeless Advisory Committee to discuss proposed changes in the GA standards of aid. That meeting was held on August 3, 1994. The Committee informed the Welfare Director that they would be making their recommendations on this issue directly to the Board of Supervisors. GA Standards of Aid There are three components to the proposed revisions to the GA Standards of Aid: the standard of aid for clients residing in shelters; the standard of aid for homeless clients who refuse shelter accommodations; and an overall 2.3% reduction of the standard of aid to reflect the State action on AFDC Standards of Aid. Individuals on General Assistance receive not only General Assistance but also Food Stamps ($112 per month for a single individual) as well as $2.00 per day worth of bus tokens to assist in transportation for Workfare, GAADDS appointments and medical appointments. The Board of Supervisors established the standard of aid for individuals in shelters at $7.00 per month in 1992. Legal Services subsequently sued the County to prevent this action (Oberlander vs Contra Costa County). The proposed i$30/month standard of aid for GA recipients who refuse a county shelter is the result of negotiations in the Oberlander vs CCC case. The Oberlander negotiations represented a good faith effort on the part of the County to reach agreement with Legal Services, the representative for the GA population. In addition, it should be noted that in the recent Williams case settlement, the County made significant and costly concessions regarding GA sanction policy. The Social Service Department's FY 94-95 budget for GA aid does not reflect the fiscal consequences of relief in sanctions through the Williams case. Concessions included 2 ' c 7 • "Wiping the slate clean" - Upon implementation of the GA automation system, but not ' later than March 31, 1995, the County agreed to forgive all past sanctions on individyals. Since sanctions are progressive (1 month, 3 months, 6 months depending on the number of violations), this is' a substantial benefit to GA recipients who violate program requirements. • First time violation forgiven - Instead of being subject to a one month sanction for the first violation of GA regulations, GA recipients will now be given a notice and will not incur the 11 one month sanction period. Recipients will be eligible for sanctions only after the second violation and notice. The other area of standards of aid under consideration is for GA applicants/recipients who are offered, but refuse County shelter. The tproposed standard of aid is $142/month for those cases. This standard of aid is an important element in encouraging GA recipients to utilize the shelter resource as well as to deter fraudulent CSA declarations of homelessness. Currently, GA homeless recipients receive the same standard of aid as a single individual in independent housing ($300/month), which is considerably more than the shared housing rate ($249/month when shared with one other person). In October 1993, the GA Fraud Unit investigated and found 52 out of 108 cases of GA recipients declaring themselves to be homeless were actually living in housing. This equates to a 48%fraud rate. With approximately 1200 GA recipients declaring themselves homeless, it is beyond the Department's staffing capacity to investigate all GA recipients who declare themselves homeless. Without the standard of aid for individuals who refuse housing, there will be a built-in system flaw that could encourage fraudulent applications. The third area under consideration is the reduction in overall grants by 2.3%, consistent with the State of California's action on AFDC'Standards of Aid. Historically, it has been the policy of the Board of Supervisors to adopt such parallel action. The current standard of aid for a single individual, living alone, is $300 per month. A 2.3% reduction would equal $7.00 per month for a total of $293 per month. In addition, it should be remembered that individuals are eligible for $112 in food stamps plus bus tokens as needed. As a means of supporting the goal of self-sufficiency and increasing the incentive to obtain employment, an increase in the current income disregard from $50/month to $100/month has been suggested. The income disregard is the amount which an individual can earn each month without affecting the General Assistance payment. Increasing the income disregard by $50 per month would more than offset the $7.00 per month overall reduction and give individuals an incentive to find a job, albeit a part time one. In addition to the GA Income Disregard, the Department offers GA Housing Assistance, which supports GA recipients in obtaining permanent housing. GA Housing Assistance pays for first and last month's rent plus all deposits. All GA recipients are eligible for these benefits. Residential Alcohol Recovery.Service Contracts Residential Alcohol Recovery,Services provide assistance to GA clients in their effort to overcome alcohol addiction and become self-sufficient. GA eligibles receive these services in lieu of the GA monthly grant. Services are provided through contracts with four community-based organizations. These contracts total $300,000/year. When the Board of Supervisors transferred funding responsibility for this program from the Health Services Department to the Social Service Department in FY 1993-94, they directed the departments to analyze the program's cost effectiveness. Statistics from 1/1/94 to 6/30/94 show that 11% of clients served by the program are still on GA within one month; 5% within two to three months; and 5% within four to six months. The program has consequently been judged as highly cost effective in assisting individuals to self sufficiency. 