Shriver Center: Advocacy News

State Budget Priorities—Who Wins, Who Loses?

2012-01-30T17:05:24Z

Improving the well-being and quality of life for the people of Illinois through wise public investments is fundamental to getting the state economy back on track and putting people back to work, but this priority is not being reflected in state budget decisions. While the state budget crisis has forced harmful cuts in human services programs that serve the most vulnerable, including women and children, economic development strategies such as corporate tax breaks are giving handouts to the business elite.

Economic development comprises various forms of financial assistance (e.g., direct subsidies, tax credits) to companies to promote business activity and job creation, but most often in Illinois economic development programs lack job quality standards and reporting enforcements, the essential components which deem them more than just corporate giveaways. According to a report released last month by Good Jobs First, programs without a job-related requirement cost U.S. taxpayers more than $7 billion per year. The report, which scores each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia based on the performance standards and job quality requirements of its key economic development programs, ranks Illinois 37th with a pitiable grade of “D.” Programs are rated for performance requirements such as job creation, retention, or training components; wage standards which ensure a decent wage (ideally tied to labor market rates); and health care options with employer premium obligations. Programs earned “extra credit” by including other requirements such as offering employee benefits beyond health care; a wage requirement which is at least 105 percent of the average wage in the state; geographic hiring standards; wage and benefit requirements which apply to part-time, temporary, and contract workers as well; and requirements respecting the labor rights of workers. Illinois’s largest subsidy program, the Enterprise Zone Program, costs the state $93,906,000 annually but scored solid zeros for both wage and health care requirements for workers (and all extra credit categories). The next two most expensive programs are tax credits: the Economic Development for Growing Economy (EDGE) ($35,757,000 annually) and the Film Production Services Tax Credit ($11,125,000 annually), which scored a measly 35 out of 100 and 10 out of 100, respectively, for performance, wage, and health care requirements.

Illinois has a contentious history of enacting tax breaks in the name of economic development and job creation. Following temporary corporate tax increases enacted in early 2011, controversial legislation passed last month gave large tax breaks to Sears Holdings Corp. (the parent company of retail giants Sears and Kmart) and Chicago financial exchanges CME Group and CBOE Holdings Inc. after the companies threatened to move out of Illinois. These powerful groups made out big with part of the $250 million in tax breaks to various businesses attached as an amendment to Senate Bill 397, which Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law early last month. CME and CBOE alone will see their corporate tax bills drop by $85 million by 2014, thanks to the new law, and Sears Holding Co. another $15 million per year over ten years. But the tax-break deals, effective June 1, 2012, does little if not nothing in terms of guaranteed job generation or setting job standards in the state since none of the companies pledged to even maintain, let alone develop, jobs.

What’s more, Illinois is not holding most of these wealthy beneficiaries accountable, and research shows that most economic development programs, including tax breaks, are not delivering on jobs or other public benefits. Another report by Good Jobs First researched the scope and rigor of Illinois’s and other states’ procedures for monitoring the performance of subsidy recipients and for dealing with cases of noncompliance on job creation, job quality, and other standards. On average, Illinois’s subsidy programs earned a low total score of 52 out of 100. Often companies do more to shuffle jobs around than to create new jobs as, for example, when an employer creates a new title for an existing job and deems it “new.” Many recipients of certain subsidies are, state officials recently disclosed, exempt from disclosure requirements altogether, and some companies, such as Motorola (thanks to a separate tax deal in early 2011), have the option to use tax credits against withheld employee income tax liability. In essence this option allows companies to retain state employee income tax withholdings for themselves notwithstanding that, in Motorola’s case, the company’s state income tax liability represented less than 1 percent of its revenue in 2010.

Meanwhile, the legendary social service agency Jane Adams Hull House is forced to close its doors because of lack of funding after 122 years of providing early childhood development services, child welfare and family services, and domestic violence services to 14,000 people in Chicago. This sobering event is not unique—93 percent of human services organizations were negatively affected by state budget cuts in 2011, according to a study conducted last year. As a result of those budget cuts, 46 percent reduced hours or level of service, 41 percent increased waiting lists for services, and 38 percent, such as Hull House, closed programs altogether. This is after years of suffering from decreased funding—56 percent of organizations have been affected by state budget cuts for four years or longer.

Imagine what $85 million in corporate handouts could have done for people in Illinois if it had been directed toward those who need it most. Just 15 percent of $85 million given to corporate tax breaks ($12.8 million) would have allowed the state to continue the Transitional Assistance program that provided a small monthly cash grant to 9,000 single adults deemed—by the state—not employable (for reasons such as a severe physical or mental disability or a serious health condition). Or $85 million of the corporate handouts would have enabled more than 25,000 additional 3- and 4-year-olds to enroll in the Preschool for All early childhood education program.

Lack of funding for human services programs compromises Illinois’s economic strength and future well-being, and low-income families are left to endure great economic, social, and personal costs. Astoundingly, one out of three Illinoisans are now considered poor or low-income, and 6.1 percent of the state lives in extreme poverty (with income below 50 percent of the federal poverty level). Justifying corporate giveaways while an ongoing assault on services for the most vulnerable is waged is not good policy. With unemployment so persistent (remaining at 9.8 percent as of December 2011 in Illinois), Illinoisans have the right as taxpayers to expect that economic development subsidies create not just new jobs but lasting quality jobs and that they can rely on a solid safety net when the labor market fails them. Illinois needs vital public services and jobs more than ever. Looking forward to this year’s state budget, Illinois must prioritize the needs of those most affected by the recession and must not bend over backward to give away more to the wealthiest.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

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

Volume 15, Issue 10
January 30, 2012

Women and Poverty: Illinois and the United States

2011-12-08T20:50:13Z

Women are more likely to live in poverty than men in spite of gains in educational attainment and workforce participation. Census data from the 2010 American Community Survey paint a sobering portrait of how women in Illinois have fared through the recession and into the recovery. In 2009 unemployment and poverty rates jumped and median income plummeted as the full effects of the recession began to be realized. In 2010 conditions became even worse—female unemployment rose and poverty rates were the highest in over 20 years. Although median earnings increased for women in Illinois in 2010, the gender wage gap persists. Still, in keeping with a recent trend, more women than men are earning college and graduate degrees both nationally and in Illinois. Women must continue to further their education to increase their earnings so that they and their families can enter the middle class.

Women in Poverty

Nationally the number of people living in poverty is the highest it has been since poverty rates began to be recorded over 50 years ago. In 2010 more than one in six Americans lived below the federal poverty line, which is just $22,314 for a family of four. The numbers are only slightly better in Illinois, where the poverty rate is 13.8 percent, or almost one in seven. And between 2007 and 2010, nearly a quarter-million Illinoisans slipped into poverty. Although Illinois’s poverty rate remained high in 2010, it was statistically unchanged from 2009, stagnating as opposed to rising with the national rate.
Women make up a disproportionate number of the people living in poverty both nationally and in Illinois. Indeed, in Illinois 15 percent of women lived below the poverty line as compared with 12.6 percent of men. For female heads of households, the disparity is even greater—28.5 percent of female heads of households with no husbands present in Illinois lived in poverty in 2010. And for single mothers with children under 18 in Illinois, the rate rises to 38.2 percent—one-in-five families in Illinois are headed by a single mother.

