Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03181997 - C86 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-03 �E. ----- Contra FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE o'I s Costa -�.- oa County DATE: March 10, 1997 °QsrA-count �t� SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT this report from the Family and Human Services Committee on the General Assistance Program, based on the changes the Board approved on February 25, 1997. 2. DIRECT the Social Service Director to obtain data from Sacramento County on what impact they have seen as a result of having implemented the three- month limit on General Assistance in any 12-month period of time. 3. DIRECT the Social Service Director to make a further report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the General Assistance Program on May 12; 1997, with particular emphasis on: + data from Sacramento County on the impact of the three-month time limit on the receipt of General Assistance, and + an implementation timetable for the changes approved by the Board February 25, 1997. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OM ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): MARK DeSAULNIER DONNA GERB ACTION OF BOARD ON Marr-h 18. 1997 APPROVED AS MENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(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: ATTESTED March 18, 1997 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Social Service Director BY DEPUTY M382 (10/88) ' F&HS-03 BACKGROUND: On February 25, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved recommendations from the Social Service Director regarding the General Assistance Standards of Assistance but in view of concerns expressed by some Board members, particularly in regard to the shared housing provisions, the Board of Supervisors referred the report to our Committee. On March 10, 1997, our Committee met with the Social Service Director, John Cullen; Christina Moore Linville from the Social Service Department; Sara Hoffman from the County Administrator's Office; County Counsel, Victor J. Westman; representatives from SEIU Local 535; members of the 1996-97 Grand Jury; and other interested citizens. Mr. Cullen reviewed the attached report with us. The report outlines the four policy areas which were approved by the Board on February 25, 1997, what the policy change is, why the change is being made, and comments on the anticipated impact of the policy change. We discussed each change thoroughly and satisfied ourselves that each is needed and appropriate. However, Supervisor Gerber expressed her concern about implementing the three-month time limit on the receipt of iGeneral Assistance in any 12-month period until we see whether we have any inter-county migration resulting from the limits going into effect in one county but not neighboring counties. It was noted that Alameda County implemented the three-month limit on March 1, 1997 so should begin to see results effective June 1, 1997 when they discontinue aid to those who have been on since March 1, 1997. i Mr. Cullen noted that Sacramento County implemented the three-month time limit earlier this year and should begin to see results within�the next month. We have asked Mr. Cullen to obtain the results of Sacramento County's having implemented this provision and to report back to our Committee within 60 days. At that time, we also want to review an implementation timetable from Mr; Cullen which shows when he anticipates implementing each of the four policy changes. i SEW Local 535's representative noted their opposition to the three-month time limits. Mr. Cullen acknowledged these concerns and assured our Committee that the Department would develop tracking and reporting that would identify the impact of all four policy changes. i -2- z ' r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department — r,au01R �z �4 John Cullen, Director ----------- U------- DATE: March 10, 1997 TO: Board of Supervisors Family and Human Services Committee Donna Gerber, District 3 Mark de Saulnier, District 4 FROM: John B. Cullen, Director SUBJECT: General Assistance Standards of Assistance This subject was referred to your committee for follow-up discussion when the Board of Supervisors adopted the General Assistance policy changes on February 25, 1997. The attached memo presents background information on General Assistance and provides an overview of each of the major changes. Information/Points included are: What is the new policy? What policy does it replace? Why are we making this change? What is the operational plan for implementation of this change? What are the anticipated impacts of this change? What mechanism will be used to monitor the impacts of this change, and to report to the Board? Should the committee wish to schedule other GA subjects for discussion, we would be pleased to do so. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: 40 Douglas Drive Martinez CA 94553-4068 Voice (510) 313-1500 FAX (510) 313-1575 CHANGES TO THE GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Background The California Welfare and Institutions Code, section 17000 contains the following mandate: "Every county and every city and county shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institution." This mandate is met throughout the state by 100% county-funded assistance programs. The mandate includes some parameters for developing General Assistance/General Relief programs, but many areas are left to local determination. The result is fifty-eight separate programs. Caseloads vary from less than a dozen in some very small counties to 100,000 in Los Angeles; standards of aid range from $201 in Los Angeles to $345 in San Francisco; there are many such variables. Several changes were made to the statute effective January 1, 1997 which authorized counties to make certain policy changes in their programs. These law changes (SB681; AB3284) were passed in recognition of counties need to control GA costs. By adopting all of these changes, we can maximize the opportunity to keep our program in