TIME OUT!

A Status Report On Welfare Reform in

Baltimore City At the Three Year Mark, As
Experienced By Those It Was Intended to
Help and Their Legal Advocates

December 8, 1999

Prepared for The Welfare Reform Legislative Committee

by the FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM (FIP) LEGAL CLINIC
An Initiative of the Homeless Persons Representation Project Inc.
300 Cathedral Street, Suite 204
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 685-6589 ext. 116
(800) 773-4340 ext. 116
Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Maryland's Version of Welfare Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The FIP Legal Clinic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Unrealized Promise to Assist In Overcoming Personal Barriers . . . . . . . . 4
Needless Bureaucratic Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Structural Barriers Unique to Baltimore City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Holding Customers Harmless For BCDSS Failings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Addressing Structural Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Changing the FIP Program to Ensure Families Get Needed Help . . . . 7

Personal Barriers: Unrealized Promises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Medical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Skill Levels: Customer Assessments & Independence Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Independence Plans Executed Prior to Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Independence Plans Executed Prior to Work Activity Selection . . . . . 10
Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Family Violence Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Substance Abuse Screening and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Distrust Of the Caseworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
MCO & DSS Finger-Pointing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Who's Doing Case Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Unique Position of the Work Activity Vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Enter BSAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Lack of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Getting to Work Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Getting to Employment: The Missed Opportunity of Welfare Avoidance
Grants (WAGs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Emergencies and Exigencies of Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Evictions & EAFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Utilities & BGE's “Get Tough” Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Expedited Food Stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Criminal Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Non-Convictions & Expungements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Convictions & Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Needless Bureaucratic Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Frequent Re-determinations of Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The Process of Re-Determinations of Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Redets: The Exit Door of TCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Baltimore City’s 4 Month Redet Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Applicant Diversion: Child Support First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other Child Support Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

ii
 Long Waits in Waiting Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Child Specific Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Two Parent Eligibility & Male Caretakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Fair Hearing Sham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Requesting An Appeal: Forms, Conferences and Other Barriers . . . . 31
The BCDSS Appeals Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Administrative Law Judges(ALJs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Structural Barriers Unique to Baltimore City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

The Job Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
The Geographic Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Wage or Earnings Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
I. Holding the Customers Harmless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
II. Addressing Structural Barriers to Employment in Baltimore City . . . . . . . 38
III. Changing the Welfare Program to Ensure that Families Get the Help They
Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

This report was written by J. Peter Sabonis, Executive Director of the Homeless Persons
Representation Project; Professor Karen Czapanskiy of the University of Maryland
School of Law; and Carolyn Johnson, of the Homeless Persons Representation Project.
All are participants in the FIP Legal Clinic, an initiative of the Homeless Persons
Representation Project.

TIME OUT 1
Introduction
In October, 1996, President Clinton made good
on his promise to “End Welfare As We Know
It” by signing the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunities Act (PRWOA), thereby
heralding the latest and most radical version of
Welfare Reform. The gist of the legislation is
well known: a five year lifetime limit on
assistance, strict work requirements, and a
preference for assistance governed by state law,
rather than federal.
Thus, the old Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) program, whereby states such
as Maryland were entitled to federal
reimbursement for one-half of all program
expenses per welfare beneficiary, was replaced
by the Temporary Aid to Families with Needy
Children (TANF) program, a block-grant
scheme that eliminated the state's entitlement to
reimbursement per case.
This elimination of the state entitlement to
federal funding on a case by case basis has been
erroneously interpreted as the elimination of the
“right to welfare.” The PRWOA, however,
eliminated only the state entitlement to federal
reimbursement per case. States were left to
determine by state law, whether they would
maintain a state entitlement to aid, now
reimbursed in part through a federal block grant.
Maryland's Version of Welfare
Reform
Maryland chose to retain the individual
entitlement. Thus, everyone who applies and is
qualified for Maryland's TANF financed aid,
Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) within the
Family Investment Program (FIP), receives
assistance regardless of funding. The aid,
however, is conditioned upon customers
participating in work activities, applying for
child support enforcement services, forgoing
additional cash assistance if they give birth, and
being screened for substance abuse problems.
In return, customers in Maryland are entitled to:
 Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) on a
monthly basis (a typical family of three receives
$417);
 Assessments that consider their educational
level, job skills, readiness and interests to
determinate appropriate work activities;
 Supportive services from the DSS, which
include job services, social services, child care,
transportation and referral to other services;
 Service Agreements that set forth the
responsibilities of both the customer AND the
State;
 No sanction for missing work activities when
good cause exists, such as illness, domestic
violence, breakdown in transportation,
participation in substance abuse treatment, and
lack of supportive services that DSS agreed to
provide via the Service Agreement;
 Transitional Medical Assistance for up to 12
months after beginning work and leaving
welfare, up to four months after leaving welfare
due to increased child support collections, and a
re-evaluation of Medical Assistance eligibility
whenever they leave the welfare rolls for any
reason;
 Substance abuse treatment that is appropriate
and available;
 No sanction for not cooperating with child
support when good cause exists, such as a family
crisis or critical illness, and when cooperation is
against the best interest of the children at issue.
In short, the system is now one of a general
entitlement to services and financial aid to
achieve self-sufficiency-- that is realized through
the interaction, negotiation, and relationship
between customer and DSS worker. DSS
workers must operate as "case managers,"
familiar with an array of public and private
resources that can be utilized to provide support
services, and cognizant of the aptitudes and
skills necessary for employment, so as to
effectively assess customers and refer them to
TIME OUT 2
 appropriate work activities.

The FIP Legal Clinic
In April, 1998, with the help of a private
foundation, the Homeless Persons
Representation Project (HPRP) created a Legal
Services “outreach” program to those affected
by Welfare Reform: The Family Investment
Program (FIP) Legal Clinic . With University of
Maryland School of Law students from
Professor Karen Czapanskiy's Legal Theory and
Practice Course, Czapanskiy, Professor Marla
Hollandsworth, and HPRP staff attorneys began
stationing themselves at the entrances of
selected local Department of Social Services
(DSS) offices in Baltimore City on a weekly
basis and distributed easy-to-read brochures
about FIP-TCA benefits and rights.
Recognizing that the supportive services
promised by FIP would be realized only through
the interaction between caseworker and
customer, the Clinic took advantage of the right
that customers have to legal representation at
any stage of the welfare process. Thus, Clinic
staff have accompanied customers through the
FIP-TCA application and periodic re-
certification process. The Clinic also has
negotiated on behalf of customers who disagree
with DSS actions, and have represented
customers in formal administrative “Fair
Hearings” whereby disputes are arbitrated by
state Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). In
addition, the Clinic has used this direct
experience to seek systemic change where
necessary, through advocacy with DSS, the state
Department of Human Resources (DHR), and
the General Assembly, and through the threat of
class action litigation.
This threat of class-based litigation been used
three times by the Clinic — to address statewide
the unlawful “linking” of Medical Assistance
with TCA, the illegal city practice of requiring
customers to submit to eligibility re-
determinations every four months (rather than
every 12), and an illicit practice of requiring all
applicants to meet with child support workers as
a pre-condition to making an application for
benefits. In each case, DHR and/or BCDSS
responded in regard to future decisions. In no
case, however, did people already harmed by the
illegal practice get full relief.
The information contained in this report has
been garnered not only from outreach at DSS
offices and representation of individuals through
the clinic, but also through “FIP Exchanges”--
customer gatherings where Clinic staff share
information about legal rights in exchange for
customer accounts of their personal experiences
under Welfare Reform. To date, the Clinic has
distributed over 28,000 brochures to roughly
3,500 persons through outreach, and has
conducted over 30 FIP exchanges.

To date, the Clinic has opened 232 cases (and

finished work in 164 of them). Half of the cases
closed to date have involved the provision of
legal advice and counseling or simple
accompaniment through the eligibility
determination process. The remaining cases
(86) have required either negotiations with or
Fair Hearing requests to the Department. In
88% of these cases involving either negotiations
or Fair Hearings, the customer prevailed.

TIME OUT 3
Executive Summary
At the inception of Welfare Reform in 1996,
Baltimore City was home to roughly 45% of all
Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) recipients in
the state. While caseloads have declined
dramatically throughout Maryland, Baltimore's
caseload declines have lagged behind other
jurisdictions to the extent that the City is now
home to 66% of all state TCA adult recipients.
Roughly 14,000 adult TCA beneficiaries (with
an average of two children per adult) are the
responsibility of the Baltimore City Department
of Social Services (BCDSS). The numbers in
Baltimore dwarf other jurisdictions— Prince
Georges County has 2,479 adults on TCA,
Baltimore County has 1,909, while all other
jurisdictions have less than 1,000.
While Baltimore City is home to a
In Overcoming Personal Barriers
disproportionate number of substance abusers,
and persons with low-skills, criminal records,
and frayed economic and social supports, the
state guaranteed a panoply of supportive
services to facilitate their transition to self-
sufficiency. Yet, for the last 19 months, the FIP
Legal Clinic has found these guarantees to be
thwarted by caseworker ignorance and
bureaucratic bungling. While BCDSS (and
DHR) have moved (with varying speeds) to
correct these flaws, precious time already has
been run off the 60- month lifetime “clocks” of
thousands of welfare customers in the City.
Bureaucratic barriers, however, are not the only
obstacles on the road from welfare to self-
sufficiency for city residents. Baltimore's
economy continues to lag behind the rest of the
state, producing approximately one low-skill job
for every three low-skill persons who need one.
While the conventional wisdom is that the
families currently remaining on the welfare rolls
are those “hard to place” in jobs, the Legal
Clinic's experience suggests that customers in
Baltimore City are in a “place that's hard.” The
State must recognize this, and adopt policies that
will hold City customers harmless for that which
is not their responsibility.
This report documents the pitfalls of the welfare-
to-work experience in the City, but it should be
noted that most customers the Clinic has spoken
with have positive things to say about program's
new structure— particularly with respect to the
Work Activity vendors they deal with daily.
These agencies for the most part, have been able
to establish mutually respectful and trusting
relationships with customers. The goals of
employment and self-sufficiency may be
difficult to attain, but customers come to find in
their work activity vendor a case manager, an
advocate, a motivator, and, at times, a friend.
They rarely find any of these at BCDSS.
The Unrealized Promise to Assist in
The radical changes of Welfare reform, and
Maryland's desire to implement them as quickly
as possible pushed the Bureaucracy to focus on
the new job search, work, and child support
enforcement responsibilities placed upon the
customer. While these were implemented and
enforced quickly, BCDSS was slow to recognize
its own legal responsibilities in assisting to
overcome the following personal barriers that
customers face in moving to self-sufficiency:
— Medical Care— instead of receiving
continued medical coverage for an additional 12
months after leaving Welfare for employment, or
for an additional four months if the exit was due
to increased child support, or being considered
for the new Children's Health Program
(MCHPs), at least 60,000 exiting TCA cases
statewide (approximately 30,000 city cases) had
their Medical Assistance coverage closed
automatically, in violation of federal law, while
another 65,000 cases (approximately 32,000 in
the city) who were denied TCA at application
were automatically denied MA, also in violation
in federal law.
— Low-Skills— individualized assessments to
TIME OUT 4
determine customers' educational levels, job
skills, and interests to evaluate appropriate
work activities have been limited primarily to
form questions about educational level attained
and past work experience, with little attention
paid to occupational skills or interests. Also,
individualized Independence Plans— specifying
the work activities in which the customer is to
participate and the supportive services DSS is to
provide — did not materialize in DSS offices
until July, 1998, 21 months after Welfare reform
began, after 5,871 adults already had exited the
rolls.
— Family Violence — screening to determine
whether customers should be exempted from
work and/or child support enforcement
requirements because of family violence did not
begin on a regular basis until April, 1998, a full
19 months after Welfare reform began in
Maryland, after 12,963 cases already had left
the rolls in Baltimore City. The screening now
done is perfunctory, and case workers have little Needless Bureaucratic Barriers
knowledge about how to serve the needs of those
found to have suffered family violence.
— Substance Abuse— screening has been
conducted in a cursory manner by BCDSS
caseworkers and is further complicated by the
lack of trust between customer and BCDSS
caseworker. Success in identifying afflicted
customers has been higher among Work Activity
vendors, but a complex set of administrative
practices and policies (including those of
Managed Care Organizations) have operated to
limit treatment for those who need it.
— Child Care— BCDSS frequently sends
customers to work activities without having
taken or processed applications for child care.
The ensuing child care problems cause needless
interruptions in work activities, place customers
at risk of sanction, and cause disruptions for
children.
— Transportation— assistance for getting to
and from work activities is provided only after
the customer gets to the activity first. Further,
opportunities under the Welfare Avoidance
Grant (WAG) program to assist individuals who
have the opportunity to repair or purchase cars
have been squandered. BCDSS continues to
cling to the outdated presumption that the MTA
is sufficient for all customer transportation
needs.
— The Emergencies and Exigencies of
Poverty— While help with utility cut-offs,
evictions, social functioning, and other
problems is to be obtained from “service”
workers in BCDSS Adult and Family Support
Services unit, most case managers appear
unaware of the unit, its function, or the
opportunities for assistance within it.
— Criminal Records— the State and City
provide little assistance to customers who face
this employment impediment, nor to work
activity vendors who assist them. Customers
must seek their own resources to obtain copies
of records, investigate the possibilities of
expungement, and develop strategies to
overcome employer bias against them.
Additionally, the successful transition from
welfare to self-sufficiency in Baltimore City has
been blocked by needless bureaucratic obstacles,
such as:
— Frequent (every four month) re-
determinations of eligibility, where BCDSS
erases all institutional memory of recipients and
requires them to prove their existence and
eligibility for benefits despite the fact that much
of this information already exists in DSS case
files. The practice is illegal under State law,
which provides for re-determinations every 12
months for most customers. State exit studies
have shown that problems relating to eligibility
re-determinations are the primary reason for
TCA exit, and that Baltimore has the greatest
share of redetermination related exits.
— A “Child Support First” policy that requires
applicants to see a Child Support worker and
gain verification from the worker of
“cooperation” prior to making an application
for TCA, Food Stamps or Medical Assistance
benefits, despite the fact that state law does not
require such “cooperation” as a pre-requisite to
TCA, Food Stamps, or Medical Assistance
eligibility.
TIME OUT 5
 — Long waits in DSS waiting rooms
interspersed with contacts with a series of
different workers performing single, discreet
tasks.
— An unworkable Child Specific Benefits
component. This“in-kind” benefit, paid to a
third-party for additional children born to a
TCA family, is frequently not paid because of its
administrative demands.
workers will make less than $8.50 per hour.
These economic problems were known to state
policy makers at Welfare Reform's inception. A
Maryland Department of Business and
Economic Development (DBED) report in 1995
projecting job growth by region, placed
Baltimore City at the bottom of all jurisdictions,
with a projected annual growth rate of 2%. The
projections have held.

