Welfare Law Center and Allies Win Greater Access to Education and Training for New York City Welfare Recipients

Welfare News

www.welfarelaw.org " www.lincproject.org VOL. 8, NO. 2, ISSN 1091-4064, DECEMBER 2003

Introduction employment. TANF recipients are less likely and other allies to increase education and than other New Yorkers to have a high school training opportunities for New York City Numerous studies of welfare reform diploma or GED (72.3% for all City residents recipients in the TANF program and state- implementation have revealed that all too but only 50% for adult welfare recipients). funded Safety Net Assistance (SNA) (the many families suffer multiple barriers to New York City TANF recipients are also less cash assistance program for single adults and securing employment that will enable them likely than the national average to have a high families not eligible for TANF). The to secure financial independence. For school diploma. Welfare Law Center, long committed to example, a recent Urban Institute study It is particularly troubling that the New maximizing opportunities for low-income documents that only 14% of recipients with York City welfare agency’s record of families to secure employment, recognized two or more barriers were employed. The engaging adults in education and training after the 1996 enactment of the federal lack of necessary education and training remains dismal: Of the almost 180,000 adults welfare law that New York City would be a constitutes a significant barrier to a welfare on the public assistance rolls in June 2003, laboratory for a “work-first” approach that recipient’s ability to acquire and maintain only a relatively modest percent were focused on workfare (that is, work in employment. engaged in work activities and far fewer were exchange for the grant) to the exclusion of In New York City, despite drastic in an education or training program full-time. all other work activities. Accordingly, the reductions in the welfare rolls caused by Yet, there is ample evidence that completion Center actively participated in this campaign policies and practices of active and often of education or well-targeted vocational to preserve and expand education and unlawful deterrence implemented under the training will help recipients to secure training as a means of assisting TANF leadership of former Mayor Giuliani, more employment and achieve higher earnings, families and SNA recipients to secure than 180,000 adult heads of households thereby contributing greatly to overall family employment. In 2003, we saw the remain on public assistance. One of the economic well-being. successful conclusion two major efforts - the most common barriers faced by New York This article reports on a coordinated settlement of a major class action and the City TANF recipients is the lack of campaign by advocates, low-income passage of landmark legislation by the New education and training necessary to secure organizers, education and training providers, York City Council.

Inside. . .

Welfare Law Center and Allies Win Greater Access to Education and Training for NYC Welfare Recipients...... 1

Selected Reports on Welfare Reform and Access to Education and Training...... 4

Education Opportunities for TANF Participants in Tennessee...... 4

Lost in the Maze: A Look at New York City's Fragmented Child Care Subsidy System...... 5

Low Income Networking and Communications (LINC) Project Update...... 6

Georgia Advocates Launch Web Sites on Using Disability Rights Law to Improve Welfare Programs...... 7

Welfare Law Center Welcomes New Board Members and Staff / WLC Hosts Listservs...... 8

Welfare Bulletin...... 9

Save the Date for Senator Edward M. Kennedy!

Senator Kennedy will be the guest of honor at the Welfare Law Center’s Benefit Dinner in New York City on March 1, 2004. Please let us know if you would like an invitation.

While work remains to be done, New While we were able to obtain three requirement for as many months as they York City welfare recipients now have separate preliminary injunctions enjoining the need. Moreover, they can count time spent greater ability to participate in training and a most egregious behavior, the City continued in class, lab, or tutoring as part of the 15 range of education programs - from basic to resist broad policy changes and often failed hours. If a parent’s class schedule requires education to post-secondary education. On to implement Court orders absent threats of her to be in school more than 15 hours a the federal level, current TANF contempt or other enforcement action. week, she can count all of her school hours reauthorization proposals under Consequently, this settlement represents a sea for up to a life-time limit of 12 months. For consideration in Congress fall short of change in the City’s position and greatly example, if a student is in class 21 hours a providing states the flexibility they need to expands rights to education and training week, she can count all 21 hours as her work implement effective programs to address beyond what the Court might have ordered or requirement for up to 12 months. recipients’ barriers to employment. The what might have been sustained on appeal. In addition, a parent can extend the 12 House-passed reauthorization bill would The settlement protects a TANF month limitation on counting more than 15 severely restrict state flexibility; the Senate recipient’s ability to participate in hours a week in special circumstances, Finance bill, while giving some limited education and training. The settlement sets including: (1) if she had a housing crisis, flexibility to the states, does not provide the forth a number of key protections designed to illness, domestic violence or other flexibility that states need. ensure that a TANF participant’s needs are emergency during the 12 month period; accurately identified and that work activities (2) her curriculum requires her to take Davila v. Turner are tailored to meet those needs. For remedial courses and she has maintained a example, a caseworker must conduct an 2.0 average; (3) her curriculum requires her Background on the litigation. assessment interview before assigning a to take more than 60 credit hours to graduate Plaintiffs, represented by the Welfare Law parent to a work activity. During the and she has maintained a 2.0 average; or Center, the New York City Legal Aid assessment interview, the caseworker must (4) she left public assistance for at least 3 Society, the New York City Urban Justice obtain information about the parent’s months or maintained employment for at Center, and the private law firm of Davis, education and employment background, the least 3 months, and seeks to enroll in Polk & Wardwell reached a settlement with need for supportive services, and the education and training as her work activity. New York City and New York State in June recipient’s preferences. The settlement The protections secured in the 2003 in the long-standing class action, imposes a further duty on the caseworker to settlement extend to education necessary to Davila v. Turner, that challenged the City’s discuss with the parent whether vocational enable a TANF recipient to obtain basic refusal to comply with state laws enacted to education or training makes sense for that literacy skills or acquire English as a Second implement the TANF block grant. Those parent. Language. Under the agreement, single state laws required the local social services If a TANF recipient has a preference for parents can participate in adult basic districts to honor the preferences of education, vocational education, or training education and satisfy part or all of their recipients who wish to participate in (rather than workfare, for example) as her weekly work requirement. Moreover, a education or training and to evaluate work activity, under the settlement, the case parent can count 15 hours of class time spent recipients to determine whether education or worker must record her preference and honor in adult basic education toward her weekly training would be the most appropriate it, if possible, when assigning her to a work work requirement for as long as she needs. assignment. activity. The worker must also complete an The settlement provides for In December1996, when Davila was Employability Plan, which must identify the supportive services, due process, and filed in state court, New York City’s policy parent’s work assignment and the basis for monitoring. Of course, the right to was to assign all TANF recipients to that assignment. The welfare agency must participate in education and training is often workfare unless the recipient had been provide a reason in the Plan in writing if it rendered meaningless without access to employed within the three months prior to cannot honor the parent’s preference for supportive services, such as child care and assignment. The City was pulling thousands vocational education or training. transportation allowances. Under the of recipients out of education and training Single parents can participate in settlement, TANF recipients can get all and denying thousands of others the right to vocational education and training programs training related expenses, such as car fare attend any such program. Moreover, the and use that participation to satisfy part or all and child care for any child up to the age of City was not conducting assessments that of their weekly work requirement. For 13 during the time spent in an approved would enable it to tailor work assignments to example, parents can attend approved school program, including hours spent in the specific and unique needs of individual vocational education programs and can count class, lab, tutoring, internships, or work- recipients. up to 15 hours a week spent in those study. However, a parent cannot get child programs toward the weekly work care during the period in which she is

