My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1998 01 20
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1998
>
AG 1998 01 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 6:03:50 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:50:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
1/20/1998
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
370
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2) <br /> <br />Electing counties are required to provide community work experience <br />(essentially workfare) jobs to all able-bodied recipients who do not find work. <br />This is optional in standard counties. The cost of administering this <br />requirement is prohibitive, and the requirement itself may not be possible to <br />meet. <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />Electing counties are required to have a system for client appeals and hearings <br />substantially equivalent to the State's system. Substantial cost would be <br />involved. <br /> <br />4) <br /> <br />The law requires electing counties to issue their own checks and have <br />statistical reporting systems to meet federal data requirements. The State has <br />indicated, though not promised, that if electing county policies are similar <br />enough to policies for standard counties, the State will issue checks for <br />electing counties and pern-,it electing counties to use the State (computer) <br />Eligibility Information System for data collection and reporting. If this is not <br />the case, substantial costs would be incurred by electing counties. <br /> <br />5) <br /> <br />Individual electing counties may in some ways have greater risk in relation to <br />potential law suits than standard counties, and may have less representation by <br />the State in the event of law suits, than standard counties. <br /> <br /> As much as I believe in the rightness and potential effectiveness of the policies <br />proposed in our County Work First Block Grant Plan, I can not recommend that Cabarrus <br />County continue in electing status unless these concerns are addressed by the State <br />through legislative or other action. <br /> <br /> This situation is complicated further by the fact that Cabarrus may not be chosen <br />as an electing county. (The 26 counties that have requested electing status account for <br />more than 15.5 % of the State's Work First Program recipients. As 15.5% is the limit set <br />by the General Assembly, all 26 counties thus can not be selected as electing). <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br /> I believe the following measures would afford the greatest potential for success in <br />implementing an effective welfare reform program while protecting the county, and I am <br />recommending the Board of Commissioners act to: <br /> <br />1) Thank the Planning Committee for the excellent work it has done to date. <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />Certify and submit the proposed County Work First Block Grant Plan under the letter <br />I have drafted. The Plan continues our electing status and the letter indicates the <br />County may request a change to standard status later if the understandings given do <br />not hold true and/or the stipulations listed are not met. (I am told the Board can <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.