— Confusion about two-parent families (now
eligible for assistance) and male headed
households. Two-parent applicants still are
asked to cooperate with child support
enforcement, and male applicants are often
asked to provide legal evidence of child custody
and possession, something not required by law
nor asked of female applicants.
— A sham of a Fair Hearing Process. While a
customer is allowed by law to “appeal” any
BCDSS action or inaction, they are discouraged
by local offices from doing so and their appeals,
once filed, are not given proper legal treatment
by Administrative Law Judges or by the
Administrative Appeals Unit of BCDSS, which
has difficulty obtaining case records, preparing
timely summaries, and obtaining prompt
corrective actions from case workers and
District Managers.
Structural Barriers Unique to
Baltimore City
According to Baltimore Area Jobs and Low-Skill
Job Seekers: Assessing the Gaps, a March, 1999
report of the Job Opportunities Task Force, there
are three “gaps” that confront city residents
moving from welfare to work:
— A Job Numbers Gap— the number of low-
skilled persons seeking employment in the
Baltimore region exceeds the number of low-
skilled jobs by 3 to 1;
— A Geographic Gap — two out of every three
job openings in the Baltimore region in the next
five years will occur in the counties;
— A Wage Gap— one out of every two of these
While the City's unemployment rate has dipped
below 7%, it remains almost twice the state rate
and also is misleading. The prevalence of
involuntary part-time work, and the limits of the
unemployment rate measurement itself make it a
suspect tool for assessing the City's economic
condition relative to low-skill workers. The Job
Gap study is a more effective and accurate
assessment.
Recommendations
Hundreds of TCA customers have accepted
their responsibility to search for work, attend
work activities, and abide by the myriad rules
governing their behavior as a condition of
benefit receipt. They cannot take personal
responsibility for a bureaucracy that has been
slow to tackle its own responsibilities to provide
supportive services, nor for a local economy
that simply cannot produce enough jobs. Of
these three actors— the economy, the
bureaucracy, and the welfare customer— only
the customer has been placed under a time-limit
to perform or face stark consequences.
The State and the City share responsibility for
the success and failures of FIP in Baltimore
City. Changes are needed at both levels. In
recognition of this, the State and City should act
now to hold customers harmless for BCDSS
failings, address the structural barriers to
employment in the City, and change the FIP
program to ensure that families get the help they
need.
Holding Customers Harmless For
BCDSS Failings
— Stop the welfare “clock” for one year for all
Baltimore City customers who have been on

TIME OUT 6
TCA for 36 months or more, by moving these
customers to a “Segregated” State program.
Such a program, according to federal
guidelines, will keep such persons under a
“work activity” requirement, but will exempt
them from the 60 month time lifetime limit while
enlisted in the program.
— Stop or “slow” the clock on certain groups
of TCA customers in the city, whose personal
barriers to employment have gone unaddressed
because of bureaucratic bungling (i.e. persons
with substance abuse, very low-skills, problems
with family violence, and criminal records). As
indicted above, Segregated funds will keep such
persons under a “work activity” requirement,
but will exempt them from the 60 month time
limit during “segregated” program
participation.
Addressing Structural Barriers
— Stop or slow the clock, through the use of a
Segregated or “Separate” State program for
those persons who are qualified for employment,
but who are unable to find work because of
Baltimore City's economic condition.
— Stop the clock for any person currently
employed through the use of wage subsidies
under the Grant Diversion program. Such
persons are private employees in every sense,
and should not have any time counted toward
their lifetime clock when they are employed full-
time
— Amend the Baltimore City Welfare Avoidance
Grant (WAG) plan to allow the purchase of cars
to gain or keep employment, and require all
caseworkers to screen for WAGs at every
contact with customers.
— Engage in job creation efforts in Baltimore
City, advocate for state and local economic
development strategies that benefit City
customers, and require DSS, in conjunction with
other City and State agencies, to ensure that
work activities are coordinated with economic
development strategies and existing market
conditions.
— Through the use of Grant Diversion and
Community Work Experience, create an
Unemployment Insurance program targeted to
persons approaching the end of their lifetime
TCA limit who are able, available, and actively
seeking work, but who are unemployed through
no fault of their own.
— Enact state or local laws that require
employers to treat persons with criminal
histories fairly, by considering efforts at
rehabilitation, time served, and the relationship
of the conviction to the employment sought.
Changing the FIP Program to Ensure
Families Get Needed Help
— Make the provision of Child Care Vouchers a
pre-requisite for any program activity required
by BCDSS— from up front job search to work
activity participation— by making vouchers
available from the date of application.
Additionally, extend vouchers until 30 days after
TCA eligibility ends.
— Re-institute a Child Support “pass through”
to families.
— Create Individualized Development Accounts
for customers, and actively involve customers in
“shopping” for and selecting work activity
programs that are tailored to their needs.
— Eliminate the 14 day delay in the effective
date for the payment of benefits during the
“initial” month of application.
— Eliminate the $60 reduction in assistance that
applies only to those in subsidized housing, and
extend the “rent freeze” now applicable only to
residents of public housing who leave welfare
for work to those in Section 8 or Voucher
assisted rental units.
— Increase the amount of child care expenses
that can be disregarded when a family applies
for cash assistance. The disregards should
reflect current market rates.
— Require the presence of an Adult and Family
Support Service worker at every application and
re-determination of eligibility, to screen for
utility, housing, social functioning, and other
TIME OUT 7
problems.

— Amend the Baltimore City Emergency

Assistance to Families With Children (EAFC) to
provide assistance to families in subsidized
housing.

— Pay for customers to obtain criminal records

and for legal services to assist customers to
correct and/or expunge records.

— Offer professional employment assessment

services to any customer who wants them.

— Train all caseworkers in identifying Family

Violence and in offering appropriate services

— Require DHR to review DSS Standard

Operating Procedures and other directives to
line workers and supervisors to ensure
compliance with law and with State policy.

— Cross-check new hire registry, food stamps,

day care and other state records against TCA
case closing records to identify families eligible
for Transitional Medical Assistance because of
employment.

— Eliminate the full-family sanction for failure

to comply with work requirements and failure to
cooperate with child support.