• PAGE 2 • WELFARE LAW CENTER ! DECEMBER 2003 WELFARE NEWS sanctioned or for time spent in a program option to select from various work activities to to tailor the next assignment to meet that is not approved. fulfill state participation rate requirements. identified need. The settlement provides basic due State law largely mirrors the TANF block Local Law 23 defines when a recipient process protections. Any written notice sent grant work requirements for TANF recipients may participate in education, training or to single parents on welfare that instructs in this respect and imposes parallel vocational rehabilitation. Generally, the City them to come in for an assessment or requirements for SNA recipients. However, must permit participation if the recipient is assignment must also include information the New York City administration failed to “eligible” for that activity, (2) the activity is explaining the option to go to school as their avail itself of all options to remove public “countable” and (3) the particular program is work activity. Parents must also receive assistance recipients’ barriers to obtain and “approved.” The rule applies to people who written notice or a letter any time the City maintaining work. are already enrolled in education and to approves, denies, or discontinues education The Coalition for Access to Training and people who express a desire to participate in or training. Similarly, parents must receive Education (CATE) fought hard in support of a education. notification any time the City approves, bill, Local Law 23, which allows hours A recipient will be considered eligible if denies, or discontinues supportive services, worked in education and training programs to she meets certain educational/training such as child care or car fare. These notices count towards fulfillment of work criteria. For example, a recipient will be trigger the right to a fair hearing. The requirements for welfare recipients, consistent deemed eligible for adult basic education if settlement includes opportunities for TANF with federal and state participation rate she lacks basic literacy (less than an 8th recipients to address unfairness in the requirements. The Coalition members grade, 9th month reading level or a score of assessment and assignment process. For pressed their case directly to City Council 50 or less on the New York State PLACE example, the parent has a right to challenge members and staff, provided empirical test for English language proficiency). the Plan and work assignments reflected in information coupled with real-life examples of Similarly, the recipient will be eligible for a the plan at a fair hearing if she does not why education and training makes a GED program enrollment if she has basic believe the activities assigned reflect her difference, and brought out large numbers of literacy but not a high school diploma. needs and/or preferences. low-income individuals and their supporters Entitlement to vocational education arises if The settlement also provides for very to demonstrate the need for this important the recipient has been accepted into a stringent monitoring requirements that will legislation. program, has not been in the same type of enable the Welfare Law Center and its In March 2003, the City Council passed program before, has not begun a different partners to monitor the City’s performance Local Law 23 by a vote of 42 to 3. The bill program in the past 90 days, has not failed under the agreement. The monitoring data, was vetoed by the Mayor, and the Council three vocational educational programs while along with contacts with the client overrode the veto. We are now part of a on public assistance, and has not community, low-income grassroots coalition of legal advocates working to accumulated 24 months of vocational organizers, and service providers, will all enforce the legislation and turn the programs of over 15 hours a week while on help to ensure that parents receive the opportunities for education and training into a public assistance. benefit of the policy changes represented by reality. Local Law 23 defines an activity to be the settlement. The greater opportunity to participate in countable when State law allows it to be education and training provided by Local Law counted towards meeting a person’s work Coalition for Access to Training and 23 centers around strengthening the requirements. The City must classify Education Wins New York City assessment process and allowing more activities as countable to the greatest extent Legislation education and work activities to count allowed by law. towards fulfilling the recipient work activity Finally, a program is deemed approved The Center also worked with the obligations. Under Local Law 23, the City if it is licensed or certified or otherwise Coalition for Access to Training and must conduct an assessment and develop a approved by the City or State, funded under Education (CATE), a coalition of grass-roots written employability plan for any TANF or the Workforce Investment Act, or already organizers, including Community Voices SNA recipient who has been accepted for listed on the City’s Master List of Approved Heard, FUREE, the Welfare Rights public assistance (within 45 days after Programs. Initiative, and ACORN, and other advocates, acceptance); been in an activity for at least 6 Because of the demonstrated impact to secure New York City legislation to months; or was in an activity that has ended that acquisition of even a two-year college expand education and training opportunities and the City wishes to make a new degree has on earnings, Local Law 23 builds for welfare recipients beyond those provided assignment. The recipient cannot be given in special provisions for recipients who are in state law and secured through the Davila any work-related assignments until the ready to participate in an approved college settlement. Specifically, the coalition’s assessment has been done. program. Thus, even if college is not effort focused on the goal of expanding In contrast, State law has far more otherwise countable under the provisions of access to education and training to those not stringent assessment requirements for TANF Local Law 23 discussed above, a recipient covered by the Davila settlement - including recipients than for SNA recipients and does will must be permitted to attend college if: two-parent TANF households and SNA not tie an assessment requirement to each new (1) the State has met its required households without minor children. assignment. However, repeated assessments participation rate by at least 10% for each of In this era of devolution, New York will enable the social services agency to know the last 2 years, and the City’s caseload has State law provides the local districts the the effectiveness of the prior assignment and not increased by more than 25% in the past 6

• PAGE 3 • WELFARE NEWS WELFARE LAW CENTER ! DECEMBER 2003 months; the recipient is engaged in a role that education and training play childcare or disabling conditions. The combination of work, study, training and inequipping individuals to secure and Davila settlement and Local Law 23 WEP (the City’s workfare program) for at maintain employment that will enable them are posted on the Welfare Law Center’s least 35 hours per week, and the recipient is to secure economic self-sufficiency. website, www.welfarelaw.org. For further making satisfactory progress toward However, much work remains to be done to information about either contact completion. ensure that the settlement and new law are Marc Cohan at the Center, Conclusion. The Davila settlement and implementedas effectively as possible and [email protected]. the passage of Local Law 23 represent a that other efforts are undertaken to remove growing acknowledgment of the important other barriers, such as the lack of adequate Marc Cohan

Selected Reports on Welfare Reform and Access to Education and Training

The following are selections from the extensive literature on this topic.

Poverty to Self-Sufficiency: The Role of Postsecondary Education in Welfare Reform (Center for Women Policy Studies, 2002), www.centerwomenpolicy.org

Built to Last: Why Skills Matter for Long-Run Success in Welfare Reform by Karin Martinson and Julie Strawn (Center for Law and Social Policy, April 2003), www.clasp.org

Credentials Count: How California's Community Colleges Help Parents Move from Welfare to Self-Sufficiency by Anita Mathur et al. (Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2002), www.clasp.org

Opening Doors - Students' Perspectives on Juggling Work, Family, and College by Lisa Matus-Grossman and Susan Gooden (MDRC, July 2002), www.mdrc.org

Mothers' Work: Single Mothers' Employment, Earnings, and Poverty In the Age of Welfare Reform by Mark Levitan and Robin Gluck (Community Service Society, Sept. 2002), www.cssny.org

