Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564890
label
Issues - Welfare (3 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564890
contentType
document
title
Issues - Welfare (3 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564890
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b934730eef6deb4b
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issues - Welfare (3 of 3)
Box: P32
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
re: Government JODS for Employable Welfare Recipients with County Welpone
Gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 CC tissue, 1 green
(each ltr. will have a bbc to the County Adm. Officer of the
county the ltr. is being directed)
Mar e 11 tabs @ 44 & 60 - (2pg. 7½ min. ltr.)
cc of 1st run to: JJC, BN, RAS, DT, BEE, FR, READERS, WASH, GOVERNOR
& 1 bbc to James Hall
June 16, 1971
The Monorable
Chairman,
County Board
of Supervisors
County Courthouse
, California
/My dear Supervisor/Dear --:
AS public officials, we should all agree one of the greatest
challenges we face is the development of a welfare program
designed to preserve, rather than destroy, California's
greatest resource--her people.
An important element of the program must be to generate oppor-
tunities for able-bodied welfare recipients to contribute to
their own well-being. When regular employment or training is
unavailable, it remains for state and local government to
identify useful work that could be accomplished by employ-
able welfare recipients.
In January, I asked the agencies and departments of state
government to examine their operations and develop an inventory
of jobs that could possibly provide work for such recipients.
The response has been encouraging, and a wide range of work
opportunities have been generated.
I am now asking your assistance, along with the help of other
counties in California, to undertake a similar inventory of
potential jobs within your county for employable welfare
recipients. This inventory by governments at the state and
county levels should enable us to move toward a comprehensive
program that will place able-bodied welfare recipients, who
cannot be placed in an existing job or a training program, in
work projects as a transition to regular employment. The type
of jobs I am asking you to inventory is, of course, as variable
as the needs of your county. Several examples as set forth in
cont
719
cont.
The Honorable
-2-
June 16, 1971
my welfare message are maintenance of recreation and park
facilities, recycling of discarded waste products, school moni-
toring and supervision, crossing guards, disaster repair and
cleanup, and child care activities. Such an inventory is
limited only by our imagination.
AS you may be aware, representatives of the Department of Human
Resources Development have discussed with officials of your
county the possibility of public assistance work programs. I
would appreciate it, and it would be most helpful, if you could
respond to this request by July 15, 1971. Your response and
any questions you may have should be directed to the department,
800 Capitol Mall, Room 5046, Sacramento, California 95814 (tele-
phone (916) 445-5489).
Your assistance in developing and compiling this inventory at
an early date should be of mutual benefit to your county as
well as all citizens of California.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
JJC:js
Form approved by
DT
6/16/71
To Chrm. of Central Committee re: Welfare & Tax
Reform
Mar @ 15 tab @ 45 Gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 green
CC of 1st run to: MD, BN, RAS, DT, Bee, FR, Readers, Wash., &
Governor
&
Drace
June 17, 1971
-
-
-
-
-
Dear --:
I will go on radio and television on Wednesday, June 23,
in a last attempt to mobilize public opinion in favor of
welfare and tax reform. Please notify all of our supporters
SO that they can help direct attention to this important
message.
A schedule of broadcasts is enclosed. As you will observe,
the coverage is sparse but it is limited to the resources
available from the Citizens Committee for Welfare Reform.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
Enclosure
MD:js
Form approved by:
Dr
6/17/71
To All Supervisors re: Governor's Welfare Reform Program
718
blue seal, 1 tissue, 1 green
Mar @ 8 tabs # 36 & 45
CC of 1st run to: BN, MD, RAS, DT, Bee, FR, READERS, Wash., & Governor
June 10, 1971
The Honorable
County Board of Supervisors
County Court House
California
My dear Supervisor:
Yesterday, shortly after the Senate Health and Welfare Committee
killed this administration's welfare reform legislation, a CSAC
representative testified in favor of a so-called substitute "welfare
reform" program authored by Senator Anthony Beilenson.
It is extremely difficult for us to understand why the CSAC staff
took this position when, in fact, one of the provisions of the
Beilenson bill would push on to the counties an additional $83
million in increased costs. As you know, this new burden would end
up coming out of the pockets of our already overtaxed homeowners.
I must assume the CSAC representative was not aware of this critical
information when he testified. Surely, had he known it, he would
not have made the statement he did to the committee.
The increased cost to Los Angeles County alone would amount to about
$30 million next year. Again, the burden would fall squarely on the
shoulders of California's beleaguered property taxpayers.
From the time we introduced our welfare reform program in March we
have said repeatedly that we would not permit welfare reform to push
any additional costs on to the counties. And--to back up our com-
mitment we amended our program accordingly.
The difference between the $83 million in added costs to the counties
from his bill and the $71 million in savings the counties would real-
ize under our program amount to a total of $154 million. In fact the
total difference between his overall program and ours could mean as
much as $1 billion in new costs to the people.
I urge you to request the CSAC staff to reevaluate the position it has
taken on the Beilenson package. We believe a careful analysis of the
implications of the Senator's bill will lead you to the same conclusion
we have reached- that it is not true welfare reform, but amounts to
nothing more than a gigantic tax increase.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
BN
708
"Meeting the Challenge" requests
Mar @ 16 tab @ 40 blue seal, 1 green NO tissues
Enclosure: the "Overview of the Calif. Pub. Assist. Reform. Prog"
CC of 1st run to: BN. DT. RAS. DT. Bee, FR, & Readers
May --, 1971
-
-
-
-
Dear
The demand for copies of "Meeting the Challenge" has
been so great that we are unable to fill all the
requests we have received. We hope that the enclosed
"overview" will be helpful--it is a very good summary
of the information which is contained in the 179-page
booklet.
The Governor very much appreciates your interest in
his efforts to bring about meaningful welfare reform.
He asks that you express your feelings about his pro-
gram to your state legislators and to your county
supervisors.
Sincerely,
Bruce Nestande
Staff Assistant
Enclosure
BN:
Paul
State of California
OF
BUREKA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
SACRAMENTO 95814
CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN
GOVERNOR
Dear Friend:
The response to our welfare reform proposal was
both overwhelming and gratifying. I only regret
that it is impossible for me to respond to the
thousands of letters and wires we have received.
We have a great opportunity to curb the runaway
costs of government through welfare reform. I
believe it is at the heart of everything we "ve tried
to do these past several years, so I am doubly grate-
ful for any active support on the local level--and
it appears to be growing.
Many of you have asked how you can help. You should
let your Board of Supervisors and your elected repre-
sentatives know of your position. You can be
particularly helpful by joining groups of supporters
which, I understand, are now forming in many commu-
nities.
I am taking the liberty of forwarding your name to
community leaders in your county who I know share
your views and mine.
Sincerely,
Ronald RONALD REAGAN Reagan
Governor
686
T.Y. to Volunteers on the McCandless Citizen Welfare
Reform Committee
gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 green Mar @ 15 tab @ 42
CC of 1st run to: BN, MD, RAS, HAK, WMW, Bee, Mailroom, FR,
JEJ, Governor & Wash.
March 30, 1971
-
-
-
Dear --:
I can't tell you how delighted and pleased I was to hear
that you had volunteered to be a member of Al McCandless'
citizens' welfare reform committee.
It was a special privilege for me to be able to sit down
with you yesterday and discuss the details of our program.
On behalf of all the thousands of truly needy welfare
families who willAgiven, for the first time, an income
above the poverty level, and the millions of taxpayers
who will benefit from these controls on the growth rate,
I thank you.
I have already promised you and Chairman McCandless my
complete support and cooperation in every possible way
during the long, hard struggle ahead of you. Please be
assured of my complete sincerity in that pledge.
Gratefully yours,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
JEJ:js
679
T.Y. for attending Statewide Press Briefings
Gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 green
CC: BN, MD, RAS, HAK, WMW, BEE, MAILROOM, FR, WASH., GOV
Mar 20 Tab 45
March 22, 1971
Dear
------:
I appreciate your taking the time from your busy
schedule to meet with me and members of my adminis-
tration on the welfare-Medi-Cal reform program. I
hope it was useful to you. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to let us know.
We think that once the entire program is understood,
there can be little opposition.
As I mentioned at the meeting, I think you can do a
tremendous public service by helping keep the citizens
of California informed about this most vital issue.
Thanks again for attending.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
PJB:js
675
To Republican State Central Committee Chairmen, Officers
& Vol. Club Pres. re: Welfare & Medi-Cal Reform
Gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 green Mar @ 12 tab @ 45
CC of 1st run to: Gov., MD, BN, WMW, Bee, RAS, FR, Wash., & Mailroom
March 5, 1971
-
-
-
-
-
Dear :
Within the next few days you will receive a copy of "Meeting
the Challenge", our recently announced welfare and Medi-Cal
reform program, along with other background material on the
welfare problem. We are sending this material to you because
you have been so generous with your support in the past. It
is our hope that you will be able to continue that support
and help us get out the word on our program. This can be done
by contacting your Board of Supervisors, writing letters to
the editor, and letting your legislators and
other repre-
sentatives know how you feel.
ok
There is one assurance I wish to give you regarding this
program: There will be no shift of economic burdens to county
governments because of these reforms. If at any time it
becomes obvious that the counties are being shortchanged, we
will take immediate and effective steps to right the wrong.
There will be no increased costs to local governments. In
fact, we anticipate savings at the local level.
Again, thank you for your continuing efforts. Should you
require additional information or material, contact Michael K.
Deaver, (916) 445-6343.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
MKD:js
To Chrm. County Supervisors sending welfare program
676
Gold seal, 2 tissue, 1 green
CC: BN, MD, RAS, HAK, WMW, BEE, MAILROOM, FR, WASHINGTON, GOVERNOR
Mar 10
Tab 45
March 8, 1971
The Honorable
My dear Supervisor:
With regard to my telegram of March 2, enclosed is a copy of
my welfare and Medi-Cal reform program, "Meeting the Challenge".
As this is indeed an area where communication must be opened,
I look forward to receiving your comments once you have reviewed
this reform program.
You can be assured that these reforms are in no way intended to
shift economic burden to county governments. In fact, we antici-
pate savings at the local level. If at any time it becomes
obvious that the counties are being shortchanged, we will take
immediate and effective steps to right the wrong.
