Shriver Center: February 2005

Perspective: Bush Budget Bashes Illinois Funding on Many Fronts

2006-07-13T16:23:42Z

President Bush announced the outlines of his budget proposal for the next federal fiscal year and beyond in a speech in early February. In spite of later additional information from other parts of the administration, much of the specifics of the budget proposal are not yet known, in some cases even to the administration itself. Nevertheless, the broad contours are known, and they establish a very troubling policy direction, both because of the specifics of particular issues and because of the overall approach.

The administration’s overall approach—its attitude—above all is characterized by a carefree cost-shift from the federal government to the states and localities. This cost-shift is driven by the fact that the federal government has large new expenses related to the wars we are in, the upswing in spending on homeland security, and the increasing cost of the national debt, coupled with the fact that we also have far less money to spend due to the series of tax cuts that the administration has championed and won. Rather than increase revenues by curtailing the tax cuts, the administration proposes more tax cuts that will exacerbate the deficit, along with dramatic cuts in domestic spending, shifting a large financial burden from the federal government to the states (without actually reducing the deficit).

The social needs met by most of the spending that the president wants to cut will not magically disappear. The responsibility for addressing them is simply shifted to the states in magnitude corresponding to the federal cuts. The states will either have to raise taxes or allow the needs to go unmet. Allowing the needs to go unmet will cause a similar shift to localities—higher taxes or unmet needs. If the needs go unmet at any point, the problems they represent compound, causing heightened needs. And so forth. But the Bush administration’s attitude appears to be that that is not their affair—they want to cut taxes more than before, and they want to address the resulting, growing federal deficit by slashing spending and dumping problems on the states.
As the administration fleshes out its proposals, we can make reasonable estimates of the cost-shift described above. Some of these estimates are contained in a report released recently by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Sharon Parrott et al., “Where Would the Cuts Be made Under the President’s Budget?” (Feb. 22, 2005) (available at www.cbpp.org). The report deals only with likely cuts in “discretionary” spending programs (not including, therefore, some of the biggest potential hits to “entitlement” programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps).

The Center on Budget notes in the report that the Bush cuts in discretionary domestic programs grow over time. Together they are $18 billion in 2006, but that would grow to $66 billion in 2010. The report describes the Center on Budget’s assumptions and methodologies, and then produces state-by-state estimates of cuts in key programs. Here are some of the unhappy totals for cuts in Illinois in 2010, and over the whole 2006–2010 period:

	2010 Cuts*	Cuts from 2006-2010*
Elementary and Secondary Education (Ed. for Disadvantaged, Impact Aid, School Improvement, Special Ed)	$187.7	$477.1
Vocational and Adult Education	$49.5	$227.5
WIC nutrition program	$17.0; 23,200 fewer recipients	$23.7
HeadStart, Abused/Neglected Children	$46.6; 5,200 fewer in HeadStart	$135.0
Rental Assistance Vouchers	15,900 fewer recipients, 2010**
Child Care Assistance	23,000 fewer children served, 2009
Low Income Home Energy Assistance	$9.6	Not available
Ryan White AIDS/HIV (Title I and II)	$7.1	$20.4
Consolidation of community block grants (CDBG, CSBG, and numerous others)	$102.8	$447.2
Overall cuts in discretionary spending	$904.5	$2,900.0
Dollar amounts in millions *Estimated losses

See also Julie Strawn and Amy-Ellen Duke, Center on Law and Social Policy, “President’s Budget Sabotages Pipeline of Skilled Workers” (Feb. 22, 2005), which makes estimates just with respect to adult education and English language programs. The report estimates that Illinois in 2006 would lose over 75 percent of its funding for these programs, causing over 47,000 students, or 38 percent of the current enrollment, to lose access to a program.

As noted above, these estimates do not include any of the cuts in “entitlement programs.” The cut in Illinois under the president’s Medicaid proposal has been estimated as high as $250 million per year.

For another review of the impact of the Bush proposals on Illinois, see “Federal Budget Cuts Would Hurt Illinois Families and Children,” Voices for Illinois Children Budget and Tax Policy Initiative (February 2005), available at www.voices4kids.org.
There is much at stake for Illinois in the federal budget battle this year. The Bush administration’s apparent preference for continuation and increase of tax cuts over the programs indicated here of course creates havoc for those programs, the policies they represent, and the needs they address. And overall they represent a huge cost-shift that Illinois and its communities, already in severe financial straits, cannot afford to absorb.

