Shriver Center: July 2005

Illinois Takes Two Giant Steps on Family Health Care: Significant New Efforts on Family Insurance and Children's Primary Care

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

June was a month of accomplishments for the Blagojevich administration’s policy priority on health care. The administration took successful action on two important initiatives advocated by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and its allies to make substantial progress in reducing the numbers of uninsured and in improving the chances that children insured by Medicaid actually get quality preventive and primary care.

First, in the final budget that passed at the end of May, the General Assembly adopted the governor’s proposal to complete the implementation of the FamilyCare program. That step, effective January 1, 2006, will offer health care to approximately 100,000 more working families.

Second, on June 27, an agreement to settle a long-standing federal lawsuit was announced; the settlement is intended to expand access to quality medical care for children enrolled in Medicaid. The steps taken under the agreement are designed to increase the numbers of doctors and dentists serving these children and to increase the chances that these children will receive all the immunizations, developmental screenings, and other well-child services necessary for their good health and development and maximum life chances.

FamilyCare

The budget includes $5.75 million in state funds to fund fully the third and final year of FamilyCare’s three-year phase-in plan. The funds will leverage $11 million of federal funding. With this funding, the program’s eligibility ceiling will rise, effective January 1, 2006, from the current 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($25,000 for a family of four) to 185 percent ($35,000 a year for a family of four). This addition will increase the eligible target population for FamilyCare health insurance to about 400,000, although actual enrollment is expected to be significantly lower. Current enrollment in FamilyCare is about 100,000.

The newly eligible group will also qualify for the “premium subsidy choice.” This group will be able to choose either to be covered by the state’s insurance (Medicaid) or to receive a cash subsidy to help pay the premium to be covered by an employer’s health insurance or private insurance.

FamilyCare offers these health insurance options for parents or caretakers of minor children (the children are already covered under Medicaid or KidCare). The federal government pays 65 percent of the program costs.

This last year of the FamilyCare ramp-up completes the keeping of Governor Blagojevich’s promise made over two years ago to implement the program fully over that time period.

Children’s Primary and Preventive Care

The June 27 announcement of the improvements in children’s primary and preventive care came in the context of the Memisovski v. Maram lawsuit in federal district court in Chicago. It is embodied in a settlement agreement that resolves the case and addresses concerns first raised in 1992 that children covered by Medicaid in Cook County were not able to see doctors and receive recommended well-child services. In provisionally approving the settlement, the judge ordered that the affected families receive notice of the provisions of the settlement, and he set a hearing date in early November to hear any objections and to give the settlement final approval.

The agreement is designed to ensure that children from low-income families have access to regular, consistent physician care. The plan includes increases in pediatrician reimbursement rates to help attract and retain more doctors in the Medicaid program as well as bonus payments to doctors who successfully keep their young patients from missing important services and falling through the cracks. The rate increases and bonus payments, by approximately doubling what pediatricians are currently paid by Medicaid for well-child care, have the potential to attract more doctors to the program and ensure adequate access to care for the children. Dental providers will receive a major increase in reimbursement rates to the levels paid by the State employee dental plan. The State will also contract with a third-party vendor to provide a referral network for families to assist them in getting necessary care and services. The agreement has numerous other provisions as well.

The settlement comes after federal Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow’s August 2004 decision that the Illinois Department of Public Aid and the Illinois Department of Human Services were violating the rights of Medicaid-eligible children in Cook County to receive health care under the Medicaid program. Specifically the court ruled that the State failed in its obligations to provide these children with access to medical care that is equal to the access to care received by privately insured children and the State failed to ensure that these children receive the preventive health services required by the federal Medicaid program known as Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment services (EPSDT).

The case was originally filed in 1992. Successive state administrations had fought the case for over a decade, and it was inherited by the Blagojevich administration. Instead of fighting the case further through the courts of appeals, the Blagojevich administration has decided that the improvement of children’s primary and preventive health care is a high priority, one that is fully consistent with a range of other initiatives to improve health care in Illinois. Good preventive care for children provides them with the best chances in life and over the long haul is a smart step to begin harnessing the exploding costs of the larger health care system.

The children are represented by the Shriver Center and by allied lawyers with Health & Disability Advocates and the Chicago law firm of Goldberg Kohn Bell Black Rosenbloom & Moritz Ltd. (working pro bono).

