Discussion:
PA, CA, MI have to put more welfare recipients to work
(too old to reply)
California Poppy
2006-09-08 20:55:03 UTC
Permalink
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.

Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.

The rules require states to place into job training, community services
or other work activities 50 percent of households that get welfare aid
and 90 percent of two-parent households receiving assistance.

"About half the states are in pretty good shape," said Wade Horn, the
Bush administration's point man on welfare overhaul. "About a quarter
of the states that are really going to have to work hard," he said.

Pennsylvania will have to add nearly 23,000 recipients to the work
rolls, which amounts to a 220 percent increase in work participation,
according to federal estimates obtained by The Associated Press.

California has to find work activities for more than 60,000 people- a
100 percent increase in its work participation rate.

Michigan must add nearly 11,500, a 117 percent increase.

Several large states, including Texas, Florida and Georgia, easily will
meet the requirements, according to the federal estimates.

The work requirement were part of broad rules that more strictly
defined what constitutes work and require states to verify that adults
are doing the work activities that states say they are.

On Thursday, five Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee said
the rules had placed new challenges on the states that would make the
program more expensive and difficult to administer. They are asking for
a congressional hearing.

Some analysts also are concerned that states will increase the use of
penalties as a tool to get to 50 percent work participation, rather
than helping a recipient land a job and keep it. Other states may try
to deter families from coming into the program at all, they say.

"The people who have the most barriers to employment, the most issues
in their life, they tend to be sanctioned more than others," said
Evelyn Ganzglass of the Center for Law and Social Policy. "But they
often have problems that prevent them from complying. These can be
mental health problems, physical disabilities, all kinds of issues that
these families face."

Pennsylvania officials say their state has made significant strides
since March, the last month included in the federal figures. Work
participation is now up to about 32 percent from the under 20 percent
cited by the federal government, they said.

"We're confident we're going to hit the number," said Ted Dallas,
executive deputy secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Public
Welfare.

Dallas said the new regulations have forced Pennsylvania to re-evaluate
its program. He said there has been more one-on-one casework with
welfare recipients and more accountability from contractors. He also
said more recipients have been penalized when they did not comply with
state requirements.

States can kick recipients out of the program if they have not met
certain requirements, such as attending an appointment with a counselor
or attending a job interview. Penalties in Pennsylvania rose from 1,030
in February to 2,327 in July, state officials said. A punished
recipient in Pennsylvania becomes ineligible for benefits, such as cash
assistance.

Horn stresses that states do not have to be at 50 percent work
participation come Oct. 1, just at that average over the course of the
year. Then, states will have a chance to take corrective action. The
earliest that penalties could begin is 2009.

The penalties could be severe. States face a reduction of their welfare
block grant of up to 5 percent the first year they fail to meet the new
threshold, and 2 percentage points for each additional year. States
would have to replace the lost federal funds with their own money.

Pennsylvania, for example, gets $719 million. If it fails to meet the
work requirement, it could lose as much as about $36 million in federal
funds in 2009.

One important feature of the 50 percent threshold is that states get
extra credit when they reduce the number of welfare recipients. If a
state's caseload drops by 5 percent from 2005 levels, then the work
participation requirement will also drop by 5 percent.

States that have reduced the number of welfare cases over the past year
include Georgia, 22.8 percent, and Texas, 19.2 percent. That means
those two states would only need to have about a third of their welfare
rolls in work activities to meet the new guidelines, Horn said.

While the welfare rolls have dropped nearly 60 percent in the past
decade, momentum has stalled in many states. That's not the case in
Texas.

Larry Jones, communications director of the Texas Workforce Commission,
said various factors play a role in reducing welfare rolls. The state's
economy is strong, generating about 630,000 jobs in the last three
years. The state also has stricter time limits in place than most
states, with some beneficiaries allowed to collect cash assistance a
maximum of one year before they have to work.

But, mostly, Jones said, the state has been successful placing
recipients into the work force.

He said that about three-quarters of participants get jobs and, of that
group, 71 percent have those same jobs six months later. Jones said the
jobs pay more than $7.00 an hour, plus recipients can continue to get
food stamps, state-subsidized child care, Medicaid and other benefits.

"We very strongly emphasize work and a quick attachment to the work
force," Jones said. "Through work, one builds the skills needed to stay
employed and build a career."
Islander
2006-09-08 21:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---

Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers. "Welfare to work" is overall a good idea, but not when it does
nothing more than force people to work in order to survive. The major
criticism of this program is that there is little opportunity to advance
to better paying jobs. It is not quite slavery, but awfully close!
Rita
2006-09-09 01:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers. "Welfare to work" is overall a good idea, but not when it does
nothing more than force people to work in order to survive. The major
criticism of this program is that there is little opportunity to advance
to better paying jobs. It is not quite slavery, but awfully close!
As it was administered under Rudy Guiliani for some years it was
indeed something like slavery or perhaps serfdom.. The city didn't
attempt to place these folks in real work but unless they could
quickly come up with a job they were forced to work for the city
picking up trash and sweeping the streets, etc. They were given only
a month or so to find a job. And there was none of the reasonablness
most regular employers practice -- one day off work and they were
thrown off the job and welfare as well. The state was inundated with
appeals and the clients won about 90% of them before an administrative
law judge. The goal was not to help these folks become self
sustaining on a long term basis, but to get them off welfare period
ASAP. In other words the intent of the law was evaded.

