Shriver Center: August 2005

Are KidCare and FamilyCare Welfare? Let's Have a Real Debate on Important Questions

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

Those who opposed the KidCare and FamilyCare expansions have begun to criticize them as “welfare” programs, effectively killing debate on the merits of expanding health care coverage in the state. Illinois has expanded the FamilyCare and KidCare health insurance programs to over 300,000 additional working families in the past three state budgets. The supporters of these changes assert that they are excellent examples of government doing important work and doing it well. This is so because the children and adults in these programs will be healthier, better students, more employable and more productive; the families will have less medical debt; and health care providers will have less uncompensated care. This is wise policy that probably also saves the state money in the long run. But, to sweeten it further, the federal government pays for two-thirds of the program costs with money that Illinois would lose to other states if we did not use it for this purpose.

Both KidCare and FamilyCare started under Republican administrations and experienced significant expansion under Democratic ones. The ongoing support for the programs comes from both parties. So thankfully they have not usually been partisan issues.

The current opponents of KidCare and FamilyCare appear to realize a central fact about the programs: most of the general public of all political stripes strongly support the programs and other expansions of health coverage. So, instead of criticizing the expansion of “health coverage,” they have taken to criticizing the expansion of “welfare.” When pressed, they admit that they are talking about FamilyCare and KidCare (which overwhelmingly serve working families). When asked to explain how those programs constitute “welfare,” the opponents state that it is because the programs are funded by the “government” and thus promote “dependence.” End of conversation?

If there is opposition to government funding of health care or anything else, there is an important conversation to be had about it. Is it a good use of tax dollars? Can the government do it well enough? What is the appropriate role of the private sector? Can it be done better or more efficiently? Is it appropriate for government ever to have a role in health care? Is health care a high-enough priority to demand its current budget share given the state’s budget crisis? Is “dependence” the right way to characterize people’s use of government services, and, if so, is that always necessarily a bad thing? Is avoidance of this kind of “dependence” more important than providing access to health care to hundreds of thousands of working families and children?

Apparently the opponents of FamilyCare and KidCare do not want that conversation. Instead, this appears to be an attempt to use a hot political code word—“welfare”—to gain a perceived political advantage. It is not meant to provoke conversation or debate. It is meant to close off conversation and debate, to criticize policies of a political opponent without actually having to talk about the policies on the merits.

That is too bad because access to health care is one of the most important conversations of our times, a prime subject to hear about from our potential next governors. Perhaps more important, the candidates’ general attitudes about the role of government need discussion—not just the role but also the whole notion of whether government does any good at all. There is a strong and destructive current in American public discourse that anything involving government is automatically bad, inefficient, and ineffective and therefore presumptively to be opposed. This dismissive attitude fosters a near perfect disconnect in the public’s mind between taxes and the government services that they fund. In this current of public discourse, taxes are “bad” because they fund “government,” and that is just about all that needs to be said. But there is a glaring contradiction: strong majorities of voters want government (or somebody) to provide important services such as health care and agree that many of the services provided by government are necessary or desirable for quality of life.

A debate about the proper government role in health care is needed right now, as is a debate about the proper role of government, period. Government does itself no favors when there are stories of corruption or bureaucratic failures. But it is nevertheless important to maintain respect for the important things that government does well, or is best positioned to do. Debate about how government should do things better or more efficiently or whether government should stop doing certain things altogether is part of this discussion. A candidate is not engaged in good faith in important public discourse by just calling things by highly charged or coded names. To call something “welfare,” or to call it “government,” is just to call it a name. And so what? Neither concept is inherently good or bad. And so let’s have real conversation and debate among our potential governors regarding KidCare, FamilyCare, and the role of government in health care. Indeed, let’s talk openly about the role of government in anything at all. How much of a particular service (such as health care) is needed, how much does it cost and how do we pay for it, is it efficient, can it be done better inside or outside of government, is it a priority, and what are the candidate’s intentions for acting (or not) on these issues?

Shriver Center Publishes Special Clearinghouse Review: Our Commitment to Youth

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

Just nineteen, a high school dropout, homeless, unemployed, pregnant, and battling mental illness, this adolescent and millions of others living in poverty in this country face daunting challenges. Her story not just heart-wrenching tale of disadvantage, but it is meant to inspire action. “Our Commitment to Youth,” the July-August special issue of Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy is a call action to advocates, policy makers, and others willing accept responsibility for ensuring a brighter future for youth in poverty. Published by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Clearinghouse Review is the nation’s premier journal on poverty law and policy.