Impact of Higher State Minimum Wage Expands

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

Three bills carrying the benefit of Illinois’s higher-than-the-federal minimum wage into other laws that have an impact on low-wage workers were passed by the Illinois General Assembly in its spring 2005 session and now await action by Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Illinois’s minimum wage is currently $6.50 per hour, pursuant to a state law passed in 2003; the federal minimum wage is $5.15.

Senate Bill 519 requires the state welfare department to use the state or the federal minimum wage, whichever is higher, when it calculates the work hours for welfare recipients who must work for their cash or food stamp benefits or both (the grant amount divided by the minimum wage determines the required work hours). Current law ties the calculation to the federal minimum wage. This bill means that Illinois workfare participants are treated like other Illinois workers.

Senate Bill 1751 amends the Wage Assignment Act, and Senate Bill 1752 amends the wage garnishment law to protect 45 times the federal or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher, per week from seizure. Current law protects 45 times the federal minimum wage. These bills mean that low-income workers will have protected take-home pay of close to $300 per week, as opposed to approximately $230 per week.

The bills are being sent to Governor Blagojevich for his consideration.

For more information, contact Margaret Stapleton at 312.368.3327.

Reasons for Low- and Moderate-Income Debtors to File for Bankruptcy Now Before the Law Changes

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

by David Yen

[Editor’s Note: This is the second half of an article addressing the new bankruptcy law, Public Law No. 109-8. The first half appeared in the May 2005 Illinois Welfare News. Read on for more reasons some debtors will want to file for bankruptcy before October 17, 2005, when the new federal law goes into effect 180 days after enactment.]

The much-discussed “means test” will force some debtors whose income is more than the median income in their state into Chapter 13 instead of Chapter 7 bankruptcy. However, many provisions will affect low- and moderate-income debtors who do not have to worry about failing the means test. Below are some situations where a debtor should consider filing for bankruptcy before the changes go into effect.

Debtor is ineligible for free legal services and, while currently judgment-proof, has health insurance, is employable, and may earn garnishable wages in the future. Under current law, a debtor who is not able to obtain free legal services but is struggling financially may be able to afford fees charged by a private attorney to file for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Once the new law goes into effect, attorney fees are going to increase because of increased paperwork needed to file for a bankruptcy and new rules that will make attorneys liable if documents filed in the case turn out to be inaccurate. The new law will require credit counseling before a case is filed and completion of a financial education course in order to get a discharge. While credit counseling and financial education have to be provided without charge to those who cannot afford to pay, debtors who have too much income for free legal services are likely to have to pay these fees. There are many new requirements, such as a requirement to file copies of tax returns or tax transcripts that will make it harder for debtors who file pro se to complete a case. The filing fee is also going to increase from $209 to at least $274. In the past this debtor might decide to wait to file for bankruptcy since there is no immediate reason to file. However, if this debtor waits, at the least filing for bankruptcy will be more expensive. In the worst-case scenario, the debtor may never be able to file for bankruptcy once the law changes because the debtor cannot save enough money to get the bankruptcy filed.

Debtor has a student loan which is owed to a for-profit entity and which debtor cannot repay. The new law extends the student loan exception to discharge to educational loans made by for-profit entities. This may include loans that are made by a debtor’s employer and that the debtor is expected to repay in addition to those made by for-profit trade schools.

Debtor owes a substantial amount of child support that has been assigned to someone other than the parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative of the child, the spouse or ex-spouse of the debtor, or the child and will be filing for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. While never dischargeable in any kind of bankruptcy under current law, child support that has been assigned to a third party, such as the state child support agency, does not have to be paid in full during a Chapter 13 case. The Chapter 13 debtor must completely catch up on child support obligations to the custodial parent, but support that has been assigned to the state does not have to be paid in full during the Chapter 13 plan. The debtor pays as much as possible, and the rest will be paid after the Chapter 13 case is over, usually in three years. Under the new law, the debtor will have to pay all child support in full or, if that is not possible, will have to be in Chapter 13 for five years.

