DCF call center wait time nears an hour for Spanish speakers, report finds
Hispanic civil rights group UnidosUS released a study showing Spanish speakers have to wait 40 minutes longer on average to get assistance from the Florida Department of Children and Families call center than those who speak English. (iStock / Getty Images Plus)
People needing assistance in Spanish from the Florida Department of Children and Families wait on hold for nearly an hour, according to a report from the Hispanic civil rights group UnidosUS.
The wait time for the call center, which fields questions about government cash and food assistance programs and Medicaid, has improved since the group started monitoring its efficacy in the summer of 2023.
Still, UnidosUS found that Spanish speakers deal with an average wait time of 54 minutes, whereas the wait averages 13 minutes for English speakers.
Thursday's report is the third the group has published about the wait times, starting as the state began disenrolling millions from Medicaid following the end of the federal COVID-19 public health emergency.
While the wait time for Spanish speakers has gone down from 120 minutes in 2023 to 56 minutes, 45% of the calls the group made got dropped before reaching a live agent. Between September and February, UnidosUS made 174 calls to the English and Spanish lines at various times of the day.
By comparison, only 5% of the calls seeking assistance in English were disconnected, according to the report. The wait time for English speakers went down from 34 minutes in 2023 to 13 minutes between September and February.
DCF's call center wait times have drawn scrutiny, with Floridians facing the second-longest wait time in the country last year. Concerns from lawmakers led to an investment of $12 million into improving the call center at the time.
Jared Nordlund, UnidosUS' Florida director, said the group is advocating for DCF to hire more bilingual call center agents.
'Clearly, the money we advocated for last session to beef up call centers worked,' Nordlund said in a phone interview with Florida Phoenix. 'This has worked really well for English speakers, so clearly there needs to be more work done to help Spanish speakers.'
Additionally, testimony during a federal trial in Jacksonville last year revealed the department had blocked 54% of phone calls from people wanting to reach one of its call center agents that April.
Inefficiencies within the call center played a key role in the class action filed by Medicaid patients alleging Florida violated their constitutional right to due process when it took away their health care coverage without proper notice. Plaintiffs argued during the trial that call center agents gave them wrong information about their Medicaid eligibility.
At the time, the director of the call center testified that DCF planned to hire hundreds more people to handle the calls.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cuomo and Mamdani tear into each other in final New York City mayoral debate
Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani bitterly clashed over age and experience Thursday in the final debate before New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, as Cuomo warned that the progressive state assemblyman is unprepared for the job and Mamdani hammered the former governor over scandals during his time in Albany. Cuomo, Mamdani and five other candidates squared off just before Saturday's start of early voting ahead of the June 24 Democratic primary. The fiery exchanges between the universally known Cuomo and fast-rising Mamdani reflected how many see the race as increasingly competitive — and how the two view each other as a threat. Cuomo said it would be 'reckless and dangerous' to elect a 33-year-old state assemblyman to a role that requires negotiating with city, state and federal lawmakers, standing up to President Donald Trump, responding to natural disasters and more. Mamdani retorted with a laundry list of the 67-year-old Cuomo's scandals in the governor's office, including the sexual harassment allegations that forced him out of office in 2021. 'I've never had to resign in disgrace,' Mamdani said, while also taking shots at Cuomo's handling of Medicaid and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 'I have never hounded the thirteen women who credibly accused me of sexual harassment. I have never sued for their gynecological records. And I have never done these things because I am not you, Mr. Cuomo.' Cuomo shot back: 'Mr. Mamdani is right. He's never done anything, period.' 'He's accomplished nothing,' he said, criticizing Mamdani's four years as a state assemblyman. 'He has zero accomplishments, and now he thinks he's going to be ready to be mayor of the city of New York. It is laughable. It is laughable and it is dangerous.' Earlier Thursday, Cuomo's campaign had launched a television advertisement pointing to Trump sending troops to Los Angeles amid protests over deportations, and portraying Mamdani as 'dangerously inexperienced' and unprepared to take on the president. Mamdani, meanwhile, ripped Cuomo for repeatedly mispronouncing his name and spelled out his last name to make the point. Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a longtime Cuomo rival, said on X during the debate that Cuomo 'is REALLY scared' of Mamdani. 'He's not even faking it,' de Blasio said. 'And Andrew is REALLY disrespecting all the New Yorkers who support Zohran.' In deep-blue New York City, the primary is often the decisive contest. This year, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who was elected four years ago as a Democrat, will be on the ballot in November as an independent. Curtis Sliwa, who lost to Adams four years ago, is again the Republican nominee. Other candidates sought to offer Democratic voters a path besides Cuomo and Mamdani. New York's primary is a ranked-choice contest, which means candidates are also competing to be voters' second- or third-favorite contender, even if they don't win their first-place votes. New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who largely sought to remain above the fray, also questioned Mamdani's experience. She pointed to her experience crafting the city's budget and leading the council. 