NASW fights City's plan to slash welfare rolls
By Mimi Abramovitz, DSW, with members of the EVR Network
(November/December 1995)

The NASW Task Force on Welfare Reform and The New York Welfare Reform Network have joined forces to fight against the Eligibility Verification Review (EVR) process launched by the City to save taxpayers money at the expense of the poor. Since they first met in August 1995, this group has mailed EVR alerts to social work agencies and schools and organized and co-led workshops (with lawyers) for social workers to train them to advocate for clients affected by EVR, including how to identify plaintiffs for an EVR class action suit organized by Legal Services and Legal Aid. The EVR sub-committee of the NASW Task Force on Welfare Reform has taken a major leadership role in these activities.

Mayor Giuliani started EVR in January 1995, as part of the Human Resources Administration New York City--Work Accountability and You (NYC WAY) program. The City set up this tough new screening process to determine if all Home Relief (HR) clients and AFDC families are really eligible for aid. The Administration announced that it expects EVR to force 100,000 of the 244,000 HR recipients off the rolls, although the State Financial Control Board questions all but $28 million of the projected $200 million saving. The state of Michigan found that closing down its HR programs to otherwise eligible people, netted few if any economic gains, but caused the public to pay for more shelters, prisons, and emergency room care.

Presuming that public assistance recipients are trying to cheat the system, EVR subjects applicants to a lengthy interview at 330 Jay St. in Brooklyn following the regular application process at their local Income Support Center. Wearing badges, investigators from HRA's fraud detection unit question clients, re-verify documents, and cross check information with the Social Security Administration, the State Welfare Management System, the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Internal Revenue Service. Recertification requires a similarly intrusive but shorter review. A "no show" for the EVR interview or the failure to produce all required documentation can result in immediate disqualification.

Based on a June 1995 study of EVR, the New York City Public Advocate's office reported the following harassment procedures: EVR staff regularly lose or ignore documentation, provide the wrong information, and deny needed instructions. Some EVR staff intimidate clients, threatening them with arrest, suggesting they look too clean and presentable to be homeless, and ask them irrelevant questions that could be used to deny them benefits. Battered women are made to identify the location of their shelters even though the shelters insist on confidentiality and will evict women who violate this important safety rule. EVR investigators also conduct unannounced home visits and question neighbors about client's circumstances. EVR often illegally closes cases without notification.

The City Administration claims that the HR caseload increased since 1989 because people cheated. But a recent HR report found less than 1/3 of 1% of those fingerprinted to be ineligible. Instead the HR rolls soared because people took ill, fell on hard times, but also because New York City lost 350,000 jobs a year between 1989 and 1993 when 10.5 percent of the City's workers were jobless, compared to 6.7 percent nationwide. Counting "discouraged workers" NYC's "real" unemployment figure jumps to nearly 17 percent and projected growth for private sector jobs is grim. Creating barriers to public assistance makes little sense in periods of high employment. However, tightening eligibility rules to keep people off welfare is not a new strategy in the effort to keep wages low. Moreover, in today's political climate, taking a tough stand on welfare serves to scapegoat the poor for the nation's economic woes. It diverts public attention from the real causes of poverty and helps politicians win votes.

What social workers can do

Eligible clients who have been denied public benefit can reapply, ask for a conference at their IS center, or demand a Fair Hearing. Although the Fair Hearing office is almost impossible to reach, 80% of rejected clients who were given a Fair Hearing had their benefits restored.

The EVR program is also being challenged in court. An intensive plaintiff search is underway, with affidavits being gathered from potential class members which includes applicants or current recipients of HR and AFDC whose cases have been delayed, denied or closed due to any of the broad "Patterns of Abuse" listed on this page. If you know of clients who fit into these categories, or otherwise have information that might be useful for this crucial legal suit, please call one of the legal offices listed at the end of this page as soon as possible.

Patterns of Abuse