POVERTY. What Poverty? Federal Court Access Decisions in the Roberts Era s First Term. Attend the. Shriver Center 2006 Awards Dinner.

Transcription

1 4 0TH Y e a r o f C o n t i n u o u s P u b l i c a t i o n Shriver Center 2006 Awards Dinner November 30 Hyatt Regency Chicago And Find Out For an invitation, go to Volume 40, Numbers 7 8 November December Attend the Volume 40, Numbers 7 8 Clearinghouse REVIEW POVERTY What Poverty? November December 2006 Federal Court Access Decisions in the Roberts Era s First Term NONPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID SPRINGFIELD, IL PERMIT East Washington Street, Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois And: Taking action to end poverty Continuing Disability Reviews Protecting Your Work Product Third-Party Notification of Eviction Cooperative Advocacy Landlord Sexual Assault and Rape of Tenants Unionization of State-Subsidized Home Child Care Providers Impact of Bankruptcy Reform on the Poor Still Segregated After All These Years

2 Cooperative Advocacy: Working with the State to Improve Programs By Jodie Berger Jodie Berger Regional Counsel Legal Services of Northern California 1810 Capitol St. Vallejo, CA Y ou know the drill. The state welfare department is doing something illegal. You send a demand letter. Either you settle or, if your state never budges unless a court orders it to, off you go to court. Legal aid folks have been doing this for years. Is there another way? The short answer is yes not a perfect solution but a viable alternative. Work with the state. It does take two to tango, that is, the state has to want to meet with advocates and thus make governmental buy-in key. Such advocacy is crucial, especially given the noticeable decrease in litigation post welfare reform, to achieve widespread program improvement for recipients. Nonattorney advocates (paralegals, parent recipients, etc.) also can participate in working with the state agency. In this article I explore the history and process in California of cooperative advocacy, that is, working collaboratively and proactively with the state Department of Social Services for positive change, with the goal of coming up with a model that can be replicated in other communities. Moving from Fighting to Cooperating Twenty years ago I began work as a staff attorney at a local legal aid office in the San Francisco Bay Area. The program prided itself on engaging in advocacy that had broad-based impact. I joined three experienced welfare advocates in the office and added my blossoming docket to their extremely active caseloads of state and local welfare litigation. We all had very good working relationships with counsel for the state and local welfare agencies, as well as the governmental staff who were their clients. But, for the most part, these cordial relations were in the context of demand letters, depositions, and court arguments. And ultimately the advocacy all was oppositional. The agencies generally viewed us as interfering with their programs and policies, and they were defensive. The lines were drawn at the outset, and the sole question was whether we could get close enough to our clients desired outcome without an order from a judge. Advocates worked in this world for a long time, with cooperation decreasing in the 1990s as California s economic downturn and concomitant budget woes drove the Department of Social Services to fight all advocacy efforts linked to any dollar amount. 1 1 Between 1990 and 1993, California experienced its deepest recession since the 1930s. Rob Green et al., The Urban Institute Income Support and Social Services for Low-Income People in California: Highlights from State Reports (1998), available at www. urban.org/publications/ html. Ironically, during this period, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) allowed its grantees to seek attorney fees; thus insisting on litigation drove up the state s actual cost of implementing positive change. Now that these offices may no longer seek fees, California advocates rarely have to go to court. 458 Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December 2006