These high numbers, however, are likely underestimates. The federal poverty measure is calculated by using outdated methodology that fails to consider adequately people’s economic needs today. One attempt to get more accurate numbers is the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which takes into account rising costs of basic goods, out-of-pocket medical costs, and the effects of public benefits programs. SPM data put the poverty rate in the United States at 16 percent, a full percentage point higher than the official measure. Because the SPM takes in to account certain public benefits for low-income children, the supplemental child poverty rate is substantially lower than the official child poverty rate. While the SPM may show the positive impact that government programs such as the school lunch programs have on alleviating poverty, the SPM still fails to calculate accurately the level of income that families need to survive at a basic standard of living. The SPM perpetuates an outmoded understanding of subsistence narrowly defined by the cost of basic goods, which have been consistently outpaced by actual living standards (pages 4, 6). The self-sufficiency index, widely considered to be a more accurate estimate of what people need to get by, is roughly 200 percent of the federal poverty measure. The SPM, by contrast, raised the poverty threshold by only $2,000 for a family of four. The most recent self-sufficiency calculations for Illinois (from 2009) are that there were 652,000 more households in poverty in Illinois than were counted in the census.

Education

Worsening poverty has not discouraged women from furthering their education. A higher proportion of both women and men earned college and graduate degrees in 2010 than in any of the past five years both nationally and in Illinois. Continuing a trend, however, women were more likely than men to achieve higher levels of education. This has continued to the point that women as a group are actually more educated than men both nationally and in Illinois. For example, in 2010 in Illinois, 48.5 percent of women had some college or an associate degree as compared with 41.8 percent of men; 14.5 percent of women, but only 10.1 percent of men, had a bachelor’s degree.

Income

The number of men and women in Illinois over 16 with earnings decreased substantially between 2009 and 2010. Women’s median earnings, however, increased almost $1,000 in Illinois in that time while men’s median earnings remained statistically unchanged. This increase, while potentially meaningful, has done little to close the overwhelming gender wage gap in Illinois, where women working full-time year-round have earned a median income of about $10,000 less than men for the past five years. And the wage disparity only grows with education level. For those with graduate degrees, the average difference in income between men and women in Illinois is almost $30,000. Compounding the problem, women tend to be concentrated in low-wage occupations to begin with. The gender wage gap, combined with occupational segregation, resulted in a poverty rate of 8.8 percent for females who were heads of household in Illinois and who worked full-time, year-round.

Unemployment

The gender wage gap continues to affect women even when they lose their jobs. Because Unemployment Insurance is based on former income, women receive much less than men in benefits. And female unemployment has been rising of late. The early part of the recession may have been dubbed a “mancession” because of the heavy losses in male-dominated industries such as construction and manufacturing, but the last year has been disproportionately hard on women. In Illinois the unemployment rate rose almost a full percentage point between 2009 and 2010 to 11.4 percent. The reason for this rise: an increase in women’s unemployment and statistically unchanged male unemployment. Women’s unemployment also rose nationally by a full percentage point between 2009 and 2010, but it was accompanied by a rise in male unemployment.

Public Assistance

High poverty rates driven by the recession have led to increased demand for public benefits. As a result of increased need and policy improvements, the number of people served by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, a cash assistance program for very poor families, has increased in Illinois. In July 2011 (the latest TANF numbers available), the total number of families receiving TANF rose by 780 to 45,481. The expansion of TANF helped in reducing hardships for families who needed help the most and in placing them on a path to self-sufficiency. However, the expansion has not been nearly enough to meet the full range of need in Illinois or to keep pace with an unemployment rate that was 9.5 percent in July 2011 and has continued to rise.

The number of people receiving food stamps has also increased since the recession began. Last year 11 percent of all households in Illinois were enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program). Because SNAP funds and other nonincome supports and tax credits are not included in income calculations of the federal poverty measure, the success of this program in alleviating poverty is not visible in the census data. The newly released SPM data, however, show that when SNAP is added to calculations, the national poverty rate decreases by 2 full percentage points (table 3a). For youths, the SPM calculations showed a decrease of 3 percent in the poverty rate due to SNAP benefits. In Illinois public assistance programs such as SNAP and TANF have been critical in alleviating poverty, and Illinois must recommit to funding a safety net that can expand during difficult economic times to help the neediest families and individuals.

Women and the Census Data

With poverty numbers at an all-time high (regardless of how poverty is measured) and unemployment for women continuing to rise, 2010 was especially challenging for women and their children. Low median income, the persistence of the gender wage gap, and rising unemployment have all contributed to the high rate of female poverty in Illinois and around the country. Public assistance programs such as SNAP and TANF have helped mitigate some of the worst effects of the recession, but these programs face potential disinvestment on the state and federal level, where cuts are being disingenuously justified in the guise of deficit reduction. Although women in Illinois did see an increase in earnings coupled with rises in educational attainment, too many women remain unable to lift their families out of poverty, much less earn a family-sustaining wage. The census data highlight the unique hardships that women in Illinois face and show just how difficult the recession and the recovery have been on women in particular.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format

Volume 15, Issue 9
December 8, 2011

Left Behind: Women in the Economic Recovery

2011-11-03T16:46:07Z

The gender gap in employment remains a major characteristic of the U.S. labor market and continues to be key in the systemic differences in economic and social outcomes between women and men. These differences are seen economically in disparities in income, poverty rates, occupation, and career opportunities as well as in the social positioning of women as less than men. Over time the gender gap in employment has been narrowly closing, but new research is now drawing attention to how the recession and the subsequent slow recovery are widening the gap for women in a historically unprecedented way.

An Unprecedented Trend

A recent Pew Research Center report found that the sluggish recovery from the great recession has been better for men than for women (Pew at 2). Because most jobs lost during the great recession were held by men (hence “mancession”), men not surprisingly have been gaining more jobs as the economy recovers. What is surprising is that women have actually been losing jobs. Since the start of the recovery, women’s overall unemployment rate has increased by 0.3 percent, while men’s unemployment rate has decreased by 1 percent. The overall economy has added 639,000 jobs since June 2009, but women have lost 345,000 jobs.

Conversely, women had fared better than men in the first two years of all other economic recoveries since 1970. The Pew report explained that previously, although both men and women gained jobs, women did so at a faster rate immediately after the recessions in 1969–70, 1973–75, 1980–82, and 1990–91(Pew at 2). But in the current recovery from June 2009 to present, male employment growth is superior to the past three recoveries, while women’s employment gains are far below the recoveries of the 1980s and 1990s. In July 2011 some 117,000 jobs were created, but women continued to lose ground with an additional 19,000 jobs lost. Women’s net jobs remained unchanged in August 2011 as the overall economy failed to add any new jobs. As the recovery enters its third year, attention must be paid to this developing trend and what it means for women.

Women in the Recovery

Contrasting gender employment trends have largely stemmed from how men and women are distributed across industries as a result of occupational segregation. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 2009 women accounted for more than half of all workers within several industry sectors: financial activities, education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and other services. However, women were substantially underrepresented in agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, transportation, and utilities (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Page 41, Table 13). The concentration of women in industries that were less affected by the recession shielded women from the initial job losses incurred in male-dominated industries. But explaining the emerging trend in the recovery is more complicated, as education and health services (two industries where women are concentrated) outperformed other sectors in adding jobs, even while women continued losing those jobs. In other sectors that continue to shed jobs, such as state and local governments, women continue to lose a disproportionate share of those jobs. The public sector cut 595,000 jobs from June 2009 to August 2011, and 430,000 of those jobs were held by women. The 9,000 public-sector jobs lost by women in August alone cancelled a gain of 9,000 private-sector jobs in the same month.

The White House National Economic Council reported that the recession caused single-women heads of households to have their highest rate of unemployment (13.6 percent) in over 25 years—an increase more than twice as high as for married women (National Economic Council at 8-9). During the recovery, over 2.5 million women, who constituted 40 percent of the overall long-term unemployed in 2010, were looking for work for 27 weeks or more (BLS, Table 31). As of August 2011, women’s national unemployment rate was 8 percent, up from 7.9 percent in July, and in Illinois 8.8 percent of women were unemployed. Although white women showed a slight decrease in the unemployment rate, the rate continued to increase for Hispanic, black, and Asian women (Pew at 20).

