The Alliance for the Arts recently announced the creation of a “cultural gift directory” (click on lower right-hand side of their homepage) to allow New Yorkers to give last-minute gifts connected to the arts. The Solomon R. Guggenheim museum, for example, is encouraging people to buy a gift membership, by promising to include with it a “festively-wrapped Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired mug set.”
Jean Ryan would love a different gift from the Guggenheim. She would love for the curators of the Russian exhibition to make the wall labels easier to read. “Apparently the curators think the signs have to fit into the color scheme of the exhibit,” says Ryan. So people with poor sight must do without them, and people with average sight have to squint a lot.
“People with disabilities often feel barely tolerated at museums instead of feeling welcomed," Ryan says. "At best, we’re an afterthought.” Ryan is one of the leaders of Disabled In Action of Metropolitan New York, an organization that has been fighting for the civil rights of the disabled since 1970.
Like most New Yorkers, she has been focusing on the New York City transit strike this month, though her perspective is different from many: “Have you noticed how none of the articles in the press mention how people with disabilities will -- or will not -- get around?” she said before the strike began. “I guess we’ll be stuck in our houses again.”
For three days in December, New Yorkers of all stripes struggled just to get to work. Many canceled all but essential obligations –- and restaurants, museums and theaters suffered the consequences.
But many disabled New Yorkers must struggle to get through the day every day, not just during a transit strike -- and, say disability rights advocates, they do not understand why they must give up all but the essentials their entire lives. Besides, to many disabled (as to many New Yorkers in general) art and culture are essentials.
In numerous cases, a small shift -- call it a tiny “gift” from cultural institutions and the entertainment industry, often at little or no cost -- is all that the disabled would need to get much-enhanced experiences. And there would be benefits for other New Yorkers as well from these gifts:
The Guggenheim’s way of designing wall labels is typical. “The signs next to paintings in almost every museum are so tiny,” Jean Ryan says. “Why? We have to go right up to them to read them instead of being able to see them at a distance. It doesn’t take away from the artwork itself to have large print signs with high contrast.”
For wheelchair-users, Ryan says, it would make sense to add labels on display cases rather than just in them. “Often the labels in cases aren’t at the right angle for us to see what they say, or we can’t even see that they are there.”
For the visually-impaired, Ryan suggests a channel in the audio guides that would have the facts that are on the wall labels and also include a simple description of the artwork.
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced earlier this month a deal with eight national theater chains to make it easier for visually and hearing impaired people to enjoy movies. The plan is to have cooperating theaters provide headsets to the visually-impaired that offer descriptions of the visuals of the film as it progresses (in-between the dialogue.) For the hearing-impaired, the theaters will have available assistive listening devices that are compatible with hearing aids, and will also offer “rear-window captioning” for the hearing-impaired – a technology that allows the hearing-impaired to see subtitles that appear to be on the screen, while the rest of the audience does not see them.
But both the headsets and the rear-window captioning devices will reportedly be available in only 38 theaters throughout the entire state; another 140 theaters will offer hearing aid-compatible assistive listening devices – or, in other words, the total number of theaters with this improved accessibility throughout New York State is fewer than half the number of screens in Manhattan alone.
Currently, a total of just five movie theaters in the entire New York City metropolitan area offer captioned or narrated movies.
It seems bizarre, if not insulting, to develop such a Rube_Goldberg device as rear-window captioning, the expense of which is apparently keeping them from more theaters, when movie theaters could simply run all their English-language movies (as they currently do their foreign-language movies) with English subtitles. It is difficult to imagine people complaining about this, at least not for long. Those who do not want to read the captions will get used to ignoring them. Far more than just the hearing-impaired patrons would surely appreciate them.
If commercial movie theaters come up with some excuse not to do this, there is absolutely no excuse for the various "movies in the park" festivals, since they can simply flip on the closed-captioning on their DVD player projectors.
Federal law requires theaters be accessible to people in wheelchairs. “The Department of Justice made some Broadway theaters improve accessibility last year,” Jean Ryan says. These theaters "have accessible bathrooms on the main floor and they all have some sort of seating for people with mobility disabilities.”
But what the theaters also offer too often, advocates say, is back-of-the-bus attitude. "Most Broadway theaters have wheelchair seating in the back row or on the extreme side and if you have a vision impairment, you can’t see well from there. Even if you don’t have a vision impairment, no one wants to sit in the last row or on the extreme side. I can’t see anyone’s faces from far-away seats.
“In some theaters, the only place for us to go is behind a pillar or a wall.”
“Wheelchair accessibility in museum stores is a big problem,” Ryan says. “There is a lot of merchandise on the floor and the aisles are too narrow or there is no turnaround.” She names names – the gift shops of the Folk Art museum, the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, the Brooklyn Museum and, perhaps most ironically, the Museum of Art and Design.