3 Then welfare reform crawled out (a year late) onto California s streets in 1998, when CalWORKs California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids, the state s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program came online. A Democrat was elected the new governor. The confluence of these two events may have ruptured the dike and opened the government to advocates. From the beginning, one aspect of TANF implementation called for cooperative advocacy: the state legislature required that a collaborative group of stakeholders develop the domestic violence policies (California elected the family violence option under the TANF program). 2 That California faced several implementation problems with CalWORKs quickly became apparent. The state had long used county welfare departments to operate its Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, TANF s predecessor. Although California first devolved program discretion on counties in 1986 with its Greater Avenues for Independence Now (GAIN) program, advocacy to improve the program occurred via traditional, contested, and costly litigation challenges. 3 As one of fifteen states that devolve program responsibility on local entities, California continued this county-based program structure with TANF. 4 Although state law controls much of CalWORKs, the law specifically gives counties discretion to set standards and develop local programs in certain areas. 5 Apparently the counties grossly misunderstood the state law, especially the limits on their discretion. 6 Widespread violations of law occurred, resulting in numerous demand letters. These early CalWORKs cases all ended with Department of Social Services counsel immediately contacting petitioner s counsel, sometimes on the same day the agency received the demand letter. These settlement-litigation avoidance meetings were the start of cooperative advocacy in California. Early Prelitigation Advocacy Four months into CalWORKs, the state sent the counties the first of several 2 42 U.S.C.A. 602(a)(7) (West 2006); 45 C.F.R et seq. (2006); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code (a) (West 2001) ( The department shall convene a task force including, but not limited to, district attorney domestic violence units, county departments of social services, the County Welfare Directors Association of California, the California State Association of Counties, statewide domestic violence prevention groups, local domestic violence prevention advocates, and service providers, the State Department of Health Services, the State Department of Mental Health, and the Office of Criminal Justice Planning. ). This inclusion resulted from the active presence of California domestic violence advocates during the development of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program. California s domestic violence protocols are in California Department of Social Services, Manual of Policies and Procedures et seq., available at For more information, contact Ariella Hyman at Bay Area Legal Aid, This advocacy included lawsuits that successfully challenged (1) flat caps and other problems with work program support services (transportation services: Crary v. McMahon, No (Sacramento Co. Super. Ct. 1990)), and the failure to issue notice of action and right to hearing re support services denial (Windley v. McMahon, No. CV (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento County 1989)); (2) failure to grant exemptions for good cause due to remoteness from work program meetings and activities (Stipulation of Settlement and Consent Decree, Muradyan v. Anderson, No (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento County 1996)); (3) denials of child care support services to Greater Avenues for Independence Now (GAIN) self-initiated students enrolled in school prior to GAIN (Miller v. Carlson, 768 F. Supp (N.D. Cal. 1991)); (4) denial of education program to self-initiated students whose programs lasted longer than two years (Jacobson v. Anderson, No (Cal. Super. Ct. San Luis Obispo County 1990)); (5) insufficient notice of conciliation prior to GAIN sanction (California Coalition of Welfare Rights Organizations v. Anderson, No CV (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento County 1990)); (6) requiring GAIN students to use financial aid instead of GAIN payments for work program support services (Yslas v. Anderson, No (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento County 1990)). 4 Keith Watson & Steven D. Gold, Urban Institute, The Other Side of Devolution: Shifting Relationships Between State and Local Governments (1999), available at 5 E.g., counties have local discretion over certain aspects of the domestic violence policies; may choose between minimum and maximum periods set by state law for welfare-to-work exemptions following birth of a child; and, under early CalWORKs law, could set the initial limit on nonworkfare welfare-to-work activities and grounds for extending that time. 6 In fact, the state welfare agency accepted an advocate-designed and -conducted workshop at its annual CalWORKs Summit conference; the workshop reviewed the areas of county discretion. The room in which the workshop was held changed twice to accommodate overwhelming demand, but many conferees were still turned away. The nearly universal response of the county welfare-to-work workers who attended was that they had had no idea that they could not be more restrictive than state law. Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December

