Meeting Basic Needs
Center and Colleagues Stop New York City from Unlawfully Preventing Access to Benefits
New York City Implements Major Changes in Manner in Which Applications for Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Cash Assistance Are Processed
From April 1999 Welfare News
Introduction: In response to a sweeping preliminary injunction in Reynolds v. Giuliani (S.D.N.Y. January 25, 1999), New York City has implemented far reaching changes in the manner in which it processes applications for food stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance; makes decisions on those applications; and, where eligibility exists, provides benefits. While the changes fall far short of insuring that all applicants are treated fairly, they constitute a significant policy change. This article discusses some of these changes in the hope that the reforms undertaken in response to this litigation may provide useful ideas for other advocates seeking to challenge unlawful deterrence in their states, counties, or localities.
Background: On December 16, 1998, the Welfare Law Center, the New York Legal Aid Society and two other local legal services providers filed a federal class action lawsuit against the City and New York State challenging the City's failure to comply with federal and state law requirements governing the food stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance applications process. Plaintiffs alleged that the City's new Job Centers, which replace the welfare centers, illegally discourage and deter needy people from applying.
The Court agreed with plaintiffs and, on January 25, 1999, entered a preliminary injunction, which, among other things, barred the City from converting any more welfare offices to Job Centers and ordered City officials to develop a corrective plan. On February 10th, the City submitted a corrective plan along with revised notices, signs, training materials, and instructional memoranda. On February 19th, plaintiffs' counsel and the New York State Department of Health submitted extensive comments criticizing the City's corrective plan. City defendants then responded to those comments, and plaintiffs submitted a further response in late March. (For more background see February 1999 Welfare News.) Argument is now set for April 29th.
It is worth noting that plaintiffs' counsel do not believe the City's changes go far enough to eradicate the systemic harm. They will urge the Court to continue the bar on further conversions of welfare centers to Job Centers until the defendants prove that the corrective plan, along with plaintiffs' proposed modifications, have been effective. However, regardless of the outcome of the hearing, the City has already implemented certain changes in the way it processes applications for food stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance. Details of these changes and observations as to some of the work still needed to bring the City into compliance with federal and state mandates are set forth below.
Procedures: The City's revised policies and procedures make it clearer that prospective applicants have the right to file an application on the first day they contact the Job Center and that Job Center staff must inquire about emergency needs and provide expedited food stamps and immediate cash grants to prospective applicants expeditiously. The promulgation of these procedures represents a departure from the policy of emphasizing only those aspects of the Job Centers that concern job search and related welfare-to-work activities. These policy changes begin the process of returning these centers to one of the social services agency's core functions - the processing of public benefits applications.
However, the procedures do not fully correct all the numerous violations of law committed by Job Center staff. For example, prospective applicants are still, in practice, unlawfully denied food stamps and Medicaid when the cash assistance application is denied.
New Application Form: The complete revision of the benefit application form has been one of the more significant results of the litigation. As part of the City's efforts to discourage applications, the City stopped providing applications for food stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance to prospective applicants at initial contact. Instead, the Job Center would provide the prospective applicant with only an Applicant Job Profile, a document designed to elicit the individual's education background and employment history through a series of superficial questions. The first inquiry concerning financial need did not appear until the seventeenth question. The actual benefit application might not have been given until days after the applicant's initial contact with the Job Center. The Applicant Job Profile was also designed to encourage the withdrawal of the application for assistance. The first page of the form had a space for the individual to indicate his or her intent to withdraw the application. Those who signed the withdrawal would never receive a benefits application form.
As part of the City's corrective plan, the Job Centers now provide an application form that is strikingly similar to the benefit application form used before Job Centers. Instead of having to complete an application for job services before being permitted to apply for benefits, prospective applicants now apply for cash assistance, expedited food stamps, food stamps, and Medicaid on the same form that elicits employment-related information. This reversion to a combined benefit application form is an achievement for several reasons.
First, the request for benefits is now featured more prominently on the application form than the employment assessment. Second, the place where the applicant can request to withdraw the application has been moved from the first page to the last page. Third, the application has been modified so that, if the applicant withdraws the application for cash assistance, he or she can request on the form that the Job Center continue to process the application for food stamps or Medicaid or both.