Education Opportunities for TANF Participants in Tennessee

Tennessee’s “Families First” TANF disability or other barriers to work. This Persons who have a GED or high school program allows recipients to satisfy their assessment includes a screen for learning diploma have the opportunity to participate work activity requirement by participating in disabilities. in post-secondary education. Persons a wide variety of education programs. Persons who score above the ninth participating in post-secondary education are Because Tennessee still has a federal waiver, grade level in reading and math also have the subject to a 40 hour per week work activity it has the flexibility to count a full range of option of participating in ABE programs if requirement. They receive credit toward this educational options towards federal work they do not have their high school diploma requirement for one hour of study time for participation requirements. or GED. However, they are subject to a 40 every hour of class credit time where study Persons who score below the ninth hour per week work activity requirement and outside the classroom is required for the grade level on a standardized test of reading the months they participate in ABE count course. This means that a person who is and math abilities have the option of against their time limits. Families First carrying a class load of 14 credit hours participating in Adult Basic Education participants who had not completed the 12th would have 28 hours of credit towards the 40 (ABE) classes for 20 hours per week. This grade were found to be more than twice as hour requirement. Students can also get satisfies the Families First work activity likely to get a GED if they had participated credit for hours spent in student internships, requirement, and the months spent in ABE in the Families First ABE program.1 labs and tutoring hours. A post-secondary do not count against time limits until a ninth student will be required to participate in grade level of proficiency is achieved. 1 Academic Outcomes for Families First other Families First activities if they are Persons who are not making progress in Participants Attending and Not Attending needed to bring the total up to 40 hours. The ABE classes are given the option of seeing a Adult Education Classes, CLS (University of Families First program provides some master’s degree level counselor to determine Tennessee Center for Literacy Studies) financial assistance for books, fees or other if another activity is more appropriate, or if Research Brief (September 2002). costs that are not covered by Pell grants or special assistance is needed due to a other student loans or grants.

• PAGE 4 • WELFARE LAW CENTER ! DECEMBER 2003 WELFARE NEWS

Tennessee had developed a network of ninth grade level on a standardized test, as statistical survey of the economic, ABE classes for AFDC participants before well as to add the opportunity for post demographic and policy factors that are the welfare reform in 1996. However, the secondary education. underlying determinants of TANF original proposal in 1996 for the Families Tennessee’s emphasis on the caseloads. The survey found that requiring First program did not contain all the importance of TANF education programs is more of the work requirement to be met with educational options just described. The supported by a recent report issued by the non-education hours was a significant factor Tennessee Department of Human Services Center for Business and Economic Research in increasing the TANF caseload, while decided that rather than just seek a federal at the University of Tennessee.2 The Center allowing more different work requirement waiver and redesign the program, they conducted a nationwide activities was a significant factor in reducing would subject their proposal to the state the TANF caseload.3 2 Assessment of Tennessee’s Families First legislative process. The Families First Caseload Trends, Center for Business and legislation was amended in committee to Russ Overby ([email protected]) Economic Research, College of Business include many of the provisions just Tennessee Justice Center Administration, University of Tennessee described for persons who score below the (November 2003). 3 Id. at 3.

Lost in the Maze: A Look at New York City’s Fragmented Child Care Subsidy System

by Barbara Coccodrilli Carlson and Rebecca Scharf

Editor’s Note: The following is the Executive model deliverer of child-care services. care in a different agency office each time Summary of a Welfare Law Center report The Welfare Law Center is proposing a his or her employment status changes). that will be issued in January 2004. The full realistic way to make reform happen. WLC’s Furthermore, while the city’s stringent work report will be posted on the Center’s approach is based on a striking concurrence requirements for welfare recipients have website: www.welfarelaw.org. of opinion among a broad group of child- made access to affordable child care more care providers, parents, and advocates whom essential than ever, the system has fallen Overview we brought together in 2002, to discuss how woefully short of meeting the demand. a better system can be created. Our approach Every day, the list of children who need New York City’s child care system is in requires vision, bold leadership at the top, child care far exceeds the available spots. crisis. For years, critics have talked about and a willingness to make the structural (There are currently 38,000 children on reform. Over the past 20 years, numerous changes necessary for real reform. Only a child-care waiting lists.) Every day, lack of reports and commissions have presented courageous leader can impose order on the access to affordable child care threatens the conclusive evidence that the rules and chaos that results when no single authority is efforts of families on public assistance to regulations governing the system actually in control of multiple, often competing move from welfare to work and impedes the impede the delivery of child-care services. agencies. We call on Mayor Bloomberg to ability of low income families to attain Some of the most creative and committed be that leader—to mandate the changes and economic security. Meanwhile, as a professionals within the system have allocate the resources that will transform a confusing array of bureaucracies deliver struggled to improve it. Yet even when dysfunctional system into one New York child care services, families fall between the budgets were looser and money was City can be proud of. cracks, with the result that many eligible available, little was allocated to reform. As a families never receive the child care result, the system remains badly broken. The Challenge in New York City subsidies to which they are entitled. Despite Every day in New York City, children are the best efforts of many, many placed at risk by poor and patched-together It is no secret that New York City’s knowledgeable and concerned professionals, care. child care system is badly in need of reform. from agency heads to care givers at the local The situation is shameful, and the need Families in search of subsidized child care level, the system isn’t working. to fix the system more urgent than ever. are confronted by daunting barriers, Nevertheless, the Welfare Law Center including a multitude of agencies whose The Welfare Law Center Focus Groups strongly believes that the systemic ills can be functions overlap, a complex application cured; that a streamlined, seamless delivery process, disruptions in child-care payments, To understand the dimensions of the system can be designed and implemented; misinformation, and requirements that force problem and find workable solutions, the and that New York City’s child-care families to negotiate a bureaucratic maze Welfare Law Center turned to a critical bureaucracy can be transformed into a (for example, a parent must reapply for child group of insiders who know the system best:

• PAGE 5 • WELFARE NEWS WELFARE LAW CENTER ! DECEMBER 2003 the users and the providers of child-care they agreed on the fundamental reforms centralized waiting list, and identify services. The Center successfully organized necessary to fix the system. For the first vacancies. focus groups that brought together New time, every side was on the same page. 3. Build in presumptive, continuous child- York City agency officials, parents, care subsidy eligibility for all families advocates, and service and child care The Welfare Law Center’s Recom- demonstrating need. providers. We asked the groups three major mendations questions: What would a “seamless” We believe these proposals are sensible, delivery of child care services for low- Drawing on the vision of our focus practical, and most important, achievable, income families look like? What are the groups for a seamless child care delivery and that they will result in a dramatic major barriers to its realization? What would system, the Welfare Law Center proposes improvement in New York City’s child care it take to achieve a seamless child care that New York City begin the process of delivery system. delivery system in New York City? reform by taking three major steps: This report offers a brief history of the The focus groups were remarkable for New York City child care subsidy system; two reasons. First, they brought together 1. Create a single city agency for child documents the problems that have arisen participants who came from vastly different care services with a knowledgeable because multiple agencies are charged with backgrounds and were often on opposite Commissioner. providing child care services; examines the sides of the reform debate. Second and most 2. Develop an integrated, interactive barriers standing in the way of creating a important, in all of these groups the computer system for all child-care better system; and describes how to bring to participants made essentially the same subsidy administration, with the fruition our vision of a seamless child care recommendations; from managers to clients, capacity to determine eligibility, house a delivery system.

