Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12151987 - IO.2 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FRaM INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Contra December 14 , 1987 Costa DATE: CO 1!^1F�/ SUBJECT; ' General Assistance Program �/�JI �l� SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Establish self-sufficiency as the goal. of the Contra Costa County. General Assistance Program. Direct the Social Service Department to draft self-sufficiency contracts for each individual applying for or receiving General Assistance. These contracts should include, but not be limited to the following: Employment Goal Training Goal Housing Goal Treatment Goal 2 . Authorize Contra Costa County to join other California counties in establishing a task force to explore the impacts of federal, state, and local policies on the General. Assistance Program, including homelessness. 3 . Determine , that Contra Costa County should not pursue legislation establishing a responsible relative program in General Assistance. It is costly, and largely unenforceable based on past California experience with such programs. 4 . Direct the Social Services Department to establish supervised telephone banks in each Social Service Department District Office to encourage and support employment goals of each appropriate General Assistance client. 5 . Establish participation requirements for the Workfare program based on the General Assistance grant divided by the State minimum wage. We estimate that this change would double the workfare hours available in the community. 6 . Direct the County Administrator to coordinate the implementation of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act in Contra Costa County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. X YES SIGNATURE: _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .X— RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE' X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE s : Nan=Canden Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON December 15, 17APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 I-EREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE XUNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT;. ABSTAIN: - OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED Director of Social Services County. Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Legal Services Foundation SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR . BY DEPUTY �M382/743 � — i `} a • Page 2 7 . Direct the Director of Social Services to explorethe feasibility of expansion of the Social Service Department' s Advocacy Program for General Assistance recipients who have SSI applications or appeals pending, and report on his recommendations. 8 . Direct the Director of Social Services to explore the feasibility of adopting "Agreements to Repay" for GA, expanding the reimbursement requirements to all GA recipients , rather than just to the Interim Assistance segment of the caseload. Direct the County Administrator to coordinate with Social Services and the Office of Revenue Collections to study this issue and develop a proposal, as appropriate. 9 . Request the Director of Community Development to advise the Director of Social Services of any development applications which involve the establishment of additional affordable housing units. Upon receipt of such notification, request the Director of Social Services to assume the responsibility to assist in generating public support for such applications, assuming the projects are otherwise consistent with County guidelines. BACKGROUND: On September 29, 1987, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee asking the Director of Social Services to report on a number of items related to the General Assistance Program. The Director completed this report and reviewed it with our Committee on December 14 , 1987 . A copy of the report is attached, and we would commend it to each of the Board Members as a very thorough and thoughtful examination of the General Assistance Program in this County. Also present at our meeting was the Director of Litigation for the Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation, who filed the attached comments with our Committee. It is important to note that Mr. Bertenthal, representing the Legal Services Foundation, was almost uniformly supportive of the Department ' s comments and recommendations. Mr. Bertenthal did express his concern about changes to the requirement that General Assistance recipients sign an agreement to repay the assistance extended them. However, since our recommendation only requests the Director to explore the feasibility of such agreements and present a proposal to our Board, we believe that the recommendation does not contradict the concerns of the Legal Services Foundation. Mr. Bertenthal did raise a question regarding the need for the County to provide General Assistance to residents of temporary shelters. The Director of Social Services may wish to explore this issue further with the County Counsel, although we have not made a specific recommendation on this subject. LAW OFFICES OF CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION MAIN OFFICE 1017 MACDONALD AVENUE, P.O. BOX 2289 ROY EUGENE BOGGS,JR. RICHMOND. CALIFORNIA 91LB02 TELEPHONE EXECUTIV9 DIRECTOR (415)233-9954 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE NANCY FAHDEN, . SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 2 TOM TORLAKS ON, SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 5 FROM: PHILIP BERTENTHAL, DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION RE: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES GENERAL ASSISTANCE REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 14 , 1987 The Board of Supervisors has previously requested that CCLSF participate in the Internal Operations Committee' s study of Contra Costa County' s General Assistance program. We have reviewed the report of the Director of the Social Services Department of December 9 , 1987 , and have prepared this document as our preliminary response. That report is divided into six substantive sections plus a section on recommendations. For simplicity, this response will follow that outline. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. ExaMples, page 6 . The report correctly shows that Contra Costa County has raised General Assistance grants in excess of the California Necessities Index over the last five years. However, what it does not show is that grants were not raised for several years in the 1970 ' s, that the resource limits have not been significantly changed since 1974 and that Contra Costa' s level of General Assistance lags substantially below that of every other Bay Area county. Examples, page 7 . The report correctly points out that the GA Special Needs program has been expanded. However, what the report fails to show is that courts have repeatedly decided that at least clothing, if not haircuts and linen allowances, are required to be included in the regular GA grant. It also does not state that the Social Services Department has no regular procedure to notify recipients of their entitlement to Special Needs . Conclusion, page 8 . We agree that the goal of the GA program should be the self-sufficiency of GA recipients. We also agree that the program should be a humane one. STATE TAKEOVER. We agree with the conclusions of the County Welfare Directors regarding state takeover of General Assistance. RELATIVE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILI`PY. . We agree in general with the conclusions in this section, but caution that the current practice of contacting relatives of General Assistance applicants may violate state laws regarding confidentiality of welfare records. WORK PROGRAMS . Our experience with most employable General Assistance applicants and recipients has convinced us that they are anxious to get off GA and to get a job. However, as the report notes on page 5 , illiteracy is a major problem facing the General Assistance population. Before the work programs are expanded, we would encourage the county to do a comprehensive assessment of General Assistance employables to assess their current ability to find competitive employment. The county is planning a comprehensive training program for AFDC recipients through the GAIN program, we would encourage a similar comprehensive approach to the GA program. We would also encourage an evaluation of the various components of the current work programs, by setting up a control group of individuals exempt from work requirements and a parallel group who was subject to the work requirements. MISUSE OF FUNDS . We are the civil lawyers for most individuals who are accused of misuse of funds in the GA :and food stamp area. It is our experience that the county aggressively pursues wrong doers in both programs. Regarding misuse of GA cash grants we would only add the observation that on a grant of $237 a month for food, shelter, utilities, personal needs and transportation, there is not a lot of money to misuse. HOMELESSNESS. The report correctly applauds the federal government' s efforts to help the homeless by granting food stamp eligibility to residents of temporary shelters. The report does not mention that Contra Costa County has taken the opposite approach by forbidding residents of temporary shelters from receiving General Assistance. There are a number of other approaches that Contra Costa County could take to assist General Assistance recipients who are homeless, including giving homeless GA recipients the housing portion of the grant so that they could get a motel room and by guaranteeing General Assistance recipients money for last month' s rent and security deposits. We would be prepared to provide other examples if the Board wished. RECOMMENDATIONS. Self-sufficiency contracts, p. 18 . . This recommendation is too vague at this time for us to comment on it. However, we are concerned that until the county is an position to fund adequate grant levels and employability assessment and training that the contracts are premature. Relative responsibility, p. 18 . We agree with this recommendation. Telephone Banks, p. 18 . If the department is going to set up telephone banks for jobs, we recommend that standards for evaluating their utility be established in advance. We also recommend that the telephones be available to recipients who need housing. Workfare, p. 18 . Before expanding workfare, we recommend that you examine whether it is currently meeting its goal of self-sufficiency and examine its cost - especially in light of low General Assistance grants. Homeless Coordination, p. 18. We agree that the county should designate a homeless programs coordinator. There is currently a problem in coordinating programs in the county. The only sizeable emergency shelter in Contra Costa County is the Richmond Rescue Mission. While it is an excellent facility, it is a religious institution. It has mandatory chapel for its residents, has conversion as one of its goals and uses a religious test in its hiring. Because of this it is not eligible for most public funding. Because of the lack of a temporary non-sectarian facility, Contra Costa County has lost out on state and federal funding in the past. This is happening while Social Services Department staff are forced to routinely ship Contra Costa County homeless families and individuals to Oakland to be housed by Alameda County. SSI Advocacy, p. 19. Contra Costa