To further tighten the bond between this administration and
local government, I have permanently assigned a member of my staff,
Bruce Nestande, to act as liaison between myself and local govern-
ment officials.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Nestande at (916) 445-8054, if you
have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
Enclosure
BN/cms:bh
674
To Governors re: The Welfare System
Gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 green Mar @17 tab @ 45
CC of 1st run to: Governor, JJC, BN, MD, WMW, Bee, HAK
RAS, FR, Wash. & Mailroom
March 1, 1971
-
-
-
-
/My dear Governor/Dear ---:
After the plenary session of the National Governors'
Conference on Thursday, February 25, we were able to
contact and give 27 governors a chance to sign the
attached letter. Twenty-four of you signed. Three
said they would express their views directly to the
two chairmen involved.
For those who did not get the opportunity to sign, I
am enclosing a copy of the correspondence and attach-
ment in the hope that you will communicate your views
on this subject directly to the two chairmen.
To those who did sign, I wish to express my deep
appreciation personally, and share with you my grati-
fication at this show of unanimity.
I intend to follow up and keep our congressional
delegation informed. I hope you will be able to join
in this continuing effort.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
Enclosures
JJC:js
683
To Calif. Delegation Sending Set of Bills on
Welfare Medi-Cal Reform Program
Gold seal, 1 tissue, I green
Mar @ 20 tab @ 45
CC of 1st run to: BN, MD, RAS, HAK, WMW, Bee, Mailroom,
FR, Wash., Gov. & JEJ
March 25, 1971
-
-
-
-
/ My dear Congressman/Dear :
Enclosed is a set of bills implementing our
Welfare Medi-Cal Reform Program.
By the time you receive this, you will have
had an opportunity to hear our briefing team.
I hope you were able to do so. In any event,
you may have had time to peruse the Legis-
lative Message and other materials sent you
earlier this month. If so, and you have any
further questions or comments, they would be
most welcome.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
JEJ:js
682
To all governors enclosing bills implementing our Welfare
Reform Program
Gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 green
CC: BN, MD, RAS, HAK, WMW, BEE, MAILROOM, FR, WASHINGTON, GOVERNOR
CC of 1 ltr to Charles Byerley
Mar 13 Tab 45
March 24, 1971
Dear :
Enclosed is a set of bills implementing our Welfare Reform
Program, about which I wrote you earlier this month.
Several more governors have endorsed our February "chain
letter" to Chairmen Long and Mills requesting their support
for the idea of letting states experiment and innovate.
Some have also given the "chain letter" to their congres-
sional delegations, requesting their support.
If you have not expressed your desires to the two chairmen,
or canvassed, your delegation, I hope you will see your way
clear to do so soon.
Any suggestions, comments or questions you may have will be
gratefully received.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
Enclosure
JEJ:bh
689
To Demo. Assemblymen: Invitation to Briefing
on Gov. Welfare Reform Program & Medi-Cal Reform 4/12/71
Blue seal, 1 bbc, 1 tissue, 1 green
Mar @ 20 tabs @ 30 & 40
CC of 1st run to: BN, MD, RAS, FR, HAK, Bee, Mailroom
Washington & WAE
April 6, 1971.
The Honorable
Member of the Assembly
Dear
..
You are cordially invited to a briefing on the
Governor's Welfare Reform Program and Medi-Cal
Reform on Monday, April 12, from 3:00 to 5:00
p.m. in Room 760 of Office Building #8. Trans-
portation will be provided to and from the
basement of the Capitol to Office Building #8.
You are urged to be present.
Sincerely,
William Evans
Legislative Secretary
R.S.V.P. to Marian or Isabel
5-4341
CC: To Addressee at State Capitol
WE:bh
Governors Welfare Reform
Gold seal, 1 tissue, 1 green Add. Tape #15a used for addresses
Mar @ 15 tab @ 45
CC of 1st run to: BN, MD, RAS, HAK, NAILROOM, FR, WASH., JEJ & Gov.
April 12, 1971
-
-
-
My dear Supervisor:
I am enclosing a list of members of the statewide Citizens'
Committee for the Governor's Welfare Reform Program. I am
hopeful that you and as many of your associates as possible
will be able to help this committee organize subunits in
your county.
As you can see, this is a nonpartisan effort, so I am not
appealing to you as a Republican, but as a citizen-leader
in your county, with whom I am personally acquainted.
From time to time, as this effort progresses, I will send
you periodic reports. Meanwhile, I hope you will have an
opportunity to discuss the materials sent you last month
with your Supervisors (they also have the materials).
They will undoubtedly have questions you could not be
expected to answer. This is an important part of our
effort, so I will deeply appreciate your forwarding the
Supervisors' questions to me as soon as possible.
If we can't answer them fully, effectively and promptly,
the program will never get off the ground.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
Enclosure
JEJ:js
EMP
Wilfare
SERVICE
LOFES
ERNATIONAL
MONTH
California State Council of
Service Employees AFL-CIO
BOB ANDERSON
June 17, 1971
Legislative Lobbyist
1220 H Street, Suite 205
PRESS RELEASE
Sacramento, Calif. 95814
(916) 442-6613
REAGAN'S SECRET WEAPON
15
INITIATIVE PETITION ON "REFORM '71"
Governor Ronald Reagan is secretly considering the circulation of an initiative
petition to place his welfare reform program on a ballot to be voted at large by the
electorate.
While it is not clear if he will seek a "reform" statute by initiative requiring
325,000 signatures or a constitutional amendment initiative requiring 520,000 signatures,
it is predictable that a filing with the Attorney General for the initiative may be made
some time in late August or September, as it appears that Reagan will want to qualify the
initiative by February 1972 in time to be placed on the June 1972 primary ballot.
Governor Reagan is pushing his Welfare Reform '71 in the legislature at the present
time mainly to gain pre-initiative campaign coverage. While he is continuing to get the
publicity, the ground work for the initiative petition is being developed through a state-
wide committee and local county-based committees "For The Governor's Welfare Reform
Program." Campaign literature is being marketed through the "citizens committees" to
test consumer appeal. One such pamphlet aimed at working men shows Ronald Reagan's
picture in a layout with Franklin Roosevelt's and Bobby Kennedy's, along with promises
that Reform'71 will "cut taxes" and "strengthen family responsibility."
To set the stage for a successful kick-off of the initiative petition later this year,
Governor Reagan has maintained an inflexible posture before the state legislature on his
"reform proposals." Lack of compromise insures legislative rejection of Reform '71,
which then justifies taking Reform '71 directly to the electorate. To further insure
legislative defeat of Reform '71, the Governor's State Welfare Director has switched
cost-savings estimates of the reforms so frequently during this session that neither the
Senate Finance nor the Assembly Ways & Means Committees could pin down the claims suf-
ficiently to write a budget. Deliberate attempts to confuse legislators have resulted
in anger, frustration and a deepening suspicion between the Governor and the Legislature.
Again, such tactics serve the Governor's strategy. To make his appeal directly to the
public, the Governor needs the legislature to reject Reform '71.
The Democrats are hopeful that bi-partisan support for welfare reform can put through
a legislative alternative to the Governor's program. This is, of course, one of the most
serious threats to the proposed initiative, Governor Reagan has countered that threat by
arguing against any alternatives. His arguments include statements that the alternatives
will cost the taxpayers nearly $1 billion and are not reforms. Only his program is "true
welfare reform."
With the legislature acting as a temporary foil, the Governor sharpens his program
for the real test, a thrust at the July 1972 Republican convention. As leader of a
popular campaign to limit welfare expenditures and in exercising his brilliance in what
could be called a "non-partisan" contest, Reagan will be able to demonstrate very
impressive credentials to the delegates at the national convention. Reagan's gamble is
substantial, since the Nixon administration is attempting to defuse the welfare issue with
its Family Assistance Plan now pending before the Congress. The prize, however, is well
worth the gamble.
7/10/71
Page 1 of 2
LIST OF ENDORSEMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS
CALIFORNIA CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR THE GOVERNOR'S WELFARE REFORM PROGRAM
Extent of Endorsements
Full
Qualified
Unknown
GROUPS:
Board of Supervisors:
San Diego County
X
Riverside County
X
Northern California County Supervisors' Assn,
X
Represents
Orange Ventura County
X
9 counties
X
Santa Barbara
X
Fresno
X
Santa Clara
X
Solano County
X
Sonoma County
X
Butte County
X
San Luis Obispo
X
Tehama County
X
Glenn County
X
Civic Groups:
State Chamber
X
Riverside Chamber
X
Pasadena Chamber
X
Glendale Chamber
X
San Fernando Valley Business &
Professional Assn.
X
Duarte City Council
X
Monrovia City Council
X
Santa Barbara County Taxpayers' Assn.
X
Alameda County Grand Jury
X
Bakersfield Taxpayers' Assn
X
LIST OF ENDORSEMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS
Page 2 of 2
CALIFORNIA CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR THE GOVERNOR'S WELFARE REFORM PROGRAM
Extent of Endorsements
Full
Qualified
Unknown
ROUPS:
Civic Groups: (Continued)
Bakersfield and Kern County Builders' Assn.
X
Bakersfield Chamber
X
Kern County Taxpayers Assn.
X
Hanford Chamber
X
Sonoma County Taxpayers
Greater Tulare Chamber
Corona City Council
X
Madera District Chamber
X
Merced Republican Women's Club
X
Merced County Republican Central Committee
X
Bakersfield Republican Women, Federated
X
Fresno County and City Chamber
X
Bakersfield Board of Realtors
County Taxpayers' League of Sacramento County
X
California Association of Mutual Insurance Agents
X
Kiwanis Club of Fresno
X
Bakersfield Advertising Club
X
Monrovia Chamber
X
Madera County Taxpayers Assn.
Golden Gate Republican Assembly
X
West of Twin Peaks Central Council
X
UROC - AREA 5 (San. Francisco)
X
Tulare County Farm Bureau
X
San Francisco Home Owners Assn.
Monterey Heights Homes Assn.
