Press Clippings

pdf 1986 – July 23 – New York Times – Welfare Revised – More States now ask recipients of aid to train and take jobs

By In Press Clippings 1357 downloads

Download (pdf, 386 KB)

1986 – July 23 – New York Times – Welfare Revised – More States now ask recipients of aid to train and take jobs.pdf

” New York, NY (New York Co.) Wall Street Journal (Western Edition) (Cir. SxW. 426,863) JUL 2 3 1986 Welfare Revised Mofec fates Now Ask Recipients of Aid To Train and Take Jobs l\\fassachusetts and California Also Provide Child Care, Freeing Mothers to Work Reagan’s Workfare Memories By JOE DAVIDSON Staff Reporter of THE w ALL STREET JOURNAL BOSTON-Donna Deshaies recently eel\u00b7 ebrated the first anniversary of her free\u00ad dom-freedom from the boredom that many mothers on welfare suffer. In April of 1985, she began work in the payroll de\u00ad partment of Massachusetts General Hospl\u00b7 tal, a job she g9t with the help of the state’s Employment and Trainmg pro\u00ad gram. Ms. Deshaies, who is 23 years old, trained for the job durtng a 16-week course that covered not just clerical skills but also such subjects as interviewing for a job_ and dressing properly for work. During her training, she continued to get her welfare check. Child care and transportation ex\u00ad penses were paid by the ET program. \”I wouidn ‘t have been able to pay for my own training,\” she says. And even had she found tuition money, child-care ex\u00ad penses for her two-year-old daughter, Ta\u00ad Jana would have been unaffordable. Tod\ufffdy she no longer is on welfare. Th\ufffd Massachusetts experiment is an ex\u00ad ample of new efforts by states to resolve welfare problems. California is just begin\u00ad ning a program called Greater A venues for Independence, or GAIN, that, like ET. uses training to get peopl\ufffd off public assi\ufffdtance and into jobs. And hke ET, the California program offers. chi\ufffdd-care aid, w\ufffdich is crucia! in a nation m which two-thirds of the 11 million people on the main federal\u00b7 state welfare program are children. Working for the Money Just about everybody agrees that the current welfare system needs repair, if not replacement In his State of the Union ad\u00b7 dress this year, President Reagan said he was instructing his Domestic Council to evaluate federal programs for the poor and to develop, by Dec. 1, \”a strategy for im\u00ad mediate action.\” Because Mr. Reagan of\u00ad ten makes clear his belief that. welfare re\u00ad cipients should work for their money. the White House strategy is expected to in\u00ad clude a so-called workfare program. Workfare is controversial, but the states mav take the lead here as well. In’a com\u00ad promise that led to California’s adoption of a plan, liberals agreed to a form of work\u00b7 fare so long as child care was part of the program. Some members of Congress h_ope that a similar federal compromise nught lead to refashioning Aid to Families With Dependent Children, a $15 billion-a-year program. . Job creation and chlld care are critical, though expensive, elements in changing welfare, says Barbara Blum, the president of the American Public Welfare Associa\u00b7 tion and of the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., which evaluates state wel\u00ad fare programs. \”It does get down to whether we’re willing to make the front\u00ad end investment for a long-term benefit,\” Ms. Blum says. Spending and Saving ET’s $50 million annual budget repre\u00ad sents a considerably higher investment than the $12 million Massachusetts spent on welfare in 1982, the year before ET be\u00b7 gan. But ET’s job-placement costs are about half those of the former program, says Charles Atkins, the state public-wel\u00b7 fare commissioner. \”For every dollar we invest in ET, we save two dollars in re\u00ad duced welfare benefits and increased tax revenue,\” he says. Half of ET’s budget is spent through child-care vouchers that pa\ufffd\u00ad ents, usually mothers, can use at any li\u00ad censed facility. The state continues to pay for day care for as Jong as one year after the welfare recipient gets a job. Connie Parks pays only $17.50 of the $60 weekly day-care bill for her three-year-old son, John. \”If I had to pay [$60 for] day care every week, there