Shriver Center: Advocacy News

President Signs Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act into Law; Benefits Available to Illinois Workers as of July 6, 2008

2008-07-15T17:09:45Z

The President signed, on June 30, a war supplemental bill that includes Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)—an extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed workers. EUC provides up to 13 weeks of extended benefits for workers still unable to find jobs after having exhausted their regular state benefits (26 weeks of benefits in Illinois). In Illinois the first compensable week to claim the new federal extended benefits is the week beginning on Sunday, July 6. The program will remain in effect for workers exhausting their state benefits through March 2009. However, if still eligible, individuals with amounts remaining in their EUC account as of March 31 may collect EUC through the week ending June 27, 2009. The federal bill also includes $110 million in administrative funding, which most state programs desperately need. This money is in addition to the funding that states will receive to process extended benefits claims.

Eligibility for EUC
The EUC is payable to workers who have exhausted all rights to regular compensation and whose benefit year ended on or after May 1, 2007. (A benefit year is the one year following the Sunday effective date of the claim for regular state unemployment compensation benefits.) Such workers must be legally authorized to work in the United States. They must have been employed for 20 weeks of full-time insured employment or must have earned the equivalent in wages. This federal requirement means that not all workers eligible for regular state benefits are eligible for the EUC. According to estimates, one out of 10 regular state unemployment beneficiaries will be excluded from receiving EUC because of this requirement. There is also concern that this requirement will disproportionately affect low-wage workers. The state law determines the requirements for continuing eligibility; there are no federal requirements.

Individuals are considered to have exhausted their rights to regular compensation in two instances. The first is when payments of regular compensation are not allowed to be made because all regular compensation has been received by the worker based on her employment or wages. The second is when rights to regular compensation are terminated due to the expiration of the benefit year. If a worker can establish a valid new benefit year, the worker should receive regular state benefits rather than EUC. That worker may qualify for EUC if she meets the exhaustion requirements before March 31, 2009.

Applying for Benefits
For Illinois workers, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), the state agency that administers the unemployment compensation insurance program, has begun to notify by letter anyone who may be potentially eligible for the extended benefits. IDES expects to reach out to 130,000 individuals. IDES will automatically establish, when possible, the extended benefits claim—this is for workers whose benefit year is still active. Those workers will be notified regarding how to certify for benefits (providing updated information about your unemployment status). For workers whose benefit year has ended, IDES is sending letters about EUC and instructions for filing a claim. IDES wants people to wait until they receive a letter and are told to report to their local office to file an application before doing so.

The weekly dollar amount of EUC will be the same amount of regular compensation; this includes dependents’ allowances. Just as for regular compensation, certification for extended benefit payments will take place at the end of the weeks for which the benefits are claimed. Workers who receive benefits by direct deposit or debit card may receive the first payment within two days of certification. Checks sent through the mail may take somewhat longer. Illinois employers will not be charged for the extended benefit costs; EUC is 100 percent federally funded. This extension comes at a much-needed time. EUC will help more than 3.5 million workers and help drive more money back into our economy, according to projections.

To view the full version of the U.S. Department of Labor’s guidelines, go to http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08.pdf. For more information on Emergency Unemployment Compensation in Illinois, go to http://www.ides.state.il.us/.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 12, Issue 1
July 15, 2008

Girls Continuing Success in School Is Not at the Expense of Boys' Education

2008-06-17T16:07:17Z

In 1992 the American Association of University Women (AAUW) published a report that exposed girls’ shortcomings in the education they were receiving. The study revealed that girls received less attention in the classroom than boys and that girls were not well represented in math-related fields. The report brought attention to the “girls’ crisis” in the education system, and the increased attention brought about criticism that boys would now be the new disadvantaged group. Books such as The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men (Sommers, 2000) and headlines that read “At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust” emerged as backlash to girls and women’s successes. A new report by AAUW discredits the myth that gender equity in school has created a crisis in boys’ education. Where the Girls Are: The Facts About Gender Equity in Education is a comprehensive look at women’s education progress in the last 35 years. In order to represent the overall picture of trends in gender equity in the complete span of education, from elementary to college, researchers analyzed results from national standardized tests (college entrance exams, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and other measures of educational achievement) and assessed differences among girls and among boys by race/ethnicity and family income level. What they found were three clear facts about gender equity in schools today.