Low Income Networking and Communications (LINC) Project Update

In addition to providing ongoing economic security issues and discuss plans to WEEL (Montana), Oregon Human Rights technology assistance to grassroots groups improve civic participation in the Coalition (OHRC), Progressive Leadership throughout the country, in recent months the democratic process in 2004. Some 30 Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), National Welfare Law Center's LINC staff have grassroots organizers and activists attended Welfare Engine, and Welfare Made a conducted workshops and participated in a and had the opportunity to hear updates from Difference Campaign. Among the agenda number of conferences sponsored by representatives of national organizations, items was a discussion of TANF grassroots coalitions and non-profit exchange information and brainstorm on reauthorization and the coalition’s ongoing technology assistance providers. Highlights strategies for communicating with their strategy on reauthorization. LINC Circuit follow. legislators and the public on issues of mutual Riders Dirk Slater and Askia Foreman The Southern Welfare Activist importance, including TANF attended the meeting. LINC has provided Connection (SWAC) held its second annual reauthorization, access to higher education ongoing technology support to the coalition, meeting in late September in Abingdon, for women receiving TANF, proposed most recently through improvements to the Virginia. The Appalachian Women’s “marriage promotion initiatives”, and child WRWAN/Engine legislative bills database Alliance (AWA) hosted the meeting which support assurance. The participants also (visit www.wrwan.org), a strategy that was attended by the representatives of heard experts discuss how grassroots groups allows grassroots activists to share otherwise Solutions (TN), Welfare Rights can promote civic involvement through non- hard-to-find information about state welfare Organization (LA), Direct Action Welfare partisan candidate forums, voter education, legislative developments. Group (WV), and the National Welfare voter registration and get out the vote International Meeting on Free/Open Engine. LINC Circuit Rider Amanda campaigns. LINC Circuit Riders Dirk Slater Source Software for Non-Governmental Hickman led a workshop for participants on and Amanda Hickman led a workshop on Agencies. LINC Senior Circuit Rider Dirk technology planning, during which how a group’s database can support civic Slater attended Summer Source Camp in participants drew up sample technology engagement campaigns and encouraged Croatia in late August. Organized and hosted plans and discussed their goals for their own groups to identify ways to incorporate by Tactical Tech in partnership with the technology use. The participants discussed technology into their overall campaigns. Open Society Institute and Omidyar short and long term plans for the coalition The Western Regional Welfare Foundation, the conference brought together and developments around TANF Activists Network (www.wrwran.org), a non-profit technology assistance providers reauthorization. LINC has been providing coalition of low-income grassroots (NTAPs) and software developers working technology support to the coalition. organizations in western states that address to implement Free and Open Source The National Welfare Engine economic security issues, met in Portland, Solutions (OSS) for civil society (www.welfareengine.org), a collaboration Oregon in August. The groups represented at organizations. OSS offers a reliable and of low-income grassroots groups, met in the meeting included Welfare Rights cost-effective technology solution for Washington, D.C. in late October to share Organizing Coalition (WROC- grassroots groups with limited resources. information and strategies on welfare and Washington), NEW Project (Nevada), The conference organizers invited

• PAGE 6 • WELFARE LAW CENTER ! DECEMBER 2003 WELFARE NEWS

Slater to lead several workshops because of grassroots groups in Minneapolis in GrassRoots Organizing (GRO), and LINC’s expertise and innovative work in November for conference on Using Working for Equality and Economic recognizing and realizing the potential of Technology in Organizing for Civic Liberation (WEEL) - were among the more OSS for grassroots groups. (For a case study Participation in the Democratic Process. than forty groups represented. on how LINC deployed OSS for Missouri’s The conference focused both on the nuts and Representatives of Montana’s WEEL and GrassRoots Organizing (GRO), making its bolts of non-partisan voter engagement New York City’s CVH made presentations operations more efficient and enhancing its projects and the technology needed to on their voter engagement efforts. CVH staff organizing and advocacy, visit advance these projects. LINC Circuit Riders discussed CVH’s Civic Engagement www.lincproject.org.) Slater’s participation Dirk Slater and Amanda Hickman attended Campaign at the opening plenary. The CVH provided him with a valuable opportunity to and joined staff from Project Alchemy in presentation is available at meet and develop relationships with leading a workshop on database basics. www.progressivetechnology.org/ colleagues who are interested in OSS and to Slater also conducted a workshop on Convenings/CivicParticipationConvening/in build his OSS expertise - experiences that advanced databases. Representatives of dex.htm. LINC works closely with both will enrich LINC’s work with its grassroots several LINC groups - Families United for WEEL and CVH and has provided groups. Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), technology assistance that supported their The Progressive Technology Project Community Voices Heard (CVH), voter participation campaigns. convened a wide range of social justice

Georgia Advocates Launch Web Sites on Using Disability Rights Laws to Improve Welfare Programs

Georgia Legal Services has launched Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of ADA on behalf of clients in the Georgia two web sites on the rights of welfare the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) in welfare system. applicants and recipients under federal welfare programs; other reference materials The second web site, www.glsp.org/ disability rights laws. One web site is on welfare, disabilities and the ADA; and extranet/clienttanfada.htm, contains a guide designed for welfare applicants and other web sites with relevant research, for clients in welfare programs about the recipients; the other for welfare advocates. information, and advocacy strategies. ADA and Georgia’s welfare program; a Though both are geared for Georgia The web site also contains a number of short brochure on the rights of current and audiences, they are a tremendous resource materials related to Georgia’s efforts to former welfare recipients with disabilities; an for advocates in other states who are comply with the ADA in its welfare OCR complaint form, a link to the DCFS interested in using disability rights laws to program, including complaints filed by TANF manual, basic information on obtain improvements in welfare programs. Georgia Legal Services against the with depression and learning disabilities, and The first, www.glsp.org/extranet/ OCR against the Georgia Department of contact information for DCFS. The client attyguide.htm, is designed for attorneys and Children and Family Services on behalf of materials are written in simple language and other advocates. It contains links to the clients with disabilities; the voluntary should serve as a useful model for advocates Policy Guidance issued by the Office for compliance agreement between DCFS and and welfare agencies in other states who Civil Rights (OCR) U.S. Department of the Office for Civil Rights detailing the want to develop consumer education Health and Human Services on the changes the Georgia welfare agency agreed materials on the welfare programs and the application of federal disability rights laws to to make; the Georgia DFCS ADA/Section ADA. TANF programs; related reports on the 504 notice, and the training materials For more information, contact Nancy prevalence of disabilities in welfare currently used by Georgia DCFS to train Lindbloom at Georgia Legal Services, 706- programs and strategies for serving these welfare agency staff on the ADA and 369-5922, [email protected]. clients; a checklist that advocates can use to Section 504. The web site also contains a identify violations of the Americans with guide for Georgia attorneys on using the Cary LaCheen

Editor's note: Cary LaCheen ([email protected]) is available to work with advocates addressing the treatment of individuals with disabilities in public benefits programs.

• PAGE 7 • WELFARE NEWS WELFARE LAW CENTER ! DECEMBER 2003

Welfare Law Center Welcomes New Board Members and Staff

The Center is pleased to welcome five new Board members:

Cassandra Barham-Denton, an activist with the Ohio Empowerment Coalition in Cincinnati, Ohio

Douglas F. Curtis, a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in New York

Evelyn Dortch, a founder of the Direct Action Welfare Group in Charleston, West Virginia

Jennifer Selendy, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in New York

Diana Spatz, a founder of Lifetime, an organization of welfare recipients pursuing higher education, in Oakland, California

We are also pleased to welcome Nancy Yanofsky as Director of Development. Nancy was Executive Director of the Pro-Choice Research Center for many years, and came to the Center from NYC2012, the effort to bring the Olympic Games to New York City.