Debtor has been convicted of a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking felony and does not have reasonable prospects of being able to complete a Chapter 13 case in the near future. The new law adds a section which provides that if the debtor files a voluntary Chapter 7 petition but has been convicted of a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking felony, the case will be dismissed when dismissal is in the best interest of a victim of the debtor, unless the filing of the case is necessary to satisfy a child support, alimony, or maintenance obligation of the debtor. This is especially problematic if the debtor has been convicted of a “drug-trafficking crime” since who would have standing to object to the case as a victim of the drug-trafficking crime is not at all clear. May the state’s attorney object? How about a relative of someone who purchased drugs from the debtor? While there are certainly some cases where justice would be served by denying a Chapter 7 discharge, in other cases this could interfere with an ex-offender’s rehabilitation efforts.

David Yen is the bankruptcy specialist at the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago (dyen@lafchicago.org or 312.347.8372).

Court Approves Voucher Desegregation Settlement; New Voucher Mobility Program Operational

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

The parties’ settlement agreement in Wallace v. Chicago Housing Authority was officially approved by U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo in late May. Since then, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) has made available the Enhanced Housing Opportunity Program described in the agreement for families who left the CHA with Housing Choice Vouchers between 1995 and 2003.

In January 2003 a group of current and former public housing residents, represented by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, sued the CHA for failing to develop a program to assist them in relocating to racially integrated communities in the private market. Thousands of families living in public housing had been or would be relocated temporarily or permanently to subsidized private housing with Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly known as Section 8 Vouchers) as part of the CHA’s Plan for Transformation. After two years of intense litigation, the parties came to a settlement agreement last spring. (See article in April 2005 Illinois Welfare News.)

The CHA and Wallace plaintiffs (represented by the Shriver Center and the Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) appeared in court on May 31 to present their proposed settlement in a fairness hearing. Angela Maples, the Wallace class representative, testified in strong support of the settlement. A small number of individuals stated their objections to the settlement because they worried about being forced to move, but Judge Castillo clarified that the voucher mobility program would be voluntary. After hearing all of the testimony, Judge Castillo officially entered the settlement and expressed his hope that it would prove successful for both CHA and families with vouchers.

In June the CHA notified Wallace plaintiffs’ counsel that the Enhanced Housing Opportunity Program (HOP) described in the settlement agreement was now in place. As described in the notice to Wallace class members, Enhanced HOP “adds a focus encouraging class members to move to racially integrated areas.” According to the notice, Enhanced HOP will provide enrolled class members with educational materials and a neighborhood tour to inform them of their housing opportunities. They will receive referrals to at least three units in racially integrated neighborhoods along with requested transportation to those units. As in the original HOP program, Enhanced HOP participants will be eligible for security deposit assistance as well.

Families who left CHA housing with vouchers between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2003, have the opportunity to enroll in Enhanced HOP for the next 18 to 24 months and may participate in the program for up to one year thereafter.

The Wallace plaintiffs have three years to monitor the implementation of the settlement, including Enhanced HOP. They urge advocates to promote Enhanced HOP and to encourage their clients both to participate and to report back on their experiences in the program.

For more information or to share Enhanced HOP participant reports, contact Raj Nayak at or 312.263.3830 ext. 243.

State Funding for Legal Aid Receives Boost

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

State funding for the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation will increase to $2 million, from the previous level of $472,900, for the state fiscal year starting July 1, 2005. The foundation distributes state funding for civil legal aid to nonprofit groups throughout the state. The additional funding will enable those organizations to help, the foundation estimates, more than 30,000 individuals and families with legal problems.

“With this funding, the state will help low-income residents who have nowhere else to turn to get the legal help they need that is essential to their safety and independence. It’s absolutely critical we ensure that poor people have access to the same kind of court system and the same kind of legal relief as those who can afford to pay,” said Phil Rock, former Illinois Senate President and cochair of the Equal Justice Illinois Campaign. “While Illinois still needs to do more when it comes to providing legal aid resources, this is a critical first step in getting us in line with the rest of the nation,” he added. Among the ten most populous states, the average appropriation for legal aid is $6.8 million.

The foundation’s appropriation, originally housed in the Illinois Department of Human Services, has been moved to the Office of the Attorney General. “This increased appropriation is critical to providing services to Illinoisans who need legal assistance but cannot afford it,” said Attorney General Lisa Madigan. “Our legal system was designed for all. With this funding, legal aid organizations throughout the state will make sure that low-income Illinois residents have access to that system.”

The effort to increase legal aid funding enjoyed strong bipartisan support within the Illinois General Assembly. Senators Jeff Schoenberg (D-9th) and Kirk Dillard (R-24th) led the effort and sponsored bills to increase the state appropriation for civil legal aid to $2 million and $1 million, respectively.