X
Ventura County Farm Bureau
X
Kings County Republican Women Federated
X
Kiwanis Club of Kern, Bakersfield
X
Kiwanis Club of Lemdore
X
CALIFORNIA CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR THE GOVERNOR'S WELFARE REFORM
PROGRAM
July 21, 1971
NEWSLETTER
Newsletter Office, P. O. Drawer JJJJ, Indio, California 92201
It appears that we have a compromise on MEDI-CAL. First reports are sketchy,
but the principle of copayments has been established for both prescriptions and
visits to physicians, dentists, and other providers. Also, a schedule of benefits
more like those utilized by the average self-supporting Californian has been estab-
lished. These are both key provisions of the Reform Program. The counties should
find the package to their liking in that it will cost them less than the current Program,
and carries county cost limiting guarantees. Some people are upset, as always, by
the compromises, but all in all we've done well for a first step.
It was hoped in Sacramento that the package would clear the Assembly Health and
Ways and Means Committees today, and that the full Assembly would act by week-
end. The bills then go to the Senate for their action, and the hope is that it will clear
all the hurdles prior to the much discussed recess in two weeks.
Saw a good Letter to the Editor in the Santa Ana Register. Lady noted the return of
the Rojas family from New York, then said that "welfare here is simply unbelievable!"
Tells of a welfare recipient applying for one of her luxury apartments. "She assured
us that we need not worry about our money, because the welfare people would send
the check direct. 'We are allowed up to $200 a month' she stated."
Speaking of letters, another in the L.A. Times by W. M. Bennett, State Board of
Equalization member, puts the nepotism thing in perspective. Bennett said "Your
editorial is erroneous and does a disservice to the Governor. I am a Democrat as
are George Reilly, John Lynch, and Richard Nevins, all of us the elected Board
members. This is an agency which is administered by Democrats elected by the
people and the fault lies with us, and in no way is any criticism to be directed toward
Governor Reagan. " Mr. Bennett is a credit to the Board and you don't have to
listen to unfunny jokes about welfare in high places.
Hey, didja hear that late night newscast where the Oregon Governor said that our
R. R. is not just a supporter of the Pres., but "a gung-ho supporter This after
hearing the Governor talk about welfare at Jackson Hole, and a bit of discussion.
Wonder why that didn't get into the papers
Head 'em off at the pass
with a letter? Orange County Supervisor antagonist,
wanting to join L. A. in suing the Governor over budget cuts, was stopped in his
tracks when another super read a letter from R. R. assuring the Board that no
shift of welfare costs from the state to the county would occur "as a result of our
reforms. " Friendly supervisor further able to assure the Board that "Reagan would
have a representative appear before the Board. 11
Sequel to the story. Bob Carleson appeared before the Orange County Board on
July 20, telling them Reform '71 would be cheaper and give the county more control.
Said the program is "not one a politician would put forward, but with it we can bring
the welfare problem under control. " Supervisors reacted favorably to Carleson's
plea, and the Welfare Director said he could support the Governor's plan.
Support "clear to the hilt" of Governor Reagan's Welfare Reform Program was
pledged by the Glenn County Board of Supervisors. Board action came as announce-
ment was made that a Glenn County Citizens Committee is being formed to throw its
(over)
7-21-71 Newsletter - page 2
weight behind the Governor's Reform drive. Motion by Supervisor Ralph Colbert
- "staunch Glenn County Democrat" - followed statements by County Welfare
Director showing a 50. increase in County AFDC costs.
Wondering about those welfare fraud estimates that vary from 1% to 57%? George
Miller, Nevada State Welfare Director, explained it all on the KABC welfare
special. He said that 1% to 2% is the level that have been prosecuted and con-
victed in court. On the other hand, when he ran a check of Nevada recipients -
and found that just over 50% had misrepresented their circumstances in applying
for welfare - 22% were successfully removed from the rolls and the balance had
their grants reduced. When asked why more weren't prosecuted, he said a) the
penalties are so light that it isn't worthwhile, b) the D.A. is overloaded with wel-
fare cases, and c) the time lag between finding the fraud and the trial worked against
vigorous prosecution. When asked why he thought people used the lower figures,
Miller said that politicians only find what they are looking for. It can be noted that
the people in HEW who put out the 1% to 2% fraud figure work in Washington, D. C.
where it was recently shown that 57% of the welfare caseload involved misrepre-
sentation.
A discerning teacher says "Our future welfare rolls are being printed daily in the
attendance offices of our schools. 11 A business teacher, she said in a Letter to the
Editor, "I know I can develop practical skills which will enable a student to get full-
time employment I cannot get results with the student who regards school as a
place to go when there is nothing else to do, a place where he drops in to see his
friends In my opinion parents should be held strictly accountable to the law for
their children's truant absenses. 11 Not precisely germane to our program, but incul-
cating a sense of family and personal responsibility is both our theme and her theme.
And if we can't sell a welfare program based on family responsibility, there's little
hope for her cause, and today's school absentees will be tomorrow's unemployable
welfare recipient.
And another ever lovin' survey find us in the winner's corner. The California mem-
bers of the National Federation of Independent Businessmen (N.F.I.B.) were polled
this Spring on the welfare question. In the first 3962 responses, an overwhelming
3904 said that "able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work as a con-
dition of receiving public assistance" - a whopping 98. 5%. 2310 or 58. 3% "think the
government should impose a lien against real estate of persons on public assistance
if necessary to repay welfare benefits. 11 3555, or 89% agreed that employables should
be separated out for training and education, but only 779 or 19% think "it is the gov-
ernment's obligation to provide a national income floor. 11
Try this on: Corona police are investigating a new type of welfare fraud. A guy
comes to a man's door, tells him he will get him on welfare at $400 per month for
a kickback of $200. Householder objects, tells the guy to get off his property. Two
hours later the heavy returns, barges into the house and tells the man to "shut his
mouth and go on welfare." Our hero again refuses, and gets punched in the eye for
his stand.
Controversy rages in Santa Ana's Troubleshooter column over affect of welfare on
marriage break up. He said "By making welfare support available to young wives
who are unwilling to shoulder their responsibilities, welfare authorities are, indeed,
subsidizing the break up of many marriages that might well endure if such an easy
"out" were not provided. 11 Touche.
More counties compute high cost of Schabarum Bill which is being pushed by
CSAC. Extra costs will be: Orange - $1,760,246, Kern - $1,271,479,
Sacramento - $1,926,000, Tulare - $1,695,000,* and San Berdoo - a big
$3,056,000.
And while the Legislature drones on, the budget is now $25,200,000 out of balance.
It gets worse at $1,200,000 per day
or inc GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
8-20-71
#498
Governor Ronald Reagan announced today that for the fourth month
in a row the total number of persons on welfare in California has
declined.
He said statistics provided to him today by State Social Welfare
Director Robert Carleson show that 2,188,404 persons were receiving
welfare in California during the month of July---down 12,500 from
June and 105,173 fewer than were on the rolls only four months ago,
in March.
The governor attributed the steady decline in California's welfare
population to the strong emphasis his administration has placed on
overhauling the state's welfare system, including a series of adminis-
trative and regulatory changes which the Department of Social Welfare
has been putting into effect since the beginning of 1971 when Carleson
took over as director. The reforms were spelled out in detail in a
lengthy Welfare Reform package which the governor sent to the
legislature March 3.
"These latest figures constitute dramatic proof that the actions
we have taken are grabbing hold and really work. They bear out the
effectiveness of the overall approach we have taken to bring welfare
back under control in California."
The governor pointed out that the four-month decline in the number
of persons on welfare "reflects the effects of only a portion of our
total welfare reform program, considering the fact that the legislative
reforms I signed into law only a week ago will not become effective
until after October 1."
He noted that "the steady drop in the number of persons on the
rolls in California during these last four months contrasts sharply
with the national trend and strongly confirms our belief that the pro-
gram we have developed here clearly points the direction for true
welfare reform."
Carleson said, "Even if the declining trend we have been experienc-
ing in California should begin to level out in the months ahead, it
will have been demonstrated for all to see that welfare can, indeed,
be brought under control. At the same time we intend to continue to
press forward to make every administrative effort possible so that
the welfare system will help those persons who need it most, in the
most efficient and effective way we can."
Carleson said that up until March, when the governor's welfare
reform program was presented, California's welfare rolls had been
Human Relations Agency
Management Information Systems
August 18, 1971
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES
July 1971
Aid Recipients
Payments
Program
Julyp/
Junep/
July
Julyp/
JuneP/
July
1971
1971
1970
1971
1971
1970
Grand total
2,188,404
2,200,939
1,977,305
$159,396,069
$160,328,869
$139,906,418
Cash grant recipients
2,106,324
2,114,515
1,879,916
155,247,560
155,948,051
135,974,079
General home relief
82,080
86,424
97,389
4,148,509
4,380,818
3,932,339
Averagea/
AGED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
318,320
319,518
316,564
107.55
107.52
107.35
BLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)
Cash grant recipients
14,020
14,063
13,653
151.08
151.83
155.53
DISABLED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
190,044
189,492
175,948
127.16
129.79
125.01
FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Cash grant recipients:
Family groups:b/
children
918,466
906,711
805,202
81.77
81.83
76.59
cases
387,144
380,751
325,158
193.99
194.88
189.66
total persons
1,277,328
1,263,103
1,125,886
58.79
58.74
54.77
Unemployed cases:
children
165,327
177,711
131,719
79.73
79.78
74.11
cases
57,875
61,724
44,245
227.77
229.71
220.63
total persons
272,917
293,699
215,078
48.30
48.28
45.39
Boarding Homes and
Institutions:
children
33,695
34,640
32,787
156.38
146.16
139.93
GENERAL HOME RELIEF
Total persons
82,080
86,424
97,389
50.54
50.69
40.38
Family cases
10,817
11,458
14,863
58.24
58.93
63.76
Persons in family cases
33,406
35,448
55,642
18.86
19.05
17.03
One-person cases
48,674
50,976
41,747
72.29
72.69
71.49
Unemployed in labor force (%)
7.3
7.6
6.4
XXX
XXX
XXX
(Seasonally adjusted)
(7.0)
(7.3)
(6.2)
XXX
XXX
XXX
Civilian population (excluding
military)
19,956,600
19,937,000
19,721,600
XXX
XXX
XXX
al Cash grant averages for adult aids computed from "net" person counts.
b/ Excludes U cases.
p/ Preliminary.
Wilfare
State of California
#71
Department of Social Welfare
Contact: Mr. William Montgomery
September 24, 1971
445-0313
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Robert B. Carleson, State Director of Social Welfare, announced
today that regulations implementing the recently passed Welfare Reform Act
of 1971 were filed today with the Secretary of State.