wouldn’t be any sense in working,\” she says. Until last Oc\u00ad tober, Ms. Parks, 34, had been on welfare since another son, now 15, was born. After so many years on public assistance, she finds it somewhat hard to believe that now she is employed in the data-processing unit of Boston’s Grove Hall welfare office. Like Ms. Parks, others have been \”rolled over\” from welfare through ET’s on-the-job training project known as sup\u00ad portive work and into regular, full-time employment in private industry. ‘A Different Person’ The supportive-work option is one of several available to ET clients. Janice Perryman chose instead to earn her high school equivalency diploma and enter ET’s 28-week Office Skills Training Program in Boston’s United South End Settlements. Beyond the typing and word-processing skills that Ms. Perryman is learning, she says she is more self-ass\ufffdred and th\ufffd has a better relationship with her children. \”Now they can ask me questions with con\u00ad fidence,\” she says. \”Before,. they would say, ‘She don’t know.’ I’m a different per- son, so they’re different, too.\”. . After Ms. Perryman\u00b7s trairung IS com\u00ad pleted and employment begins, she and her children will be eligible for one year of state-paid health services if health insur\u00ad ance Isn’t available from her job. ET is widely praised. Between October 1983, when ET began, and January 1986, the state’s AFDC caseload dropped 4.1 %, from 88,414 to 84,828. Without ET, Massa\u00ad chusetts authorities estimate tbe caseload Would be at least 93,200. But there are skeptics. The average an\u00ad nual Massachusetts welfare grant of $4,800 leaves recipients well below the poverty line, which is true of welfare recipients In all the states. Even the yearly income from the average ET full-time Job-$11,- 000-is well below \”breadwinner’s wages,\” complains Dorothy Stevens, a Boston wel\u00ad fare recipient and activist. As of July 1, state officials won’t pay contractors who train ET clients if the recipients aren’t placed in jobs paying at least $5 an hour. President Reagan’s 1987 federal budget proposal calls for the \”work Incentive\” (WIN) program that finances flexible state initiatives such as ET to be replaced by a cheaper \”work opportunities\” project. ET would lose about S8 m1JUon under the Rea\u00b7 gan proposal, according to Gov. Michael Dulcakis, who says he would try to find the money elsewhere rather than let the pro\u00ad gram die. The Reagan proposal would require that up to 75% of able-bodied welfare recipi\u00ad ents, excluding mothers of young children, enroll 1n a work-related activity. The Na\u00ad tional Council of State Legislatures bas told Congress It \”opposes the imposition of a national, mandatory work program be\u00b7 cause such a program fails to recognize special state and local conditions.\” CUtttng costs while increasing benefits to the \”truly needy\” long has been a cen\u00ad tral element of Mr. Reagan’s welfare phi\u00ad losophy. Budget cuts made In fiscal 1981 reduced the 3.5 m1Jllon AFDC cases by about 442,000, according to the General Ac\u00ad counting Office of Congress. Yet real in\u00ad come for recipients continued to drop, as it had been doing for years. From 1971 to 1985, the AFDC benefit fell by one-third In constant dollars. When food stamps are in\u00ad cluded In the computation, the drop still ls 20%. Mr. Reagan’s views on welfare have l’leen shaped to a large extent by bis expe\u00ad riences as governor of California between 1966 and 1974. He and the state legislature developed a weHare program that the president continues to cite as a \”tremen\u00ad dously successful\” model of welfare re\u00ad form that included workfare. Report for Work In a press conference earlier this year, he defined workfare 1n describing the pro\u00ad gram’s goal-\”We are going to order able\u00ad bodied welfare recipients to report for these useful jobs. . . . They’re doing It in return for their welfare grants.\” He stated that the program reduced the welfare caseload by 300,000 people and funneled 76, \u00b7 000 recipients into private-Industry Jobs. Others say the California program wasn’t as successful as the president re\u00ad members. A 1974 California auditor gen\u00ad . eral’s report on workfare said that \”at the maxtmwn\” 2,045 clients participated in the program during the first 21 of Its 36 months. Gerald Hawes. an author of the report, says that It is \”incon,.