Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HPW 05363-10
V.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ARGUMENT
CONCLUSION
2
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Cases
R.H. v. MONMOUTH COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY (HPW 2310-04)
BURLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. T.B.,(HPW951-05)
Regulations
N.J.A.C. §10:90-1.1
N.J.A.C. §10:90-1.2
N.J.A.C. §10:90-1.3 (a) 1. Immediate need
N.J.A.C. §10:90-4.8 Individual Responsibility Plan
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.3 (a) 1. Kinds of emergency assistance authorized
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.3 (a) 6
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.5 (a)
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.5 (a)1
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.5 (a)2
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.6 (a) 1.i (1) iii
N.J.A.C. § 5:28-1.6 (c), (f)
Exhibits
3
INTRODUCTION
Robin Pugh is a single disabled female who applied for welfare on March 25,
2010. She had insufficient food and money, her power had been turned off and eviction
was imminent. She received no assistance on the day that she applied. She was not
advised of, nor did she receive an Individual Responsibility Plan or Emergency
Assistance (EA) service plan. To date RP has received no documentation identifying the
responsibilities of the agency, of the landlord, or of her own rights and responsibilities or
types of benefits she is in receipt of. The April 22, 2010 WFNJ-15 lists EA and TRA
however it does not contain details of the specific benefits received. RP has received no
notifications which affirmatively state that she is indeed a recipient of TRA and as such is
responsible for contributing 65 percent of her cash assistance benefit towards the
payment of her rent. RP submitted documentation from various credible sources at the
June 16, 2010 fair hearing which demonstrated that a 65 percent contribution towards
rent only (with no allowance for utilities) from her cash assistance grant is unduly
excessive.
With regard to the apartment itself, the EA worker referred RP to the 232 Bidwell
Avenue Apt 2 which was not safe, decent, or sanitary. When RP reported these problems
to the EA worker, the worker advised that there was nothing she could do about them.
RP was unaware at the time that the apartment was not up to code due to the way in
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
RP contested the decision of the local county welfare agency to reduce her cash
assistance grant at a fair hearing before the Office of Administrative Law. RP received an
4
initial decision from the Administrative Law Judge and final decision from the
decision of the county welfare agency to reduce RP’s cash assistance and continue her
65% contribution toward the monthly rent despite a the fact that the April 22, 2010
WFNJ-15 did not include details on exactly what EA benefits RP had received. The ALJ
refused to deal with the incompleteness of the form and as such there was no review of
the specifics regarding the reduction of RP’s cash grant or the identification of other EA
benefits.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
about March 25, 2010 with an eviction notice. After being interviewed and directed to
sign several pages of paperwork, RP was given a Med-1 form and letter requesting
additional documentation. The worker advised RP that she could not receive any
assistance until that documentation was received despite the fact that RP had presented an
eviction notice, that her utilities had been turned off the day before, that she had
insufficient food and money, that she had trouble walking and standing, and that she was
diabetic. The intake worker advised RP to call and make an appointment to see an
Upon returning to the waiting area, RP called a Ms. Patricia Gerges to see if she
could intervene on her behalf. RP had previously been given Ms. Gerges’ number by a
lawyer at LSNJ. Ms. Gerges gave RP a referral to see a social worker and advised RP
that she could fax her back the information requested by the intake worker. After lunch,
RP finally got to see Ms. Margarita Gaynor, the EA worker. After having RP fill out an
5
application for emergency assistance, the EA worker made copies RP’s PSE&G shut off
notice and other documents then advised that there was nothing further that she could do
showing usage for the prior year. Regarding her utilities which had been shut off the day
concern for RP’s difficulty in getting around due to her disability or the fact that RP had
applied for GA earlier that day but had not been provided with immediate assistance.