The largest share of welfare recipients were women -- mothers.
With kids, stuff happens and a mother sometimes has to stay home with
a sick child or attend to something at school, etc. No mercy was
shown, let alone understanding.

I was appalled during those years dealing with the welfare system
as part of my volunteer job. The employees were rude, nasty and
arrogant. Clients would try to contact their worker and could not
get through them and they did not return calls.

I am not per se against encouraging those on welfare to go to work.
But they need some kindness and tolerance and good supportive workers
and help in locating some kind of real job. They already have enough
strikes against them in trying to deal with the job market.

The system became more humane under the Bloomberg administration.
Complaints to our office and requests for help sharply decreased.
I thought those times were Dickensonian.
a
Islander
2006-09-09 02:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rita
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers. "Welfare to work" is overall a good idea, but not when it does
nothing more than force people to work in order to survive. The major
criticism of this program is that there is little opportunity to advance
to better paying jobs. It is not quite slavery, but awfully close!
As it was administered under Rudy Guiliani for some years it was
indeed something like slavery or perhaps serfdom.. The city didn't
attempt to place these folks in real work but unless they could
quickly come up with a job they were forced to work for the city
picking up trash and sweeping the streets, etc. They were given only
a month or so to find a job. And there was none of the reasonablness
most regular employers practice -- one day off work and they were
thrown off the job and welfare as well. The state was inundated with
appeals and the clients won about 90% of them before an administrative
law judge. The goal was not to help these folks become self
sustaining on a long term basis, but to get them off welfare period
ASAP. In other words the intent of the law was evaded.
The largest share of welfare recipients were women -- mothers.
With kids, stuff happens and a mother sometimes has to stay home with
a sick child or attend to something at school, etc. No mercy was
shown, let alone understanding.
I was appalled during those years dealing with the welfare system
as part of my volunteer job. The employees were rude, nasty and
arrogant. Clients would try to contact their worker and could not
get through them and they did not return calls.
I am not per se against encouraging those on welfare to go to work.
But they need some kindness and tolerance and good supportive workers
and help in locating some kind of real job. They already have enough
strikes against them in trying to deal with the job market.
The system became more humane under the Bloomberg administration.
Complaints to our office and requests for help sharply decreased.
I thought those times were Dickensonian.
In order for any program to work there has to be a clear understanding
of the motivation and goal of the program. I fear that the motivation
for the welfare to work program was to get rid of the "freeloaders" and
that the goal was only to reduce the cost of welfare. In order for a
program like this to work, one has to look to the longer term. There
has to be a path to a better life that is obvious to both the recipients
and administrators of the program.
Fred Ghadry
2006-09-10 05:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
Pennsylvania, for example, gets $719 million. If it fails to meet the
work requirement, it could lose as much as about $36 million in federal
funds in 2009.
In order for any program to work there has to be a clear understanding
of the motivation and goal of the program. I fear that the motivation
for the welfare to work program was to get rid of the "freeloaders" and
that the goal was only to reduce the cost of welfare. In order for a
program like this to work, one has to look to the longer term. There
has to be a path to a better life that is obvious to both the recipients
and administrators of the program.
Not a problem! All states such as Pennsylvania, mentioned above, need do
is raise state taxes to replace Federal funding if they don't agree with
the motivation and goal of the Federal program. "Problem" solved!
Alan Lichtenstein
2006-09-09 11:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rita
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers. "Welfare to work" is overall a good idea, but not when it does
nothing more than force people to work in order to survive. The major
criticism of this program is that there is little opportunity to advance
to better paying jobs. It is not quite slavery, but awfully close!
As it was administered under Rudy Guiliani for some years it was
indeed something like slavery or perhaps serfdom.. The city didn't
attempt to place these folks in real work but unless they could
quickly come up with a job they were forced to work for the city
picking up trash and sweeping the streets, etc. They were given only
a month or so to find a job. And there was none of the reasonablness
most regular employers practice -- one day off work and they were
thrown off the job and welfare as well. The state was inundated with
appeals and the clients won about 90% of them before an administrative
law judge. The goal was not to help these folks become self
sustaining on a long term basis, but to get them off welfare period
ASAP. In other words the intent of the law was evaded.
The largest share of welfare recipients were women -- mothers.
With kids, stuff happens and a mother sometimes has to stay home with
a sick child or attend to something at school, etc. No mercy was
shown, let alone understanding.
I was appalled during those years dealing with the welfare system
as part of my volunteer job. The employees were rude, nasty and
arrogant. Clients would try to contact their worker and could not
get through them and they did not return calls.
I am not per se against encouraging those on welfare to go to work.
But they need some kindness and tolerance and good supportive workers
and help in locating some kind of real job. They already have enough
strikes against them in trying to deal with the job market.
The system became more humane under the Bloomberg administration.
Complaints to our office and requests for help sharply decreased.
I thought those times were Dickensonian.
a
Rita is indeed correct with her observations of the Guiliani welfare
reduction programs. She is also correct about the insensitiveness of
welfare workers, however, it must be pointed out that welfare workers
were likely no more insensitive than city workers in any other city
agency( motor vehicles comes to mind particularly, although this is a
State Agency ), or workers in any other bureaucracy, for that matter.