"The regulations filed today are the first of a series that allows
the counties to implement the Act, which becomes effective October 1, 1971,"
Carleson stated. Copies of the regulations were distributed to all counties
prior to their filing. "We have been working very closely with a representative
group of county personnel in the development of these regulations," Carleson
indicated.
Among the more significant regulations filed today are those affecting
out-of-state recipients, aliens and college students. The Welfare Reform Act
limits the period of time that a recipient may be out-of-state to 60 days.
After that time the recipient is presumed to have relocated his residence and
welfare aid from California is discontinued.
The new rules also stress that students, age 17 and over, must be
NOR'S RECEIVED OFFICE
attending college full time and maintaining passing grades.
16
Aliens are no longer eligible for aid if they entered the county
illegally. Provisions have been made with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to determine the aliens' status.
Other regulations filed today have the following effects:
- under penalty of perjury recipients must periodically present
statements of facts for redetermination of their eligibility
- when emergency assistance to an applicant is necessary, it
is limited to $100 and eligibility must be verified within five
working days
- county welfare staff are now required to provide simply the
amount of aid to which the recipient is entitled, rather than
the "maximum" permitted, as was the case under previous law
- when a person works on an annual contract basis and receives
total earnings in less than twelve but more than eight months,
income is averaged for the whole year to give a monthly figure
- earnings from interest have been added as an income classifi-
cation to be considered in eligibility and grant determination
- lump sum income, except for social insurance payments, will be
considered as income for the month during which it is received
- "casual" income, and income from "inconsequential" sources,
will not be counted as income, up to the sum of $60 per quarter
- loans and grants to undergraduate college students from the
State Scholarship and Loan Commission, or accredited college,
will not be considered as income
- up to one-half of the income of a stepfather is his wife's
community property and will be considered available to her to
reduce the amount of grant to her children on aid. The stepfather
will be allowed a deduction of $300 plus any prior support liability
- An increased scale of liability was instituted, governing contri-
butions that may be required of responsible relatives of persons
receiving 01d Age Assistance. Payments from liable relatives will
be made to the county rather than to the recipient.
Carleson also said that "additional regulations are currently being
drafted to implement the balance of the welfare reform program, and will be
issued in the near future."
#
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Welfare
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
10-20-71
#583
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today issued the following statement:
"I would like to open this press conference with an announcement of
an extremely important accomplishment we have made here in California
one which no other major state can match.
"State Social Welfare Director Robert Carleson informed me this
morning that as a result of the administrative actions and regulatory
changes undertaken by his department since the first of the year, along
with the strong emphasis our administration has placed on overhauling the
state's welfare system, California's welfare rolls have now declined for
the sixth month in a row. This contrasts sharply with what is happening
in other states across the nation where soaring welfare caseloads continue
on the upswing.
"The figures show that during the month of September, there were
nearly 10,000 fewer Californians on welfare than in August, and 115,008
less than we counted on the rolls a half year ago,
"Had the Reagan administration not pressed vigorously for welfare
reform had we not instituted administrative reforms wherever and wheneve
possible our projections show there would be over 300,000 more people
on welfare than there are now.
"I want to emphasize that the six-month drop in the number on
welfare reflects only the administrative reforms we have put into effect.
The impact of California's new welfare reform law will not be felt until
November or December.
"It is worth noting that last month the number of recipients on
county financed general relief decreased by more than 3,000 in spite of
earlier claims of some that any decrease in state funded welfare programs
would automatically push more recipients onto county relief rolls.
"The fact is, the total general relief caseload in the state has been
reduced twenty percent over the past six months.
"Even if the declining trend we have established begins to level out
in the months ahead, the fact that we in California have been able to
confound the so-called welfare experts who said it couldn't be done
for
six straight months reaffirms our strong conviction that the approach
we have taken to bring welfare back under control is sound, that it really
works, and points the way to true reform."
####
EJG
State of California
Department of Social Welfare
Human Relations Agency
Management Information Systems
October 19, 1971
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES
September 1971
Aid Recipients
Payments
Program
Sept. p/
Aug. p/
Sept.
Sept. p/
Aug. p/
Sept.
1971
1971
1970
1971
1971
1970
Grand total.
2,178,569
2,188,135
2,046,100
$158,602,920
$162,268,608
$143,274,336
Cash grant recipients
2,096,716
2,103,220
1,944,473
154,621,730
157,830,493
139,009,683
General home relief
81,853
84,915
101,627
3,981,190
4,438,115
4,264,653
Averagea/
AGED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
317,976
318,201
318,652
106.19
106.42
107.01
BLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)
Cash grant recipients
14,005
14,123
13,869
150.69
154.53
154.24
DISABLED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
190,872
190,289
179,887
128.87
129.00
124.83
FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Cash grant recipients:
Family groups:b/
children
931,999
925,734
839,953
80.70
83.12
76.09
cases
393,309
389,518
341,307
191.22
197.53
187.27
total persons
1,295,224
1,287,313
1,173,601
58.07
59.77
54.46
Unemployed cases:
children
149,751
157,447
136,732
81.27
84.29
73.54
cases
53,907
55,819
46,572
225.76
237.77
215.92
total persons
244,627
259,358
224,940
49.75
51.17
44.70
Boarding Homes and
Institutions:
children
34,012
33,936
33,524
161.94
167.38
151.28
GENERAL HOME RELIEF
Total persons
81,853
84,915
101,627
48.64
52.26
41.96
Family cases
10,406
10,909
16,171
56.15
62.14
67.10
Persons in family cases
33,289
35,252
61,174
17.55
19.23
17.74
One-person cases
48,564
49,663
40,453
69.95
75.71
78.60
Unemployed in labor force (%)
5.9
6.9
5.8
XXX
XXX
XXX
(Seasonally adjusted)
(7.1)
(7.0)
(7.0)
XXX
XXX
XXX
Civilian population (excluding
military)
20,041,500
20,016,300
19,767,200
XXX
XXX
XXX
Cash grant averages for adult aids computed from "net" person counts.
b/ Excludes U cases.
p/ Preliminary.
CALIFORNIA WELFARE RECIPIENTS
2.5
24
2.4
2-3
UNREFORMED
22
2.1
2.1
ACTUAL
2.0
1.9
18
0
JUL Ave SEP OCT Nov DIC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
1970
1971
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
11-18-71
#648
Governor Ronald Reagan read the following statement to newsmen
this morning at the Republican Governors' Conference being held in
French Lick, Indiana:
"Last March, I sent to the California legislature the most
comprehensive and far reaching plan to reform the state's welfare system
in history.
"The system had gotten so far out of hand it was allowing ludicrous
abuses at the expense not only of those who needed its help the most, but
also at a staggering cost to the hard working men and women who made its
benefits available in the first place.
"California's welfare caseload was increasing at the fantastic rate
/that
of 50,000 a month. Barring a drastic overhaul, the monster welfare had
become threatened to bankrupt the state in a matter of only a few years.
"The plan we presented included both administrative and legislative
reforms. I already had ordered my new director of social welfare to
immediately begin implementing a lengthy series of administrative changes,
while we pressed the legislature to adopt the remaining reform provisions
of the program. Three months ago I was able to sign into law many of the
proposals we had fought for---in the face of strong opposition from the
welfare establishment and in spite of the dire predictions of others
that it could not be done.
"Today I am very pleased to announce to you that California's
welfare rolls have now declined for the seventh month in a row---an
accomplishment no other state can match.
"During the month of October, there were some 24,000 fewer
Californians on welfare than the previous month, and 137,000 less than
we had on the rolls in March. Of the 137,000, some 92,000 were in the
AFDC category.
"Had we not pressed vigorously for welfare reform at the state level-
had we not instituted the administrative changes we did whenever and
wherever possible. our projections show that there would now be a third
of a million more persons on welfare in California or 13 percent more
than there actually are.
"And, the increased federal, state and local taxes this would have
imposed on the people of California during these seven months would have
amounted to an additional $80 million burden.
- 1 -
#648
"There were those who---in spite of our assurances it would not
happen insisted that our state reforms would push thousands of persons
onto county relief rolls. But, just the opposite has happened. During
the same seven months, county general relief rolls in California have
declined by more than 38,000 persons.
"Just two days ago Los Angeles County Welfare Director Ellis Murphy
announced he was reassigning 1300 county welfare workers because of
declining welfare rolls.
"What we are accomplishing in California to bring welfare back under
control constitutes a dramatic answer to those who claim that a massive
and costly federally controlled program is the only solution to the
welfare problem. Handing over the welfare dilemma to the federal
government is not the answer.
"The states can and must do the job, We know it can be done, and
we are proving it in California."
######
EJG
- 2 -
State of California
Department of Social Welfare
Human Relations Agency
Management Information Systems
November 16, 1971
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES
October 1971
Aid Recipients
Payments
Program
p/
Oct.
Sept.
Oct.
Oct.
Sept.
Oct.
1971
1971
1970
1971
1971
1970
Grand total
2,132,246
2,156,660
2,088,214
$159,858,320
$160,769,721
$146,955,061
Cash grant recipients
2,076,448
2,098,050
1,991,689
155,962,113
156,693,797
142,710,444
General home relief
55,798
58,610
96,525
3,896,207
4,075,924
4,244,617
Averagea/
AGED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
317,442
317,722
319,557
104.49
106.50
107.10
BLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)
Cash grant recipients
14,022
14,037
13,928
148.90
151.08
154.18
DISABLED PERSONS
Cash grant recipients
191,656
190,951
181,962
126.91
128.47
125.27
FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Cash grant recipients:
Family groups:
children
918,635
930,042
859,370
84.38
82.59
76.50
cases
389,241
392,266
350,655
199.15
195.82
187.47
total persons
1,282,234
1,293,327
1,200,027
60.45
59.39
54.78
Unemployed cases:
children
143,672
150,401
146,564
85.93
84.10
75.46
cases
51,594
53,789
50,517
239.29
235.16
218.94
total persons
238,016
249,000
242,357
51.87
50.80
45.64
Boarding Homes and
Institutions:
children
33,078
33,013
33,858
161.41
166.31
152.58
GENERAL HOME RELIEF
Total persons
55,798
58,610
96,525
69.83
69.54
43.97
Family cases
2,040
2,193
11,393
86.43
85.11
54.94
Persons in family cases
6,095
6,561
50,296
28.93
28.45
12.45
One-person cases
49,703
52,049
46,229
74.84
74.72
78.28
Unemployed in labor force (%)
5.7
5.9
5.9
XXX
XXX
XXX
(Seasonally adjusted)
(7.0)
(7.1)
(7.2)
XXX
XXX
XXX
Civilian population (excluding
military)
20,066,700
20,041,500
19,789,300
XXX
XXX
XXX
a/ Cash grant averages for adult aids computed from "net" person counts.
b/ Excludes U cases.