3 Staff is very concerned that reducing these services will only increase the GA aids budget by a compdrable,'if not greater, amount than the contract reduction. It is consequently a high priority for the department to utilize the changes;in the GA Standards of Aid to support the residential alcohol recovery services. During the budgetary process, the Social Service Department also looked at alternative programs for budget reduction. None of the ialternatives were acceptable to the department since they reduced critical services. These programs are ones in which the County currently has an overmatch: Adoptions ($277,584 overmatch). This program provides adoption services to children. The program also helps reduce foster care costs ($185,000 saving in 1992 based on placement of 78 children and annualized foster care costs of $479,000). Program reductions could result in processing backlogs and �isk non-compliance with directives of the Juvenile Court. As the Board knows, Adoptions was the subject of review by the FY 93-94 Grand Jury. Foster Home Licensing ($131,353 overmatch). The Foster Home Licensing unit processes applications for foster home licenses under agreement with the state as well as provides supportive services to licensed foster parents. Program reductions would slow down the processing of foster home licensing, affecting the County's ability to place children in foster homes. Diminished support services to current foster parents could result in loss of their services. Insufficient numbers of foster parents could result in children being placed in more costly institutional setting's. Adult Programs ($277,131 overmatch). Within the Adult Programs, the overmatch is in Adult Protective Services, Volunteer Services and In-Home Support Services/Personal Care Services (IHSS/PCS). Adult Protective Services provides social worker investigations of reports that a dependent adult is exploited, neglected or physically abused. Volunteer Services coordinate donations and volunteer,:activities that send children to summer camp, provide food, toys and clothing to low income families, help prevent evictions and provide supervised visitation and transportation for deperl6nts of the court. Reductions ins this program could jeopardize its viability. In IHSS/PCS, the over match is application of the County's savings on its share of IHSS provider payments due to shifting cases to PCS, which are paid by Medi-Cat. The overmatch funds the increased administrative costs related to PCS. Reduction of this program would trigger higher costs in categorical aid. Other CBO Contracts In addition, to the funding for! the GA Residential Alcohol Recovery Services, the Board directed consideration of the contracts for the Family and Community Services ($7,500 for Meals on Wheels); Contra Costa Food Bank ($67;500); and the Child Abuse Prevention Council ($24,700) in conjunction with the issue of GA Standards of Aid. These contracts total $99,700 per year. In FY 93 - 94, these contracts were funded through the Child Care Affordability Fund. In making this allocation, the Board of Supervisors declared that the Child Care Affordability Fund would not available after FY 93 - 94 and urged the organizations to seek alternative funding. The three contracts under consideration are the remaining unfunded contract amounts. In recent years, the Social Service Department has suffered severe budget reductions. As noted above, the Department has limited flexibility in its funding. Although it is regrettable that funds are not available for these contracts, the Board may want to consider that they were funded for 2 years beyond the original elimination from the Social Service budget in FY 92-93 and consequently, every opportunity was given for the contractors'to transition to other funding sources. 4 t ADDENDUM TO BOARD ORDER 2.3 ON AUGUST 16, 1994 AGENDA Perfecto Viallarreal, Director of Social Service and County Welfare Director, reviewed the recommendations listed above. The following persons appeared and gave testimony with respect to the above recommendations : Askok Patwardahan, Chair, Homeless Advisory Committee David Ammann, 1121 Detroit Avenue, Concord Susan Prather, P. 0. Box 681, E1 Cerrito Jerome Knott, Love-A-Child Missions Bruce Oberlander, P. 0. . Box 31, Concord JoAnn Brooks-Washington, Homeless Advisory Committee member Janet Bruce, Homeless Advisory Committee member Brian "Kind" Wynne, 1131 Pine Street, # 37, Martinez Leonard Smith, 845 B Brookside Drive, Richmond Jean Young, 845 B Brookside Drive, Richmond Debra Outtsm 845 B Brookside Drive, Richmond, for Shelter Inc. The following persons left written testimony, but did not wish to speak: Irma Esquibell, 2047 C Arnold Industrial Way, Concord Judy Rodrigues, 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord Mr. Villarreal advised that the reason that the Department is recommending that the contracts listed in Recommendation No. 8 not be funded from the Social Service Department is that there are not sufficient funds . Mr. Villarreal responded to Board members questions, including those relating to the financial effect of reducing the General Assistance Grant by 30o rather than by $30, as recommended by the Homeless Advisory Committee. Supervisor Torlakson suggested that General Assistance recipients mightibe able to work part time in restaurants, landscaping and Ifarming industries while still receiving certain benefits from the general assistance programs . Following further discussion by Board members, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1 through 9, are APPROVED, with the following exceptions: l .A. Modified to provide for reduction in the standard of general assistance aid for homeless eligibles residing in a County or private shelter by one-third. l .B. Deleted 8 . Referred to the Finance Committee and with the following additions: a. Directed the establishment of tenants ' advisory councils at the County homeless shelters . b. Social Service Director to report to the Finance Committee on administrative overhead in the County shelter program. c. Social ,Service Director and County Counsel to report on employment opportunities for general assistance recipients . LAW OFFICES OF CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION Main Office Telephone 1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)233-9954 P.O. Box 2289 East(510)439-9166 Richmond,California 94801 Central(510)372-8209 Fax(510)236-6846 August 12, 1994 RECEIVED Sent by Fax and Z. S. Mail 313-1575 Ulf 51994 Robert Hoffman, (Assistant Director CLERK BOARD