-:eivabie\” that more than 3,000 people were placed by over, please) Welfare Revised: More States Ask Aid Recipients to Do Some Work the contract, it may be resolved by arbi- I tration. The program has Its critics. Kevin As\u00ad lanian, of the Coalition of Welfare Rights Organizations in Sacramento, says GAIN will lead to dead-end jobs that won’t en- .,_ _____________ –1 courage independence from welfare. State workfare. Researchers say Mr. Reagan’s Sen. Diane Watson says she voted against program accounted for far less of the case- GAIN because it provides no funds for Job load decline than he claims. development, which she feels is crucial if Robert carleson, who was the state’s recipients are to move off the welfare social-welfare director under Mr. Reagan rolls. and who was a White House adviser during Sparing the Children the president’s first tenn, says workfare Mr. Agnos says he voted against work\u00adwas just an experimental project. But he fare previously because he believes it Is argues that the Reagan program was a generally punitive and smacks of make\u00adsignificant factor ln the caseload decline. work. GAiN, however, has Its own punitive President Reagu firmly opposes auto- element. If a recipient repeatedly falls to matte cost-of-living blcreases 1n AFDC keep an agreement with Ute welfare sys- grants, but that ts: one of his legacies in tern, checks can be sent to a third person, California’s prorram. In order to get his such as a friend or minister, who pays the revision package passed by the state legis- client’s bills. \”The emphasis here,\” Mr. lature, he agreed to index welfare grants Agnos says, \”is not to punish the children to the Inflation rate. Largely because of who are the real recipients in AFDC.\” that, California’s monthly grant of $587 for Major chlld-care provisions were an im\ufffd a farnJly of three is lligher than almost ev- portant element 1n attracting llberal sup- ery other state’s. port for GAIN and a concession conserva- N Pain N GAIN tlves reallzed they had to make, says earl 0 0 Williams, califomia’s deputy director for Today, califorrua again ls experiment- social services, who helped negotiate the lng with changing welfare. The program GAIN compromise for the \u00b7 conservative called Greater Avenues for Independence Republican administration of Gov. George was enacted last year, and county ad.minis- Deu.krnejian. trators now are drawing up plans to put it Llberals acknowledged that workfare \u00b7 into effect. GAIN is similar to ET but has needn’t be slave labor and agreed that a workfare component. money can be poured into the welfare sys- How California \u00b7s new workfare is con- tern without generating self-reliance, says structed was the \”key to compromise\” Mr. Wllllarns, who also worked on Gov. that allowed liberals and conservatives in Reagan’s workfare program. Conserva\u00ad the state legislature to pass the welfare tives recognized that workfare isn’t the en\u00ad package, says Assemblyman Art Agnos, a tire answer and that comparatively expen\u00ad San Francisco Democrat. Under GAIN, a sive programs for training and supportive recipient isn’t placed 1n workfare until var- services must be considered part of the so\u00ad ious training and employment programs lution. \”So we moved a long, long way tn have been exhausted. And then the place- our view,\” Mr. Wllllams says of conserva\u00ad ment must be in a job for which the client Uves. \”We weren’t willing to do that unW was trained. recently.\” A written contract between the client Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee, the and the system outlines the recipient’s chainnan of the House Ways and Means benefits, Including food stamps, Medicaid, subcommittee on public-assistance pro\u00ad child care and transportation services. It grams. believes ”the atmosphere ts there\” also stipulates the welfare recipient’s re- for conservatives and liberals in Washing\u00ad sponsibiliUes, Including a work activity. If ton simllarJy to develop a compromise on a dispute should develop o,\ufffdr carrying out \u00b7 welfare. \ufffd … ,,, \u2713 ”