TIME OUT 8
Personal Barriers:
Unrealized Promises
Medical Assistance
A key element of federal welfare reform in 1996
was the separation of eligibility for Medicaid
from eligibility for cash assistance. Since
January 1, 1997, low income families and
children should be found eligible for Medical
Assistance (MA) based solely on MA criteria
and according to procedures applicable solely to
MA. Welfare reform also guaranteed that
people who left cash assistance and became
employed were eligible for Transitional Medical
Assistance for 12 months. Those who left cash
assistance because child support was collected in
an amount greater than their cash assistance
were entitled to Transitional Medical Assistance
for 4 months.
After encountering numerous customers who
had exited TCA but were without MA, it became
clear that the two programs remained unlawfully
linked in CARES, the statewide computer
program developed and maintained by the
Department of Human Resources (DHR).
When workers at local offices throughout the
state made MA eligibility decisions relying
solely on CARES, a TCA case closing triggered
an automatic MA closing as well. This fact was
well known to BCDSS, at least as early as the
spring of 1998, when the FIP Legal Clinic first
raised the issue. According to BCDSS, only the
State could fix the problem. It has since become
known, however, that the computer routine in
CARES is not the only way a local office can
determine MA eligibility, as it is possible to
override the routine. BCDSS never instructed
its workers to override the computer routine.
Statewide, the illegal application of pre-1996
MA eligibility rules resulted in thousands of
families being terminated from Medical
Assistance when their cash assistance was
terminated. More than 70,000 people may have
suffered a premature termination of Medical
Assistance between January of 1996 and May of
1999. Most of those were in Baltimore City. It
is well known that the need for Medical
Assistance causes many families to return to
welfare, either because a working adult gets ill
and cannot get treated or because a child needs
routine medical care. The City and the State’s
illegal MA terminations, therefore, probably
caused thousands of families to make less
progress toward independence than they could
have during the last three years.
The FIP Legal Clinic raised the Medical
Assistance issue with the State DHR and DHMH
in December 1998. After a number of meetings
and communications, the State began in May
1999 to take steps to correct the problem. A
Task Force established to review Medicaid
denials recommended by local DSS offices
found that more than 15,000 denials
recommended between May and September of
1999 were wrong and had to be reversed.
TIME OUT 9
 The State has implemented a corrective action to
provide some relief to people who were harmed
by the illegal Medicaid terminations and denials.
The State is providing 60-day fee-for-service
cards to 60,000 people and offering them and
many others an opportunity to use an
abbreviated form to apply for Medicaid based on
their present circumstances. The State is also
offering to pay medical providers for services
provided during the interim period.
The corrective plan falls far short of making
people whole. A major shortfall is transitional
benefits. None of the people who went to work
and none of the families whose child support
collections increased will be given their full
transitional benefits. In short, the people who
did everything the state has asked them to do to
become independent have been deprived of a
significant supportive benefit that they were
promised. They were told that work and child
support would lead to independence. They
followed the rules and were promised that their
families would not be left without medical care.
The state was not prepared to come through, and
it is not prepared to provide a full remedy to
those harmed by the state’s lack of preparation.
Skill Levels: Customer Assessments
& Independence Plans
State law requires that each applicant for FIP
benefits should be assessed to determine what he
or she requires to achieve independence. An
Independence Plan should be formulated based
on what is learned in the course of the
assessment. Both the state and the customer
undertake responsibilities under the plan. If the
customer fails to perform her responsibilities,
she can be sanctioned and her entire family may
lose cash benefits.
Early in 1998, the Clinic complained to BCDSS
that there was no identifiable moment when the
Independence Plan was signed and became a
contract binding on the customer and the
Department. Clinic-accompanied customers
during the application interview were told to
sign blank Independence Plans, with nothing
filled in and no explanation about the purpose of
the Plan.
Independence Plans Executed Prior
to Assessment
Since that time, BCDSS has issued additional
guidance to caseworkers about Independence
Plans. It is still the case, however, that
customers are required to sign the Independence
Plan before the assessment process has been
completed. Even the most recent version of the
guidance, SOP 99-12, requires the customer to
sign the Independence Plan as part of the
application process. This means that the
Independence Plan agreement precedes the full
assessment of the customer’s needs, interests,
abilities and barriers, rather than following it as
the statute contemplates. While not quite as bad
as signing the Independence Plan in blank, the
process still does not provide for a full
assessment of the customer’s needs, background
and barriers before the Plan is signed.
Independence Plans Executed Prior
to Work Activity Selection
One of the most significant problems that arises
from this timetable is the customer’s relationship
with a vendor. BCDSS relies on vendors to
provide customers with a variety of assessment
and employment-related services as well as
training programs. Each vendor has a different
schedule and requirements and provides
different services. Customers do not get an in-
depth consideration of the different vendors until
they have a planning meeting with an ongoing
case manager after the application for benefits is
approved.
During the planning meeting, it may become
clear that the customer and the ongoing case
manager disagree about the appropriateness of a
particular vendor. One Clinic client wanted to
complete her GED in association with a
particular vendor’s program. The ongoing case
manager agreed with her goal but wanted her to
move to a different location, much farther from
the client’s home and daycare provider. With
Clinic intervention, the manager changed her
mind. Since the client had already signed the
Independence Plan, however, her ability to insist
on a vendor appropriate to her needs was quite
restricted.
TIME OUT 10
The planning meeting may also reveal problems
with the daycare arrangement the customer
thought desirable. One vendor, for example,
required participants to do homework in the
evenings and on weekends. If a participant
failed to present the completed homework the
next day, the participant was marked as absent
and was reported to the local office as not
fulfilling the work requirement. Sanctions were
undertaken on that basis against a Clinic client
who could not complete homework when two of
her children, one of them chronically ill, needed
her attention. So far as the record showed, the
client had never been given the opportunity to
amend the Independence Plan to provide for
daycare for her young children during times
when she was to do homework.
In addition, the planning meeting might reveal
transportation problems or even family violence
issues that were not evident at the time of the
application. The results of any literacy
assessment (see below) do not become available
before the planning meeting, and they may
demonstrate the need for a remedial program.
Although it is clear that there are many ways in
which the Independence Plan signed during the
application process may not fit the needs of the
customer by the time the planning meeting is
over, there is nothing in the instructions to the
ongoing case managers that requires them to
revise the Independence Plan if one has already
been completed at the time of application. The
only item that the ongoing case manager is
instructed to add is the choice of vendor. The
next opportunity to revise the Independence Plan
occurs only at the redetermination interview,
which should occur a year later.
The failure of BCDSS to ensure that the
Independence Plan reflect a thorough
consideration of the customer’s needs must be
corrected. Planning meetings should be the
earliest occasion when the Independence Plan is
fully considered and completed. It would be
better still if the Independence Plan were not
completed until the customer had met with the
vendor and completed any assessments that the
vendor offers. Further, caseworkers need to be
told that the Independence Plan should be
revised when the customer, caseworker, or
vendor identifies new problems or appropriate
services.
Further, it is imperative that customers not suffer
any harms from Independence Plans that were
signed prematurely. At a minimum, customers
who were required to sign an Independence Plan
before meeting with an ongoing case manager
and vendor should be guaranteed that they will
not be sanctioned for failing to fulfill
responsibilities laid out in the Plan.
Literacy
The goal of FIP is family independence through
work. Few jobs are available to people who
cannot read and write, at least at a minimal level.
Further, Welfare-to-Work assistance is available
to a limited group of people, including those
with low reading skills. Information about a
customer’s literacy level, therefore, is essential
to the preparation of an Independence Plan. The
efforts undertaken by BCDSS to help customers
achieve literacy have been exceptionally limited
and exceptionally late.
BCDSS assessment procedures included nothing
about literacy until August 1999, when local
offices began to test some applicants for literacy.
Applicants are tested if they have no high school
diploma or GED. Under the procedure adopted
by BCDSS, the results of the test are reviewed
by an ongoing caseworker after the TCA
application is approved or when a recipient has
never been referred to a vendor. This review
takes place after the recipient has met with the
applications case manager and signed an
Independence Plan. A customer’s need for
literacy training, therefore, is addressed only in
limited situations and only after the customer
has attempted to find a job or begin a work
activity.
Although BCDSS has now taken some limited
steps to identify and assist illiterate customers, it
has taken no steps to identify customers whose
efforts to get a job, satisfy work requirements or
meet administrative requirements of the program
were impeded because of their illiteracy. At a
minimum, BCDSS should call people who left
TCA since January 1997 to determine if their
TIME OUT 11
 ability to read affected their ability to meet
program requirements. Further, BCDSS
continues to assess for literacy only applicants
who have no high school diploma or GED.
Many people with these credentials are
functionally illiterate. BCDSS should, at a
minimum, contact everyone currently on TCA
who has not been tested to determine if they
want to be assessed for literacy and offered
literacy services.
Family Violence Option
Maryland adopted the Family Violence Option
as part of its welfare reform package. Studies of
women who receive welfare have indicated that
more than half have experienced family
violence. For many, family violence is what led
to the welfare application. Under the Family
Violence Option, the State committed itself to
providing special attention to survivors of family
violence who may need unusual services, such
as counseling, work activities in a protective
setting, protection from the batterer in child
support proceedings, etc. Program
requirements, including the work requirement
and the child support cooperation requirement,
may be waived. Further, family violence
constitutes good cause for not complying with
certain program requirements.
The history of BCDSS’s attention to the Family
Violence Option is one of ignoring the problem
for a long period of time and then giving it
inadequate and incomplete attention. A large
portion of the history is told by the Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) issued by the
BCDSS to let case workers and supervisors
know what FIP program requirements are and
how to meet them.
No SOP focuses exclusively on the family
violence option. To the extent that family
violence is discussed as affecting FIP, it is only
in the context of SOP’s on other subjects. The
discussion in those SOP’s is divided into two
issues: identifying whether a customer or a
customer’s child is experiencing family
violence, and formulating appropriate responses
to the family violence once it is identified.
It is difficult to identify people who are
experiencing family violence. As was noted in
DHR Action Transmittal 98-30,
“family violence victims generally hide the fact
that the situation is occurring. Consequently,
the screening and identification of customers
with a history of family violence requires the
local department to include several appropriate
screening questions as a part of their job
readiness assessment and redetermination
process.”
The initial assessment instrument adopted by
BCDSS in late 1996 makes no mention of
family violence at all. The accompanying
assessment policy document also makes no
mention of family violence. The initial
instrument was replaced when BCDSS issued a
SOP 97-02 on April 1, 1997 concerning
assessment for work activities. Family violence
is not mentioned in SOP 97-02 as originally
issued.
The first Standard Operating Procedure to
identify family violence as an assessment issue
was SOP 97-02 as revised, issued July 14, 1998,
concerning customer assessment for work
activities. The Customer Assessment Profile
portion of SOP 97-02 as revised contains 4
questions concerning family violence. The
narrative portion of SOP 97-02, as revised,
mentions that family violence exemptions may
extend the 24 and 60 month time limit, but it
TIME OUT 12
 does not explain how family violence may affect
other aspects of FIP. Family violence is not
listed as a reason to exempt a customer from
work requirements.
Family Violence questions in initial assessment
form:
ºSince we are concerned with helping people, and
violence is so much a part of
society today, I need to ask if you have ever been
threatened or afraid of a boyfriend/ partner/ spouse?
ºHave you been or are you currently in a relationship
in which your partner
has hurt you or your children physically, mentally or
sexually?
ºDo you believe that seeking child support or
working would put you or your
child(ren) in danger?
ºDo you receive counseling or other services to help
you with this situation?
Family Violence questions in customer
reassessment form
ºHave you ever been threatened or afraid of a friend,
partner, or spouse?
ºDo you have any problems in your home that
threatens the health or safety of you or your children?
ºDo you want information or telephone numbers for
places that can help you and your children if you are
afraid for your safety?
ºIf seeking child support or working would put you
or your child(ren) in danger, did you know that you
not have to pursue child support or work while you
receive help with this situation?
ºDo you want to receive counseling or other services
to help you with this
situation?
ºDo you want to receive counseling or other services
to help you with this
situation?
SOP 97-02 was replaced by SOP 99-12, issued
August 1, 1999. The customer Assessment
Profile portion of SOP 99-12 contains the same
4 questions concerning family violence.
BCDSS added a second assessment form to be
used when a customer is being reassessed for
continuing benefits. The form reduces to 2 the
number of questions used to identify families
affected by violence. Three new questions
address what should be done if family violence
is identified, including safety planning,
exemptions from child support and work
requirements, and counseling. Family violence
is now listed among the exemptions from work
requirements but only so long as the victim is
receiving counseling.
The second issue is what should be done when a
customer identifies family violence as an issue
for herself or a child in the family. Under the
State’s Family Violence Option, a number of
accommodations and exemptions are possible.
BCDSS caseworkers have received almost no
guidance about them.
The first mention of family violence as good
cause for noncompliance with work
requirements appears as an attachment to SOP
97-05, Part A, issued in June of 1997. SOP 99-
02, issued November 1, 1998, identifies adults
receiving family violence services as exempt
from work activities at the 24-month period.
Finally, in August 1999, BCDSS issued SOP 99-
12, which contains a narrative about what
caseworkers can do if a customer is found to
have experienced family violence:
“If you believe that compliance with time limits,
residency requirements, child support or work
activities would make it more difficult for the
customer to escape domestic violence, any or all
of these requirements can be waived if the
customer is participating in counseling. If you
suspect or the customer states that family
violence is occurring, refer the customer to the
service unit.”
The story of BCDSS and family violence can
also be gleaned from the ways in which
caseworkers are trained and supervised. To date,
so far as we are aware, BCDSS has not provided
case workers with training on family violence,
although DHR made training available to all of
the local departments. BCDSS casework
supervisors are required to review case files to
see whether caseworkers are complying with
certain FIP policies. Standards for review are
contained in the BCDSS “Edit Manual.”
TIME OUT 13
 Nothing in the Manual requires supervisors to
determine whether the caseworker adequately
investigated whether a customer or her child
might have experienced family violence or
whether any of the Family Violence Options in
FIP might apply to the case.
As the State has recognized, many families
victimized by family violence need unusual
assistance before they can achieve
independence. Outside of Baltimore City,
customers may be receiving the assistance they
are promised in the State plan. Inside of
Baltimore City, it would be remarkable indeed
for families to be receiving the assistance they
are promised, because for more than two years
caseworkers had no training, no regular
supervision and no adequate directives about
family violence and FIP. Although SOP 99-12
cures some of the problems about getting
information to caseworkers, BCDSS has not
undertaken any review of cases handled before
August 1999 to identify people who should have
been afforded counseling or offered exemption
from time limits, work requirements and child
support cooperation.
Substance Abuse Screening and
Treatment
In the second year of “Welfare Reform,” the
General Assembly passed a requirement that
TCA customers be assessed by local
departments [and Managed Care Organizations
(MCOs)] for substance abuse treatment. A
recipient found in need of treatment is to be
referred to a program that is “available” and
“appropriate.” A compliant customer continues
to receive TCA, and continues to be subject to
its Work Activity requirements — though
treatment may be considered such an activity.
Non-compliant customers risk the reduction of
their monthly TCA grant--by the incremental
amount for that family member. Medical
Assistance and Food Stamps, however, are
retained by the individual.
For Baltimore City, the Substance Abuse
requirements of the Welfare Innovation Act of
1997, evoked a mixture of fear and optimism.
While it was assumed by many legislators that a
large number of TCA customers in the City
engaged in the use of illegal substances and thus
risked sanction for non-compliance with
treatment, the law's provision also established a
“de-facto” right to “appropriate and available”
treatment during a customer's welfare stint.
Distrust Of the Caseworker
The Clinic has accompanied several customers
through application or re-application interviews
who have substance abuse issues. The four
The Four Screening Questions:
1. Do you feel or has anyone told you
that you should cut down on your
drinking or drug use? Yes No
2. Have you ever tried to cut down or
quit drinking or using other drugs? Yes
No
3. Has the use of alcohol or drugs
caused problems in your life such as
getting or keeping a job? Yes No
4. Do you sometimes need a drink or
drug first thing in the morning (an eye
opener) to steady your nerves or get rid
of a hangover? Yes No
questions designed by DHR to illicit information
relative to a potential problem were contained on
a written “Assessment” form that was frequently
given to the customer for her to complete
herself. In these situations, and in the cases
where customers were asked the questions by
the caseworker, customers were given no
explanation as to their purpose and, fearing the
worst, avoided any revelation of a problem.
Customers were not told of the availability of
treatment, or that treatment would be considered
a work activity. Needless to say, few customers
were identified or referred.
MCO & DSS Finger-Pointing
It soon became clear that MCOs were not
conducting the “health screens” designed to
catch those who had evaded DSS detection. The
MCOs complained about DSS's failure to
forward authorization forms, or up-to-date
addresses for customers, while DSS complained
about disinterested MCOs, who simply returned
TIME OUT 14
incomplete forms (rather than contacting the
Department) or failed to conduct comprehensive
assessments or forward the information to DSS
if they did.
In late December, 1998, DHR attempted to
correct the problems by issuing a policy
transmittal (Action Transmittal FIA/OPRS #99-
24), which emphasized the need for accurate
forms and communication between players. To
facilitate communication, liaisons were created:
MCO liaisons to DSS, and DSS liaisons to
MCOs. The latter were to forward completed
authorization and screening referral forms to the
MCO liaisons. The MCO liaison, in turn, would
forward these forms to the Primary Care
Provider (PCP) and the MCO's Behavioral
Health Organization (BHO) or network of
substance abuse treatment providers.
Reports about the status of treatment were to
flow from MCO liaisons to DSS liaisons, who
were then to forward the information to FIP case
managers. Treatment status reports also could
be received by DSS liaisons from the MCOs'
network of comprehensive assessment and
treatment providers. If nothing else, the
transmittal provides a roster of what DHR
believed to be key players in linking customers
to treatment. The roster, however, lacked all the
players.
Who's Doing Case Management?
According to BCDSS Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) 97-05A&B, Department case
managers from the Adult and Family Support
Services unit are to be involved with every
customer who is identified as having a substance
abuse issue. The involvement is initiated
through a mandatory referral from the
customer’s FIP case manager. Such Support
Services workers, according to the SOP, are to
assess the “customer's job readiness, treatment
and other services,” and handle service needs
related to substance abuse treatment.”
Such referrals are rare because FIP case
managers are rarely able to elicit substance
abuse revelations from the customer, and
because of the lack of MCO feedback. An
additional player— Work Activity Vendors who
see the customer daily — are an important
source of information that goes untapped
because of a general failure to communicate.
While each blames the other for the problem, the
Vendors complaints about BCDSS are similar to
the ones experienced by the Clinic and by
customers: FIP case managers are impossible to
reach by phone, and while District Office
managers are more accessible, their advice
usually requires customers to return to the DSS
office to meet with the FIP case manager. For
customers struggling with addiction issues, a
directive to return to the BCDSS local offices
— a trip that will consume an average of two to
four hours waiting time per visit (not to mention
transportation costs) — is simply another step
that is easier to avoid than take.
Because of this, a number of work activity
vendors have attempted on their own to link
customers with substance abuse treatment
providers without the involvement of BCDSS.
The Unique Position of the Work
Activity Vendor
In contrast to BCDSS caseworkers, customers
come in contact with Work Activity vendors on
a daily basis. The contact makes them acutely
aware of the myriad issues that confront the
customer, and they frequently act as case
managers — linking customers to help for
problems ranging from utility cut-offs to child
care— simply to keep the customer coming to
the program. More importantly, however, the
customer comes to believe the work activity
vendor is concerned about them, and has their
best interests at heart. This trust, for the most
part, does not exist between BCDSS and the
customer.
The relationship with the vendor has encouraged
a number of customers to volunteer information
about their substance abuse problems to vendors.
Until recently, the vendors then embarked upon
the difficult task of securing authorization from
the MCOs for drug treatment. Such
authorization, as the DHR Action Transmittal of
12/28/98 suggests, involves sustained
communication, negotiation, and advocacy with
a “Behavioral Health” component of the MCO
or a PCP or the MCO's network of treatment
TIME OUT 15
providers. The link to treatment is never quick customer, although its direct responsibility is
or easy. suspended during treatment. While such a
system could pass as “case management” under
Enter BSAS a team approach, the need for a coordinator to
In April, 1999, BCDSS introduced yet another convene the team and ensure communications
player into the substance abuse game, among team members is imperative. The logical
contracting with Baltimore Substance Abuse focus for coordination is the BCDSS ongoing
Systems, Inc. (BSAS) to facilitate substance case manager; yet, it must be remembered that
abuse assessments and treatment under FIP. this multi-actor system evolved initially because
Under the arrangement set forth in BCDSS SOP of the limitations of such case managers.
99-05, BCDSS case managers or Work Activity BCDSS has proven incapable of providing case
Vendors are to contact BSAS initially upon management in this arena. Responsibility and
finding indications of substance abuse. BSAS is the resources for such should be transferred to a
to screen the customers (within one week of third party already on the scene— perhaps the
contact) and assign them to an appropriate Work Activity vendor.
subgrantee Care Coordinator (CC). The CC
will, according to the SOP, outreach and obtain
the customer's cooperation in obtaining an
assessment and developing an individualized
care plan. The CCs are to assist customers in
navigating the treatment/MCO process, as well
as provide “wrap around services,” such as
vocational assessment, counseling, job
placement assistance, parenting skills training,
interpersonal relationship skills training, child
care transportation, housing and nutritional
assistance.