John Bouman is director of advocacy at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. You can reach him at 312.263.3830 ext. 250.

2005 Final Budget and 2006 Proposed Budget Jeopardize Federal Housing Programs

2006-07-13T16:23:43Z

Advocates and housing authorities were just coming to terms with the FY 2005 budget for federal housing programs when the President’s proposed budget request for FY 2006 presented another set of drastic housing cuts. While many of the worst cuts were prevented in the final FY 2005 budget, the inadequate funding in this budget combined with the Bush administration’s planned cuts for 2006 could leave millions of families across the country without housing assistance and could drastically limit the impact of local housing and community development programs.

FY 2005 Final Budget
Due to some dogged advocacy by local leaders, housing authorities, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the FY 2005 omnibus appropriations bill passed both the House and Senate on November 20 without the administration’s proposal to deeply cut the funding for the housing choice voucher program or to convert it to a block grant program.
Congress will preserve funding for existing vouchers and provide housing authorities with funding for the cost and number of vouchers in use. This funding formula will maintain the loss of vouchers from 2004, meaning an approximate 60,000 reduction in vouchers. But because utilization rates of vouchers fell in the last year, the funding may be sufficient to support all of the vouchers currently in use.

Some housing authorities may still have to cut families from the program, shift greater rent burdens to tenants, impose minimum rents, reduce payment standards, or take other measures to curb budget deficits. Many agencies staved off funding cuts in 2004 by tapping into their reserves. This will not likely occur in 2005, since the bill directs HUD to reduce program reserves for all agencies from one month to one week by September 30, 2005. Administrative fees were cut by $10 million and funding for the Family Self-Sufficiency program was reduced by $2 million.

Housing authorities with Moving To Work Agreements, like the Chicago Housing Authority, will be funded pursuant to their agreements, though are still subject to the problematic new funding formula.

Though not ideal, this result appeared to be the best solution with an administration determined to block grant, absent any of the basic protections for families, most social programs.

Funding for the project-based Section 8 program, including Moderate Rehab contracts, increased by $227 million from FY 2004. HUD may recapture funding to amend project-based contracts or for contract administration.

Public housing capitol and operating funds received a 5% cut in funding from 2004, but $10 million of that money is earmarked for program to provide bonuses to housing authorities that move families out of the public housing program. Not surprisingly, HOPE VI, which the administration intended to cut entirely, received a huge cut in funding, from a $570 million annual allocation in 2003, a $149 million annual allocation in 2004, to $144 million allocation in 2005 through September 2006.

President’s Proposed FY 2006 Budget
While the FY 2006 proposed budget does not single out Housing Choice Vouchers, it proposes to cut at least $3 billion in funding for other HUD programs. And the administration is again trying to block grant the Housing Choice Voucher program, this time with a proposed block grant funding method which will make it easier in years to come to erode the program’s funding. HUD has also indicated that it may be proposing legislation to eliminate many of the federal rules, such as regulations requiring housing authorities to target their programs to the neediest families, and allow housing authorities to target voucher programs to more moderate-income families.

The administration requested a small increase in funding for the voucher program in 2006. Most of the increased funding will be needed to cover increased costs due to changes in the rental market and to renew vouchers issued in 2005 to replace other federal housing assistance, such as Project-based Section 8. Less than half of the money necessary to restore vouchers cut this year would be available under the proposed budget.

The Section 811 program, which provides permanent housing for people with disabilities, has been hit with the worst budget cuts, almost a 50% cut in funding. All new funding would be restricted to tenant-based rental assistance and renewal of existing subsidy contracts and could not be used to construct new housing for persons with disabilities.

Public housing programs may face cuts of $564 million. Capitol funds face a 13.6% cut from 2004 and operating funds a 4.8% cut from 2004, in spite of both programs facing deep cuts over the last several years.

The administration’s budget requested a significant decrease in funding, approximately $272 million less from 2005 equivalent to 47,000 units, for the Project-based Section 8 program. It could be either a true cut in Project-based Section 8 funding or a reflection of HUD’s anticipating roughly 47,000 units expiring from the Program.

On the other hand, the HOME investment partnerships program, which finances the development of affordable rental and home ownership housing and assists first-time homebuyers, received an increase of $81 million, though most of the money is earmarked to the down payment assistance program. In addition, the block grants to state and local governments, again providing construction dollars for rental and home ownership projects, received a $60 million cut from 2005.