pdf 1986 – July 26 – Sacramento Bee – County lags in child support pay

By In Press Clippings 1280 downloads

Download (pdf, 137 KB)

1986 – July 26 – Sacramento Bee – County lags in child support pay.pdf

” ;J\u00b0he Sacramento Bee Saturday, July 26, 1988 * County lags .in child support pay .By Diane Divoky Bee Staff Writer \u00b7 It’s only $50, but that’s a lot when you’re on your last dime and you want to take your kid to the zoo, said Kimberly Scheppmann. ‘ The 25-year-old mother, a nursing student at Sacramento City College. is just one of some 2,000 Sacramento County welfare recipients wlio have had to wait several months to re-\u00ad \ufffdeive some of their child support -J)ayment coming to them under a 1984 federal law. Under the law, the first $50 of the monthly child support for a child on welfare goes to the child. The rest goes into the county’s coffers, to off\u00ad set the welt are costs of the custodial l)arent. . In Scheppmann’s case, the $50 is -part of $150 in support that her ex\u00ad kusband, Lloyd, a construction work\u00ad er, pays to the county. The county r.rovides $498 in a monthly Aid !or 1-amilies with Dependent Children &rant for Kimberly and her 2-year\u00ad \u00b7 .!ld daughter- plus the $50. ., That stipend was intended under -the law as an incentive both for the :parent on welfare to identify the Child’s other parent and the parent \ufffdrdered to pay support to know that \u00b7so\ufffde of the money goes to the child. _ Michael E. Barber. the deputy dis\u00ad . trict attorney who heads the county’s ,pomestic Relations Unit, said . glitches in the system have put the \u00b7distribution of the $50 stipends sev= \ufffdral months behind schedule. \”We’re trying to clean up the de\u00ad DlY t he said. Scheppmann said she received faer January check on July 24. Barber said the distribution sys- See PAYMENTS, page B2 Payments Continued from page Bl tern no.w is just four months behind and that his unit has just sent the\u00b7 April child-5upport collections to the\u00b7 welfare department for distribution of the $50 checks. \”It’s outrageous,\” said Kevin As\u00ad lanian. spokesman for the Coalition of C8lifomia Welfare Rights Organi-\u00ad zations … In some cases the county is’. six or :seven months behind in pro\u00ad viding the payments. We’re prepar\ufffd. ing a lawsuit on this very issue.\” \”More than any other county in. the state, Sacramento really haS’ struggled with this process,\” said. Bob Horel, deputy director of wel\ufffd. fare programs for the state Depart \u00b7 ment of Social Services. Horel said the county \”now seems\u00b7 to be cleaning up the problem.\” He said his department had r&-, ceived a number of complaints\u00b7 about the time la\ufffd in Sacramento:_. .. I’d like them to get the money oui \u00b7. the same month, although that’\ufffd probably impossible,\” Ho rel said. Barber said distribution problems. in the county’s system liad led to a \u00b7 reorganization that puts more of the . processing work in his unit and less in the welfare department. A new federal regulation requirei that the checks go out to the familie$.; within about two months of the sup\u00ad port coming into the county, and Barber said the county expects to catch up to meet those deadlines by October. The federal regulatioq \u00b7 must be met by next January . Barber said the county now is mailing $98,000 from April child\u00b7 support collections to welfare !\”ecipi: ents in some 2,000 county house holds. He said the interest earned by tbe county during the time it hol\ufffd the funds amounts to less than $10,000 annually, a sum that wouldn’t cover the cost of adminis;,, tering the program. ”

pdf 1986 – June 29 – Sacramento Bee- "Workfare" to make debut in Fresno County Monday

By In Press Clippings 1306 downloads

Download (pdf)

1986 – June 29 – Sacramento Bee- "Workfare" to make debut in Fresno County Monday.pdf

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/1960): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

pdf 1986 – June 29 – San Francisco Chronicle – First workfare program to start in Fresno

By In Press Clippings 1329 downloads

Download (pdf, 138 KB)

1986 – June 29 – San Francisco Chronicle – First workfare program to start in Fresno.pdf