OF Slj Department of Social Services C 0 N T Contra costa Coun y 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553-4068 RE: CCCDS81Marina West Richmond Office Relocation Proposal AFDC, Food Stamps, Medical, IHSS, GA (Work Programs and IGAR) Dear Mr. Hoffman,: I am writing to respond to your August 5, 1994 letter to the State Department,: of Social Services Office of Civil Rights which replies to their letter of July 15, 1994 . This addresses the temporary relocation of the Marina West Social Services Office in Richmond to thelSobrante Valley Social Services Office and the Research Drive CW' D office on or about October 1, 1994 for 6-8 months while the' County undertakes renovation of the 1305 Macdonald Avenue site. The temporary relocation involves major civil rights impact. The County's proposed action has consequences which, if implemented as proposed, could negatively and disproportionately affect minorities, women, and persons with disabilities by virtue of their race, or color, or sex, or national origin, or age, or disability or marital status. The temporary office relocation will result in increased commuting costs and lessened accessibility which would adversely affect those currently Lerved, when compared to other persons who are served elsewhere. Once 'again, thislCounty has stated its intention, formed committees, andimade decisions to relocate two other Social Services offices' with little input from outside the agency. The department seeks; guidance from Civil Rights as to whether an impact study is ,needed in light of the relocation being only "temporary" . We can appreciate the stated reasons related to the need for extensive renovation of the Marina West office that the Department states it intends to ultimately purchase. CCLSF understands theltounty's stated intention to return at a future date once renovations are completed. low This relocation, should not be undertaken until the proposed relocation identifies and addresses the civil rights impact including an imp�4ct study. The obvious',! implications of this proposed agency action again involves aliserious threat of discrimination: disproportionatel' impact on several protected classes of persons wishing to apply for and receive County, State and federal public assistance benefits. For example, the Marina West Richmond Office is centrally located. Many individuals and families walk to this office, which would cease to be an option for many of those affected by the temporary relocation. The Richmond" "temporary" location appears to place an undue burden on the lar'!gely minority population of Richmond, including the Afro-Americanil and Hispanic low-income residents. The relocation of the Richmond office as currently proposed most assuredly will disproportionately impact the thousands of low- income minorities, elderly, handicapped, disabled, pregnant women, non-Englis' h speaking and homeless individuals and families currently servedliby the Richmond office. It is unreasonable to expect these many men, women, infants and children to travel to another office in another city, or to the far reaches of Richmond, over 81,miles round trip from either the Richmond Marina West office to Ell Sobrante or the Research Drive Hilltop office. Many do not own automobiles and must take public transportation which many cannotafford. In addition, disabled persons or these unfamiliar with or possessing limited English skills, may feel uncomfortable using public transportation. Even though the County proposes to provide cost free handicapped access van transportation., this does not resolve the issues of language and cultural, age, medical conditions, child care issues which are unduly burdensome.. Under this plan, the County would not only require AFDC, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and GA applicants and recipients to travel vel to this new location, it also subjects adults and children to possible health and safety hazards, It especially if they are travelling to or from El Sobrante or Research Drive after dark. It would also be unnecessarily burdensome for many of those affected by this plan to understand new procedures oflithe temporary relocation in addition to the already complicated day to day management of the family living with limited resources. The County has not yet conducted any impact study and seeks SDSS/OCR guidance on this. We want to work with the County to outline the methodology of an impact study prior to its inception so as to ensure allmeaningful process. We believe the County has many options to the current proposal. As for any alternative site in the Richmond vicinity, (referred to in your June 9, 1994 letter to SDSS/OCR) CCLSF has no information to 'indicate the nature and details of the other locations the department has explored. We want to discuss with the Department any and all existing sites you've looked at in Richmond (e.g. there re is a vacant building in this area that was until recently the Richmond SSA office) . The County has the 2 , -. option to renovate when it has found another suitable rental in a centrally located part of `Richmond. The County has the option of renovating in stages. The County has the option of finding another temporary location and not renewing the leases at the E1 Sobrante and Research Drive offices. I The actionsCthat CCLSF believes are needed by your Agency: We request the Department to postpone the 10/1/94 relocation and postpone renovatlion of the Marina West Office unless and until all the State anld Federal Civil Rights disproportionate impact issues are dealt with in their entirety. This includes an impact study be done. Please see attached a July 14, 1994 Attorney General MemordanIum on Title VI. