The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03121985 - F.1 i 4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE Costa DATE: March 4, 1985 SUBJECT: Legal Services Foundation SSI Advocacy Project SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) A BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Authorize contract negotiations between the County and Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation for Interim General Assistance Recipients' representation in Supplemental Security Income appeals. 2. Request the Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation provide a status report to the Board as of January 1 , 1986. 3. Remove this item as a Finance Committee referral . FINANCIAL IMPACT: Payment to the Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation (CCLSF) will be provided on a sliding scale from amounts reimbursed to the County by the Social Security Administration upon successful placement of Interim General Assistance Recipients (IGAR) on Supplemental Security Income (SSI). No additional County funds will be required to pay for this program. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND: On May 31 , 1983, the Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation made a proposal to the 1983 Finance Committee (Supervisors Torlakson and McPeak). Their proposal requested $154,000 so Legal Services could hire an attorney and two paralegals to aggressively pursue appeals from the denial of SSI benefits for the County's General Assistance clients. The County was projected to save money by having Legal Services get clients off General Assistance and on to SSI. In a June 10, 1983 memo to the Finance Committee, the Social Services Director recommended against the proposal and set forth his reasons for opposing it. The Finance Committee heard this matter June 27, 1983 and asked the County Administrator to review the matter further with Legal Services and Social Services in an effort to reconcile apparently conflicting numbers and consider the possibility of a pilot project. Additional meetings were held and both Legal Services and Social Services submitted additional information. On August 25, 1983, the County Administrator summarized the data as well as the probable impact of the Lopez v. Heckler Federal District Court ruling and recommended against taking any action on Lega Services's proposal until December, 1983. The Finance Committee heard this recommendation on August 29, 1983 and directed that a system be explored which would reimburse Legal Services for only those cases in which they were successful . Legal Services responded on September 15, 1983 requesting a monthly advance to start the program with Legal Services to be credited against the advance for each successful case. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION MMITTEE APPROVE Gym OTHER n SIGNATURE(S) Sunne W. McPeak Robert I. Sch ACTION OF BOARD ON March , 198b APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X r Also, DIRECTED staff to request Congressman George Miller to look into the matter of attorney fees for SSI appeals. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator hh CC: Social Service Director ATTESTED CCLSF Audi tor-Control 1 er ; PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel i All Cities M3e2/7•83 BY DEPUTY i 1 -2- Based on additional meetings with the Finance Committee and Social Services, Legal Services on October 24, 1983 proposed a contract under which the County would reimburse Legal Services 60% of the County's recovery of GA'expenditures for the first 25 successful appeals in a year; 70% of the County's recovery for the next 25 successful appeals, and 80% of the County's recovery for all additional successful appeals in a single year. ILegai Services is prohibited by Federal regulations from billing the client for their services. Thus, if they accept an SSI case on a contingency basis, they� can only recover from the County. LSF SSI Advocacy Project: This proposal was reviewed with the 1984 Finance Committee on May 7, 1984. A contract embodying the Finance Committee' s instructions had been drafted. Sub- sequently, on June 8, 1984, Legal Services requested a $50,000 loan to begin the project. The loan request was subsequently withdrawn. Since all previous discussions had been with the Finance Committee and the full Board had not had the opportunity to review the matter of the Legal Services' contract, the County Administrator prepared a recommendation for the Finance Committee on June 21 , 1984 for presentation to the Board. On June 26, 1984, the Board approved the recommendation that the Board decline to contract with Legal Services and, instead, direct the County Welfare Director to make increased use of private counsel and to consult with County Counsel and to prepare and forward to the Board a proposal for the Department to handle SSI appeals with County Counsel assistance, as necessary. The Board further directed the County Administrator to review the program and report to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee, on October 8, 1984, considered the September 28, 1984 County Administrator's report. The Social Service Department staff summarized the Department's proposal to aggressively assist clients who are potentially eligible for SSI to secure their eligibility for those benefits. The twofold purpose is to increase monthly assistance payments to the recipient and to save County discretionary funds by transferring recipients from County-funded GA to federally funded SSI. Legal Services reiterated their proposal that the County enter into a contract with them to operate an SSI Advocacy Project which the Board considered when it directed the Social Service Department to prepare a proposal for handling SSI appeals. Legal Services stated their proposal was: (1 ) an aggressive legal advocacy project; (2) ready to begin immediately; (3) a no-risk, no-lose proposition for the County; (4) any additional department staff should go for mandated rather than optional services; and (5) a contract is not exclusive and can operate effectively in con- junction with efforts by the private bar and the department. Concern was expressed with regard to providing access to confidential County records to an organization (CCLSF) whose stated duty it is to represent General Assistance clients in legal actions against the County. There was disagreement as to whether the private bar could adequately provide legal representation to those clients who need it in the appeals process. For this reason, the County Administrator was requested to provide further information to the Finance Committee regarding the number of potential clients who would need representation, the capacity of the private bar to accommodate that need, and whether the CCLSF should::be considered for representing clients in excess of the private bar's capacity. At its March 3, 1984 meeting, the Finance Committee, after hearing further discussion on how the remaining eligible IGAR clients can best be qualified for SSI , and how the best interests of the County would be served consistent with safeguarding the confidentiality of Social Services' records, considered giving Legal Services the opportunity to represent IGAR clients on a trial basis and review their accomplishments. The Committee recommended, therefore, that a contract be negotiated with Legal Services to offer representation to the County's IGAR i I I I I i � I -3- clients in the SSI appeals process. Such contract will provide for additional legal representation for IGAR clients and is not intended to replace existing representation provided by members of; the private bar. It is anticipated that this additional level of representation will reduce the IGAR caseload more expeditiously. Funding for this contract is to be from successful IGAR recoveries with fees on a sliding scale based onjproductivity. Confidentiality of County information will be determined by thel Welfare Director. Legal Services will provide an interim report on the status of their SSI advocacy project as of January 1 , 1986. County Counsel was requested to give the Finance Committee an informal report on the status of the contract negotiations at its first meeting in April , 1985. This matter should be removed as a referral to the Finance Committee. i I i I