"If you talk to people from museums, they’ll tell you about the special programs they have for blind people, for example," Ryan says. "But the everyday things -- seating, signage, bathroom access, access to their stores -- are neglected.
"All these things are our rights, not gifts we should have to be grateful for." But they would make nice gifts nonetheless.
Resources
Accessibility page of the National Endowment for the Arts
After a divorce, a 27-year-old Brooklyn woman lost her home and ended up in a city shelter with her four children. She was found eligible for public assistance, and for a city program called Housing Stability Plus, which would try to find her housing.
But there were problems.
Like other people on welfare, she had to participate in work programs to keep her benefits. But one of her sons, an eight-year-old, has special needs. Since this was the summer, she enrolled him in a daycare program so that she could show up for her work assignments. But she was frequently called to pick him up because of his behavior problems, making it impossible for her to comply with work assignments; she also said she did not receive notice of the assignments.
She explained the problem to her case worker, presenting documents from her son’s doctors and confirmation of her son’s difficulties from the day care center. It didn’t matter. She was sanctioned.
"Her housing is threatened and every aspect of her life is threatened," said Craig Acorn of the Community Service Society, who is her attorney. In Acorn's experience, this woman's case is typical of our current inflexible welfare system. "Most people in the system don't have a problem with wanting to comply with work rules. They are willing to do whatever it takes to keep their benefits," Acord said. "But the system doesn't really accommodate the person's needs. It's inflexible. If you miss one date, you are punished. It's extraordinarily punitive..."
"It is almost impossible to figure out the total number of people being sanctioned by the system," said Don Friedman, a policy analyst at the Community Service Society, "but I can very conservatively say that one-third of all public assistance households face sanctions in the course of a year. This is just for noncompliance of work rules. This doesnÂąt include the many other situations that can lead to sanctions or terminations of assistance, such as failure to comply with re-certification or one of myriad other administrative requirements and hurdles. And it would be reasonable to estimate that up to half of the public assistance population faces a reduction or termination of benefits in the course of a year. This is evidence of a system that is highly dysfunctional.
"A society can be measured by how it treats its most vulnerable people," Friedman said, and providing a system of support that enables a poor family to meet its most basic needs would be a positive indicator. New York City's current welfare policies, he argues, do not provide that support.
"If I had to name the two most revealing indicators of our societyÂąs reluctance to assist the very needy," said Friedman, "it would be (1) the inadequacy of benefits, and (2) that it is a punishment driven system."
The rent portion of the welfare grant was recently increased from $286 to $400 for the first time in 15 years. "This is not an insignificant amount," says Friedman, "but relative to the increase in the cost of rental housing over the last 15 years, this increase will not remotely keep pace with the cost of even the most modest housing. And the rest of the grant has not increased at all in 15 years, while the cost of living has gone up 50 or 60 percent. In effect, the value of the grant has been cut in half.
"How could you let a system that was totally inadequate 15 years ago lose half its value?"
A family of three in New York City getting public assistance and food stamps receives a value of some 75 percent of the federal poverty level. "Now the federal poverty level is an unrealistically low figure," says Friedman, "so to put a family at 75 percent of that is to condemn them to deep poverty." By contrast, in 1975, the welfare grant and food stamps put a family at 125 percent of the poverty level.
At a recent meeting of the Welfare Reform Network, New York State Assemblymember Deborah Glick expressed similar concerns. "Families cannot meet basic income needs even at the poverty level," Glick said. "The estimate for self-sufficiency for people living in New York City is 347 percent of the poverty level." GlickÂąs figures come from testimony in September provided by the Fiscal Policy Institute at a hearing before the Assembly Social Services Committee on the "Effect of Welfare Reform Policy in New York State."
To get another angle on this situation, Friedman directs readers to the Web site of the cityÂąs Human Resources Administration (HRA) for a snapshot of those receiving or applying for public assistance. Reviewing the chart, it becomes evident that a considerable number of people on welfare -- 43 percent this particular week -- are acknowledged by the system to have disabilities, be they physical or mental, or to be living with AIDS or substance abuse, or to be afflicted by other situations that arenÂąt broken down, such as domestic violence or low levels of education. "These are the realities of life in poverty," said Friedman.
Looking further down the HRA chart , we learn that the number of people participating in education or training this particular week is three percent. Adding in those with access to training in the Work Experience Program -- 0.4 percent -- it is clear that a very small percentage of people on public assistance are participating in education and training, strategies widely acknowledged to be long-term solutions to poverty.