Preliminary.
SEAL
or
EUREVA
RONALD REAGAN
State of California
GREAT
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
THE
OF
SACRAMENTO 95814
CALIF
ORNIA
December 17, 1971
The Honorable Elliot Richardson
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
Washington, D. C. 20201
Dear Elliot:
On behalf of the people of California, and pursuant to Section
1115 of the Social Security Act and Sections 11325-11327 of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code, I am pleased to be
able to send you the State of California's formal application
for the establishment of a Community Work Experience Program
Demonstration Project, and to urge you to approve it at the
earliest possible time.
This application is based upon, and is the result of, months of
careful study and preparation including numerous discussions
between representatives of the State of California and HEW.
The concepts embodied in this application formed the cornerstone
of a comprehensive welfare reform program I proposed to the
California Legislature early this year. In August, the Legis-
lature passed, and I signed into law, many elements of that
same program, including a provision which gave our administra-
tion statutory authority to implement the demonstration project
this application contains subject only to your approval as
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
Of course, I know I don't have to tell you that the President,
in a meeting several months ago at the Western White House,
told both John Veneman and me that he wanted to see put into
effect the kind of broad-based demonstration project I described
to him.
The President made it clear that he wanted the project to be
conducted on a scale which would be large enough and broad
enough to fairly and accurately test the efficacy of the
concept. It is on the basis of this understanding of the
President's wishes that we have constructed the attached
application.
The Honorable Elliot Richardson
-2-
December 17, 1971
I strongly believe that the program we have proposed can meet
the minimum requirements necessary to adequately achieve the
objectives of a fair and accurate test of the work experience
concept. Again, I strongly urge your approval of this applica-
tion at the earliest possible time.
Sincerely,
Ran
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
Attach.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The State of California proposes to establish a community work-
experience project in which employable AFDC recipients will
participate. This project will demonstrate that a comprehensive
program of community work-experience opportunities for all
employable welfare recipients is feasible, practical, and in
accordance with sound public policy.
This proposal is consistent with strong national sentiment and
conforms to the mutual goals of the national and state administra-
tions to strengthen the work ethic and to develop a comprehensive
plan to move employable recipients from welfare into jobs. It
specifically meets the spirit and letter of Section 1115, Social
Security Act, which authorizes states to conduct projects which
are likely to assist in promoting the objectives of Title IV
(Sections 401-444) of the Social Security Act. Section 401
lists as one of the purposes of Title IV the assistance of parents
or relatives of needy dependent children "to attain or retain
capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence
consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and
protection. Also, in furtherance of such purposes, the State
is required to develop a program for each appropriate recipient
"assuring, to the maximum extent possible, that such
individual will enter the labor force and accept employment.
"
(see 402 (a) (15) ) This proposal will accomplish the objectives
of Title IV by providing a needed work training and experience
resource for the many employable recipients who are not covered
by existing programs and who will not be assisted by pending
congressional welfare reform and public service employment
legislation.
This demonstration project can evaluate the need for future
specific federal legislation authorizing or requiring a com-
prehensive work program. While there are many indications that
such projects are permitted by existing law, as a matter of
practice such projects have not been initiated. Therefore, the
need for a clearly specific federal policy in the future is a
significant issue which this demonstration project addresses.
None of the existing training programs for welfare recipients,
including WIN, are able to provide work opportunities for all
employable recipients. The Community Work-Experience Program
demonstration project will provide these recipients with the
opportunity to gain valuable work experience and develop a
work reliability history. Additionally, community work exper-
ience will contribute to the improvement of the community by
providing services that would not otherwise be provided.
1. Goals of the Project
The basic objective of the project is to prepare AFDC
recipients for self-sufficiency as required by Sections
402 (a) (14) and (15) of the Social Security Act and 45
Code of Federal Regulations 220.16 (a) and 220.17, by
demonstrating under the California Welfare and Institutions
Code Sections 11325-7 that mandatory nonsalaried work-
experience will result in more recipients securing regular
employment.
The specific goal of the project is to demonstrate that
work-experience will facilitate recipients in obtaining
employment because:
Participants in community work experience are better
motivated and prepared to compete in the open
labor market than welfare recipients who do not
participate in such projects, and
Community work-experience will give participants the
opportunity to show potential employers that they have
work experience and are willing to work.
2. Description and Phasing
The State of California proposes that welfare recipients
will be required, as a condition of their continued eli-
gibility for welfare, to accept temporary community work-
experience assignments. While enrolled in work-experience acti-
vity, the recipient will receive no wages. However, no parti-
cipant will be required to participate in work-experience
for a period of time which if compared to the grant would
result in a ratio that would be less than the federal or
state minimum wage, whichever is higher. The purpose of
work-experience is to assist employable recipients to
become job ready by giving them the opportunity to learn
new skills, gain valuable work experience and develop a
work history.
Participation will be half-time (i.e., no more than eighty
(80) hours per month). This will allow participants ample
time to seek regular employment. Participants will con-
tinue to receive the regular attention and assistance of
professional employment counselors who will refer them
to job openings and training opportunities.
-2-
The assignments will be designed to lead to employment, if
possible with the sponsor, once abilities have been developed
or demonstrated. There shall be a regular review of the
status of the participant to determine if it is feasible
to place him in employment or another training program.
While participating in work-experience, recipients will con-
tinue to receive their full AFDC grant. It is our intent that
in kind provision shall be made for transportation and all
other costs reasonably necessary to and directly related to
participation in the project. The Department of Human Resources
Development shall establish standards prescribing costs which
are reasonably necessary to and directly related to participation
and will have the responsibility for ensuring that recipients
will not incur any additional costs due to participation.
a. Selection of Participants
Only employable recipients will be referred to the work-
experience program.
Initially, participation will be limited to unemployed
AFDC-U recipients and AFDC-FG's without child care
needs. When suitable child care arrangements are
available, AFDC-FG recipients with children over 6
years will be included.
Recipients who are not employable because of illness,
disability, school attendance, advanced age, lack of
child care, or who are participating in approved
apprenticeship or manpower training programs will not
be referred to community work-experience activities.
Recipients are not required to participate in a
Community Work Experience Program if they are under
the age of 17 years or are mothers with a child of
6 years of age or under in the home.
b. Placement of Participants
The priorities that the State will follow in placing
recipients are:
Placement of recipients in existing private or
public jobs.
Placement of recipients in the Work Incentive
Program (WIN) or in other existing training
programs.
O. Placement of recipients in community work-experience
activities. These activities will be the holding
state for transition to regular employment in the private
or public sector.
-3-
C. Selection of Work-Experience Activities
The Department of Human Resources Development (HRD) has
surveyed all state agencies regarding the types of work-
experience activities they can provide. To date, this
survey has resulted in the identification of over 10,000
potential work-experience opportunities. A similar survey
of city, county, and federal agencies has been initiated
and contacts with such agencies are currently under way.
Work-experience activities may be developed with either
nonprofit organizations (except religious organizations)
or public agencies.
In order to insure that all work-experience activities are
appropriate and will contribute to the goals of the
work-experience project, a series of work-experience
standards have been established. Work performed
under the demonstration project is selected to serve a
useful public purpose such as in the fields of health,
environmental protection, education, urban and rural
redevelopment, recreation and public safety.
The work-experience activities selected will involve
only otherwise unfilled genuine public needs. Jobs
already held by employees in the public and private
sectors will not be jeopardized. The program does
not apply to jobs covered by a collective bargaining
agreement nor shall any individual be required as a
condition of accepting work to join any company union
or to refrain from joining a labor organization.
d. Relationship to the "Employables Program."
Although the Community Work-Experience Program Demonstra-
tion Project and the "employables program, which has
already been approved by HEW, are mutually supportive,
initial implementation may be separate and may not nec-
essarily be in the same counties. If these programs occur
in the same county, they will be coordinated and combined
by HRD. Until such time, in non "employable program"
counties in which the Work-Experience Demonstration is
under way, SDSW will continue to supervise the adminis-
tration of all aspects of the AFDC program. In "employables
program" counties, HEW may look to HRD to enforce any
federal law, regulation or manual provision regarding
services to those referred to HRD under the program and
to SDSW to enforce any federal law, regulation or manual
provision regarding eligibility as to the recipient
referred under the program.
e.
Sanctions
Sanctions will be promptly and effectively applied
when a recipient refuses a referral to, or voluntarily
leaves, a work-experience assignment without
-4-
good cause; has been discharged from a work-experience acti-
vity for misconduct; or fails to make an adequate search
for work. If a determination is reached by HRD that a
recipient did not have good cause for his action; was
discharged for misconduct; or failed, without good cause,
to make an adequate search for work, HRD will promptly
give the county welfare department (CWD) written noti-
fication of its decision.
In determining whether good cause exists for refusing
to participate in work-experience, sanctions will not be
applied if any of the following conditions exist:
1. The work-experience activity was not within the
participant's physical or mental capacity or was
excessively dangerous or hazardous.
2. The work-experience is available because of a bona
fide strike, bona fide lockout, or other bona fide
labor dispute.
3. The work-experience activity is not located
within reasonable commuting time from the partici-
pant's home.
4. He is unable to report for the work-experience acti-
vity due to his own illness, or is needed at home to
take care of a member of his family and he is unable
to make other arrangements.
Aid shall be terminated for up to one year with respect
to a recipient who without good cause refuses to
participate in a community work-experience activity.
Aid for the support of the child or children shall not
be reduced or terminated as the result of any refusal
to participate.
Phasing: Within one year, the demonstration project will
be implemented in the following nine clusters of counties:
1. Mountain Cluster
(Siskiyou, Modoc, Shasta, and Lassen Counties)
2. North Coast Cluster
(Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin Counties)
3. Bay Cluster
(Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco,
San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties)
4. Valley Cluster
(Yolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Stanislaus
Counties)
-5-
5.