“Legal aid funding is a solid investment for our state,” said Senator Schoenberg, who also initiated moving the funding to the Attorney General’s Office. “Access to legal services makes the difference in people’s lives. By providing people with the legal help they need now, we can help prevent problems such as child abuse, domestic violence, and homelessness.”

The $2 million in funding will provide critical relief to Illinois’s legal aid network, which is so overburdened and underfunded that it is operating in a crisis mode, accepting only the most critical cases and turning away tens of thousands of people each year. A statewide legal needs study released earlier this year found that, in 2003 alone, poor people faced more than 1.3 million civil legal problems, involving issues such as domestic violence, divorce, child custody, evictions, mortgage foreclosures or the physical and financial abuse of the elderly. However, in more than 80 percent of those cases, individuals and families faced the problem without any legal assistance.

Federal funding from the Legal Services Corporation, which is the largest source of support for legal aid, has dropped by 38 percent over the past 15 years, when adjusted for inflation.

State funding for civil legal aid is appropriated through the Illinois Equal Justice Act. The Act, approved by the General Assembly and signed into law in 1999, recognizes the State’s responsibility to ensure equal access to the legal system. It sets forth a wide range of innovative, cost-effective initiatives to help low-income people understand the legal system and resolve their routine legal problems more effectively.

For more information about the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation and the Equal Justice Illinois Campaign, see www.equaljusticeillinois.org. You may also contact Margaret Stapleton at 312.368.3327.

Rental Housing Support Passes

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

With all of the potential cuts in the Housing Choice (Section 8) Voucher program, passage of Senate Bill 75, which creates the Rental Housing Support program, could not have come at a better time. Originally introduced in 2004 by a partnership of over 150 organizations, the bill establishes a state-funded program that gives housing subsidies to very low-income families.

The Rental Housing Support program was a concept developed around 1998 by the It Takes a Home to Raise a Child Campaign, spearheaded primarily by the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless and the Statewide Housing Action Coalition (SHAC). The program targets households earning less than 30 percent of the area median income, which in Illinois is approximately $19,000 for a family of four.

The Rental Housing Support program, sponsored by Sen. Iris Martinez (D) and Rep. Julie Hamos (D), passed out of both the House and the Senate by large margins, with bipartisan support. On April 14 the Senate passed S.B. 75 with a 36-to-22 vote. The bill was sent to the House for consideration and quickly passed out of the Housing and Urban Development Committee (10-3). S.B. 75 came to a full vote on the House floor on May 4 and easily passed with 72 members voting in support of the legislation. The bill has since been sent to Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s desk and is awaiting the governor’s signature.

Funding for the Rental Housing Support program comes from a new $10 fee for filing real estate documents; one dollar from each transaction is given to county recorders of deeds and county government budgets to cover any administrative costs associated with collecting the money for the program. Because it is not funded by the state’s budget, the program puts no additional cost burden on Illinois.

The program will be administered statewide. As required in the language of the bill, Chicago will receive only 30 percent of the subsidized units; the remaining 70 percent will be distributed throughout the state. Preliminary estimates suggest that the Rental Housing Support program will subsidize housing for 5,500 Illinois families by raising around $30 million annually. This comes at a time when over 77,000 households are on Illinois public housing waiting lists and 400,000 families spend over half their income on rent.

When asked how this victory feels after years of struggle, Bob Palmer, Housing Justice Organizer for SHAC, said, “It feels great, like we have accomplished a lot. Of course, it is a small amount of the overall resources needed. It is a sign that, as a state, we are headed in the right direction, but we have much farther to go.” The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law supported the campaign to pass S.B. 75 and will continue its work on developing solutions to Illinois’s affordable-housing crisis.

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

John Bouman Receives 2005 Child Health Advocate Award

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

John Bouman, the director of advocacy at the Sargent Shriver Center, has been awarded this year’s Child Health Advocate Award from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The award honors individuals who have been outstanding in their advocacy for children’s rights. John was recognized for his outstanding service and advocacy on behalf of low-income children in a Medicaid settlement, Memisovski v. Maram.

According to the award letter, “The Memisovski v. Maram case ruling was a landmark victory for the rights of 600,000 children in Illinois and a source of hope for others across the county.”