4 all-county letters to clarify state law. Advocates sent the state a demand letter with a laundry list of county misapplications of the law regarding Self- Initiated Programs, which guaranteed education to TANF recipients enrolled in school before their first welfare-towork appointment. Although state law spelled out the criteria for a self-initiated program and mandated that CalWORKs clients have their education program as their work plan, counties were picking and choosing among the criteria and misunderstanding some of the statutory terminology. Resolution of the dispute went very smoothly and quickly. Advocates contributed much of the work product a factor much appreciated by an understaffed and overwhelmed state agency struggling to implement a complex program in a very short time. Advocates were able not only to work on the all-county letter but also to have input into the remedies, informing claim notices, and new notices of action, all without filing suit. 7 Moving from Preparing for Litigation to Joint Advocacy By developing much of the language and relating not only the scenarios in which problems arose but also the desired response, petitioners counsel could promote the preferred outcome from the beginning and determine quickly what concerns the state had. With this particular letter, the state realized that it (1) needed input about county performance (failures); (2) had failed to realize that the language it had used was unclear and open to misunderstanding; and (3) appreciated advocates contributions to improvement in the program for both counties and recipients. The interaction also highlighted areas that required further agency policy development and clarification of regulations. By the end of the year, an avenue for dialog outside of demand letters had begun. Between December 1999 and August 2000, the Department of Social Services issued eight cooperatively developed all-county letters. 8 As the cooperation evolved, the agency moved gradually from reacting to demand letters to offering to meet and develop guidance based on advocates information or inquiries about policy. One of the key events propelling the move toward cooperative advocacy was work to 7 A similar process a demand letter sent to the welfare agency followed by negotiation of an all-county letter with significant advocate work product occurred in 1999, regarding maximum hours of welfare-to-work participation (see All-County Letter 99-65, Welfare-to-Work Participation Requirements (Sept. 14, 1999), available at gov/getinfo/acl99/99-65.pdf), and later in 2002 regarding county imposition of blanket limits on training and education (see All-County Letter 02-03, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Program County Post Assessment Policies and Procedures (Jan. 18, 2002), available at remedy (see All-County Letter 02-20, Instructions on Remedies Related to Improper County Policies Regarding California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Program Assignments (Feb. 25, 2002), available at and corrective notices of action (see All-County Letter 02-34, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Program County Post Assessment Policies and Procedures Remedy Notices of Action (May 3, 2002), available at The first, in December 1999, was to provide counties guidance on the community service (workfare) component of CalWORKs (All-County Letter 99-11, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to- Work (WTW) Program: Questions and Answers Regarding Community Service (Dec. 27, 1999), available at cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acl99/ pdf). It was followed by letters on language access involving state-written translations (All-County Letter 00-03, Translated Forms and Materials (Jan. 5, 2000), available at pdf/00-03.pdf); reminding counties that local policies, to be enforceable, must be in writing and available to recipients (All-County Letter 00-08, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Program County Policies and Procedures (Jan. 3, 2000), available at reminding counties about the bar on capping support services (All-County Letter 00-12, Limitations to Providing Necessary Supportive Services in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Program (Feb. 7, 2000), available at cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acl00/pdf/00-12.pdf); reminding counties that sanctions under the former work program may not be applied in CalWORKs (All-County Letter 00-23, Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program Sanctions Under the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Program (March 28, 2000), available at addressing appraisal and job search for limited- English-proficient recipients (All-County Letter 00-30, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Program Services for Limited-English Proficient Individuals (May 4, 2000), available at www. dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acl00/pdf/00-30.pdf); addressing transportation support service issues (All-County Letter 00-54, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work Transportation Services (Aug. 11, 2000), available at and addressing the starting dates for welfare-towork plans (All County Letter 00-60, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Sign Date and the Start of the 18- or 24-Month Time Limit on Aid (Aug. 30, 2000), available at gov/getinfo/acl00/pdf/00-60.pdf). Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December 2006