The next day, on March 26, 2010, RP went to PACO and was given vouchers in
the amount of $1160.00. Although she took them to PSE&G the very same day, they
were not applied as PSE&G was requiring a $400.00 security deposit. When RP called
the EA worker to advise her of the situation, she again advised that there was nothing she
could do. RP remained without power until April 2nd when after one of several
conversations with the Board of Public Utilities and PSE&G, service was restored eight
days after it had been discontinued on March 24th. On or about March 31, 2010, a
After returning to see the EA worker on the afternoon of April 12, 2010 upon
receiving notification that the lockout would happen on April 15, 2010 (subsequently
rescheduled to the morning of April 16th), the EA worker referred RP to 232 Bidwell
Avenue, Apt 2. Although it was cloudy and near dusk by the time RP arrived and there
was no power in the apartment, it appeared to have been freshly painted and new kitchen
cabinets had been installed. The more obvious problems were the bathroom light and sink
fixtures which needed to be repaired. The light fixture was hanging out of its setting with
wires exposed. The landlord advised that these repairs were minor, not a problem and
6
would be done prior to RP moving in. Under better circumstances, RP would not have
considered the Bidwell apartment but unfortunately she had no other options. When RP
asked the EA worker if her belongings could be stored so that she would have time to
search for an apartment, the worker told RP that she wasn’t sure if the agency would pay
to store her belongings and the turn right around and pay to move them. As such, RP
gave the landlord the paperwork which had been prepared by The EA worker earlier that
On the morning of April 16, 2010, The EA worker called RP as the lockout was
taking place to advise that the landlord had faxed her back the paperwork and to ask RP if
she was still willing to take the apartment. Again, having no other options, RP agreed.
The EA worker then advised RP to provide her with the name of a moving company so
that the agency could pay for moving expenses and afterwards to schedule the move
ASAP. Under extreme duress, RP scheduled the move for that Sunday, April 18, 2010.
Afterward, the EA worker asked RP where she would be staying until she could move in.
When RP advised that she had nowhere to stay, the EA worker advised that she would
make shelter arrangements and that she was leaving the office for the day at lunchtime.
The EA worker called back to advise RP that she had made arrangements for RP to stay
at the Belmont Residence from April 16 – April 18, 2010. When RP called the EA
worker on April 19th to advise that there was no power in the new apartment and that she
had not received a copy of the lease yet so that she could go to PSE&G to have services
turned on, the EA worker advised that RP would only be able to stay at the Belmont
Residence through April 19, 2010. RP began her tenancy at 232 Bidwell Avenue on
April 19th and remained without utilities until April 26, 2010.
7
On April 22, 2010, when RP reported to the EA worker that the apartment was
filthy, that the floor throughout the entire apartment was black from where mice or
maybe even rats had run along the baseboards, that the bathroom light and sink fixtures
had not been repaired, the EA worker again advised that there was nothing that she could
do about it. When RP reminded the EA worker that there was no power in the apartment,
the EA worker stated that as long as RP had the PACO vouchers, there was nothing that
One of the papers the EA worker had RP sign on April 22nd was form WFNJ-74
assistance and paid towards the rent. The EA worker’s handwritten annotations contradict
the WFNJ-74 form itself which clearly states that “This notice is not meant for you if you
are receiving Temporary Rental Assistance (TRA).” The EA worker also had RP sign a
Rent Subsidy Agreement (4/90) advising that she is responsible for finding less expensive
housing or obtaining employment to assist in paying her rent despite the fact that the EA
worker referred RP to substandard housing in the first place and that RP is disabled. The
subsidy form also states that the client must comply with EA regulations even though RP
Prior to leaving The EA worker’s office RP asked the worker if there was any
way that the landlord could be forced to make the necessary repairs since RP could not
withhold payment due to the fact that he was receiving direct payments. The EA worker
advised that there was nothing that she could do about that situation either.
8
Since occupying the apartment RP has discovered that the wooden molding at the
kitchen entrance had been eaten away by rats or mice and then painted over and that
because there is no wall switch to control the light fixture in the bathroom, the apartment
is not up to code. There is a painted over wall plate where the light switch should be.
Subsequently, an inspection was done on RP’s apartment on or about May 12, 2010. RP
is unaware of who called for it or the status of the outcome of that inspection.
As of May 2010, RP’s cash assistance grant was reduced from $140.00/mo to
$49.00/mo. The monthly 65% contribution towards RP’s rent was $91.00. Effective
June 2010, RP’s cash grant was increased to $210.00/mo based on agency receipt of RP’s
Med-1 form. After the monthly 65% contribution was deducted, RP received cash
assistance in the amount of $74.00. This was all done without notification. The April 22,
2010 WFNJ-15 contained no details on what benefits the RP actually received or what
At the June 16, 2010 fair hearing, after much discussion the Administrative Law
Judge finally allowed RP to submit copies of her unpaid PSE&G bills into evidence, The
EA worker submitted a document to the judge to prove that she had made a payment of
$613.00 to PSE&G on RP’s behalf at some time in April 2010. This document was not
entered into evidence. Additionally, the judge refused to deal with the inadequacies of
the WFNJ-15 that RP did receive with regard to the unavailability of details of the
benefits she had received and the resultant deductions made to her cash assistance
benefit. With regard to Temporary Rental Assistance, the ALJ stated that TRA provides
a rental subsidy of up to $700.00/mo and that RP’s 65% contribution was intended to
make up the difference between that subsidy and the actual monthly rental amount.
