ACL 06-20 – Interpretive Services (June 30, 2006)

With a little lawsuit prodding, DSS has issued this reminder and clarification regarding the county requirements to provide interpretive services, going over general obligations as well as specific information regarding the relation between the county’s interpretation obligation and usage of self-provided interpreters. Of note: “It is always the county’s obligation to affirmatively offer interpretive services. … Once the county has been informed that the applicant/recipient needs an interpreter, the county must offer and provide an interpreter at each client contact.” The ACL clarifies that if a person cannot be made or encouraged to use a self-provided interpreter, and that the county must still offer interpretive services if the person arrives at an appointment without the interpreter. The CWD is told to take reasonable steps to determine whether a conflict of interest, confidentiality or other concerns make the use of a friend or family member interpreter inappropriate. If the friend or family member is not competent or appropriate, the county shall provide interpreter services in place of or in addition to the person selected by the applicant/recipient. [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-09-06 – Use of Translated Forms and Documentation of LEP Services and Accommodations (February 17, 2006)

Not only are counties to use forms translated by CDSS, regardless of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) population size, but, GASP!, they are to do so regardless of what the county’s computer automation system will spit out. Motivated by the joys of the new CalWIN system, the Civil Rights Bureau (CRB) reminds counties “there’s always paper.” While they are there, the CRB also goes over the requirement to allow clients to self-identify their preferred language of oral AND written communications, documenting the use of language services, use of self-provided interpreters, documenting disability accommodation need and provided services, and… that there are more obligations awaiting a reader’s pleasure in MPP Division 21. [Download]