AG19911021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mike Ruffin, County Reneger In Rovember 1958. plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further Relief allegint, among other things, the continued failure of the county departments to process AFDC and Hedfcaid tpplicatious in a timely manner; failure of the State to take meaningful corrective measures against counties that consistently fail to process applications e~editious!yI discouratemen~ of prospective applicants rrna filing applications; and inflexible and excessive verificaticn requirements in violation of the due process clause of the Foorteenth L~sndment and of federal regulations. The State filed an answer, denying ~ost of the allegations. Legal ~ervites fi!sd suificient evidence ~ith the Court to lead the S~ate's legal counsel (the Attorney General) to believe that the Court would find a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs if the case were taken to trial. Therefore, the decision ~as ~ade to negotiate a settlement. ~etel $sr~ices also indicated their preference to negotiate a settlement rather than go to trial. Current Otter and its Problems In December, 1959, the North Clrolina Department o~ Buman Resources entered into a consent order and sect!anent agreement between the state agency and LeSal Services of ~orth Carolina in relatio~ to the 19S8 Motion for Further Relief. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, a monitoring instrument was developed ~'hich was used last year to test each coonty's compliance with various program requirements. Counties were classified into three categories, depending on the score achieved on the monitoring instrument: Category I = 4}~ - ~00 points Category II = ~}$ - &~t points Cateio~~ T!I = 0 - 355 points t~der this plan, after the initial year of "hold harmless" monitoring, in the following yea~ of monitoring, Category III counties ~ere to be required to take corrective action and pay a sanction equal to ~.51 of their combined AFDC and Eedictid non-lateral costs of administration. II take Category corrective action a~d improve their scores by 10l in the next monitoring in orger to p~evan~ paying a sanction equal to ~.25~ of the uon-fegeral costs of administration fox A~C and Eadicai&. CtteEory I counties had to take corrective action as In the i~itial yea~ of monitoring, 88 county departments scored in Category 11I, o~ Category Il ~ith only 12 county departments scoring in Category I. ~e vast majority of lerger counties score~ in Category III. Cabarrus County scored in Category III. I~ bec~a a~parent in this :oni~orlni process tba~ the pape~o~k requirements which have proliferateg ~llh each subsequen~ orger in Alexanger v, Flah~rty are havinl a seriously detr~ental effect. Basicllly, the more pape~ork vhich has to be c~leted, ~hm lo~le~ it ~akes to c~lele applica~ions. I~ a ~exy xeal sense, ~edicine bas become worse than the distase. It is also obvious that the monitoring