” s.,n Francisco, CA (San IFr.nnclsco Co.) Examiner-Chronicle (Cir. S. 867,335) JUN 2 9 l9ti6 .first workfare program to start in Fresno ————- ASSOCIA\ufffdIEl) Pl\ufffdSS FRl\ufffdNO – A Fresno County man- \u25a0pent the morning In a job-. !taunting workshop, landed a Job that afternoon as a\u00b7 welder-trainee and returned to tell everyone to pay\u00b7attention \ufffduse It worked.\u00b7 ‘Jbe workshop \ufffd sn’t a . high- priced come-o111.\u00b7 It was part of \”workfare,\” a so\u00ad cial experiment that will replace the bedrock welfare program, Aid tio Families with Dependent Chil d!ren, for able-bodied adults. Gov. DeukmeJlan plans to launch the program, Greater Ave\u00ad nues for Independence, or GAIN, tomorrow In Fresno, the first coun\u00ad ty ready to start\u00b7 under bipartisan reform leglalatlon \u00b7 slg\ufffd\ufffd !Qt Sep- tember. County agencies that have been criticized as clearinghouses for wel\u00ad fare checks will be much more lm\u00ad mened in social work under work\u00ad fare. Eligible recipients wlll be pro\u00ad vided, to some extent, remedial and higher \u00b7 education, Job-hunting\u00b7 skills, job training, child care, trans\u00ad portation and Job placement under a comprehensive plan to land them Jobs. If all else falls, they will be as\u00ad signed public and private workfare jobs for which they have been trained, 11not raking leaves,\” 11ld Fresno County welfare Director Ben Kelley. In Fresno County. about 80,000 ,adults receive AFDC, and at least S.000 will enroll In the workfare program in the first year, Kelley tirely p and \ufffd percent \ufffd rec\ufffdlve estimatect. lower benefits. Autonraatic exemptions are –nae real empbllls II to ereate granted to the mentally or physical- an opportunity for rectplenta to be ly disabled, single parents of chil- realistic competitors In the Job mar\u00ad drell1l under 8 and people in remote ket,\” aid Patrltk Hendrix, the _areas where transportation is un-. county’s workfare operations 1u\u00ad \ufffdvailable. _ pervlsor, \”to teach them how to 10 The state expects to push. ,149 . oui and access the job market.\” \u00b7 tnllHon Into the program but 11ve But Kevin Aslanian of the Coali\u00ad ‘360 milli.on through grant reduc tlon of Clllfornia Welfare\u00b7 Rights :Uons and lower social spet1dlng. Organizations eald, .. Workfare Is ba\u00b7 \u00b7 By state estimates, 194,000 reclpl- aically puntshmenL People are be\u00ad \\ents wlll participate statewide, Ing punished because they’re !about 45 percent will obtain Jobs, poor.\” – \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7aboutt one-fifth will receive educa- He was particularly critical of ‘ 1 Uon that can last up to two years, sanctions that county agenclea can and one-fourth will be assigned to take against recipients who fall to workfare Jobs by mid-1991. participate In the proaram. Welfare Fresno County timates 35 per- \ufffdworkera can tran&fer payments io a \\. cent 1of Its partl\ufffdlpants will get jobs: trusted relative or friend f\ufffdr three _ 15 percent. will get off welfare en- months for a_ flnt offense. ”

pdf 1986 – March 10 – Los Angeles Times – State Urged to Adopt County's Approach to Welfare Cheats

By In Press Clippings 1298 downloads

Download (pdf, 162 KB)

1986 – March 10 – Los Angeles Times – State Urged to Adopt County's Approach to Welfare Cheats.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986 – May – Modesto Bee – Letter to the Editor – County Workfare Plan

By In Press Clippings 1246 downloads

Download (pdf, 66 KB)

1986 – May – Modesto Bee – Letter to the Editor – County Workfare Plan.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986 – November 13 – LA Times – Suit Seeks to Bar INS Deporting of Aliens Eligible for Amnesty

By In Press Clippings 1182 downloads

Download (pdf, 163 KB)

1986 – November 13 – LA Times – Suit Seeks to Bar INS Deporting of Aliens Eligible for Amnesty.pdf