The first is that girl’s successes do not come at the expense of boys. There is a positive connection between girls’ and boys’ education achievement. In states where girls score high on tests, boys do also; in states where girls have low test scores, boys will as well. In the last 35 years women have dramatically increased their rates of earning college degrees. After directly graduating from high school, both men and women are likely to attend and graduate from college today, more than ever before. This is not surprising given the economy in recent years. Young high school graduates realize that a bachelor’s degree is necessary for almost every job. Attending college has become the rule and not the exception, and both men and women have responded in large numbers.

A second finding is that over the last 35 years both girls’ and boys’ educational performance has improved. Average test scores on standardized tests from elementary to college entrance exams have either risen or remained the same. Graduation rates for both high school and college have steadily risen. Test scores tell a mixed picture on gender. Across all racial groups girls generally outscore boys on the NAEP reading test. The math portion of the NAEP has inconsistent results. The researchers also examined the results of the SAT and ACT exams, which play a critical role as gatekeepers to college and hence the higher earnings associated with college and professional credentials The SAT exam is intended to predict first-year college grades. The exam shows boys with an advantage overall on both the math and verbal portions. On the ACT exam, boys outperform girls on math and girls outperform boys on the English exam.

And, third, when the researchers compared race/ethnicity and family income to educational achievement, they found them to be closely related. When test scores are compared, children from families of the lowest income bracket have the lowest average test scores. Incremental rises in family income resulted in incremental rise in test scores. Race and ethnicity are also strongly connected to test scores. Generally, African American and Hispanic boys and girls score lower than white and Asian American children on the exams. There is a critical need to find solutions for the disparities of girls’ and boys’ educational achievement as it relates to race/ethnicity and family income.

The gains that girls have made in attending and graduating from both high school and college have not hampered boys’ access to quality education. Overall both have improved or stayed the same. The result of the AAUW report demonstrates that boys in general are not in crisis in their education. Those in crisis are African American, Hispanic, and low-income children, boys and girls alike, as the large discrepancies among race/ethnicity and income reveal. If you would like to see the complete study, go to http://www.aauw.org/research/WhereGirlsAre.cfm.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 11, Issue 13
June 17, 2008

Safe Homes Act Amendment Protecting Confidentiality Passes House and Senate; Awaiting Governor’s Signature

2008-08-22T23:33:18Z

COnfidentiality and privacy may be the most implicit yet pervasive issues that survivors of domestic and sexual violence face when seeking to exercise their rights under the law. Oftentimes, survivors of violence fear retaliation or discrimination if their status as survivors becomes known. This is especially true in rental housing. Addressing this issue in July 2008, the Illinois House and Senate passed S.B. 2287, a Safe Homes Act (SHA) amendment expanding the law to include confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions to protect domestic and sexual violence survivors who live in rental housing. Although the SHA has already provided assistance to countless survivors of violence, the amendment allows those who were discouraged from using the law due to their fears of landlords’ retaliation to exercise their rights under the SHA.

Since its inception in 2007, the SHA has provided immeasurable benefits and protections for Illinois renters who are survivors of domestic or sexual violence. The SHA enables tenants who are survivors of domestic or sexual violence or have a household member who is a survivor of domestic or sexual violence to end their lease early in order to achieve safe housing. The SHA allows these same tenants the right to obtain a lock change on an emergency basis in order to maintain safe housing. All types of rental housing, regardless of size, including “Section 8” Housing Choice Voucher rentals, are covered under the SHA; only public housing is exempt.

Consequently, the SHA did not guarantee the confidentiality of the information that the survivor of violence gave to her landlord or property manager. Survivors of violence who used the SHA to end their leases early faced landlords’ retaliation. With prospective landlords and other tenants, landlords were sharing extremely private information (i.e., a medical report, police report, victim advocate statement describing a sexual assault) often included with the SHA lease termination letter. The result was that survivors of violence were frequently denied housing based on their status as a survivor, and this retaliation further traumatized them.

