Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
The Welfare Department’s $4,200 shortfall in local funding raises two questions.
Fust, how did the discrepancy between what was needed in local revenue and what was actually appropriated occur?
We realize that budget format required by the State Welfare Department makes it difficult to accurately transfer data to county budget forms. Supervisor Chairman E. P. Luke described the process as “finding the best possible fit.” However, in this case, the fit appears to be about three sizes too tight.
The local share of welfare funds appropriated on the budget form by the Supervisors falls $582 short in covering even mandated assistance services and administration costs. There’s no money for purchased services of either foster care and or day care for working mothers—an oversight that amounts to another $2,100. The Welfare Board elected to offer companion/chore services to the elderly but $1,600 for the program wasn’t allocated in local funds.
The Supervisors approved the Welfare budget as submitted by Department Director Elizabeth Bun tin. They made no cuts in local funding levels but still programs ended up missing $4,000 in local tax dollars.
If neither the welfare budget forms nor the county budget forms can be changed to correspond more closely, then more time needs to be spent in order to ensure that this kind of mistake doesn’t happen again. Mrs. Buntin has asked in the past that the Supervisors arrange a special session to consider *just the welfare budget. We think they ■<£« f should agree. Obviously, something better than the best fit is called for.
A second question raised by the shortfall centers around the attitude of the
83.5%