Looking for something to do this Saturday?

Emmaus Services for the Aging is looking for volunteers this weekend. Their new Volunteer Coordinator, John Byrne, sent the following call:

Emmaus Services for the Aging is need of "Easter Bunnies" to deliver pre-made Easter baskets to home bound seniors. Volunteers do not require transportation - only the desire to bring a little joy to the lives of our seniors. Call ahead to sign up at 202.745.1200

Date: Saturday April 4, 2009.
Time Start: 10:30am
Time End: 1:30pm

Location:
Emmaus Services for the Aging
1426 9th Street, NW
Washington, DC. 2001

Let's Pass the Bag Bill

The City held hearings yesterday for a proposed fee on plastic bags, as part of a concerted effort to clean up the Anacostia river.

Apparently, plastic bags comprise almost half of the trash in the Anacostia tributaries. The proposed fee is a nickel per bag (paper and plastic both), and a government-commissioned report estimates that this would reduce waste in the river by up to 68%. Furthermore, the city would save some of the many millions of dollars that it currently spends on trash cleanup, while the fee itself generates a new fund for the purpose of additional river revitalization efforts. (Not to mention, all this will enable DC to avoid the hefty fines about to be smacked down upon polluting cities by a newly-funtional EPA.)

It's a good policy, and it has broad support in City Council and the community.

And yet Councilmember Tommy Wells, one of the driving forces behind the bill, paid a special visit to Bread for the City on Monday, to make a few important reassurances to us about the proposed legislation. Councilmember Wells was well aware that while a five cent bag fee won't register on many District residents, that kind of change certainly adds up for those who have to make each dollar stretch.

Indeed, Bread for the City staff had previously discussed the fact that this seemingly win-win policy would actually be regressive for our clientele. A few weeks ago, emails were circulating that even considered public opposition to the bill. The Councilmember informed us that, in addition to emails, residents of low income communities had been receiving robocalls that tried to gin up opposition to the bill. All, apparently, part of a coordinated obstructionist effort by "Big Bag"! [UPDATE: Marc Fisher at the Post posted on this matter right around the time we did.]

In truth, the legislation is carefully designed to lessen the fee's impact on the poor even while generating more environmental returns. Councilmember Wells mentioned the supply of reusable bags that will be made available through stores, housing projects, public agencies and organizations like Bread for the City. We also shared some ideas with him about how to outreach to seniors and, most important of all, schools.

The bill's opponents imply that low income communities aren't themselves invested in their environment -- and, perhaps more cynically, that conservationist methods won't work just as well as heedless waste. We look forward to demonstrating otherwise.

Changes today at Bread for the City

Starting today, Bread for the City will close to client services on Fridays, and our salaries will take cuts (10% for staff, 12% for managers).

As our executive director George Jones said in his statement:

Bread for the City entered this recession in a position of relative strength: our sources of funding are as diversified as possible, thus affording critical insulation from economic turbulence. But we are not immune to the downturn. In particular, we struggle with the rising costs of operation: essentials like health care and food prices are placing great strains on our budget.

With great deliberation, our board and staff have decided upon a course of action that will minimize the short-term impact of this crisis, while positioning ourselves for long-term growth. To sustain our high levels of service, our staff and management will make sacrifices.

You can read the entire statement here, and the specific schedule changes for each of our programs here.

For our clients, this means there will be some additional time to visit our programs during Monday through Thursday, while Fridays are now closed.

For staff, it means our workweek is partially furloughed -- an organizational move that is increasingly common, and maybe not necessarily always such a bad thing, as the New York Times reported recently.

From our donors, clients, and the community at large, reaction to this plan has been broadly positive. Still, I heard George refer to the plan at one point as "a painful irony," since we have to make these changes even while ever more people in our community are coming to need these services.

But the most important thing to keep in mind is that we've calculated these moves so that our capacity to provide services during this time of scarcity can be maintained, even while we pave the way for major growth in the very near future. I'm not sure that the old "best defense is a good offense" line can neatly apply here, but it will suffice.

gchatting Food Stamps

Matt: Hey V! We got what I think is an interesting comment on our food stamps post from a couple days ago. A blog reader Imina was commenting on how this increase could be beneficial to some but could also encourage families who don't really need help to receive public benefits.

Valentine: That is an interesting comment. The public benefits system is really complicated...I think that makes it difficult for most people to "get" it.

Matt: Yeah. Made more complicated because each state and program has different requirements, right?

Valentine: Yes! There are lots of different requirements and different areas have vastly different costs of living, so it is difficult to set a blanket number to determine who needs help and who doesn't. Everything is calculated based on the "Federal Poverty Line" (FPL)...but very few people actually know what the FPL is.

Matt: What is the federal poverty line?

Valentine: The federal poverty line...which hasn't been recalculated since the early 80's...is now $10,830 for a single person or $22,050 for a family of 4. Generally speaking, you have to be within 130% of the FPL to be eligible for food stamps.

Matt: So a senior citizen could be ineligible for food stamps if their income is greater than $14,000 (including Social Security and all of that)!?

Valentine: Exactly.

Matt: And since the FPL doesn't take into consideration geographic region, a person living in DC with our cost of living is treated the same way as a person living in Peoria, Illinois with their cost of living?

Valentine: Right...that's why DC is proposing the important step to increase the eligibility for food stamps for District residents. So first, let's talk about what it means to be trying to live in DC within 200% of the FPL.

Matt: Yes.

Valentine: The average rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in the District is $1,050 per month...food prices are on the rise everywhere, and especially higher in urban areas...we both know it would be next to impossible to survive in this city on less than $1,000 per month without a whole lot of help!

Matt: So, DC is looking to raise food stamps to 200% of the FPL. On top of the income requirement, what are the other specific qualifications for the program?

Valentine: There are other qualifications, but they can be very complicated. There is an asset limit (a person can't have a certain amount of savings or other assets to fall back on), as well as a number of individual nuances. Moreover, a person still has to apply for food stamps and recertify every 6-12 months or whenever something changes (income, family structure, address, etc.).

Matt: That's what I thought. What about seniors? If someone worked and is now receiving social security, how much would they be making? Would they be in poverty?

Valentine: Unfortunately, while someone who is now living on social security is technically above the poverty line, they are just barely so. Here is a snapshot of February's Social Security payments. 34,876,000 seniors received social security payments nationwide (these are those who worked, are now retired, and don't receive any additional assistance due to disability). The average monthly benefit for this group is $1,156.00...or $13,872 per year...or 128% of the federal poverty line. And since the bill also discusses TANF, I'll mention that the maximum TANF benefit is only $428 per month (assuming a single parent of 2 kids).

Matt: Okay.

Valentine: And going back to the original comment about this change potentially allowing people who don't really need food stamps to receive them: with every law or adjustment there is the possibility that someone might abuse the system, but the numbers of people who are doing their best and need all the help they can get just to survive and raise their families far outweigh (and I mean dramatically outweigh) any potential people who are attempting to scam the system. Getting (and keeping) food stamps is no easy process...and asking for help is no easy feat. I think the District is contemplating a great step to help those who need it. That's the point and the Councilmembers who are working on this proposal should be supported.

Matt: Nice. Thanks for the info, V!

Valentine: Any time, friend! And don't forget, the hearing is on April 20th at 11 am in the Wilson Building. More info to come!

*Corrections have been issued to this post. Thanks to our legal & social service departments for lending their experience!