'Given what I've just laid out, do you think you're more qualified than me to lead the city?' she asked Mamdani. Scott Stringer, a former New York City comptroller, said Cuomo has experience and Mamdani has vision — but 'my experience and my vision, when you combine it, is the third lane to win this race.' New York City Comptroller Brad Lander might have landed the sharpest blows on Cuomo. He highlighted the specifics around Cuomo's resignation and the findings of the attorney general's office's investigation that concluded he sexually harassed multiple women and violated state law. Lander said he wouldn't want to have to tell college students, 'Don't go work at city hall because the mayor is a sexual harasser.' Cuomo responded that five district attorneys investigated the allegations against him and 'nothing has come of them whatsoever.' 'This is disqualifying. The man resigned. It should be obvious. The problem is that we do not get to address the issues that New Yorkers care about because we're talking about his past,' said state senator Zellnor Myrie. The candidates also clashed over police and public safety, as Cuomo described New Yorkers as 'afraid on the streets.' 'They feel unsafe,' he said. 'You can quote statistics all day long, they get afraid walking into the subway, they get afraid walking down the street when they see a mentally ill homeless person.' Cuomo sought to use his tough talk on public safety, much like Adams did in 2021, to differentiate himself from the Democratic field. He pointed to a 2021 plan to cut $1 billion in police funding from the city budget and accused his rivals of supporting efforts to 'defund the police.' 'That was the chant, and $1 billion was taken from the police department,' Cuomo said. He touted a proposal to add 5,000 police officers to the NYPD. Mamdani said he wants more social workers so that the NYPD can focus on serious crime but does not want to slash police funding. 'I will not defund the police. I will work with the police,' he said. Mamdani is running to be the city's first Muslim mayor. He was sharply attacked over his criticism of Israel's war in Gaza – which he has called a 'genocide' – as well as his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and his calls for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arrest. Former hedge fund executive Whitney Tilson accused Mamdani of being a leader 'inciting these mobs' at Columbia University, where he said protests disrupted students' educations. 'When you use words referring to the only Jewish state in the world like 'genocide' and 'apartheid,' when you call for divestment and all, that is inciting these mobs,' he said. Mamdani said he is being 'smeared' and 'mischaracterized' for positions with which he says many Jewish voters agree. 'I say these things because far too often, we take what can be a place of disagreement and start to broach beyond that,' he said.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UWEC professor fined for election day incident
EAU CLAIRE — The UW-Eau Claire professor who confronted college Republicans and flipped over a table set up to support a Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate settled a disorderly conduct charge with a $295 fine, court records show. Jose Alvergue, 45, Eau Claire, paid the fine Wednesday, the same day as it was issued. The incident took place on election day in April, amid a tense race for the state supreme court. While technically nonpartisan, the candidates clearly lined up with political parties in their bids for the open seat. Brad Schimel, a former state attorney general, was the Republican-backed candidate. He lost to Susan Crawford, who had the backing of the state's Democrats. The college Republicans had set their table up to support Schimel's candidacy. Alvergue initiated the confrontation, approaching and asking why the table was close to a polling place. Like most states, Wisconsin bans campaigning near polling locations. The buffer area in Wisconsin is 100 feet, and the table was apparently in compliance with that requirement. After speaking with the students Alvergue flipped over the table and walked off. He was identified after the students posted video showing him walking across the campus quad and the ground around their table littered with campaign items. UWEC confirmed placing Alvergue on administrative leave after the incident drew attention, though it did not mention him. He was stripped of his position as chair of the university's English department. Alvergue remains listed as a faculty member on the UWEC website as an associate professor.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Is Barely Even Pretending Anymore
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accepted his new position as health secretary, he made a big show of distancing himself from his past life. 'News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry,' Kennedy, who has for decades promoted the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism and has baselessly sown doubt over the ability of the U.S. government to vet shots, said at his confirmation hearing in January. 'I am neither. I am pro-safety.' But for all Kennedy's talk, this week, he did exactly what a person would do if they were trying to undermine the scientific consensus on vaccination in the United States. He abruptly dismissed the entire expert committee that advises the CDC on its nationwide vaccine recommendations—and began to fill the roster with like-minded people ready to cast doubt on the benefits of vaccination. Like Kennedy, few of these new appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, or ACIP, have openly embraced the notion that they are anti-vaccine. But among them are individuals who have spoken out against COVID vaccines and policies, claimed vaccine injuries for their own children, and falsely linked COVID shots to deaths—or even baselessly accused those vaccines of 'causing a form of acquired immunity deficiency syndrome.' In January, I wrote that remaking the committee in exactly this way would be an especially harmful blow to Americans' health: Perhaps more than any other body of experts in the U.S., ACIP guides the nation's future preparedness against infectious disease. By appointing a committee that is poised to legitimize more of his own radical views, Kennedy is giving his skewed version of scientific reality the government's imprimatur. Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization. In an emailed statement, Health and Human Services Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard reiterated that 'Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine—he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability,' and added that his 'evidence-based approach puts accountability and radical transparency first, which will restore trust in our public health system.' (Kennedy, notably, promised Senator Bill Cassidy during his confirmation process that he would maintain ACIP, as Cassidy put it, 'without changes.') Since the 1960s, ACIP has lent government policy on vaccines the clout of scientific evidence. Its mandate is to convene experts across fields such as infectious disease, immunology, pediatrics, vaccinology, and public health to carefully vet the data on immunizations, weigh their risks and benefits, and vote on recommendations that guide the public on how to use them—who should get vaccines, and when. Those guidelines are then passed to the CDC director, who—with only the rarest of exceptions—accepts that advice wholesale. 'These recommendations are what states look to, what providers look to,' Rupali Limaye, an expert in vaccine behavior at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me. Medicare, for instance, is required to fully cover the vaccines that ACIP recommends; ACIP also determines which vaccines are covered by the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines for children whose families cannot afford them. The experts who serve on ACIP have the opportunity, more than just about any of their scientific peers, to translate their vaccine rhetoric into reality. So far, Kennedy has dismissed the 17 people who were serving on ACIP, and filled eight of the newly open slots. Most of the new nominees have an obvious bone to pick with at least some vaccines, especially COVID shots, and have publicly advocated for limiting their use. Among the new members, for instance, is Robert Malone, a controversial physician who has spoken at anti-vaccine events, where he has denounced COVID vaccines and, without evidence, suggested that they can worsen coronavirus infections. Another appointee is Vicky Pebsworth, who serves on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine nonprofit previously known as Dissatisfied Parents Together. A third, Retsef Levi, a health-care-management expert, called for the administration of COVID vaccines to be halted in 2023, and has questioned the shots' safety, despite a large body of evidence from clinical trials supporting their continued use. Overall, 'this is not a list that would increase confidence in vaccine decisions,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-policy expert at UC San Francisco, told me. (None of these new ACIP members returned a request for comment.) The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for the end of this month—and the agenda includes discussion about anthrax vaccines, chikungunya vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines, cytomegalovirus vaccine, the human-papillomavirus vaccine, influenza vaccines, the Lyme-disease vaccine, meningococcal vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, and RSV vaccines. That's a big slate of topics for a brand-new panel of members, Paul Offit, a pediatrician and a vaccine expert who has previously served on ACIP, told me: Depending on how the meeting is structured, and on the input from CDC scientists, these new committee members could substantially alter the guidelines on several immunizations—perhaps so much so that certain shots could stop being recommended to certain groups of Americans. Based on the composition of the committee so far, Offit predicts that the new ACIP will eventually push the CDC away from full-throated endorsement of many of these vaccines. Even subtle changes in the wording of CDC recommendations—a should swapped for a may—can have big ripple effects, Limaye told me. Insurers, for instance, may be more reluctant to cover vaccines that are not actively endorsed by the CDC; some states—especially those in which vaccines have become a political battleground—may stop mandating those types of shots. If the CDC softens its recommendations, 'we will likely see more partisan divides' in who opts for protection nationwide, Jason Schwartz, a vaccine-policy expert at Yale, told me. Pharmaceutical companies may, in turn, cut down production of vaccines that don't have full CDC backing, perpetuating a cycle of reduced availability and reduced enthusiasm. And primary-care physicians, who look to the CDC's vaccination schedule as an essential reference, may shift the language they use to describe childhood shots, nudging more parents to simply opt out. Historically, medical and public-health associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have aligned their vaccine recommendations with ACIP's—because those recommendations were all driven by scientific evidence. Now, though, scientific consensus and government position are beginning to diverge: Multiple groups of physicians, scientists, and public-health scholars have issued statements condemning the vaccine decisions of Kennedy and his allies; a number of prominent scientists have now banded together to form a kind of alt-ACIP, dubbing themselves the Vaccine Integrity Project. As the views of fringe vaccine groups become the government's stance, Americans may soon have to choose between following the science and following what their nation's leaders say. Identifying as 'anti-vaccine' has historically been taboo: In a nation where most people remain largely in favor of shots, the term is pejorative, an open acknowledgment that one's views lie outside of the norm. But the more vaccine resistance infiltrates HHS and its advisers, the more what's considered normal may shift toward Kennedy's own views on vaccines; ACIP's reputation for evidence-backed thinking could even gild those views with scientific legitimacy. Assembling one's own team of friendly experts is an especially effective way to sanewash extremism, Reiss told me, and to overturn the system through what appear to be normal channels. If the nation's most prominent group of vaccine advisers bends toward anti-vaccine, the term loses its extremist edge—and the scientists who argue, based on sound data, that vaccines are safe and effective risk being labeled anti-government. Article originally published at The Atlantic