Newly released Census data for 2010 show that the continued surge of job loss is worsening poverty during the recovery especially for women. Poverty among women rose from 13.9 percent in 2009 to 14.5 percent in 2010—the highest rate in 17 years (National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), at 1). Extreme poverty among women also rose from 5.9 percent in 2009 to 6.3 percent in 2010—meaning that 7.5 million women lived on incomes less than half of the federal poverty level (NWLC at 1). Poverty rates for all groups of women in 2010 were higher than the rates of their male counterparts, with the highest rates among vulnerable populations, including female-headed families with children, women with disabilities, women 65 and older living alone, and racial minority women. In Illinois 15 percent of women lived below the poverty line as compared with 12.6 percent of men.

The Changing Role of Women in the Economy

The factors that explain the lagging recovery for women are not entirely clear. However, since the 1970s, women’s role in the economy has seen a number of substantial changes that characterize their modern economic status and the challenges they continue to face. Women’s share of the labor force has been steadily increasing as many women have transitioned out of traditional roles as homemakers and into waged work. The labor force participation rate increased for women from 43.3 percent in 1970 to 59.9 percent in 2000 (Pew at 2). While the tide of women entering the workforce over the last decade has largely abated, this occurrence has helped create for women a fundamentally new economic landscape that positions them as driving forces in the modern economy.

As women have claimed a growing share of the workforce, their impact on the economy has also grown. Today women constitute 57 percent of undergraduate students, 60 percent of graduate school students, and 50.4 percent of Ph.D. students, allowing more women to obtain higher-skilled jobs in growing fields (National Economic Council, at 6). Increased educational attainment has also influenced a rise in entrepreneurship among women, who now own 30 percent of small businesses, and their direct contribution to the economy is reflected in job creation and economic growth (National Economic Council at 5). Women-owned, privately held firms added roughly 500,000 jobs between 1997 and 2007 and reported sales of over $1.2 trillion in 2007 alone (National Economic Council at 5). Moreover, women’s economic contribution to households has become increasingly indispensable for families, especially for families headed by single mothers. More than 1.5 million married couples with children relied exclusively on women’s earnings at some point in 2009, and 6.1 million single mothers were the sole breadwinners for their households in 2010 (National Economic Council at 6).

Despite Gains, Challenges to Equal Opportunity

In spite of these vast gains in the workplace, women still face many serious challenges and obstacles that have long-term consequences for their economic security and opportunity. The gender wage gap is one of the most notable effects of the employment gap. Women who work full-time, year-round are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts (NWLC at 1). Occupational segregation is perpetuating the wage gap; research shows that female-dominated occupations pay less than male-dominated ones even at the same skill levels (Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) at 2). For women of color, the wage gap is particularly marked. African American women on average earn only 69.6 cents for every dollar earned by white men, and Hispanic women only 54 cents (IWPR at 3). Over the course of a lifetime, this gap translates into lower overall earnings, lack of savings, and loss of retirement income for women and the families that depend on them.

Limited Public Assistance

Policies such as unemployment insurance (UI) and income assistance can remedy the far-reaching consequences of unemployment and discrimination for women’s lives, but their impact is constrained by political and structural limitations. In recent austerity measures, many states have altered UI benefit formulas to tighten eligibility requirements and reduce average check amounts, making benefit claims more difficult and limiting the reach of benefits for families of unemployed workers (National Employment Law Project (NELP), at 1). In Illinois, House Bill 1030, now Public Act 97-0001, reduced the maximum amount of weeks for which claimants may receive UI benefits in the initial period of unemployment to 25 weeks—a decrease from the decades-long accepted standard of 26 weeks for the first time in over 50 years (NELP at 1). Also, federal Extended Unemployment Compensation (EUC), which allows claimants to earn additional benefits up to 99 weeks after exhausting regular state benefits, is set to expire in January 2012. Women’s economic gains from unemployment insurance are constrained by the gender wage gap. Because unemployment benefits are tied to past wages and women’s wages lag behind men’s, unemployed women receive less in unemployment benefits (NWLC at 2).

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has limited effect in decreasing poverty and deep poverty for low-income women with children. The 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with the TANF block grant, purportedly to give states more flexibility in how they spent the fixed block grant. The $16.6 billion grant has never been adjusted for inflation, resulting in a 28 percent decline in real value over time. TANF cash benefits remain extremely modest—below half the poverty line in all states. In Illinois a family of three receives a maximum benefit level of only $432 a month, or 27 percent of the federal poverty level, to help meet basic needs (Urban Institute at 88). What is more, the block-grant structure prevents TANF from expanding in times of economic hardship and increased need. The recent recession has been particularly key in exposing the weakness of the TANF program’s block-grant structure in allowing states to respond adequately—or at all—to alarming levels of unemployment and poverty. Moreover, Illinois completely eliminated its General Assistance (GA) program in July; GA provided unemployable individuals who did not qualify for other cash assistance programs with money and limited medical care. Women who are unemployed or who are unable to work are severely at risk of economic insecurity and poverty when government programs designed to assuage hard economic times for families are restricted.

Policy Solutions

Low-income women and families are particularly vulnerable in economic downturns, and during the recession they are being left behind. The implications of the recent employment and poverty trends for women in the economic recovery should be of concern to policymakers; a number of federal and state policy approaches are necessary to ensure that women can thrive.

President Obama’s recently introduced American Jobs Act has a number of provisions relevant to women. The Act would provide aid to states to prevent layoffs of teachers, most of whom are women. Its continuance of the EUC program would prevent 2.6 million women from losing unemployment assistance next year. The Act would fund infrastructure improvement, specifically for outreach and training to ensure that nontraditional job opportunities are available to women, communities of color, and low-income individuals. Women’s entrance into nontraditional jobs, or jobs such as construction and transportation in which 25 percent or fewer of the workforce is female, not only ameliorates occupational segregation but also results in quality jobs that pay family-supporting wages. The development of subsidized job opportunities would enable low-income adult women to have jobs when unsubsidized employment is unavailable.

President Obama’s plan would be a great step in the right direction should Congress choose to act, but women and children still face challenges and crises that must be solved in other ways. Enforcing equal pay is critical in bridging the gender wage gap and ensuring economic justice for women. The grim reality of unrelenting poverty and unemployment numbers point to the critical need for increased investment and improvement in public benefits and income supports for struggling families, especially since these programs face continued attacks.

Without these policy solutions, women are up against an uncertain future, and the number of very real challenges threatening to extend or exacerbate the anemic recovery for women will remain unchanged.

For more information contact Wendy Pollack, Director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

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

WomanView Volume 15, Issue 7
November 3, 2011

Health Care Reform and Preventive Care for Women

2011-10-17T16:19:09Z

Women have long been at a disadvantage in the health care system in the United States—they pay significantly higher premiums than men and are more likely to be uninsured. Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last year, the Act has already improved women’s health care coverage and is estimated to benefit almost 30 million women nationwide by the time all of its provisions go into effect. One provision requires private insurance companies to cover certain preventive health services at no out-of-pocket costs. According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announcement, a full range of women’s preventive services, such as annual well-woman visits and all contraception methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are to be among the services covered. The Act has been under attack recently, but recent reports paint a bleak portrait of the status of women’s health care today and show just how integral the implementation of the Act and its coverage of preventive services are to women of all races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Rising Costs of Health Care
The recession has only exacerbated the gaps in women’s health care coverage and made the need for affordable health care more acute. In 2010 an estimated 27 million working-age women went without health insurance. That is almost one in three women 19–64. For women with family incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line, that number rises to one in two. But coverage is not the only problem. The rising cost of health care is affecting those with and without health insurance, especially women who can pay premiums up to 84 percent higher than men for the same coverage. Recent studies show that women have been cutting back on services as a result of rising health care costs that have not been matched by rises in income. The number of working-age women who spent 10 percent or more of their income on premiums and out-of-pocket costs rose from 25 percent in 2005 to 33 percent in 2010. For low-income women, the numbers are even more staggering. In 2010 over half of women living in households with incomes below the poverty line spent 10 percent or more of their income on premiums and out-of-pocket costs—that’s twice as many as in 2001.

