ReportWire

Tag: food stamps

  • Amazon debuts grocery delivery program for Prime members, SNAP recipients

    Amazon debuts grocery delivery program for Prime members, SNAP recipients

    [ad_1]

    Amazon on Tuesday debuted a new grocery delivery program for Prime members across the U.S., as well as a lower-cost option for people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the official name for the food-stamp program.

    The cost of unlimited grocery delivery from Whole Foods Market, Amazon Fresh and other local grocers and specialty retailers is $9.99 a month, for orders over $35. The new delivery service is available in more than 3,500 cities and towns across the nation, and includes features such as one-hour delivery windows, Amazon said Tuesday. 

    Amazon said the cost for people who receive SNAP benefits is $4.99 per month. Food-stamp recipients need to have a registered Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card, but don’t require a Prime membership to join the food delivery program. Prime costs $139 annually, or $14.99 per month.

    The new service comes almost three years after Amazon ended free delivery for its Whole Foods customers, a decision that sparked some annoyance from customers at the time, the Washington Post reported. Meanwhile, rival Walmart offers unlimited grocery delivery as part of its Walmart Plus membership program, which costs $12.95 per month, along with a discounted service for food stamp recipients. 

    Other companies, like Instacart, charge fees that can start at $3.99 per delivery. Amazon said its new grocery delivery service “pays for itself” after one delivery per month. 

    “We have many different customers with many different needs, and we want to save them time and money every time they shop for groceries,” said Tony Hoggett, senior vice president of worldwide grocery stores at Amazon, in a statement. 

    Amazon said it is rolling out the program nationally after piloting it in three cities last year. More than 85% of trial participants deemed it a success, according to the company, citing convenience and saving money on delivery fees.

    Including food stamp customers in the program is part of Amazon’s initiative to help provide affordable grocery services to low-income customers, the company added.

    Megan Cerullo

    Megan Cerullo is a New York-based reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering small business, workplace, health care, consumer spending and personal finance topics. She regularly appears on CBS News 24/7 to discuss her reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 15 GOP-Led States Opt Out Of Federal Food Aid Aimed At Children

    15 GOP-Led States Opt Out Of Federal Food Aid Aimed At Children

    [ad_1]

    Fifteen Republican-led states have declined to participate in a new federal program from the Biden administration aimed at combating food insecurity among low-income families.

    Under the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer program, set to launch this year, states will provide $120 per eligible child to families in the U.S. to help cover food costs through the summer months, when many children are out of school. The Summer EBT program was approved by Congress in 2022 and aims to improve food and nutrition security, access and affordability.

    The Department of Agriculture announced on Wednesday that 35 states, all five U.S. territories and four tribes had opted to join the program. But 15 states led by Republican governors have rejected it, The New York Times reported, meaning millions of children are set to lose out on benefits.

    The states that decided not to participate are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming.

    Summer EBT is expected to provide nearly $2.5 billion in grocery benefits to as many as 21 million children across the 35 states that signed up.

    “No kid should have to spend their summer hungry, or without nutritious food,” Deputy Agriculture Secretary Xochitl Torres Small said in a statement. “Summer EBT is a giant step forward in meeting the needs of our nation’s children and families throughout the year, and especially in the summer months.”

    Republican governors of the states that opted out of the program had varying concerns, some citing the administrative costs and nutritional standards.

    “In the end, I fundamentally believe that we solve the problem, and I don’t believe in welfare,” Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen told the Lincoln Journal Star, defending his decision not to accept the $40-a-month Summer EBT. The state will still use a different food program that will be the “best route to ensure that Nebraska’s low-income children don’t go hungry this summer.”

    Crystal FitzSimons, director of school programs at the Food Research & Action Center, told CNN that providing families with grocery benefits to purchase additional food is “one of the easiest ways to support kids having access to food.”

    Governors of states that enrolled in the program have expressed strong support. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, described the program as “a critical lifeline for families struggling to make ends meet,” and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a Republican, said Summer EBT was “an important new tool to give Arkansas children the food and nutrition they need.”