John and his colleagues in the case, Frederick B. Cohen and David J. Chizewer of Goldberg Kohn, and Stephanie Altman and Thomas Yates of Health & Disability Advocates join a list of distinguished recipients that includes former Illinois Attorney General, Jim Ryan, and former Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, M.D.

“This is a tremendous honor,” says Bouman. “I’m proud that the professionals on the front line of providing health care to children recognize our contribution to improving children’s access to quality care.”

Savings for Working Families Act Reintroduced

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

The Savings for Working Families Act was reintroduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) last April. The Act would authorize the creation of 900,000 Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) for low-income individuals between the ages of 18 and 61.

IDA program participants would save money in tax-exempt accounts to be used toward asset goals such as home purchase, postsecondary education or training, and business startup or expansion. Participants would be allowed to deposit up to $1,500 in IDA accounts offered by financial institutions. Participants may make withdrawals for specific, goal-oriented purchases, but they must complete financial education courses before making a withdrawal. The Act also would provide for tax credits to financial institutions for administering the program and for matching IDA clients’ fund contributions. With the financial institutions supplying some of the matching funds for IDAs, more state agencies and nonprofit organizations could apply for federal Assets for Independence Act or state IDA funds to offer IDAs to working families.

The bill was read twice and then referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. Funding is the biggest challenge facing IDA programs, and the Act would help many low-income Americans get ahead. Contact your senators and voice your support for the Savings for Working Families Act.

For more information, contact Dory Rand , Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at 312.368.2007, or see www.idanetwork.org.

General-Assembly Acts to Ease Another Criminal-Records Barrier

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

Legislation allowing judges to make exceptions to the law’s current outright ban on persons who have felony records and are serving as guardians of minors or disabled persons has passed both houses of the Illinois General Assembly and is on its way to Gov. Rod Blagojevich for his consideration.

Under current law, as interpreted by the Illinois courts, judges may never appoint a person with a felony conviction record as a guardian—even when the person with the felony record is the best possible guardian. Senate Bill 658 amends the state Probate Act to allow judges to make exceptions to this prohibition. It creates a three-part test for the courts to use in evaluating a prospective guardian who has a felony conviction. It directs courts to consider the nature of the offense, the date of the offense, and evidence of the proposed guardian’s rehabilitation as specific parts of the general inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child or disabled person. The legislation specifically prohibits the courts from appointing as guardians persons convicted of felonies involving harm or threat to a child or elderly or disabled person, including felony sexual offenses.

S.B. 658 was supported by many advocacy groups for minors and disabled persons and by the Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois State bar associations. According to Linda S. Coon, legal services director of the Families and Children’s AIDS Network, today more children than ever are being cared for by relatives, and S.B. 658 strikes a necessary balance by keeping the felony ban as a general rule but allowing families to nominate the person of their choice as a guardian, including a person with a past felony conviction.

Letters urging the governor to sign S.B. 658 into law as soon as possible may be sent to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, 207 State House, Springfield, IL 62706. S.B. 658 will take effect when the governor signs it. Anticipating S.B. 658’s becoming law, some Illinois judges are postponing action on guardianship cases so that they may consider appointing highly qualified persons, even those with felony convictions, as guardians.

In recent years the General Assembly has taken several other steps to ease the burden of criminal records on people who have finished their sentences. For example, Illinois laws now allow expungement and sealing from public view of some nonviolent criminal records and create processes for issuance of certificates of good conduct and certificates of rehabilitation to qualified persons with criminal records.

For more information on S.B. 658 or Illinois’s other laws on criminal records, contact Margaret Stapleton at 312.368.3327.

Funding Opportunity for Nonprofit Organizations to Offer Financial Education

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

Illinois nonprofit organizations interested in offering free financial education classes to low-income adults are invited to join the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law in a bidders’ conference call on August 11 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Learn how your nonprofit organization can apply for $14,700 in funds to deliver the financial education program developed by Financial Links for Low-Income People (FLLIP). The Shriver Center, as the coordinator of FLLIP, has funds available to partner with up to seven nonprofit organizations across Illinois.

To apply for funding, an organization representative must participate in the conference call. Nonprofit organizations in the Chicago metropolitan area may attend in person at the Shriver Center (50 E. Washington St., Suite 500, Chicago). Conference call number and materials will be sent when registration is confirmed. If interested, please contact Hannah Avellone , Shriver Center, by July 26 at 312.368.8575.