Welfare Law Center Hosts ListServs for Advocates and Grassroots Organizers

The Welfare Law Center currently hosts several moderated email listservs for advocates and grassroots activists across the country. If you are interested in participating in one or more of the lists, please get in touch with the Center staff person indicated below.

Legal advocates’ and welfare litigators’ list: This list is limited to legal advocates who represent low-income individals on welfare and related matters or who provide support to legal advocates. Advocates can share information about developments in their legal advocacy, raise questions with their colleagues, and receive information about welfare case developments and related issues from the Welfare Law Center. Contact Gina Mannix, [email protected] and provide your name, program affiliation, address, telephone and fax number, website (if applicable), email address, and if you are not with a legal services program, a brief description of your legal work on welfare issues.

Organizers’ list: This list is for low-income grassroots organizers and is hosted by the Center’s Low Income Networking and Communications (LINC) Project. The list provides an opportunity for organizers to share strategies and information about campaigns, issues of common concern, and opportunities for collaboration. Welfare reauthorization is a major focus of current postings. Contact Dirk Slater, LINC Senior Circuit Rider, [email protected] and provide your name, your grassroots group affiliation, address, telephone and fax number, website (if applicable) and email address.

Child Care Advocates’ list: This list is for legal advocates and low-income and child care advocacy groups who are working on child care issues affecting low-income families and those who want to expand their work to include this area. It is intended as a medium for sharing information about advocacy strategies and national child care issues and supporting advocacy. The list is part of the national Child Care Collaborative, a project of the Welfare Law Center, Child Care Law Center, and NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Contact Rebecca Scharf, [email protected] and provide your name, program, address, telephone and fax number, website (if applicable), email address, and a brief description of your child care work.

• PAGE 8 • Welfare Bulletin

www.welfarelaw.org www.lincproject.org VOL. 8, NO. 2, ISSN 1091-4056, DECEMBER 2003

SELECTED RECENT CASE DEVELOPMENTS

Manhattan Improvement Corp., 76 TX Court Blocks Medicaid NY Court Invalidates Wadsworth Avenue, New York, NY 10333, Sanction for Failure to Certain State Food tel. 212-822-8346; Constance Carden, New York Legal Assistance Group,130 East 59th Comply with Personal Assistance Program Street, New York NY 10022, tel. 212-750- Responsibility Immigrant Restrictions 0800; Barbara Weiner, Greater Upstate Law Project, Greater Upstate Law Project, Requirements Teytelman v. Wing, Index No. Inc 119 Washington Avenue Albany, New Camacho et al. v. Texas 402767/02 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co,. Dec. 8, 2003) York 12210, tel. 518-462-6831. Workforce Commission et al., (98th On December 8, 2003, a New York Judicial. Dist., Travis County Dist Ct., state court held that certain immigration- Texas, Dec. 11, 2003) (Temporary related restrictions in the state Food NE Supreme Court Rules Restraining Order) Assistance Program (FAP) violate the Equal Family Cap Does Not Protection clauses of the U.S. and New York Plaintiffs challenge the state’s recently Constitutions. In particular, in granting the Apply When Adult is adopted policy of terminating Medicaid for plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary Disabled parents and other adult caretakers who are injunction on behalf of the named plaintiffs, sanctioned under TANF for their inability to the Court struck down provisions restricting Mason v. State of Nebraska, 267 ensure that their children attend school and FAP eligibility to immigrants who have been Neb. 44, 2003 Neb. LEXIS 181 (Dec. 5, receive health check-ups and residing in the U.S. since August 22, 1996; 2003) immunizations, and for their own inability to and who have not been outside the U.S. for refrain from drug and alcohol abuse. more than 90 days in the year preceding an The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled Federal Medicaid law allows states to application for benefits; and who have that the state’s family cap provision, which terminate Medicaid for adults whose TANF applied for citizenship or will do so within denies a grant increase for a child born while is terminated for failure to comply with work 30 days of becoming eligible to do so. the family is receiving cash assistance, requirements under 42 U.S.C. 607. Texas’ In practice, the decision is a big victory cannot be applied to families whose adult is new policy redefines work to include for domestic violence survivors who entered disabled and unable to work. Plaintiffs had compliance with non-work conduct the U.S. after 1996, and who are either argued that state law limits application of the requirements included in an individual’s qualified aliens but in that status for less than family cap to families with a self-sufficiency responsibility agreement. Plaintiffs claim 5 years, or who are identified by the social contract who are participating in the that the new policy violates federal Medicaid services district as DV survivors pursuant to Employment First work program. Since law, 42 U.S.C. §1396u-1 (b)(3) and the the procedures in state Social Services Law families whose adults are incapacitated and Texas Human Resources Code provision 349-a. The other major beneficiaries include unable to work are not required to enter into which authorizes termination of Medicaid to elderly (age 60 or over) non-disabled self-sufficiency contracts and are placed into the extent allowed by federal law. The court immigrants who entered the U.S. after 1996 a non-time limited benefit group, plaintiffs has granted a temporary restraining order and who have less than 5 years of qualified argued that they cannot be subject to the barring the state from terminating Medicaid alien status. Both those groups are now family cap. Plaintiffs had prevailed in the pursuant to the challenged rules. eligible for State-funded FAP benefits under lower court. the reasoning of the decision. The Supreme Court concluded that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys: P.M. Schenkkan, Mary language of the state's family cap provision A. Keeney, Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Rebecca L. Scharf, was ambiguous, and it therefore looked to Moody; Bruce Bower, Texas Legal Services Welfare Law Center, 275 Seventh Avenue, the purposes of the law and the legislature’s Center, Austin, Texas; Of Counsel: Marc Suite 1205, NY, NY 10001, tel. 212-438- intent. The court found that the application Cohan, Mary R. Mannix, Rebecca L. Scharf, 8853; Jennifer Baum, The Legal Aid Society, of the family cap to the plaintiff class does Welfare Law Ctr., 275 Seventh Ave., #1205, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038, tel. not further the welfare act’s purposes of New York, NY 10001, tel. 212 633-6967. 212-440-4232; Mary Ellen Burns, Northern promoting the transition to economic self-