Central Valley Cluster
(Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern Counties)
6.
South Coast Cluster
(Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara and Ventura Counties)
7. South Cluster
(Orange County)
8. North Central Cluster
(Butte, Sutter, and Yuba Counties)
9. East Cluster
(El Dorado and Placer Counties)
The total AFDC case load in the counties in these 9 clusters
represents 47.5% of the total AFDC case load in the State.
However, CWEP participants will total 58,776 in the 9 clusters
of counties. This represents .29% of the total California
population, 3.8% of the total AFDC recipients and 13.2%
of the AFDC cases in the State.
Characteristics of Clusters*
The nine clusters represent the wide variances in popula-
tion, industry, geography and labor market of California.
Characteristics of Nine Clusters
Total State
9 Clusters
% of State
POPULATION
19,953,134
10,032,857
50.2
AFDC CASES
442,475
210,344
47.5
POTENTIAL CWEPS
121,750
58,776
48.2
The ratio of total State AFDC case load to the total of
58,776 potential CWEP participants is 7.6 to 1.
Computation of Potential CWEP Participants in 9 Clusters
Total State
9 Clusters
8 of State
AFDC RECIPIENTS
1,526,897
720,584
47.1%
(Less) Children
1,084,422
510,441
47.0%
(Less) Mothers
266,528
124,156
46.5%
with Children
under 7
(Less) WIN Slots
16,800
9,000
53.5%
(Less) Unemploy-
37,398
18,211
48.6%
ables
POTENTIAL CWEP
121,750
58,776
48.2%
PARTICIPANT
Description of CWEP Clusters and Counties
1.
Mountain Cluster
The mountain cluster is located in the northern most
area of the state. Timber, harvesting and lumber
processing represent the primary industry. However,
commercial fishing and tourism provide some employment.
* All welfare data used in this demonstration project request
is taken from "Public Welfare in California, June 1971",
Department of Social Welfare, State of California.
Potential CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
SISKIYOU
33,225
418
127
MODOC
7,469
131
43
SHASTA
77,640
2,370
866
LASSEN
14,960
236
78
TOTAL
133,294
3,155
1,114
2. North Coast Cluster
The north coast cluster is located immediately to the
north of the San Francisco metropolitan area. In the
northern portion of the cluster area industry is
primarily related to timber, harvesting and lumber
processing. In the sourthern portion industry is
primarily agricultural (wine related) and light
manufacturing.
Potential CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
HUMBOLDT
99,692
2,120
540
MENDOCINO
51,101
1,248
433
SONOMA
204,885
4,816
1,565
MARIN
206,038
2,005
501
TOTAL
561,716
10,189
3,039
3.
Bay Cluster
The bay cluster is located in the San Francisco Bay
Area and is primarily metropolitan in nature. In-
dustry is widely diversified with emphasis on trans-
portation, manufacturing (heavy and light), ship
building, and wholesale and retail trade. While at
one time agricultural and food processing seasonally
employed large numbers of people these industries
are losing their importance.
Potential CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
SOLANO
169,941
3,940
1,200
CONTRA COSTA
558,389
12,738
2,996
ALAMEDA
1,073,184
26,588
7,039
SAN FRANCISCO
715,674
19,609
5,001
SAN MATEO
556,234
7,046
2,030
SANTA CLARA
1,064,714
20,034
5,829
TOTAL
4,138,136
89,955
24,095
4.
Valley Cluster
The valley cluster 13 located to the northeast of the
Bay Area cluster. Industry is primarily agricultural
and food processing in nature and is highly seasonal.
In Sacramento County a significant portion of the
labor force is employed by the State and Federal
Government.
-7-
Population CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
YOLO
91,788
1,731
593
SACRAMENTO
631,498
17,942
5,285
SAN JOAQUIN
290,208
7,974
2,184
STANISLAUS
194,506
6,219
1,858
TOTAL
1,208,000
33,866
9,920
5. Central Valley Cluster
The Central Valley Cluster is located immediately to
the south of the Valley Cluster. Industry is primarily
agricultural and food processing in nature and is highly
seasonal. In Kern County, at the southern edge of
the cluster, the processing of petroleum products
employs a significant portion of the labor force.
Population CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
MERCED
104,629
3,028
867
MADERA
41,519
1,206
437
FRESNO
413,053
13,101
3,478
KINGS
64,610
1,884
611
TULARE
188,322
6,687
2,138
KERN
329,162
7,002
1,421
TOTAL
1,141,295
32,908
8,952
6.
South Coast Cluster
The South Coast Cluster is located between the Bay
Cluster and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. In-
dustry is widely diversified with transportation,
manufacturing, agriculture, and government employing
the major portion of the labor force.
Population CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
SANTA CRUZ
123,790
2,387
668
MONTEREY
250,017
4,111
1,067
SAN LUIS OBISPO
105,690
1,623
401
SANTA BARBARA
264,324
4,188
1,186
VENTURA
376,430
5,730
1,666
TOTAL
1,120,251
18,039
4,988
7.
South Cluster
The South Cluster consists of Orange County. Orange
County is the fastest growing county in California.
The labor force is primarily employed in petroleum
processing and in medium and light manufacturing.
-8-
Population CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
ORANGE
1,420,386
15,710
4,606
8. North Central Cluster
The North Central Cluster is north of the Valley
Cluster and its industry is primarily related to
mining and agriculture.
Population CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
SUTTER
41,935
573
192
BUTTE
101,969
1,963
472
YUBA
44,736
1,342
510
TOTAL
188,640
5,338
1,174
9. East Cluster
The East Cluster is located east of Sacramento County.
Industry in the East Cluster is primarily involved in
the timber harvesting and lumber processing. However,
tourism is beginning to have an impact on the labor
market.
Population CWEP
Population
AFDC Cases
Participants
EL DORADO
438,833
937
304
PLACER
77,306
1,707
584
TOTAL
516,139
2,644
888
3. Qualifications of Staff
a. Work-Experience activities will be jointly implemented
by the California Department of Human Resources
Development (HRD), the State Department of Social
Welfare (SDSW), and the County Welfare Department
(CWD). The qualifications required of the principal
project personnel are those already possessed by
employees of HRD, SDSW, or the CWD.
b. All salaried work-experience activity personnel
will be recruited through the California Civil
Service, the County Civil Service, or the Merit
System. Inasmuch as these positions are presently
under a merit system, no new job descriptions
or positions will be necessary.
4. Community and Other Agency Involvement
An agreement shall be entered into by the State Depart-
ment of Social Welfare (SDSW), HRD, and the county in
which the activity is administered. Under the agreement -
-9-
a. HRD staff will be responsible for:
1. Planning and implementing activities.
2. Executing agreements between HRD and the sponsors.
3. Conducting all follow-up activities for parti-
cipants placed in a work-experience activity.
4. Selecting and referring participants to work-
experience sites.
5. Continually screening participants against in-
coming HRD job orders and new ongoing manpower
training programs.
6. Determining whether or not a participant had
good cause to refuse assignment to or to
voluntarily leave a work-experience site, or
was discharged for misconduct connected with
the assignment.
7. Notifying the CWD of those cases involving reci-
pient compliance of work experience requirements.
8. Reviewing activity sites to ensure that they meet
established goals and standards.
b. County staff will be responsible for:
1. Providing needed social services in any county
in which the "separation of employables" program
is not in effect.
2. Paying appropriate grants.
3. Applying appropriate sanctions.
C. SDSW staff will be responsible for:
1. Adoption of regulations relating to eligibility,
employability, grant levels and sanctions.
2. Enforcement of sanctions.
3. Conducting fair hearings with respect to
eligibility and grant determinations.
In addition to involvement by the County Welfare
Department, the Department of Human Resources
Development and the State Department of Social
Welfare, a wide range of public agencies will be
involved in providing work-experience activities and
where possible permanent jobs. These will include
federal and state agencies, county departments, cities,
public housing authorities, public park districts, public
-10-
school districts, and nonprofit corporations
organized for a public purpose. Organized
labor will be called upon to assist in iden-
tifying appropriate work projects and in co-
operating to ensure that the work-experience
activity projects involve only otherwise un-
filled genuine public needs, that the jobs
already held by employees in the public and
private sectors are not jeopardized, and that
this work-experience activity does not inter-
fere with existing patterns of employment.
5. Reasons for Requesting Approval Pursuant to Section 1115
of the Social Security Act
As discussed between state and HLW staff, California
submits that the project does not violate Section 402
or 403 of the Social Security Act nor 45 C.F.R. 233.140.
The regulation provides that "Federal financial parti-
cipation will not be available in expenditures made for
work performed after June 1968
The California
project is not designed to pay AFDC grants on the basis
of work performed. Nevertheless, 45 C.F.R. 233.140 has
been interpreted by some as a broad prohibition of any
federal reimbursement with regard to a work-experience
project other than those administered under WIN or the
Economic Opportunity Act. It is to avoid this overly
broad interpretation of a regulation which was intended
to recognize the inapplicability of Social Security Act,
Section 409, set forth in Public Law 90-248 that this
waiver has been requested.
California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 11325-7
(effective October 1, 1971) provide a statutory basis
upon which to test the community work-experience program.
6. Project Evaluation and Reporting
The period of time encompassed in the project request is
three years. A first progress report (15 copies) will be
submitted to the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare nine months after the initiation of the project
and semi-annually thereafter.
7. Evaluation
Proposition:
The Community Work-Experience Program Demonstration Project
will significantly reduce the time that AFDC recipients
are on welfare and will significantly increase the number
of AFDC recipients who are permanently employed.
-11-
Evaluation Criteria:
Through work-experience, increased motivation to obtain
self-support, seek work efforts, and reinforcement of the
traditional work ethic, the project will result in the
following:
a. Decrease the average time on welfare.
b. Reduce the average monthly grant.
c. Reduce the number of new applicants.
d. Reduce the number of recipients.
The effect of these criteria will represent more effective
utilization of welfare resources.
Project Population:
The population to which the project evaluation will be
directed includes all employable AFDC recipients in
given counties during those periods when a Work-Experience
Project is operational in the county.