While CC duties appear to overlap with those of

the BCDSS Support Services case manager and
the Work Activity vendor, the process of linking
customers to treatment has begun to improve.
Most Work Activity vendors are willing to forgo
the headache of negotiating the treatment/MCO
process, and have had positive contacts with
BSAS and its CCs.

Questions remain, however, about the number of

linkages required to access treatment, and the
treatment that eventually is provided.
Residential (in-patient) treatment appears to be
extremely difficult to secure.

Questions also remain about the efficiency of

this system. With BSAS on the scene, a FIP
customer with a substance abuse issue can have
an BCDSS ongoing case manager, a BCDSS
Family Support Services case manager, a BSAS
case manager, and an MCO “special needs” case
manager. Additionally, the Work Activity
Vendor retains the primary responsibility for the

TIME OUT 16
The Players In the Substance Abuse Treatment Game:
1. BCDSS FIP Case Manager: responsible for all aspects of customer eligibility, screens customers for
substance abuse using “the four questions,” refers for assessment on suspicion or if customer volunteers
information.

2. BCDSS FIP Adult Family & Support Services Case Manager: Meets service needs of customers
referred by FIP Case Manager— substance abuse problem warrants mandatory referral.

3. Managed Care Organization (MCO): Private insurance companies to which the “risk” of paying for
the comprehensive costs of health services for Medicaid participants have been transferred. Goals of care
and cost containment are met through the use of gatekeepers, pre-selected provider networks, service pre-
authorization, case management, utilization review, medical necessity review, credentialing, evaluation,
and financial incentives.
4. Primary Care Provider: The provider of basic health care services generally administered in an
ambulatory setting (internists, family practitioners, pediatricians, etc.).

5. Behavioral Health Organization (BHO): An entity that provides heath care in the area of mental
and emotional well-being and the use of alcohol and other drugs.

6. Substance Abuse Treatment Provider: Provider of direct care for persons afflicted with substance
abuse.

7. BCDSS MCO Liaison: Sends MCO authorization and screening referral forms; receives status forms
from MCO liaisons & from MCOs' network of Treatment Providers.

8. MCO Liaison: Receives authorization and screening referral forms from DSS, forwards them to PCP,
BHO, or network of treatment providers; forwards status forms to DSS; primary contact relative to
substance abuse issues.

9. MCO Special Needs Population Case Manager: MCO employee or contractor who is responsible
by law to manage the care of those with special needs, including substance abusers.

10. Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems(BSAS): Non-profit that coordinates Substance Abuse
treatment and related care in Baltimore City. Screens TCA customers referred by BCDSS or Work
Activity Vendors & assigns to Care Coordinator.

11. BSAS Care Coordinator: Sub-grantee of BSAS that performs comprehensive in-person assessment
of customer, develops individualized care plan, navigates the treatment/MCO process, and provides
“wrap around services.”

12. Work Activity Vendor: entity that contracts with BCDSS to provide a variety of activities aimed at
assisting TCA customers to locate employment.

13. “On Site” Substance Abuse Counselor: City Health Department employee who is to assist in
conducting screening at a limited number of BCDSS offices.

TIME OUT 17
 The Lack of Data
Incredibly, the Clinic found that the
improvement in the substance abuse assessment
and treatment system under FIP could not be
measured empirically because of a lack of data.
While DHR Secretary Lynda Fox indicated in
The Baltimore Sun (11/28/99) that treatment
referrals had increased by 10% statewide since
DHR began new protocol, Secretary Fox told the
Clinic earlier that month that the Department
does not keep data on such activity. As the box
below indicates, something is amiss.
We Can't Handle The Truth
12/28/98 — DHR Action Transmittal FIA/OPRS
#99-24: “Beginning October 1998, local
departments started collecting data for a monthly
report on substance abuse treatment activity.
The report is due to Family Investment
Administration [of DHR] by the fifth working day
each month.”
11/4/99— Letter from DHR Secretary Fox to
Clinic Attorney, Nikki S. Behre, in response to a
formal Clinic request for information under the
State Access to Records Act: “Neither the
Department of Human Resources nor the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene keeps
records on treatment for substance abuse.”
Child Care
Safe and appropriate daycare is a necessity for all
parents of young children and older children with
disabilities. Despite this fact, BCDSS has not
provided customers with help they need to get
daycare.
First, BCDSS requires an up-front job search as a
condition of approval for cash assistance.
Obviously, a parent performing an up-front job
search has to have daycare for her children.
BCDSS does not provide daycare for customers,
however, until after the application has been
approved and the work activity begun. Not until
July 14, 1998, were caseworkers instructed not to
deny benefits when an applicant failed to return
job interview verification forms. BCDSS did not
clarify until August 1, 1999, that customers
should be exempted from the up-front job search
when they say they need daycare in order to do
the search.
After the policy changed, BCDSS did nothing to
identify applications that had been closed
previously for failure to return job interview
verification forms. Some of these applicants no
doubt were unable to seek job interviews in the
absence of daycare, and their applications
should have been approved retroactively.
Second, BCDSS makes the effective date of the
daycare voucher the day the customer begins the
work activity. Thus, BCDSS does not allow the
customer and the daycare provider any time to
help a child become acclimated to a new daycare
arrangement. Nor can the child remain in a
familiar daycare situation if there is the usual
gap of 2 weeks or more between the time the
customer applies for assistance and the time the
work activity begins.
Third, BCDSS does not provide the customer
with a voucher to present to the daycare
provider. Instead, the customer is told to advise
the daycare provider that daycare will be
payable as of the first day of the work activity.
Many providers are not in a position to accept
any representation about payment other than a
voucher, so the failure of BCDSS to provide
vouchers to customers has made their childcare
search all the more difficult.
Recently, Work Activity vendors have noticed
an even more basic problem: customers are
showing up to activities without having even
filed applications for Child Care assistance.
They are then required to return to the local
Department to complete a relatively simple
form, thereby disrupting the first week of work
activity attendance— a critical time for vendors
to initially engage customers and establish
trusting relationship with them.
Transportation
Among the supportive services that customers
and applicants should receive pursuant to law
from local offices is transportation assistance—
either to work activities or to employment. In
TIME OUT 18
Baltimore City, however, such assistance is
aided, yet also distorted, by this fact: nearly all
(98%) of TCA households live within one
quarter mile of mass transit. (See CPHA
Transportation Committee, Access to Jobs in the
Baltimore Region, p.20, Nov. 1999.)
Getting to Work Activities
Regardless of where they live, most applicants
for TCA are without funds at the time of
application. BCDSS caseworkers were
instructed, however, to explain to applicants that
they were to use the bus to attend work activities.
Not until August of 1999, however, did BCDSS
instruct workers that recipients should be given
bus tokens so that they could get to the work
activity vendor for an initial appointment. In
cases that the Clinic observed, caseworkers did
not offer bus tokens. If a customer requested
tokens, it was the usual practice to tell the
customer that vouchers for tokens were available
only from the work vendors, not from the case
manager. Therefore, the recipient had to find his
or her way to the vendor before bus tokens would
be available.
The Clinic is unaware of any action by BCDSS
since August, 1999 to identify people who may
have been unable to get to their assigned work
activity vendor because they had no bus tokens.
People in that situation should be identified and
be reinstated.
Getting to Employment: The Missed
Opportunity of Welfare Avoidance
Grants (WAGs)
Living near a bus stop and taking public
transportation to work are two separate and
distinct issues, as noted by Access to Jobs.
While 66% of the “new hires” in Metropolitan
Baltimore in 1998 were located within one-
quarter mile of mass transit accessible from
Baltimore City, according to Access to Jobs,
CPHA noted that many of the transit routes
analyzed did not have frequent or off peak
service. The report also recognized the need of
TCA households to incorporate several trips,
such as child care and shopping into their
commute, and that other research has found that
“the time and cost of the reverse commuting out
of urban areas is so great that it limits the gains
to be derived from employment.” (Access to
Jobs, p. 24).
Given the fact that 66% of the job openings in
the Baltimore region will occur in the counties
surrounding the city (see section on “Structural
Barriers”), CPHA's recommendations relative to
expanding the resources of the MTA and
developing intra-county linked mass transit
systems must be heeded. Yet, the time-limits of
Welfare Reform won't wait. Other
transportation options— including cars— must
be utilized, and Welfare Avoidance Grants
(WAGs) can help.
Lump sum payments of cash assistance designed
to meet an immediate need so that an applicant
or recipient of TCA can avoid welfare
assistance, WAGs exemplify the flexibility and
innovation of Welfare Reform. Under the
WAG, applicants or recipients may receive
anywhere from three to 12 months worth of
TCA benefits in one lump-sum. In return, the
WAG recipient may not apply for TCA during
the months “covered” by the WAG. For
example, a mother of two receiving a WAG
today equal to 12 months of TCA ($5,004),
cannot receive TCA for the next 12 months.
The 12 months included in the WAG, however,
ARE NOT counted toward the customers
lifetime 60 month TCA limit.
Each jurisdiction determines the confines of its
WAG. While some jurisdictions (i.e. Somerset
County) have allowed WAGs for car purchases,
Baltimore City does not. The City does,
however, allow WAGs for car repairs or car
insurance to help a customer get to a job site, but
not if public transportation is available.
While the City's WAG program may be more
limited than most, its performance relative to
WAGs has been abysmal. As the table below
indicates, the City provided only 26 WAGs over
the course of one year, compared to 1,306 issued
by jurisdictions in the rest of the state. For the
locus of more than 50% of the state caseload,
this is surprising. But it comes as no surprise to
Clinic lawyers and law students who distributed
WAG brochures to roughly 3,500
TIME OUT 19
 customers, only to find many of them returning
and complaining that their BCDSS caseworker
had no knowledge of the WAG program.