Legal .Services Foundation originally proposed an SSI advocacy program in 1983 . The program would have an attorney component to it. For reasons that are unclear to this date, the former Department Director opposed funding CCLSF to provide this service. We remain willing and able to negotiate such a program. Agreements to Repay , p. 19. Agreements to repay are of at best doubtful legal validity. It would be difficult to administer. For example, GA earned on work projects would be money earned by the recipient and not subject to recovery. Each month, it would be necessary to segregate the assistance paid to each recipient for which he or she worked from the assistance paid for which he. or_. she did not work. In addition, adoption of such a program would no doubt involve the county . in. substantial litigation, and, if it lost liability for substantial attorneys fees as well . Besides, given that the General Assistance population is chronically poor, it is questionable whether such a program would pay for itself. r SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: DECEMBER 9, 1987 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE NANCY FAHDEN, SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 2 TOM TORLAKSON, SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 5 FROM: JAMES A. RYDINGSWORD, DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GYRAL ASSISTANCE As requested at the Internal Operations Committee meeting of September 21, my staff and I have prepared a report on Contra Costra County' s General Assistance program. This report addresses the following issues: A. Historical Perspective B. State Takeover of the General Assistance Program C. Relative and Financial Responsibility D. Work Programs E. Misuse of Funds F. Homelessness This report also contains Recommendations to the Board regarding future planning for our General Assistance program. I will be prepared to discuss this report with you at the IOC meeting of December 14 , 1987 , and to answer any questions at that time. Gen 9c (New 3/86) HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE BACKGROUND General Assistance is a responsibility imposed upon the County Board of Supervisors by the State Legislature, to relieve indigent residents who are not supported or relieved in any other manner. It is funded solely from county revenues. In Contra Costa County, General Assistance is a program designed to meet the minimum needs of persons who are temporarily unemployed, or who, because of present disability, are seeking assistance to meet their current needs. In administering the program, considerable emphasis is placed upon assisting the applicant or recipient to rely upon other resources. , Accordingly, assistance from relatives and friends is requested. Applicants are referred to, and assisted with obtaining State and Federal benefits such as categorical public assistance, Unemployment Insurance, Disability Insurance, Worker ' s Compensation, Veteran' s assistance, Social Security, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI ) . Employable persons are required to seek employment; they are provided services that will prepare them for, and assist them in finding, employment. These services are described and discussed in detail in Section D. Persons with verified temporary physical or mental disabilities are aided as "Unemployable" for the duration of the incapacity. Persons whose disabilities appear to be of a permanent nature, or for which the prognosis is at least one year, must apply for SSI . Those whose SSI applications are denied are referred to Social Workers who provide advocacy services to assist the client with the appeal process. Contra Costa receives reimbursement for the GA paid while the SSI application and appeal were pending. For the Fiscal Year 1986-87, 431 of our GA recipients were granted SSI , and Contra Costa recovered $729 , 900. The past twenty years have seen many changes in General Assistance programs throughout the state of California; Contra Costa' s is no exception. Many have resulted from changes in Federal and State policies and programs, judicial decisions, and others from societal changes. -2- FEDERAL AND STATE IMPACTS Federal and State regulations regarding categorical assistance have dramatically impacted General Assistance. Every policy change that excludes a group or classification of previously eligible individuals from categorical assistance, impacts GA. The dramatic change in laws and practices relating to institutionalization of the mentally disabled has greatly affected General Assistance. While it is true that most of these people should be eligible for SSI, it is a time and energy consuming process to achieve that goal. t -3- JUDICIAL IMPACT Changes in laws and the policies of the Justice system regarding sentencing and parole have impacted the General Assistance caseload. Laws regarding determinate sentencing, earlier release dates, and release with no discharge planning or rehabilitation have increased GA caseloads. The Civil Rights movement, and the 1970 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Goldberg v. Kelly, have made it clear that benefit entitlements are subject to the Constitutional requirements of due process. This has impacted the General Assistance caseload in terms of timely notice requirements, the evidentiary hearing processes, including the right to receive Aid pending the hearing decision. In the past five years the California Courts have had a profound impact on General Assistance. Legal Aid organizations throughout California have brought pressure on most County Welfare Departments and Boards of Supervisors. Los Angeles County has had as many as six General Relief lawsuits pending at any given time in the past several