Employability and Employment

1. Employability and Employment July 9, 2009 Yolanda Baldovinos, Agency Director Andrea Ford, Policy Director Calvin James, Assistant County Counsel Sam Tuttelman, Employment Services Department

2. Agenda • Overview of Alameda County’s GA population • Elements of GA/FSET program • Definition of employability • Employability-related litigation • Post-Watkins strategies • Other litigation that could impact GA • Potential litigation? • Questions/discussion

3. GA Caseload 2002-2009, Alameda vs. Other Bay Area Counties

4. Employable and Unemployable GA Clients by Gender

5. GA Caseload Ethnic Groups --by Employable and Unemployable

6. 19 Years of GA Program and Caseload History

7. Elements of GA/FSET Program • Program Flow – The Basics • Job Club • Education • Vocational Training • Job Search • Workfare • Coordination w/ Career Centers • Funded by a combination of General Fund and FSET

8. Employability • Pre - Watkins Litigation: • Alameda County utilized a disability definition of employable/unemployable. • Criteria to determine unemployability was that the individual was unable to work due to a physical or mental condition as determined by a physician or psychologist.

9. Employability-Related Litigation • Ronnie Watkins v. County of Alameda • The issues: • Director’s Authority to implement time limits; • Readability of Notices of Action; and, • Definition of Employability. • Trial Court’s Decision • Denied 2 Causes of Action • Granted 1 Cause of Action – Definition of employability.

10. Watkins Decision - Employability Trial Court’s Decision: “The principles… in this line of cases all dictate that the County may not merely substitute for “employability” a wholly different concept like ‘able bodied and mentally competent,’ because to do so excludes people who are not employable by virtue of their lack of skills, lack of experience, lack of language fluency, age, or other factors. Therefore, the Second cause of Action for the Writ of Mandate to compel Respondents to comply with their duty to construe the term ‘employability’ fairly and equitably based on practical employability factors, as required by the state’s interest in providing G.A. benefits to indigents, is GRANTED.”

11. Appeal of Watkins Decision • Oralargument was heard on June 10, 2009. • A decision is anticipated within 120 days. • If the Appeals Court rules in Alameda County’s • favor, ACSSA will use the “disability” definition • of employability. • If the Appeals Court rules in favor of Watkins • et. al. there are two strategies under • consideration.

12. Post-Watkins Strategies • Develop a methodology to determine • employability that is acceptable to the • Court. • Seek legislative remedy.

13. Pending Litigation – Writ of Mandates • Whitaker v. CDSS (RG08414038) • Demands that ACSSA return an SSI Interim Assistance reimbursement amount of $20K. • McCormick & Zeno v. ACSSA et. al. • Demands that McCormick’s MFG minor son be eligible to receive GA. • Cleary & Chappell v. County of Alameda et. al. (RG09430964) • Demands that ACSSA stop its efforts of requiring Taxpayer Identification Numbers as a pre-requisite of paying GA clients’ rent directly to their vendor/landlords.

14. Welfare & Institutions Code Section 17000.6 “The board of supervisors of every county as a board, or by committee or by any person or society as it may authorize, shall investigate every application for relief from the funds of the county, shall supervise by periodic visitation every person receiving that relief, shall devise ways and means for bringing persons unable to maintain themselves to self-support …” An Area of Potential Litigation?

15. Questions/Discussion