ACL 07-48: Clarifying Guidance Regarding Candidates For Foster Care (11/20/07)

Clarification on when a child is a “candidate” for foster care, for purposes of getting IV-E funds for pre-placement prevention services.  The definition of “candidate” is that the child be “at serious risk of removal”  as evidenced by the state agency either pursuing his/her removal from the home or making reasonable efforts to prevent such removal,” this was interpreted too broadly.  The clarification states that “a decision must have been made that the next step for the child was foster care.”  In California, this can be documented in one of 3 ways: 1) A defined case plan which clearly indicates that, absent effective preventive services, foster care is the planned arrangement for the child; 2) Evidence of court removal proceedings ; OR 3) An eligibility determination form completed by the County Welfare Department which establishes the child’s eligibility under Title IV-E.  Documentation needs to be done every 6 months.  [Download

ACL 07-27: Child Welfare Services Criminal Record Checks (10/30/07)

The letter implements AB 1774, and clarifies for whom and how a county child welfare agency or probation department obtains state and federal level criminal history information as part of the process of assessing a relative or nonrelative extended family member for placement. These primarily are technical changes.

The decision whether to seek to obtain the parent’s or legal guardian’s criminal history is made on a case-by-case basis, and the information may only be obtained if the parent or legal guardian has agreed to submit fingerprints for this purpose as part of the family reunification case plan. Only criminal record history that occurred subsequent to the removal of the child can be considered. In addition, once the Department of Justice (DOJ) has provided the criminal record history, a request for subsequent arrest notification cannot be made. In order to obtain a criminal record history, the county child welfare agency or probation department must submit Live Scan fingerprint transactions to the DOJ. [Download]

ACIN I-71-07: Income Verification Regarding The Child And Adult Care Food Program (11/14/07)

The verification requirements of the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) require the counties to review the self-employment income of family home day care providers that receive CACFP funds in conjunction with food stamps. This letter transmits the list of impacted Family Home providers for county follow up. [Download]

ACL 07-46: Changes To The Case Management, Information And Payrolling System (CMIS) For Share Of Cost Reimbursement To Recipients For Overpaid Out Of Pocket Payment Of Medically Recognized Expenses (11/8/07)

Info on the process to allow reimbursement to a recipient for overpaid Medi-Cal Share of Cost (SOC) as the result of missing the State’s payment of medically recognized expenses (also known as Buy-Out) at the beginning of the month through no fault of the recipient.

The In-Home Supportive Services Plus Waiver (IPW) had an impact on the IHSS and Medi-Cal (MC) SOC processing. While IHSS allows “obligations” to count towards the SOC, Medi-Cal requires payments. IHSS recipients with a Medi-Cal SOC are now subject to the same SOC spend-down processing as all other Medi-Cal beneficiaries. To deal with this issue, people in the Personal Care Services Program (PCSP) or IPW, who get IHSS, will have a comparison of their Medi-Cal and IHSS SOCs, and must meet the lesser of the two SOCs. The State will “Buy-Out” the difference between the two SOCs.

Procedurally, the state runs a Buy-Out processing about 1 week prior to the end of the month. After this file is processed, DHCS will not accept any retroactive or subsequent Buy-Out payments.

Due to the timing of the MEDS Monthly Renewal File process, new IHSS recipients will rarely be included in the Buy-Out during their first month of eligibility. These recipients are responsible for their entire Medi-Cal SOC for the first month of IHSS eligibility. The letter also addresses problems when recipients are not in the MEDs file or found eligible retroactively (must meet MC SOC, but may be eligible for reimbursement.)

The letter also transmit a new form, the X-27 SPEC, to reimburse recipients who through no fault of their own have paid out-of-pocket SOC expenses in excess of their obligation after the SOC comparison. For those of you not already lost, there is a description of how Conlan retro MC coverage and handling SOC for couples. [Download]