line with those of other counties, specifically with the surrounding counties, and avoid the threat of migration of clients who will seek the most liberal program. The changes will also better position the county to minimize the impacts of AFDC and SSI evolution. General Assistance is intended to be a short-term assistance program for those who have no other source of support. It was never intended to be a long-term, subsistence program. General Assistance recipients who are not potentially eligible for some type of income -- such as SSI -- are expected to be actively seeking employment. A GA recipient is expected to apply for and accept any job for which he or she is qualified. Some recent modifications to the statute recognize this, and authorize counties to adopt policies encouraging self- sufficiency and discouraging long-term dependency. The changes proposed by the Department and adopted by the Board of February 25, 1997 are intended to provide the framework for enhancing our General Assistance program so that we may assist recipients who are sincere in their wish to obtain employment and become self-sufficient to achieve that goal. 2 1. Eligibility to General Assistance time-limited to three months in any twelve month period for able-bodied recipients who are assessed as employable, and who are offered the opportunity to participate in job skills or job training sessions. 0 All applicants will be assessed to determine employability, and to identify any barriers to employment, including physical or mental disabilities. 0 All applicants and recipients who are identified as Level 1 Employable -- i.e. job ready -- will be offered job skills or job training sessions. They will be eligible for the services of a job developer, and may receive allowances for ancillary services to help them to obtain and maintain employment. 0 Level 1 Employable recipients may not be eligible to receive General Assistance for more than three months out of a twelve month period. At that time, they will have had an opportunity to avail themselves of services which will help them secure employment. Recipients who are offered the opportunity.and-who reject.services,will,be discontinued from GA and will be ineligible for further GA for nine months. 0 Recipients identified as Level 2 Employable, i.e. those with physical or mental disabilities which are expected to last less than one year, will receive services which will include limited duty work experience, reduced job search, counseling for barrier removal and so forth. Assistance will be reauthorized at not more than 6 month intervals. 0 Both Level 1 and Level 2 employables will have participation requirements, such as job search, work experience, etc. while receiving aid. Failure to comply with program requirements will still result in discontinuance and sanction. What policy does this replace? 0 Current classification of applicants and recipients has little assessment beyond the medical verification of a physical or mental disability for those who have temporary or long- term incapacities. There is no evaluation of job readiness for those who do not have such an incapacity. 0 Those who have temporary disabilities are considered to be "unemployable" for the duration of the incapacity, and have few program requirements. Aid for unemployables has no time limitations. 0 Aid for employable recipients has no time-limits. As long as the recipient complies with program requirements -- e.g. job search and work experience -- s/he may continue to receive GA indefinitely. 0 Employable recipients have requirements for work experience (also known as "workfare"), and job search, among other things. A limited number are offered the opportunity to participate in job skills and/or job training sessions. 3 Why are we making this change? ID We believe that the enhanced service delivery system will prepare those job-ready recipients for obtaining employment within the time limits. 0 To bring the policies of Contra Costa's GA program in-line with other California counties, particularly those of the adjacent counties of Alameda and Solano. Of twenty-five counties surveyed, 15 have adopted this policy, and 3 more are considering it. 15 Better position our GA program into a "self-sufficiency mode" which aligns with Federal and State public assistance policies. What are the anticipated impacts of this change? ID Applicants will be assessed and correctly classified as to their employability and job readiness. _ --, .1 , .., ID Employable recipients, Level 1 will receive an array of services dedicated to securing and retaining employment. Employable recipients, Level 2 will receive services in recognition of time limitations which overcome incapacities and barriers to employment. ID The number of employable recipients will decline each month beginning with the third month following implementation, and continuing. We estimate that one-third of the caseload will be classified as employable, Level 1 at any given time. 45 As employable, Level 2 recipients (another one-third of the caseload) are reclassified as Level 1, they will begin the three-month period with appropriate services. What mechanism will be used to monitor the impacts of this change, and to report to the Board? ID The automated GA system, Pegasys, is being enhanced to include monitoring components for each recipient within each classification: employable, Level 1; employable. Level 2; and Unemployable. ID The criteria for tracking for Employable, Level 1 clients (those subject to the time- limits) will include: the date(s) and result(s) of assessment; barriers identified; client's service plan; what services are offered; whether client accepts or refuses services; job referrals made; and employment status at the end of the three months for Level 1 clients. 