The special issue features a series of in-depth articles and advocacy strategies by legal advocates from across the nation. “Advocates around the country are doing valuable work on these and many other youth-related issues, and the articles in this special issue of Clearinghouse Review are examples of such work, writes Rep. George Miller (D-CA), author of the special issue cover letter. “Examining the ways in which the foster care, juvenile justice, and health care systems are failing to serve our youth adequately and the steps that we can take to correct these deficiencies—all topics addressed in this significant Review issue—are vital to our nation’s efforts to improve the lives of our youth,” he wrote.

“We hope this issue helps advocates and policy makers fulfill those responsibilities for America’s young people,” says Wendy Pollack, senior attorney with the Shriver Center and co-author of two articles in the special issue. “Through this Review issue, we hope to engage the minds and hearts of advocates and policy makers across the country to act to end poverty among America’s young people.”

For more information or to order this special issue, please contact Nancy Carey at 312.263.3830 ext. 223.

Community Reinvestment Act Weakened by New Rule Changes

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

Three of the four federal banking regulators recently voted for rule changes that will weaken the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Over 12,000 submitted comments opposed them. The rule changes passed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve Board affect banks with $250 million to $1 billion in assets, or what are now considered “intermediate small banks.” Another rule passed by the fourth regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), raises the asset limit for small banks to $1 billion without requiring any kind of community development test.

Intermediate small banks will no longer be evaluated under the more stringent large-bank lending, investment, and service tests, but neither will they be graded entirely under the simpler small-bank evaluation. The small-bank lending test as well as a new, flexible community development test will evaluate intermediate small banks. The community development test will examine community development loans, qualified investments, and community development services.

Intermediate small banks will not be collecting data or reporting to the public on the distribution of small-business and small-farm loans. While banks generally agree that this will reduce the reporting burden placed on them, community organizations are concerned about the lack of access to the lending information of these banks. Studies show that in the past intermediate small banks generally made more loans in these categories than large banks.

Because mainstream financial institutions traditionally underserve low-income communities, these population groups may have no option but to use alternatives such as check cashers. Such alternatives are extremely costly and offers customers no opportunities to save money and accumulate assets. This is where the CRA comes in. The CRA tests evaluate and grade banks on lending and community development services in low-income communities. The CRA encourages financial institutions to help low-income individuals and communities achieve their financial goals.

Financial Links for Low-Income People (FLLIP), which is coordinated by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, has used the CRA to create many partnerships between community organizations and financial institutions to deliver financial education classes. These banks will still receive credit for these partnerships under the new community development test.

For more information, visit: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/bcreg/2005/20050719/attachment.pdf

Estate Tax in Danger of Repeal

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

When the U.S. Senate returns on September 6, it will be tackling the permanent repeal of the estate tax., Often referred to by its opponents as the “death tax,” the estate tax currently taxes estates valued over $1 million when they are bequeathed to an heir. As part of President Bush’s 2001 tax-cut plan, the estate tax is set to phase out in 2010. In 2006 the tax will apply only to estates valued over $2 million, in 2009 the level rises to $3.5 million, and in 2010 there will be no estate tax at all. This past April the House passed a bill repealing the tax permanently after 2009. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the federal government would lose $750 billion in revenue from a repeal of the estate tax over the next ten years.

Opponents of the estate tax cite small farmers as the main reason that the tax should be repealed. They say that often the tax creates such a large burden for the heirs of family farms that the recipients have to sell off their land to pay the tax, effectively ending the tradition of family farms in the United States.

The facts tell a different story. The Congressional Budget Office recently conducted a study of tax returns from 1999 and 2000 and found that with today’s $2 million exemption from the estate tax, only 123 farmers would have had to pay the tax. Of those, 15 farmers would not have been able to afford the tax with their liquid assets.

Furthermore, the estate tax offers an incentive for the wealthy to make charitable contributions at the time of their death since those contributions are tax-deductible and reduce the estate taxes they owe. Without the estate tax, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that charities and nonprofit organizations would lose between $13 billion and $25 billion per year.

United for a Fair Economy has put out a call to preserve the estate tax. To add your name to those supporting this tax on the richest 2 percent of Americans, go to https://faireconomy.org/join/et-call-rw.html. For more information, contact Yuri Gottesman at 312.368.1033.