5 develop ways to serve limited-englishproficient recipients in welfare-to-work programs. The welfare agency s initial motivation in meeting to improve services to this population stemmed from extensive media attention to a report that a public interest law firm, Equal Rights Advocates, issued on the welfare-towork experience of immigrant women. 9 Soon after the release of the report, the agency contacted the report s author to suggest collaborating to address welfare-to-work issues particular to limited-english-proficient individuals; the agency asked me to participate as well. Over the course of several months, our three-person team looked at the welfare-to-work process and addressed how barriers at each stage could be removed. In 2000 the state issued an all-county letter on the initial stages of welfare-to-work, involving appraisal of an individual s work readiness and job search job club components. The lack of a specific mandate that counties assess applicants and recipients English proficiency was compounded by the lack of bilingual services in many welfare-towork components. Using as leverage the state requirement that counties acquire any other relevant information that the county requires in making an appropriate assignment to [welfare-to-work] activities, and that job search job club may be skipped or shortened if not beneficial, the letter reviews civil rights and bilingual services. 10 It goes on to address the need to determine English proficiency and the criteria that counties should use to make individualized determinations of whether limited-english-proficient recipients should move directly into the next welfare-to-work stage. Another letter, addressing employment assessments and developing welfare-to-work plans for limited-english-proficient participants, followed in These letters were significant in that they were written intentionally to apply to other welfare-to-work participants as well. For example, the job search letter sets out the standard for shortening or skipping job search for all participants, not just those with limited English proficiency. The letter on the welfare-to-work plan clearly states that the provisions for equal access also apply to individuals with disabilities. In 2001 the state moved to a new structure: including advocates in larger work groups. In response to my inquiries about state compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and how these statutes govern counties obligations with regard to the screening and provision of reasonable accommodations for disabilities, the state decided to form a work group to look into learning disabilities and welfare-to-work issues. Although a multitude of counties had representatives in the work group, the state permitted only one advocate (me) to attend. The outcome of the work group was the selection of a learning disabilities screening tool and the development of an all-county letter to implement the tool, culminating in the development of regulations on the CalWORKs learning disabilities policy Equal Rights Advocates, From War on Poverty to War on Welfare: The Impact of Welfare Reform on the Lives of Immigrant Women (1999). 10 Manual of Policies and Procedures, supra note 2, , (a); All-County Letter 00-30, California Work Opportunity And Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-To-Work (WTW) Program Services for Limited-English Proficient Individuals (May 4, 2000), available at 11 All-County Letter 01-32, Limited-English-Proficient Individuals and the Assessment Process in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Program (June 4, 2001), available at www. dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acl01/pdf/01-32.pdf. 12 All-County Letter 01-70, Learning Disabilities Screening and Evaluation in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Program (Oct. 17, 2001), available at Advocates were allowed to have input into the draft learning disability regulations before their release, but not all of the advocates suggestions were integrated into the initial set of regulations released for public comment. When some of the same advocates made the same or similar comments during the public comment period, however, most were ultimately accepted. The final regulations are attached to All-County Letter 04-48, Final California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Learning Disabilities Regulations (Oct. 29, 2004), available at Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December

6 Cooperative Advocacy Today Soon thereafter the state created the following statewide work groups with more extensive advocate participation: n a work group, comprising state and county staff and advocates, to examine problems with the delivery of welfareto-work supportive services; n a work group, comprising state and county staff and advocates, to examine welfare-to-work sanctions; n the Civil Rights Advisory Committee, which comprised state staff and advocates and reviewed problems with civil rights compliance; n the Statewide Advisory Committee, composed entirely of advocates and state staff, to examine multicounty problems in CalWORKs and other benefit programs; and n the Workforce Investment Board s Barriers to Employment Subcommittee, which examined disability, language, and other barriers to employment. The Barriers to Employment Subcommittee has staff from several state agencies, including the Department of Social Services, the Department of Rehabilitation, and the Employment Development Department (which administers California s unemployment insurance program), as well as lay and legal advocates and community college representatives. The Statewide Advisory Committee sometimes resolves issues directly by getting clarification of issues or policies or when issues that come to the committee s attention result in the state directly working with problematic counties. The committee, also identifying issues that need more thorough examination or continued attention at regular meetings, created these subcommittees: n State Fair Hearing Advisory Committee, which examines how to improve the fair hearing process and regulations and comprises only state staff and advocates; n a work group, comprising state and county staff, legislative staff, and advocates, to implement changes in CalWORKs in anticipation of TANF reauthorization (S.B. 1104, the bill number after which the work group is named); n Fraud Advisory Committee, which examines how to improve the fraud referral process and regulations and comprises only state staff and advocates; n CalWORKs Information Network (CalWIN the computerized information system) advisory committee, comprising advocates, and state and CalWIN consortium staff, and addressing problems with the eligibility program used in eighteen counties; and n TANF Reauthorization Stakeholders, a group of more than fifty members split into various issue subgroups, including state and county welfare staff, state legislative staff, and advocates, to develop policies and practices in response to the reauthorization of TANF through the Deficit Reduction Act. Since 2001 the state has issued a multitude of other letters as a result of these work groups. These letters address n full CalWORKs activities and support services for refugee families; 13 n transportation support services; 14 n ancillary support services; All County Information Notice I-88-04, Treatment of Reception and Placement Cash Provided to Refugees in the Refugee Cash Assistance and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Programs (Dec. 29, 2004), available at www. dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acin04/pdf/i-88_04.pdf. 14 All-County Letter 01-50, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Retroactive Payment for Transportation (July 24, 2001), available at and All County Letter 03-15, Questions and Answers Relating to California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to- Work Transportation Services (April 10, 2003), available at 15 All-County Letter 04-04, Questions and Answers Relating to California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work Ancillary Services (Jan. 26, 2004), available at Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December 2006

