Sorry for the delay, I went over my limit yesterday and had to contol my urges to post.
pms wrote:
> Marta,
>
> Several years ago(during the Bush adm.) the Atlanta Regional
> Commission(ARC), through their something or other, on Ageing, did an SSI
> outreach program here in East Point. That's when I first realized that we
>
> had a high proportion of poor people, also a lot of elderly.
>
> I was a volunteer, and coordinated other volunteers. During training I
> learned that, I'm sorry I can't remember the figure, but, a lot of people
> who were eligible for SSI were not receiving it. I was really shocked
> cause
> you had to have a very low income($400/mo I think) to qualify. So like,
> what were these folks living on?
> I was real excited to be involved in something so basically useful, but it
>
> turned out to be bullshit.
>
> The first thing I noticed was that the people who were volunteering,
> probably for brownie points, that worked for various gov't agencies, like
> the Housing Authority, hated poor people, openly. Maybe more disrespected
>
> poor people, openly.
Were these poor people mainly people of color? Having lived in Memphis Tennessee I can guess that one explanation for people not receiving SSI and geting bad service from the local Social Security office is the fact that SSI is largely considered in the South to be "anodder govment pogrum fo _____" The extent of racist attitudes cannot be underestimated even in the more cosmo Atlanta.
But there are other reasons too. Some of the people who work for SSA have been given their jobs under Republican administrations and they are not interested in seeing an expansion of the rolls. I know a legal aid attorney here in LA who for years has fought SSA on behalf of people filing for their disability benefits and being denied who says that she has never seen so many mean spirited people as those who work for SSA.
A third reason is that to collect SSI if one is disabled, one must have a doctor who will do a write you for you and prove your disability. This is an arduous task that requires either a physician who is experienced with SSA procedures or a disabled person who is resourceful enough to find out exactly how to do this. It also requires the resources to pay physicans to do these evaluations. For the elderly though it is more straightforward, based on age and income.
> Then there was the follow up. I was suppose to assist folks who needed to
>
> apply. No one ever contacted me. I called a couple of times, and the lady
>
> who ran the show ate at the rest. and I asked her a couple of times, but
> they never got to the part where people actually got signed up for the
> program. I've always had the feeling that the loss of interest came from
> higher up than Patrice.
I agree with you that it seems that the word was put out (by higer officials) to give the appearance of doing something to satisfy the need, create the illusion that something is being done about the problem, but not to really expand the program. Unfortunately, I've seen set ups too that reward those who get the grant or the funding but never do anything for their targeted population. I wonder how Patrice justified herself though, usually the funders require an accounting in numbers of people served..maybe she just counted the people who showed up for help but not the ones who actually succeeded in getting on SSI.
It seems like a niche well worth filling if someone had let you. It is a catch 22 to counter these types of situations because the higher ups don't want to investigate their own lack of effectiveness so often the only way to expose these people is to try to get an editorial written(or write one yourself) or reporter interested but they are often not interested or seem to know through osmosis their editors would kill the story and don't want to risk writing about something unpopular or that goes against the political flow. Sometimes one can get an Op ed printed, this is less risky for the paper.
About disabled people and bible reading - I can tell you before hand, that nondisabled people have made careers and businesses out of "helping" disabled people but it is a real racket in some instances.
A man I know who has cerebral palsy told me that he tried to get a job with Good Will but they turned him down because he required some assistance using the restroom (which probably was not accessible). Now Neal is a veeeeeeeery bright man. He had worked for private industry and was really blown away by Good Will - an organization that is supposed to do something to make the world a less oppressive place for people like himself - turning against him because he was significantly disabled. Those nondisabled people working at Good Will who refused to hire him make a living from "helping the handicapped."
I do believe that minorities and poor people with disabilities have even a rougher time of it getting services they are entitled to.
Marta