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, 'i CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION By: ELLEN J.; TABACHNIC - y MEMBER FLORIDA BAR ONLY cc: Perfecto ,Villareal, Director Sylvia Spencer, SDSS/OCR Michael Fjishel, SDSS/OCR Glenda Johnson, USDA/FNS OCR John Leel Bill Reid Tom Powers, Chairman, Board of Supervisors low3 I� efftrr of ta Attarniq Grncrat July 14, 1994 MEMORANDUM 701t HEADS of DEPARTMENfiS AND AGENCIES THAT PROVIDE FHS F22ZANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM: E SUBJECT: U Of , the Disparate Impact standard in A ministrative Regulations Under Title V1 of the;'Civil Rights Act of 1964 = This. month marks the, • 9th anniversary of the passage of Title V1 of the Civil!;Rights Act of 1964 (42 U:S_C. V520000 to 200od-6) , which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national aragin in programs $2�d activities that receive Federal financial assistance. The anniversary of this land3dark legislation is a fitting time to remind agencies that adiRihi- cr,rAti vn rp=lations �#.znlementing Titly V1 apply 'not cni to intentional discrimination but also .to policies and practIcea tfiimt hAve A dincrimin3t4rY et��G t: <.Z�,� } d' sA960 a v. . SP.. pj,' , 4t53 V.a. 582 tl $ ) . Uhwi hold that while Title'] VI itself requires proof .of discriminatory intent, agencies may 'mlidly adopt regulationz. i.mpl etanti.ng.'Titla VI that also prohibit; discriminatory effects. Nearly `all agancies have adopted' such regulations. In ALex!,Lngv. 'Choe, 46s. u.s. a6/ ily8�y (.aviis�rul,3c� sc�ti�i•� SO4 of tha. Rehabilitation Act. of 1973) , a unanimous supreme Court restated the .holding 3n GuardiMp- that disparate impact violations could be addressed. through regulations implementing Title V1. I' This Administration will vigorously enforce Title V1. As Fart of this effort, and to raLks cortai.n that � Tif-lp VT not violated, each of you should ensure that the disparate impact provisions in 'your regulations are fully utilized "so that all persons mayienjoy equally the benefits of federally financed programs. Enforcement of t disparate impact provisions is an Qsspntinl nomponent C`?f an e.`fectivt Oivil rights compliance programa Individuals cnntl nuP to be denied, on the basis 0f tmair raaa, : color, or national origin, the full, aid r LILL rl opportunity to participate in or receive the benefits. of programs assistedlby Feaeralfunds. Frequently discrimination results from policies and practices that are neutral ori their . face, but SOCIAL SERVICE DiEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY i AU6 o 8 1994 DATE: August 16, 1994 TO: Board of Supervisors 11 FROM: Perfecto Villarreal Director SUBJECT: Homelessil General Assistance Recipients: Standards Reference: Proposed Amendment to Resolution No. 91/606, "Standards for Administration of the Genera/Assistance Program" On July 26, 1994, the Board deferred action on the above-referenced item, and requested that Social Service staff provide certain additional information prior to the Board's reconsideration of this proposed resolution. 1 Derivation of the amounts proposed in the resolution for personal needs and transportation 1. The figure of $30 for personal needs and basic transportation was agreed upon by Legal Services Foundation during the settlement negotiations in the Oberlander v CCC lawsuit. This amount was derived from the figures determined by the market basket survey for personal needs and transportation which was done in 1989 -- $24 total -- applying the annual Bay Area Consumer Price Index, and rounding upward. Personal Needs: This allowance reflects a reasonable amount to encourage acceptable standards of appearance and hygiene. In 1989, the amount determined by averaging prices for items at six Contra Costa stores -- a combination of major discount stores and local community markets -- was $15. Transportation: This allowance reflects an amount for essential basic local transportation. In 1989; the amount determined to be the maximum round trip fare on the three local transit authority buses for six trips per month was $9. Allowances for medical transportation and transportation to meet a recipient's monthly workfare assignment are provided as special needs. Transportation for job interviews or to look for housing is provided in the form of bus tickets out of District office petty cash funds. Bus tickets are provided by Social Service and by GAADDS when required to enable a recipient to meet his/her GAADDS participation requirements. Gen 9c (New 3/86) i 11.1 Reduction in the grant for homeless persons who refuse available shelter. A. The grant limitation accounts for the value of available in-kind aid, and will encourage shelter use and compliance with shelter requirements. The proposed amendment to the Resolution includes Part 1, section 104, the administration of the standard of aid for a person who is eligible for General Assistance, but is homeless. Proposed section (c) states: "In consideration of the requirement that General Assistance applicants and recipients must take all actions necessary to obtain any available resource (section 602), and of the county's right to cooperation in administering its General Assistance Program, the standard of general assistance aid shall be reduced to $942 per month if a homeless person declines to accept available county or private shelter." As reflected in Resolution No. 91/606, section 602, it is a long-standing policy that: "General Assistance applicants or recipients must take all actions necessary to obtain gn available resource" (Emphasis added.) A determination of support from all sources is made at the point of application, and at the annual redetermination of eligibility. An applicant,ior recipient is not eligible unless s/he makes reasonable efforts to obtain support from'All sources. Applicants and recipients are required to pursue support from relatives,;as well as benefits which may be available from any other source, including, but not limited to Unemployment Insurance, Disability Insurance, Veterans Benefits, Workers Compensation, Social Security, etc. Funding for part of the operation of the shelters is made available by the Social Service Department, as a way of providing aid-in-kind benefits to General Assistance eligible persons. In accordance with Resolution No. 91/608, "Shelter Program for Homeless Adults Adopted pursuant to Government Code section 26227", General Assistance applicants and recipiepis shall receive priority in shelter assignments. An available shelter bed is an available resource to a