WAGs Issued Per Jurisdiction From May, 1998 through April, 1999 (Source: DHR)

Jurisdiction TCA Adult Recipients: # WAGs Issued # WAGS Issued As % of

Monthly Avg (5/98-4/99) Monthly Recipients

Allegany 179 78 44%

Anne Arundel 896 68 8%

Baltimore Co. 2,615 41 2%

Calvert 155 13 8%

Caroline 77 3 4%

Carroll 200 21 10%

Cecil 187 15 8%

Charles 350 102 29%

Dorchester 204 36 18%

Frederick 221 18 8%

Garrett 124 42 34%

Harford 395 131 33%

Howard 186 32 17%

Kent 25 21 83%

Montgomery 939 171 18%

Prince George's 4,271 49 1%

Queen Anne's 59 4 7%

St. Mary's 185 136 74%

Somerset 80 48 60%

Talbot 60 10 17%

Washington 299 109 37%

Wicomico 483 73 15%

Worcester 118 85 72%

Total Counties 12,308 1,306 11%

Baltimore City 18,340 26 0.1%

The Emergencies and Exigencies of For most people, familial, social and economic
support are the most common cushions that
Poverty break the fall caused by the unforseen

TIME OUT 20
circumstances of life. Yet, these are the very
things most poor families lack.
In recognition of the catastrophic impact one
emergency can have on a poor family (and on
their transition to self-sufficiency), Welfare
Reform in Maryland attempted to bridge the
divide between the income maintenance and
social service functions of the DSS. In
Baltimore, this was expressed through the co-
location of Adult and Family Support Service
workers and FIP case managers in neighborhood
centers. It also was expressed in policy.
BCDSS SOP 97-05A&-05B, issued in June,
1997, required FIP Case Managers to request
“service” intervention when customers
encountered barriers that prevented compliance
with work activities, or were subject to sanction.
Problems relative to housing issues, utilities,
substance abuse, social functioning, domestic
violence, disability, food, transportation, and
pharmacy assistance were listed in the SOP as
requiring a service referral.
FIP Clinic staff, however, have found very few
BCDSS FIP case managers who are familiar with
SOP 97-05A&B or the assistance the Service
unit can provide. This unfamiliarity manifests
itself most prominently for customers with
housing and utility issues.
Evictions & EAFC
Until Welfare Reform, the primary means of
obtaining quick cash assistance to prevent an
eviction was through the state governed
Emergency Assistance to Families with Children
(EAFC) program. With reform, however, the
state turned these programs over to local
Departments of Social Services, who were free to
define their assistance criteria and amounts.
In Baltimore, BCDSS chose to scale back the
number of emergencies eligible for aid from nine
to only three: Eviction/Foreclosure, Fuel/Utility
Emergency, and Disaster. Until the summer of
1998, assistance was in the form of single grant
(to be utilized no more than once every 12
months) of up to $250. In August, 1998, BCDSS
raised the amount to $400, but also prohibited
eviction and utility assistance to those living in
Public or Subsidized (i.e. “Section 8") housing.
Given the 16,000 Public Housing units in the
City, and roughly 9,000 City “Section 8"
subsidies, this ban on emergency aid is
significant— particularly in a locale where the
number of TCA adults averaged 16,216 per
month since the change.
BCDSS at least made some attempt to recognize
this in its EAFC plan, stating that “case
management services will be made available” to
persons in need but ineligible for emergency aid
because of their subsidized housing status. The
plan also required FIP case managers in these
situations to make a referral to the “service” unit
for “flex funds” (a fund of discretionary money
that is controlled by the service unit).
The Clinic found FIP case workers generally
unaware of the service intervention requirements
of the EAFC plan. Many customers in
subsidized housing facing a housing or utility
problem (see below), were simply informed that
emergency assistance was no longer available to
them. The availability of flex funds for such
persons were not explored because referrals to
the service unit were never made.
Utilities & BGE's “Get Tough” Policy
A utility arrearage can terminate service and also
prevent new service from being initiated.
Increasingly in its work, the Clinic has
encountered customers with utility issues. This
is not surprising. Less than 12 months after
Welfare Reform was implemented in Maryland,
utility companies— with an eye to industry
restructuring— began strict enforcement of their
cut-off and service denial rules. Where only a
few hundred utility customers had their service
terminated in the Winter of 1996, 7,954 turn-
offs were recorded in the Winter of 1997—
6,375 of which occurred in the territory covered
by the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
(BGE).
These actions have occurred during a decline in
resources available under the Maryland Energy
Assistance Program (MEAP). In 1993, MEAP
served 80,000 households, but funding
constraints allowed it to serve only 68,000
TIME OUT 21
statewide in 1997. TCA households constitute
19% of MEAP beneficiaries in Maryland. The
average grant, which is available in the winter
and is paid directly to the utility provider is
$246. Another source of assistance— the Fuel
Fund— provides a single grant in a 12 month
period, but must be matched with other funds
obtained by the customer. A key source of those
“other funds,” is EAFC and any Flex Funds
available through the service unit. For many
FIP customers, this option is limited again by
the failure of case managers to follow SOP 97-
05 and to utilize EAFC creatively with the
“service” unit's flex funds. Sadly, as the story of
Ms. K indicates (see “box” following), the
service unit front line staff also may need
instruction.

Number of Winter Heating Season Terminations For Customers Not Receiving Maryland Energy
Assistance
1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999
Baltimore Gas & 33 331 6,375 4,866
Electric
Other Utilities 1,528 1,506 1,579 3,428
Statewide Total 1,561 1,837 7,954 8,294
Source: Public Service Commission, Utility Service Protection Program Annual Reports

TIME OUT 22
 The Story of Ms. K

Ms. K and her three children, ages 6, 5,and 2, became impoverished after her husband
abandoned the family. In May 1998, unable to make any further payments toward a $1,500 BGE
bill, her gas and electric service was terminated. For the next four months she and her children
lived primitively, but maintained their housing— an unusual situation given that most residential
leases allow eviction when utility service is cut-off.

Afraid that her children would be placed in Foster Care if she revealed the crisis to her BCDSS
TCA case manager, Ms. K came to the Legal Clinic for help in September 1998 shortly before
her scheduled TCA re-eligibility determination. The Baltimore Fuel Fund agreed to pay the
remainder of the bill if Ms. K could obtain $871 on her own. As she was not a subsidized
housing resident, Ms. K was eligible for $400 from the BCDSS's EAFC program, but such aid
would be provided only if it would relieve the emergency and there was assurance it would not
happen again. Because the $400 would fall short of the $871 needed, EAFC would be denied—
unless an alert BCDSS case worker recognized that Ms. K also might be eligible for Flex Fund
assistance through the Service unit. If $471 in Flex Funds could be combined with the $400
EAFC grant, Ms. K could get service restored in time for the cold weather. Afraid that the case
worker would not make the service connection, the Clinic accompanied Ms. K to the Mt. Clare
BCDSS office on October 26, 1999.

At the Office, Ms. K revealed the situation to her worker. While sympathetic, the worker noted
that the EAFC grant would not cover the $871 needed by Ms. K. When the Clinic attorney
produced SOP 97-05, the worker contacted his supervisor. The supervisor, aware of the SOP,
instructed the worker on the method for making a “service” referral. The supervisor recognized
that the EAFC could be combined with Flex Funds, but couldn't assure that “service” would
provide the aid. Within an hour, Ms. K and her attorney sat with a “service” worker who
immediately summoned her supervisor when she saw the attorney. The supervisor indicated
that Flex Funds were not available, and that a referral to Intensive Family Services— a unit that
specializes in short-term help to families to avoid foster care placement— was not possible
because the unit “had no openings,” and because the family had no “social issues.” When the
supervisor left, the service worker spoke only to the customer— ignoring the attorney (who had
to direct questions to the worker through the customer). In attempting to execute a service plan,
the worker said to the customer, “You should make arrangements to put your children some
place else. You probably shouldn't be burning any candles or anything because it's a fire
hazard.” After challenging the service plan— the goal of which was to find a church that might
help— Ms. K and the attorney left the office. The attorney then contacted the assistant director
of the Adult Family and Support Services unit (the service worker's unit) and explained the
situation.

In contrast to the response at the local office, the assistant director directed another service
worker to make a visit to Ms. K's home and assess the situation. Within days, the assessment
was completed, the Flex Funds and EAFC approved (with a small sum of money provided by K
herself), and the utilities restored. While Ms. K was able to obtain help via the services of an
advocate, this should not have been necessary.

Expedited Food Stamps Another source of emergency help is expedited

TIME OUT 23
 Food Stamps. While available only to
“applicants” but not to ongoing recipients of
Food Stamps, the high numbers of “churners” —
those persons whose cases are closed for reasons
that are administrative in nature but who return
within 30 days with a new application for aid—
makes this a key and frequent source of
emergency aid.
Under Federal law all applicants for Food
Stamps are to be screened for “expedited”
eligibility (the household must have less than
$100 on hand and less than $150 in gross
monthly income), and to receive Food Stamps
within seven calendar days of application if
eligible.
At various times during the last 18 months, the
Clinic has encountered situations at local offices
where such screening did not occur in time for
applicants to receive aid within seven calendar
days. In these instances, receptionists at the
local office accepted paper “applications” at the
front desk, but then scheduled appointments with
an applications case worker anywhere from
seven to 14 days after the paper application had
been submitted. In these instances, FIP Clinic
staff were told that expedited Food Stamp
screening would occur at the time of the
appointment. The Clinic observed this at the
Southwest and Northwest service centers, and at
2000 N. Broadway. The Clinic also is aware that
the Homeless Environmental Services Unit
(HESU) appears to ignore the flexible
verification requirements for expedited stamps,
thereby denying such emergency aid to homeless
persons who frequently do not have traditional
sources of identification.
Criminal Records
The Maryland Department of Public Safety
reported that in FY 1998 alone, 5,316 persons
were released from the corrections system into
Baltimore City either on parole or on mandatory
release. Of these, 3,712 were unemployed at the
time of their release. This figure for one year of
releases alone constitutes 13% of the estimated
total number of low-skill job seekers in
Baltimore City set forth in The Job Gap report.
When other years are totaled, it is clear that a
substantial number of Baltimore City job seekers
have criminal histories.
TCA customers are no different. Early in the
Clinic's existence, customers at “FIP
Exchanges” asked Clinic lawyers about criminal
record expungement and other strategies to
overcome criminal histories. The Clinic then
began to assist customers in the expungement
process, which is limited only to persons who
have been arrested but not convicted.
Non-Convictions & Expungements
Though not commonly known, every arrest
results in a “criminal” record, regardless of the
outcome of the case in court. While court
dispositions such as dismissal, “stet,” or
“probation before judgement” are noted on the
record, many employers shy away from those
who have a number of charges, regardless of the
lack of conviction.
For such customers, the expungement process
can be helpful, but costly. Each offense must be
expunged by separate petition, warranting a
separate court filing fee of $30 per petition.
Additionally, a complete record of criminal
history from the state archives costs $23. To
date, neither BCDSS or Work Activity vendors
provide assistance with such costs.
Convictions & Employment
In listening to clients and Work Activity
vendors, the Clinic has become aware that a
significant number of employers refuse to even
consider potential employees with criminal
convictions— regardless of the offense. These
flat prohibitions, which don't consider the nature
of the offense or the relationship to the job, are
of questionable legality. In the 1980s, the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission
(EEOC) called such broad-based hiring
prohibitions violative of Civil Rights laws
because they disproportionately impacted
minority applicants. While the EEOC has not
modified its position, the Civil Rights Act of
1991 has raised questions about its applicability
today. Some states, such as New York,
Pennsylvania, and California have resolved the
ambiguity by enacting state laws that require
employers to treat those with criminal
TIME OUT 24
 convictions fairly. Maryland has not.
As the excerpt in the next column indicates,
discrimination by employers against those with
convictions has been incorporated into TCA
directives.
Needless Bureaucratic
Work Activities & Criminal Records:
“If customers states that he/she has a felony
conviction(s), DO NOT refer to geriatrics, child care,
educational, or hotel hospitality program. Employers
in these fields will not hire people with felony
backgrounds...
Morgan State University. Note: Morgan requires a
clean criminal background.”
-- Excerpts from BCDSS SOP 99-12 (8/1/99)
Barriers
TIME OUT 25
Frequent Re-determinations of
Eligibility
Legal advocates in the Welfare arena quickly
learn that the majority of customers seeking
legal help have a problem related to the re-
determination of eligibility process: forms are
lost, appointments missed, and/or verifications
difficult to obtain. The state's Welfare Exit
studies quantify this, indicating that more
customers exit TCA for re-determination related
problems than for any other reason. In fact, the
most recent Exit Study shows that these exits
are increasing. Baltimore City leads the state in
re-determination exits, and its use of an illegal 4-
month eligibility re-determination period in late
1998 and early 1999, is, no doubt, responsible
for the statewide increase.
The Process of Re-Determinations of
Eligibility
The General Assembly requires periodic re-
certification of TCA eligibility, but did not
specify a specific certification period. DHR,
however, specified that persons working on
Independence Plans are to be re-certified every
12 months. Prior to Welfare Reform, such
certification occurred every six months. Under
FIP, this was not necessary. Given the
involvement of the customer with a Work
Activity vendor, a management information
system to verify such involvement, and the
threat of full family sanctions for non-
compliance, FIP case managers have an easy and
effective means to verify and enforce
compliance with eligibility requirements.
Though BCDSS had no authority to defy DHR’s
rule on the 12 month re-determination period, it
did nevertheless, continuing the prior practice of
6 month re-determinations, then increasing its
frequency to 4 months in July ,1998 (see below).
For a customer who should be at a Work
Activity site, employed, or seeking employment,
the re-determination process and its frequency
can be major obstacles on the road to self-
sufficiency.
A re-determination, or “redet,” of eligibility, is,
legally, a new application for benefits. All
institutional memory of the customer is erased.
Customers must again proof TCA eligibility
through documentation of Social Security
numbers, citizenship status, residence, age,
living arrangements, suitability of home,
children’s school attendance and medical care,
income, and assets. All of this is done pursuant
to a face-to-face interview with the FIP case
manager, which can take as many as four hours
(much of it spent in the DSS lobby waiting
area). Subsequent to the interview, customers
are afforded time to submit verifications that are
missing. These submissions are usually made
through subsequent direct visits to DSS, where
customers again must wait to see a case worker
willing to accept the documentation. Many of
the documents submitted have been previously
submitted to DSS through prior redets, yet
customers are asked to provide them again.
DSS must make an eligibility decision on the
application no later than 30 calendar days from
the submission of a signed written application
form. While TCA is paid in flat monthly
amounts based on family size (a family of three
receives $417), the Department treats the month
of application differently from other months of
eligibility. Once an application is approved,
payment calculation is done using an effective
date 14 days after the local department receives
a signed application. Thus, depending on the
timing of application, the level of TCA payment
for the application month can be one-half the
regular monthly amount or less.
TCA recipients subject to redet can avoid this
14 day rule if all goes correctly at redet. Redet
customers are to be given an interview time and
opportunity to submit verifications prior to the
end of the initial period of TCA eligibility. If
the re-application process goes smoothly, the
customer is certified as TCA eligible for a new
certification period just as her old period
expires. While TCA payments then appear to
be “uninterrupted,” the customer’s legal status
has changed from recipient to applicant, then
back to recipient in time for the beginning of the
new certification period.
TIME OUT 26
This legal status change is of paramount
importance when something goes wrong in the
redet process. Recipients, simply put, have more
rights than applicants. If the redet process
breaks down, because of missed appointments or
lost forms, and is not completed prior to the end
of the then-current eligibility period, the
customer becomes an applicant— unable to
utilize an emergency appeal process that allows
benefit restoration or a conciliation process
designed to resolve issues prior to cut-off ( both
available to recipients only). Additionally, the
applicant must wait 30 days until the new
application is completed to get paid less than a
full month’s worth of benefits because of the 14
day rule.
Most view these “administrative reasons” as
voluntary case closings, effectively initiated by
a customer's negligence or inaction. Indeed, the
exit codes suggest as much— “customer failed
to re-apply or complete eligibility
redetermination; customer failed to give
eligibility information; customer moved,
transferred, unknown residence; local
department transfer; customer has no dependent
children; customer's certification period
expired.”
The Clinic’s direct experience suggests just the
opposite: many of the exits are involuntary.