” Thursday, November 13, 1986\/Part I 3 Suit Seeks to Bar INS Deporting of Aliens Eligible for Amnesty By DAV1D HOLLEY, Times Staff Writt.r A coalition of immigrants’ rights advocates filed a federal lawsuit in Sacramento on Wednesday seeking to block the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from de\u00ad porting any Illegal aliens who\u00b7 ap\u00ad pear to qualify for amnesty under new immigration reform legisJa.;. tion. The national cl&S1-action Iaw\u00ad sult-on1e of the first skirmishes in an expected of legal battles as the complex Immigration reform law is gradually implemented\u00ad seeks to ensure that. Ulegal aliens apprehended by INS agents are informed of and granted all the rights they may have under the new law. The bill signed last week by President Reagan provides that illegal aliens who can show contin\u00ad uous residence in this country since before the amnesty cut-of.f date of Jan. 1, 1982, .,may not be deported\” pending the opportunity to apply for legalization. That section of the law is in effect, although amnesty applications will not be accepted until May, 1987 .. Duke Austin, an INS spokemnan in Washington, said Wednesday that the agency’s polficy ii that illegal aliens apprehended by INS agents generally \u00b7 muslt take the initiative in pressing for rtghta they may have under the immigration reform bi’ll. . The lawsuit seeks a court order re.quiring the agency to advise apprehended . persons who \u00b7 appear to qualify for amnesty of their right to apply for legalizatior1, accordinl to the Los Angeles-based National Center for Immigrants’ Rights Inc., a plaintiff in the case. The suit asks that the INS be restrained from deporting or other\u00ad wise expelling from the United States anyone who appean to qual – ify for the amnesty program. It also seeks an order that people who have been improperly expelled since the Nov. 6 effective date of the law be allowed to return and apply for legalization. A . hearing on a temporary re- Ple se see ALIENS, …. 40 40 Part I\/Thursday, November 13, 1986 ALIENS: , Suit Continued from Pa1e 3 straining order Js set for Frid&y afternoon before U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton. Austin said that although the agency will conduct a .general .educational program. on legaliza\u00ad tion rights, \”there is no l\”iequire\u00ad ment for the [immigration] service to conduct an individual education\u00ad al program for every alien appre\u00ad hended.\” \”When you arrest somebody un\u00ad der immigration law . . . you don’t. re-read the law to him,\” Austin said. \”You don’t haYe to state to 1him every equity available to him iunder immigration law before you \u00b7go forward with deportation.\” . Illegal aliens who fight deporta\u00ad tion by presenting evidence that they will qualify for amnesty \”will be granted a stay of \u00b7deportation until they have an opportunity to file an application [for legaliZ21 tion),\” Austin said. Austin, interviewed before the lawsuit was filed late Wednesday afternoon, said, \”The mere ftling of the suit will not change our posi\u00ad tion. \”Filing a lawsuit changes noth\u00ad ing,\” he said. \”Getting a judgmer1t on a lawsuit changes a lot c>f things.\” The other plaintiffs in the suit are the Centro de Guadalupe Immi\u00ad gration Center, run by Catholic Social Services Inc. in Sacramento, the Sacramento-based California Coalition of Welfare Rights Organ- A-!(:\”\ufffd. izations Inc. and three individuals: -\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd-\ufffd . \ufffd\\\ufffd. Sara Luz Orantes de Palacios, Mer- \”\u00b7 \u00b7 ;, .. , ; ;-,\u00b7 cedes Aguilar de Lopez and Maria \u00b7\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7\u00b7 Teresa Reyes. U.S. Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, bead of the Justice Department, which in\u00ad cludes the INS, is named as the defendant. Peter Schey, executive director of the National Ceritier \u00b7 for Immi\u00ad granw’ Rights, said plaintiffs in the lawsuit believe that the INS must actively ensure that undocumented aliens recei\\’e the rights they are entitled to if the new law is to work. \”Our primary conc

pdf 1986 – November 9- Ventura Star Free Press – Welfare Rights

By In Press Clippings 1196 downloads

Download (pdf, 32 KB)

1986 – November 9- Ventura Star Free Press – Welfare Rights.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986 – September 27 0- Sacramento Bee – Govcernor signs workfare bill

By In Press Clippings 1197 downloads

Download (pdf, 171 KB)

1986 – September 27 0- Sacramento Bee – Govcernor signs workfare bill.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986 January 11- CCWRO Clippings – Sacramento Bee – Familiar cries over health, welfare funds

By In Press Clippings 1155 downloads

Download (pdf, 162 KB)

1986 January 11- CCWRO Clippings – Sacramento Bee – Familiar cries over health, welfare funds .pdf

” ”

pdf 1986, January 31 – CCWRO Press Clippings – San Jose Mercury – State hope GAIN will cut welfare rolls

By In Press Clippings 1227 downloads

Download (pdf, 135 KB)

1986, January 31 – CCWRO Press Clippings – San Jose Mercury – State hope GAIN will cut welfare rolls .pdf

” ”

pdf 1986- Bakersfield Californian – Judge bars welfare pay delay

By In Press Clippings 1171 downloads

Download (pdf, 97 KB)

1986- Bakersfield Californian – Judge bars welfare pay delay.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986- January 20- CCWRO Press Clipping- Los Angeles Daily Journal – Governor's Power to Veto Extended by Appellate Court

By In Press Clippings 1189 downloads

Download (pdf, 136 KB)

1986- January 20- CCWRO Press Clipping- Los Angeles Daily Journal – Governor's Power to Veto Extended by Appellate Court.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986- September 27 – Petaluma Argus-Courier – Loud cry for refornm of the welfare system

By In Press Clippings 1138 downloads

Download (pdf, 86 KB)

1986- September 27 – Petaluma Argus-Courier – Loud cry for refornm of the welfare system.pdf