"There is no question that education is the way out," said Assemblymember Glick. "Eighty-eight percent of women who have access to four years of college never return to the welfare rolls. Forty-eight percent of welfare recipients have no high school diploma. And 75 percent of New York City employers require two years of college for entry level positions."
Friedman now asks readers to follow the HRA chart down to the percentage of those threatened with sanctions or being sanctioned: 26 percent.
Meant to enforce compliance with all requirements and insure that people collecting benefits are still in need, sanctions in New York State involve a reduction in benefits. The Giuliani administration once suggested the welfare to work program would grind to a halt without sanctions. And although Mayor Bloomberg has been considerably less feisty about it, a recent New York Times article reports that while the number of people receiving assistance has declined under Bloomberg, "the percentage of recipients punished for not complying with work programs has stayed roughly the same as in the Giuliani years."
Numerous attempts were made to discuss the sanction policy with the cityÂąs Human Resources Administration, but calls were not returned.
"There is no evidence that sanctions promote better behavior," says Assemblymember Glick. "And of all the factors affecting the well-being [of the poor], sanctions are the most pernicious."
One national study of programs that enforced mandates found "higher sanction rates were not associated with higher participation rates. Some observers contend that programs that do a good job of communicating expectations to recipients do not need to sanction as often."
The Human Resources Administration's own study found the sanctioned population more likely to be young and African American, with more children and with less education than the agency's average welfare recipients. This past May, HRA opened an Intensive Case Management Center (in pdf format) to "explain sanction policy and process to sanctioned clients, conduct more detailed assessments, and offer a full menu of appropriate services including job placement, health care/mental health evaluation, education and training."
Welfare clients have the right to request a fair hearing if they feel they have been unfairly sanctioned. "In New York City, there is a very high reversal rate," said Vicki Lens, an assistant professor at the Columbia University School Of Social Work, whose work often focuses on welfare and welfare reform. In 2002, the reversal rate was 80 percent. "This shows that errors have been made."
Many people who are sanctioned or denied benefits donÂąt even request fair hearings. "They donÂąt think itÂąs worth it," said Lens. "Or they think the system is biased against them. They depend on the agency for survival and so they donÂąt want to challenge it. Or they are isolated and feel afraid to do it on their own." Still, more people complain in New York City (6.8 percent) than elsewhere (one percent or less).
"Most people receiving federal welfare benefits are single mothers of young children," said Lens. "Some struggle with low wage jobs, others have disabilities or health problems, or children with disabilities that prevent them from working. They need compassion and support, not sanctions."
Â
You wouldn't know it from coverage of the mayoral campaign, but the outcome will make a difference to New York City residents who depend on social services, particularly public assistance, job training and placement services, food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and senior services.
While advocates for the poor view Michael Bloomberg as in many ways a welcome relief from Rudolph Giuliani, the current mayor has repeatedly vetoed anti-poverty measures passed by the City Council, and used the courts to thwart other such measures. He fought implementation of a law to create transitional jobs for welfare recipients moving into full-time work, and a law to provide more opportunities for welfare recipients to get education and training.
He also took legal advocates to court to prevent them from stationing staff in waiting rooms at welfare job centers, where they were available to clients needing help with city bureaucracy. Now an individual client may bring an advocate to a job center, but advocates cannot enter centers on their own and wait for clients to ask for help. The next mayor will have the power to change this rule and allow clients free access to legal help.
In August 2005, Legal Aid sued the city for failing to make necessary accommodations for welfare recipients with disabilities in its new WeCARE program, which seeks to enable them to work. Legal Aid also opposes the centralization of WeCARE services in three locations, increasing travel time for welfare applicants and recipients who have disabilities.
Although he has a school of public health named after him, Bloomberg has balked at expanding food aid that can help provide a healthy diet. Single, childless welfare recipients without disabilities can get food stamps for only three months if they do not participate in work or training activities. However, because New York City has high unemployment levels, the three-month limit could be waived, if the city requested it. The Bloomberg administration has refused to do so, in contrast to officials in most areas of the state that qualify for the exemption.
As Council Speaker, Gifford Miller led the Democrats in passing three bills to make it easier for people to apply for food stamps. The mayor vetoed them, and the Council overrode the vetoes. It is not clear how the Bloomberg administration will react to the override, now that it has announced it will use a newly awarded federal grant to develop an online application system to be used at welfare offices, food pantries, and soup kitchens. One of the vetoed bills calls for an online application system, and another requires applications to be made available at food pantries and soup kitchens.
The four leading Democratic candidates are all current or former City Council members, and have voted to add funding to the city's budget for food pantries and soup kitchens. Bloomberg, like preceding mayors, has cut these funds from the budget each year, requiring the council to bargain for their inclusion.
Anthony Weiner has expressed opposition to the city's requirement that food stamp applicants be fingerprinted. This was a Giuliani innovation continued by the Bloomberg administration.