Once signed into law by the governor, the amendment will prevent landlords from relaying to prospective landlords the fact that survivors exercised their rights under the SHA or from sharing any supportive evidence or information given by the survivor. S.B. 2287 also ensures that the survivor is not waiving any confidentiality protecting certain documents such as medical records or third-party victim advocate statements. The only time a disclosure of information is lawful is when it is requested or consented to by the survivor of violence or the parent or legal guardian of the survivor or if the disclosure is otherwise required by law.

In order to assure that landlords do not violate the confidentiality provision, the amendment includes a financial penalty for violating the SHA. A landlord who discloses that a tenant exercised rights under the SHA, or discloses any supportive evidence given by the survivor, is liable for actual damages resulting from the disclosure up to $2,000. By including monetary damages for cases brought successfully against a noncompliant landlord, the amendment provides additional incentives for landlords to follow the rule of law and maintain the survivors’ confidentiality.

All who are affected by domestic and sexual violence and those who are advocating on these individuals’ behalf should be aware that the SHA exists and that it provides comprehensive protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence in rental housing. If you are, or someone you know is, a survivor of violence and can benefit from this law, contact Kate Walz, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 232 or katewalz@povertylaw.org, or Samantha Tuttle, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 235 or samtuttle@povertylaw.org.

We welcome the opportunity to conduct free training on this law. For information regarding a training session or if you have any questions, contact Michaella M. Furman at 312.263.3830 ext. 243 or michaellafurman@povertylaw.org. Go to http://www.povertylaw.org//advocacy/women-and-family/safe-homes-act to obtain copies of the SHA brochure (translated in nine additional languages), sample legal tools, and other informative documents.
For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law & Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

August 19, 2008
Volume 12, Issue 2

Bush Administration Attacks Workers’ Rights

2008-06-13T17:49:21Z

Visit Step Forward to view this post.

Support and Involve Emerging Young Leaders Seeking to End Poverty

2008-06-13T17:47:40Z

Visit Step Forward to view this post.

Women Rarely Receive Domestic Violence Services in Welfare Offices

2008-05-21T15:21:58Z

Women in welfare offices rarely receive domestic violence services, according to a recent University of Washington analysis of the implementation of the Family Violence Option (FVO) (see Taryn Lindhorst, Marcia Meyers, and Erin Casey, Screening for Domestic Violence in Public Welfare Offices: An Analysis of Case Manager and Client Interactions, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Jan. 2008, available at http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/5). High rates of domestic violence are known among welfare recipients, and the welfare office is a vital location for providing women with resources toward financial independence.

A state option in the 1996 federal welfare reform law, the FVO helps domestic violence survivors move from welfare to work. The FVO allows states increased flexibility in applying the requirements of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to families affected by domestic violence without states being penalized financially. When states adopt the FVO, they are agreeing to

screen applicants and recipients of TANF for domestic violence while maintaining confidentiality;
provide referrals to counseling and supportive services; and
make good-cause waivers from TANF program requirements.

Waivers are to be granted where the requirements would make it harder for TANF recipients to escape domestic violence or where the requirements would unfairly penalize past, present, or potential victims of domestic violence. Program requirements that may be waived include the 60-month lifetime limit on receiving TANF assistance and mandatory work requirements.

The FVO is designed to promote case-by-case consideration and increased access to services. Waivers are not intended to exclude individuals from activities such as education and vocational training. On the contrary, waivers are intended to allow domestic violence survivors to be assigned to the activities that best aid in the transition from welfare to work and to allow the time necessary for a successful transition.

For some individuals, this may mean participation only in activities that are, at least initially, domestic-violence-specific such as counseling, development of a safety plan, or efforts to retain legal representation to petition for a protective order. For others, this may mean participation in a combination of activities such as job readiness and mental health counseling. For still others, this may mean combining employment with efforts to change child support, custody, or visitation orders to decrease the risk of harm. The FVO allows survivors the peace of mind of continued cash assistance without the threat of sanctions as the survivors deal with the violence and cope with its consequences.