9
The ALJ’s refusal to deal with these inconsistencies, especially in light of the fact
that utilities and moving fees are usually paid as a function of Emergency Assistance
raises serious questions about the validity of the 65% contribution RP is being forced to
pay towards the rent at 232 Bidwell Avenue. The actual source of the rental subsidy has
not been documented and is inconsistent with subsidy amounts required by other rental
assistance programs. In summary, RP was not advised of her rights and responsibilities,
the responsibilities of the landlord, or the role of DHA with regard to her application for
GA and EA. As a result, she is living in substandard housing that does not take into
account her disability and is without adequate cash resources for even day to day living.
10
ARGUMENT
POINT 1
N.J.A.C. §10:90-1.1
N.J.A.C. §10:90-1.2 (e) states that “The applicant(s) and/or his or her designee
shall be assisted by the WFNJ worker in completing the Application and Affidavit
for WFNJ and the Agreement to Repay. The applicant shall be given the WFNJ
Participant Handbook and “Fair Hearings in the Work First New Jersey Program
(WFNJ)” pamphlet.”
The intake worker did not give RP a WFNJ handbook or fair hearing pamphlet.
POINT 2
N.J.A.C. §10:90-1.3 (a) states, “If the county or municipal agency determines that
immediate need exists, based upon an applicant’s written statement signed under
oath and subject to the applicant appearing to meet all other program eligibility
requirements, the agency shall ensure that the needs of the assistance unit are met
until such time as the final eligibility determination is made.”
The GA intake worker took RP’s application and then advised her that she would
POINT 3
N.J.A.C. §10:90-1.3 (a)1. states “Immediate need means that the assistance unit
lacks shelter or imminently lacks shelter, essential utilities, or has no food or
insufficient food for unit members’ immediate needs, or lacks minimal clothing to
protect their health and safety. In those situations where no other appropriate
services are available to meet the needs of the assistance unit, cash assistance
shall be provided but such monies shall not exceed the amount of the cash
assistance payment level for the appropriate eligible assistance unit size for that
period.”
The GA intake worker did not acknowledge RP’s immediate need. She refused
cash and food stamp assistance and refused to refer RP for Emergency Assistance.
POINT 4
N.J.A.C. § 10:90-4.8 (a) states that “An individual responsibility plan (IRP) shall
be developed jointly by the county or municipal agency representative, as
appropriate, and the WFNJ recipient at time of eligibility determination” and that
11
the “IRP shall be signed and dated by the recipient and the respective agency
representative. The original IRP shall be maintained electronically or in the case
record and a copy shall be provided to the recipient.”
An IRP was not developed for RP nor was she advised of the existence of, or the
POINT 5
The EA worker refused to pay for retroactive utilities, security deposits for
utilities, and temporary storage costs. There was no discussion about help with
transportation costs to search for an apartment. The EA worker strongly suggested it was
best to just move and be done with it since the Bidwell Avenue apartment was available.
To date RP has received no documentation that she was even provided with moving fees
$613.00 payment at the June 16, 2010 fair hearing, it was not entered into evidence.
POINT 6
12
Although it was on March 25, 2010 that RP presented the EA worker with an
eviction notice, an overdue PSE&G shutoff notice and advised that her gas and lights had
been shut off on March 24th, the EA worker did not act to provide RP with appropriate
POINT 7
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.5 (a) states “Recipients of emergency assistance shall contribute from
their income towards payment of all emergency shelter arrangements, including all forms
of temporary housing and temporary rental assistance.” NEW JERSEY REGISTER
Copyright © 2005 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law, VOLUME 29,
NUMBER 14. ISSUE DATE: MONDAY, JULY 21, 1997 – RULE ADOPTION,
HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 29 N.J.R. 3287(a),
Adopted New Rules: N.J.A.C. 10:90
Although the rationale for this code is not provided, it appears that its intent is for
recipients living in emergency housing who would not otherwise be billed for it,
assistance are made here, there nothing in the code affirming that recipients of TRA who
reside in permanent housing are to make like contributions as those who reside in
temporary housing. To require those TRA recipients in permanent housing who must
also pay for their own utilities to contribute 65% towards the cost of TRA renders those
recipients whose sole source of income is GA not only unable to pay their utilities, it
severely limits their ability to take care of other necessities, especially those who are
towards Temporary Rental Assistance has caused a misdirection of RP’s already limited
resources to the landlord and a severe hardship that is undue, unnecessary, and
unconscionable. RP’s current cash assistance benefit has been reduced to $74.00/month.