Preventive Care
The increase in premiums and out-of-pocket costs has led many people simply to stop going to the doctor. Preventive care is often the first to go, even though it can save both lives and money. Women, who need more preventive health services than men, are also more likely to forgo these services and screenings because of cost. Indeed in 2010 less than half of all women were up to date with recommended preventive screenings and care, and 48 percent of all women—both insured and uninsured—reported that they did not fill a prescription, skipped a recommended test, or did not see a doctor when they had a medical problem because of the associated costs. Studies have shown, however, that when out-of-pocket costs are eliminated or significantly reduced, women are more likely to get much-needed preventive services and screenings, such as pap smears and mammograms.

Coverage of Preventive Services for Women
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s requirement that private insurance companies cover preventive services and screenings at no out-of-pocket costs is especially helpful for women. The preventive services required to be covered are determined by HHS and already included mammograms and pap smears. The original list, however, had major gaps where women’s preventive services were concerned, and HHS tasked the Institute of Medicine with researching what crucial women’s preventive services were missing. On August 1 HHS adopted all of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations including full coverage of FDA-approved contraception devices and methods. Contraception is unaffordable for a large number of women, and nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. For teenagers, the number rises to 80 percent. Contraceptive care and counseling will allow women to plan and time their pregnancies. This will significantly lower health and other risks correlated with unplanned pregnancies, such as gestational diabetes, lower birth weights in infants, higher rates of poverty, and higher rates of abortion. Making all contraceptive services affordable, including those with high up-front costs such as intrauterine devices, sterilization, and implants, will allow women to use the most effective and appropriate contraceptive method for them, the method they might have forgone because of costs. This will reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and abortion and make family planning easier and more accessible for middle- and low-income women.

Full coverage of contraception may be the most controversial of the adopted guidelines, but the other preventive services approved by HHS are no less significant. The guidelines cover screening for gestational diabetes, screening and testing for the human papilloma virus, screening and counseling for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence, counseling and support for breast-feeding, including costs of supplies, and full coverage of annual well-woman visits. (To read more about the covered services, click here.) The coverage of annual well-woman visits will allow women the opportunity to receive preventive services such as those now required to be covered. These requirements will go into effect for all insurance plans beginning on or after August 1, 2012, and will greatly reduce the amount of money that women spend on health care and give all women greater access to quality health services, crucial preventive services among them.

Attorneys at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law are leading experts in Illinois on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its state implementation. They understand women as health care consumers and patients. As implementation on the federal and state level unfolds, WOMANVIEW informs and engages its readers on the health care reform issues affecting women. For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at wendypollack@povertylaw.org. Please visit a great source of information on health care reform: Illinois Health Matters (www.illinoishealthmatters.org), a website managed by health policy and community-based organizations, including the Shriver Center.

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

Volume 15, Issue 6
October 17, 2011

The Nitty Gritty on the American Jobs Act

2011-09-22T19:11:03Z

The American Jobs Act uses a variety of mechanisms to help get disadvantaged Americans working again - tax credits, economic stimulus, assistance finding a job, opportunities to get training or work experience, preventing job discrimination, and flexible funding to support innovative initiatives. The size of the bill and the scope of its strategies will hopefully prove sufficient to move the country forward to end the unemployment, disillusionment, and real deprivation that so many of us are experiencing. We have the opportunity to make meaningful investments in our future prosperity while putting people back to work.

Here's a road-map to the provisions of the American Jobs Act (AJA) that will help low-income individuals and the long-term unemployed. The draft bill, sent by President Obama, also includes many other provisions, many of which would create jobs. The White House has a 20 page summary of the whole act, which includes the reasons for the various provisions, and evidence of their bipartisan support. This article provides more detail, with footnote citations to the sections in the text of the draft statute. This is not an exhaustive summary of every section of the act; it's a focused overview and analysis of the biggest parts that will help get people back to work.

1. Tax credits make up half the total cost of the bill, and there are many targeted at businesses and employees. In addition to a payroll tax cut (from 6.2 percent to 3.2 percent)¹ for businesses on the first $5,000,000 in wages,² there is a complete payroll tax holiday for hiring new workers, or expanding the business' payroll beyond the prior year, up to a limit.³ Employers can also receive a tax credit for hiring a worker who has been unemployed at least six months in the last year,⁴ or who is unemployed veteran.⁵

2. Reemployment services for recipients of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC is generally weeks 26-79 of unemployment insurance). The federal government will reimburse states $200 per person,⁶ for the state unemployment agency's employees⁷ to provide services including career and labor market information, individual assessment, career one stop orientation, and job search counseling.⁸ These services are mandatory for recipients unless they are found to have "justifiable cause" to not participate.⁹ This program will create a significant influx of new recipients of job-readiness services in the state, and it's important that the federal government, and states, reduce the burden on individuals by, for example, providing virtual services, flexible scheduling, and supportive services (such as transportation allowances and child care) for individuals below 200 percent of the federal poverty line to attend these programs. Additionally, the state may set up an optional¹⁰ self-employment assistance program for recipients of EUC.¹¹

3. Reemployment Now Program. States have some flexibility in what enhanced reemployment services they provide to the recipients of EUC under this $4,000,000,000 allocation.¹² States may use the funds on: individual counseling, job search skills training, and case management;¹³ innovative programs;¹⁴ wage insurance;¹⁵ administrative costs of the self-employment program;¹⁶ and/or Bridge to Work.¹⁷ Wage insurance partially compensates individuals over age 50 who were receiving EUC when they accept a new full-time job with lower earnings than their previous job.¹⁸ Bridge to Work is a voluntary program¹⁹ where individuals can work for 8 weeks²⁰ at a short-term job placement. Their pay is their unemployment benefits and an additional amount so their total payment equals the minimum wage, which the state pays from this federal funding (additionally, a state may require employers to pay more beyond this amount).²¹ This wage (even the amount the state and/or employer pay) is ignored for federal means-tested aid programs.²² In addition to paying workers enough so that their compensation equals the minimum wage, and other requirements, states must monitor and prevent misuse of the program and provide counseling services before each individual starts.²³ Additionally, the state may spend the funds on supportive services, additional wages beyond minimum and administrative expenses.²⁴ For employers to stay eligible to receive placements, they must offer at least one participant a full time job within 24 weeks, and states may (and should!) add conditions for employer participation.²⁵

4. Short-Time Compensation Programs.²⁶ Many states currently have a work-sharing unemployment insurance program in place, and under this statute those states may continue their program for two years before transitioning to the federal program,²⁷ and new states can create a program with the federal government. Employees who lose 10-60 percent of their hours (or states can lower the 60 number),²⁸ at participating employers,²⁹ receive a pro-rata share of their unemployment insurance.³⁰ Federal funding is capped at three years.³¹ If the state has its own program the federal government will pay the whole³² cost of the program, up to 26 times the individuals unemployment benefit level for total unemployment (including any dependent allowance).33 If the state chooses to make a program under this law, the statute provides for grants for implementation, administration, promotion of the program, and enrollment³⁴ and the federal government will provide technical assistance and a draft model statute.³⁵ Under a state-federal program, the employer has to pay the state half the short-time compensation paid, and that doesn't count towards the employer's contribution rate.³⁶ The federal government will pay the other half plus administration.³⁷