years; Contra Costa has two, for which final settlement is still pending. Even very small counties have not gone unchallenged. Issues which have been attacked repeatedly over the past five years include fixed address requirements, identification requirements, sanction periods, resource limits, workfare/job search requirements , aid payment methods ( i.e. voucher payments) , and most frequently, grant amounts. At this time, seventeen counties have adopted the AFDC rate as their GA rate, as a direct result of litigation or pre-litigation negotiations. Although rulings technically impact only the county specifically challenged, each ruling is cited as a precedent in other cases, and challenges ruled upon in District courts of appeal are applicable to all counties within that jurisdiction. An example of this is the 1985 Jennings v Jones decision, in which Santa Clara County was the defendant. This case concerned penalties for failure to comply with program requirements. The ruling, which stated that failures must be evaluated as to willfulness before a penalty can be applied, has impacted our own program regulations. -4- SOCIETAL CHANGES Societal changes of the past two decades, such as increased substance abuse, break-up of the family unit, and most recently the increased numbers of homeless" persons, have all contributed heavily to the growth of the General Assistance population, and to changes in the program to accommodate these various groups of people. The problem of adult illiteracy continues to impact our GA caseloads. There are estimated to be 65,000 functionally or totally illiterate adults in Contra Costa County. Nationally, one out of every five adults is illiterate. Functional illiterates are those who lack reading and writing skills needed to handle the minimal demands of daily living. Many functional illiterates can-- and do-- work. However, most are unable to complete a job application or read and understand instructions. In 1983 , twenty-seven literacy projects were established throughout the State of California. Contra Costa has two of these programs: LEAP (Literacy for Every Adult Program) serving Richmond residents, and Project Second Chance, which serves the rest of the county. We include a brief literacy evaluation as part of our service orientation for employables, and we do refer our GA applicants and recipients to these projects when we are aware of the need. Often, however, the adult illiterate is reluctant to admit his problem and is most likely able to conceal it for a long period of time. Substance abuse and mental illness also have impacted our caseload. An average of 23 recipients per month are residents of drug abuse rehabilitation facilities. Our regulations require that alcoholics and drug abusers be referred to AIRS or Drug Abuse Rehabilitation services. However, these agencies also have staffing problems; recipients often go on waiting lists, and when treatment is available, the services may be severely limited. The subject of homelessness is addressed separately in this report. -5- SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT CONTRA COSTA HAS DONE SINCE 1982 **Increased maximum grant: 39% for recipients in independent, unshared living arrangements; 48% for recipients in shared living arrangements. The corresponding increase in the California Necessities Index for the same 5 year period was 30. 3%. **Implementation of Work Test 3/1/82: a two-day work performance evaluation for Employable applicants; funded inter-departmental agreement with Public Works for operations. **Implementation of WorkFare, 1984: a 4 day/month work assignment for Employable recipients; funded inter-departmental agreement with Public Works for operations. **Redesign of Work Programs, 1984-86 : revised regulations regarding increased job search/job club requirements; added Job Search Workshop and job development services; expanded workfare slots to include unfunded agreements with public/private non-profit agencies; eliminated Work Test 1/86 in accordance with legislative changes in State Welfare and Institutions code. **Regulations revised to accommodate "time-expired" refugees, who are no longer eligible for Federal Refugee Assistance. **Regulations revised to accommodate families discontinued from AFDC, due to changes in State-only AFDC regulations. **Interim Assistance Advocacy Program: Developed program which provides advocacy services to Interim Assistance recipients whose SSI applications have been denied. Assigned two Social Workers and two Eligibility Workers to this program. Recovery to the County for Fiscal Year 1982-83 was $206 ,786 ( 158 cases) ; recovery for FY86-87 was $731,000 (431 cases) . **Lawsuit, Shirley v. CCC, regarding residence; modified requirements to allow for verification other than fixed address. **Lawsuit, Arghandiwal v.CCC, regarding age; modified requirements to allow for the eligibility of minors who are disqualified from categorical assistance. -6- **On-going review of regulations by Department staff, and/or negotiations with Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation, resulted in program changes or clarifications in the following areas: * Penalties: limited sanctions to failures to comply with Work Programs or Quality Control; clarified good cause critiria; added requirements regarding willfulness determinations. * Property: changes regarding property maximums, availability, exemptions, and utilization requirements. * Income: clarification of availability and treatment of income. * Overpayments: changes regarding adjustment and recovery of overpayments. * Notices of Action: revision of existing notices for clarification; development of additional notices. **Established the Administrative Review Panel for review of General Assistance Appeals. Provided for submission of written challenge to Program regulations by any interested person. **Established inter-departmental agreement with the Office of Revenue Collections for transfer of unadjusted overpayment accounts. **Expanded GA Need items to Include Non-recurring Special Needs for: * Haircuts * Household linen * Union dues/fees/licenses necessary for employment * Clothing * Eyeglasses * Transportation for Workfare and workshop assignments. **FY86-87 expenditures for these Special Needs were $82 , 333 . 