Let's Get It Right! Families with Multiple Barriers to Work Slipping Through TANF Safety Net in Illinois

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

Recipients of cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program are restricted to a 60-month lifetime limit for receiving aid. In accordance with federal law, the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) has adopted policies and procedures whereby clients might qualify for an exception to the 60-month limit. Nevertheless, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and the Public Benefits Hotline of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago are receiving complaints that families on cash assistance are hitting their 60-month limit and having their cash benefits stopped, despite their eligibility for one or more of the exceptions discussed below.

A client who has received 60 months of TANF may qualify for an exception and continue to receive benefits as though there were no time limit. (Policy Manual 03-06-05.) A client may be granted an exception if she has a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Disability application pending and the IDHS Client Assessment Unit (CAU) determines that the client is probably eligible for SSI. (PM 03-06-05a.) CAU may also approve an exception for a client who is probably not eligible for SSI but who is unable to work full-time due to a medical condition. (PM 03-06-05a.) If CAU determines that the adult is needed in the home full-time due to the medical condition of a spouse or minor child, this merits an exception as well. (PM 03-06-05a.) A parent who cares for a disabled child may qualify for an exception through the Home and Community-Based Care Program waiver, but only if the child is severely disabled. (PM 03-06-05a.) If a client is participating in an intensive program for a barrier that prevents full-time work, such as programs to address domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health problems, she may be eligible for an exception as well. (PM 03-06-05a.) Finally, clients who are engaged in an approved education or training activity that they are expected to complete within six months may also receive an exception to the 60-month time limit. (PM 03-06-05a.)

One former recipient of cash assistance recently contacted the Public Benefits Hotline after her benefits were terminated. CAU had already found this mother of several children exempt from the TANF work activity requirement due to her own medical condition. In fact, she had a home health worker to attend to her health and personal care through the Division of Rehabilitative Services. Although her caseworker at the Southeast Local Office was aware of her medical barriers to employment, she never encouraged her to apply for an exception to the 60-month limit. As her case approached the 60-month limit, her medical exemption from work activities was denied and her cash benefits were terminated. Only after the Legal Assistance Foundation successfully pursued SSI on her behalf did IDHS agree to restore retroactively her household’s cash benefits.

IDHS has policies and procedures that are intended to help clients such as the woman described above with serious barriers to self-sufficiency long before their 60 months on TANF have expired. For example, the intensive case review is designed to identify barriers to independence, supply appropriate referrals, and develop a Responsibility and Services Plan to assist the client toward self-sufficiency in the limited time remaining on TANF. An intensive case review may be completed at any time, but no later than when the client’s TANF counter reaches 24 months. If the client remains on TANF, another intensive case review is required no later than when the client’s counter reaches 36 months. (PM 19-02-07.) Some clients go through this process and continue to participate in all required activities but still exhaust their 60 months without reaching self-sufficiency. If TANF is meant to be a safety net for families with severe barriers to self-sufficiency, IDHS should take another look at every case that reaches 57 months in order to identify those individuals who should be exempted from the 60-month lifetime limit. An intensive case review at this point could document existing barriers and assist the client in applying for an exception to the 60-month limit.

It is IDHS practice to refer SSI-eligible clients in Cook County to the SSI Advocacy Project at the Legal Assistance Foundation to help them apply for SSI. The staff at IDHS do not, however, always take the next logical step of helping clients whom they have referred to the SSI Advocacy Project apply for an exception to the 60-month limit based on the “probably eligible for SSI” exception, even though doing so would ensure that such clients continue to receive cash assistance while their SSI applications are pending. For example, the Public Benefits Hotline recently assisted a client whose benefits were terminated while her case was at the Western Local Office despite IDHS having referred the client to the SSI Advocacy Project and exempted her from the TANF work activity requirement on the basis of her medical condition. No one at the Western Local Office discussed with this client the possibility of applying for an exception to the 60-month limit on the basis of her pending SSI application. When the Hotline staff contacted the Western office to ask why a client with a pending SSI application was cut off cash assistance, they were told that IDHS did not believe that there was a pending SSI application. Only after the Hotline staff produced documentation of a pending SSI appeal were the benefits of the client and her household retroactively restored.