• PAGE 9 • WELFARE BULLETIN WELFARE LAW CENTER, DECEMBER 2003 sufficiency, providing continuous support to policies regarding the disposition of Food respond to a projected FY 2004 funding individuals and families with disabilities, and Stamp, Medicaid, and public assistance shortfall. The agency cannot implement cuts protecting children. The court cited applications based on recommendations of until the appropriation approaches legislative history indicating that the the Eligibility Verification Review Offices. exhaustion and the legislature has failed to legislature intended that the family cap apply After the court granted summary judgment to act. to families participating in the Employment defendants on one of the claims, the parties First program through a self-sufficiency entered into a settlement agreement Plaintiffs’ attorney: Ruth Bourquin, contract. The court declined to apply the concerning the remaining claims, in which Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, 99 family cap to families with a disabled adult, defendants agreed to assume various Chauncy Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA absent a clear expression of legislative obligations and plaintiffs agreed to voluntary 02111, tel. 617-357-0700, fax: 617-357- intent. It easily rejected the state’s argument dismissal of claims. The agreement 0777. that the family cap would be rendered provided, among other things, that the unconstitutional if the court accepted agreement would not become effective if the plaintiff’s argument. The state had argued order of discontinuance did not include a MA Court Rules that State that there would be an equal protection provision retaining jurisdiction over Regulation Impermissibly violation if the cap were not applied enforcement. In considering plaintiffs’ uniformly. The court noted that “[t]his subsequent motion for attorney’s fees, the Narrows TANF Exemption argument is without merit, for which the district court concluded that they were not Baynes v. Dep’t of Transitional Department should be thankful. The prevailing parties under Buckhannon v. Bd. Assistance, No. 02-0068 (Middlesex Cy. Department may be overlooking the & Home Care, Inc. v. W. Va. Dept of Superior Court, May 16, 2003) implications of its advocacy in this particular Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 appeal. The Department’s equal protection (2001). The district court concluded that its Plaintiff challenged the welfare analysis could, if adopted, result in the continuing jurisdiction over the agreement agency’s decision that she did not qualify for invalidation of the entire Act.” It concluded was not the judicial sanctioning of the the exemption from various TANF rules that there is a rational basis for treating parties’ altered legal relationship under (e.g. time limits and work requirements) plaintiffs differently from others subject to Buckhannon. The Second Circuit allowed to caretaker parents with a disabled the cap. disagreed, concluding that the lower court child. The state statutory provisions provide “did not fully appreciate the implications of an exemption when the disability of the child Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Rebecca Gould, Milo its retention of jurisdiction over enforcement requires the parent’s presence at home. Mumgaard, Sue Ellen Wall, Susan Koenig, of the Agreement.” Such retention of However, a state regulation requires a parent Nebraska Appleseed Center, 941 O Street, jurisdiction “is not significantly different to provide medical verification that she is Suite 105, Lincoln, NE 68508, tel. 402-438- from a consent decree and entails a level of required to be at home during normal school 8853; and NOW Legal Defense and judicial sanction sufficient to support an hours to care for the disabled child if the Education Fund, New York, NY. The ACLU award of attorney’s fees.” disabled child is of mandatory full-time Women's Rights Project filed an amicus school age. Plaintiff is the parent of a child brief in support of plaintiffs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Randal whose disability qualifies her for SSI. The S. Jeffrey, New York Legal Assistance child is of mandatory full-time school age. Group, 130 East 59th Street, 14th Floor, New As a result of her disability, the child has York, NY 10022, tel. 212-750-0800, fax: more school absences than non-disabled Settlement Agreement 212-750-0820. children. The medical report indicated that Confers Prevailing Party while the parent was not needed full-time at Status on Plaintiffs for home to provide care, she was needed at Attorney’s Fees MA Court Enjoins Cuts in home when the child is ill. The court ruled Emergency Assistance that the statutory exemptions do not provide Roberson et al. v. Giuliani et al., authority to the agency to limit the Docket No. 02-7306 (2d Cir., Sept. 30, Program exemption to those who must care for a disabled child full-time during school hours. 2003) Wilson v. Dep’t of Transitional The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Assistance, No. 03-3944-E (Suffolk Cy. Plaintiff’s attorneys: Melanie Malherbe, reversing the district court, has held that Superior Court, August 21, 2003) Greater Boston Legal Services, 197 Friend plaintiffs are prevailing parties for purposes Street, Boston, MA 02114, tel. 617-603- of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in a lawsuit that was According to a report from 1602, fax: 617-371-1222; Ellen Shachter, resolved by private settlement agreement Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, the Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services, over which the district court retained court has issued a preliminary injunction 432 Columbia Street, Suite 16, Cambridge, enforcement jurisdiction. Plaintiffs had barring the welfare agency from reducing MA 02141, tel. 617-494-1800, fax: 617-494- brought a §1983 class action against New payments by 11.5% to recipients in the 8222. York City welfare officials challenging state’s program of Emergency Aid to Elderly, Disabled, and Children in order to

• PAGE 10 • WELFARE LAW CENTER, DECEMBER 2003 WELFARE BULLETIN

resources to collect the support mitigated the factors and often reaches the same result. Court Upholds GA Child adverse economic effect of the assignment. As to the claim that the family cap Support Assignment As to the second Penn Central factor - infringes on a woman’s right to make the extent to which the regulation interferes reproductive choices by penalizing her for Requirement for Family with the plaintiffs’ investment-backed the birth of a child and singles out poor Cap Children expectation - the court found that a child’s children, the court rejects arguments that property interest in child support can be there is an undue or new burden on Williams v. Martin, Civ. Action No. modified by the parent or by law and does reproductive choice. Family income from 1:01-CV-3343-TWT (U.S. District Ct., N.D. not give the child a “vested expectation in whatever source is likely to influence Ga.) (Sept. 22, 2003) continued identical child support payments.” reproductive choices. Working families do As to the third factor - the character of not receive automatic wage increases when a Plaintiffs are children subject to the governmental action - the court, relying on child is born and the family cap puts families state’s “family cap” provision under which a Bowen, noted that the state faces difficult on welfare “on a par with working families.” TANF cash assistance increment is denied to choices in allocating government resources. The court finds the state has “ample children born while the family receives Plaintiffs received an overall increase in justification” for the cap as “resources TANF assistance, whose rights to child benefits through the GAP payments and available as a result of the cap have been support must be assigned to the state assignment is voluntary insofar as the choice diverted to job training, child care, and other pursuant to TANF rules. Plaintiffs claim 1) to apply for TANF is not mandatory. In programs...” which should help improve the that the assignment requirement violates 42 concluding that there is no constitutional lives of welfare families. The court U.S.C. 608 (a)(3) which requires that states violation, the court cited the wide latitude distinguished an earlier New Jersey Supreme condition TANF eligibility on the that the state has in designing social Court decision finding an equal protection assignment of support rights for anyone programs. violation where the state denied Medicaid applying for or receiving assistance; and 2) funding for abortions except where that the mandatory assignment constitutes a Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Nancy Lindbloom, medically necessary to save the mother’s taking in violation of the Fourteenth Georgia Legal Services, Athens, GA 30605, life. Noting that the court had also held that Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The tel. 706-369-5922, Lisa Krisher, Sheila the state could exclude from Medicaid court has ruled against plaintiffs. Khrzan, Georgia Legal Services, Atlanta, funding elective, nontherapeutic abortions After concluding that plaintiffs have GA. that did not involve the life or health of the standing and that the case is ripe for mother, the court said that in this case the adjudication, the court rejects the statutory life or health of the mother is not at stake. claim on the grounds that while 608 (a)(3) The court discounted plaintiffs' contention of does not expressly authorize the assignment NJ Supreme Court disparate treatment based on when a child is for such children, it does not bar the state Upholds New Jersey born - i.e. before a family receives welfare or from imposing such a requirement. On the after. It noted that families subject to the cap constitutional claim, the court reaches a Family Cap receive additional Food Stamps and conclusion contrary to that of the court in Sojourner A. et al. v. New Jersey Medicaid, and rejected arguments of amici Williams ex rel. Ricard v. Humphreys, that the statute violates international norms Dep’t of Human Services, 828 A. 2d 125 F. Supp. 2d 881 (S.D. Ind. 2000) which regarding birth-status discrimination. The 306, 2003 N.J. Lexis 866 (August 4, 2003) found the assignment requirement for a court concluded that the case is “not about family cap child unconstitutional. In the right to choose whether and when to bear The New Jersey Supreme Court has reaching its conclusion, the court looked to children, but rather, about whether the State upheld the constitutionality of the state law Bowen v. Guilliard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987) must subsidize that choice.” (upholding the AFDC mandatory filing unit that denies, with limited exceptions, an increase in cash assistance benefits for a rule) which applied the three factor test in Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Lenora M. Lapidus, child born more than ten months after a Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City American Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad family applies for and receives benefits. of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) to Street, New York, NY 10004, tel. 212-549- Plaintiffs had claimed that the “family cap” evaluate the taking claim. First, as to the 2668, fax: 212-549-2651; Sherry Leiwant, provision violates their rights to privacy and economic impact of the regulation on the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, equal protection as guaranteed by the New plaintiffs, the court found it significant that 395 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, Jersey Constitution. Relying on the approach although the plaintiffs’ TANF grants did not tel. 212-925-6635, fax: 212-226-1066; established in prior decisions involving state increase for the capped child, the addition of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & constitutional claims, the court applied a capped children to the family increased the Vecchione. potential of GAP payments made to the balancing test the considers “the nature of family when the state collected child the affected right, the extent to which the support. Plaintiffs had received GAP governmental restriction intrudes upon it, payments (which were not a factor in the and the public need for the restriction.” The Indiana Williams case), and these GAP court noted, however, that while its analysis payments together with the state’s use of its varies from the tiered test for federal constitutional claims, it considers similar