6 Reports will be prepared showing the monthly results: The number of clients discontinued because their time-limit expired who were still unemployed; the number discontinued because they obtained employment prior to the end of the three months; the number discontinued because they refused services; the number of job referrals made. 4 -2. Standards of aid for recipients who share housing with other non-legally responsible persons. The standards of aid will be reduced by 155,16, 20% and 25% depending upon the number of others with whom the recipient resides. What policy does it replace? Current regulations permit grant reductions for those who live with relatives (37% of the caseload). This policy was adopted in 1995, and upheld in subsequent litigation, Taylor v CCC. Prior to the adoption of this policy, the W&I Code contained the provision for percentage reductions for all recipients who live in shared housing. This statute was in place during the period 1992 through 1994. When that statute change was implemented in 1992, the legislature agreed to time-limit the section to "sunset" on January 1, 1994. Without action to extend it, the section was revoked on that date. This affected 66% of the total caseload. In partial response to that change, the Board adopted the policies relating to recipients who live with certain relatives. _.. During the time that this section was operational previously, a concern of the state legislature had been that this reduction might result in increased numbers of homeless recipients throughout the state. The Office of the Legislative Analyst conducted yearly studies, and determined that the implementation of this policy in counties did not have an adverse impact on the number of GA recipients alleging homelessness; nor was there any apparent correlation with the general numbers of homeless in those counties. Reviews in our own county were consistent with the findings of the LAO. These studies appear to have influenced the adoption of AB3284, which restored this provision effective January 1, 1997. Why are we making this change? At the time the existing policy was adopted by the Board in 1994 it was with the commitment that, should the statute be changed again permitting the percentage reductions, the Department would bring this issue back for revision. This also brings the policies of Contra Costa's GA program in-line with other California counties. Of twenty-five counties surveyed, 8 have adopted this policy, 3 are considering it, and 9 already have similar reduction policies. Also, we believe the change produces a more equitable policy. The current policy makes a harsher reduction to the grants of a smaller number of recipients. The change makes a lesser reduction to the grants of a larger number of recipients. 5 For example: Situation Current standard,current New standard, new shared shared housing policy housing policy Client lives with brother' $203 $237 Client lives with friend $300 $237 What is the operational plan for implementation of this change? At the time the implementation of the new standards of assistance are implemented by staff in April -- to be effective May 1st -- the workers will recompute the grants for recipients living with others. What are the anticipated impacts of this change? ® As a result of this particular change, the grants-for 37%-of-the recipients will be increased; grants for 29% will be decreased. ® In general, the grant reductions for recipients who share housing will be spread among all who share, as opposed to just those who share with certain relatives. What mechanism will be used to monitor the impacts of this change, and to report to the Board? Caseload reports are produced monthly to reflect: the numbers of recipients who share housing with relatives, who share with non-relatives, who live alone, and who state they are homeless. The numbers of clients reporting homelessness will be monitored closely. If the numbers increase, an evaluation will be done to determine the client's previous living arrangement, and whether the shared-housing grant reduction played a part in the client becoming homeless. 1 37% of total recipients reside with relatives 2 29% of recipients reside with non-related persons. 6 3. The standard of aid may be reduced by no more than $40 per month in recognition of the value of health care provided by the county to GA recipients. What policy does it replace? The current practice allows GA clients to receive unlimited Basic Adult Care without any impact to the GA cash grant. Why are we making this change? In order to maintain consistency with our program and that provided within the parameters of the W&I Code. We have recommended that implementation be deferred pending future budget submission. Nine of the twenty-five counties surveyed have already adopted and implemented this policy. What is the operational plan for implementation of this change? We have no plan for implementation at this time. What are the anticipated impacts of this change? We are not implementing this change at this time. What mechanism will be used to monitor the impacts of this change, and to report to the Board? We are not implementing this change at this time. At such time that it may be implemented, monitoring mechanisms will be developed. 4. The county may provide aid pursuant to section 17000.5 either by cash assistance, in-kind aid, a two-party payment, voucher payment, or check drawn to the order of a third-party provider of services to the recipient. Nothing shall restrict a county from providing more than one method of aid to an individual recipient. What policy does it replace? • Although we do not have existing policies relating to vendor payment for food, we do have policies relating to vendor payments. We currently require that housing be paid by vendor payment. Forms are completed by the client and his/her landlord, including the landlord's tax identification number, and the housing checks are issued to the name and address of the landlord. Any utilities in the client's name must be paid by vendor payment to the utility company. At the end of the year, the auditor produces Form1099s for each landlord who received rental income of $600 or more for the year. A recipient who does not provide the necessary landlord information does not receive the housing portion of the grant. • At this point, we will be implementing aip lot in one geographic region to evaluate the support and effectiveness of adding food and personal needs to the budget items to be paid to vendors. Why are we making this change? • There is concern that GA checks for food and personal needs are being spent for non- essential items, such as alcohol and drugs, rather than for food. • Vendor payments for housing was implemented in the fall of 1995. It has been very successful in terms of ensuring that clients who have an obligation to pay for housing meet that obligation, and to allow that portion of the grant only for those who have a bonafide housing expense. 