But that is irrelevant. I personally have little sympathy for these
welfare mothers, because for most, welfare was a way of life, and more
children meant increased compensation. I had friends who worked for
Human 'resources, and when MOTHERS brought their pregnant daughters to
Human Resources, they were unduly proud, stating that now their
daughters could get their own checks. When other means were available
to avoid having these children, I have little sympathy for those who
chose not to avoid having this problem. Removing that way of life as a
viable means, required bitter medicine, which Guiliani dosed out.

I'm no fan of Guiliani, because he treated everyone in that cavalier,
'if you don't do it my way be damned' attitude. But in this instance,
that MO was what was needed. Welfare as way of life had to be ended.
And there was no better way to do it then to abruptly end it, with all
the bitter pills that doing so entailed.

Yes, people should be treated as people, even in the face of harsh
regulations. But the enforcement of the regulations signaled that 'the
times they are a'changin,' and they needed to be changed. And fast.
California Poppy
2006-09-09 14:50:26 UTC
Permalink
The job of the Department of Social Services under the Welfare to Work
program is to get people off of welfare. It is not to find a perfect
job fit for every recipient of aid. It is called TANF, Temporary Aide
to Needy Families. Note that it says "temporary". The mind set of
many social workers is to "help" people. Too often that has meant that
they took a short term view rather than a long term one. Give them
food and housing now, rather than helping the welfare recipient learn
which of their own attitudes had gotten them into the fix. The single
greatest problem continues to be women who choose to have babies
without a means to support them. Birth control services are easily
available. So, the problem becomes, "Why don't they use them?".

There are plenty of jobs available, but many who have learned to be
dependent on aid won't take them, or manage to lose them rapidly. The
problem is not jobs, nor the welfare workers. The problems are the
learned attitudes of many of the aide recipients. If they learned
these attitudes, can they unlearn them? That is where we have failed.
Thumper
2006-09-09 17:07:27 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Sep 2006 07:50:26 -0700, "California Poppy"
Post by California Poppy
The job of the Department of Social Services under the Welfare to Work
program is to get people off of welfare. It is not to find a perfect
job fit for every recipient of aid. It is called TANF, Temporary Aide
to Needy Families. Note that it says "temporary". The mind set of
many social workers is to "help" people. Too often that has meant that
they took a short term view rather than a long term one. Give them
food and housing now, rather than helping the welfare recipient learn
which of their own attitudes had gotten them into the fix. The single
greatest problem continues to be women who choose to have babies
without a means to support them. Birth control services are easily
available. So, the problem becomes, "Why don't they use them?".
There are plenty of jobs available, but many who have learned to be
dependent on aid won't take them, or manage to lose them rapidly. The
problem is not jobs, nor the welfare workers. The problems are the
learned attitudes of many of the aide recipients. If they learned
these attitudes, can they unlearn them? That is where we have failed.
Such compassion.
Thumper
Rita
2006-09-09 15:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Rita
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers. "Welfare to work" is overall a good idea, but not when it does
nothing more than force people to work in order to survive. The major
criticism of this program is that there is little opportunity to advance
to better paying jobs. It is not quite slavery, but awfully close!
As it was administered under Rudy Guiliani for some years it was
indeed something like slavery or perhaps serfdom.. The city didn't
attempt to place these folks in real work but unless they could
quickly come up with a job they were forced to work for the city
picking up trash and sweeping the streets, etc. They were given only
a month or so to find a job. And there was none of the reasonablness
most regular employers practice -- one day off work and they were
thrown off the job and welfare as well. The state was inundated with
appeals and the clients won about 90% of them before an administrative
law judge. The goal was not to help these folks become self
sustaining on a long term basis, but to get them off welfare period
ASAP. In other words the intent of the law was evaded.
The largest share of welfare recipients were women -- mothers.
With kids, stuff happens and a mother sometimes has to stay home with
a sick child or attend to something at school, etc. No mercy was
shown, let alone understanding.
I was appalled during those years dealing with the welfare system
as part of my volunteer job. The employees were rude, nasty and
arrogant. Clients would try to contact their worker and could not
get through them and they did not return calls.
I am not per se against encouraging those on welfare to go to work.
But they need some kindness and tolerance and good supportive workers
and help in locating some kind of real job. They already have enough
strikes against them in trying to deal with the job market.
The system became more humane under the Bloomberg administration.
Complaints to our office and requests for help sharply decreased.
I thought those times were Dickensonian.
a
Rita is indeed correct with her observations of the Guiliani welfare
reduction programs. She is also correct about the insensitiveness of
welfare workers, however, it must be pointed out that welfare workers
were likely no more insensitive than city workers in any other city
agency( motor vehicles comes to mind particularly, although this is a
State Agency ), or workers in any other bureaucracy, for that matter.
But that is irrelevant. I personally have little sympathy for these
welfare mothers, because for most, welfare was a way of life, and more
children meant increased compensation. I had friends who worked for
Human 'resources, and when MOTHERS brought their pregnant daughters to
Human Resources, they were unduly proud, stating that now their
daughters could get their own checks. When other means were available
to avoid having these children, I have little sympathy for those who
chose not to avoid having this problem. Removing that way of life as a
viable means, required bitter medicine, which Guiliani dosed out.
I'm no fan of Guiliani, because he treated everyone in that cavalier,
'if you don't do it my way be damned' attitude. But in this instance,
that MO was what was needed. Welfare as way of life had to be ended.
And there was no better way to do it then to abruptly end it, with all
the bitter pills that doing so entailed.
Yes, people should be treated as people, even in the face of harsh
regulations. But the enforcement of the regulations signaled that 'the
times they are a'changin,' and they needed to be changed. And fast.
I don't think it is a matter of "sympathy", Alan, but of designing
programs so that those who are in them have the best chance of
success. It is to the nation's good that those who are on welfare
get off it, yes. But get off in a manner so that they have some
longer term chance of integrating into the worker society. Picking
up trash and pushing a broom along the city streets is not teaching
much. When women phoned the agency I worked for and inquired about
going on welfare I always told them to make every effort to find a
job on their own as they would undoubtedly be asked to do something
very unattractive if they did not. And "attitude" IS important.
If people feel the system is just out to punish them that is not
motivating. The attitude of the workers is dictated by those in
power in the agency. Being a welfare case worker is not a very
pleasant job under any circumstances and people on welfare often
are unsympathetic and injustice collectors as I well know having
spoken to so many of them over the years in my volunteer job.
But you can get through if you are not seen as being punitive and
offer encouragement rather than blame.