Governor Signs Five New Child Support Laws

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

At the bill signing held at the Chicago offices of the Division of Child Support Enforcement, Governor Rod Blagojevich praised the work of the child support staff and hailed several non-legislative initiatives that have improved Illinois child support performance in the past two and a half years. The governor signed five bills into law to strengthen the Illinois child support enforcement program.

House Bill 783 allows non-custodial parents to make child support payments at currency exchanges. The change makes it easier for non-custodial parents without checking accounts to make their child support payments. The currency exchanges will forward the payments and case identifying information to the State Disbursement Unit for effective delivery to the custodial parent. This law was sponsored by: Reps. Cynthia Soto (D), Karen A. Yarbrough (D), Michelle Chavez (D), Maria Antonia Berrios (D), Edward J. Acevedo (D), Richard T. Bradley (D), and Sen. Iris Y. Martinez (D). It went into effect on June 30, 2005, and is now Public Act 94-0087.

House Bill 785 allows the child support agency to serve notice that it is providing child support services to the parents in a child support case and to receive notice of subsequent actions in the case. This change will help avoid confusion by having the child support agency aware of actions in child support cases. This law was sponsored by: Reps. Cynthia Soto (D), Patricia R. Bellock (R), Eileen Lyons (R), and Sen. Iris Martinez (D). It takes effect January 1, 2006, and is Public Act 94-0088.

Senate Bill 0095 provides for interest payments on unpaid maintenance obligations (alimony) in divorce cases the same as for unpaid child support obligations.. This law was sponsored by: Sens. Susan Garrett (D), Jacqueline Y. Collins (D), Carol Ronen (D), and Reps. Patricia Reid Lindner (R), Patricia Bellock (R), Jack D. Franks (D) and Linda Chapa LaVia (D). It takes effect January 1, 2006, and is Public Act 94-0089.

Senate Bill 452 simplifies the calculation and distribution of interest on unpaid child support and ensures that the collections of interest are paid to the family first. This law was sponsored by: Sens. M. Maggie Crotty (D), Jacqueline Collins (D), Pamela J. Althoff (R), and Reps. Patricia Reid Lindner (R), Jack Franks (D) and Linda Chapa LaVia (D). It takes effect January 1, 2006, and is Public Act 94-0090.

Senate Bill 955 increases the options available to the state child support agency for serving notices on non-custodial parents in administrative child support cases by using of licensed private process servers. This law was sponsored by: Sens. Kwame Raoul (D), Emil Jones Jr. (D), and Reps. Lovana Jones (D), Cynthia Soto (D), Barbara Flynn Currie (D), Monique D. Davis (D) and Richard T. Bradley (D). It went into effect June 30, 2005, and is Public Act 94-0092.

At the bill signing ceremony, the Governor hailed the launch of the Deadbeat Parents Web site, which identifies parents who owe more than $5,000 in back support. He also recognized the improvements in operating the New Hire Directory, which establishes a hotline for employers and provides training materials for them. Both initiatives are aimed at improving child support services and collections. According to the Governor, Illinois collected a record-breaking $1 billion in child support this past year.

For more information, contact Margaret Stapleton at the Shriver Center, 312.368.3327.

Let's Get It Right! Domestic Violence Victims Report Requests for Crisis Assistance Still Not Processed on Time

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

Recent reports from victims of domestic violence and their advocates suggest that several Chicago-area offices of the Illinois Department of Human Services are still not processing requests for Crisis Assistance in a timely manner despite clear policy requirements that aim to ensure that they do so. As the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law reported in this column in June 2004, Crisis Assistance is a little known and underutilized program that provides limited cash grants to recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and to applicants who meet the TANF eligibility requirements. Crisis Assistance aims to alleviate the hardships suffered by families that lose their homes either through natural disaster, fire, or, in some cases, as the result of domestic violence. Grants made through the Crisis Assistance program can be used to cover part of the costs of obtaining replacement furniture, clothing, household supplies, and food, among other necessities.

While Crisis Assistance can offer meaningful financial support to help a victim of domestic violence get back on her feet, not all victims of domestic violence are eligible for Crisis Assistance. To meet the criteria for Crisis Assistance on the basis of domestic violence, a TANF applicant or TANF recipient who is homeless must have fled her home, with her children, in order to escape an abuser who remained in the home. (See IDHS Policy Manual 06-03-01.) A victim of domestic violence who is already homeless or who never lived with her abuser is most likely ineligible for Crisis Assistance.