General Assistance applicant or recipient. The appellate court dcision in Bell v Alameda Countv upheld the county's right to provide all or part of a'1' A grant as aid-in-kind, providing that the aid-in-kind benefits are actually "realistically available" to the recipient. It is not our intention to reduce the grants of a recipient who has not been offered a shelter bed that is actually available to him or her. Action to adjust the General Assistance grant to account for room and board provided by shelters will encourage some homeless people to refuse shelter so that they can August 16, 1994 Homeless GA Recipients: Standards Page 2 obtain a full cash grant,to spend as they see fit. A majority of these persons abuse drugs or alcohol and are expected to use a major portion of their case grants for those purposes.In order to encourage use of the shelters for rehabilitative purposes, and to discourage manipulation of the General Assistance system to maximize grant levels, it is necessary to reasonably limit the general assistance funds a person can receive without cooperating with the shelter program. B. The Grant Limitation Will Discourage Fraud Currently, there are approximately 1200 General Assistance recipients whose case records are coded as 'homeless". The Social Service Department has grave doubts as to the accuracy of the number and percentage of General Assistance recipients coded as homeless in jthe Contra Costa County Social Service Department's computer system. The number of recipients who are homeless is less than the number of recipients coded as homeless. There are several reasons for this: (a) The Department's;coding of a recipient's living arrangement is based on what the recipient reports to they Department. What is reported by the recipient usually cannot be verified. Thus, the coding of a recipient as homeless does not represent an actual determination that the!claim of being homeless is true and does not actually mean that the recipient is homeless. (b) A recipient of General Assistance currently receives a larger grant if he or she reports that he or she lis homeless, rather than reports living in shared housing with others. Accordingly, some recipients are encouraged to report that they are homeless when in fact they are not homeless. (c) Investigators in the Early Fraud Detection and Prevention Unit of the Social Service Department have found that some recipients have falsely reported being homeless. For example, a review in October, 1993 revealed that 52 out of 108 recipients who reported being homeless were in fact not homeless. C. The Grant Limitation Will Be Fairly Managed Beginning with the effective date of the Resolution, General Assistance eligibility workers will offer shelter referral to all applicants for General Assistance who state that they are homeless. The eligibility worker will confirm the number of vacancies each day with the Shelter referral staff. Priority will be given daily to general assistance eligible persons. If they applicant has no known physical or mental disabilities which make him or her inappropriate for shelter referral, an available bed will be offered to the applicant. If the bed is accepted, the client will be given bus tickets and advised to report to the shelter. The general assistance grant amount will be for personal needs and transportation. If a bed is available and the client refuses to accept the referral, August 16, 1994 J Homeless GA Recipients: Standards Page 3 i, the general assistance grant will be an amount for food, personal needs and transportation. If the only available bed is not located in the geographic half of the county in which the applicant customarily resides, and the client refuses to accept the referral, there will be no grant reduction. The on-going recipients currently coded as homeless will be seen on a flow basis, as their cases come due for the annual redetermination of eligibility. The same offer of available shelter will be., explored. Many of these recipients can be expected to be seen earlier than the annual visit, if they are discontinued from GA for any reason. As they are seen for restoration of benefits, the offer of shelter will be explored. It is not the Department's intention to require all of these recipients to come in en masse for exploration of shelter availability. III. Assistance for securing permanent housing Several individuals testified that if the monthly grants are reduced they "will not be able to save anything''to enable them to move into permanent housing. In 1991 the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy under Government Code section 26227 which provided'for a special need for recipients of general assistance to assist individuals to move into permanent housing. This General Assistance Housing Assistance program covers first and last months' rent and deposits. This special need is available to General Assistance eligible residents of the shelter who locate permanent'housing. IV. Work Incentive Program In October, 1991, Resolution No. 91/711 was adopted by the Board establishing an income disregard program. In August, 1993, Resolution No. 93/518 was adopted modifying that policy. Current policy provides for exemption of a $50 standard work expense deduction plus one-third of the balance. The net nonexempt earnings are deducted from the recipient's applicable standard of assistance, This benefit is limited to six months. For example, a recipient who has monthly earnings of $150 will have nonexempt earnings of $67. If thel client lives in shared housing and his standard of assistance is $225, his grant will be'$158 ($225 less $67). The Department recommends modifying the work incentive program by increasing the exempt earnings to $100 plus one third of the balance, and continuing to deduct the nonexempt income from the applicable standard of assistance, and continuing to limit August 16, 1994 Homeless GA Recipients: Standards Page 4 it to six months. A suggestion has been made that the Board policy be changed to provide for the net nonexempt income be deducted from the AFDC Minimum Basic Standards of Adequate Care (MBSAC), rather than from