WELFARE UPDATE

(Article published in HWW Jan-Feb 2007)

by Don Friedman, Senior Policy Analyst, Community Service Society

Today I’m going to talk about a new development in how the Human Resource Administration (HRA) Job Centers operate, and then two court cases that I think it might be good to know about.

Back to Work

HRA has started a new program in the Job Centers, called "Back to Work" or BTW. Back to Work replaces the old Employment Services and Placement (ESP) and Skills Assessment and Job Placement (SAP) programs, which should, by now, be completely phased out.

The first job of the BTW program is to provide assessments for public assistance applicants and recipients. The process is supposed to evaluate people to learn about their work experience, job skills, education, preferences and other factors to help the agency decide how to assign the individual. This process generally takes place either during the application period or soon after the person has been accepted.

Under the BTW program, unlike the ESP/SAP programs, each Job Center is assigned only one employment vendor, which will handle all job search and work-related activity at that center from the application forward. HRA hopes that this will make the process less confusing and help it run more smoothly. Another major objective of the BTW program is to move clients rapidly into orientation and assignment. In the previous program, clients might have one or two-week delays from the time of the assessment until their first assignment. With BTW, the goal is to have the person go to their first assignment either the same day as the assessment or the next day. This could be a reason for concern depending on whether the workers are flexible and understanding about people’s family and other obligations.

Under the ESP/SAP system there were questions about the quality of the assessments and the types of assignments that were made. Many felt that workers were trained to emphasize moving people quickly to work and not to help people gain access to education and training. We will have see what this change to Back to Work will bring...

"Adult-only" public assistance cases

A new court case has been filed in New York City, called Cannalonga v Doar. New York State now requires that, when people apply for public assistance, they must also include on the application any children who live with them. Before that rule was adopted, a mother, for example, whose children received Title II Survivors’ Benefits, or child support from an absent parent, could say that she only wanted assistance for herself; this would be called an adult-only case.

This change is important because if a person’s application as an adult-only case is accepted, the income that is going to the children (such as Survivors’ Benefits) does not count when the adult’s grant is calculated. If the child must be included in the application, then his or her income is also counted. This result will often be a large reduction in the grant.

The lawyers in this case believe that the new rule violates the law and should not be permitted. The main lawyer on the case, Peter Vollmer, is looking for clients whose welfare application was denied, or grant was reduced because of this rule. He can be reached at Vollmer & Tanck, (516) 870-0335.

Storage payments

Often when people must quickly relocate or are evicted, they must put many of their possessions into storage for a period of time. Even when the welfare agency approves the storage, and agrees to pay the cost, it is often very difficult to have the payments continue as long as they are needed, and sometimes the agency will terminate storage payments without even giving the person notice. There was a recent court decision that you can use to remind local welfare centers of their proper legal obligations. In the case of Dawson v. Doar, the court confirmed that:

1. a person has a right to notice if the agency intends to terminate storage payments; and

2. when a person has been found eligible for storage payments under the Emergency Assistance to Adults program (EAA), the welfare agency must continue to pay for storage as long as need and eligibility continue. Since storage is one of the costs EAA covers, the plaintiff in this case, Mr. Dawson, remains eligible for storage payments as long as he cannot pay for it on his own, and as long as his need for payment continues, because he is still unable to find alternative housing.

For further information, contact Maryanne Joyce, Legal Services for NYC, Bronx office, (718) 928-3738.