Forty-eight states have adopted the FVO or a comparable state policy. The states chosen (Georgia, Michigan, Texas, and New York) for the University of Washington study were purposefully picked because they varied in location, political culture, and TANF agency structures. The study found after 782 transcribed interviews that of all client contacts observed by the researchers only 1.2 percent screened for and identified domestic violence and only 9.3 percent of all case encounters included screening by the frontline worker. The clients reported being a victim of domestic violence in 13.7 percent of these transactions. Screening was more likely to occur in initial application or recertification visits, and job search activities rather than child care, sanction, or compliance visits. Gender, ethnicity, or location of agency had no correlation with the likelihood that a worker would screen a client. Instead length of employment at an agency was shown to be significant. Workers who were more inclined to screen for domestic violence had an average length of 5 years’ employment in comparison to workers who were less likely to screen and had an average length of 7.29 years of employment.

The major problem lies within organizations that limit their questions about abuse to intake interviews or to single questions within those interviews and therefore miss many women. Screening differed significantly among the states and organizational and worker characteristics. Georgia had the highest level of screening at 28.8 percent, and Texas had the lowest at 2.9 percent. Although screening practices were higher in Georgia, the number of domestic violence survivors identified was 2.2 percent, almost the same as Texas (2.0 percent). This analysis reveals that screening even in the rare instances where it is being done is very ineffective. The study describes interactions between workers and clients when the worker would ask if the client had been a victim of domestic violence without explaining what domestic violence entails. Situations were observed where clients were informed about the FVO by a handout with information on it but without further explanation. Workers have also adopted practices in which they ask double-barreled questions. For example, “Any domestic violence or substance abuse? What do you do outside—do you have any hobbies?” If the client answers yes or no, we have no idea what question they are answering. These are not examples of workers who do not care but of workers who have adopted unproductive practices over the years. We should also remember that the workers have a hard job to do; getting survivors of domestic violence to divulge information that provokes shame, anger, and hurt is not easy.

Disclosure is not easy or automatic for women entering welfare offices, mostly due to fear of retaliation of the abuser or their children being taken away from them. Skills can be exercised and general practices done to facilitate a better client and worker rapport. The researchers recommend eight screening practices that support disclosure of domestic violence:

1. Build rapport through active listening and empathetic reflection

2. Ensure that any disclosure of abuse is confidential

3. Explain the reasons why disclosure would be beneficial

4. Ask clients directly about abuse

5. Define abuse broadly, with physical, sexual, and emotional components

6. Use both open-ended probes and behaviorally anchored questions

7. Avoid questions that force a woman to identify with a stigmatized status

8. Allow for multiple opportunities for disclosure within interviews and over time

Previous studies showed that asking direct questions about abuse, without stigmatizing the survivor, resulted in more disclosure of domestic violence in comparison to checklists that workers handed out. For example, “Are you and your children in any sort of danger?” Also, when abuse is more broadly defined to include (along with physical violence) sexual violence, intimidation, humiliation, fear, or any experiencing of any type of fear, disclosure of domestic violence increases. An example of this is “Was there ever any emotional, physical, or sexual abuse going on? Have you ever felt scared in your home?” The most effective strategy to try to get clients to reveal that they are survivors of domestic violence is to ask questions that combine open-ended questions concerning threats and safety with questions concerning specific forms of abuse.

Domestic violence screening is rarely occurring in states that have adopted the FVO. What is troubling is that this absence is not occurring within a particular group of workers, geographical settings, or political environment. This is not because agencies no longer care or know how to screen for domestic violence; the root of the problem may be much more systemic than that. Today welfare agencies are having their resources diminished. Case managers are under pressure to have cases closed; this leads to shortened interaction times with clients, and this in turn leads to inadequate responses to abuse or lack of continual training on how to deal with clients who suffer from abuse. The researchers recommend instituting screening and FVO implementation monitoring standards in addition to domestic-violence-specific training for welfare office staff to ensure that survivors are receiving the help they most desperately need.

