HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06041985 - 2.1 TO: BOARD .OF SUPERVISORS vv
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Contra
R. E. Jornlin, Social Service Director Costa
DATE: May 28 , 1985 County
SUBJECT: Contract with Legal Services Foundation to
Represent SSI Applicants
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Direct the County Administrator and Social Services Director, in
negotiating a contract with the Contra Costa Legal Services
Foundation (CCLSF) , to adhere to the following principles:
1. Representation of clients agreed upon as involving more
difficult circumstances may be considered for
additional compensation.
2. Additional services provided for the client by CCLSF,
which are not generally provided by the private bar,
may be considered for additional compensation,
including an advance for certain out-of-pocket
expenses.
J. Reimbursement for services by the County should be
consistent for CCLSF and the private bar.
4. The contract should not result in discouraging a
client' s use of the private bar.
5. Confidentiality of case records must not be
compromised.
BACKGROUND:
On March 12 , 1985, the Board of Supervisors authorized contract
negotiations between the County and Contra Costa Legal Services
Foundation ( CCLSF) for Interim General Assistance recipients
representation in Supplemental Security Income appeals.
Subsequently, CCLSF submitted a draft contract to the County,
certain provisions of which, while raised during Finance
Committee hearings, are not clearly addressed in the March 12 ,
1985 Order.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: �
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO MENDATION F BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 4. 1955 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
AUTHORIZED County Administrator and Social Services Director in negotiating a contract with Contra Costa Legal
Services Foundation to adhere to certain principles relative to the types of cases referred and the services
provided, reimbursement for services by the County and confidentiality. An additional principle was approved by
the Board regarding the establishment of standards for accessibility to confidential records. Also, there is to
be a review of all programs in six months (November 1985) as to their financial feasibility.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I 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
County Administrator OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Social Service Director ATTESTED /983
County Counsel
CCLSF PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mee2/7-e3 BY DEPUTY
Page 2
So far this year, we have authorized payments to 25 private
attorneys as a result of their successful prosecution of claims.
Currently, private attorneys are representing 17 East/Central
clients and 33 West County clients.
Payment to private attorneys for SSI appeals and redeterminations
has resulted in a sharing of costs between the County and
clients, with the County paying a proportionate amount from its
GA recovery and clients paying a share of the fee from their lump
sum benefits. This system has worked well and we do not believe
that any contract with CCLSF should interfere with the present
good working relationship with the private bar.
one key point is that CCLSF is prohibited by federal regulations
from billing a client other than "to recover advanced costs from
recipients" . As a result, CCLSF has sought to have the County
make up that part of the fee they cannot recover from the client.
We do not believe the County is, or should be, responsible for
subsidizing the federal government. Therefore, County
reimbursement to CCLSF should be at the same base rate paid to
the private bar--25% of what the County recovers from a
successful SSI appeal. The County should not make up the
client's portion of the fee. If the County were to do so, the
cost to the County would be double or triple what it is with a
private attorney.
However, we recognize that CCLSF will, in some cases , handle
cases that require extraordinary services, such as cases in which
the client is unable or unwilling to cooperate in preparing his
own case. In these instances, we believe CCLSF should receive a
higher payment from the County.
The issue of confidentiality, as it relates to the case record,
is of grave concern. Therefore, if the County is to contract
with CCLSF the County must control access to case records in a
way that CCLSF staff do not have access to information they do
not need to represent a current client.
We jointly recommend that the above recommendations be adopted to
provide us reasonable parameters for our negotiations with CCLSF.
I