Federally-funded legal services programs continue to hammer away at
government attempts to reform programs that provide government benefits,
such as public housing, Social Security and disability benefits.
In some cases, legal services providers engage in outright challenges to
reforms of these programs. Often, however, the attempts to fight
reforms consist of myriad challenges to denials of welfare eligibility
in individual cases which have the cumulative effect of expanding the welfare
rolls to include those who may not actually qualify, as well as bogging
down welfare agencies in long and costly court battles.
Legal Services Fights Public Housing Reform
Atlanta Legal Aid Society, representing a public housing tenants' association, is threatening to go to court to stop an innovative public housing project designed to mix middle-class families and poorer public housing tenants in townhouses surrounding a new public golf course. In order to build the new development, the Atlanta Housing Authority is demolishing an older public housing apartment complex. The families in the apartment complex would be given Section 8 vouchers to seek housing elsewhere during construction and ultimately be moved into the new townhouses once the development is finished. The tenants' association, however, with the backing of Atlanta Legal Aid, has objected to the use of the Section 8 vouchers and is seeking for tenants to be housed temporarily in a portion of the development that is currently finished while the remainder is under construction. Both the Housing Authority and the private developer working together to build the project object on the ground that a large influx of temporary residents would threaten the stability of the newly created community. As a result, the private developer, East Lake Housing Corp., is threatening to pull out of the process altogether, a move that would jeopardize the completion of the project. It is regrettable that a legal services provider is impeding the development of a new kind of public housing that has the potential to provide a stable neighborhood for many poor families.
See Hollis R. Towns, East Lake Residents Might Sue, The
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 24, 1998, pg. 3C.
Legal Services Attempts to Keep Benefits Flowing to Recipient Who Knew She Wasn't Eligible
Legal Services of Northern Virginia, a recipient of money from the federal Legal Services Corporation, went to court against the Social Security Administration (SSA) in 1996 attempting to overturn a judgment by the SSA that Helen Jones had been overpaid Social Security widow's benefits by almost $10,000. Jones was overpaid because, due to a clerical error, the SSA had not taken into account the fact that Mrs. Jones was also receiving money from her own pension. Jones had, in fact, told the SSA about the pension when she applied for the widow's benefits and withdrew her application when she was told that she would only receive $18.00 per month in benefits due to the pension. Even though she subsequently began receiving widow's benefit payments of $511 per month, she failed to tell the SSA, which paid that amount to Jones for two years until Jones' withdrawal form was later discovered and processed. After initially denying that she had filed the withdrawal form or that she was receiving a pension, Jones later agreed to pay $10 per month to the SSA to begin repayment of the $9909 in benefits that Jones had erroneously received. Jones then filed a request for a waiver of recovery for the overpayment, which was denied because Jones was partially at fault for the overpayment. With the help of legal services, Jones appealed this denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which sided with the SSA and denied the appeal. Apparently, legal services lawyers believe that even those who do not qualify under federal law are 'entitled' to payment of welfare benefits.
See Jones v. Chater, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22654 (4th Cir. August
25, 1997).
Legal Services Argues That Cost of Housing Homeless Person in Shelter Cannot Be Deducted From Welfare Payments
In a case illustrating the lengths to which federally-funded legal services organizations will go to expand welfare benefit payments, Westchester/Putnam Legal Services of White Plains, New York argued that a homeless person should not have to pay for temporary shelter from their federal welfare benefits, even though they would have to pay for private housing from those same welfare benefits. In this case, Beulah Johnson was a homeless woman being housed at a temporary shelter run by the Volunteers of America (VOA). VOA runs the shelter under a contract with Westchester County, where the county reimburses VOA for the cost of housing the homeless occupants. In order to recoup a portion of its costs, the county requires residents of the shelter to pay over a portion of their Supplemental Security Income benefits to the county. Although Johnson made the required payments for several months, she stopped paying in May, 1997 and was told that she would have to pay or be evicted from the shelter. With the help of legal services, Johnson then filed a civil rights suit arguing that the shelter payment requirement violated federal and state law and seeking to recover the money she had paid to the county. The federal judge hearing the case dismissed the arguments advanced by legal services and noted that "if the [county and VOA] did not budget Ms. Johnson's SSI income, she would have no incentive to accept private housing, for if she did she would then be required to spend her SSI income on rent, food and the other forms of assistance which she now receives at the shelter." In other words, legal services seems determined to make government benefits as attractive as possible for those who could make it on their own.
See Johnson v. Wing, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10181 (S.D.N.Y. July
9, 1998).