    Some of the states that chose to participate, such as California and Massachusetts, have also recently adopted permanent programs granting free meals to public school students as part of growing efforts to address food insecurity.

    Children who qualify for such free meals in schools are also eligible to receive food aid through the Summer EBT program, CNN reported.

    More families experienced food insecurity in 2023 after pandemic-era food aid expired, CBS News reported. A report from the Department of Agriculture found that in 2022, about 17 million U.S. households experienced food insecurity, compared with 13.5 million in 2021, when there was more food assistance available through COVID-19 aid programs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans Don’t Really Want to Cut Spending

    Republicans Don’t Really Want to Cut Spending

    [ad_1]

    Shortly after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that he had struck a deal with President Joe Biden to raise the debt ceiling, Republican leaders began circulating a fact sheet to their members listing the victories McCarthy had secured. The first bullet point captured what was supposedly the whole point of the negotiations for the GOP: The newly christened Fiscal Responsibility Act would cut spending.

    An item further down the list, however, revealed far more about the agreement—and about how committed modern-day Republicans really are to their party’s small-government principles. That bullet point noted that the bill would “ensure full funding for critical veterans programs and national defense priorities, while preserving Social Security and Medicare.” At the end of a weeks-long negotiation, Republicans were bragging that they had exempted as much as half of the federal budget from the spending cuts they had fought so hard to enact. What they didn’t say was that for all of their rhetoric about reducing spending, they didn’t actually want to cut that much of it.

    The Fiscal Responsibility Act, which the House approved tonight on a vote of 314-117, will avert what would have been a first-ever national default, lift the debt ceiling through the next presidential election, and save Congress from a crisis of its own making. The bill, which is expected to clear the Senate in the next several days, is hardly what Democrats would have passed had they retained their House majority last fall. But in terms of “fiscal responsibility,” the proposal does vanishingly little. “It does nothing to change the unsustainability of the federal budget,” Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan fiscal-watchdog organization, told me. “It’s taken off the table everything that would have an effect.”

    Read: Why the GOP wants to rob Gen Z to pay the Boomers

    It’s not that Republicans lost the budgetary battle because of Biden’s tough negotiating. They didn’t even try for major spending cuts in this round of talks. McCarthy followed former President Donald Trump in abandoning the party’s long-standing push to tackle the biggest drivers of the national debt: Social Security and Medicare. Biden and the Democrats were willing to cut the Pentagon’s budget, which accounts for nearly half of all federal spending outside of entitlement programs. But the speaker nixed that idea too. “Spending cuts are very popular in the abstract, much less so in the specific,” Bixby said.

    By the time McCarthy and Biden began negotiating in earnest, there wasn’t much left to cut. “You just can’t get major savings from the rest of what’s left,” Bixby told me. McCarthy was ultimately able to trim a few billion dollars from last year’s budget. That’s enough for him to claim that the Fiscal Responsibility Act cuts year-over-year spending for the first time in a decade, but in the context of the nearly $6 trillion that the federal government spent in 2022, it’s a pittance.

    McCarthy succeeded in getting much of what he said he wanted, but that’s only because he didn’t ask for much. Congress will take back $28 billion in unspent COVID-relief funds, and Republicans chopped off as much as one-quarter of the $80 billion Democrats earmarked for the IRS as part of their Inflation Reduction Act last year. But the reduction in IRS funding could actually increase the deficit in the long term, because the purpose of the money was to secure higher revenue for the government by cracking down on tax fraud. The toughest provision for progressives to swallow is additional work requirements for childless adults ages 50 to 54 who receive food stamps and cash welfare. Other changes, however, will expand the food-stamp program to veterans and homeless people, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office yesterday estimated that the government will end up spending more money on food stamps, not less, as a result.

    The CBO projected that the bill would save $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But its estimate assumes that Congress will stick to lower spending levels for far longer than the two years that the legislation requires. The speaker has touted other reforms in the bill, such as a requirement that the administration find cuts to offset expensive new rules or regulations, and a provision that calls for an across-the-board 1 percent cut in spending if Congress fails to pass the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government each year. But neither of these is guaranteed.