76% of our recipients have housing paid by vendor payments. • At the same time that mandatory housing vendor payment policy was implemented, a companion policy was implemented requiring that homeless clients be referred to available shelter beds. If such a bed is accepted, the client receives in-kind housing in the form of the shelter; if a bed is declined, the housing allowance is with-held from the grant; if a bed is not available, the client received the housing allowance in weekly increments, as long as he remains homeless and no bed becomes available for him/her. • The number of recipients declaring that they were homeless has actually dropped significantly (from 31% of the caseload to 15%) since these two policies were adopted. Those who had housing reported it so it would be paid, and those who did not were referred to available shelters. What is the operational plan for implementation of this change? • Department staff have explored the programs in other counties, and have conferred with the County Auditor. • Obstacles to the successful implementation have been identified and are being worked 8 on. • Prior to implementation, the following must be done: • Design the check stock, conditions for issuance, and restrictions on redemption with the Auditor. • Devise the check issuance system with Data Processing. • Select the geographic area for the pilot. • Develop the list of vendors in that area and negotiate non-financial agreements with each. • Develop in-house procedures and implementation plan, including instructions to staff and to applicants and recipients. Operational payment outline and client contract samples are included as Attachments A and B. What are the anticipated impacts of this change? • Clients may decline the food/personal needs portion of the grant rather than receive designated warrants. • The number of clients who will spend the food allowance on food, rather than on non- essential items is expected to increase. • Vendors should have greater security and authorization to sell only allowable food and personal needs/goods to GA clients. • Program funds will be better targeted to allowable assistance areas. What mechanism will be used to monitor the impacts of this change, and to report to the Board? Until implementation, the Department will forward quarterly progress reports to the members of the FHSC. These will include a brief summary of the work completed, and a time-line for the outstanding work. Following implementation, the Department will forward quarterly reports to the members of the FHSC. These will include the statistics regarding the selection of vendors by clients, the number of checks issued, the number of checks redeemed, and the location of redemption. By December 31, 1997, the Department will submit a report to the full Board regarding the findings of the pilot. 9 Attachment A GENERAL ASSISTANCE FOOD VENDOR PAYMENT OUTLINE I.' The portion of the grant designated for food (37% of the standard of aid) and personal needs, i.e. soap, toothpaste, etc. (5% of the standard) -- will be made by food/personal needs checks. A.' The client will choose the store where s/he wants to shop from a list of stores. 1. The client will complete a form identifying the store selected. 2. The client will select the method of dividing up the allowance; e.g.one check for the total amount, two checks of equal of differing amounts, three checks, or four checks. B. The client will receive one or more food checks on the 1st of the month. 1. The check(s) will be made payable to.the-.selected grocer, "for"..,the client, and will require the signature of both the client and the grocer. C. The check can only be used on or after the issue date on the check. D. The check cannot be used to buy tobacco or alcohol. E. The client will be required by the food store to.show proof of identification. Only the following will be accepted: current California Driver's License or ID card issued by DMV; Food Stamp identification card issued by the Social Service Department. F. The client will be able to get no more than $5 in change from each food check. G. The checks cannot be cashed. Only the business from which the client purchases food is authorized to cash the food check. 10 Attachment B Contra Costa County Social Service Department GENERAL ASSISTANCE VENDOR PAYMENT FORM FOOD AND PERSONAL NEEDS Name Address GA Case No. 1. The food store where I will buy my food and personal need items is: (Name of the Food Store) (Address of the food store) 2. 1 want my food/personal need allowance (the amount remaining after my housing is paid to my landlord, not to exceed 42%'of my'standard of aid)issued as follows each month: ❑ One check for the entire amount ❑ Two checks (1/2 each) ❑ Three checks (1/3 each) ❑ Four checks (1/4 each) I understand that: a. I will receive the food check(s) on the first of the month. b. The check(s) will be made payable to the grocer I have selected,and may not be used at any other store. c. The check(s) can only be used on or after the issue date on the check. d. The check(s) cannot be used to buy tobacco or alcohol. e. The check cannot be cashed. f. I will not be able to get more than $5 in change from each check. g. I must show identification when I use the check. Acceptable identification is: a current California Drivers License, a California ID issued by the DMV, or a Food Stamp identification card. Signature Date Eligibility Worker's Signature Date GA 95(new )draft 3/4/97 11