The budget proposes consolidating 18 programs, including the Community Development Block Grant, used by many cities to create affordable housing, as well as support for homeless shelters, day care centers, and senior centers in poor communities, into the Department of Labor and the Department of Commerce.

This report is a summary of several Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports by Barbara Sard. For more information go to www.cbpp.org or contact Kate Walz at the Shriver Center.

Governor's Budget Proposes Full FamilyCare

2006-07-13T16:23:43Z

Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s proposed budget for state fiscal year 2006 (July 2005 through June 2006), announced on February 16, comes amid the ongoing fiscal crisis, featuring a revenue shortfall that the governor pegged at $1.1 billion and others estimate as high as $2 billion. Nevertheless, the budget proposal on health care issues contains positives for vulnerable people and families, although it also contains some targeted cuts.

FamilyCare

The governor proposes to increase the eligibility level for FamilyCare from 133 percent of the federal poverty level (133 percent is about $25,000 per year for a family of four) to 185 percent (about $35,000 per year for a family of four). The increase would be effective on January 1, 2006. This would offer eligibility potentially to about 75,000 more families.

This proposal, if it stays in the final budget, would complete the promise that the governor made in his first State of the State message two years ago to implement FamilyCare fully over three years. In that first budget, he increased eligibility from 49 percent of the poverty level to 90 percent. Last year he increased it to 133 percent (effective in September 2005). This year’s third and final increase would complete the implementation of the full program authorized by the federal government, under which the federal share of all program costs is 65 percent.

This final group of FamilyCare families will be able to take advantage of a unique “premium assistance option.” That option allows the family a choice between coverage by the state’s insurance (Medicaid) and a cash subsidy to help pay the premium for coverage by an employer-sponsored or private health insurance plan. This choice feature is one of the main reasons why insurance companies and employer groups have always supported FamilyCare.

Medicaid eligibility and rates

Like last year, the Governor’s budget proposal would hold the line on Medicaid eligibility and basic provider rates. That means that he proposes to cover all the groups the state already covers, taking nobody off insurance in order to balance the budget. And he proposes to pay the providers of health care services (hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc.) no less than he paid them last year in terms of across-the-board rates. Most other states are making deep cuts in one or both of these areas to address their budget shortfalls.

Governor Blagojevich places a high priority on health care, and his budget positions on base Medicaid and FamilyCare are substantial proof that this priority is very real. Even after factoring in the cuts summarized below, the appropriations for Medicaid and KidCare/FamilyCare will total about $500 million more next year than they did this year. Only a tiny portion of the increase is attributable to the FamilyCare implementation. Overwhelmingly that money is what is needed just to hold the line; that is, to deal with expanded enrollment among population groups that were already eligible and to account for medical inflation. The inflation in the Illinois Medicaid program is below the average of other states’ Medicaid programs, and it is no more than half of health care inflation in the larger economy.

Targeted cuts

The Governor did propose about $400 million in targeted cuts to several features of the Medicaid program. Among these proposed cuts are elimination of coverage of over-the-counter drugs (e.g., laxatives, antiallergy medications) (about $110 million); imposition of a “prior approval” requirement for all prescriptions for brand-name drugs beyond the first three in any month ($27 million); capture of savings from implementation of the federal Medicare drug benefit among people also eligible for Medicaid ($97 million); a nursing home billing change ($30 million); and a hospital rate reduction for “outlier” payments ($40 million).

Medical purchasing

The Governor also proposes to rename the Department of Public Aid as the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (DHFS). One of the new tasks he would give to the department is to oversee the overall health purchasing activities of state government, on behalf of all the health programs for state employees as well as Medicaid. The point is to use this purchasing expertise and power to achieve significant savings.

Next steps

The governor’s proposed budget will be the subject of hearings in Senate and House appropriations and revenue committees. As the session moves toward the scheduled adjournment in late May, the leaders of both houses will negotiate with the governor over the final budget. Competing proposals may emerge, and much depends upon the revenue strategies that support the spending plan. Those who support or oppose parts of the proposal should communicate that position to their representatives and senators.

For more information contact John Bouman at 312.263.3830 ext. 250.

Supporting Illinois Youth: Ensuring Success in School Act (ESSA)

2006-07-13T16:23:43Z

The Shriver Center has recently been working to promote the Ensuring Success in School Act (ESSA), soon to be introduced in the Illinois General Assembly this legislative session. ESSA is the centerpiece of the Shriver Center’s efforts to promote safety and school success for all students in Illinois, but particularly for students who are expectant parents, parents, or victims of domestic or sexual violence. Sponsored by Sen. Iris Martinez (D) in the Illinois Senate and Rep. Karen A. Yarbrough (D) in the Illinois House of Representatives, ESSA offers long-overdue help for these students. The Shriver Center urgently needs your help today to make sure ESSA becomes Illinois law!