” Petaluma, CA (Sonoma Co.) Argus-Courier (Cir. 6xW. 9,679) SEP 2 7 1986 \ufffd\/l\ufffd,s ‘s P. C. B E.,t. 1888 Loud cFy lor retorn1 of the well are syste111 By TIMOTHY POLK Argu&,Caurler tnatm Bureau WASHINGTON – A loud cry was heard on Capitol Hlll Friday for quick and comprehensive re\u00ad form of the nation’s welfare sys\u00ad tem, with Ca:\\i(QM,ia.’\ufffd …… _wel\u00ad fare DrQD\ufffd _.ou\ufffd of the possible soluuons. Lawmakers, government offi\u00ad cials and welfare rights groups addressed a House subcommittee on domestic marketing, consumer relations, and nutrition as it be\u00ad gan a long look at congressional welfare action. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D\u00b7 \u00b7:N.Y., said reform is needed mo\ufffdt for the nation’s children. \”We are the first society ii history in which the poorest grou_,\ufffd is the children,\” Moynihan saic u A third of the children in u, U.S. will be on welfare befor\ufffd their 18th birthday.” Diana Pierce, representing th\ufffd California Coalition for Welfare 0Rights Organizations, said the -state’s new program – GAIN < Greater Avenues Toward Inde-\u00ad pendence) - has potential, but serious problems, too. "

pdf 1986-April 23 – CCWRO Press Clipping – Stanislaus Leader-Coalition doubts workfare program.pdf

By In Press Clippings 1544 downloads

Download (pdf, 657 KB)

CCWRO Press Clipping – 4-23-86 Stanislaus Leader-Coalition doubts workfare program.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986-Jan. 31 – CCWRO Press Clipping – Kern County Workfare Criticized.pdf

By In Press Clippings 1859 downloads

Download (pdf, 598 KB)

CCWRO Press Clipping – 1-31-86 – Kern County Workfare Criticized.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986-July 23- CCWRO Press Clipping – Wall Street Journal – Welfare Revised.pdf

By In Press Clippings 1586 downloads

Download (pdf, 1.01 MB)

CCWRO Press Clipping – 7-23-86 – Wall Street Journal – Welfare Revised.pdf

” ”

pdf 1986-Nov. 26 – CCWRO Press Clipping – Reporter – Welfare group sues county over assistance

By In Press Clippings 1719 downloads

Download (pdf, 560 KB)

CCWRO Press Clipping – 11-26-86 – Reporter – Welfare group sues county over assistance.pdf

” ”

pdf 1987 – February 13- Sacramento Bee – Suit over Health Cuts

By In Press Clippings 1109 downloads

Download (pdf, 60 KB)

1987 – February 13- Sacramento Bee – Suit over Health Cuts.pdf

” ”

pdf 1987 – February 25- Indian Valley Record – Court throws out study for assistance

By In Press Clippings 1232 downloads

Download (pdf, 87 KB)

1987 – February 25- Indian Valley Record – Court throws out study for assistance.pdf

” Greenville, CA (Plumas. Co.) Indian\u00b7 Valley Record (Cir. W. 1,243) FEB 2 5 1987 ‘–‘l.llen’s P. c. e. Est. 1888 \/Court throws out 7 9a& study for ass stance By Jane Braxton Little Staff Writer Plumas County must establish new standards for housing and utilities under the county’s General Assistance program\ufffd __ Visiting Supetjor Court Judge Noel Watkins ruled last month that a study of local costs for General Assistance recipients, done by the county in December, is not adequate in the areas of housing and utilities. Watkins accepted General Assistance payment levels established by the county for t ransportat ion, household operations and clothing, \u00b7he said in his January 30 decision. The action stems from a welfare rights claim filed in November by Portola resident Myrtle Hart, 54, and the California Coalition of Welfare Rights Organizations. The suit filed for Hart\u00b7 by Legal Services of Northern Calif orrua’7;laimed that the county’s standards for general relief violate federal and state laws providing for minimal care. Prior to a hearing on December lb, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors approved revised standards for general relief eligibility which established housing costs for one person at $112 a month. The figure was taken from a random sample of 122 households, but included some households who reported ”O” rent, Watkins said. \”The fact that some may be able to live in their car or in a park is not revelant 1n establishing the level of assistance necessary to provide minimally adequate housing,” said Watkins. Walkins also found the county’s. study of utility costs for General Assistance recipients invalid. He ordered it to abandon the $21 level it established in December, and to use the previously established level of a maximum of $81 a month until the new study has been com\u00ad pleted. Watkins denied the welfare groups’ request for injunctive relief in the areas of tran\u00ad sportation, household and.,; clothing. \/ _,,,,, ”