Signs: The City has agreed to the extensive posting of informational signs at existing Job Centers that are designed to advise prospective applicants of their right to receive cash assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid, if eligible. In addition, the City has begun posting signs which inform applicants of the right to apply for expedited food stamps and emergency cash assistance. New signs also advise prospective applicants of their right to receive an application on the first day they appear at the Job Center.
Individual plaintiffs had reported that the total Job Center environment was designed to discourage eligible persons from seeking assistance in the first place. The thrust of the Job Centers was to conceal the public benefits component of the Job Centers' responsibility and to feature only that aspect that provides an alternative to assistance and encourages work. For example, signs which inform prospective applicants that public assistance is time limited and that only work opportunities are available at the Job Centers were a significant component of the overall message. The new signs provide an important counter-point to signs that convey a message of discouragement. Plaintiffs, however, are still concerned that a proliferation of signs with mixed messages may obscure the fundamental point that applicants have the right to apply and that the workers may give a contrary message during the in-person contacts.
Training: The City defendants have trained Job Center staff to convey to them the new message that applicants must be given the opportunity to apply for cash assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid. Plaintiffs' counsel view effective training as one of the most critical components of the process and through their comments on the corrective plan have sought to fine-tune the training materials and protocols. However, the training process has not been as smooth as plaintiffs' counsel had hoped. Information received from various sources, including unions representing the workers, indicates that the workers are confused by the mixed message of deterrence on the one hand and strict adherence to federal and state law on the other. Nevertheless, even this is an improvement from last year, when the sole message was deterrence.
Remaining Work: Plaintiffs' counsel still have much work to do. At the upcoming hearing plaintiffs will argue that the corrective plan does not go far enough to cure the deficiencies that led to the filing of the action. They will also identify areas in which the City's polices still conflict with federal and state law and regulations.
Plaintiffs will further document that policy changes notwithstanding, City defendants have not shown that (1) City employees have received and understood the new training and the revised procedures memoranda and directives; (2) City employees are implementing the correct protocols and are adhering to the policy statements set forth in the training and the revised procedures memoranda and directives; and (3) after the training has been completed and the memoranda and directives issued, prospective applicants for cash assistance, food stamps, and medical assistance are treated by Job Center personnel in a manner consistent with the Court's order and federal and state law.
The District Court observed that not only was its "task to ensure that remedial steps are taken on a specified time-line," but also "that the effects of the revisions to Job Center procedures are measured to ascertain whether they are working." The failure of the Plan to provide a means by which the City agency can continually assess its performance is of particular concern in light of its history of not following up on clear indications that its personnel were violating the law.
Conclusion: Widespread deterrence of applications for cash assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid is a problem throughout the country. Class action litigation may be necessary in some places. In other areas it might not be necessary, desirable, or possible. However, through negotiations, community organizing, and individual litigation, advocates can achieve significant improvements in agency practices in many instances. While individual circumstances will dictate different tactics, a strategy to overcome deterrence will likely include fighting for some combination of improved practices, new procedures, enhanced training or re-training, and monitoring.
The Center is ready to work on litigation with lawyers in other states and to work with low income groups that are interested in addressing these issues. Contact Marc Cohan, Litigation Director, cohan@welfarelaw.org or Rebecca Scharf, Senior Attorney, scharf@welfarelaw.org.
Materials Related to Reynolds v. Giuliani Job Center Litigation:
Selected case papers and the January 25, 1999 decision in Reynolds v. Giuliani
U.S.D.A. report of its investigation of New York City Job Centers, New York Program Access Review, November-December 1998 (Feb. 5, 1999)
In addition, HHS has recently issued guidance to help state policymakers take appropriate steps, including outreach, to assure that families receive health coverage through Medicaid or the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The guidance covers Medicaid eligibility, the applications process, the redetermination process, and notice and appeal rights and how they relate to families seeking or leaving TANF. The March 1999 HHS guidance, Supporting Families in Transition: A Guide to Expanding Health Coverage in the Post-Welfare Reform World, is on the web at www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/welfare/welfare.htm and www.hcfa.gov/medicaid/welfare.htm.