• PAGE 11 • WELFARE BULLETIN WELFARE LAW CENTER, DECEMBER 2003

CA Court Upholds NY Court Finds Due NY Court Upholds Class CalWORKS and Food Process Violations in HEAP Certification in Tax Stamp Fingerimaging Program Intercept Case Requirement Kapps v. Wing,, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Watts v. Wing, 765 NYS2d 18 (1st Dept., 17633 ( E.D.N.Y., Sept 19, 2003) 2003) Sheyko v. Saenz, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS rd 1532 (Ct. of Appeal of Cal., 3 App. Relying upon early Welfare Law Center Under New York state law, the welfare District) (Oct. 9, 2003) due process victories in Goldberg v. Kelly, agency was allowed to intercept state tax 397 U.S. 254, (1970) and Escalera v. NYC refunds to recover welfare overpayments. This case challenges aspects of Housing Authority, 425 F. 2d 853 (2d Cir. Plaintiffs claimed that the failure to provide California’s fingerimaging system for 1970), the court held that despite the notice and an opportunity to contest the debt CalWORKS and Food Stamps and asserts considerable discretion states have in violated due process. The Appellate that the implementing regulations exceed the establishing eligibility requirements for Division, by a 3-2 vote, upheld the class statute mandating such a system. On appeal benefits under the federal Low Income certification on the grounds that there were from a trial court decision that ruled partly Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) issues common to all members of the class for plaintiff, the appellate court has ruled for block grant, once eligibility standards are (adequate notice and a meaningful the state defendant and upheld the established, and so long as funds are opportunity for a hearing). The fingerimaging system. The court’s decision available, eligible individuals have a “government operations rule” invoked by the includes the following points. Claims about constitutionally protected interest in HEAP State, which presumes that the State will the effectiveness of the fingerimaging benefits. This means that the state has comply with the decision in an individual system are for the legislature, not the court, violated due process when it (1) sends case in future situations affecting others, has to decide. The court rejects assertions that notices that do not provide the information no application here because the alleged due the system interferes with plaintiffs’ privacy necessary for the individual to determine process violations occurred in the past. The rights and religious freedom and that using whether eligibility and benefits were majority rejected the dissenters’ claim that fingerimaging as an eligibility requirement correctly determined, and (2) delays making class certification was inappropriate because impermissibly deters people from applying determinations to a time when an appeal individual hearings would be required for for assistance and undermines the agency’s cannot be pursued. On the other hand, due each member of the class who wanted to obligation to aid eligible individuals. The process is not violated when the state takes challenge the validity of a debt. agency may require all parents, legal more time to process a claim than state guardians, and caretaker relatives in a regulations permit. Plaintiffs' attorney: Jane Greengold CalWORKS household to comply with the The court also held that there was a Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group, fingerimaging requirement, even if they are private right of action under the federal 130 East 59th Street, New York NY 10022, not eligible. The agency’s fingerimaging HEAP statute, but that there was only one (212) 750-0800, [email protected]. system may require photographs of violation of those rights. The court also individuals subject to fingerimaging. The certified a class, rejecting arguments that agency may find the entire household such certification was unnecessary because ineligible if an individual fails to comply all would benefit from a determination, with the fingerimaging requirement. The noting that the defendants argued at the same Welfare Law Center Welfare court rejects a distinction between “refusal” time that resolution of the individual Litigation Monitoring and “failure” to comply, finds that people plaintiffs’ claims would moot out the case. have many chances to comply and that non- Finally, barred from ordering any retroactive The Center continues to monitor wel- compliance means that an eligibility money relief by the Eleventh Amendment, fare and related litigation as part of requirement has not been satisfied. the court ordered Quern notice to the class of Project Fair Play, our comprehensive the fact that the defendants’ past actions effort to undertake, support, and pro- Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Stephen E. Goldberg, were unconstitutional. mote critical litigation on public John F. Gianola, Legal Services of Northern At least one of the defendants has filed a benefits issues. We encourage our California, 517 12th Street, Sacramento, CA notice of appeal to the Second Circuit. readers to mail or e-mail us papers and 95814, tel. 916-551-2150, fax: 916-551- updates in their significant cases so 2195; Grace A. Galligher and Cynthia Plaintiffs' attorney: Peter Vollmer, Vollmer that we can disseminate this informa- Anderson-Barker, Coalition of California & Tanck, 350 Jericho Tpke, Ste. 206, tion to our network of litigators and Welfare Rights Organizations. Jericho NY 11753, (516) 870-0355, other advocates. Send papers to Gina [email protected]. Mannix ([email protected]) at the Center.

• PAGE 12 • WELFARE LAW CENTER, DECEMBER 2003 WELFARE BULLETIN

been found eligible. They claim that the loss reasons for denial and notice of the right to Lawsuit Claims New Texas of benefits results from implementation of a appeal violates the Texas and United States Computer System new computer system that has significant Constitutions. They seek declaratory and system-wide software and data processing injunctive relief. Problems Result in Illegal errors and that the defendants have not Benefit Denials established an alternative method of assuring Plaintiffs’ attorneys: Mario Caballero and issuance of benefits to those who have lost Renee Trevino, Texas Rural Legal Aid, 434 DeLeon v. Hine, Cause No. 6N304045 assistance as a result of the roll-out of the S. Main, Suite 300, San Antonio, TX 78204, (Travis County District Court, Texas) new computer system. Plaintiffs claim that tel. 210-227-0111; James C. Harrington, (complaint, filed October 2003) the defendants have violated the federal Texas Civil Rights Project, Austin, TX (The Food Stamp and Medicaid Acts and that the Welfare Law Center is of counsel to Texas Plaintiffs are individuals who have not denial of benefits without notice of the Rural Legal Aid). received TANF cash assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid for which they have