For expecting and parenting students, school takes on new meaning and importance even as it poses greater challenges. Many young parents report great interest in completing school despite being encouraged by school personnel to drop out or transfer. Students also report that the lack of safe, appropriate, and affordable child care near their schools is an obstacle to regular attendance. For example, the Shriver Center has worked with one parenting student who was disenrolled from her school, in part for being tardy too often, who explained that she had to travel two hours by bus and train each way to and from school to drop off and pick up her young daughter from child care. Rather than forcing young parents to choose between good parenting and school success, ESSA aims to help them succeed at both.

Likewise, ESSA addresses complications that arise out of what is a growing public health concern for many young people: dating and sexual violence. Rather than ignoring these problems (which is how school administrators often react to student reports of violence), ESSA requires schools to help students obtain the assistance they need in order to stay safe and minimize the impact that violence has on their lives and their ability to succeed in school. No student should be made to endure what another Illinois youth in contact with the Shriver Center experienced after being raped by her classmate. The school that this youth attended did not appropriately handle safety issues and other concerns that arose following her rape, such as the harassment she endured from other classmates who were friends with the rapist. This youth’s family members felt they had no choice but to move away from their hometown so that their daughter could transfer to another school.

ESSA addresses these and other barriers to school success and inappropriate school responses in several ways. First, ESSA requires immediate enrollment and reenrollment for all students who are expectant parents, parents, or the victims of domestic or sexual violence. ESSA recognizes that students may be absent due to pregnancy, parenting, or conditions related to the experience of domestic or sexual violence and adds new categories to the list of valid causes for school absences. ESSA encourages schools to work with students to develop Student Success Plans and holds schools responsible for accommodating students who are expectant parents, parents, or the victims of domestic or sexual violence. Schools are also expected to provide in-school services for these students or to connect them with nonschool resources to enable school success and completion. ESSA promotes parental involvement in students’ efforts to perform well in school when such involvement does not compromise their health or safety.

ESSA contains enforcement and notice provisions to ensure that the bill’s goals are realized, as well as a requirement that school districts separately report the dropout, transfer, and graduation rates of students who are expectant parents or parents, or both, to help define the scope of the problems such students are experiencing in school.

We urgently need individual and organization endorsements of ESSA and have prepared an endorsement form that you may download at www.povertylaw.org/advocacy/essa/essa_supporter.pdf, fill out, and fax or mail to us.

To find out more about ESSA, visit our website at www.povertylaw.org/advocacy/essa.htm, where you may read and download fact sheets about this bill, an endorsement sign-up sheet, and a growing list of ESSA supporters. Or contact Shriver Center attorneys Wendy Pollack (312.263.3830 ext. 238) or Aleeza Strubel (312.263.3830 ext. 229).

Public Benefits Brochure for Victims of Domestic Violence Now Available Online

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

Domestic violence can stand in the way of a person’s ability to achieve economic independence by interfering with work, job training, or education. In order to support the efforts of victims and survivors of domestic violence who are trying to become self-sufficient, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law has created a brochure, Public Benefits in Illinois for Victims and Survivors of Domestic Violence. The brochure serves as a quick guide to some of the resources available to domestic violence victims and survivors through the Illinois Departments of Human Services (IDHS) and Public Aid (IDPA).

Public Benefits in Illinois for Victims and Survivors of Domestic Violence highlights special rules and exceptions for domestic violence victims within current IDHS and IDPA programs including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, and Medicaid. For example, the brochure explains how a caretaker and child made homeless by physical abuse may apply for Crisis Assistance. The brochure also gives information for noncitizen domestic-violence victims who may be seeking various forms of aid or medical assistance or both. The brochure also describes how a TANF and Medicaid recipient in a domestic violence situation may claim good cause for noncooperation with child support enforcement efforts if cooperation would endanger the recipient or her children or both.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack (312.263.3830 ext. 238) or Aleeza Strubel (312.263.3830 ext. 229).