the applicable General Assistance standard of assistance. The Department strongly recommends against this. Minimum Basic Standard of Adequate Care (MBSAC) is not a General Assistance concept, and is not supported by the!statute. August 16, 1994 Homeless GA Recipients: Standards Page 5 LAW OFFICES OF CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION Main Office Telephone 1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)233-9954 P.O. Box 2289 East(510)439-9166 Richmond,California 94802 Central(510)372-8209 Fax(510)236-6846 August 12, 1994 . , 'RECEIVED Sent by Fax and U. S. mail 313-1575 151994 Robert Hoffman, ;,Assistant Director 'CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Department of social Services t CONTRAL COSTA CO3 Contra Costa County 40 Douglas Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4068 RE: CCCDSS. Marina West Richmond Office Relocation Proposal AFDC, JIFood Stamps, Medical, IHSS, GA (Work Programs and IGAR) Dear Mr. Hoffman: I am writing to respond to your August 5, 1994 letter to the State Department of Social Services Office of Civil Rights which replies to their letter of July 15, 1994 . This addresses the temporary relocation of the Marina West Social .Services office in Richmond to theiSobrante Valley Social Services Office and the Research Drive 6WD office on or about October 1, 1994 for 6-8 months while the County undertakes renovation of the 1305 Macdonald Avenue site. The temporary relocation involves major civil rights impact. The County's proposed action has consequences which, if implemented as proposed, could negatively and disproportionately affect minorities, women, and persons with disabilities by virtue of their race, or color, or sex, or national origin, or age, or disability or Marital status. The temporary office relocation will result in -increased commuting costs and lessened accessibility which would adversely affect those currently ..;erved, when coiipared to other persons who are served elsewhere. Once again, this County has stated its intention, formed committees, andimade decisions to relocate two other Social Services offices with little input from outside the agency. The department seeks guidance from Civil Rights as to whether an impact study is ,,needed in light of the relocation being only "temporary" . We can appreciate the stated reasons related to the need for extensive renovation of the Marina West office that the Department states it intends to ultimately purchase. CCLSF understands the County's stated intention to return at a future date once renovations are completed. 10447 This relocation, should riot be undertaken until the proposed relocation identifies and addresses the civil rights impact including an impact study. The obvious implications of this proposed agency action again involves a' serious threat of discrimination: disproportionate impact on several protected classes of persons wishing to apply for and receive County, State and federal public assistance benefits. For example, the Marina West Richmond office is centrally located. Many individuals and families walk to this office, which would cease to be an option for many of those affected b,y the temporary relocation. The Richmond "temporary" location appears to place an undue burden on the largely minority population of Richmond, including the Afro-American and Hispanic low-income residents. The relocation of the Richmond office as currently proposed most assuredly will disproportionately impact the thousands of low- income minorities, elderly, handicapped, disabled, pregnant women, non-English speaking and homeless individuals and families currently served by the Richmond office. It is unreasonable to expect these many men, women, infants and children to travel to another office in another city, or to the far reaches of Richmond, over 8imiles round trip from either the Richmond Marina West office to El Sobrante or the Research Drive Hilltop office. Many do not own automobiles and must take public transportation which many cannot afford. In addition, disabled persons or these unfamiliar with or possessing limited English skills, may feel uncomfortable using public transportation. Even though the County proposes to provide cost free handicapped access van transportation, this does not resolve the issues of language and cultural, age, medical conditions, child care issues which are unduly burdensome. Under this plan, the County would not only require AFDC, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and GA applicants and recipients to travel to this new location, it also subjects adults and children to possible health and safety hazards, especially if they are travelling to or from El Sobrante or Research Drive after dark. It would also be unnecessarily burdensome for many of those affected by this plan to understand new procedures of the temporary relocation in addition to the already complicated day to day management of the family living with limited resources. The County has not yet conducted any impact study and seeks SDSS/OCR guidance, on this. We want to work with the County to outline the methodology of an impact study prior to its inception so as to ensure a meaningful process. We believe the County has many options to the current proposal. As for any alternative site in the Richmond vicinity. (referred to in your June 9, 1994 letter to SDSS/OCR) CCLSF has no information to indicate the nature and details of the other locations the department has explored. We want to discuss with the Department any and all existing sites you've looked at in Richmond (e.g. there is a vacant building in this area that was until recently the Richmond SSA office) . The County has the . .. option to renovate when it has found another suitable rental in a centrally located part of' Richmond. The County has the option of renovating in stages. The County has the option of finding another temporary location and not renewing the leases at the E1 Sobrante and Research Drive offices. The actions that CCLSF believes are needed by your Agency: We request the Department to postpone the 10/1/94 relocation and postpone renovation of the Marina West Office unless and until all the State and Federal Civil Rights disproportionate impact issues are dealt with in their entirety. This includes an impact study be done. '!Please see attached a July 14 , 1994 Attorney General Memordanum on Title VI. Thank you for your .consideration. i Sincerely yours, CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION By: ELLEN J.