For Crisis Assistance to provide assistance when it is needed most, the department’s own rules require staff to process Crisis Assistance applications and issue Crisis Assistance grants on an expedited time frame. (See IDHS Policy Manual 06-03-01-c, 17-02-01.) To start the process, Crisis Assistance applicants must file a written request for assistance with the department. (See IDHS Policy Manual 06-03-00.) Crisis Assistance applicants who are not already receiving TANF must file an application for TANF at that time as well. Once a written request for Crisis Assistance is made, the department must approve or deny that request within five workdays. If the Crisis Assistance request is approved, the payment must be applied to the applicant’s LINK card within two workdays from the date of the decision. (See IDHS Policy Manual 17-02-01.) For TANF applicants, a decision on the TANF application should be made within this shortened time frame as well. (See IDHS Policy Manual 06-03-01-c.) If a TANF applicant is approved for both Crisis Assistance and TANF, the date of decision on the TANF application is the beginning date for cash eligibility. (See IDHS Policy Manual 17-02-01.) Unfortunately, recent reports suggest that several Chicago-area local offices of the Department of Human Services are not sticking to the strict time limits for processing Crisis Assistance applications.

The Shriver Center recently assisted several residents of Rainbow House, a shelter for domestic violence victims and their children, whose Crisis Assistance applications were not processed in a timely manner. Three Rainbow House residents applied for Crisis Assistance at the Western Local Office and did not receive decisions on their applications within the required five-day period. Another Rainbow House resident applied for Crisis Assistance at the Roseland Local Office, which also delayed processing her request. A fourth Rainbow House resident experienced similar delays with a Crisis Assistance application at the Northern Local Office. In each case a Shriver Center attorney or paralegal contacted the local office staff to ask why the cases were not processed in a timely manner. We were dismayed to learn that there were no good explanations for why these cases were mishandled and that the biggest barrier to obtaining Crisis Assistance appeared to be a lack of understanding of the strict time frame for handling these applications on the part of department staff. In fact, the local office administrator at Roseland conceded that her staff was largely unfamiliar with the Crisis Assistance program and that they did not realize that they needed to process the Rainbow House resident’s Crisis Assistance application within five workdays. Similarly managers at the Western Local Office acknowledged that several recent Crisis Assistance applications fell through the cracks and as a result were not processed in the five-day window. Although the administrators at Roseland and Western were responsive to the Shriver Center’s inquiries and, when pressed to do so, have tried to ensure that the cases that we called to their attention were processed, we have not received any response to our request for an explanation from the administrator at the Northern Local Office. Furthermore, despite the Western Local Office’s best intentions, at least one of the cases has still not been processed.

The Shriver Center encourages victims of domestic violence who are in need of financial support and who already receive TANF or who are eligible to receive TANF to apply for Crisis Assistance despite these difficulties. The program is designed to offer the financial support to offset the losses suffered when a victim leaves her home to escape abuse. Additional applications will expose more department staff to the program and the crucial support that it can offer. To try to ensure proper processing of Crisis Assistance applications, victims and their advocates should prepare a short letter explaining the basis for the application and citing the relevant portions of the department’s policy manual. This may help caseworkers know who is eligible for Crisis Assistance and how these requests must be processed. To make it easier for victims of domestic violence to apply for Crisis Assistance, the Shriver Center has prepared a sample letter requesting Crisis Assistance; the letter can be tailored for an individual applicant. A copy of the sample letter may be downloaded from http://www.povertylaw.org/advocacy/dv_resources/dv_resources.htm.

If you or someone you know is having trouble obtaining Crisis Assistance, please contact Jennifer Lee at 312.263.3830 ext. 237 or Wendy Pollack at 312.263.3830 ext. 238.

Shriver Center Responds to a Report Released by CHA's Independent Monitor

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

Editor’s Note: This statement is a reprint of a letter submitted to the Chicago Tribune in response to their article (“Report Hits CHA for Losing Residents, June 22,2005 ) on a CHA report released by Independent Monitor, Rita Fry.