Annually this amounts to less than $900.00/year. There is no rationale presented in the
13
N.J.A.C. to justify a 65% contribution towards rent for those recipients residing in
POINT 8
ALJ states “I FIND that petitioner’s household consists of petitioner and his two (2)
children, ages 14 and 10 years. The petitioner receives monthly Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) in the amount of $424.00 and $352.00 per month in benefits
under the Food Stamp Program. The petitioner is receiving EA for shelter, but this is
scheduled to terminate as of April 30, 2004…He was given temporary rental assistance
(TRA)…” Had R.H. been required to contribute 65% of his grant towards the cost of
TRA, he would have been in receipt of $148.00/month instead of the $424.00 benefit as
cited in the above record. As such the conclusion must be drawn that R.H. was not
10, 2005, that she received an overissuance of FS ($1,654.36) and overpayment of TANF
overissuance and overpayments were calculated for the months of February through June
2004. The letters demanded reimbursement.” It also states, “However, T.B. alleges that
14
BCBSS overpaid the landlord for EA housing and argues that she should be required only
to repay fair market value, rather than the full amount expended by BCBSS.”
four. Had she been required to contribute 65% of her cash benefit towards EA housing,
she would have been receipt of $176.00/month after contributing $317.00 towards EA
housing. Beyond that since TB was looking to reduce the size of her overpayment, it
would have made sense for her to bring up the fact that she had already contributed 65%
of her TANF grant, or approximately $1585.00, towards the EA housing assistance. This
$12,587.00. As none of these calculations were cited in the record, the conclusion must
be drawn that T.B. was not required to contribute 65% of her grant towards EA housing.
POINT 9
The EA worker never gave RP paperwork advising of her responsibilities nor did
she ever discuss the existence of, or the need to create a service plan. When RP applied
for emergency assistance on March 25, 2010 she had an eviction notice and her utilities
had already been turned off neither the GA intake worker, nor the EA worker took
15
POINT 10
N.J.A.C. §10:90-6.6 (a) 1 states “The service plan shall… provide a plan of action
aimed at working toward securing permanent shelter and… where appropriate…
shall be coordinated with the development of the Individual Responsibility Plan
(IRP). The service plan shall include but is not limited to:
i. Selection of a housing arrangement which takes into consideration the
recipient’s circumstances, such as mental or physical problems; ii. Provision of
the following specified services: (1) Information; (2) Referral; (3) Assistance in
securing shelter, including transportation; (5) Referral for legal services; iii.
Referral to affordable housing (if known) as well as referral to and/or application
for other available benefits or services.
. Instead of acting to meet RP’s emergent needs during her initial application for
services on March 25, 2010 by setting up a shelter referral, assisting RP on how and/or
where to apply for subsidized housing, and advising RP that she had the right to make
apartment searches and receive transportation support to do so, the EA worker waited
until RP was in the process of getting locked out on April 16, 2010 before she acted on
RP’s behalf. As a result, RP was forced to live without heat and utilities in her former
apartment and then accept, under duress, an apartment that was not safe, decent, or
POINT 11
16
POINT 12
Whether able bodied or disabled, for the EA worker to require that RP contribute
65% of her cash benefits towards TRA is clearly inconsistent with the goals of the Work
First New Jersey program. Overall it is clear that the EA worker did not work in the best
interests of RP as she waited until the lockout was in progress to address RP’s emergent
apartment. Not only were the actions of the EA worker counterproductive to the
promotion of any of the above goals, her inaction, in conjunction with such a substantial
and duplicative contribution with regard to the payment of rent and utilities has made any
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this brief, appellant, respectfully requests that the
Court reverse the DHS final administrative decision on this appeal and direct the agency
to restore appellant’s GA grant to the full $210.00 amount, to provide appellant with
Responsibility and EA Service Plans which would document the roles and
responsibilities of all parties involved, and provide transportation and other support
services that would enable appellant the opportunity to live in decent housing.
17