Service Delivery Barriers Restrict Access to Income Supports

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

Nearly half a million working families in Illinois, or 12.5 percent of the population, live at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty line ($23,505 for a family of three). In recent years, Illinois has been successful at maintaining and expanding various income support programs to assist the working poor—such as child care, food stamps, medical assistance programs including KidCare and FamilyCare, and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cash assistance. Despite these successes, problems with the local service delivery system continue to impose massive barriers that unfairly restrict access, leave programs underutilized, and burden the state with inefficient processes.

Based on the assumption that low-income persons are not employed, many of the policies and procedures in place at Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) local offices are outdated and do not reflect the current realities of the working poor population. Also, business practices at local IDHS offices are crippled by the shortage of staff and the lack of efficient technology. As a result, eligible working persons and their families are prevented or delayed from receiving support.

Barriers to income support programs impede the progress of Illinois’s working poor as well as the prosperity of Illinois families. Communities and our state as a whole also suffer when these barriers prevent full utilization of available financial resources. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that every $5 spent on food stamps has an economic impact equal to $9 in the community through additional spending and job creation.

Two bills currently before the Illinois General Assembly, H.B. 1375 and H.B. 2373, address these barriers to help ensure that Illinois’s human services delivery system is operating in a way that maximizes efficiency and available resources to deliver services effectively.

H.B. 1375 offers solutions that build on existing systems and infrastructure, both within the local office and by leveraging the relationships that community-based organizations (CBOs) have with the working poor. It would create a multiyear process for the establishment of partnerships between IDHS and CBOs to initiate outreach and application assistance with IDHS eligible clients. H.B. 1375 would also streamline eligibility documentation requirements across many public benefit programs.
H.B. 2373 addresses simplification of policy and procedure at IDHS local offices to take advantage of the flexibility allowed under federal law. Some simplification provisions included in the bill: annual food stamp redetermination for clients with earned income; streamlined application, redetermination, and documentation requirements; implementation of a “no wrong door” policy where cases would be handled at the IDHS local office most convenient for the client; and a process to develop streamlined income counting rules across benefit programs.

Ensuring access and utilization of income support programs will enable the working poor to maintain employment and make the transition out of poverty possible.

For more information, contact Gina Guillemette at Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, 773.728.5960 ext. 283.

Housing Matters! Online

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

The Shriver Center, in collaboration with several other housing rights groups, has launched an e-advocacy website to mobilize Illinois residents and help them make their voices heard on important affordable housing issues. The site—HousingMatters.net—enables individuals to get involved and play an integral role in the policy process through quick, effective, and direct contact with decision makers.

Housing Matters! gives vital information, updates, and alerts to its members on both state and federal housing issues. Through e-alerts and form letters, it allows the constituents of elected representatives to voice their support of positive housing legislation or opposition to detrimental policy making. With the legislative session just beginning, and important issues such as protecting individuals from source-of-income discrimination and creating the state’s first rental housing support program moving in Springfield, this mobilizing advocacy tool could not have come at a better time.

Signing up as a member takes only a couple of minutes, and responding to e-alerts is quick and easy. Individuals register with their home address and information, so that their elected officials are notified of their affordable housing concerns as constituents. Members should expect only one or two e-alerts a month. To sign up as a member of Housing Matters! and take action to support quality, fair, accessible, and affordable housing in Illinois, visit http://housingmatters.net.

For more information on Housing Matters!, call Melissa Nalani Ross at 312.263.3830 ext. 247.

Housing Advocacy Shortfall Reported

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

A committee of bar associations and foundations led by the Lawyers Trust Fund last month released a long-awaited study on the unmet legal needs of low-income families in Illinois. The study, entitled “The Legal Aid Safety Net: A Report on the Legal Needs of Low-Income Illinoisans,” covers a variety of topics including consumer rights, public benefits, family law, health, employment, education, disability, immigration, and housing. It documents particular problems faced by low-income households in each topic and recommends improving access to legal services more generally.

Based on a telephone survey of a cross-section of 1,645 low-income respondents throughout the state, the study concludes that housing problems make up 17.8 percent of the total legal problems faced by low-income households. Of the families who reported problems regarding their rental housing, low-income renters in particular reported serious housing conditions (34.4 percent), difficulty in collecting their security deposits (18.7 percent), defending against evictions (14 percent), and discrimination, including against families with housing choice vouchers (8.5 percent), among other issues.

Low-income homeowners reported serious problems as well. Of those who reported housing problems, 41 percent reported difficulty refinancing, including predatory lending. Twenty-one percent reported home repair issues. Just over 16 percent had problems with property taxes, and 10 percent faced difficulties related to foreclosure.