The welfare rolls have been dramatically reduced and many of those
who remain are simply unemployable. Actually, most welfare is short
term -- women go on after a divorce or abandonment and most stay
only a short time. Remember, it is aid to dependent children the
program is designed for. There is a shortage of affordable day
care. Shit happens even to a motivated person.

The climate under Guiliani was clearly punitive in nature. I saw
decided differences under Bloomberg.

The goal should be to prevent long term stays on welfare, but not
punish those who are using it as a short term safety net -- find ways
to help them be successful in getting off and staying off.

Connie says that it is not hard to find a job. You and I know that
has not always been the case in NYC -- there is a huge pool of
immigrant labor and jobs of all kinds have been tight during many
periods. People who have been an welfare are not preferred
applicants. I saw the same thing for seniors -- in many parts of
the country a retired person can snap up at least a part-time job
because help wanted signs are everywhere. Such is not the case in
New York City. The city Department for the Aging ran a job fair
each year -- I attended one for my agency and there were just a
handful of employers there. It was really dreadful seeing all those
seniors desperate for some kind of part-time work. I almost never
saw "help wanted" signs in businesses in New York. Here in San
Diego I see them all over.
Islander
2006-09-09 16:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rita
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Rita
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers. "Welfare to work" is overall a good idea, but not when it does
nothing more than force people to work in order to survive. The major
criticism of this program is that there is little opportunity to advance
to better paying jobs. It is not quite slavery, but awfully close!
As it was administered under Rudy Guiliani for some years it was
indeed something like slavery or perhaps serfdom.. The city didn't
attempt to place these folks in real work but unless they could
quickly come up with a job they were forced to work for the city
picking up trash and sweeping the streets, etc. They were given only
a month or so to find a job. And there was none of the reasonablness
most regular employers practice -- one day off work and they were
thrown off the job and welfare as well. The state was inundated with
appeals and the clients won about 90% of them before an administrative
law judge. The goal was not to help these folks become self
sustaining on a long term basis, but to get them off welfare period
ASAP. In other words the intent of the law was evaded.
The largest share of welfare recipients were women -- mothers.
With kids, stuff happens and a mother sometimes has to stay home with
a sick child or attend to something at school, etc. No mercy was
shown, let alone understanding.
I was appalled during those years dealing with the welfare system
as part of my volunteer job. The employees were rude, nasty and
arrogant. Clients would try to contact their worker and could not
get through them and they did not return calls.
I am not per se against encouraging those on welfare to go to work.
But they need some kindness and tolerance and good supportive workers
and help in locating some kind of real job. They already have enough
strikes against them in trying to deal with the job market.
The system became more humane under the Bloomberg administration.
Complaints to our office and requests for help sharply decreased.
I thought those times were Dickensonian.
a
Rita is indeed correct with her observations of the Guiliani welfare
reduction programs. She is also correct about the insensitiveness of
welfare workers, however, it must be pointed out that welfare workers
were likely no more insensitive than city workers in any other city
agency( motor vehicles comes to mind particularly, although this is a
State Agency ), or workers in any other bureaucracy, for that matter.
But that is irrelevant. I personally have little sympathy for these
welfare mothers, because for most, welfare was a way of life, and more
children meant increased compensation. I had friends who worked for
Human 'resources, and when MOTHERS brought their pregnant daughters to
Human Resources, they were unduly proud, stating that now their
daughters could get their own checks. When other means were available
to avoid having these children, I have little sympathy for those who
chose not to avoid having this problem. Removing that way of life as a
viable means, required bitter medicine, which Guiliani dosed out.
I'm no fan of Guiliani, because he treated everyone in that cavalier,
'if you don't do it my way be damned' attitude. But in this instance,
that MO was what was needed. Welfare as way of life had to be ended.
And there was no better way to do it then to abruptly end it, with all
the bitter pills that doing so entailed.
Yes, people should be treated as people, even in the face of harsh
regulations. But the enforcement of the regulations signaled that 'the
times they are a'changin,' and they needed to be changed. And fast.
I don't think it is a matter of "sympathy", Alan, but of designing
programs so that those who are in them have the best chance of
success. It is to the nation's good that those who are on welfare
get off it, yes. But get off in a manner so that they have some
longer term chance of integrating into the worker society. Picking
up trash and pushing a broom along the city streets is not teaching
much. When women phoned the agency I worked for and inquired about
going on welfare I always told them to make every effort to find a
job on their own as they would undoubtedly be asked to do something
very unattractive if they did not. And "attitude" IS important.
If people feel the system is just out to punish them that is not
motivating. The attitude of the workers is dictated by those in
power in the agency. Being a welfare case worker is not a very
pleasant job under any circumstances and people on welfare often
are unsympathetic and injustice collectors as I well know having
spoken to so many of them over the years in my volunteer job.
But you can get through if you are not seen as being punitive and
offer encouragement rather than blame.
The welfare rolls have been dramatically reduced and many of those
who remain are simply unemployable. Actually, most welfare is short
term -- women go on after a divorce or abandonment and most stay
only a short time. Remember, it is aid to dependent children the
program is designed for. There is a shortage of affordable day
care. Shit happens even to a motivated person.
The climate under Guiliani was clearly punitive in nature. I saw
decided differences under Bloomberg.
The goal should be to prevent long term stays on welfare, but not
punish those who are using it as a short term safety net -- find ways
to help them be successful in getting off and staying off.
Connie says that it is not hard to find a job. You and I know that
has not always been the case in NYC -- there is a huge pool of
immigrant labor and jobs of all kinds have been tight during many
periods. People who have been an welfare are not preferred
applicants. I saw the same thing for seniors -- in many parts of
the country a retired person can snap up at least a part-time job
because help wanted signs are everywhere. Such is not the case in
New York City. The city Department for the Aging ran a job fair
each year -- I attended one for my agency and there were just a
handful of employers there. It was really dreadful seeing all those
seniors desperate for some kind of part-time work. I almost never
saw "help wanted" signs in businesses in New York. Here in San
Diego I see them all over.
Here is the transcript of the PBS Lehrer news show on the topic of last
Aug 22nd and the part of it that describes the 3 levels of need that I
mentioned earlier:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec06/welfare_08-22.html