Illinois adopted the FVO in 2001 and calls it the Domestic Violence Exclusion. To learn more about this and other Illinois public benefit policies for domestic violence survivors, visit http://www.povertylaw.org/advocacy/publications/public_benefits_dv.pdf.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 11, Issue 12

May 22, 2008

Tell Congress to Act Fast and Pass the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act to Extend Jobless Benefits

2008-04-29T20:36:49Z

Today more workers are unemployed for a longer period than in previous recessions. This recession is different from the 2001 recession. The surge in energy prices, the subprime mortgage collapse, and the resulting credit crunch that shows no signs of improving make the current recession different. The subprime mortgage crisis has been elevated by the 2.2 million foreclosures filed in 2007, and 3.5 million more are expected by 2010. Energy prices continue to surge, resulting in the largest consumer price increase in 17 years. The official national unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in March 2001, compared to the March 2008 rate of 5.1 percent. Long-term joblessness affects everyone. Men account for almost 57 percent of all unemployed workers, and those over age 45 account for 37 percent of long-term joblessness. We have entered a critical time.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports three successive months of job losses. Three million people will run out of benefits before finding a new job. Last month the number of unemployed workers reached 434,000, and over the last three months the U.S. economy has eliminated 232,000 jobs. Another 1.34 million workers have already exhausted their state benefits. The labor market has been hit the hardest. In March the job market lost 80,000, the largest monthly decline in five years.

To help assist jobless workers, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Rep. Phil English (R-PA) have introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act (H.R. 5749). Congress should act swiftly and on a bipartisan basis. The legislation will provide up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every state. Every state with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher will provide an additional 13 weeks. For workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, this legislation is the immediate assistance they need. Economists suggest that unemployment benefits sustain consumer confidence and consumer spending—necessary in today’s economy. Most important, an extension of unemployment benefits will have a positive impact on the home foreclosure crisis. This is because families will use the benefits to cover the costs of their mortgages and rent.

H.R. 5749 went up for a vote on April 16 before the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill was met with some resistance; attempts were made to limit the 13-week extension to states with an unemployment rate higher than 5.1 percent (the national average). However, the bill was passed as introduced by a bipartisan vote of 23 to 13. The federal Unemployment Insurance trust fund will supply the money needed for the extension. The fight for this bill is not over. The bill still needs to go before the full House and then to the Senate. The National Employment Law Project (NELP) and other advocates, including the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, are making sure that happens. If you would like to find out how you can help urge your representative to support H.R. 5749, go to http://www.unemployedworkers.org/april_16th_action.cfm. If you register with www.unemployedworkers.org (an initiative of NELP), you can find out more information about the current state of unemployment and the progress of the benefits extension fight. If you would like to read the text of the bill, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and fill in the bill number, H.R. 5749.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 11, Issue 10
April 29, 2008

U.S. Department of Labor's Proposed Amendments Diminish Access to the Family and Medical Leave Act

2008-03-28T17:14:25Z

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 allows workers to balance their responsibilities at work with their responsibilities at home. In the past 15 years the FMLA has protected more than 60 million eligible workers for absences due to birth or adoption of a child or their own serious health condition or that of a qualifying family member. However, last month the U.S. Department of Labor released proposed amendments to the FMLA regulations (http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/FedRegNPRM.pdf). The amendments would hinder access to FMLA leave and undermine the rights of all eligible workers attempting to use it. Some of the proposed amendments are as follows:

Eligibility Standard. Currently the FMLA provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave to workers who have been with the same employer for 12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours during that time. The employer must have 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius of the work site or be a public agency. Further, the law states that the 12 months need not be consecutive. The proposed amendment places a cap on how much time can elapse between nonconsecutive periods of employment to meet the 12 month requirement, stating that employment prior to a continuous break in service of five years or more need not be counted. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the legislative history of the rule and would impose further barriers for people who seek to return to the labor force after taking extended leave from their job. Further, the proposed amendment would disproportionately affect women taking time off from work to care for a young child, making it increasingly difficult for women to re-enter the workforce.
Limiting the use of accrued paid leave while on FMLA leave. Currently workers are relatively free to use their earned paid leave (vacation time and personal time) so that they may be paid while on FMLA leave. Under the proposed amendments, in order for an eligible worker to use earned vacation or personal time while on FMLA leave, the worker must meet the employer’s rules for using vacation or personal time (e.g., employer’s policy that employee give 10-day notice of intent to take vacation time). This would make it more difficult for workers to use their accrued paid time off, and many workers will not be able to afford to take the leave.
Increased requirements for workers who seek leave. For leave that the worker can plan for (foreseeable leave), a worker will have to notify the employer on the same or next business day from the time she finds out that leave is needed. For unplanned leave (unforeseeable leave), absent extraordinary circumstances, the worker will have to call in before her shift begins. In addition, the proposed amendments would require workers to give more specific information about the reason for the leave, whether the leave is foreseeable or not, including how long the leave will be and if the worker is going to visit a health care provider. Meanwhile, as employee requirements are increasing, the proposed amendments would give employers more time to respond to requests for FMLA leave and more time to determine if the worker is eligible.
Allowing employers direct access to an employee’s health care provider and medical information. Currently if an employer wants to clarify or authenticate medical information, the employer must obtain the worker’s permission to talk to her doctor and then the employer must have a medical professional talk directly with the worker’s doctor. The regulations were set up this way because employers are not medically qualified to ask questions to clarify medical conditions, and this helps address privacy and ethical concerns. Under the proposed amendments, an employer may contact an employee’s health care provider directly to clarify information on a medical certification form after obtaining permission from the employee. An employer may contact an employee’s health care provider directly without the employee’s permission in order to confirm that the doctor listed on the certificate in fact completed the medical certificate. This has the potential to undermine workers’ privacy and put employers who are not trained health professionals directly in contact with a worker’s physician.
Excessive requirements for more frequent medical visits. The proposed amendments require employees with a chronic condition to recertify medically their need for FMLA every six months even if a medical professional indicates that the condition will last longer than six months.
Allowing workers to waive their FMLA claims without review. Current regulations do not allow FMLA rights to be waived. The proposed amendments would allow a workers’ right to bring a lawsuit alleging FMLA violations to be waived as part of a settlement or severance agreement without the Labor Department or a court validating that the waiver is fair. This is a problem because workers often lack legal representation in these matters or simply need the money too much to argue with the employer.

The Labor Department’s proposed amendments would further limit workers’ access to FMLA leave and would implement additional barriers for some of the most vulnerable workers. The public has until April 11, 2008, to comment on these damaging amendments and urge the government to maintain the integrity of the current FMLA. Comments must be identified as RIN 1215-AB35 and can be submitted via the federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp or via mail. The National Partnership for Women and Families, a leader in the fight for the original FMLA legislation, has drafted a sample letter to the Labor Department to be used as a guide. Go to http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ourwork_fmla_FMLARegulations and click on “sample comments.”

The National Partnership for Women and Families (http://www.nationalpartnership.org/) is collecting stories in order to send a clear message to elected leaders that the FMLA is a critical protection, that this law needs to be expanded to cover more workers, and that leave needs to be paid. To access the National Partnership for Women and Families’ summary of the proposed amendments, go to http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Proposed_Regulations_Overview.pdf?docID=2961.

On a more positive note, last January the Military Expansion for Injured Service members Act went into effect. The Act expands the FMLA to support families caring for injured service members by lengthening the time a family member may take leave to care for a wounded service member; the Act expands the definition of family member to include adult children and next of kin, who may be siblings, grandparents, or other relatives; and the Act allows leave to help with circumstances that arise from the deployment and return from duty of a service member. Although the Act has become law, the Labor Department has yet to issue regulations on how to implement the expanded FMLA provisions, thus delaying access to injured service members’ families.

Sick Days Legislation

Women and workers’ rights advocates are promoting paid sick days legislation on the federal and state level. At the federal level the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1542, S.910), sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), promotes paid sick days for all working people by requiring employers to provide a minimum level of paid sick leave, including leave for family care. To follow the Healthy Families Act, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search under the bill number. You may also get involved at the federal level by signing the National Partnership for Women and Families’ petition at https://secure2.convio.net/npwf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=117.