Just over 44 percent of those families who sought legal assistance for their housing problems were turned away. Equally troubling, the study found that low-income families more often attempted to fix problems on their own, rather than seeking legal assistance in the first place. Families with housing problems sought attorneys in less than 20 percent of their cases, eschewing legal assistance even when facing the devastating effects of eviction (83.3 percent of respondents sought no assistance) or serious conditions (76.7 percent). In all, the study found that in nearly 90 percent of cases, low-income families with housing problems received no legal help.

In order to address this gap in housing advocacy—and similar gaps in other issue areas—the study recommends helping meet the unmet legal need in Illinois. First, it suggests that access to a full range of legal aid options be improved, including by increasing awareness of legal protection provisions and legal options, and by improving access to information. Second, it recommends an increase in the resources available to support legal aid and access-to-justice initiatives in Illinois. Third, it seeks to strengthen the existing legal aid system, both by recruiting and retaining more legal aid lawyers and by improving the infrastructure supporting them. Fourth, it suggests that legal aid providers reassess their case priorities and that they collaborate with private nonprofit organizations to fill gaps in advocacy through strategies unavailable to legal aid organizations (such as filing class-action lawsuits to make a broader impact).

The study makes recommendations to the private bar as well. It encourages pro bono participation by private attorneys in legal aid activities; it reminds private attorneys to volunteer their time and instructs legal aid providers to foster appropriate pro bono opportunities. It also instructs the Illinois Coalition for Equal Justice to coordinate the implementation of these recommendations, with collaboration, support, and staffing from bar associations and foundations.

The study provides a wealth of information for those interested in the unmet legal needs of the community. The complete study can be found at www.ltf.org/legalneeds.htm.

For more information, contact Raj Nayak at 312.263.3830 ext. 243.

Join the Fight Against Social Security Privatization

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

Why were over 80 people rallying in front of Charles Schwab on Valentine’s Day? They were there to tell Charles Schwab and the Bush administration that there should be no “sweetheart” deals when it comes to social security. The Bush administration plans to privatize social security—encouraged by brokerage firms (such as Charles Schwab), which stand to reap massive profits from the management of private accounts that will result from social security’s privatization.

The next step in the campaign to stop the privatization of social security will be a town hall meeting with Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, and Rep. Bobby Rush on Monday, February 28, at 10:00 a.m. at 25 East Pearson Street, 15th Floor. Please come and bring a friend to tell our representatives that social security should not be privatized.

A diverse group attended the Valentine’s Day rally, including members of AFSCME Council 31, Illinois Alliance for Retired American, Access Living, the Illinois AFL-CIO, Unite-Here, the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees, Metro Seniors in Action, Citizen Action, and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.

One of the organizers of the rally, Citizen Action’s Hannah Lehman, said, “Social security is the most effective government program in our nation’s history. It provides benefits for over 47 million Americans. The Bush administration’s plan to privatize the program will effectively end what’s been a public trust between children, workers, and retirees.”

Save Our Security Illinois, the coalition organizing these events, is seeking more organizations to join the rapidly expanding campaign. To join on or to help out, e contact Hannah Lehman of Citizen Action at 312.427.2114 ext.400.

Regisratration Begins for National Lawyers Guild Conference

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

The National Lawyers Guild is holding a conference, entitled “Forward! Strategies for Social and Legal Change,” on March 4–6 in Madison, Wisconsin. Conference topics will include

Innovative approaches to prisoner reentry;
Responding to the increased detention of immigrants;
Defending equality in a time of backlash: gay rights advocacy and the marriage debate;
Challenging corporate personhood, realizing democracy;
Rethinking labor law: innovative strategies for building labor’s power; and
The new movement for election reform.

John Bouman, director of advocacy at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, will be a panelist on lawyering and community organizing. Amy Goodman, host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, will be the keynote speaker. For more information and to register for the conference, go to www.nlg.org/chapters/MWRegionalBrochure.pdf.

Appointments to Adequate Health Care Task Force Announced

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the leaders of the Illinois House and Senate have announced most of their appointments to the task force charged with developing a health care access plan for all Illinoisans. The Health Care Justice Act, Public Act 93-0973, which passed in the 2004 session of the General Assembly, sets the policy goal for Illinois “to insure that all residents have access to quality health care at costs that are affordable.” The appointments to the task force are the first step toward achieving that goal.