JEFFREY BROWN: What about the question of, not only getting people jobs,
getting people to work, but getting them out of poverty? Is there still
an issue of now people have moved into the status of the working poor,
even if they have jobs?

SHARON PARROTT: Yes, it's absolutely the case that people found work.
They typically worked at $7 or $8 an hour. And while Ron is right they
got some added help from their earned income tax credit, sometimes from
child care subsidies, although most families that need child care help
don't get it because the program is so underfunded, but they're still
living at the poverty line, just below it or just above it, and really
struggling to make ends meet.

So I do think an important next step is: How do we help mothers and, in
fact, fathers and people without children that are in the low-wage jobs
to get skills so that they can progress, so that they can move forward
in the labor market, get better jobs that can better support their families?

JEFFREY BROWN: What do you think about the working poor question?

RON HASKINS: Yes, I agree with that, but I think we should make this
point. Let's think of three levels. One level is dependent on welfare.
That is bad. The country feels it's bad. Opinion polls have shown for 20
years now that the American public expects people to work.

So the second stage is they leave welfare, they go to work, and most of
them did escape poverty because of the combination of the welfare
benefits and the work benefits from the work support system.

But then the third stage, which we don't know how to do, is to help
those mothers move from $7 or $8 an hour to $15, or $18, or $20 an hour.
Having met a lot of these mothers, having watched the programs at the
state level, I know a number of these mothers are capable of it. But
they're school dropouts. They're working in jobs that do not necessarily
lead to $15 or $18 an hour.

They need training, and we've been trying this for years, we as a
nation. We've spent billions of dollars. And the programs have been very
unsuccessful. So we need a whole new set of programs to figure out how
to help these low-income mothers get better jobs -- and fathers, as well
-- and move up the job ladder, which is the way Americans would like it
to be.
Olly Mensch
2006-09-09 19:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Rita- you wrote: "The welfare rolls have been dramatically reduced, and
those remaining have been largely uemployable."

