If the community volunteers and agency representatives involved in the welfare reform planning process expected a cogent, persuasive plan, reflecting a broad consensus, to evolve, they will be disappointed. Many folks took part in Department of Social Services (DSS) task groups or attended town meetings at various places in the county. They developed a "strategic plan" on welfare reform with comments and recommendations on child care, transportation needs, education and training and the safety net.
They did their job; will the Board of Supervisors do theirs?
Skeptical
When they adopted the welfare reform plan last December, the Board faced more than twenty discretionary provisions on local welfare reform. In nearly every case, the Board adopted the most restrictive language possible.
I'm concerned that the community groups working on the plan lacked crucial information. Budgetary projections, regulations, staffing levels and program priorities were either not available or largely speculative.
As a result, the strategic plan, while it includes many sound and worthwhile recommendations, doesn't have a solid enough fiscal, programmatic and regulatory foundation to make a significant impact.
In December, at the Board's public hearings on welfare reform, the audience was mostly from task groups and agencies providing services to low-income residents. They spoke effectively, urging the Board to adopt a humane, compassionate welfare reform program.
Disappointed
I was disappointed that other groups - the medical community, interfaith councils, organized labor, the business community political parties, etc. - weren't there.
It is clear, of course, that welfare reform is a divisive political issue. That may be why nobody from the major political parties was there, but it's no excuse. Will future setbacks or restrictions on county safety net programs get continuing indifference from the political establishment?
The final plan sent to the State for approval came out of a committee consisting of Supervisors Delbar and Peterson and DSS representatives, a necessity considering the range and complexity of the issues and the tight time frames.
However, if public participation was important in the first part of the process, it should have been part of the final committee deliberations as those finalized the key decisions and recommendations; somebody from the DSS Citizens Advisory Council should have been there.
What comes out of all this? We must persevere and hope for the best, of course, and recognize that we at the MEC can do better. It isn't enough to go to meetings, serve on committees or write articles in the newsletter. We must monitor and evaluate significant developments and decisions about the county's safety net programs and get the word out to all concerned.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1998
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is
cited