[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/3/2005 8:02:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I take it there was an unofficial list of prohibited items? Some things spring immediately to mind; illicit drugs, alcohol, porn, gambling? This makes a certain amount of sense.
Well, it was slightly, but only slightly, more complicated. First, the amount of AFDC was so inadequate that women (the client was almost always a single woman and not a single man or a family) had to struggle to use the meager funds for rent and food. Second, if the meager amount was spent and the client still had a rent or food problem, this would alert the worker to the possibility of misspent funds. Thus, exigencies of survival were typically the informal enforcement mechanism.
As a case worker, I assume it was your duty to "take care" of the clients, wasn't it? I can imagine that there were limits to the amount and type of intervention you could enact. Can you elaborate?
I realize this is getting off-topic, and have no problem moving this off-list.
Sincerely, Jean Dudley. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