During this period of waiting and then partial

grant payment, customers typically defer rent or
utility payments (if possible).1 Upon benefit
resumption, only partial payment of these
arrearages will be made (because of the reduced
grant amount), and by the time the customer
again gets her full monthly amount, another
month will have passed and the arrearages
increased.

Redets: The Exit Door of TCA

The state Welfare Exit (or leaver) studies (Life
After Welfare, prepared by the Welfare and
Child Support Research and Training Group
headed by Dr. Catherine Born of the University
of Maryland School of Social Work) provide a
valuable statistical insight into the role of redets
in causing caseload declines.

In the Second Interim Report (issued in March,

1998; four interim reports have been issued),
Dr. Born included a complete list of all the TCA
case closing reasons statewide. If the list,
which includes fifteen different reasons for exit
identified through computer entries by
caseworkers, is organized by the nature of exit,
the majority (52.5%) of welfare case closings in
the report are prompted by administrative
reasons, rather than employment or penalties
relating to the new work rules of welfare reform.

1
They should be screened for and receive
Expedited Food Stamps, but see prior section entitled
“The Emergencies and Exigencies of Poverty.”

TIME OUT 27
The Clinic has represented at least 10 TCA
customers who had redet materials sent by
BCDSS to outdated addresses despite the fact
that the customers had provided the Department
with updated
addresses
prior to the
redet. The
Clinic also
has
encountered
numerous
redet
“failures”
involving
unemployed
TCA
customers
who were
required to
provide
documentary
evidence from
their prior employer(s) that they were no longer
employed (regardless of the time that had passed
since). When prior employers refused or were
lax in returning the forms, the customers were
held accountable, and they exited TCA for either
failing to complete a redet or provide eligibility
information. (The Clinic has encountered other
customers who have exited because BCDSS sent
mail to them, but for unknown reasons the mail
was returned to the Department as
“undeliverable.” These customers were issued
exit notices indicating they had “failed to
provide eligibility information.” )
Dr. Born has not provided an updated complete
list of case closing reasons since the Second
Interim Report in March, 1998. She has,
however, continued to provide information on
the top five reasons for case closure. This
information continues to show that
administrative related exits are the primary
reason customers are leaving TCA in Maryland.
In her latest (October, 1999) report, the failure to
complete redet accounted for 24.7% of statewide
exits, while the failure to provide “eligibility”
information accounted for 15%. Combined,
these two administrative reasons alone make up
almost 40% of the exits to date, far more than
the percentage of exits for work or because of
income (26.6%).
The October report also
provided evidence that these
administrative exits are
increasing. Examining exiters
in five month groupings, or
“cohorts,” since she began
collecting data in October 1996,
Born's figures show that such
exits have increased by 37% in
the most recent cohort
examined. In that grouping—
exits occurring from October
1998 to March 1999— these
administrative exits accounted
for 51.7% of the exits statewide.
The Exit Studies also indicate
that customers existing for these
administrative reasons have the highest rate of
recidivism. Roughly one-third of those who do
not complete redet or fail to provide eligibility
information return to the TCA rolls within 90
days of exit. Two-thirds of the “no redet” cases
returned within the first 30 days. Given the 14
day rule and the nature of FIP, these “churners”
lose all forms of financial support for at least a
six week period and valuable time in work
activities.
Baltimore City’s 4 Month Redet
Policy
The October Exit Study took note of the
increased number of redet exits and revealed
that the City accounts for 63.4% of the redet
exits registered statewide. There is no mystery
to this.
In July 1998, the City began implementing a
new four month redet schedule, despite the state
rule of 12 months. This meant that a customer
applying for benefits in July, after having
waited thirty days for an eligibility decision
which came in August, and then being assigned
to a work activity program by September, found
herself being summoned in September back to
DSS to begin her redet process before her
TIME OUT 28
eligibility expired in October. Given the fact
that the typical work activity curriculum moves
progressively, with each class building on the
prior one, a missed day or two because of redet
related responsibilities becomes significant, and
also places the customer at risk of sanction. On
the other hand, a missed redet also results in
benefit termination.
When the FIP Clinic encountered customers
faced with this “Hobson’s Choice,” it notified
the State of the illegal practice and threatened
litigation.
The City quickly responded by instructing its
case workers to stop the practice, and treat all
persons subject to it with flexibility. Thus,
where a four month redet had been scheduled
and could not be canceled, any problems relative
thereto were not to result in benefit termination.
Other redets were to be rescheduled, though the
Clinic has encountered cases where this had not
occurred.
As the state Exit Studies show, the corrective
action came after a great deal of harm already
had occurred. Exits due to redet failures alone
jumped 37% statewide from October 1998
through March 1999— a period encompassing
BCDSS’s four month policy. The study gave
the rise a closer look and called it “largely a
Baltimore City phenomenon.” (Life After
Welfare, Fourth Interim Report, p.18).
Because the redet process results in frequent and
questionable terminations, interferes with work
activities, and is responsible for “churning,” the
corrective action taken by the City at the behest
of the State is insufficient. Many cut off during
the four month redet policy period were adhering
to their work activity related responsibilities,
seeking to achieve independence. The City’s
illegal practice has meant that some of these
people have lost their TCA prematurely. For
others, the illegal practice had the effect of
interfering with the successful completion of a
work activity program. In both cases, the effects
of the illegal practice will continue to affect
them.
The City should have protected recipients in
work activities from being subjected to
premature redets and it should have reinstated
recipients who had been terminated for failure
to complete a premature redet. It could have
accomplished both of these corrective actions by
examining its caseload to determine who had
been victimized. Its partial corrective action
leaves many people already harmed by the
illegal practice without benefits. It also leaves
people still subject to the practice in harm’s
way.
Applicant Diversion: Child Support
First
During the late summer and early fall of this
year, the Clinic found that applicants for
benefits at two centers were being turned away
if they could not first be seen by a child support
worker under what was called a “Child Support
First” policy. Applicants for cash assistance,
medical assistance and food stamps were being
treated the same way, even when the program
they were applying for did not require child
support cooperation. The Clinic alerted
authorities at the state and local level. After
two weeks, BCDSS acknowledged that the
centers were in fact improperly diverting
applicants who could not be seen by child
support workers the day the applicant sought to
apply. The centers were told to stop the
practice, and it appears they have done so.
Corrective action is still needed for people who
were not permitted to apply. The Clinic asked
BCDSS to identify any applicants who were
diverted from applying by searching the centers
and by doing outreach in the surrounding
community, and to consider their applications as
of the date of the initial attempt to apply. While
the Department’s written response has been
encouraging, corrective action still must occur.
Other Child Support Problems
Despite the corrective action being considered
by BCDSS regarding the Child Support First
policy, customers are still harmed by BCDSS'
general policies and practice regarding
cooperation with child support. The amount of
child support staff in the local offices are far
from adequate. Customers are required to make
TIME OUT 29
 multiple visits in order to see a child support
worker, no appointments are given to meet with
child support workers even if the customer is
working, and customers are required to see child
support each time they reapply for benefits
regardless of whether the customer has
previously filed an application for child support
services, has a child support order, or the absent
parent is deceased.
State law requires that a TCA customer file an
application for child support enforcement
services at the time of application. However,
BCDSS requires an TCA applicant to get a
cooperation determination from the child support
worker before benefits are issued. If the child
support worker finds that the client is not
cooperating, the application is denied despite the
fact that the FIP case manager is responsible for
investigating the possibility for the customer to
claim good cause and making a determination IN
WRITING of good cause for non-cooperation
with child support.
The only requirement pending a TCA
application should be to file an application for
child support services, because TCA customers
are also required to cooperate in establishment
and enforcement of child support as a condition
of continued eligibility. Issues of cooperation or
non cooperation with child support should be
dealt following the sanction and conciliation
process for noncompliance with program
requirements to ensure that the proper good
cause investigations are completed prior to the
family being sanctioned.
Long Waits in Waiting Rooms
An application for TCA in a local office requires
contact with a greeter, receptionist, child support
worker, screener, and case manager. There are
typically waits of an hour or more between each
step. Usually the applicant is required to return
to the local offices on another day to see a child
support worker and yet another day to see the
case manager to be interviewed to complete the
application. Customers or applicants returning
requested verifications are required to take a
number and wait for hours just to drop off
information. Customers are also required to
take a number and wait just to get a question
answered. Customers line up outside local
offices (which open their doors at 8:00) as early
as 6:30 or 7:00 in the morning in order to get a
low number. (One customer, accompanied by a
FIP Clinic staff attorney, arrived at the local
department at 6:30 a.m. to reapply for benefits.
This was the fourth time in two weeks that she
had been to the local office. On previous
occasions she was unable to be seen by a child
support worker or case manager because she had
gotten to the office at 8:00 which was too late.
She had to take her children to their
Grandmother's for an overnight stay so that she
could get to the office by 6:30 a.m. She was
placed “third” on the list when the doors opened
at 8:00 a.m. The customer was able to complete
the entire application that day, with the
intervention of counsel, in 8 short hours.)
Such waits are hardly conducive to workplace
norms. Clinic staff have witnessed customers
trapped at BCDSS offices who are employed
and are expected to be at work. These
customers cannot afford long waits at local
offices to drop off forms or resolve
administrative snafus, nor can they be expected
to be engaged in work activities. The culture of
the welfare office must change immediately.
Child Specific Benefits
A Child Specific Benefit (CSB) is made for a
child born 10 months or more from the date the
assistance unit first applied for TCA. The
incremental increase in cash assistance that
would normally go to the household upon such
birth, is paid instead to a “third party payee.”
While this family cap was intended by the
General Assembly to be “humane,” the Clinic
has encountered a number of households who
are eligible for, but who do not receive the CSB.
The primary reason for non-receipt appears to
be the burdensome administrative requirements
of the assistance. Third party payees must,
according to DHR/FIA Information Memo #97-
TIME OUT 30
 18 (May 31, 1997), be able to “track the family's
funds, properly account for their disbursement,
and provide services relating” to the customer's
management of their funds. For payees, this
means periodic meetings with members of the
BCDSS “service” unit, where payees must
produce receipts that account for CSB
expenditures (which must be for items such as
diapers, clothes, school supplies, etc.).
The Clinic encountered customers who had
difficulty finding friends or relatives who were
willing to perform these tasks. While BCDSS,
under SOP 97-13, will appoint a payee if the
customer is unable to select one, no one had
made the customers aware of this option.
Two Parent Eligibility & Male
Caretakers
The Clinic has encountered staff who appear
unfamiliar with the two-parent eligibility aspects
of FIP. One Clinic customer was required to
complete a child support enforcement
application on her husband, despite the fact they
were living together. When she refused, her
application for benefits was rejected. The matter
was corrected with Clinic intervention. The
incident occurred in March, 1999, more than two
years after the two-parent changes had been
implemented.
While the majority of TCA households are
headed by females (95.9% of exiting cases
during the first 30 months of reform were
headed by females according to State Exit
Studies), there are male headed households that
do apply for and are eligible for TCA. These
men face stricter verification requirements at
application then their female counterparts. Men
are typically asked to "prove" that they have
"legal custody" of the children by producing a
custody order or a notarized statement. These
types of verifications are not required under
State law and are not requested from female
headed households.
One male TCA applicant was told by his case
manager that he needed to bring in an "updated
custody order" before he could receive benefits
for himself and the children. Since there was in
fact a court order regarding his children, the
customer went to the courthouse and obtained a
copy for his case manager. The FIP Legal
Clinic was able to get him reimbursed by
BCDSS for the $6.00 copy fee. In another
Clinic case, a female TCA recipient gave birth
to a new daughter and reported to her case
manager that the child would be living with the
child's father. The case manager demanded to
see custody papers and referred the case for a
fraud investigation because she could not
believe that the father was caring for the child.
The Fair Hearing Sham
The Fair Hearing, or Administrative Appeal
process, is the safety net of the TCA program.
Customers whose benefits are reduced or
terminated have the option of obtaining benefit
restoration (until the time of the hearing) with a
quick appeal, while other customers can dispute
work activity assignments or practically any
other DSS action or inaction. In Baltimore City,
this safety net is torn.
Requesting An Appeal: Forms,
Conferences and Other Barriers
State law requires that a request for an appeal be
received by a social worker, income
maintenance worker or any other employee who
has contact with the public which would include
Greeters, Receptionists, and Case Managers at
local Family Investment Centers. A request for
an appeal may be made orally or in writing.
However, front line employees at BCDSS local
offices routinely refuse to accept requests for
appeals whether oral or written, refuse to give
customers appeal forms, do not know where the
appeal forms are located, and require customers
to meet with a supervisor if one is available in
order to file an appeal. (Recently, a law student
from the University of Baltimore accompanied a
client to a local office to file an appeal. The
receptionist refused to give him an appeal form
and was told that he had to wait for a supervisor.
He proceeded to wait for 3 hours, no supervisor
ever came out to see him, and the client was
unable to file an appeal.) Appeal forms should
TIME OUT 31
be readily available to customers in the local the local office to the Appeals Unit.
office upon request without question. Customers
should be able to pick up a form without
waiting, complete it and return it to any Excerpts From Fair Hearing Summaries Written By
employee for processing. the BCDSS Appeals Unit & Submitted In Defense
of DSS Action:
Once an appeal request is received, the local The Case of Ms. B: "The Collection and Accounting
department may offer the appellant a settlement Unit has not provided an overpayment file to support
conference with a supervisor. These this action."
"Conferences" are often used as a mechanism to Ms. A: "The appeals office is unable to substantiate
prevent or discourage a customer from filing an the local department's actions due to its failure to
appeal. Local offices require customers to meet submit its file." Ms. E: "The LDSS' actions cannot be
with a supervisor BEFORE they will accept an substantiated due to its failure to submit Ms. Es' file
appeal request and often times supervisors are for review."
never available. In fact, BCDSS' own Ms. J: "The Hilton Heights Center failed to provide
Memorandum issued November 20, 1998, case record documents to substantiate the
regarding the appeals process enforces this reasonableness and accuracy of the decision.”
practice, stating that "If the customer declines
the supervisory conference, the supervisor or
designee is to be informed so that the
appropriate form can be made available." By law
a conference may only be offered as a means to
settle the dispute AFTER the appeal form has Administrative Law Judges(ALJs)
been accepted and processed, and may not be ALJs from the state Office of Administrative
used as a means for DSS to dispose of the appeal Hearings are assigned to arbitrate Fair Hearing
without resolving the dispute. requests. Rare is the Judge who has the interest
or the attention span to delve into state
The BCDSS Appeals Unit regulations and review eligibility or assistance
BCDSS has a separate Appeals Unit located at level determinations by BCDSS.
1510 Guilford that represents the Department in
all appeals filed in the local offices. Although When such questions arise, ALJs prefer to
the Appeals Unit represents BCDSS at the Fair “vacate” the Local Department action and
Hearings, they are not given any power to take “remand” the case back to BCDSS for
corrective action on an individual case even “corrective action” without specifying the
when it is admitted that the Department was in action. Absent a specific order, BCDSS is free
error. The only power the appeals unit has is to on remand to take the very same action that was
offer an opinion of what corrective action the subject to appeal! Upon complaints by Clinic
local department should take and remand the attorneys, ALJs (and BCDSS Appeals
case back to the local office. State law requires Representatives) have advised customers in such
that the Department provide the Appellant with a situations to simply “file another appeal.”
Summary of its case including all evidence to be
introduced six days before the hearing.
Summaries are routinely given to unrepresented
Appellants the morning of the hearing, and even
when appellants are represented, Summaries are
rarely received within the prescribed time. In
addition to the Summary, the Appellant is
entitled to review their file prior to the hearing.
Appellants are not informed that they have the
right to see their file. Additionally, on many
occasions files are lost or never forwarded from