The law directs Governor Blagojevich to appoint five members and directs the majority and minority leaders of each house of the General Assembly to appoint six. Between now and November 2005, the task force, formally called the Adequate Health Care Task Force, will hold hearings in each of Illinois’s 19 Congressional Districts to gather information from the public to assist it in drafting a health care access plan for all Illinois residents. The task force is charged with developing that plan by March 15, 2006, for consideration by the General Assembly. Under the law, the General Assembly is “strongly encouraged” to act on the task force’s recommendations or another plan by December 31, 2006.

Governor Blagojevich has announced three of his five appointments: Jim Duffett, Campaign for Better Health Care, Urbana; Jan Daker, United Congregations of Metro-East, Belleville; and Tim Carrigan, staff nurse at University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago.

Senate Pres. Emil Jones has announced all six of his appointments: Sen. Donne Trotter, Chicago; Sen. Iris Martinez, Chicago; Margaret Davis, Health Care Consortium of Illinois, Chicago; Colleen Kennedy, St. Francis Blue Island Hospital, Blue Island; Dr. Quentin Young, Health and Medicine Research Group and Physicians for a National Health Program, Chicago; and Robyn Gabel, Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coalition, Chicago.

Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson also has announced all six of his appointments: Gregory S. Smith, Group Marketing Services Inc., Lincoln; Catherine Bresler, Morton Grove; James M. Moore, OSG Healthcare System, Peoria; Pamela D. Mitroff, Wheaton; Kenneth Smithmier, Decatur Memorial Hospital; and Wayne Lerner, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago.

House Speaker Michael Madigan has announced three of his appointments: Dr. Arthur G. Jones, Lawndale Christian Health Center, Chicago; Dr. Anthony Barbato, River Forest; and Dr. Joseph Orthoefer, Rockford.

House Minority Leader Tom Cross has announced all six of his appointments: Ken Robbins, Illinois Hospital Association, Naperville; Joe Roberts, insurance representative/agent, Sandwich; Mike Murphy, Unicare, Springfield; Representative Elizabeth Coulson, Glenview; Andrew Melczer, Illinois State Medical Society, Chicago; and Dr. Craig Bakes, Illinois State Medical Society.

For more information, contact the Campaign for Better Health Care at 312.913.9449, or Margaret Stapleton at the Shriver Center, 312.368.3327.

Public Housing Residents to Present Complaints to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

Families living in the Cabrini-Green development of the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) are among the groups invited to present their complaints to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at a hearing on March 4 in Washington, D.C. Together these groups claim that the United States is illegally demolishing low-income housing, thus violating their human rights.

Carol Steele, president of Chicago’s Coalition to Protect Public Housing, will represent CHA residents at the hearing and challenge the public housing demolition caused by the CHA’s “Plan for Transformation.” The plan will demolish over 21,000 housing units and replace them with just over 6,000 units in mixed-income developments. The coalition alleges that the net loss of units is a prime example of the nation’s diminishing commitment to human rights generally, and especially the government’s obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to adequate housing, as established by the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the Charter of the Organization of American States, and the American Convention on Human Rights.

In requesting the hearing, the coalition joined with numerous other antipoverty and human rights advocates, including the National Center on Homelessness and Poverty, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union. The March 4 hearing is the first time that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has granted a U.S.-based organization a hearing on the issue of housing.

For more information, contact Deidre Brewster of the Coalition to Protect Public Housing at 312.280.2298.

Let's Get It Right! Red Tape, Burdensome Documentation Requirements, and Understaffed IDHS Offices Jeopardize Food Stamp Recipients' Benefits

2006-07-13T16:23:44Z

The Shriver Center is concerned about the increasingly difficult process of recertifying for Food Stamps. All Food Stamp recipients must undergo recertification at a minimum of once per year. For many, however, this process occurs more frequently because clients are required to demonstrate continued eligibility for Food Stamps. (See Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) Policy Manual, PM 19-03-06.)

IDHS customers report a range of problems tied to recertification—problems that have resulted in delayed Food Stamps or, worse still, their cancellation.

One homeless customer at the West Suburban local office contacted the Shriver Center after he discovered that his Food Stamps were not added to his Link card in November 2004, even though he had completed an application for Food Stamps in order to recertify his eligibility. The IDHS employee who gave him the Food Stamp application to complete did not tell him that he also needed to complete an in-person interview as part of the recertification process. Instead IDHS sent him a letter through the mail informing him of the date and time of his scheduled in-person interview. Since he is homeless, he uses the address of the West Suburban local office as his mailing address and stops by the office periodically to pick up any IDHS mail “delivered” to him.