After public assistance checks, the single largest benefit for impoverished New Yorkers is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which can be worth up to $6,000 for an eligible household. Bloomberg's administration has effectively publicized this benefit and helped people fill out the forms for it, increasing the number of households receiving checks.
During Gifford Miller's tenure as Speaker, the Council established a city addition to the federal tax credit. Miller has made this credit a centerpiece of his campaign, pledging to double it, and also seek a new tax credit for low and middle-income renters.
The welfare reform law of 1996 expired in 2002; Congress and President George W. Bush have been trying to pass a more stringent version to replace it ever since. Currently, only 40 percent of the city's welfare recipients fulfill federal work requirements; most versions of a new welfare law will mandate that 70 percent of recipients work, and that parents of young children double their work hours from 20 to 40 a week.
Bloomberg and the four major Democratic mayoral candidates all oppose increasing work requirements. The city would have to pay more for child care, and to find or create jobs for people with major barriers to work, such as disabilities, lack of skills and experience, homelessness, and prison records.
A report by the Community Service Society found that in 2003, only about half of the working-age African-American men in New York City had jobs. Several of the Democratic mayoral candidates have been inspired by that fact to address job issues beyond the welfare population.
Fernando Ferrer, former Bronx borough president, has attributed long-term unemployment among men and women of color to three factors: Lack of support for small businesses, lack of jobs in communities of color, and the failure of the school system to graduate students with the skills needed to work and/or go to college. He has criticized Bloomberg for concentrating on average test scores, at the expense of the students having the hardest time in school. Average test scores rise when these students drop out.
Ferrer's campaign has released a detailed plan to graduate 50,000 more students from high school in the next four years, and raise the city's graduation rates to the national average in eight years. Social services play a major role in the plan, which would give 100,000 more children after-school program services; offer mentoring and counseling to teenagers; provide more social workers, psychologists, and counselors for students and their families; and use family literacy programs to help children learn better while improving their parents' job prospects.
C. Virginia Fields, currently Manhattan borough president, has pledged to appoint a Deputy Mayor for Full Employment if she is elected mayor. She would work to develop more apprenticeship programs, and link the Department of Education to the City University of New York to "create new seamless paths of career training beginning in high school." She also proposes addressing unemployment through social services, such as "helping families at risk, expanding drug treatment options, better job training in jails."
Like Ferrer, she would focus school improvements on struggling students, and reducing the dropout rate.
Gifford Miller can point to an $18 million employment program he shepherded through the City Council, which is scheduled to start in September 2005. Reflecting the same priorities as those of Ferrer and Fields, the "Long Term Structural Unemployment Initiative" has three aspects: job training for ex-prisoners, school programs to prevent dropouts, and offering training and capital to entrepreneurs, particularly small ones, in communities of color.
Under Miller, the City Council passed a bill, signed into law by Bloomberg, mandating that city contractors employing a total of about 50,000 workers pay a living wage and provide health care coverage.
When Thomas Ognibene, the Conservative Party’s candidate for mayor, addressed unemployment issues in the mayoral debate on poverty , he confined his recommendations to tactics already being tried by the One-Stop Career Centers set up by the city's Department of Small Business Services under Bloomberg. These were targeting training to industries needing workers, and encouraging unions to open their apprentice and job training program to more people.
Bloomberg has made progress in helping survivors of domestic violence. The city recently opened its first Family Justice Center, where legal services, benefits counseling, and specialized counseling for victims of domestic violence are all offered in the same place. The Police Department's Domestic Violence Response Teams focus on the two precincts with the highest incidences of domestic violence. Bloomberg signed a law that entitles survivors to emergency housing, with or without documentation of abuse.
The Fields campaign offers seniors an "Aging in Place" program, to be funded if she is elected mayor. The program would expand the availability of services needed for seniors to live independently in their homes, such as social work and mental heath services, nutrition counseling, and medical and nursing care.
Anthony Weiner focused on faith-based services for the elderly at an appearance at New York University in late July 2005 . He stated that "the charitable sector has learned to do much better than we in government have done," even though he believes religious institutions are hampered by red tape when setting up these programs. Weiner promised, if elected, he would appoint a non-profit "czar" to shepherd them through the process of getting regulatory waivers, locating real estate, and doing outreach to potential clients.
Under Miller's leadership, the City Council made the popular Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption available to nearly 1,000 more elderly renters next year, by raising the income level under which they qualify for the exemption. As its name suggests, this program exempts low-income seniors from rent increases; the increases are paid to the landlord from city funds.
Linda Ostreicher, a former budget analyst for the New York City Council, has been in charge of the Social Services topic page since November, 2001.Â