TIME OUT 32
Structural Barriers
Unique to Baltimore
City
It is popular to set aside funds
saved from the welfare
caseload decline in
anticipation of a downturn in
the business cycle. In
Baltimore City, there is no need to wait. The
City’s economic growth and employment
opportunities have been dismal for some time,
and even now amidst sustained economic
growth, the city still lags behind the rest of the
state. At the time of this report, Maryland’s
3.3% unemployment rate has matched a historic
low, with employment growth at rates higher
than the nation. In Baltimore City, however, the
unemployment rate is at 6.8% — the second
highest in the state behind Worcester County.
Additionally, employment growth in Maryland
has been
spearheaded
by growth in
business
services,
insurance, warehousing, and labor suppliers.
Some of these sectors are not prevalent in
Baltimore City, nor is it clear that TCA
customers can meet their skill requisites.
In March, 1999, the Jacob France Center at the
behest of the Job Opportunities Task Force,
attempted to analyze the pool of workers most
likely to include TCA customers and the
regional labor market appropriate to them. The
report, Baltimore Area Jobs and Low-Skill Job
Seekers: Assessing the Gaps (hereinafter The
TIME OUT 33
 Job Gap Report), identified essentially three to measure the plight of the Baltimore City
gaps in the Baltimore region: A job numbers worker. They also highlight the mistaken
gap— the number of low-skilled persons notion that employment alone is the goal of
exceeded the number of low-skilled jobs by 3 to welfare reform.
1; a geographic gap— two out of every three job
openings occur in the counties outside of the The Geographic Gap
City; and a wage gap— almost 50% of those
employed in these jobs make less than $8.50 per The Job Gap Report quantified what most in the
hour. Baltimore region already suspected: there are
more low-skill job openings outside of the City
The Job Gap than within. The City accounts for one of every
three jobs in the metropolitan region that
The Job Gap Report identified 27,551 low-skill includes Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll,
job seekers in Baltimore City but only 8,952 Harford, and Howard counties. The types of
low-skill job openings. This 3:1 ratio of seekers jobs in Baltimore that do exist also was
to jobs increased to 7:1 if only jobs paying a analyzed by the report. The City has an above-
wage of at least $10.00/hour were used. The job average reliance on the Finance, Insurance and
seekers estimate used by the Report is a Real Estate (FIRE), Services,
conservative estimate. The pool of seekers used
included roughly 13,272 unemployed, 11,318
employed part-time involuntarily, 2,369
“marginally attached” workers, and 592
“discouraged workers.” At the time of the
report, there were 13,647 TCA adults in
Baltimore City subject to work requirements.
Most economists agree that these TCA
customers are counted in the surveys that form
the basis of the Unemployment Rate calculation.
Yet, the number of TCA adults in Baltimore City
is roughly equivalent to the number of all
persons identified by The Job Gap report as
being unemployed in the City. This simply
cannot be true— TCA customers are not the
only persons seeking work but unemployed in
Baltimore.

If we were to assume that the Unemployment

Rate does not capture TCA customers seeking
employment (which is likely), than the number
of unemployed in Baltimore must be doubled,
creating a job gap of almost 5 to 1.

The numbers estimated in the Report to be

engaged in employment on a part-time basis
involuntarily also is disturbing. The Report
sought to examine only low-skill workers and
low-skill jobs. Given the wage levels at such
jobs (see below), less than full-time work in this
arena virtually guarantees continued poverty.
These part-timers are yet another reason to cast
suspicion on using only the unemployment rate

TIME OUT 34
 and government sectors. FIRE and Services are
rapidly growing sectors statewide, but the City,
according to the report, “has not fared well in
attracting its share of jobs in these rapidly
growing sectors over the last few years.”

From 1990 to 1996, Baltimore City lost more

than 52,000 jobs— more than 10% of its jobs.
Carroll, Harford, and Howard counties, however,
experienced the most rapid growth in new jobs
in the metro region during this period. The only
sector that grew in the City during this period
was Services, although at a paltry 1.4% rate—
compared to a 12% service sector growth rate for
the metro region as a whole.

The future looks dismal. The report

accumulated data on projected job growth from
1995 to 2005 and concluded: “It is estimated
that if current favorable economic conditions
continue, total employment in this region will
increase 9 percent over this period, but
employment in Baltimore City is estimated to
increase only 0.9 percent.”

Employment is projected to continue to shift

from the city to the outermost suburban
jurisdictions to the extent that Baltimore County
and the outer jurisdictions will account for two-
thirds of the low-skill job openings.

Projected Annual Job Openings Through 2005 In Baltimore Region

Job Requisites Total Metro Area Baltimore City Baltimore County Other Counties
OJT-Related 26,459 8,952 8,287 9,220
Work Experience
Vocational/Post 2,850 958 901 991
Secondary
Training
Source: DLLR Data Analyzed by the Jacob France Center. Job Gap Report, at 19.

The Wage or Earnings Gap While the federal poverty level is an outdated

TIME OUT 35
and poor measure of family self-sufficiency, it $9,972, 71% of the federal poverty level.
has yet to be replaced as a benchmark for
sustenance. The current level for a family of While the Federal and Maryland Earned Income
three is $13,880, while the level for a family of Tax Credits (EITC) can help put those “ninth
four is $ 16,700. quarter” exiters above the poverty level using
annualized figures, this is simply a statistical
The Job Gap Report again quantified exercise. Most EITC eligible workers receive
conventional wisdom: low-skill jobs generally their ETICs in one lump sum after filing taxes.
pay low wages. Almost 50% of the jobs (An advanced monthly payment option is
identified as “low-skill” in the report paid available, but pays only a partial refund and can
$8.50/hour or less. Cross-matching the hourly hamper those who change jobs frequently.)
wage of the low-skill occupations identified in
the Report with the occupations in which TCA During the 12 months preceding the EITC
customers are most likely to find employment refund, these “ninth quarter” exiters will average
(as identified in the State TCA Exit Studies) $831 monthly in earnings. Given that the HUD
increases this percentage. (See Table.) Fair Market Rent (FMR) for Maryland statewide
is $561 monthly for a single bedroom unit— the
rent above which 60% of the units statewide
Percentage of Workers Earning Below Key
actually rent— such a family would pay 68% of
Wage Thresholds for Baltimore Region in
its monthly income on housing. Using the City
Jobs TCA Exiters Are Likely To Enter
FMR of $495, such a family would contribute
Job % Earning % Earning two-thirds of its income to rent. Compared to
Below Below the one-third that most economists (and the
$5.75/hr $8.50/hr federal poverty level) assumes is desired for
housing costs, it is clear that even two years after
Food 52% 82% TCA exit, former customers still are living on
Counter & the edge.
Related
Retail Sales 22% 66%
Cleaners/ 33% 78%
Maids
Cashiers 37% 80%
Nursing 14% 62%
Aides
Source: Combined analysis by the Clinic of Job Gap and
Life After Welfare reports.

The state is quick to point out that is Exit

Studies do not measure wage levels, only
earnings on a quarterly basis. Those figures
show in the first quarter after exit, median
earnings equal to $1,984, which should produce
an annualized income of $7.936, roughly 57% of
the federal poverty level for a family of three.