5. Pathways Back to Work Fund. This fund will provide workforce development funds, often delivered through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) infrastructure, but with different outcome measures.³⁸ The changed measures will hopefully address the tendency of the current WIA outcome measures to discourage service of those individuals who face the greatest barriers to work or school, while still providing accountability and transparency.
     a. $2,000,000,000 to "subsidized employment to unemployed, low-income adults."³⁹ The funds must be used for subsidized employment, and may be used for supportive services for participants, such as transportation and childcare.⁴⁰ The states' allocation of the subsidized jobs money would be the same as WIA adult and youth funds (one-third based on each of: "relative number of unemployed individuals in areas of substantial unemployment in each State;" "relative excess number of unemployed individuals in each State;" and "relative number of disadvantaged adults and youth] [sic] in each State.")⁴¹ States may administer the program through the state agencies for WIA or TANF.⁴² States may allocate funds to the local workforce investment areas (LWIAs) by the same allocation as to states, above, or the state may allocate the funds to entities responsible for the administration of TANF, "in such manner as the State may determine appropriate."⁴³ States determine the amount of the subsidy the state pays, and duration of the employment, and may consider size of employer and types of employment in those determinations.⁴⁴
     b. $1,500,000,000 to provide summer and year-round employment opportunities to low-income youth.⁴⁵ The allocation formula to states is the same as that in the subsidized employment provisions, and within the states, the same formula will control the allocations to the LWIAs.⁴⁶ The funding must be used for "summer employment opportunities for low-income youth, ages 16 through 24, with direct linkages to academic and occupational learning, and may include the provision of supportive services, such as transportation or child care, necessary to enable such youth to participate"⁴⁷ and "year round employment opportunities," for out of school youth.⁴⁸ The priorities for funding are employment opportunities in either emerging or in-demand occupations in the public or nonprofit sector,⁴⁹and "linking year-round program participants to training and educational activities that will provide such participants an industry-recognized certificate or credential."⁵⁰
     c. $1,500,000,000 of "competitive grants . . . to local entities to carry out work-based training and other work-related and educational strategies and activities of demonstrated effectiveness to unemployed, low-income adults and low-income youth to provide the skills and assistance needed to obtain employment."⁵¹ Some examples from statute are: on-the-job training; apprenticeships; other activities combining work and skills training; sector-based training; subsidized employment; and integrated basic education and training.⁵² The applications need to be submitted by the chief elected official in combination with the LWIA, and can include industry groups, CBOs, post-secondary education providers , or others.⁵³ The priority for the funding will go to proposals in areas of high poverty and high unemployment.⁵⁴

6. Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011. Would prohibit discrimination against the unemployed in advertizing, considering candidates, and hiring.⁵⁵

7. Transportation Job Training. $50,000,000 in competitive grants for transportation jobs training.⁵⁶ Of the total, $10,000,000⁵⁷ would go to assist minority businesses in competing, on an equal basis, for contracts and subcontracts,⁵⁸ and should be allocated to businesses that have proven success in adding staff while effectively completing projects.⁵⁹

For more information contact Kathleen Rubenstein, staff attorney, Skadden Fellow, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at kathleenrubenstein@povertylaw.org, or Wendy Pollack, director, Women's Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

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

Volume 15, Issue 5
September 23, 2011

1 §101(a)(2).
2 §101(a)(4).
3 §102(a)(1)-(2).
4 §351.
5 §201(a)-(b).
6 §313(b)(1)(C).
7 §313(a)(1)(h)(1).
8 §313(a)(1)(h) (2).
9 §313(a)(1)(h)(3).
10 §314(i)(2).
11 §314(i)(1)(A).
12 §322.
13 §326.
14 §328.
15 §325.
16 §327.
17 §324.
18 §325(c).
19 §324(c)(1).
20 §324(c)(4).
21 §324(b)(1-3).
22 §324(f).
23 §324(d)(2).
24 §324(d)(2).
25 §324(j)
26 §341.
27 §341(a)(3).
28 §341(a)(1)(v)(3).
29 §341(a)(1)(v)(1).
30 §341(a)(1)(v)(4).
31 §342(b)(2).
32 §342(a)(1).
33 §342(a)(1)(3)(A).
34 §344(a)(1)-(2).
35 §345.
36 §343(b)(3).
37 §343(c).
38 The outcome measures are at §367(b)(5). Where the statute references §367(a)(5), that is an error.
39 §363(a)(1).
40 §346(e)(1).
41 §364(b)(2)(A)-(C), as defined in §364(b)(3)(A)-(C).
42 §364(d)(1)(A)-(C).
43 §346(d)(2)(A)(ii).
44 §346(e)(2).
45 §363(a)(2).
46 §365(c)(2).
47 §365(f)(1)(A).
48 §365(f)(1)(B).
49 §365(f)(2).
50 §365(f)(2).
51 §363(a)(1)(3).
52 §366(b).
53 §366(c).
54 §366(e).
55 §371.
56 §241(c)(11).
57 §241(c)(12).
58 23 U.S.C. 140(c).
59 §241(c)(12).

The Long-term Effects of Childhood Trauma

2011-09-08T15:21:45Z

Children across the country and of every race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background are experiencing trauma at staggeringly high rates, and the effects of this trauma can span a lifetime. Results from the groundbreaking Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (ACE study), jointly conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente, show a strong correlation between the number of different types of traumatic childhood experiences and the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors, having chronic health problems, and dying young. Begun in 1995, the ACE study is one of the longest-running studies to analyze the relationship between different types of childhood trauma and future health and behavioral outcomes. A longitudinal study, it continues to track the subsequent health outcomes of the original participants; a more recent study conducted by the CDC in 2009 replicated the results across a broader sample of the population. The results suggest that an underlying cause of many of our biggest public health problems may in fact be trauma experienced as a child.

Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences

Over 17,000 people participated in the original ACE study and answered questions about the types of trauma, if any, they had experienced as a child. The participants were members of the Kaiser Health Plan and were generally middle-class and well educated: 80 percent white including Hispanic, 10 percent black, and 10 percent Asian. The researchers divided participant responses into ten categories of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs): psychological abuse by parents, physical abuse by parents, sexual abuse by anyone, emotional neglect, physical neglect, alcoholism or drug use in the home, loss of biological parent, depression or mental illness present in the home, mother treated violently, and an imprisoned household member. Each person was assigned an ACE score from zero to ten indicating the number of different categories (not the number of distinct incidents) of ACEs that person had experienced; each person’s health outcomes have been tracked to this day.

The numbers are overwhelming. (Also see the Office on Women’s Health’s webinar on the ACE study). Two-thirds of the participants had experienced at least one type of ACE, and if one ACE was present, the likelihood that a person had experienced another ACE was 87 percent. One in ten had experienced five or more ACEs, and women were 50 percent more likely than men to have a score of five or more. Women were also almost twice as likely as men to have experienced sexual abuse, especially sexual abuse perpetrated by someone they knew. The high prevalence of ACEs among this population shows how widespread childhood trauma is and confirms that childhood trauma is not primarily a symptom or by-product of poverty.

ACEs and Future Behavior and Health Outcomes

That such large numbers of the population experience multiple childhood traumas is in itself worrisome, but the link between ACE score and future poor health outcomes is even more troubling. The results of the study show a strong link between traumatic childhood experiences and risky behaviors such as smoking, injecting drugs, and being promiscuous. For example, over 25 percent of people with an ACE score of four or more had sexual intercourse by the age of 15. This compares with only a little over 5 percent of those who had experienced no ACEs. The same pattern holds true for smoking and alcoholism. Higher ACE scores are also associated with increased likelihood of preventable poor health conditions. People with an ACE score of four or more are three times more likely than those with a score of zero to have a history of chronic depression and twice as likely to have liver disease. The results cannot be explained solely by increased rates of drug and alcohol use—the rate of hallucinating increases steadily with ACE score for those who do and do not abuse alcohol and drugs. For some health and behavioral outcomes, such as rates of attempted suicide, the likelihood increases exponentially with ACE score. The end results of these risky behaviors and poor health conditions are higher rates of doctor office visits, higher numbers of prescription drugs, and, ultimately, higher rates of early death.

