State vs. County Social Service: Prevention of Secure State Economy (DES) part 1 California

Cali Reflection in Cali = seeming I was considering/in route academically (MSW/JD) for a NASW career (halted, Phoenix ARIZONA --Margret Finn/SWBS Case Manager Neglect)! I am very concerned naturally about what use to be termed WELFARE (too much stigma) and then Social Service (current in many states and fading) and more correctly should be termed DES (the Department of the States Economy (all of these Services, work to insure a secure state economy!)

So Cali-Cali with it's county based inefficiency is slowly drowning themselves and all TAX PAYING state citizens into- confusion. Thus it immobilizes state citizens from county to county movement. That prevents economic growth for the state. And slows down processing. Well I'd be dead from hunger (if not for faith based churches and shelters, GOD BLESS YOU ALL). Still one county can't communicate to another county on the behalf of the TAX PAYING state citizen. DAMN California since I've returned home, this state just isn't radiating GOLDEN any more!

The majority of States have established a centralized administrative system and can be classified as State administered: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

Nine States can be described as county administered: California, Colorado, Minnesota,New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia (.https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/services.pdf)

So within the battle of the counties (Los Angeles County and San Diego County) I the state citizen am tossed back and forward. I on my own thoughts, think LET CONSIDER SECURITY ISSUES!!!

So San Diego County seems correct! I am no longer in the county, don't intend to return to the county, have applied for benefits in Los Angeles County 3 times (Oct 20, 2015-Nov 2, 2015), and have received different answers from each separate state department, bias to the county preferences. In San Diego, my prior EBT Card was stolen in Los Angeles (voided) yet November benefits are posted on that card and now December benefits.

Yet according to Los Angeles county, I must close out my San Diego accounts (Oct 20, 2015): According to San Diego county, I have 2 options 1) transfer my account and the account balances will transfer to Los Angeles within 30 days or 2) close out my account, but this option might take longer and depends on Los Angeles county and me being able to apply with a closed San Diego account (hint: TIMING 30-90 days).

This month San Diego has proven that they have closed the accounts as requested and the funds are in a transfer status. This will never occur, because Los Angeles county systems is not going to be able to open a CALFRESH account as long as there is funds on a prior EBT from another county. Los Angeles is correct with this and thus await San Diego to remove the account.

You'd think getting a EBT from San Diego County would be not so difficult. UHM when I was working as a contract worker at EDS and all the contract work I did across this nation, corporations that went out of business always seemed to have this type of customer and data bank confusion going on within their on network operations. Is this one state or not!!!

San Diego you are RIGHT for instructing me to tell the Los Angeles office to call you and you will release the code for a San Diego EBT card that can be printed from the Los Angeles office.

Los Angeles you are WRONG for following through and then giving me the code and telling me to call San Diego. THE CLIENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT, THIS IS PUBLIC SERVICE...

So as far as California and it's county based system goes. Does the ideal of inter-office, inter-state department communication mean anything any more! Well considering these days of network/mainframe security risk...WHY would a state employee provide the client with the data that is secure, when it could be done through an inter-department communication. One employee to another employee.

Thus let's raise concern and just post this information...This date should be consider inter state departmental data...so it's RED FLAGGING material to mean (data that is risky and not attended to appropriately by corporations or government agencies)...EBT CODE: 19014EMBOS01