Current exit data indicate that by the ninth

quarter--more than two years after exit--median
quarterly earnings appear to increase to $2,493,
which should produce an annual income of

TIME OUT 36
 Recommendations
Thousands of TCA customers have accepted
their responsibility to search for work, attend
work activities, and abide by the myriad rules
governing their behavior as a condition of
receiving benefits. They cannot take personal
responsibility for a bureaucracy that has been
slow to tackle its own responsibilities to provide
supportive services, nor for a local economy
that simply cannot produce enough jobs. Of
these three actors— the economy, the
bureaucracy, and the welfare customer— only
the customer has been placed under a time-limit
to perform or face stark consequences.
The State and the City share responsibility for
the successes and failures of FIP in Baltimore
City. Changes are needed in three broad areas.
First, the City and the State must hold harmless
those who have been harmed by bureaucratic
practices that have prevented many customers
from achieving economic self-sufficiency.
Second, the City and the State must address
structural barriers that stand in the way of
economic self-sufficiency for residents of
Baltimore City.
Third, the City and the State must make changes
in the welfare program to ensure that families
get the help they need.
I. Holding the Customers Harmless.
A. Stop the welfare “clock” for one
year for all Baltimore City customers
who have been on TCA for 36 months
or more, by moving these customers
to a “Segregated” State program.
Such a program, according to federal
guidelines, will keep these persons
under a “work activity” requirement, II. Addressing Structural Barriers to
but will exempt them from the 60
month time lifetime limit while
Employment in Baltimore City
enlisted in the program. The bureaucratic
problems in Baltimore City have been so
pervasive that it is not possible to know exactly
who has been harmed and how much. The best
way to ensure that everyone is held harmless is
to stop the clock for everyone while corrective
measures are taken to ensure that customers in
Baltimore City begin to get access to the
services to which they are legally entitled.
B. Stop or “slow” the clock on
groups of TCA customers whose
personal barriers to employment
have gone unaddressed because of
bureaucratic bungling (i.e. persons
with substance abuse problems, very
low-skills, problems with family
violence, and criminal records). As
indicted above, Segregated funds will keep such
persons under a “work activity” requirement,
but will exempt them from the 60 month time
limit during “segregated” program participation.
Based on our experiences with customers, our
conversations with recipients, our review of
BCDSS documents and our observations in
BCDSS offices, it is clear that few people with
substance abuse problems, very low skills,
problems with family violence and criminal
records have received the assistance they need to
become independent. State law and policy
promised that personal barriers to employment
such as these would be addressed during the
limited period of time when people could
receive cash assistance. It was not the fault of
customers that the City did not provide them
with the assessment and assistance they needed.
It should not be the fate of customers to lose
cash assistance before their personal barriers to
employment have been addressed.
TIME OUT 37
A. Stop or slow the clock, through
the use of a Segregated or
“Separate” State program for those
persons who are qualified for
employment, but who are unable to
find work because of Baltimore
City's economic condition.
Undeniably, Baltimore City is a hard place.
Even in the good economic times being enjoyed
in most of the State, Baltimore’s unemployment
rate is nearly 7%, more than twice that of the
rest of the State. It is not the fault of City
residents that not all of them can find jobs when
only one job is available for every three low skill
people seeking a job. Keeping cash assistance
available to families for whom work is
unavailable is a fair and equitable response.
B. Stop the clock for any person
currently employed through the use
of wage subsidy under the Grant
Diversion program. Such persons
are private employees in every sense,
and should not have any time
counted toward their lifetime clock
when they are employed full-time.
Many TCA recipients are working in subsidized
jobs under the Grant Diversion program. Their
work effort is the same as that of any employee,
but they are counted as receiving cash assistance
because their employers receive a subsidy for
them through the TCA program. Economic and
labor market conditions in Baltimore City, as
well as employer demands, make Grant
Diversion a useful tool. The customer should
not lose valuable time off the clock because of
these factors, which are beyond her control.
C. Amend the Baltimore City Welfare
Avoidance Grant (WAG) plan to allow
for the purchase of cars to gain or
keep employment, and require all
caseworkers to screen for WAGs at
every contact with customers.
Many jobs in the Baltimore Region are not
accessible to City residents by public
transportation, especially when they must also
get children to daycare on the way to work. City
residents with cars have greater accessibility to
jobs, and can have greater access to cars if
WAGs were made available for car purchases.
D. Engage in job creation efforts in
Baltimore City, advocate for State
and local economic development
strategies that benefit City
customers, and require BCDSS, in
conjunction with other City and State
agencies, to ensure that work
activities are coordinated with
economic development strategies
and existing market conditions.
The public sector cannot wait and hope for
increased private sector activity in Baltimore
City. Government capital should be directed to
economic development activities and sectors that
are likely to benefit the large number of low-
skilled persons in Baltimore. Efforts to direct
private capital toward the same end also are
required. Workforce development and Welfare
Reform are synonymous. An effective workforce
development strategy must take into account
market conditions. In Baltimore this means the
public sector must act to facilitate a change in
those conditions.
E. Through the use of Grant
Diversion and Community Work
Experience, create a Unemployment
Insurance Program targeted to
persons approaching the end of their
lifetime TCA limit who, at the end of
their time on TCA, are able, available,
and actively seeking work, but who
are unemployed through no fault of
their own.
Because few jobs are available to low-skill
workers in Baltimore City, many will experience
periods of unemployment through no fault of
their own. The existing Unemployment
Insurance (UI) system, however, penalizes those
TIME OUT 38
 with low wages and sporadic work histories.
The State should use its surplus funds to provide
customers with the wages and work histories
they need to become UI eligible. This can be
done by combining the programs of Grant
Diversion and Community Work Experience to
create wage paying jobs in the non-profit sector
that are covered by UI.
F. Enact State or Local laws that
require employers to treat persons
with criminal histories fairly, by
considering efforts at rehabilitation,
time served, and the relationship of
the conviction to the employment
sought.
Where employers have many low skill
applicants for few jobs, they can discriminate on
the basis of irrelevant characteristics. Criminal
records in many cases are not pertinent to the
particular job, and employers should not be
permitted to use them indiscriminately to deny
employment.
III. Changing the Welfare Program to
Ensure that Families Get the Help
They Need
A. Require DHR to review DSS
Standard Operating Procedures and
other directives to line workers and
supervisors to ensure compliance
with law and with State policy.
Many of the problems experienced by TCA
customers in Baltimore City are not caused by
State law or policy; they are the result of
Baltimore City DSS and its local offices not
following State law or policy. It is essential,
therefore, that the State carefully review the
policies and policy statements issued by BCDSS
to ensure that City residents are treated the same
as people in the rest of the State.
B. Cross-check new hire registry,
food stamps, day care and other state
records against TCA case closing
records to identify families eligible
for TMA because of employment.
Families need medical assistance to remain
employed and achieve self-sufficiency, so they
are guaranteed 12 months of medical assistance
when they become employed soon after leaving
cash assistance. Currently, they must report
their employment status in order to access
transitional medical assistance. Reporting can
be time-consuming and interfere with work. The
State should use its existing data bases to
identify families eligible for transitional medical
assistance and extend the benefit automatically.
C. Eliminate the full-family sanction
for failure to comply with work
requirements and failure to cooperate
with child support.
Under current law, families lose all cash
assistance if they fail to comply with work
requirements or cooperate with child support.
Few families have been sanctioned because most
customers are eager to become self-sufficient
and are persistently and doggedly pursuing that
goal no matter what the bureaucratic and
structural obstacles. The sanction is unnecessary
and draconian and should be abolished.
D. Offer professional employment
assessment services to any customer
who wants them.
In order to make a realistic plan for economic
self-sufficiency, customers and case managers
need to know what skills, aptitudes and
experiences the customer has and how those
skills, aptitudes and experiences translate into
employment in the real economy. An
assessment of this type takes expertise that needs
to be made available to people who have limited
time to make a transition to self-sufficiency.
E. Pay for customers to obtain
criminal records and for legal
services to assist customers to
correct and/or expunge records.
Since many employers refuse to consider
applicants with a criminal record of any type,
TIME OUT 39
including one that is old, consists only of arrests,
or is irrelevant to the particular job, it is
necessary for customers to know what is
contained in their criminal record, if anything,
and to remove any incorrect and expungeable
entries.
F. Train all caseworkers in
identifying family violence and in
offering appropriate services.
A high percentage of women receiving welfare
experience family violence and need special help
for that reason. Every person who comes into
contact with customers needs to be able to
identify family violence because it is extremely
difficult for women to reveal their experiences
and get the help they need.
G. Create Individualized
Development Accounts for
customers, and actively involve
customers in “shopping” for and
selecting work activity programs that
are tailored to their needs.
Low skill levels and low education levels are
barriers to employment for thousands of
Baltimore residents. The State should use the
option available under welfare reform to create
Individualized Development Accounts for
customers who can then use them to fund
continued education after they leave cash
assistance.
H. Make the provision of Child Care
Vouchers a pre-requisite for any
program activity required by
BCDSS— from up front job search to
work activity participation – and
make them available from the date of
application until 30 days after TCA
eligibility ends.
Child care is a key supportive service for any
TCA customer with young or disabled children.
Applications must be processed and vouchers
issued promptly to ensure that children get
consistent and reliable day care, and vouchers
need to continue after TCA eligibility ends to
ensure that children can remain in a familiar day
care setting as the family makes the transition
off of benefits.
I. Re-institute a Child Support “pass
through” to families.
Families on cash assistance receive enough help
to live at approximately 60% of the minimum
standard of need. Children in such deep poverty
suffer long-term detriments. One way to
increase the standard of living of some of these
children is to pass through any child support
collected for the family rather than remitting it to
the State treasury.
J. Eliminate the 14-day delay in the
effective date for the payment of
benefits during the “initial” month of
application.
A family eligible for cash assistance is extremely
poor, yet cash assistance is paid for only half of
the first month for which the family is found
eligible. The delay in benefits serves to keep
children in deep poverty for no good reason.
When combined with the prevalence of
redetermination of eligibility problems and the
frequency of administrative “churning” in the
City, the rule needlessly increases the already
heavy financial burden upon families.
K. Eliminate the $60 reduction in
assistance that applies only to those
in subsidized housing, and extend
the “rent freeze” now applicable only
to residents of public housing who
leave welfare for work to those in
Section 8 or Voucher assisted rental
units.
Housing costs are a very large share of the
budget of poor families. To ensure that they can
maintain their housing, the State should stop
deducting $60 a month from the checks of those
in subsidized housing, and it should freeze the
TIME OUT 40
rents of families leaving TCA no matter what
kind of subsidized housing they occupy.
L. Increase the amount of child care
expenses that can be disregarded
when a family applies for cash
assistance.
Many families that could benefit from TCA
cannot qualify because the amount of child care
expense that can be disregarded at the time of
application is too low. The disregard amount
should be raised to reflect current market rates.
BCDSS case manager to a third party.
BCDSS case managers have not been able to
provide the expertise or assistance that
customers with substance abuse problems need,
particularly in light of the difficulties of
arranging for treatment. Customers need active
case management, and a third party needs to be
assigned that task.

M. Require the presence of a well-

trained, Family Support Service
worker at every application and re-
determination of eligibility, to screen
for utility, housing, and social
functioning problems.

Many applicants and customers experience

problems with utility cutoffs, substance abuse,
family violence, evictions, and other
emergencies. Service workers have been trained
to address these issues, while case workers have
not. Families need to have access to service
workers whenever they are in the BCDSS
offices so that their needs can be identified and
met promptly and they can focus their efforts on
becoming employed.

N. Amend the Baltimore City

Emergency Assistance to Families
With Children (EAFC) to provide
assistance to families in subsidized
housing.

Families in subsidized housing are not immune

from emergencies, and they should not be
prevented from qualifying for emergency
assistance.

O. Responsibility and the resources

for case management where a
customer has a substance abuse
problem should be moved from the

TIME OUT 41
Conclusion

The State and City must be pro-active in dealing

with the problems of welfare to self-sufficiency
in Baltimore City. The first wave of customers
reaching their 60 month lifetime time limit on
TCA will begin in two short years. “Churning”
and other practices that interrupt time spent on
TCA, make it unlikely that all of these first wave
customers will hit their time limit
simultaneously. As each reach their limit,
however, the cumulative impact will be
devastating.

Federal law allows only 20% of the State's

TANF caseload to be exempt from the 60 month
lifetime limit on federally financed assistance.
Currently, more than 60% of the paid adults on
TANF-TCA reside in Baltimore City. Clearly,
the hardship exemption is the wrong tool to fix
the City's woes.

The State and City can use the flexibility and

creativity allowed by TANF and FIP to stop or
slow the welfare “clocks” for thousands in the
City right now. This opportunity should not be
squandered.

This report has dealt with those involved in the

welfare system. State Exit studies show a
disturbingly high percentage of welfare exiters
who appear unaccounted for— perhaps as many
as 48%. In theory, there is nothing keeping
these persons from returning to seek assistance.
In practice, as this report indicates, the barriers
are many.

TIME OUT 42