Michelle
Philadelphia, PA
Economic Human Rights Violations of UDHR Articles 23, 25, 26

In April of 1997 Michelle, like hundreds of other welfare recipients, signed the Agreement of Mutual Responsibility. She was at her regular appointment at the welfare office to reconfirm her eligibilty to receive public assistance. Michelle's story is frightening but it is just an example. An example of how the new welfare law does not work and brings terrible consequences to families that are already struggling to survive.

Michelle's caseworker told her that she had to get a job. Against all reality, Michelle signed an AMR that said that her "goal [was] to be able to support myself and my family by June of 1997," two months after she signed the AMR. Getting a job wasn't anything new to Michelle. She wanted to get a job, get off of welfare, support herself and her two daughters with a decent standard of living. In fact she had already applied for a job at Spotless Cleaning. She wanted to go to job training so that she could find a good job. She also wanted to go to school so that she could get her GED. And she was looking into courses so that she could get a real estate license. In her efforts, Michelle got ahead of the welfare office.

Michelle was offered the job at Spotless Cleaning. Like most of the small cleaning services that are mushrooming around the country, Spotless didn't offer full-time work, benefits, childcare or even a wage that would allow someone to support themselves or their family. But, it was a JOB. Michelle was going to work for two days a week. For those two days she was going to be paid $55-$75 a week. Another two days a week she would work in the office of a Real Estate school to pay her way to take weekend classes and become certified as a real estate agent. She was working four days a week and earning $55-$75 for that work. She was also attending school two days a week.

Because childcare is no longer an entitlement, Michelle had no right to expect any help from the welfare office to find someone to care for her three year old all day and her six year old after school. Her caseworker told her to go to the local Salvation Army. Michelle went and found out that it would cost $125 a week to place Gabrielle there. This was more than she was earning at her new job and she wasn't offered any kind of subsidy from the welfare office. However, Michelle did find a friend that would watch her daughters--for $60 a week. Almost the same as what she was earning. A fair deal? Work, get paid, pay the childcare worker, no extra money.

But that is not the end of the story. Michelle happened to be assigned to one of those classic caseworkers. You know the one. Doesn't really understand the new laws, knows she has to wipe out 50% of her caseload in the next two years, doesn't have a lot of patience to explain the new regulations or paperwork to her clients and gets real nasty if you question her authority. So Michelle's new situation is that she's working, she'd getting paid, she's paying for childcare and she's not bringing in any more money. In July her caseworker decides to add a new element by reducing Michelle's food stamps and cash grant. Obviously, she's working so she must not need the same amounts that she received before. Michelle didn't agree. She contacted the Kensington Welfare Rights Union and under their advisement she filed an appeal.

At this point she's questioning her caseworker's authority. So even though she filed the appeal within ten days, her caseworker still reduces her cash and food stamps. And then tells Michelle that she had to re-file the appeal every month in order for her checks to continue. Every time Michelle goes to pick up her cash or her food stamps there would be a new surprise. There wasn't anything there or the amount was lower than it should have been. When Michelle called her caseworker to find out why, she was yelled at for getting involved with that welfare rights organization. It was only after we called her supervisor that her amounts were corrected. But it was the same cycle every month.

All this time Michelle is working at Spotless. The conditions weren't great and the pay wasn't really worth it. Twice in a row she was forced to ride on the floor of a crammed van in order to get to the different work sites. Finally when she was told she would have to travel like this again, Michelle decided to quit. But this is a violation of the new welfare law. Quitting your job, for whatever reason, is cause to be sanctioned. At the same time Michelle was having a real problem filling out her monthly income reporting form. She didn't know that she had to keep her paystubs and her boss was refusing to give her a monthly statement of her earnings. So she was not complying with the regulations. Her caseworker suspended her case.

It had been three months since Michelle filed the original appeal about the reduction in her assistance. She never recieved any notice about her appeal hearing, a process that should only take a month. It became pretty clear that her appeal had "disappeared."

At this point Michelle is still trying desperately to comply with the new laws and her own desire to find a decent job. Two weeks after quitting Spotless she found a new job, working full-time as a telemarketer. Another growing industry that offers no benefits, low-wages and no childcare. Michelle has a new caseworker and has reapplied for welfare. She has recieved nothing from the Department of Public Welfare about her appeal hearing. Michelle is earning $5.75 an hour, gets no benefits, recieves no childcare stipend and still does not have her GED. However, in the eyes of the welfare office, Michelle is a success story. She has fulfilled the June 1997 date on her AMR and is well on her way to being off of the welfare rolls.