ACEs and Domestic Violence

One of the study’s findings of most concern was the clear connection between ACE score and domestic violence perpetration and victimization. As ACE score increases, the likelihood of perpetrating domestic violence as an adult increases similarly for both men and women. Differences occur along gender lines, however, when it comes to victimization. Overall women are more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence regardless of ACE score (slide 17); men who have experienced five or more ACEs are just slightly more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women who have experienced no ACEs. But the correlation between ACE score and likelihood of being a victim of domestic violence is also more significant for women than for men. Women who have experienced five or more ACEs are three times more likely than women who have experienced zero ACEs to be victims of domestic violence as an adult. For men, the relationship is much less clear. The story is similar for sexual violence. People who have experienced four ACEs or more are eight times more likely than those with no ACEs to be raped later in life. And, since women are 50 percent more likely than men to have experienced five or more ACEs, this is a finding of special concern for women, who make up a majority of rape victims in the first place.

Dealing with Childhood Trauma

The results of the ACE study are especially significant because they reflect the effects of childhood trauma on a relatively well-educated, unimpoverished group of individuals. The participants had access to adequate health care, and yet the number of ACEs was significantly correlated with high rates of preventable health conditions. Five states have replicated the study across different populations with similar results. These results point to an acute need for doctors and other health care professionals to screen routinely for traumatic childhood experiences as part of their basic protocol. Indeed, when Kaiser Permanente began screening for ACEs, it found a 35 percent reduction in doctor office visits and an 11 percent reduction in emergency room visits. Although the underlying reasons for this reduction are uncertain, these results are promising and suggest a new paradigm for thinking about some public health problems—for some people, risky behavior and poor health may be a part of coping with traumatic experiences from childhood.

Moreover, results from the ACE study point to the heightened need for violence prevention and trauma treatment programs that deal with the multiplicity and complexity of the effects that childhood trauma has over a lifetime. Often the first places where the effects of trauma manifest themselves, schools need to attend to childhood trauma. Schools must not only adopt policies and protocols that ensure the safety of survivors while in school but also have on staff responsible adults who are knowledgeable about trauma, including domestic and sexual violence, and can connect survivors with counseling and other support services. The Women’s Law and Policy Project of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law has been deeply involved in the Ensuring Success in School Initiative, which is committed to promoting school success among students who are parents, expectant parents, and survivors of domestic or sexual violence. This it does by creating supportive learning environments in schools: embracing policies and practices that ensure student safety and well-being and connect students with the counseling and other services they need both in school and in the community. Supportive schools that identify and meet the needs of students who have experienced trauma can begin to mitigate the effects of childhood trauma early and combat future negative behavior and health outcomes.

Further Information

For more information on the impact of trauma specifically on women and girls, tune in to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Women’s Health’s new webinar series, “The Impact of Trauma on Women and Girls Across the Lifespan.” This webinar series aims to raise awareness about the effects of childhood trauma on women and girls and discusses different models for addressing and treating childhood trauma and its effects. For still more information, or to become involved in the Ensuring Success in School Initiative, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

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

Volume 15, Issue 4

September 8, 2011

Illinois Legislative Update: Health Care and Public Benefits

2011-08-23T15:11:28Z

Since the U.S. Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last year, Illinois has been phasing in the implementation of the Act’s provisions. Two bills, House Bill 224 and Senate Bill 1555, relating to Illinois’s implementation of the Act, were passed by the General Assembly this session. We review them and three bills and one resolution relating to women’s health and public benefits. Some of the bills have been signed by Gov. Pat Quinn and are now state law; the others are awaiting his signature.

Health Care

House Bill 224 amends the Health Carrier External Review Act to broaden the definition of an “adverse determination” by, among other ways, adding rescissions not attributable to failure to pay premiums or cost sharing. The bill also provides for an external review by an independent organization in the event that covered persons or their authorized representatives are considered to have exhausted their health carrier’s internal appeals. The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that consumers have a right to external appeals in the event of a rescission determination; H.B. 224 is consistent with that requirement.

House Bill 1152, now Public Act 97-0166, amends the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Administrative Act to require the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) to designate certain community behavioral health care providers as “essential” so that all persons, including children, suffering from mental illness, substance abuse, and other behavioral disorders have access to local behavioral health care providers. The bill places a particular emphasis on improving access to behavioral health care providers in underserved and health professional shortage areas. Health care providers designated as essential must work in a cost-effective, outcome-based manner. They must accept all forms of insurance and be compensated on a fee-for-service basis. Public Act 97-0166 is effective as of July 22, 2011.

House Bill 3468, now Public Act 97-0138, amends the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Administrative Act to alter requirements in record keeping for facilities under IDHS jurisdiction. Previously IDHS was required to record the menstrual cycle of all women of childbearing age. The bill requires that IDHS record the menstrual cycle of women who are of childbearing age and are admitted to and remain in the facility for longer than 60 days. Public Act 97-0138 is effective as of July 14, 2011.

House Resolution 147 designates January as Cervical Cancer Month in Illinois to increase awareness of the importance of good cervical health and of detecting cervical cancer in its earliest stages.

Senate Bill 1555, now Public Act 97-0142, creates the Illinois Health Benefits Exchange Act, requiring Illinois to establish by October 1, 2013, a health benefits exchange for individuals and small employers to shop for and enroll in qualified, affordable health care plans in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The bill also creates a committee of legislators to study how Illinois should best implement and establish the Illinois Health Benefits Exchange. The committee is required to report its findings to the governor and the General Assembly by the end of next month. Public Act 97-0142 is effective as of July 14, 2011.

Public Benefits

Senate Bill 1236, now Public Act 97-0422, amends the provision of the Illinois Public Aid Code governing the copayment scale for families receiving child care assistance from IDHS. The bill allows IDHS to base the family’s copayment solely on the family’s income and size without consideration of the number of children in care. The bill also allows IDHS to waive the copayment for families whose income is at or below the federal poverty level. Public Act 97-0422 is effective as of August 16, 2011.

Advocates worked against the passage of restrictive welfare bills. The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law collaborated with other advocates to prevent multiple bills that would have restricted access to public benefits from being passed by the General Assembly. One group of bills (House Bill 10, House Bill 161, House Bill 3173, Senate Bill 2003, Senate Bill 2043) would have required every Link card to have a photo identification of the cardholder on it. Only the cardholder would have been allowed to use the card. Link is an electronic benefits transfer card, a debitlike card that allows recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program, to access and use their benefits. Family members—especially elderly people who often send other family members to go grocery shopping for them—would have been limited in using their public benefits. Another group of bills (House Bill 11, House Bill 163) would have required mandatory drug testing of all recipients of public aid and made those who tested positive no longer eligible under the Public Aid Code to receive benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, SNAP, child care assistance, and medical assistance. Not only were these bills built on base and incorrect assumptions of impoverished people, they also would have been extremely expensive to implement and enforce.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.

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

Volume 15, Issue 3
August 23, 2011

Illinois Legislative Update: Employment

2011-08-03T14:58:18Z

Many bills relating to employment were passed by the Illinois General Assembly. Some have been signed by Gov. Pat Quinn and are now state law, and others are awaiting his signature. We review eight of them.