7 n sanction policies; 16 n automation issues (due process and language access); 17 n waivers of face-to-face interviews; 18 n support services and financial aid, including a revised waiver form developed by advocates; 19 and n domestic violence waiver standards. 20 Regarding the last, the state is developing a follow-up letter to include a waiver request form and notices of actions on the waiver request, information on intercounty transfers of cases involving domestic violence, and a clarification of the bar on using prescreening forms that duplicate application questions. These work groups also identify the need for updates on or clarification of existing regulations and help develop the regulation packets submitted for public comment. The cooperative relationship has led the Department of Social Services to invite advocates to participate as trainers and workshop presenters, some as keynote speakers, at the annual CalWORKs state conference. And the state asks advocates to draft forms and notices, which Department of Social Services staff adapt, or the state gives advocates the opportunity for significant input into the development of these materials. These efforts significantly alleviate severe staff shortages and workload issues for the state agency and, the participating advocates hope, increase the likelihood that state policy will operate in the interest of clients. One state employee, Chris Webb-Curtis, chief of the Employment Bureau of the Welfare-to-Work Division at the Department of Social Services, states: The California Department of Social Services has involved advocates for many years and believes that they provide an important perspective for us to consider in making welfare policy. The outcome is a very rich process and good. [The department] is committed to continuing to include advocates and other stakeholders in policy-making discussions. 21 The progress toward cooperative advocacy also is demonstrated in two interesting ways. One is the movement in the state legislature to write into law the requirement that the state agency meet with stakeholders, including advocates. 22 The other is a linguistic change. Over time, the all-county letters moved from the passive The Department has become aware of problems to mentioning advocates role directly, for example, stating that the Department of Social Services sought advocates input 16 All-County Letter 03-59, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Good Cause, Compliance, and Sanction Procedures (Nov. 14, 2003), available at pdf/03-59.pdf. 17 The state also issued a letter on the use of self-provided interpreters. All-County Letter 06-20, Interpretive Services (June 30, 2006), available at The letter, though the result of a court settlement and not of a work group, is similar in that it clarified general language access issues, instead of narrowly addressing the litigation issue. 18 All-County Information Notice I-15-03, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Application and Interview Requirements: Questions and Answers (March 28, 2003), available at acin03/pdf/i-15_03.pdf. 19 All-County Information Notice I-50-04, Welfare to Work 8 (WTW 8), Student Financial Aid Statement, Welfare-to-Work Supportive Services Form (July 16, 2004), available at This letter enforced the policy that resulted from two GAIN lawsuits. 20 All-County Information Notice I-02-06, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Domestic Abuse Protocols and Waivers (Jan. 9, 2006), available at from Chris Webb-Curtis, Chief of the Employment Bureau, Welfare-to-Work Division, Department of Social Services, to Jodie Berger (Sept. 15, 2006). 22 See, e.g., Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code (e)(9) ( The department shall notify and consult with advocates, providers, counties, and health plans in implementing, interpreting, or making specific this subdivision ); id (c) ( meet with the County Welfare Director s Association and other stakeholders ); Assembly Bill 1808, modifying several sections of the California Welfare and Institutions Code to implement some changes in response to the Deficit Reduction Act, California Assembly, Regular Session (2006), available at ab_1808_bill_ _chaptered.pdf. Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December