I would be interested in knowing to what you attribute the reduction in
welfare rolls???
Olly
Rita
2006-09-09 20:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olly Mensch
Rita- you wrote: "The welfare rolls have been dramatically reduced, and
those remaining have been largely uemployable."
I would be interested in knowing to what you attribute the reduction in
welfare rolls???
Olly
I don't know all the factors but the biggest one was requiring
welfare clients to get jobs. I approve of requiring welfare
clients to work -- it the manner in which this is done with which
I have some problems. It is true that many who get jobs lose them
and have to go back on welfare for a brief period, but they then
find something else. What they don't do is get out of poverty.
And thus they continue to qualify for Medicaid and
Food Stamps and other subsidies. The state also pays for child
care for those on welfare -- which is not cheap. Many never earn
enough to get past these dependencies for government programs
but work they do. While they no longer draw the welfare subsidy,
they still are supported in part with govenment funds.
Alan Lichtenstein
2006-09-09 19:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rita
Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Post by Rita
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers. "Welfare to work" is overall a good idea, but not when it does
nothing more than force people to work in order to survive. The major
criticism of this program is that there is little opportunity to advance
to better paying jobs. It is not quite slavery, but awfully close!
As it was administered under Rudy Guiliani for some years it was
indeed something like slavery or perhaps serfdom.. The city didn't
attempt to place these folks in real work but unless they could
quickly come up with a job they were forced to work for the city
picking up trash and sweeping the streets, etc. They were given only
a month or so to find a job. And there was none of the reasonablness
most regular employers practice -- one day off work and they were
thrown off the job and welfare as well. The state was inundated with
appeals and the clients won about 90% of them before an administrative
law judge. The goal was not to help these folks become self
sustaining on a long term basis, but to get them off welfare period
ASAP. In other words the intent of the law was evaded.
The largest share of welfare recipients were women -- mothers.
With kids, stuff happens and a mother sometimes has to stay home with
a sick child or attend to something at school, etc. No mercy was
shown, let alone understanding.
I was appalled during those years dealing with the welfare system
as part of my volunteer job. The employees were rude, nasty and
arrogant. Clients would try to contact their worker and could not
get through them and they did not return calls.
I am not per se against encouraging those on welfare to go to work.
But they need some kindness and tolerance and good supportive workers
and help in locating some kind of real job. They already have enough
strikes against them in trying to deal with the job market.
The system became more humane under the Bloomberg administration.
Complaints to our office and requests for help sharply decreased.
I thought those times were Dickensonian.
a
Rita is indeed correct with her observations of the Guiliani welfare
reduction programs. She is also correct about the insensitiveness of
welfare workers, however, it must be pointed out that welfare workers
were likely no more insensitive than city workers in any other city
agency( motor vehicles comes to mind particularly, although this is a
State Agency ), or workers in any other bureaucracy, for that matter.
But that is irrelevant. I personally have little sympathy for these
welfare mothers, because for most, welfare was a way of life, and more
children meant increased compensation. I had friends who worked for
Human 'resources, and when MOTHERS brought their pregnant daughters to
Human Resources, they were unduly proud, stating that now their
daughters could get their own checks. When other means were available
to avoid having these children, I have little sympathy for those who
chose not to avoid having this problem. Removing that way of life as a
viable means, required bitter medicine, which Guiliani dosed out.
I'm no fan of Guiliani, because he treated everyone in that cavalier,
'if you don't do it my way be damned' attitude. But in this instance,
that MO was what was needed. Welfare as way of life had to be ended.
And there was no better way to do it then to abruptly end it, with all
the bitter pills that doing so entailed.
Yes, people should be treated as people, even in the face of harsh
regulations. But the enforcement of the regulations signaled that 'the
times they are a'changin,' and they needed to be changed. And fast.
I don't think it is a matter of "sympathy", Alan, but of designing
programs so that those who are in them have the best chance of
success. It is to the nation's good that those who are on welfare
get off it, yes. But get off in a manner so that they have some
longer term chance of integrating into the worker society. Picking
up trash and pushing a broom along the city streets is not teaching
much. When women phoned the agency I worked for and inquired about
going on welfare I always told them to make every effort to find a
job on their own as they would undoubtedly be asked to do something
very unattractive if they did not. And "attitude" IS important.
If people feel the system is just out to punish them that is not
motivating. The attitude of the workers is dictated by those in
power in the agency. Being a welfare case worker is not a very
pleasant job under any circumstances and people on welfare often
are unsympathetic and injustice collectors as I well know having
spoken to so many of them over the years in my volunteer job.
But you can get through if you are not seen as being punitive and
offer encouragement rather than blame.
Some issues don't make themselves amenable to 'weaning' as you suggest.
This is one of those issues. Welfare as a way of life had to be
ended, and the best way to do it was abruptly, as Guiliani did. Given
the example which I posted, which BTW, was quite typical of the ADC
mother profile, you are talking about people who had little or no
skills, so 'weaning' and prolonging the inevitable was merely a waste of
time and effort, as the results would have been the same. The rapid
removal of these people sent a very clear message that welfare as a way
of life was over. I agree it was harsh, but the message it sent out was
that the game is up.
Post by Rita
The welfare rolls have been dramatically reduced and many of those
who remain are simply unemployable. Actually, most welfare is short
term -- women go on after a divorce or abandonment and most stay
only a short time. Remember, it is aid to dependent children the
program is designed for. There is a shortage of affordable day
care. Shit happens even to a motivated person.
My example went to ADC as a way of life. Guiliani ended that, to his
credit. I agree that it could have been done with more compassion on
the part of the workers to at least make this harsh reality less
insensitive than it was, but the reality is that it needed to be harsh.
Post by Rita
The climate under Guiliani was clearly punitive in nature. I saw
decided differences under Bloomberg.
I disagree. And Bloomberg had a different target. Bloomberg'starget
was those who actually worked for a living, but unfortunately, were
employed by the city. I appreciate Guiliani's approach more. It's
direct. You know where you stand with him. Bloomberg uses guild and
smiles to work his harshness. Far more cruel. And just as punitive.
What makes Bloomberg more insidious is that he does it with a smile and
soft-spoken language. with Bloomberg, you needed to watch your back;
not so with Guiliani. He came at you from the front.
Post by Rita
The goal should be to prevent long term stays on welfare, but not
punish those who are using it as a short term safety net -- find ways
to help them be successful in getting off and staying off.
I don't disagree. ADC, however, is long term, and should not be.
Post by Rita
Connie says that it is not hard to find a job. You and I know that
has not always been the case in NYC -- there is a huge pool of
immigrant labor and jobs of all kinds have been tight during many
periods. People who have been an welfare are not preferred
applicants. I saw the same thing for seniors -- in many parts of
the country a retired person can snap up at least a part-time job
because help wanted signs are everywhere. Such is not the case in
New York City. The city Department for the Aging ran a job fair
each year -- I attended one for my agency and there were just a
handful of employers there. It was really dreadful seeing all those
seniors desperate for some kind of part-time work. I almost never
saw "help wanted" signs in businesses in New York. Here in San
Diego I see them all over.
I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. But that being the
case, then people on welfare ought not to have kids, with the thinking
that society is going to pay the freight. Guiliani at least stopped
that. Children are a responsibility of the parents. If they can't
afford them, then they shouldn't have them. If they do, they should not
and cannot be my problem. You might say that is cruel, taking out the
sins of the parents on the children. Perhaps. But until you come up
with a better way, the alternative is making the sins of the parents my
responsibility because I should somehow feel sorry for the kids. I
don't buy that.
El Castor
2006-09-09 17:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers.
Islander,

To be considered unemployed, a person must meet two basic criteria.