House Bill 1030, now Public Act 97-0001, amends the Unemployment Insurance Act to reduce the maximum amount of benefits that eligible persons may receive per year, starting in 2012, either from 26 to 25 times their weekly benefit amount plus dependents’ allowances, or to reduce to the total wages they earned over the last year they were doing insured work, whichever amount is less. For most workers, this means that the maximum number of weeks that they will receive unemployment insurance benefits during their initial period of unemployment is limited to 25 weeks, reduced from a maximum of 26 weeks. The bill also creates the Title XII Interest Fund, which will be either used to repay advance funds loaned to Illinois by the federal government for unemployment insurance payments or transferred to Illinois’s unemployment trust fund. The bill establishes a surcharge on employers of 0.5 percent of the total amount of wages paid to insured employees in the first quarter of 2011 to finance the Title XII Interest Fund. This law is effective as of March 31, 2011.

House Bill 1513, now Public Act 97-0120, amends the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act to allow municipalities with populations of less than 500,000 (excluding Chicago) to deduct wages from employees to collect either a debt owed to the municipality or an excess payment made by the municipality due to, but not limited to, a typographical or mathematical error. No deduction on account of owed debt may be made before the employee is given the opportunity to have a hearing to dispute the debt and a hearing to dispute the deduction. The deduction may not exceed 15 percent of the total payment. This law is effective as of January 1, 2012.

House Bill 1552 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to institute new procedures for when an alleged violation falls within the jurisdiction of both the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency. If the EEOC determines that there is no reasonable cause that a violation occurred, the Human Rights Department will adopt this decision as its own. If, however, the EEOC determines that there is reasonable cause that a violation occurred, the Human Rights Department may either adopt the decision as its own or complete its own investigation and come to its own conclusion. The complainant still has the right to appeal, in civil court, the Human Rights Department’s final decision. Note that this bill has slightly different procedures from Senate Bill 1122, which was also passed by both House and Senate and is described below.

House Bill 2927 amends the Illinois Emergency Employment Development Act to promote new job creation in the private sector by giving incentives to employers to hire new workers through partial wage subsidies. Employees at for-profit businesses will receive a state subsidy of 50 percent of the minimum allowable hourly wage; not-for-profit employees will receive 75 percent. Employers are responsible for matching or exceeding the amount of the state subsidy to ensure that no employee receiving Emergency Employment Development funds earns less than 120 percent of the current state minimum wage. Job applicants eligible to receive funds must be residents of Illinois for at least one year, be unemployed, and not be receiving or be qualified to receive unemployment or workers’ compensation. The bill places a priority on job applicants who live in households with no other earned income source, have been unemployed for at least six months, or would be otherwise eligible to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) benefits. Eligible job applicants may receive Emergency Employment Development funds for a maximum of 1,040 hours over a period of 52 weeks.

Businesses operated by women and minorities, businesses engaged in developing renewable energy sources, and small businesses will be given preference to receive funds. Employers must repay 70 percent of the amount received for each eligible job applicant who does not stay employed for at least six months beyond the subsidized period unless the employer dismisses the employee for good cause and works with the employee administrator to employ and train a new employee. H.B. 2927 also links the Emergency Development Fund to the Illinois 21st Century Workforce Development Fund, which is intended to fill gaps in existing workforce development resources by funding programs such as job training and bridge programs. H.B. 2927, however, is subject to appropriation and has yet to receive funding. This means that none of the bill’s provisions may go into effect until appropriations are made.

House Bill 2987, now Public Act 97-0199, creates the Project Labor Agreements Act, which establishes a state authority that will work with labor organizations to negotiate project labor agreements with the state for public works projects on a project-by-project basis. A project labor agreement is a collective bargaining agreement that can be negotiated with all bargaining units involved in a project before the project is begun. It lays out the conditions of employment, the standards of quality and efficiency expected, and mutually agreed-upon procedures for resolving labor disputes without work stoppages. This is intended to ensure that public works project workers receive appropriate compensation for their work and that costly work stoppages are prevented. The bill lists situations in which a project labor agreement is to be made, such as when the project is aligned with the state’s policy to advance minority-owned and women-owned businesses and minority and female employment. The Project Labor Agreements Act also requires that the state authority overseeing project labor agreements include in its quarterly reports the workforce participation rate of minorities and females. This law is effective as of July 27, 2011.

Senate Bill 1122 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to state that if an employer refuses to hire, promote, or train or in any way treats differently for employment-related purposes (e.g., privileges, terms, or conditions of employment) an employee on account of her pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, the employer is committing a civil rights violation. The Act already covered pregnancy as part of sex discrimination, but the language of this amendment explicitly states that any medical conditions associated with pregnancy are also covered.

S.B. 1122 also institutes new procedures for when an alleged human rights violation falls within the jurisdiction of both the Human Rights Department and the EEOC. If the EEOC is the first governmental agency designated to investigate, it will complete an investigation and make a determination. If the EEOC determines that there has been a violation, the Human Rights Department will adopt this decision as its own and inform the complainant. If the EEOC determines that there has not been a violation, the Human Rights Department will adopt the decision as a dismissal for lack of evidence and inform the complainant, who will have 35 days to file a request that the Human Rights Department review the EEOC’s determination. The complainant still has the right to appeal, in civil court, the Human Rights Department’s final decision. Note that this bill has slightly different procedures from H.B. 1552, described above.

Senate Bill 1147 amends the Workers’ Compensation Act to restrict when an employee injured on the job may qualify for benefits. An employee would not qualify for benefits if the employee was injured or killed during or as a result of committing a forcible felony, aggravated driving under the influence, or reckless homicide which injured or killed another person and for which the employee was convicted.

Senate Bill 1923 amends the Department of Transportation Law to require the Transportation Department to review any and all evidence of discrimination related to transportation construction projects. The bill was introduced in response to a pattern of race and gender discrimination occurring in transportation construction projects. The bill lists examples of what would constitute evidence of discrimination and requires the Transportation Department to look into discrimination and present a report on both what it finds about the prevalence of discrimination in transportation construction projects and what steps it has taken to reduce discrimination.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.

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

Volume 15, Issue 2
August 3, 2011

2011 Legislative Update: Domestic and Sexual Violence

2011-07-18T16:27:20Z

Many bills relating to domestic and sexual violence were passed by the Illinois General Assembly this session and need only Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature to become law. We review nine of them in this month’s WOMANVIEW.

House Bill 0192 amends the Stalking No Contact Order Act, the Civil No Contact Order Act, and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 to grant judges the power to alter elementary, middle, and high school students’ schedules as part of a protective order. This applies only when the petitioner and the respondent attend the same public, private, or nonpublic school. The judge may require that the respondent not attend the petitioner’s school, change the respondent’s placement or program within the school, or restrict the respondent’s movements throughout the school. In deciding whether to include such provisions in a protective order, the judge must weigh the petitioner’s safety with the respondent’s right to education, the expense of transferring or altering the respondent’s schedule, and the disruption any displacement might cause. If the judge requires that the respondent not attend the same school as the petitioner, the school district or private or nonpublic school that the respondent originally attended will determine where the respondent will be transferred. The respondent has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a transfer, change of placement, or change of program is not available, and the respondent bears the burden of any associated costs. The court may hold the parents, legal guardians, or legal custodian of a minor respondent in criminal or civil contempt for a violation of any provision of an order.

House Bill 0277 amends the Criminal Code to broaden the definition of aggravated stalking to include any act of stalking when the perpetrator is a registered sex offender and the victim is either the victim of the offense for which the sex offender was required to register or a family member of that victim.