In this instance the customer did not receive the IDHS letter scheduling his in-person interview in time to attend this appointment, and his benefits were subsequently cancelled. The Shriver Center intervened on his behalf and noted that his homelessness and the IDHS’ failure to inform him at the time he completed his application of the in-person interview requirement unjustifiably resulted in the termination of his Food Stamps. Michael Jacobs, the West Suburban local office administrator, saw to it that Food Stamps were retroactively reinstated onto the customer’s Link card when he learned of the reason for their termination.

Another Shriver Center client, who is a customer at the Englewood local office, has had a hard time receiving Food Stamps continuously for herself and her family. Since this customer works, she has to recertify her Food Stamp eligibility more frequently—a requirement that is burdensome for IDHS and the customer alike. (See IDHS Policy Manual, PM 19-03-02.) On several occasions the caseworker’s supervisor at the Englewood local office has asked this customer to bring in documentation of her income (pay stubs) and proof of her expenses (rent receipts and utility bills). She has always complied with these requests. Despite making copies of her documents, the Englewood local office has repeatedly lost her paperwork. Each time this happens, the Food Stamps are delayed and the customer is unable to buy food for her family.

The Shriver Center has intervened several times, and each time the Food Stamps have been reinstated. This does not, however, allay the initial hardship that our client and her family have to bear whenever the Food Stamps are not available in a timely manner. When asked why our client has had so many interruptions in her benefits, an Englewood local office administrator explained that there are simply not enough employees at this office to handle the office’s volume of cases properly. Papers are lost, delays are incurred, and customers like our client suffer the consequences. Staff shortage is not a problem just at the Englewood local office. Many of the IDHS offices are insufficiently staffed to assist their customers in a timely and responsible manner. This lack of employees must be addressed if the state aims to fulfill its commitment to aid those Illinois citizens who are in need of and eligible for IDHS assistance.

The Schaumburg Township’s General Assistance office referred a third client to the Shriver Center after the Northern local office mishandled her Food Stamp recertification. Because this client is disabled, she is allowed to complete her Food Stamp interviews over the telephone. (See IDHS Policy Manual, PM 19-03-06-b and 02-06-01-b.) She received a letter on December 2, 2004, from IDHS informing her that she needed to complete a Food Stamp recertification by January 16, 2005, or her benefits would be terminated. She called her caseworker to schedule an appointment but was unable to reach her. Our client reports that she then called her caseworker and other Northern local office staff, including the caseworker’s supervisor, an administrator, and an intake worker, every day after she received the letter from IDHS during December and January but was unable to reach her caseworker to discuss what was needed for the recertification or to complete the required interview.

Eventually, on January 24, the caseworker returned our client’s telephone call and told her what documentation she needed to submit in order to complete the recertification. The caseworker said that the paperwork had to be submitted by January 27 to avoid an interruption of benefits. Our client faxed all the documents to the Northern local office and kept copies of the fax receipts. Nonetheless, her Food Stamps were terminated because IDHS claimed that it had not received all the necessary paperwork. It took a phone call from the Shriver Center before the Northern local office located our client’s faxed signature page and finally processed her application.

The Shriver Center followed up with Sandra Wolf, director of welfare services at the Schaumburg Township General Assistance office, after the client’s Food Stamps were reinstated. Wolf reports that she has heard many complaints about the Northern local office, particularly that clients’ phone calls are not returned and that after clients have mailed documents to the office, IDHS employees report never having received them. According to Wolf, “clients are very frustrated” by these experiences.

The Shriver Center is concerned about these reports of difficulties with the Food Stamp recertification process. Food Stamps provide vital support to the poor and working poor in Illinois. For customers who rely on Food Stamps every month, a disruption in receiving these benefits is not just an inconvenience; it is a true hardship. In response to these and other complaints about onerous documentation problems and difficulties in delivering and receiving public benefits, the Shriver Center, together with Heartland Alliance for Human Rights and Human Needs, has drafted legislation, House Bill 2373, to simplify the application process. H.B. 2373 includes simplification provisions such as an annual Food Stamp recertification for clients with earned income and streamlined application, recertification, and documentation requirements. To read more about this bill and another effort to maximize the efficient delivery of human services in Illinois, see “Service delivery barriers restrict access to income supports” in this issue.

If you or someone you know has had difficulty recertifying Food Stamp eligibility, contact Shriver Center Attorney Aleeza Strubel at 312.263.3830 ext. 229.