8 to obtain a broader perspective for recommended changes. 23 Not All that Glitters Is Gold Some issues still require litigation, especially those the state perceives as very expensive to resolve. 24 In other instances, what is not clear is why the state is so unyielding in its resistance to advocate-suggested program improvements or policy amendments and insist on litigation. 25 Other occasional glitches arise; in one instance advocates had done extensive work with the agency, but a loss in staffing and reassignment of the work resulted in a letter that omitted all the advocates input. Other times the state decides (we think incorrectly) that an issue is not a significant program matter subject to the advisory committee s standing policy to obtain advocate input before the release of a letter. Two situations in particular pose barriers to advocate input and frequently lead to less than satisfactory results. One is when emergency legislation or other circumstance requires a rapid transmission of a letter to counties. We should have an opportunity for a one-day turnaround or the same amount of time the counties get when they have advance copies. The other problem is that we have only one opportunity to comment on drafts. This gives us no chance to correct inadvertent errors that result when the state accepts our comments but misunderstands or poorly drafts the response to them. We have no way to know why certain comments are rejected; often, when we learn why they are rejected, a resolution that would at least partially address advocates concerns becomes clear. Once a letter is released, the state does not issue further letters on the subject of the letter unless new questions arise. We have, on occasion, made some progress in these two areas. If we know that the state must issue a letter quickly, we can request a quick turnaround review. At least once, the Department of Social Services gave advocates this opportunity. With regard to the letter on the domestic violence standard, agency counsel agreed that we should see a second draft and set up a conference call to discuss why the state had rejected advocates comments. This helped clarify several issues, and the state ultimately addressed our concerns in the final letter. Moving Toward Cooperative Advocacy in Your State The California process stemmed from a combination of the following approaches, all of which are permissible for programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC): n Administrative advocacy and litigation on behalf of eligible clients, 26 n Public rule-making using non-lsc funds, All-County Information Notice I-40-01, Report to the Legislature on Good Cause Establishment, Compliance and Curing of Sanctions Under the CalWORKS Program (May 23, 2001), available at 40_01.pdf. 24 E.g., the state fought for years against extending cash aid to youth who are over 18 and cannot graduate from high school by their 19th birthday because of delays caused by illness or disability. Fry v. Saenz, 98 Cal. App. 4th 256 (2001), and All-County Letter 04-50, Implementation of Fry v. Saenz Lawsuit in CalWORKs (Nov. 18, 2004), available at cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acl04/pdf/04-50.pdf. 25 E.g., the state forced litigation on the provision of prior notice of termination of a welfare-to-work exemption; the state argued that receiving a notice of a welfare-to-work appointment put the individual on notice of termination of the exemption C.F.R (a) (b) (2006) (prelitigation and litigation communications and advocacy on behalf of eligible clients). 27 Id (a)(2) (3). Advocates, upon written request, may [p]rovide information which may include analysis of or comments upon existing or proposed rules, regulations or legislation, or drafts of proposed rules, regulations or legislation. See also id (e). 464 Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December 2006

9 n Communication with the agency for the purpose of obtaining information, clarification, or interpretation of the agency s rules, regulations, guidelines, policies or practices, 28 and n Written invitation from the agency or legislators, using non-lsc funds. 29 As the agency staff and legislators realized the value of advocates input, they extended written invitations to us to participate in meetings and work groups. Bear in mind that advocates with programs funded by LSC may not solicit an agency or legislative request for input. 30 If an agency verbally requests information or participation in a joint advocacy effort, the advocate must decline, based on the LSC rule that requires a written request. Agencies are generally unaware of LSC requirements; once they become aware, a written request usually follows Id (d)(2)(ii). This form of advocacy is an exception to rule-making that is otherwise prohibited under Section (b). 29 Id Id (c). 31 One agency staff person argued with me about the LSC requirements and called writing a letter after an oral request had been made stupid and a waste of time. Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy n November December

10 Subscribe to Clearinghouse Review and Annual subscription price covers six issues (hard copy) of Clearinghouse Review and access to the Poverty Law Library containing Clearinghouse Review issues back to 1990, case reports and case documents, and other materials Annual prices (effective January 1, 2006): $250 Nonprofit entities (including small foundations and law school clinics) $400 Individual private subscriber $500 Law school libraries, law firm libraries, other law libraries, and foundations (price covers a site license) Subscription Order Form Name Fill in applicable institution below Nonprofit entity CUT HERE Library or foundation* Street address Floor, suite, or unit City State Zip Telephone Fax *For Internet Provider based access, give your IP address range Order Number of subscriptions ordered Total cost (see prices above) $ Payment My payment is enclosed. Make your check payable to Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. Charge my credit card: Visa or Mastercard. Card No. Expiration Date Signature We will mail you a receipt. Bill me. Please mail or fax this form to: Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law 50 E. Washington St., Suite 500 Chicago, IL Fax