15 **Developed and issued the General Assistance Handbook, providing Departmental regulatory guidance for the GA program. Developed and offered comprehensive training program for GA staff. **Increased services and assistance to the homeless. Reassigned Social Workers to deal with housing problems, both for emergency, short-term shelter, and for permanent housing. Expenditures of County Emergency Assistance, which is used primarily for housing assistance, increased from $7370 in FY1982-83 to $149,124 in FY1986-87. Increased the usage of such assistance for Rent deposits by direct pay to landlords, to be refunded to the County. -7- The focus of a General Assistance program should be self-sufficiency. Services provided to applicants and recipients of GA-- whether employable, temporarily incapacitated, or permanently disabled-- should have this common goal. We should not lose sight of the fact that GA is intended to be a short-term subsistence program, albeit a humane one- and not a way of life. -8- STATE TAKEOVER OF THE GA PROGRAM In 1985 a General Assistance Task Force was formed by the County Welfare Directors Association for the purpose of exploring the feasibility of --and the increasing need for- a State General Assistance program. The report was presented to the CWDA Executive Board in January, 1986. It cited many of the issues referred to in this report: Increased demands upon the program from a multitude of sources, including failures of other programs and systems; legal challenges; the absence of specificity in the law; lack of other consistent and reliable services; and societal changes. The report concluded: "This report. . . tries to identify the overwhelming need to do something to shield counties from increasing demands of the courts and to move toward more uniformity and standardization of policy and benefit level. "In the survey of directors. . . the responses identified a recognition of the unliklihood that the state would assume 100% of the costs. It was recognized that some substantial cost sharing is required from the state. Counties need to be ready to make a reasonable contribution not to exceed their current level of expenditures endexed to inflationary pressures. "Even with substantial financial participation on the part of the state. . . amendments to the law would still be necessary. . .includ( ing) clarification of prompt and human services, residency requirements, grant levels, sanctions and separations of requirements for unemployables from employables, or the long-term recipients from the short-term recipients. "All counties would ultimately benefit from a more standardized program. Perhaps a more uniform program would prevent the disproportionate concentration of the GA population in the large metropolitan counties. "The need for reforming and restructuring the GA/GR system has never been more apparent. There are two major challenges to be addressed to achieve the changes. First, the association members must adopt a conscientious position; and second, we must convince the legislature and their work on welfare reform. . .cannot be complete until they address and resolve the GA/GR. . . issues. " Unfortunately, almost two years later, little progress has been made toward meeting this need. -9- RELATIVE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Sponsors of resident aliens have a responsibility to support the alien for a period of three years from the date of entry into the U.S. Other persons may have a presumed financial responsibility for each other by virtue of their relationship-- e.g. parent for adult child, adult child for parent-.- or based upon a prior history of support. Our regulations provide for contact to be made with these persons, both by telephone and by mail. However, this is not a legally enforceable obligation, and actual sources of support obtained from relatives for General Assistance applicants and recipients is so minimal as to be almost nonexistent. Our program does make a rebuttable presumption for GA applicants/recipients where the parent( s) and the adult child(ren) reside in the same household and both/all apply for GA. The rebuttable presumption is that, under such circumstances, parents have responsibility for the adult children, and vice versa. In instances where the person with the presumed responsibility does not live with the GA applicant, or even if they live together, but the other individual is not applying for GA, the presumption is rebuttable, and may be refuted. i -10- WORK PROGRAMS Services to General Assistance Employable applicants and recipients were broadened and expanded two years ago with approval of the Board of Supervisors. Work Programs became a multi-component program of various services, and requirements. The program emphasis was, and is, to assist General Assistance Employable clients in gaining self-sufficiency through employment. All aspects of this program "steer" the client to that goal. Job Finding Workshop/Job Development/Phone Banks A Job Finding Workshop was established. As an integral part of the services offered through this component, job development began. Staff were assigned to these job duties, and the component quickly began to evolve into an "employment agency" with prospective employers contacting Work Programs regularly. This Department undertook a major data-gathering effort this past June. We were looking for the answers to the following questions: How effective have we been in our efforts to place clients in the job market? How many clients have obtained full-time employment, or jobs with sufficient hours/wages, to terminate General Assistance? Has there been a significant impact on the on-going caseload? 