A reminder to counties, in keeping with spirit but not the wording of Supreme Court decisions, that pregnant women and minor parents are not to be asked to assign support rights for the fetuses. Stating that unborn children are not mandatory members of the Assistance Unit, the County Welfare Department is to make no referral to Child Support Agency until the child is born. [Download]
Summaries of select CalWORKs, CalFresh, Health and Housing Regulations
Author: Brian Lawlor
ACIN I-40-06 – Food Stamp Simplification Options (May 31, 2006)
An unusual, early heads up from the state. The Food Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2002 allows states to simplify and improve the Food Stamp Program. California opted into certain programs, the policy changes of which will take effect October 1, 2006 (more info will come out August 2006):
1. Child Support Exclusion – legally obligated child support payments to a non-household member will be an income exclusion, rather than a deduction.
2. Exclusion of certain types of income and resources that are not counted under CalWORKs.
3. An additional resource exclusion to parallel the CalWORKs treatment of restricted accounts.
4. The elimination of the option to use actual utility costs, and the provision of a $75 Limited Utility Allowance for those households who do not qualify for the SUA (for those who pay at least two separate utilities other than heating and cooling, such as telephone, water, sewer, and garbage or trash). [Download]
ACL 06-13 – Changes to Case Management, Information and Payrolling System to Ensure Medi-cal Share of Cost Compliance as they Relate to the In-Home Supportive Services plus Waiver Program, the Personal Care Services Program, and the In-Home Supportive Services-Residual Program (May 30, 2006).
The incredibly LONG title of this ACL matches the incredibly LONG ACL. 54 pages of details about the Share of Cost (SOC) issues stemming from the IHSS plus waiver. There are some key tidbits buried in the extensive acronym- and form-laden text, so, sorry, but you should at least skim it. For example, the Medi-Cal SOC “buy out” (where a person pays only the IHSS SOC and not the higher Medi-Cal one) is calculated only once a month, and once that’s done it won’t be changed for the current or prior months. Also, the IHSS SOC will no longer automatically be deducted from the wages. Rather, the IHSS computer system will check first for Medi-Cal Point of Service deductions, and then determine the remaining spenddown amount to deduct from the provider wages. This change in turn, has generated the need for two new notices: one to the recipient to explain how much is owed the provider, and one to the provider saying how much is owed for the work. Good luck! [Download]
ACIN I-05-06 – Q & A re: “Dual Status Children” (May 12, 2006)
Assembly Bill 129 allowed children to be both dependents and delinquents in foster care. Counties must implement a protocol on how/when to make a recommendation for concurrent (DSS and Probation) jurisdiction. This ACIN has Q & A’s, including programmatic issues, such as how the foster care time frames are affected when the child moves between foster care and juvenile detention (they stay the same), same visit requirements, and more. [Download]
ACIN I-33-06 – Access to Case Records and Use of Manual Workarounds (May 8, 2006)
Though intended to make everyone’s life easier, automation has posed many problems for counties, clients and advocates. This letter reminds counties that, regardless of what the automation system will allow, recipients and advocates must be permitted to review the entire case file, even if that means a “manual workaround.” If counties have folks review the entire file electronically, they must help show how to navigate the system. The alternative is printing out the entire file. And if the computer won’t let the worker comply with the law … manual workaround. This includes issuance of benefits and payment of Aid Paid Pending. [Download]
ACIN I-21-06 – Protective Supervision Form (April 4, 2006)
Back of the new “Quality Assurance Initiative,” the state was required to develop a standard form to get the appropriate certification for a person’s need for Protective Supervision. Here it is! Counties are to use the form at the initial assessment when the county worker identifies the potential need for Protective Supervision. If the doc fails to return the form, the county “shall make its determination of need based on the available evidence.” [Download]