In a recent Wall Street Journal article Heather Mac Donald, of the conservative think-tank “The Manhattan Institute”, claims that poverty, racism, and social injustice are not root-causes of crime. Mac Donald argues that under conventional left-wing wisdom, crime should be increasing due to the current economic recession. Mac Donald cites 2009 FBI crime statistics that reportedly show national decreases in crime. She writes, “The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice.”

Mac Donald criticizes government social service programs, including “after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs”, suggesting that they are not effective in decreasing crime.

Is Mac Donald’s analysis too simplistic? Does a decrease in some crimes really demonstrate that crime is not linked to poverty, race, or social injustice? Even if one were to accept Mac Donald’s arguments, is it really better for individuals and society for the government to eliminate needed social service programs?

In an odd commercial, some try to link health care reform to racism. According to the commercial, some on the Left claim it is racist to oppose health care reform. In the commercial a series of actors, who pretend to oppose health care reform, pose the question, “So, I Guess I’m a Racist?” 

So what is the point of this commercial and who is behind it? Does the ad advance mature discussions of race and health care reform? Or does the ad simply trivialize both issues?

MSNBC news show host Rachel Maddow discusses the commercial with Princeton University Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell.

Missouri State Representative Robert Schaff, Republican - Makes guest appearance in anti-health care commercial stating, "I guess I'm racist."

The California Medicare Part D Coalition recently released a report entitled, “Please Hold: Medicare Plans Leave Limited English Proficient Beneficiaries Waiting for Access.” Medicare is health insurance for people age 65 or older, under age 65 with certain disabilities, and any age with permanent kidney failure (called “End-Stage Renal Disease”). Medicare Part D is a voluntary program that provides beneficiaries of Medicare Part A or B with assistance paying for prescription drugs.

Limited English proficiency generally describes someone who has limited ability to read, write, speak, and/or understand English (e.g., US DOT, Federal LEP Working Group, etc.). Because it all too often limits the ability of LEP persons to take full advantage of the opportunities otherwise available to proficient English speakers, LEP status is linked with poverty and social isolation and is a common underlying cause of lack of access to services, including legal services. See Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders (2003). The report shows that limited English proficient (LEP) Medicare beneficiaries are often unable to receive important information from Medicare prescription drug plans, thus leaving them without important medications. In this way, the failure of many government programs to adequately address the needs of their would-be beneficiaries is a systemic and institutional impediment to equal access to services.

California’s low-income Part D plans are only able to connect limited English proficient dual eligibles to someone speaking their language 69 percent of the time. Non-Spanish speaking LEP beneficiaries have an even harder time getting information from plans, connecting with someone who speaks their language only 57 percent of the time. Plan representatives repeatedly refused to provide services in languages other than English. Multiple callers were told that they had reached an English-only line and needed to call back with an English speaker. Even those beneficiaries who were provided an interpreter were frequently unable to get the information they needed. Written materials were never available in any language other than English or Spanish, and Spanish written materials were not always available.

The report was released by the California Medicare Part D Language Access Coalition, an informal coalition of advocates in legal and community-based organizations serving limited English proficient and low-income communities in California. The effort was led by the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the National Health Law Program, the Greenlining Institute, Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum and the Health Consumer Center of Los Angeles.

For more resources on language access (in California), see LSNC’s Language Access page. For additional resources, visit the LEP Task Force.

In a courageous piece of advocacy, the Alameda County Homeless Action Center, argued that proposed cuts in the general assistance program would have a disparate impact upon African Americans in Alameda County. In support of their contention staff attorney, John Engstrom, crafted a Racial Impact Statement clearly demonstrating how the cuts would fall most heavily upon those in the African American community. He also challenged the “exemption process” that classified most unemployed African Americans as employable by describing the societal structures that prevented these recipients from accessing job opportunities. Kudos to Pattie Wall, John Engstrom and the clients of the Homeless Action Center for so effectively putting race on the table in their advocacy.

The Urban Institute and Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, are providing a discussion/training entitled “Racial Disparity in the Child Welfare System.” The event is sold out but you can still attend via the free live-audio webcast.

The training will be moderated by Patrick Boyle, editor of Youth Today. Presenters include Sharlynn Bobo, director, District of Colombia Child and Family Services Agency, Marla McDaniel, research associate, Urban Institute Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population, and Fred Wulczyn, research fellow, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Presenters will discuss how child welfare system administrators are working to address disparities in the provision of services to children of color.

The REP thanks Jodie Berger, regional counsel, Legal Service of Northern California, for bringing this event to our attention.

There have long been issues of race and inequity in public benefits programs. See Race And The Politics Of Welfare Reform, Sanford F. Schram, Joe Soss, and Richard C. Fording. Editors, University of Michigan Press, 2003. Changing demographics, mandatory welfare-to-work requirements and, let’s face it, increased awareness among advocates, has shown serious problems in the ability of Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals in equally accessing and benefiting from Public Benefits programs.

Looking at the experience in California:

• In California, the initial group reaching the 60-month limit on TANF benefits was disproportionately LEP households. These were mostly two-parent households in which the father worked a low wage job, and neither parent received welfare-to-work services. Others were offered a limited range of services that did not prepare them for work.

• The state does not find civil rights violations when workers fail to follow language access requirements, though ordering corrective action. The bureau’s rationale is that there is no “proof” of discriminatory intent. So far, the agency has rejected that disparate impact is a basis for finding discrimination, despite regulations and case law in the larger civil rights context. The result is that workers do not “feel” any consequence of their failure to meet the requirements.

• A review of audits of county welfare departments shows that none fully complied with the civil rights language access requirements. Bureau capacity to ensure that corrective action plans are submitted and completed is limited, and enforcement is difficult.

• New automation systems are wreaking havoc on use of translated forms. Systems designed to handle multiple languages were sending materials in English despite the case language coding. When that was fixed, other problems cropped up, such as forms coming out partially in-language, and part in English. Automated mailing resulted in workers being unaware of the language of the notices. Larger computer issues made it impossible to reach workers, as calls went up in response.

On the positive side, California has been very open to working with advocates, in the full social services context, as well as sub-levels of Welfare-to-work, fair hearings, and civil rights. Advocates have been invited to help improve the program, and have worked to overhaul civil rights compliance processes and reporting, regulations, and best practices.

Significantly, this year California modified its hearing regulations to toll the time in which to request a hearing when language issues are involved. The time to appeal now is tolled when the county either sends out notices in English, instead of the client’s designated language, or if an LEP recipient contacts a worker within the time to appeal, when no state translation exists. In the latter situation, the recipient is not required to show whether an interpretation of the notice at issue occurred, just the contact. The last gap, when a recipient does not know to call the worker, because the county never provided information about access to interpretive services, will be closed through training notes to the Administrative Law Judges.

Language access advocacy can be key in ensuring that recipients have appropriate and timely benefits and services, especially time-limited access to self-sufficiency skill training.

Wednesday, November 7 there will be a special, all day meeting of the National Language Access Advocates Network on Ensuring Language Access. Learn about best practices for serving LEP clients, and effective models for language access advocacy. Meet other Language advocates! (This day will not duplicate the language access sessions during the NLADA annual conference.)

By Jodie Berger, Regional Counsel, Legal Services of Northern California