Assumptions:
It is assumed that the implementation of the project
will cause recipients to accelerate their departure
from welfare by finding employment or other means
of support because of being provided with work
opportunities, motivation, or skills. For those recip-
ients who obtain part-time or low-paying jobs, and
who continue to remain eligible for a grant, it is
assumed that the resultant increase in income will
be reflected in a decrease in grant size.
It is further assumed that, because of the project
potential new applicants will exhaust all other
available alternatives before seeking welfare
eligibility.
Experimental Design:
For each county, or cluster of counties, in which the
demonstration project will be operating, two control
counties, or clusters or portions of counties, as
similar in characteristics as possible, will be
selected as a basis for comparison. The rationale
for the selection of the comparison group within the
control counties will be based on the following
assumptions.
-12-
a. That the population of welfare recipients referred
to HRD is not significantly different in each
county because each county operates within the
same regulatory constraints.
b. That the HRD programs are not significantly different
in each county except that the experimental county
will have the Community Work-Experience Program
Demonstration Project.
C. The Community Work-Experience Program Demonstration
Project specifies that the priority of services is
job placement first, formal training programs
second and then placement in work-experience activities,
Consequently, those recipients who are not placed on
jobs or in formal training positions within 30 days of
HRD intake in the control counties can be presumed to
represent the same set of recipients who are available
for Community Work-Experience Project assignment in the
experimental county. This group of AFDC recipients will
constitute the control group.
Criteria for selecting comparison counties will include
the following:
a. Size of county.
b. Size of AFDC caseload.
C. Economic characteristics of the county.
A hypothetical test of the evaluation criteria will be
made on data derived from the experimental population
and the control population.
It is expected that before the introduction of the
project in the project county there will be no differences
in the measurement of the evaluation criteria between
each pair of counties. After the introduction of the
project it is expected that the two control counties
will maintain their relationship of no difference but
that each of the control counties will then either
show a relative increase or a relative decrease in the
measured attributes depending on the evaluation criteria
being measured. If the expectations hold true it can
be assumed, statistically, that the introduction of
the project was the causative agent in the change.
Operational definitions of the evaluation criteria will
be based on the information currently available in the
CWD, SDSW, and HRD data and information systems.
-13-
Analysis of Findings:
In addition to the statistical analysis, it is proposed
to analyze the characteristics of the recipients, what
happens to them, which activities are utilized, and why
the recipient terminates or is terminated.
Four specific components of the project are described
below:
a. Project Recipients' Characteristics
An analysis of the recipients referred to HRD
for services before and after implementation will
be conducted to ascertain whether the characteristics
of the recipients placed in work-experience activities are
generally representative of the total population of
AFDC recipients referred to HRD or whether they
represent some special subgroup of the total referred
population.
A further comparison of characteristics will be made
between groups of recipients referred to HRD prior
to the initiation of the project and after the pro-
ject has been in operation. The groups will be
drawn at six-month intervals.
b. A Population Accounting of all Referred Recipients
A population accounting procedure will identify the
distribution of the recipients into the several
manpower programs available, the sequential order
in which the programs are utilized and the dis-
position of each case at the time of termination.
This analysis provides an overview or a tracking
system to show flow of the recipients through the
project's components.
C. An Analysis of the Apparent Reasons for Success or
Failure
Cases which represent project successes and failures
will be drawn from the total project participants.
They will be divided into three groups: (1) obvious
successes, (2) obvious failures, (3) marginal
successes/failures. A "success" will be defined as
a recipient placed in full-time employment.
An analysis of case records and interviews of reci-
pients and caseworkers will provide a data base
from which to make a determination of apparent
reasons for the success of some recipients and
the failure of others.
d. An Analysis of Operational Processes and Procedures
In selected offices having a Work-Experience
Demonstration Project Unit, an evaluation of
the operational effectiveness will be performed.
Skilled program performance reviewers will visit
each office at six-month intervals to ascertain
whether the unit:
1. Is responding to the needs of the recipient in
such a manner as to maximize the chances for
the recipient to be placed in a full-time job.
2. Is coordinating services to achieve maximum
utilization of those services.
-15-
Participating Counties in Community Work Experience Program
Signlyou
Made
Share
Lasson
Mandocino
Invite
Sulted
rune
Placer
Yole
stepme
El Derado
Solane
SACRAMENT
Marin
on
A
Comino Code.
Son Francisco
Alemeda
Starislous
More
into Clare
Marced
since
Crus
Modern
00
Fromo
Tulere
Monterey
0
Kings
0
Son Lare
Kera
Santo Barbara
N
OD
sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
12-20-71
#709
Governor Ronald Reagan announced today that in the face of sky-
rocketing increases in welfare caseloads across the country the number of
Californians on welfare has now declined for the eighth straight month
at a savings to taxpayers across the state of $100 million since last
March.
He said figures provided to him by State Social Welfare Director
Robert Carleson showed that during November, there were 14,000 fewer
Californians on the welfare rolls than in October the first November
decrease in 15 years and the largest drop for the same month in the
state's history. The cumulative drop in the number of recipients since
March amounts to 151,000.
The governor lauded Carleson and his department "for pushing through
the administrative reforms in welfare which have made this accomplishment
possible, an achievement which no other state can match and one which a
horde of zealous critics said could never be done."
The governor said the continuing caseload drop is especially
significant in the light of the fact that until early this year the number
of Californians on welfare was growing at the fantastic rate of 50,000
per month.
"Had we not put into effect the administrative reforms which made
this possible, our projections show there would now be 390,000 more
persons on welfare than there actually are. The burden this would have
imposed on the people of California during these eight months would now
total about $100 million in additional federal, state and local costs,"
he said.
The decline to 2,117,080 Californians on welfare in November has
enabled the state's total caseload to dip below that of November, 1970.
Governor Reagan said "the thrust of the administration's welfare
reform program has been to better assist the truly needy on welfare
those who need the help most while, at the same time, easing the
staggering cost burden on the hard-working men and women who make the
benefits of welfare possible in the first place."
He added that "even if the declining trend we have established begins
to level out in the future, the fact that we have been able to bring
welfare back under control in California in such a dramatic way shows that
our approach to reform is sound, that it really works, and that the states
are able to do the job.
- 1 -
#709
"Handing the welfare problem over to the federal government is not
the answer. To do so would result in an ever more massive and costly
program. I am mcre convinced than ever that the states can and must do
the job. We know it can be done. We've been proving it now for months."
Carleson noted that "our steady caseload decline has taken place
despite a myriad of confusing and often conflicting court orders,
without which we could have achieved even more."
#######
EJG
- 2 -
State of California
Department of Social Welfare
#101
Contact: John A. Svahn
(916) 445-2077
December 30, 1971
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SACRAMENTO - Inauguration of a computerized system for checking
the earnings reported by California's welfare recipients was announced today
by State Social Welfare Director Robert B. Carleson.
Called the Earnings Clearance System, the program has as its prime
objective the validation of earnings reported by recipients of Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC). The amount of a recipient's income not only
affects eligibility, but also the amount of the welfare payment. The system,
operating in cooperation with the Department of Human Resources Development,
identifies the wages paid by employers to welfare recipients. This information
is then made available to county welfare departments for checking against
income reports filed by the recipients.
Carleson, noting that sample information indicated a high percentage
of unreported earnings by AFDC recipients, said, "A study of fraud in the AFDC
program published in 1970 revealed an incidence of unreported income of
8.74 percent with a projected annual loss of $27,958,909. The Earnings Clearance
System is designed to curtail this kind of fraudulent act with resulting
savings in state and county funds."
Reports will be forwarded to county welfare departments quarterly
and will identify earnings of recipients 16 years of age or older who were
eligible for AFDC during any month of the quarter. The Director described the
new management control as "an important part of our efforts to control abuse
at all levels, both in the interests of the majority of honest recipients,
as well as the taxpaying public."
#
STATE OF CALIFORNIA HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
744 P STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
February 8, 1972
SPECIAL DELIVERY
TO ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS
On February 1, 1972, Judge William M. Gallagher of the Sacramento County
Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order in the case of Golden
Gate Welfare Rights Organization, Inc. V. Robert B. Carleson, the effect
of which is to restrain the Department of Social Welfare and county welfare
directors from initiating, or continuing the implementation and use, of the
Earnings Clearance System. A copy of the Temporary Restraining Order and
Order to Show Cause is attached.
You are directed to comply with the Temporary Restraining Order pending
further advice from me.
I believe that the temporary restraining order was improvidently issued,
and it is my hope and expectation that the issuance of a preliminary
injunction will be denied.
I will keep you posted on further developments in the case.
Sincerely,
ROBERT B. CARLESON
Director of Social Welfare
Attachment
1
JAY-ALLEN EISEN
RALPH SANTIAGO ABASCAL
2
San Francisco Neighborhood Legal
Assistance Foundation
3
1095 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94103
4
Telephone: (415) 626-3811
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
GOLDEN GATE WELFARE RIGHTS
)
ORGANIZATION, INC. a California
)
11
non-profit corporation,
)
)
219492
12
Plaintiff,
)
NO.
)
13
VS.
)
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
)
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
14
ROBERT B. CARLESON, as Director
)
CAUSE
of the State Department of
)
15
Social Welfare,
)
)
16
Defendant.
)
)
17
18
On reading the verified complaint on file in this action
19
and the supporting memorandum of points and authorities it appears
20
to the satisfaction of this Court that this is a proper case for
21
granting an order to show cause and temporary restraining order,
22
and that unless a temporary restraining order is granted as prayed
23
by petitioner, plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury before
24
the matter can be heard on notice. Good cause appearing,
25
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
26
1. Defendant shall appear before this Court in Department
-1-
1
9, on February 16, 1972, at the hour of 9:00 A.M., then and there
2
to show cause, if any he has, why he, his successors in office,
3
officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives and all
4
persons acting by, through or under him, or subject to his super-
5
vision or control, should not be prohibited during the pendency
6
of this action from engaging in, committing, or performing directly
7
or indirectly each and every of the following acts:
8
(a) Obtaining information from the Department of Human
9
Resources Development regarding the earnings of recipients
10
of public social services is sufficient to make a
11
determination of eligibility;
12
(b) Making direct contact with, or obtaining information
13
from the Department of Human Resources Development regard-
14
ing earnings of any recipient of public social services
15
without the recipient's prior, fully informed, specific
16
consent thereto, except in unusual circumstances;
17
(c) Obtaining, distributing, consulting, or otherwise
18
making use of evidence of the earnings of any recipient of
19
public social services which evidence has been obtained
20
through use of the Earnings Clearance System, except in
21
those cases where recipients have given specific, fully
22
informed consent to defendant's obtaining evidence of the
23
recipient's earnings from the Department of Human Resources
24
Development.