408 participants were tracked county-wide between January 1987 and .June 1987 . These participants were assigned to our Job Finding Workshop over this period of time, and subsequently received intensive job development services. Of the 408 participants, 92 obtained full-time employment and an additional 175 participants failed to participate and were discontinued from General Assistance. Of the 408 persons referred, 267 participants were discontinued from General Assistance. -11- Recently, another study was completed. Our interest was in tabulating numbers of clients remaining off aid 90 days or more after obtaining employment during the Job Workshop. Forty-two participants were able to obtain employment in May and June of this year. To date, 83% remain off General Assistance rolls. We do not know if these participants remain in their original jobs at this time; all we know is that they have not returned to General Assistance. Another integral part of our Job Finding Workshop is the emphasis placed on telephone techniques and contacts. On a much smaller scale, and patterned after San Diego county' s program of "phone banks," this department began offering client participation in intensive and extensive employer contacts via telephone. Phone contacts are followed up with in-person interviews. These "phone bank" sessions are supervised and monitored by our Job Developers. We feel that this is another valuable portion of our program, and recommend that this component be expanded so as to become a permanent part of our program. Work Programs Requirements for Applicants Work Programs requires General Assistance applicants to attend an Orientation meeting. These meetings are conducted by staff and are intended to explain in detail all responsibilities required of employable recipients. If an applicant for aid fails the Orientation appointment, aid is denied. Job Club/Job Search General Assistance Employable recipients are required to attend a monthly meeting, known as Job Club. During this monthly meeting, the client is given resource information, job search guidance, tips on self-improvement towards better presentations to prospective employers, hears speakers from the business community and, in general, is re-motivated for self-directed job search. Monthly assignments are given; this includes the job search forms used to track employment contacts. All employable recipients are required to contact twelve ( 12) employers each week and submit the contact form weekly. -12- Workfare Component This department began the Workfare component of Work Programs in July, 1984. At that time, the assignments were all in the Public Works department and the maximum number of slots was 108 per month serving approximately 150 participants. Work experiences were limited to outdoor . grounds maintenance and materials handling. For efficiency and cost-effective administration, we determined to set workfare participation .hours at 40 maximum per month per participant. The workfare component was expanded in mid-1985, with Board approval, to include agreements with Public and Private Non-Profit agencies. This allowed Work Programs staff to place participants in assignments more closely matched to existing skills/abilities. The enhancement of employment skills and gaining experience is stressed. This department is currently investigating the feasibility of expanding workfare requirements to more than 40 hours per month. We are contacting other counties and will be analyzing their programs and requirements to assist us in our determination. -13- MISUSE OF FUNDS The issue of program abuses and misuse of funds in the General Assistance and Food Stamp programs involves a number of separate problems: Fraudulent applications and false information; misuse of GA cash grant funds; and inappropriate or misuse of Food Stamp coupons. Years ago, the Social Service Department was staffed sufficiently to provide money management counseling and substitute payee services for recipients, as well as "parent-aid" services, which included educating young, inexperienced parents in nutrition and value shopping. Cut-backs in funding drastically reduced the number of service workers, and severely limited the services which can be provided. Unfortunately, this type of service was eliminated. - FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS/FALSE INFORMATION Both the GA and Food Stamp program require verification of eligibility information. Applicants/recipients sign application and redetermination forms under penalty of perjury, and are required to submit monthly status/income forms. Eligibility staff receive training in the detection and prevention of fraud. If there is reason to suspect fraud, including the receipt of community complaints, referrals are made to the District Attorney Welfare Fraud Division. If fraud is found, the individual is prosecuted. MISUSE OF GA CASH GRANTS Contra Costa authorizes payment of the GA grant primarily by check (cash) , with some payments by Voucher. We have, in the past, reviewed the feasibility of a voucher-only program, and have rejected this for a number of reasons : the size of our caseload, the increased workload for the Eligibility Workers, the problems of establishing arrangements with providers ( landlords, various