Uncategorized

CalWORKs mental health and substance abuse services

Posted on by

CDSS has provided information about changes to CalWORKs mental health and substance abuse services that are effective between July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2018.  For that period, counties can provide mental health and substance abuse services to children of CalWORKs recipients, and can contract with community-based providers and other local agencies to provide these services.

Children are eligible for these services if the parent(s) are participating or required to participate in Welfare –to-Work (WTW), exempt volunteers or are sanctioned or removed from CalWORKs for failure to comply with WTW requirements.  At the county’s discretion, services can be provided to children of adults who have a temporary WTW exemption.  Services can be provided to children of timed out clients as a post aid service.  Children of adults who are ineligible for CalWORKs are not eligible for services.

This funding must be used in addition to, and not as a substitute for, available mental health or substance abuse funding available from other government programs.  Funding cannot be used for services covered under Medi-Cal or a county mental health plan.

A parent cannot be sanctioned because of a child’s refusal to participate in mental health or substance abuse services.  Refusal or failure of an adult to participate in assigned activities does not prevent children from being referred to or receiving mental health or substance abuse services.

Counties can now send clients to community based providers, including county mental health departments, for mental health evaluations.  That provider must evaluate the recipient and determine any treatment needs, including the extent to which the individual is capable of employment and under what conditions the individual can work. The evaluation must be considered in development of the WTW plan.  Activities and services in the WTW plan must accommodate any restrictions associated with any mental, emotional or substance abuse condition identified in the evaluation.  (ACL 18-04, January 25, 2018.)

CalFresh face-to-face interviews

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services has issued instructions regarding face-to-face interviews for applications and recertifications.  7 C.F.R. § 273.2(e)(2) now gives states the option to conduct interviews for applications and recertifications by telephone.  California has been conducting telephone interviews under a federal waiver.  Now, California has accepted the option in the federal regulation to do telephone interviews.

Counties will routinely conduct telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews at application and recertification for all CalFresh households regardless of the length of the household’s certification period length.  Counties may conduct face-to-face interviews if determined necessary.  However, if an in person interview in the office would be a hardship, the county must do a home visit for the interview.   Counties must inform applicants of the opportunity to have a face-to-face interview on request.   The county must provide a notice of missed interview if the applicant or recipient misses a telephone interview.  The application process cannot be negatively affected because the county does a telephone interview.   (ACL 17-80, July 31, 2017.)

Changes to HIV listing

Posted on by

Social Security has rewritten the listing for HIV effective January 17, 2017.  The introduction to Listing Section 14 describing HIV is rewritten including changing the tests used for a definitive determination of HIV.  The new introduction also allows persuasive physician diagnosis of HIV which can be with or without laboratory findings, and documentation of manifestation of HIV.

Prior listing 14.08 is repealed.  New Listing 14.11 list requires specific documentation stated in introductory section 14.00F1 and one of eight conditions or criteria to meet the listing.  The new listing no longer includes documented side effects, resulting infections and illnesses.  Changes to the childrens listing mirror the adult listing changes.

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection and for Evaluating Functional Limitations in Immune System Disorders, 81 Fed. Reg. 86915 (December 2, 2016).

Reopening of Social Security decision based on Supreme Court decision finding law unconstitutional

Posted on by

Social Security has issued a ruling regarding reopening of Title II and Title XVI cases when the decision is based on a law that the United States Supreme Court finds to be unconstitutional.  This issue has recently arisen because of the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor regarding constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and Obergfell v. Hodges regarding the constitutionality of state laws banning same-sex marriage.

Social Security has decided that a determination based on a law that the United States Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional is an error on the face of the evidence.  This means that a decision can be reopened if 1) the determination or decision is based on a federal or state law that the United States Supreme Court holds is unconstitutional, 2) the application of that law was material to the determination or decision, and 3) it is within the following timeframes: A) For Title II claims, within four years of the notice of initial determination, B) For Title II claims, at any time if the determination or decision was fully or partially unfavorable, or C) For Title XVI claims, within two years of the notice of initial determination.  SSR 17-1p (March 1, 2017).

76 Federal Register 15, Proposed HUD Rule: Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs–Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, pp. 4194 – 4198 (January 24, 2011)

Posted on by

There is still time to comment on this groundbreaking proposed rule that has come to be referred to as the “LGBT HUD proposed rule”.   The proposed rule cites to studies establishing significant unequal housing access for and housing discrimination against LGBT persons and families and describes its purpose as ensuring that HUD’s core programs are open to all individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.  The proposed rule contains provisions that would, among other things, clarify that the term “family” as used in regulations governing HUD’s programs is intended to include LGBT individuals and households.  The rule would also prohibit owners and operators of HUD-assisted or HUD-insured housing from making inquiries of occupants or applicants for housing regarding sexual orientation and/or gender identity, but would not preclude voluntary disclosure of such information.   Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted to HUD by March 25, 2011. Contact Maya Rupert of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (MRupert@nclrights.org) or Navneet Grewal of the National Housing Law Project (ngrewal@nhlp.org) to join in the comment letters their respective organizations are preparing.  [Download]