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

Maslow Theorem: The Great Society America 21st Century

Maslow Theorem: The Great Society America 21^st Century (work in progress-by Paul D. Goree)

Now that President Obama has cemented another critical piece to the resolvement of the Great Society. We now can look towards the final piece.  Abraham Maslow, cites several lower hierarchy social requirements, needed for upward mobility. These needs represent the physiological and sociological requirements of an individual to survive within a societal setting.These needs include water, food, safety, security, and shelter. If these lower hierarchy needs are not consistent/stable, then social upward mobility is not possible. For example, as soon as an individual has food/water, they are in need of shelter/housing. Once shelter/housing is required, they may lose their job, and then shelter/housing becomes an issue again. Thus this becomes a continuous circle,resulting in discouragement; in the Land of Liberty.

The Great Society (L.B. Johnson), suggests that all of the lower level survival needs be state provided (social welfare). With universal health care resolves safety and security, as AFDC/TANF resolves water and food. Now American can look to resolving housing needs. We can look towards HUD for some of these answers. Yet it still seems that states, may be able to resolve housing much better than the centralized bureaucracy that HUD is.

In Rubinger’s article: Why U.S. Desperately needs affordable homes, he states:

“America faces many more unresolved affordable housing challenges. A $26 billion capital-needs backlog that's associated with our publicly financed affordable housing stock looms.

Traditional federal subsidies that enable affordability -- such as Section 8, which authorizes rental housing payment assistance to private landlords on behalf of more than 3 million low-income households -- are being cut back. Federal housing subsidy programs such as HOME were slashed this year. These vital programs need to be preserved and expanded.

Other important tools are at the ready, but sadly, they are inactive or underutilized.

Back in 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the National Housing Trust Fund, requiring at least 90% of its funds be used to build, preserve or rehabilitate rental housing for low-income households. But this program and others like it have yet to receive the funding that was envisioned by the law.

Another valuable initiative is the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, which enables private developers to work with public housing authorities to preserve affordable housing. But it has only been funded for up to 60,000 housing units…”

According to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (2013) the following data reflects the homeless population as of January 2013:

January 2013

•           610,042 people were homeless in the United States.

•           Nearly two-thirds of people experiencing homelessness (65 percent or 394,698) were living in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs.

•           More than one-third of all homeless people(35 percent or 215,344) were living in un-sheltered locations such as under bridges, in cars, or in abandoned buildings. Age of Homeless Population in 2013. In 2013, HUD required communities to provide estimates of homelessness in three age ranges— under age 18, 18 to 24 years old, and 25 years old and older.

•           More than two-thirds of all homeless people (67 percent or 410,352 people) were 25 years or older.

•           10 percent of homeless people were 18 to 24 years old (or 61,541). This percentage remains the same regardless of sheltered status.

•           Nearly one-quarter of all homeless people (23 percent or 138,149) were homeless children under the age of 18, and 30 percent of sheltered homeless people were children.

•           80 percent of unsheltered homeless people were over the age of 25. Less than 10 percent of the unsheltered population was under 18.

REFERNCES:

US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2013). Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR). Retrieved from  https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf

Rubinger, Micheal. (2014). Why U.S. Desperately needs affordable homes. CNN Opinion. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/28/opinion/rubinger-affordable-housing/