Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Services Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge Durham County to shift social-services funding to family reunification and call for DSS audit
Summary
Two public commenters at the June 1 work session criticised county support for current social-services programs, urged reallocation of 1% of the social services budget (about $1 million) toward family reunification and preservation, and called for an audit of the Department of Social Services.
At the June 1 Durham County work session two public commenters urged commissioners to change funding priorities for social services and to audit county practice.
Antonet Haw, speaking in person, accused the board of making administrative decisions that have harmed the working class and said the county should "invert the pyramid" to place people above corporations. Haw asked the board to audit the Department of Social Services, asserting that a department official has "moved money" and that social workers have told judges they lacked funds when those funds were available: "We need that 1% to go to child protective services reunification and family development... Y'all need to audit DSS."
Amanda Wallace, founder of the grassroots group Operation Stop CPS and a Durham resident, told commissioners she supports reallocating 1% of the social-services budget away from family policing programs and toward direct supports for families. Wallace said 1% of the social-services budget is "about 1 million total" and described the current allocation to family reunification as roughly $52,000; she asked the board to split the 1% request so roughly $500,000 would support family reunification and the same amount for family preservation. "We are demanding 1% of the social services budget, which is about 1 million total," Wallace said.
Wallace also criticized proposals for a family treatment court, calling such reforms ineffective and urging funding instead for community-based reunification and preservation services. She accused a commissioner of presenting one position in private and another in public and said commissioners had previously accepted staff findings that funds could be found for programs they favored.
The board did not take immediate action on the public comments during the work session. Commenters’ requests and figures will be part of the public record and may inform staff briefs or later agenda items.