Implicit in the recent report by Rita Fry, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) independent monitor, is an important question: Why do redeveloped public housing units stand vacant while thousands of families wait in line to return? Fry confirms some troubling patterns, including that the CHA has lost track of many families who were displaced when their buildings were destroyed. However, the report offers an opportunity to reexamine another cause of this incongruity: CHA has set inflexible screening criteria that block many of those seeking to return to redeveloped housing. CHA’s criteria present hurdles that would be unrealistic even for many middle-income families and that are prohibitive for former public housing families to whom CHA has promised a right to return.

CHA is right to have screening criteria but wrong to make them inflexible. The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law has long advocated work requirements that are more flexible than CHA’s rigid 30-hour rule, and for screening criteria that are actually relevant to what makes a good tenant. The road to employment is not always smooth. Acquiring a safe, habitable home is often a first step toward getting and maintaining work. Furthermore, CHA’s credit determinations should be based on a family’s rental history, not their unpaid credit card debt—a problem shared by most Americans unfortunately.

We see public housing as a work support, not solely as a reward for meeting exacting, even arbitrary goals set by a distant agency.

CHA should look to its own experience for an example of the right approach. At the Henry Horner Homes, CHA emphasized work supports rather than strict requirements. As a result, Horner works as a true mixed-income development. The successful Horner approach was touted as a model by the Government Accountability Office in 2003 and by the Chicago Neighborhood Development Association in 2005.

Last month Chief Executive Officer Terry Peterson promised that CHA was “going to keep our word,” that “[r]esidents are going to move out, but we’re going to make sure they move back.” While we applaud the promise, we urge CHA to act truly on its commitment to displaced residents as it did at Horner. Otherwise Chicago will miss the greatest opportunity that the Plan for Transformation has to offer: support for those trying to work for a living and move permanently out of poverty.

William Wilen
Director of Housing Litigation
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

The Victims' Economic Security and Safety Act: Training for Survivors, Advocates, and Employers

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

A training seminar on the Victims’ Economic and Security Act (VESSA) to educate survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and the survivors’ advocates and employers and other interested persons about the VESSA provisions is available from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.

Many domestic-violence, dating-violence, sexual-assault, and stalking victims suffer adverse consequences at their workplaces due to their victimization. Too often victims face the threat of losing their jobs or of being denied time off to attend to issues related to the violence in their lives such as going to court, attending medical appointments, or moving residences.

VESSA having been signed into law in Illinois in 2003, employment protection provisions are in place for employees who are survivors or who have family or household members who are survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. By promoting their employment stability, economic security, and safety, VESSA helps such employed survivors.

Developed by the Shriver Center, the training seminar highlights VESSA provisions such as:

Entitlement to unpaid, job-guaranteed leave for domestic or sexual violence. VESSA allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work during any 12-month period to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Employment sustainability. VESSA prohibits employers from refusing to hire, discharging, harassing, or otherwise discriminating against applicants and employees with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on the applicants’ or employees’ status as a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Enforcement. VESSA is administered and enforced by the Illinois Department of Labor. A complaint must be filed within three years after the alleged violation occurred. An employee may recover damages, for example, lost wages and employment benefits, attorney fees, and other relief such as reinstatement and promotion.

If your organization is interested in scheduling a VESSA training session, or for more information, contact Wendy Pollack at or 312.263.3830 ext. 238.

A Training Seminar for Advocates on Public Benefits for Survivors of Domestic Violence

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

A training seminar, “Public Benefits Advocacy for Survivors of Domestic Violence,” developed by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, aims to help advocates understand the many special public benefit programs available for domestic violence survivors.

While individuals stay in abusive relationships for multiple reasons, the fear of economic insecurity is a critical one. Many survivors of domestic violence are unaware that they may be eligible for public benefits, including cash assistance or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and Medicaid, which can help them attain economic independence and thus serve as a critical step on the road to a life free from violence. The training seminar covers topics such as

Crisis Assistance (for people who receive TANF or are eligible to receive TANF) that makes limited cash available for, among others, victims of domestic violence and their children who have fled their homes, in order to help them pay for rent, food, replacement furniture, and clothing;
Domestic Violence Exclusion (for eligible TANF recipients) that stops the 60-month TANF counter, extends benefits beyond the 60-month lifetime limit, and exempts recipients from some work and training activities;
special food stamp rules for battered women and their children; and
benefits for noncitizen victims of domestic violence.