    The best that fiscal hawks could say for the agreement was that it temporarily halted spending growth. Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told me that the most significant part of the deal was the “change in behavior” it represented. In recent years, she said, “lawmakers have only added to the deficit. They haven’t had any bipartisan deals that have brought the deficit down in a decade.”

    Annie Lowrey: Work requirements just won’t die

    McCarthy and his allies have argued that he extracted as many concessions as he could, considering that Democrats control the White House and the Senate whereas Republicans barely have a majority in the House. As speaker, McCarthy must protect the members most vulnerable to defeat next year, and he evidently determined that demanding cuts to some of the government’s most popular programs—Social Security, Medicare, the military, and veterans—could threaten the GOP majority.

    House conservatives were quick to denounce the agreement. To them, the cuts McCarthy secured were a woefully insufficient price for suspending the U.S. borrowing limit for the next year and a half. “Trillions of dollars of debt for crumbs,” Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, the chair of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, told reporters yesterday. “This deal fails, fails completely.” Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado noted that by only freezing rather than cutting spending, the legislation would “normalize” the growth of the federal government that happened during the coronavirus pandemic, even after most of the COVID-specific spending wound down.

    A few conservatives accused McCarthy of betraying the commitments he made to the party when he narrowly won the speakership in January. But even the Freedom Caucus spared the Pentagon and the biggest safety-net programs in its own proposals.

    Republicans have flinched on cutting spending before. Although the House GOP passed a debt-ceiling bill last month stuffed with conservative priorities, the party did not adopt a spending blueprint that would have detailed how it planned to balance the budget without raising taxes. And last week, Republicans abruptly postponed committee votes on four traditionally noncontroversial appropriations bills that contained spending cuts. GOP leaders cited the ongoing debt-limit talks as a reason, but congressional observers suspected that the party lacked the votes to advance the bills to the House floor.

    The GOP’s supposed zeal for smaller government has long been inconsistent. Most Republican lawmakers were happy to support spending sprees led by Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Trump. Only when Democrats have occupied the White House has the GOP demonstrated any interest in spending restraint.

    But that may be changing. In the 2011 debt-ceiling talks, Republicans forced Barack Obama to bargain over entitlement programs and accept deep cuts that applied equally to the military and domestic programs. Now the GOP is poised to hand Joe Biden a debt-ceiling increase of roughly the same duration in exchange for hardly any spending cuts at all.

    The party’s hardliners fought the deal but could not stop it. They appear unlikely to try to oust McCarthy over the agreement, and Republicans might not get another opportunity to force their agenda through for the rest of Biden’s term. That they chose to fight over so little represents a huge concession of its own, an acknowledgment that despite all their denunciations of out-of-control spending, Republican leaders recognize that what the federal government funds is more popular than they like to claim.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • The Important Difference Between SNAP And Food Stamps

    The Important Difference Between SNAP And Food Stamps

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and Republicans are locked in a standoff over federal spending and whether to tighten “work requirements” in certain federal programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

    People sometimes call SNAP the program for “food stamps,” because the government used to give people actual paper stamps to redeem for food at grocery stores. But the term is now misleading — SNAP has operated with debit cards for the past 20 years and was officially renamed in 2008.

    And the old name has baggage. Voters feel differently about the program depending on whether it’s called “SNAP” or “food stamps,” according to Data for Progress, a liberal polling firm that tested the different terms on separate groups earlier this year.

    The surveys found that 70% of voters favored increased funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, while 60% of voters in the other group supported more money for food stamps. The 10-point difference held among both Democrats and Republicans.

    Data for Progress also found that voters are familiar with the new name and its acronym, with 83% saying they’d heard of SNAP and 74% saying they’d heard of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

    “It’s 2023, no one is rocking up to the checkout counter with paper stamps anymore,” Matthew Cortland, a Data for Progress senior fellow, said in an email. “SNAP is a vital program that helps millions of Americans put food on the table at a time of high food inflation. It’s time to leave the outdated stigma of ‘food stamps’ in the past.”