25
2. Pending the hearing of this order to show cause,
26
defendant, his successors in office, officers, agents, servants,
--2-
1
employees, representatives and all persons acting by, through,
2
or under him or subject to his supervision or control, are
3
enjoined from engaging in or performing, directly or indirectly,
4
and and all of the following acts:
5
(a) Obtaining information from the Department of
6
Human Resources Development regarding the earnings of
7
recipients of public social services when evidence of
8
earnings supplied respondent or his agents by recipients of
9
public social services is sufficient to make a determina-
10
tion of eligibility;
11
(b) Making direct contact with, or obtaining informa-
12
tion from the Department of Human Resources Development
13
regarding earnings of any recipient of public social
14
services without the recipient's prior, fully informed,
15
specific consent thereto, except in unusual circumstances.
16
(c) Obtaining, distributing, consulting, or otherwise
17
making use of evidence of the earnings of any recipient
18
of public social services which evidence has been obtained
19
through use of the Earnings Clearance System, except in
20
those cases where recipients have given specific, fully
21
informed consent to defendant's obtaining evidence of
22
recipient's earnings from the Department of Human Resources
23
Development.
24
3. It is ordered that a copy of the petition and supporting
25
points and authorities, together with a copy of this order to show
26
cause and temporary restraining order be served on the defendants
-3-
1
not later than Fabruery 5,1972. February 5, 1972
2
Dated: FEB 1- - 1972
3
4
WILLIAM M. GALLAGHER
5
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-4-
IN THE
Court of Appeal of the State of California
ORIGINAL
IN AND FOR THE
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ROBERT B. CARLESON, as Director of the
Department of Social Welfare, State of
California,
Petitioner,
VS.
3 Civil 13504
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
Respondent,
GOLDEN GATE WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION,
INC , a California non-profit corporation,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO and GOLDEN GATE WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, INC.
:
You are hereby ordered to show cause before this court
at its courtroom in the City of Sacramento on Wednesday, July
19, 1972, at 9:30 A. M., why the relief prayed for in this
proceeding should not be granted. The written return to this
order is to be served and filed on or before June 23, 1972.
Enforcement of the preliminary injunction issued in the
case of Golden Gate Welfare Rights Organization V. Carleson,
Sacramento County No. 219492, is hereby stayed, pending further
order of the court,
WITNESS THE HONORABLE FRANK K. RICHARDSON, Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, in
and for the Third Appellate District.
ATTEST my hand and the seal of the court this 25th Day
of May, 1972.
WILFRIED J. KRAMER, Clerk
State of California
Department of Social Welfare
#29-72
Contact: Jack Cooper
445-2077
April 4, 1972
FOR INMEDIATE RELEASE
SACRAMENTO - The Department of Social Welfare's earnings clearance system
was declared "consistent with federal law and policy" in a brief filed in Superior
Court here last night on behalf of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
"This action by HEW and the U. S. Attorney vindicates our belief that
California's system of checking on the outside income of welfare recipients conforms
to federal law," State Welfare Director Robert B. Carleson commented.
The system, a key provision of the Welfare Reform Act of 1971, is designed
to find out how many people on welfare may have earned outside income that was not
counted in determining their eligibility.
An early check showed unreported income that would have affected eligibility
or amount of grant in 48 percent of cases referred to the counties, but the state
was temporarily stopped from using the system by a restraining order issued by
Judge William Gallagher in Superior Court February 1.
The restraining order was issued in response to a class action suit filed
by the Golden Gate Welfare Rights Organization, Inc., against Carleson and the
Department.
The Welfare Rights Organization contended that the income clearance section
of the new state law violated federal regulations. The HEW brief filed by the U. S.
Attorney last night says that it does not.
The brief was HEW's reply to a memorandum of Judge B. Abbott Goldberg's
asking for clarification of a February 24 telegram from Secretary Elliott Richardson
to Carleson in which the HEW boss sought to inform the court that the California
system was legal.
The system involves matching the State Welfare Department's master list
of recipients against the Department of Human Resources Development's record .of
earnings submitted by employers for unemployment insurance purposes.
The Welfare Rights Organization complained that this would violate
federal regulations on confidentiality of welfare information. It cited HEW
regulations making the recipient the primary source of information in determining
initial and continuing eligibility and requiring his consent to verify it through
"outside contacts."
MORE
The HEW memorandum said that the regulation on outside contacts was not
meant to include records regularly kept by a public agency whether they are open
to inspection by the public or not.
"The 'collateral consent rule' is intended to prevent state welfare
agencies from making extra-governmental inquiries into the activities of public
assistance applicants and recipients without their consent unless exceptional
circumstances warrant such a course of action," HEW said.
"Unrestricted, such investigations contain an unacceptable potential for
invasion of privacy through contacts with employers friends, neighbors, etc. The
same risk does not inhere in exchange of information between the welfare agency
and other government units.
"The welfare agency is unlikely to disrupt the private affairs of a needy
person or prejudice his relationship with others by obtaining from other public
agencies data routinely acquired by them for other purposes.
"Moreover, the revelation of the individual's personal affairs by the
other agency to the welfare agency represents no greater incursion into the
individual's private life than did the original inquiry through which the govern-
ment first acquired the information in question.
"For these reasons, HEW does not regard the term 'outside contact' as
comprehending solicitation of information by a state welfare agency from another
unit of government."
Goldberg had also asked whether HEW's position on California's investiga-
tion of unreported income of welfare recipients was inconsistent with the agency's
overruling of Nevada in a somewhat similar situation because prior authorization
to contact "collateral sources of information" was not secured "in accordance
with federal policies."
"The quoted language, HEW replied, "does not indicate the nature of the
collateral sources which Nevada, contrary to federal regulations, was using without
the prior consent of recipients.
"Had the state welfare agency confined its inquiries to the earnings
records of the state employment service, there would have been no basis for
criticizing its actions."
MORE
Under the California system, HRD and SDSW computer tapes are matched
quarterly and a Social Security account number crosscheck produces the names of
all welfare recipients over 16 who show earnings on the records of HRD during
the quarter.
The names of all those on the list are sent back to their county welfare
departments for investigation.
The counties may and often do investigate all the cases on the list, but
they are required by the state to investigate the cases of those whose outside
earnings place them in the top ten percent in their county.
For this purpose the computer selects those showing earnings in the
upper ten percent, who have earned a minimum of $610 in the quarter in question
and who have been on welfare for all three months of the quarter.
A computer run made last November before the restraining order went into
effect showed that 48 percent of those on this selected list had unreported
income that would have reduced their grants or cut them off the welfare rolls
had it been reported.
This computer check showed that 115,534 welfare recipients earned
$73,524,490 in the April-June quarter.
Those in the upper ten percent bracket numbered 7,934 and they earned
a total of $15,834,596 in the quarter --- an average of $1,996. The others,
107,600 of them, earned $57,689,894, for an average during the quarter of $536.
#
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California 95814
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
5-26-72
#329
Governor Ronald Reagan today lauded as "a major victory for the
taxpayers and the truly needy on welfare" a unanimous State District
Court of Appeal decision enabling the state to resume checking on the
outside incomes of welfare recipients--to protect the taxpayers' money
against fraud and assure that only those truly eligible for welfare
actually receive it.
"This is great news, a major victory for the taxpayers and the
truly needy on welfare," the governor said.
"The ability to verify the outside incomes of those receiving
money provided by the taxpayers was at the very heart of our welfare
reform program. Without this ability--to make sure that only those
truly eligible for welfare actually receive it--the job of screening
out fraud and tracking down welfare cheaters would be infinitely more
difficult.
"Tragically for the taxpayers and honest recipients alike, the
four-month shutdown of our earnings check system by a lower court has
resulted in the loss of untold millions of dollars---taxpayers'
dollars--which can never be recovered.
"Fortunately, yesterday's appellate court ruling has made it
possible for us to end this immensely costly delay, and Social Welfare
Director Robert Carleson informs me we are gearing up immediately to
resume making our outside income checks," the governor said.
The extraordinary legal action by the three-judge Third District
Court of Appeal panel yesterday overrules orders issued by Sacramento
Superior Court Judges William Gallagher and Abbott Goldberg which have
blocked any checking on the unreported outside incomes of welfare
recipients since February 1. On that date, Judge Gallagher signed a
temporary restraining order, brought by the Golden Gate Welfare Rights
Organization, without informing the state--either before or after he
took the action. As a result of the unusual procedure followed by the
judge, the State Attorney General's Office learned of the decision
three days later.
Gallagher assigned the case to Goldberg when the Attorney
General formally challenged Gallagher's ability to hear the case
impartially, on the grounds he was "prejudiced" against the state's
interests. Goldberg subsequently refused to lift the restraining order.
-1-
(More)
The appellate court's ruling stays all action by the Sacramento
Superior Court in the case, and orders Judge Goldberg to show cause in
the Third District Court's own courtroom July 19, 1972, why the relief
the state is seeking should not be permanent. In a lengthy brief filed
on behalf of the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
the U. S. Attorney defended the state's earnings check system as
"consistent with federal law and policy."
Judge Gallagher's February 1 decision forced the state's earnings
check system (ECS) computers to grind to a sudden halt--but only after
discovering that 48.7 percent of all the welfare recipients checked
up to that time had outside income which had not been reported.
In half of these cases, the unreported income would have
reduced grants to recipients. It would have made the other 50 percent
altogether ineligible for welfare.
The earnings check system, a major element in Governor Reagan's
welfare reform program, was a key provision in the Welfare Reform Act
of 1971. ECS computers had been in operation only a month when Judge
Gallagher's order was issued. The system crosschecks the Department
of Social Welfare's master list of aid recipients against the
Department of Human Resources Development's record of earnings reported
by employers for unemployment insurance purposes.
Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Frank K.
Richardson issued yesterday's order on behalf of the court.
# # #
-2-
Gray