From
Williamette Week:
Disabled Portlanders filed suit yesterday on behalf of about 700 recipients of Social Security benefits who fear their funds will be cut off when Safety Net of Oregon loses its federal qualification to manage their accounts on April 1, Street Roots News reported today.
Kathy Wilde, the legal director for Disability Rights Oregon, one of the advocacy organizations supporting the lawsuit, says people served by Safety Net must sign up with another provider to handle their Social Security benefits. She says many could be evicted or lose bus passes and allowances for food and medication if they don't know Safety Net is closing its doors.
About 300 clients have found other providers, but officials haven't been able to reach another 700 clients, Wilde said.
“Many of these people are homeless, or on the verge of homelessness, and most rely on these benefits for all, or almost all, of their income,” the lawsuit reads....
Federal investigators seized computers and records from the Portland non-profit earlier this month after concerns mounted about how executives were handling its books.
Update:
Disability Rights Oregon has obtained a court order that assures that all who had Safety Net of Oregon as their representative payee will be paid in April. I think that Social Security would have taken care of this problem quickly even without the court order. I don't know that it would have been taken care of by April 1 without the court order, however.
8 comments:
So the group Disability Rights Oregon thinks it is more important that this crooked payee agency stay open? It is time consuming and overwhelming for the local office, but it is not that hard to issue Immediate Payments in the local office if these 700 lost recipients show up when they don't get their money. And seriously, why doesn't the payee agency know where they are or how to get in touch with them? That is a pretty severe breach of fiduciary responsibility. And there will be another payee agency, who runs an aboveboard business, who is willing to step in and take on these 700 people.
The advocacy groups REALLY wants to continue paying benefits to an agency that can't run their business correctly? If the agency has done such a bad job of keeping up with their records, then there may be no way of knowing if they have stolen money from these clients.
Just seems like they are on the wrong side in this battle.
10:36 excellent post. It seems no matter which way you go, you are damned if you do or damned if you don't by some groups.
40.00 a month for most 10% max and what 70 for DAA? rep payee agencies are helping the lower of the low stay stable. You make them keep perfect books they all will get shut down. who else is going to help these people the broken social structures that cursed those who need help?
So it's okay to cheat them because they're the "lowest of the low"? That exactly the reason why they should be held to the highest of standards. What's next? Let the nursing homes slide by with poor care because the people there are old and going to die anyway?
The "onus" needs to be on SSA. We have responsibility to ensure that whomever we appoint as payee (recipients don't sign up their own payee)handles things correctly. I have always maintained that if SSA is going to be arrogant enough to tell someone they can't get their own check, SSA should pay a 3rd party with SSA money, not recipients' money, to serve in that capapcity.
37-yar SSA employee
it is not arrogant to require a rep payee for people who lack the ability to manage their money.
if you're so worried about SSA making judgments about peoples' capabilities, then I suppose you want to do away with the whole disability adjudicatory process, huh? Just let everyone tell us, since each individual in every case knows best, whether they are disabled?
2:12 Did you read the article? It says that this payee agency can't explain a $600,000 gap. For 1000 clients, that is a mistake averaging $6000 per person. I expect my bank to match my records to the penny. Perhaps it is all a software problem, or it is a data entry problem or it is a reconciliation problem and not really theft. But that is a BIG deal. I would not go back to a bank that could not explain a $10 error to me, let alone a $6000 error.
SSA can't go back to using Dorthea Puente, the nice California grandmother who murdered SSI recipients after being named their payee. She died in prison a few years ago. It was her crime that started payee agencies that were allowed to charge a fee and who are under greater scrutiny than anyone else who manages money for the disabled. And at least the agencies are required to be either bonded or insured in case of employee theft; the SSI recipient who gets their buddies or family members to manage their money can be ripped off and there is pretty much no recourse if the payee doesn't refund the money.
Post a Comment