1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.

So, in the face of that fact ... would you please explain your
following sentence.

"Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low
unemployment numbers." -- Islander

Jeff

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
Jonathan Swift
Islander
2006-09-09 17:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers.
Islander,
To be considered unemployed, a person must meet two basic criteria.
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
So, in the face of that fact ... would you please explain your
following sentence.
"Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low
unemployment numbers." -- Islander
With a reduction from 12 million to 4 million individuals on welfare and
now a required 50% reduction in the remaining recipients, one can expect
that the number of those claiming unemployment would be reduced. Or
perhaps you believe that all those receiving welfare were not looking
for a job? IIRC they are required to be actively looking for a job in
order to qualify for welfare under the welfare to work program and lost
the benefit if they hit time limits.
California Poppy
2006-09-09 19:08:42 UTC
Permalink
It seems to be forgotten that the Welfare to Work program was begun
when Clinton was president. I do not believe the current
administration has changed it in any significant way.

Islander, how do you address the basic problem of persuading women to
delay child-bearing until they are in a financially stable position?
Remember that most poverty is single women and their offspring. Don't
mention that sometimes a womn becomes single because of a bad partner,
and is later left on her own. That is a small percentage of single
parents and could easily be handled by our current system. You have
not made any mention of how to deal with the real problem.
Islander
2006-09-09 21:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by California Poppy
It seems to be forgotten that the Welfare to Work program was begun
when Clinton was president. I do not believe the current
administration has changed it in any significant way.
Islander, how do you address the basic problem of persuading women to
delay child-bearing until they are in a financially stable position?
Remember that most poverty is single women and their offspring. Don't
mention that sometimes a womn becomes single because of a bad partner,
and is later left on her own. That is a small percentage of single
parents and could easily be handled by our current system. You have
not made any mention of how to deal with the real problem.
Yes, the welfare to work program was started in 1996 and Clinton argued
just recently that it was a good program. I don't agree, but not
because there was no need to correct the problem of chronic reliance on
welfare. We need to get people working productively. What I object to
are the problems that were not addressed by this program, most
specifically the need to provide people with a path to get out of
poverty. What we have is a program where people are forced to work in
order to survive, but not a program to get them out of poverty.

I think that we are probably in agreement about the plight of single
women with children judging from your previous posts on this topic.
Unwanted pregnancies for single women are a financial catastrophe,
especially when they are poor to begin with. The fundamentalist right
does not help solve this problem by insisting on abstinence. That
simply does not work, no matter how severe the consequences are for the
woman. We need a full set of options for the single woman including not
only affordable access to birth control, the morning after pill,
condoms, and abortion as a last resort. And, we need public education
for young people, not only on the consequences, but also how they can
prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
Thumper
2006-09-09 21:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
It seems to be forgotten that the Welfare to Work program was begun
when Clinton was president. I do not believe the current
administration has changed it in any significant way.
Islander, how do you address the basic problem of persuading women to
delay child-bearing until they are in a financially stable position?
Remember that most poverty is single women and their offspring. Don't
mention that sometimes a womn becomes single because of a bad partner,
and is later left on her own. That is a small percentage of single
parents and could easily be handled by our current system. You have
not made any mention of how to deal with the real problem.
Yes, the welfare to work program was started in 1996 and Clinton argued
just recently that it was a good program. I don't agree, but not
because there was no need to correct the problem of chronic reliance on
welfare. We need to get people working productively. What I object to
are the problems that were not addressed by this program, most
specifically the need to provide people with a path to get out of
poverty. What we have is a program where people are forced to work in
order to survive, but not a program to get them out of poverty.
I agree with you Islander. Putting people to work for $7-$8 only
further keeps them in poverty.
Thumper
Post by Islander
I think that we are probably in agreement about the plight of single
women with children judging from your previous posts on this topic.
Unwanted pregnancies for single women are a financial catastrophe,
especially when they are poor to begin with. The fundamentalist right
does not help solve this problem by insisting on abstinence. That
simply does not work, no matter how severe the consequences are for the
woman. We need a full set of options for the single woman including not
only affordable access to birth control, the morning after pill,
condoms, and abortion as a last resort. And, we need public education
for young people, not only on the consequences, but also how they can
prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
El Castor
2006-09-10 06:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers.
Islander,
To be considered unemployed, a person must meet two basic criteria.
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
So, in the face of that fact ... would you please explain your
following sentence.
"Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low
unemployment numbers." -- Islander
With a reduction from 12 million to 4 million individuals on welfare and
now a required 50% reduction in the remaining recipients, one can expect
that the number of those claiming unemployment would be reduced. Or
perhaps you believe that all those receiving welfare were not looking
for a job?
Of course most of those who were receiving welfare were not looking
for a job. They were on the dole, and had little incentive to look for
a job.
Post by Islander
IIRC they are required to be actively looking for a job in
order to qualify for welfare under the welfare to work program and lost
the benefit if they hit time limits.
Islander, from the standpoint of computing unemployment statistics, it
does not matter if they were or were not on welfare, if they were or
were not receiving food stamps, or if they were or were not on AFDC or
General Assistance. Only two things matter.