    The term “food stamps” may also conjure incorrect impressions about program beneficiaries. For instance, a HuffPost /YouGov survey in 2018 found that most voters believe that most people on food stamps are Black, even though more white than Black Americans receive SNAP benefits.

    The program serves more than 20 million households monthly, providing an average benefit of $577 for a family of three. For the most part, the money can be used only for food at grocery stores. Most recipient households contain children, older Americans or people with disabilities.

    Republicans want to trim enrollment among nondisabled, childless adults as part of broader legislation that would cut federal spending and raise the government’s “debt ceiling,” a legal limit on government borrowing. If House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) can’t reach a deal with President Joe Biden, the government could default next month, potentially hurting the economy.

    For the most part, the policymakers involved in the debate have avoided using SNAP’s old name, even if the media hasn’t. So far this year, the term “food stamps” has only been uttered eight times in House or Senate floor speeches, the mentions equally split between the two parties, according to a search of the congressional record. But Republicans often use the term “welfare,” which is probably even more loaded with racial connotations, as a catchall for any federal program for low-income households.

    The White House has signaled some openness to stricter eligibility for unemployed adults to receive benefits from federal programs, but Biden has suggested changes to SNAP would be a tall order.

    “I’m not going to agree to a deal that protects wealthy tax cheats and crypto traders while putting food assistance at risk for nearly a hundred — excuse me — nearly 1 million Americans,” Biden said Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House Announces $8 Billion to Combat Hunger in the U.S.

    White House Announces $8 Billion to Combat Hunger in the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    Sept. 29, 2022 — The Biden administration has announced $8 billion in public and private commitments toward fighting hunger and improving nutrition in the United States.

    “This goal is within our reach,” President Biden said Wednesday during the first White House summit on hunger in 50 years. “In America, no child should go to bed hungry. No parent should die of disease that can be prevented.”

    The White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health comes as food costs are rising, supply chain issues remain from the pandemic, and food-related ailments continue. The administration announced a “bold goal” of ending hunger by 2030 and increasing healthy eating and physical activity.

    Among the key proposals:

    • Expand free school meals to 9 million more children by 2032
    • Allow more people to get food stamps
    • Help with transportation for people who don’t live near grocery stores and farmers markets
    • Increase money for nutrition programs helping seniors
    • Reduce food waste, since a third of all food in the United States goes to waste, the White House says.

    Many of the efforts need congressional approval. Biden can take some action through executive order.

    The Washington Post reported, “The pervasiveness of diet-related diseases creates broader problems for the country, White House officials said, hampering military readiness, workforce productivity, academic achievement and mental health.”

    The newspaper also reported that the U. S. Department of Agriculture says that 10.2% of U.S. households were “food insecure” in 2021. That means they didn’t have enough food to meet everyone’s needs.

    CNN said that more than 100 organizations have committed to help pay for Biden’s initiatives, including hospitals, health care associations, tech companies, philanthropies, and the food industry. 

    At least $2.5 billion will go to start-up companies focused on finding solutions to hunger and food insecurity, according to the White House. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House seeks to tackle food insecurity at first hunger conference since 1969 | CNN Politics

    White House seeks to tackle food insecurity at first hunger conference since 1969 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Groceries cost 13.5% more than they did a year ago. Nearly 25 million adults live in households where there isn’t always enough to eat. Some 40% of food banks saw increased demand this summer.

    At a time when the affordability of food is in the spotlight, the Biden administration is hosting a White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health on Wednesday with the goal of combating food insecurity and diet-related diseases.

    Overall, food insecurity has declined since former President Richard Nixon convened the first and only White House conference on food, nutrition and health in 1969, which led to nationwide expansions of the food stamp and school meals programs and the creation of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, among other changes. General economic growth and the reduction in poverty have also contributed to the improvements in food security in recent decades.

    However, the Covid-19 pandemic and soaring inflation have increased the attention paid to food insecurity in the US over the past two years. The Biden administration released a 44-page playbook on Tuesday aimed at the “bold goal” of ending hunger by 2030 and increasing healthy eating and physical activity to reduce diet-related diseases.