The Shriver Center has conducted training sessions at domestic violence agencies such as Rainbow House, the Elgin Community Crisis Center , and community organizations such as Catholic Charities. Another training for domestic violence advocates is scheduled for Monday, August 22, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., at the Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women’s Network at 203 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2323 , Chicago , IL 60601 . There is no charge to participate in this training.

If your organization is interested in “Public Benefits Advocacy for Survivors of Domestic Violence,” you may schedule training, or, for more information, contact Wendy Pollack at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or Jennifer Lee at 312.263.3830 ext. 237. If you would like to reserve a space in the August 22 training, contact Lupe Rivera at the Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women’s Network, 312.750.0730 ext.105.

The Education Connection: Helping to Meet the Challenges Faced by Pregnant and Parenting Students in Illinois

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

Educational institutions, as recipients of federal financial assistance, have a specific mandate to assist pregnant and parenting students in obtaining an equitable education. While a few schools blatantly ignore Title IX, which prohibits discrimination of pregnant and parenting students, most would willingly provide assistance to pregnant and parenting students if they had adequate information and funding to do so. Educators need to know how they can work together with state and community agencies whose goals are to assist pregnant or parenting students and to keep them in school.

The Illinois Office of Educational Services conducted a study of the roadblocks preventing high school completion as reported by pregnant and parenting students, Teen Parent Services providers, and school personnel. The study also examined replicable Illinois model programs addressing the needs of pregnant and parenting students and their children. Many of these model programs operate with no or little monetary assistance from the schools. Most rely heavily on dedicated school personnel, partnering social service providers, and civic generosity. The study also examined what individual instructors can do to provide a hospitable learning environment even if no formal program is in place. To view the study and download a compendium of resources to assist pregnant and parenting students, visit http://www.ioes.org/genderequity.cfm or call 1-800-252-4822, ext. 228 for more information.

Announcements

2006-07-13T16:23:49Z

2005 Sargent Shriver Award for Equal Justice Honoree: Morgan Spurlock

The Shriver Center is pleased to honor Morgan Spurlock with the 2005 Sargent Shriver Award for Equal Justice for Distinguished Achievement in Raising Awareness of the Plight of Minimum Wage Workers in the United States today.

The challenges of life on minimum wage were brought to light by Mr. Spurlock’s current project, the TV series 30 Days on the F/X Network. The premiere episode, “Minimum Wage,” featured Mr. Spurlock and his fiancé struggling to make ends meet for 30 days in Columbus , Ohio . From the day-to-day struggle to afford basic needs to the lack of health care, the documentary captured the largest issues relating to minimum wage workers in the United States.

Mr. Spurlock also wrote, directed, and starred in the feature-length documentary Super Size Me (2004), the third highest grossing documentary of all time. The film, a 30-day experiment where he subsisted only on McDonald’s food, also investigated fast food in America . Mr. Spurlock received numerous awards for the film, and it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary. He followed up Super Size Me with his first book, Don’t Eat This Book, released in May 2005 to critical praise. Additionally, the Educational Enhanced version of the film will soon be shown in the nation’s schools.

The next project for Mr. Spurlock is another TV series on Comedy Central, Public Nuisance, a more irreverent look at social issues in the vein of Michael Moore’s TV Nation. Mr. Spurlock is also planning another documentary film for spring 2006, and he hopes to continue creating new episodes of 30 Days.

Mr. Spurlock, originally from West Virginia , currently lives in the East Village of New York with his vegan fiancé Alexandra Jamieson and their manly cat Sue.

Train-the-Trainer Workshop Set for October 3–4

A financial education instructor training session featuring the updated edition of Your Money & Your Life will be held on October 3–4 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law ( 50 East Washington Street, Suite 500, Chicago).

The fall train-the-trainer session is an ongoing project of the Financial Links for Low-Income People, or FLLIP, coalition coordinated by the Shriver Center. The fee is $116 per person and covers instruction, the instructor manual, materials, handouts, and food. To register, contact Hannah Avellone at 312.368.8575 by Wednesday, September 21.

Interested in All My Money instructor training? Contact Karen Chan (kchan@uiuc.edu) for information on upcoming sessions in Chicago (September 16, 23) and Lake County (September 23, Oct 5).

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys

The Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys is available online and in print form at a new reduced price ($35). Go to www.povertylaw.org to download the PDF version. Print copies can be ordered from Nancy Carey at 312.263.3830 ext. 223.