�TAbACHNI.Cit- MEMBER FLORIDA BAR ONLY cc: Perfecto Villareal, Director Sylvia Spencer, SDSS/OCR Michael Fishel, SDSS/OCR Glenda Johnson, USDA/FNS OCR John Leek Bill Reid Tom Powets, Chairman, Board of Supervisors low 3 r .. Off trr* of AttarnCb (6merat July 14, 1994 MEMORANDUX FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES THAT PROVZDn PE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM: E L SUSPECT: U o£ t_he Disparate Iiapact star►dard in A ministrative Regu lat ions 'Under Title VI of the civil Rights Act of 1964 = This month marks; the .34th anniversary of the passage of Title X71 of. the Civil," tights Act of 1964 (eta U..S_C, 5520006.. to 2:00od-6) , which prohibits discrimination on the basis of. race, color, or national origin in programs and activities thzt receive Federal financial assistance. The anniversary of chis landmark legisla't:Lon is a fittiing time to remind agencias tUat aftiri- crrAtivn rp."l,ations limnlemintina Tit1v V1 apply not onl -to intentional discrimination but also .to policies ani{ prac�lc�ac thttt rev �, s�issz'imiratQrY � f�� t. . z�,, a' .s so a v. t'.= �...k 'vanA q==inIkA!pn, 463 U.a. held that while Title VI itself requires proof of discriminatory int)ent,- ager-Icier. may ',validly Adopt regulations .ii�pJLs�aarit rig"Title VI that alsoprohibit discriminatory effects. Nearly 'all agancigs have adopted such regulations. In ALLEx!I!nAggv. .Cho e, 459. v.5. z6/ �cvstziirul,ig SGc:ti61,6 SO4 of the. RehalAli.tation Act, of 1973) , a unanimous supreme Court restated the holding in Guardiara that disparate impact violations could be addressed through regulations implementing Title VZ. This Administration will vigorously enforce Title V1. As p,Art of tihis of€o-t, and to maxi► cartodn tha.t �.Titlp VT ;tis not violated, each of you should ensure that the disparate impact .provisions in, your regulations are fully utilized 's:o that all persons may enjoy equally the benefits of federal-ly financed programs. Enforcement of the disparate impact provisions is an . PSAPnt•,i a1 nomponcnt of an e+fact;iYt Oivil r3g4ts co;apliance. programa Individuals continue to be denied, on the basis Of zneir rase, color, or national origin, tho MI. Orld W1_13 111 opportunity to participate in or receive the benefits. of programs assitted 'by Federal !funds. Frequently discxI inat,ion results froom policies and practices that are neutral ori their . face. but AUG 2 ' 94 16:. 4E' 1 PAGE . 0F2 have .the of ect of'.diieri=inating. Those policies Arid - ; practices must be eliminated unie' ss they are Shawn to be nac+eSary to the premn-am f n npr,rAt i nn mnd thnrA is no 12= disariminatgry aYtornativm. _ unser t xecuLive vraer iz z a u, Tae LeY LmGi� c,L u jai L.t�:� - i's responsible for ensuring that fuming agencies iaest their. ' respnnn ihi l f t. nn iandnt Tit?n VT. Thies D,.Lir46YWAat La gonittO to productive and effective enforcement of the civil rights laws by each agency that extends Federal financial .assxaatarice. rnaially noutral poli.4iov and practices that *rt- R% arhitrhry and unnecessary b.arriers to equal opportunity must end: ., .This w=:, Lh= u4l yy r I L1G VII w14Cll iL �c�:oiuo laW IL,.4 . it -Qe%G'i!13 . Sins of the highest prioritie-s of this Adinini stratibn. AUG 2 ' 94 1 E:. 46' ` PAGE . 062 have the of ect of discriminating. Those •policies arid practices must be eliminated unless they are shown to be necessary to the rrevIrnm f r. nnrrAt 3 nn And there is no la= disoriminatQry aYtorn�tive. unaer zxecuLive vraer S1z5Vs true AJWjJCLTLJUICII6 •VJ. uu&LiS.As - is responsible for ensuring that funding agencies ideet their •rrspnnr 1 hi 1 f tlf-g tiandnr 'Tit.1 n VT. Tidaz DtiduWt t. id V RittO to productive and effective enforcement of the civil rights laws by each agency that extends Federal financial .assistance11 raoially noutral poiiciev and prart_icas that- prf 4s srhitrr,ry and unnecessary barriers to equal opportunity must lend. This was LII= vai wf Y1 Lic VT wh=,L, iL "%. ,= 1Qu a..4 it QP-QP . SlAe. of the h ghest priorities of this Administration. . DATE: R," gUEST TO SPEAKFORM ORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before address' the Board.' NAME: G? PHONE:c � � 6 � ADDRESS: CITY: 0 I I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZ-V ION) Check one: i, I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 11 My comments will be: general for against I! I wish to speak on the subject of ✓ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. II - it DATE: RE �� guEsT TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: O � PHONE: ` ADDRE7s6ki2 I CITY: 622—L�-i97� , V� I am speaking formyself OR organization: NAME OF ORGAN17 kTION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: generals for against wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. 'i SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. j 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of ptese tations so all persons may be heard.) At ii I II 44 / r DATE: kEgUEST TO SPEAK FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this for and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: 7i4' S/11 PHONE: 9 ADDRESS: a O q 7 C Aenrol.,c yD us Te 1 AG G✓.q CITY: C©1VCa 4,U C1f I am speaking formyself OR organization: NAME OF ORGANI7aT1ON) Check one: I wish to spe iak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. i ii II I DATE: U��1�-9 R T47g u EST TO SPEAK FORM i THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: . PHONE: \/�y- �a a ADDRESS: C"1A0 /\) 0 / (-) v" L CITY: C O A r o tt,Z�) I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZM ION Check one: �I JI wish to speak on Agenda Item # 3 My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. II s DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM II (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressin the Board.., NAME: y/�G ��S,f� l PHONE: <L2 ADDRESS: ADDRESS: �? % CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: II (NAME OF ORGANIZATION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # . My comments will be: general for against, �. '� g I wish to speak on the subject of eh, A/ //"/s I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. i ii �i ii DATE: / QUEST TO SPEAK FORM II (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) i' Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. �1 q NAME: IeKSPHONE: / 3 7 ADDRESS: /3 /-ZP" C2 YV r' cny:(✓�/ / �ye..e I am speaking formyself OR organization: II ( ME OF ORGANIZ-XTl ti) Ax 444 Check-one: I; - I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 3 My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of11 I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. i i I I� ,I DATE: // 6 A �-- , QUEST TO SPEAK FORM • �� (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: /—}jZ 7_- `I SL `I PHONE: So 29L 7.3 i ADDRESS: CITY: c7 /� C-L, �Z I am speaking formyself OR organization: Check 011e.: I� DAME OF ORGAN17al'lOti� I wish to spe Iak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against _. I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. II DATE: 1�31(c _ REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT lace it in the box near the Complete this form and p speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board., NAME: PHONE: q q(0 ADDRESS: /�LOS- 6,yo CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION) Check one: ✓ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. TSE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 16, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Bishop ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Standards for Administration ) of General Assistance Program ) Resolution No. 94/431 The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Resolution No. 91/606, adopting standards of aid and care for the indigent and dependent poor of the County (General Assistance) , effective November 1, 1991, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows : 1 . Part 1, section 102, subsection (c) and section 102 . 6 are amended in accordance with statutory adjustments provided under Chapter 2 (commencing with section 11200 ) of part 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read as follows effective October 1 , 1,994 : (c) The monthly standards of general assistance aid per .assistance unit are: Size of Assistance Unit Standard of Aid 1 ( living in independent housing $ 293 2 394 3 492 4 594 5 692 6 793 7 894 8 993 102 . 6 The General Assistance standard of aid for applicants and recipients who share housing with one or more unrelated persons or with one or more persons including persons related by birth, marriage or adoption who are not legally responsible for the applicant or, recipient (non-family budget unit) pursuant to Welfare and '!Institutions Code S 17001 .5(a) ( 2) (A) are: Housing shared with one other person $249 Housing shared with two other persons $234 Housing shared with three or more other persons $220 2 . Part 1, section 104 is amended to read as follows effective September 1, 1994 : 104 . The standard of aid for a person who is eligible for general assistance but is homeless shall be the standard fora 1 person budget unit, which shall be administered as follows : (a) If the homeless person resides at a. county shelter, in consideration of the shelter aid received the cash grant shall be reduced by one-third of the standard of aid. -1- RESOLUTION NO. 94/431 (b) If the homeless person resides at a private shelter, in consideration of the shelter aid received the cash grant shall be reduced by one-third of the standard of aid. (c) If the County is unable to provide shelter, and the person is unable to obtain private shelter, the homeless person shall be entitled to receive the aid payable to a 1 person budget unit. (d) Homeless eligible shelter residents who move to a confirmed housing unit''shall receive the unused balance of aid payable for that month. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: 61AA"'A /� , / Y9�z Phil Batch�61or4 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a' d County Administrator By: / Deputy cc: Social Service Department County Counsel -2- RESOLUTION NO. 94/431 ,36 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this order on August 16, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, _Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Bishop ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Discretionary Social Welfare ] Resolution No. 94/ 432 Programs adopted pursuant to ] Government Code section 26227 ) �i The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors resolves that Resolution No. 91/711, adopting General Assistance Work Incentives, as amended by Resolution No. 93/518, is hereby further amended as follows effective September 1, 1994: Part 2. Program: General Assistance Work Incentive a. The Social Service Department shall adopt policies for a work incentive program for General Assistance recipients which will give these recipients a financial incentive to find and maintain employment. b. A portion of monthly gross earnings shall be exempted in determining General Assistance eligibility and benefit levels, as follows: 1) Standard work expense deduction of $100; 2) One-third of the balance. C. All GA recipients with earned income may be eligible,based on their gross earnings. The maximum work incentive ($100 standard work expense deduction plus one-third of the balance) may not exceed the applicable standard of aid. d. GA recipients will be responsible for timely reports of employment and of verifiable earned income'. e. Participation i5 limited to six months. The GA recipient -will not be eligible to participate again until he or she has been off aid for six consecutive months._ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 1994 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy cc: Social Service 11"Department County Counsel RESOLUTION NO. 94/432