RECENT NOTEWORTHY PUBLICATIONS

of the disparity can be explained by these its services flexible enough to respond to the Minnesota Studies Examine factors and how much can be attributed to challenges faced by different families? Racial and Ethnic bias.” The report noted that focus groups Should standards for success look beyond conducted as part of the analysis suggested overall totals to similar outcomes for Disparities in Welfare that there might be differential treatment of different populations? How does information Outcomes various racial/ethnic/immigrant groups within about high sanction rates for those who get and outside of the MFIP system. These results time limits extensions affect implementation Measuring Minnesota Family point to the need to reduce disparities and of sanctions? What services are needed for Investment Program Performance improve service delivery to black and long-term recipients who have significant for Racial/Ethnic and Immigrant American Indian welfare participants. needs? Available on the web at: Available on the web at: http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/hs Groups, Minnesota Department of Human http://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/Legacy/D /mfip/docs/racial_disparities_report.pdf Services, Study Brief #7 (November 2003) M-0039G-ENG. This briefing paper reports on an analysis of differences in welfare outcomes for different racial/ethnic groups and Looking at Outcomes in Welfare by California Families’ immigrants. It is part of a continuing series Race in Ramsey County, Rahel Tekel, analyzing performance in the Minnesota Larry Timmerman (Office of Performance Experiences Reveal Family Investment Program (MFIP) , and Measurement and Evaluation, Ramsey Failures of CalWORKS the first to look at racial/ethnic differences. County Human Services, January 2003) The methodology was developed in Policies and Practices response to a directive from the legislature to This report examines various welfare Falling Through the Cracks: How control for individual and county economic outcomes for different racial and ethnic California’s Welfare Policy Keeps differences of counties when measuring groups, immigrant and non-immigrant MFIP performance. The analysis finds that families in Ramsey County, Minnesota, Families Poor, The Race and Public there are disparities in outcomes in MFIP. concluding overall that different groups have Policy Program, Applied Research Center “African American, American Indian, different experiences with the welfare system. (2003). Somali, and other black immigrant The report examines caseload composition participant outcomes based on the “Self- trends, employment while receiving cash This report, based on in-depth support Index” were lower than those of assistance and case closure due to interviews with 30 California families other racial/ethnic and immigrant groups. employment, duration of welfare receipt, receiving CalWORKS assistance found the When controlling for several individual extensions granted to those who reach welfare following recurring problems with the state’s demographic and county economic time limits, reasons for extensions, and implementation of CalWORKS: 1) routine, characteristics, the actual outcomes for these sanctions, and sanctions. The authors identify unjust and illegal use of sanctions; groups were lower than expected. Further a number of policy questions raised by the 2) improper denial of exemptions; 3) denial analysis is necessary to determine how much data. For example, how can the county make of job training and education opportunities.

• PAGE 13 • WELFARE BULLETIN WELFARE LAW CENTER, DECEMBER 2003

The report recommends that the state to contract out; various approaches to relief offered some temporary relief; 4) For adopts approaches used elsewhere to protect payment structure; ensuring equal access, due many states, FY 2004 was the third families from unfair sanctions; 2) allow process, and customer satisfaction; and consecutive year of Medicaid savings families to participate in meaningful ensuring opportunities for faith and measures. Available on the web at: education and training programs to help community-based organizations. Available on www.kff.org them move out of poverty; 3) institute the web at www.financeproject.org. statewide data collection and reporting requirements regarding translation and English as a Second language services, TANF Sanction Research education and job attainment, barriers to Analysis of State Medicaid Reviewed employment, support services offered and Spending Cuts received, and application of sanctions and Review of Sanction Policies and exemptions; and 4) in light of the agency’s States Respond to Fiscal Pressure: Research Studies, Final Literature failure to handle cases properly, review all State Medicaid Spending Growth Review, LaDonna Pavetti, Michelle K. cases scheduled for closure at the end of the and Cost Containment in Fiscal Derr, Heather Hesketh (Mathematica Policy time limit to assure that families have been Years 2003 and 2004 - Results from Research, Inc., March 10, 2003) treated fairly and extend benefits as a 50-State Survey, Vernon Smith at. al. appropriate to remedy improper treatment. This report reviews the components of (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Available on the web at www.arc.org. state TANF sanction policies and the Sept. 2003) research findings on sanctions, and identifies the outstanding gaps in what is known about This report reviews states trends in Medicaid sanctions and their effects. The authors spending in response to budget crises and how Review of Issues in Welfare examine the following issues: the incidence states have sought to cut Medicaid and duration of sanctions, characteristics and Privatization expenditures. Major findings include the circumstances of sanctioned families, the following: 1) Although Medicaid spending Outsourcing the Delivery of effects of TANF sanctions recipients, and growth continues, the rate of growth declined Human Services , Evelyn Bandoh implementation of sanctions and local significantly in FY 2003; 2) All states (Welfare Information Network, September practices. Available on the web at implemented cost saving measures in 2003 2003) www.Mathematica-mpr.com. and planned additional measures in FY 2004; 3) The June 2003 $20 billion federal fiscal This issue note provides a brief overview of issues related to the privatization of welfare and human services programs and identifies related resources. It reviews issues such as ensuring fair and competitive contracting; criteria for deciding

• PAGE 14 • About The Welfare Law Center

The Welfare Law Center is a national legal and policy organization that works with and on behalf of poor people to ensure that adequate income support is available when necessary to meet basic needs and foster healthy individual and family development. The Center achieves its goals through legal and policy analysis, legal representation, public education, training, and aid and support to advocates. Contributions to the Center are tax deductible. B OARD OF DIRECTORS LEGAL & POLICY STAFF

Paul M. Dodyk, Chair Carey R. Dunne Jennifer L. Kroman Henry A. Freedman, Penelope E. Andrews Steven M. Edwards Mary A. Lovings Executive Director Gail Aska Jeffrey E. Glen Inez Mitchell [email protected] Cassandra Barham-Denton John DeWitt Gregory Bruce Rabb Marc Cohan Paul J. Bschorr David Gruenstein Jennifer Selendy Director of Litigation Douglas F. Curtis Henry B. Gutman Jill Shinn [email protected] Martha F. Davis John H. Hall Diana Spatz Cary LaCheen Matthew Diller Kate Kahan Stanley S. Weithorn Senior Attorney Evelyn Dortch Stephen L. Kass Margo Westley [email protected] Mary R. Mannix Program Director [email protected] Rebecca L. Scharf Senior Attorney [email protected]

LINC PROJECT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT STAFF

Dirk Slater, Senior Circuit Nancy M. Yanofsky Susanne Evarts Kay Khan Rider [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Peter Kendall Michelle Peeples Amanda Hickman, Circuit [email protected] [email protected] Rider [email protected] Askia Foreman, Circuit Rider [email protected]

How To Contribute to the Welfare Law Center With the loss of federal funding, the Center relies upon contributions and publications sales to support its work. Tax-deductible contributions may be made by check or credit card (MasterCard, Visa, American Express - information can be faxed to the Center). Monthly or quarterly contributions can be scheduled. Bequests have been left to the Center in wills, and we would be pleased to discuss possible arrangements. For information about any of these options, contact Kay Khan at the Center.

About Welfare News and Welfare Bulletin Welfare News is a periodic publication of the Welfare Law Center, 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1205, New York, NY 10001-6708, tel. 212-633- 6967; fax: 212-633-6371; e-mail: [email protected]; web pages: www.welfarelaw.org and www.lincproject.org. Welfare Bulletin, issued with Welfare News, reports on recent court decisions, noteworthy publications, and federal policy issuances on income support programs.

Non-Profit Org. Welfare Law Center U.S. Postage PAID 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1205 New York, N.Y. New York, NY 10001-6708 Permit No. 8263