    Among the key proposals: expand free school meals to 9 million more children by 2032; allow more people to qualify for food stamps; broaden the Summer Expanded Benefit Transfer program to more kids; increase funding for nutrition programs for senior citizens; and improve transportation to and from grocery stores and farmer’s markets, among other initiatives. Many of the efforts would need approval from Congress.

    President Joe Biden announced at the conference more than $8 billion in private and public sector commitments as part of the administration’s call to action.

    “In America, no child, no child should go to bed hungry,” Biden told those gathered at the conference Wednesday. “No parent should die of disease that can be prevented.”

    More than 100 organizations have made commitments, including hospitals and health care associations, tech companies, philanthropies and the food industry.

    At least $2.5 billion will be invested in start-up companies that are focused on solutions to hunger and food insecurity, according to the White House. More than $4 billion will be dedicated toward philanthropic efforts to improve access to nutritious food, promote healthy choices and increase physical activity.

    The President also urged Congress to make permanent the enhancement to the child tax credit, which was only in effect last year. Parents used the additional monthly funds to buy food and basic necessities, which Biden said helped cut child poverty in half and reduced food insecurity for families by 26%.

    Congress has poured billions into special pandemic assistance programs aimed at enabling struggling Americans to have enough food to feed themselves and their families – even as millions of jobs were lost in 2020.

    “That’s why it’s so consequential that at the onset of the Covid-19 recession, the combination of fiscal support to households – whether it is from the economic impact payments, unemployment insurance, refundable tax credits, enhanced SNAP benefits or pandemic EBT – all combined to prevent an increase in food insecurity over the past two years,” said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

    The pandemic aid, particularly a temporary enhancement to the child tax credit, helped keep kids fed last year, Bauer and anti-hunger advocates maintain.

    Food insecurity among children fell in 2021, reversing a spike during the first year of the pandemic, according to a recent US Department of Agriculture report. Some 6.2% of households with children were unable at times to provide adequate, nutritious food for their kids last year, compared with 7.6% in 2020, the report found. Last year’s rate was not significantly different than the 2019 share.

    And the prevalence of food insecurity in the families who have kids dropped to 12.5% last year, the lowest since at least 1998, the earliest year that comparable records exist.

    But elderly Americans living alone and childless households both experienced an increase in food insecurity last year, the report found.

    Overall, the share of households contending with food insecurity remained statistically the same in 2021 as the year before.

    This lack of improvement in general food insecurity despite the surge in federal spending on food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, is a red flag for Angela Rachidi, senior fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

    “When the solution is always ‘let’s just spend more on SNAP or spend more on school lunch or WIC,’ I think that that’s not always the best use of federal dollars,” she said.

    Rachidi would like to see more of an emphasis on nutrition and healthy eating, which are among the pillars of the White House conference.

    “Many more people in the US die from diet-related disease than die from hunger,” she said, noting the health problems caused by obesity, diabetes and other conditions.

    The pandemic aid that helped keep Americans afloat has largely been exhausted, and Congress has shown little appetite to dole out more assistance – even as high inflation is squeezing many families.

    The share of people who say they live in households where there was either sometimes or often not enough to eat in the last seven days has climbed to 11.5%, according to the most recent US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey conducted in late July and early August.

    That’s up from the 10.2% recorded by the survey in late December and early January, just after the final monthly child tax credit payment was distributed. The share had been even lower in the late summer and early fall of 2021, when the monthly installments were being sent.

    Meanwhile, shopping in the supermarket is taking a bigger bite out of people’s wallets. Egg prices have skyrocketed nearly 40% over the past year, while flour is 23% costlier. Milk and bread are up 17% and 16% respectively, while chicken is nearly 17% more expensive.

    Starting next month, it will be a little easier for those in the food stamp program to afford groceries because the annual inflation adjustment will kick in. Beneficiaries will see an increase in benefits of 12%, or an average of $26 per person, per month. This comes on top of last year’s revision to the Thrifty Food Plan, upon which benefits are based, which raised the average monthly payment by $36 per person.