1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.

If they meet those two criteria, then they are "UNEMPLOYED". If they
are on welfare, it doesn't matter. If they have been looking for a job
for thirty years, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is:

1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.

Understand?

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
Jonathan Swift
Rita
2006-09-10 13:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers.
Islander,
To be considered unemployed, a person must meet two basic criteria.
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
So, in the face of that fact ... would you please explain your
following sentence.
"Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low
unemployment numbers." -- Islander
With a reduction from 12 million to 4 million individuals on welfare and
now a required 50% reduction in the remaining recipients, one can expect
that the number of those claiming unemployment would be reduced. Or
perhaps you believe that all those receiving welfare were not looking
for a job?
Of course most of those who were receiving welfare were not looking
for a job. They were on the dole, and had little incentive to look for
a job.
Post by Islander
IIRC they are required to be actively looking for a job in
order to qualify for welfare under the welfare to work program and lost
the benefit if they hit time limits.
Islander, from the standpoint of computing unemployment statistics, it
does not matter if they were or were not on welfare, if they were or
were not receiving food stamps, or if they were or were not on AFDC or
General Assistance. Only two things matter.
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
If they meet those two criteria, then they are "UNEMPLOYED". If they
are on welfare, it doesn't matter. If they have been looking for a job
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
Understand?
I understand the criterea and believe it to be formulated to
grossly underestimate those who would like to work but just
cannot be documented as applying for a job in the last four
weeks, or those who just gave up after repeated failure.
Fred Ghadry
2006-09-10 14:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rita
Post by El Castor
If they meet those two criteria, then they are "UNEMPLOYED". If they
are on welfare, it doesn't matter. If they have been looking for a job
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
Understand?
I understand the criterea and believe it to be formulated to
grossly underestimate those who would like to work but just
cannot be documented as applying for a job in the last four
weeks, or those who just gave up after repeated failure.
Thank goodness it's the Democrats turn to run the government. As soon as
they oust those evil Republicans there can be no doubt that the criteria
will be changed.
Rita
2006-09-10 15:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Ghadry
Post by Rita
Post by El Castor
If they meet those two criteria, then they are "UNEMPLOYED". If they
are on welfare, it doesn't matter. If they have been looking for a job
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
Understand?
I understand the criterea and believe it to be formulated to
grossly underestimate those who would like to work but just
cannot be documented as applying for a job in the last four
weeks, or those who just gave up after repeated failure.
Thank goodness it's the Democrats turn to run the government. As soon as
they oust those evil Republicans there can be no doubt that the criteria
will be changed.
I didn't blame the Republicans, did I?
Alan Lichtenstein
2006-09-10 21:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rita
Post by Fred Ghadry
Post by Rita
Post by El Castor
If they meet those two criteria, then they are "UNEMPLOYED". If they
are on welfare, it doesn't matter. If they have been looking for a job
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
Understand?
I understand the criterea and believe it to be formulated to
grossly underestimate those who would like to work but just
cannot be documented as applying for a job in the last four
weeks, or those who just gave up after repeated failure.
Thank goodness it's the Democrats turn to run the government. As soon as
they oust those evil Republicans there can be no doubt that the criteria
will be changed.
I didn't blame the Republicans, did I?
Indeed you didn't Rita. But in his dotage, Fred is becoming more
ideological and less objective and logical.

Thumper
2006-09-10 15:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
Post by California Poppy
States have to put more welfare recipients to work
By KEVIN FREKING, - Associated Press Writer
Published 3:34 am PDT Friday, September 8, 2006
Welfare officials in Pennsylvania, California, Michigan have their work
cut out for them when new rules take effect next month: find jobs for
tens of thousands of people on welfare or risk losing millions in
federal money.
Those three states are among about two dozen identified by the federal
government as lagging in efforts to get welfare recipients to work.
---[clip]---
Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low unemployment
numbers.
Islander,
To be considered unemployed, a person must meet two basic criteria.
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
So, in the face of that fact ... would you please explain your
following sentence.
"Now we know how the Bush administration is getting the low
unemployment numbers." -- Islander
With a reduction from 12 million to 4 million individuals on welfare and
now a required 50% reduction in the remaining recipients, one can expect
that the number of those claiming unemployment would be reduced. Or
perhaps you believe that all those receiving welfare were not looking
for a job?
Of course most of those who were receiving welfare were not looking
for a job. They were on the dole, and had little incentive to look for
a job.
There you go again. You have no evidence of this.
Thumper
Post by El Castor
Post by Islander
IIRC they are required to be actively looking for a job in
order to qualify for welfare under the welfare to work program and lost
the benefit if they hit time limits.
Islander, from the standpoint of computing unemployment statistics, it
does not matter if they were or were not on welfare, if they were or
were not receiving food stamps, or if they were or were not on AFDC or
General Assistance. Only two things matter.
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
If they meet those two criteria, then they are "UNEMPLOYED". If they
are on welfare, it doesn't matter. If they have been looking for a job
1. Not employed.
2. Looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
Understand?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."
Jonathan Swift
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...