.
Feedback

Study Shows Seniors Struggling to Make Ends Meet

More than 50 percent of seniors in Los Angeles County are struggling to make ends meet yet have too much income to qualify for many public programs.

More than half of Los Angeles County residents aged 65 and older don't have enough income to meet their basic needs, according to a study presented on April 17 to the county's Board of Supervisors.

While only 9 percent are considered poor by federal poverty guidelines—with annual individual incomes below $10,830—six times as many are struggling to make ends meet, but make too much to qualify for many public programs. The problem is even more pronounced among women.

"More and more [elderly women] are in the shelters, which I don't think anybody really intended to happen or realized was happening," Ruth Schwartz, executive director of the Shelter Partnership, told the board.

"But because they don't have the community support and they don't have [enough] income and their family ties may be fragile, they are homeless."

Blacks and Latinos are also disproportionately affected, according to the study by the Los Angeles County Area Agency on Aging, which concluded that 75 percent of both black and Latino elderly are "economically insecure," though they may receive Social Security or disability payments.

Based on 2010 U.S. Census estimates, the study forecasts that by 2030, 18 percent of Los Angeles County's population will be 65 years old or older.

Seniors can find it difficult to access help in what the study called a maze of 90 senior programs in more than 49 county departments and the state budget crisis has also cut funding for such programs.

Affordable housing and transportation were identified as some of the biggest problems and preventing elder abuse was also cited as a critical need.

Goals of the plan developed by the agency include:

  • collaboration between city and county departments to provide services;
  • education and outreach programs; and
  • protective services for seniors and the disabled to prevent abuse and fraud.

The board approved the plan for submission to the California Department of Aging for its review.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Culver City Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ken Jones May 10, 2013 at 05:21 pm
Maybe more to the point, where does the methane (way more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas)Read More release go from the fracking process, where do the "secret"and other cancer causing chemicals go, and who pays for clean-up costs, increased healthcare costs of residents nearby, possible increased earthquake damage, etc. and where does this oil go (we can't use it--too dirty--so probably China)?
Theodora Crawford May 10, 2013 at 03:09 pm
As I understand it, fracking wells "dry up" fairly quickly, which is why pressure to keepRead More drilling so urgent. Where do the jobs go after a year or so? Just a thought....
Adam Rakunas April 8, 2013 at 06:45 pm
This non-apology is a joke. Still not going spend money in Culver City, dude.
Marco Anderson April 8, 2013 at 01:51 pm
Steve Rose writes "I'm a responsible car driver and I look for the same from bike riders."Read More However I challenge him to spend his next long drive staying at exactly the posted speed limit. I tried this once driving from the Long Beach Airport to Irvine. And I was astounded at how slow this felt. I also noticed that in all contexts (Freeway, Arterial, and local road) I was the only one doing so. I didn't pass or pace a single other car for the full 30 minutes. So somehow I doubt that although he may be "responsible" driving he is a fully law-abiding driver.
Yosi Sergant April 8, 2013 at 09:30 am
(....continued) Mr. Rose, your heart might have been in the right place, but you asked the wrongRead More questions and alienated bike riders in the process. More important, the approach was simply confrontational and not reflective of the changing perspective (read: progress) of the broader city on bicycle riding nor of the amazing new life blood of the those who are revitalizing the very Culver City you love and have worked so very hard for. Again, I urge you to apologize (not clarify) and perhaps come speak to some bike commuters/riders and join us in making Culver City's road's, less territorial and safer...