utility providers, grocery stores, drug and clothing stores, transit authorities, etc. ) , as well as the simple fact that vouchers can always be fraudulently traded or sold for cash if the -14- recipient is determined to do so. It does not appear that a voucher-only program would be cost effective for this county. If instances of misuse of grants are reported to the Department, we do refer for investigation to the Welfare Fraud Division. If fraud is found, the recipient may be prosecuted. MISUSE OR INAPPROPRIATE USE OF FOOD STAMP COUPONS: We are required by law to certify Food Stamps for those people who apply and who are determined eligible. GA eligibles receive Food Stamp coupons; there is no alternate payment method. If abuses --trading or sale of the coupons-- are reported to the Department, we do refer for Investigation. If fraud is suspected, a request for an administrative fraud hearing is filed with the State Department of Social Services. The Food Stamp program provides for disqualification from the Program for fraud. We share your concerns regarding abuses of Social Service programs, and will continue to be alert to situations of possible misuse. -15- HOMELESSNESS The causes of homelessness are many and they are complex. The same changes in Federal and State policies, as well as the societal changes, which have impacted upon General Assistance caseloads have contributed on an even larger scale to homelessness, and its many diverse accompanying problems. Homelessness is not exclusively a GA problem. Not all homeless people are potential General Assistance recipients, irrespective of their homeless status. In Fiscal Year 1986-87, our Department spent $149,124 of County Emergency Assistance funds. Most of it was spent for housing, either for emergency, short-term shelter, or for expenses incurred in order to establish permanent housing. On the State level, the Mental Health Reform Act, passed in 1985 allocated money for local programs for the homeless mentally disabled. Money for Contra Costa' s program was allocated to the Mental Health Department, which has contracted with Phoenix Programs, to operate one emergency shelter, and three multi-service centers. It is important to recognize that this is a national problem. The Federal Government has begun to take positive action with regard to the plight of the homeless. There have been recent changes to the Food Stamp program which now provides for food stamp eligibility for persons who are homeless or who are in emergency shelters. The most significant action has been the recent passage of Public Law 100-77--The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act-- passed by Congress, and signed by the President for the purpose of providing "urgently needed assistance to protect and improve the lives and safety of the homeless. . . " To quote from the Act, in part: "*there is no single, simple solution to the problem of homelessness because of the different subpopulations of the homeless, the different causes and reasons for homelessness, and the different needs of homeless individuals. . . " -16- Amounts in excess of $200 , 000 ,000 for Fiscal Year 1987 , and $400,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1988 have been appropriated. We expect that California, and in turn Contra Costa County, will ulitimately benefit financially from this important law. Until we do, our Social Service Department will continue to provide direct services to the homeless, as well as to coordinate resources with other agencies, both public and private. -17- RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD The Social Service Department submits the following recommendations to the Board for consideration. These goal-oriented actions will enable us to strengthen our General Assistance program for the residents of Contra Costa, recipients and tax-payers alike. * Establish self-sufficiency as the goal of the Contra Costa County General Assistance Program. Direct the Social Service Department to draft self-sufficiency contracts for each individual applying for or receiving General Assistance. These contracts should include, but not be limited to the following: ** Employment Goal ** Training Goal ** Housing Goal ** Treatment Goal * Contra Costa County to join other California counties in establishing a task force to explore the impacts of federal, state, and local policies on the General Assistance Program, including homelessness. * Contra Costa should not pursue legislation establishing a responsible relative program in General Assistance. It is costly, and largely unenforceable based on past California experience with such programs. * Direct Department to establish supervised telephone banks in each Social Service Department District Office to encourage and support employment goals of each appropriate General Assistance client. * Establish participation requirements for the Workfare program based on the General Assistance grant divided by the State minimum wage. We estimate that this change would double the workfare hours available in the community. * Direct the County Administrator to coordinate the implementation of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act in Contra Costa County. -18- * Explore the feasibility of expansion of the Social Service Department' s Advocacy Program for General Assistance recipients who have SSI applications or appeals pending. * Explore the feasibility of adopting "Agreements to Repay" for GA, expanding the reimbursement requirements to all GA recipients, rather than just to the Interim Assistance segment of the caseioad. Direct the County Administrator to coordinate with Social Services and the Office of Revenue Collections to study this issue and develop a proposal, as appropriate. -19-