People for
(some of the) people

From as far back as the 1800’s, any kind of “public assistance” has been the subject of moral and value judgments. Conservative views see it as a support of laziness and a sloppy work ethic. Liberals have always seen the system as inadequate. Participants find it degrading and demoralizing.

Invited to a meeting intended to give community agencies information about the guidelines to access the Times Herald Record’s People for People Fund, I was dismayed to find that eligibility had been defined by the board in as narrow a definition as possible. Adopting the 1996 mantra of “work first,” People for People has established a bold line between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. In order to address gaps in services, I had idealistically hoped that the large pool ($200,000 or so) of donated money would be unfettered by political ropes and would indeed be a resource for those who are in need. Instead, the goals are unrealistic and reinforce the rhetoric of the poor being at fault for their poverty.

I’m writing to voice my displeasure with the bureaucratic decision makers at the fund. While donors are contributing money in the hopes that it reaches all people regardless of race, gender and ethnicity, the policy makers at People for People have decided to give only to those who fit the mold of the perfect community member.

The not-for-profit decision-making process is a difficult one. There is always debate about eligibility. There are also barriers to the American dream of self-sufficiency—personal and systemic walls that, once joined, can become insurmountable. A person, for example, who is not well versed in the services’ system will be easily shunned away from accessing what they are eligible for, while the services-knowledgeable person will be treated as if they are seeking unnecessary help with fraudulent intent. Since People for People is a 501C-3, leading the public to believe it is a charitable organization, experienced or inexperienced, it has entered the field of social welfare and human services.

In an effort to clarify the focus of the fund, a meeting was held on April 16. Board member David Diness addressed the attendees and gave an informative presentation, both orally and with an overhead, to explain the policy guidelines of The Times Herald Record’s People to People Fund. Some of the information seemed to be contradictory in nature. We were informed that no one receiving public assistance (cash benefits) is eligible for assistance. In addition, applicants receiving SSI, food stamps, Section 8 or other assistance were considered to be receiving “public assistance” as well. These struggling poor were not labeled as productive members of society. This sweep of denial seems harsh, especially since the application clearly states you can apply if you are receiving pubic assistance benefits. You can apply, but you won’t be accepted.

Although the Times Herald Record’s People for People fund will be able to assist some of the working and productive members of the population facing an unexpected crisis in Sullivan, Orange, Ulster and part of Pike Counties, the majority of the population facing the real issues of poverty will remain in the gaps, prevented from self sufficiency by strict and conservative eligibility guidelines. In the past, organizations may have referred individuals in crisis to the People to People Fund when they failed to meet the criteria of other funding sources. However, it seems that the neediest families will remain ineligible, due to the assumption that “those people” are already being taken care of through other sources.

The reality is that every applicant deserves consideration and eligibility determined through a consistent set of guidelines. It seems that the components of the fund are inconsistent at best and the dilemma remains that those in poverty are marginalized by this persistent “us and them” mentality.

Cesar Loarca, CSW, Board Chair
Federation for the Homeless
Monticello, NY