    Still, the upward march in prices has driven more people to food pantries, which are also struggling to stock the shelves amid higher prices.

    Some 40% of food banks reported seeing an increase in the number of people served in July compared with June, according to a survey conducted by Feeding America, which has more than 60,000 food pantries, meal programs and partner agencies in its network. The average increase was about 10% more people. Another 40% said demand remained about level.

    Many food pantries don’t have the resources to meet this increased demand, said Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, Feeding America’s CEO, noting that she’s seen sites with nearly empty shelves but long lines out the door.

    The network provided 1.4 billion fewer meals in the fiscal year ending June 30 than the year before.

    The USDA announced earlier this month that it will provide nearly $1.5 billion in additional funding for emergency food assistance, which will help alleviate the supply shortages at food banks and pantries.

    However, Feeding America feels more should be done. It recently surveyed nearly 36,000 people for their recommendations to end hunger. Many felt that food stamp benefits should be increased and eligibility should be expanded. Nearly half felt their communities need more food pantries, grocery stores and fresh food.

    The recent infusion of federal funds will help pantries distribute more food, though it doesn’t completely close the gap. And it will take time for the supplies to arrive, Babineaux-Fontenot said.

    “Today, people are going to be looking for ways to feed themselves and their family, and there will be scarce resources for them to do that,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RespectAbility Invites People With Disabilities to Share COVID-19 Experiences and Organize Online

    RespectAbility Invites People With Disabilities to Share COVID-19 Experiences and Organize Online

    [ad_1]

    Press Release
    –


    updated: Apr 15, 2020


    LOS ANGELES, April 15, 2020 (Newswire.com)
    –
    ​​​As the CDC reports that approximately 90% of people hospitalized with COVID-19 have underlying conditions, the nonprofit disability organization RespectAbility is inviting people with disabilities to share experiences and organize online.

    Said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, president of RespectAbility, “People with disabilities are disproportionally impacted by both the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. People with disabilities urgently need to be there for each other and to organize so leaders understand our lives and future are at stake.”

    RespectAbility is inviting people with disabilities from across America to join in a series of Zoom gatherings. The purpose of the gatherings is for individuals to share experiences, brainstorm ideas, prioritize issues and bring solutions forward to decision-makers and service providers. RespectAbility’s virtual events include separate sessions for people who are blind, use wheelchairs, are young adults with disabilities, have developmental disabilities, and for women with a variety of disabilities. Participants may choose one or more sessions to attend. Additional sessions will be added later.

    People with disabilities who are at extreme risk from the virus have several other unique challenges. For example, people with disabilities who are living on their own have limited access to food. It’s vital for the government to urgently move so that people with disabilities who depend on SNAP benefits or the families of children with disabilities who use WIC can use them for online grocery deliveries and for delivery from local restaurants, avoiding risks of getting sick. Additionally, it’s vital to include people with significant disabilities in access to Meals on Wheels. A version of this is now helping the cities of Los Angeles and NYC to provide food delivery for people with disabilities, but most of the country has no such options. Said Mizrahi, “People with disabilities should not be forced to choose between food and risking their lives from COVID-19.”

    Other key issues for people with disabilities include:

    • The lives of people with disabilities in group and nursing homes are at risk from other residents and caregivers who may bring the virus into their facilities. They urgently need access to masks and other key protective materials.
    • More online medical and mental health services are needed.
    • Accessible and appropriate online education is necessary for students with disabilities.
    • Immigrants with disabilities and their families must not be excluded from solutions to the current crisis.
    • An inclusive employment-first focus needs to be front and center in all employment programs for when the crisis lifts.

    All of the online zoom gatherings are free and open to people with disabilities. Captioning is provided for all gatherings, and RespectAbility welcomes other accommodation requests. More information and registration can be found online: https://www.respectability.org/2020/04/covid-19-gatherings.

    Media Contact:
    Lauren Appelbaum
    Email: LaurenA@RespectAbility.org

    Source: RespectAbility

    [ad_2]

    Source link