In Illinois, Rep. Julie Hamos (D-18) introduced the Healthy Workplace Act (H.B. 5320) in the General Assembly. H.B. 5320 would require an employer to provide an employee with seven paid sick days during a 12-month period. The Shriver Center is part of a statewide coalition advocating this bill. Visit the Women Employed’s website, http://www.womenemployed.org/index.php?id=121, to learn more about the bill and how to become involved in the effort to pass the legislation in Illinois.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 11, Issue 9
March 27, 2008

Children Are the Real Victims of the CMS August Directive

2008-03-18T19:10:25Z

As Congress was finalizing bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) circulated, on August 17, 2007, a new federal directive in the form of a letter to program directors. The directive dramatically alters rules that had governed SCHIP for the past ten years, limits states’ ability to design and finance their own programs, and gives them exactly one year to amend their individual SCHIP programs or risk corrective action by the federal government.

CMS imposed a uniform, federal gross income cap of 250 percent of the federal poverty level or $42,925 for a family of four. CMS does not have legal authority to set income caps on SCHIP, so CMS accomplished a de facto cap by limiting states’ flexibility to cover children above 250 percent of the federal poverty level, allowing the higher coverage only when states prove that they meet new federal guidelines.

The directive demands that, before raising income eligibility to higher levels, states must show that they have enrolled at least 95 percent of all uninsured children already eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid—that is, children with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Based on estimates by the Urban Institute of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, state Medicaid and SCHIP participation rates among low-income children range from a low of 51 percent in Nevada to a high of 89 percent in Vermont. Overall, enrollment rates vary widely among states and are difficult to measure. What data CMS will accept to show participation numbers among the already eligible but uninsured is still not clear.

Once the participation rate requirement is met, states are allowed to expand their programs above 250 percent of the federal poverty level only if they can show that they have reasonable procedures to prevent “crowd-out,” a process where parents move children from private coverage to the publicly funded SCHIP program. States must prove that private employer-based coverage for lower-income children has not declined by more than 2 percent over the past five years. Employer coverage has been on the decline for many years. According to a survey conducted in October 2007 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, employer-sponsored coverage between 2000 and 2005 dropped almost 9 percent for children under 18. This is a trend that states have little control over, and once again CMS has not issued clear guidelines for “reasonable procedures” that states may use to measure such trends.

The CMS directive, effective August 2008, has already had a significantly negative impact on children’s coverage. The directive is not only slowing down the coverage of uninsured children but also leaving more children uninsured as some states pull back on SCHIP eligibility or scrap planned expansions. Congress must repudiate the CMS directive as inconsistent with CMS authority and with good policy. The focus should be on insuring all children, a goal that is within sight if CMS gets out of the way.

To learn more, contact Melissa Cubria at melissacubria@povertylaw.org or 312.263.3830 ext. 241.

Re: Record-High Ratio of Americans in Prison - Washington Post

2008-03-18T19:10:01Z

The United States leads the world, but we are not boasting. We are the front-runner in both the number and percentage of residents in incarceration, according to the Washington Post (Feb. 29, 2008). Although altering decades of shortsighted policies will take time, public officials are finally beginning to question their “lock ’em up” mentality and find less costly ways to deal with people charged with crimes. Any city, county, or state can take the following steps almost immediately to reduce the growing swell of incarcerated people without endangering public safety:

1. Provide drug treatment upon request to individuals with addictions and not wait for the behavior to place them in the criminal justice system.

2. Screen people charged with crimes for mental health problems and divert those in need of treatment to community treatment programs.

3. Make community supervision and supportive services such as transitional jobs, education, and counseling available to those charged with less serious, nonviolent crimes.

4. Classify possession of controlled substances in small amounts as a civil rather than criminal matter.

By adopting these alternative policies to imprisonment, we can move closer to being smart on crime—not soft, not tough, but smart. For more information, contact Margaret Stapleton at mstapleton@povertylaw.org or 312.368.3327.