House Bill 2093 amends the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act to expand the list of people required to report child abuse or neglect to the Illinois Department of Children and Families Services to include any physician, physician’s assistant, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, medical technician, certified nursing assistant, social worker, or licensed professional counselor of any office or clinic that provides abortions, abortion referrals, or contraceptives. The bill also requires offices and clinics that provide abortions, abortion referrals, or contraceptives to train their personnel on recognizing abuse and neglect and on the reporting procVolume 15, Issue 1
July 19, 2011ess.

House Bill 2935 amends the cyberstalking section of the Criminal Code of 1961 and the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act to increase the types of actions that constitute harassment through electronic communications and cyberstalking. The definition of electronic communication now includes transmissions through any electronic device. This means that harassment or cyberstalking perpetrated via text messages, instant messages, email, voice mail, and any other electronic device is now covered by the law. Electronic communication used to be defined solely as transmissions over the Internet from one computer to another.

House Bill 3300 amends the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act to require the office of the state’s attorney or victim advocate personnel to give crime victims information about available victim services such as counseling programs and referrals to agencies that assist victims in recovering from trauma, loss, and grief. The bill also has provisions about victims of motor vehicle accidents.

Senate Bill 106 amends the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act to state that the privileged quality of communication between any professional person and the professional’s client no longer constitutes grounds for failing to share information or documents with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services during a child abuse or neglect investigation. If the professional so requests, the department will confirm in writing that the documents were gathered in the course of a child abuse or neglect investigation. The bill also requires people who report cases of child abuse or neglect to testify at both judicial proceedings and administrative hearings that result from their reporting.

Senate Bill 1037 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 to allow convictions of prostitution to be vacated for sex trafficking victims. To qualify, the defendant must be found guilty of prostitution or first-time felony prostitution, the defendant’s participation in the offense must have been a result of being a trafficking victim, and the defendant must either no longer be a victim of trafficking or have recently sought services for victims of trafficking.

Senate Bill 1828 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 to expand the number of people who can serve respondents with short-form notifications of protective orders. Such a notification is a shortened notice of a protective order that can be presented to a respondent when the respondent comes in contact with law enforcement and has yet to be notified about having been served with a protective order. Previously only sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel could serve short-order notification. This bill allows personnel assigned by the Department of Corrections to investigate alleged misconduct of committed persons or alleged violations of parole to serve those persons with a short-form notification of any protective orders. The bill also requires that parolees or releasees must immediately inform their parole officer if they receive notice of a protective order issued in Illinois or a similar order issued by another state. (See Public Act 97-0050.)

Senate Bill 2267 amends the Criminal Code of 1961 to include stalking, aggravated stalking, and cyberstalking and violating an order of protection via a third party as a crime. The bill states that anyone who directs a third party to commit stalking, aggravated stalking, and cyberstalking or to violate an order of protection is guilty of violating the law as if one had personally done the actions.

Advocates Fought Against the Passage of House Bill 3045. The bill would have amended the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 to allow respondents to obtain orders of protection to include provisions requiring the petitioner to stay away from the respondent or prohibiting the petitioner from harassing the respondent. The bill would have called survivors’ credibility into question and provided perpetrators with a new method to threaten and exert power over their victims. The Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence worked with other advocates around the state to prevent the bill’s passage.

The Fifteenth Year of WomanView
This issue marks the beginning of our fifteenth year of publication. Thank you to all of our readers for your continued support. We also extend a warm thank you to the Chicago Foundation for Women, the Jo & Art Moore Family Fund, the Eleanor Peterson Fund, and the Libra Foundation whose generous grants have made this possible. We look forward to another fifteen years committed to raising awareness of policy developments, concerns and initiatives that affect women and girls.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

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

Volume 15, Issue 1
July 19, 2011

Illinois Legislative Update: Education

2011-06-22T20:19:18Z

Many bills relating to education were passed by the Illinois General Assembly this session and need only Gov. Patrick Quinn’s signature to become law. Here we review the major education reform bills (Senate Bill 7 and House Bill 1197) already signed by Governor Quinn and six yet to be signed.

Senate Bill 7 institutes substantial education reform measures and amends the School Code in multiple ways. The bill creates performance-based dismissal and tenure procedures as opposed to seniority-based ones. The bill establishes a system for ranking teachers into four groups based on their teacher evaluations. Teachers may be dismissed only in the order of grouping—from the group with the worst teacher evaluations to the group with the best. The order in which teachers within one grouping are dismissed, however, is not mandated by law and may be based on seniority. The state superintendent may now suspend or revoke a teacher’s teaching certificate if the teacher receives an unsatisfactory evaluation for two or more school terms within a seven-year period.

Another major provision of the bill involves changes that make collective bargaining more public. For all school districts except Chicago, the bill requires that if an impasse is declared in negotiations between school districts and teachers’ unions, each side must make a final offer within seven days. These final offers will be posted on the Internet and made available to any media asking for them. If no agreement is reached within the public period, the teachers’ union may go on strike. In Chicago, however, the teachers’ union must now procure at least a three-fourths vote in favor of striking before a strike may proceed. This law is effective June 13, 2011. (See Public Act 97-0008.)

House Bill 1197, a trailer bill to Senate Bill 7, slightly alters the requirements for collective bargaining in Chicago. The teachers’ union still must receive a three-fourths vote in favor of striking, but only the votes of active members are to be considered in achieving the three-fourths majority. All members of the union, however, are still eligible to vote. The bill also states that teachers’ unions and school districts are allowed only in the Chicago school district to engage in bargaining over the length of the school day and year. This law is effective June 13, 2011. (See Public Act 97-0007.)

House Bill 1706 amends the School Code to allow students enrolled in special education classes to qualify more easily for home or hospital instruction. Previously students could receive home or hospital instruction only if a physician stated that they would be unable to attend school for more than two consecutive weeks. This bill allows students to qualify if their physician anticipates (rather than definitely states) that they will be unable to attend school for more than two consecutive weeks or on an “ongoing intermittent basis” (defined as absences because of a medical condition for periods of at least two days at a time for a total of ten days or more). There is no minimum number of days that a student must be absent before the student can qualify for home or hospital instruction. The instruction may start as soon as the school receives notice from the student’s physician, but it must start no later than five days after. All services required by the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) must be continued at home or in the hospital unless the IEP gets modified.

House Bill 2086 amends the School Code to allow a student who has been expelled or suspended for more than 20 days to transfer immediately to an alternative program. The bill also allows schools to require expelled or suspended students to complete the term of their expulsion or suspension in an alternative school. A student may not be denied transfer to an alternative program because of expulsion or suspension unless the student’s placement in an alternative program threatens the safety of the students or staff of the alternative program.

House Bill 3179 amends the School Code to change the definition of a chronic or habitual truant from a student who is absent without cause for 10 percent or more of the previous 180 regular attendance days to a student who is absent without cause for 5 percent or more of the previous 180 regular attendance days.

House Bill 3281 amends the School Code to allow a school to expel, suspend, and punish students for gross misconduct perpetrated via electronic means. The school may expel a student for up to two years and suspend a student for up to 10 school days if the student makes an explicit threat on the Internet against a school employee, school personnel, or another student. The website where the threat is made must be accessible in the school when the threat is made or available to third parties who work or study within school grounds when the threat is made. This is especially relevant in light of the prevalence of cyberbullying in schools.

Senate Bill 122 amends the Board of Higher Education Act to require the Board of Higher Education to track the admission, retention, and graduation statistics of students who are the first in their immediate family to attend college. The board must track these statistics for every public higher education institution in the state. These numbers will be cited in the board’s annual report to the General Assembly and the Governor.

Senate Bill 2185 creates the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Fund Commission to oversee the collection and distribution of funds earmarked for scholarships for children of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. All of the money in the fund will come from private donations. The bill also allows undocumented parents to create college savings plans for their children. This bill is a step in giving children of immigrant parents greater access to higher education.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director of the Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

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

Volume 14, Issue 14
June 22, 2011