All TANF recipients are supposed to receive a notice, Form 4690C, which is centrally sent by IDHS to people in their 57th month of countable TANF benefits. (PM 03-06-05b.) People who apply for TANF with a counter of 57 months or higher are given the 4691 exception notice and request form when they apply for assistance. (PM 03-06-05b.) In addition to explaining that the household will soon be ineligible for cash assistance, Form 4690C also contains an explanation of the exceptions to the 60-month limit and an application for an exception. As these cases demonstrate, a centrally sent notice is an inadequate means of sending full information to clients whose overall functioning may be impeded by serious barriers (e.g., disability, physical or mental illness, domestic violence, low literacy). Too many families with multiple barriers to employment are finding themselves cut off vital cash assistance when they hit the five-year time limit. Rather than helping these clients apply for exceptions to keep their income supports, IDHS is allowing some of the neediest families in Illinois to slip through the safety net entirely.

If you or someone you know is eligible for an exception to the 60-month limit, or if you or someone you know has recently been cut off cash assistance due to the time limits, please contact Aleeza Strubel at 312.263.3830 ext. 229 or the Public Benefits Hotline at 888.893.5327.

Jeffrey Sachs Will Be Sargent Shriver Award Honoree

2006-07-13T16:23:53Z

The Shriver Center is pleased to honor Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs with the 2005 Sargent Shriver Award for Equal Justice for Distinguished Achievement in Promoting Poverty Alleviation.

Professor Sachs is the Director of Columbia University’s The Earth Institute, which houses the Poverty Reduction initiative. This initiative provides governments with academic studies and policy analyses on the issues of poverty reduction from the perspective of sustainable development. The Poverty Reduction initiative stresses the integration of economics, agriculture, hydrology, energy systems, public health, climate-society interactions, and governance, including a focus on the role of human rights in promoting poverty alleviation.

Professor Sachs’s work as an international economist and social justice advocate has outlined specific steps to end global poverty. Like our founder, Sargent Shriver, Professor Sachs has challenged how we see and respond to the poorest among us. He proves government supported programs can foster self-sufficiency without creating a culture of dependency. By joining practical economics with an optimistic faith, he is working to help poor communities rise from poverty.

Professor Sachs is author of more than 200 scholarly articles, edited volumes, and books. His most recent work The End of Poverty: The Economic Possibilities of Our Time (2005) sets a bold agenda for ending extreme poverty by 2025.

New Bank Overdraft Rules

2006-07-13T16:23:54Z

Federal banking regulators recently changed the rules on how financial institutions market overdraft protection. Sometimes called “bounced-check protection,” overdraft protection is a service in which banks often automatically enroll their customers. When a customer exceeds an account balance, the bank will “loan” the customer the difference at, unbeknownst to the customer, an enormous interest rate.

The Federal Reserve Board’s changes in regulation DD, which implements the Truth in Savings Act, mandate that financial institutions advertising overdraft protection must disclose the costs associated with the program on periodic statements and on their advertisements. The new rules are effective July 1, 2005; however, banks that do not currently advertise their overdraft protection programs are required to disclose such costs only on account service agreements. Because most large banks do not advertise overdraft protection, even with the rule changes such banks would have to disclose the costs of overdraft protection only on the account service agreement.

While these changes are a step in the right direction, they will do little to curb the underhanded and excessive overdraft protection programs. A new report from the Center for Responsible Lending and the Consumer Federation of America estimates that customers pay between $10.3 billion and $22.7 billion annually in fees for overdraft protection. (The report is available at www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/ip009-High_Cost_Overdraft-0505.pdf.)

For more information, contact Yuri Gottesman , Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at 312.368.1033.

Health Care Justice Act Hearings Start Soon

2006-07-13T16:23:54Z

The Illinois Adequate Health Care Task Force will hold the first of 19 hearings (one in each Illinois congressional district) required by the Illinois Health Care Justice Act in August or September, according to Jim Duffett, task-force member and executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Better Health Care.

Under the Health Care Justice Act, passed by the General Assembly in 2004, the task force is charged with developing a health care access plan ensuring that “all residents have access to quality health care at costs that are affordable.” In the months since the Act’s passage, Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the leaders of the Senate and House appointed 29 people to the task force. With appointments complete and operational funding of $1 million included in the 2006 fiscal year state budget, the task force will hold organizational meetings in July and convene its first hearing in August or September. The task force is charged with developing a health care access 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.

For more information, visit the Campaign for Better Health Care’s website, cbhconline.org, or contact Margaret Stapleton , Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at 312.368.3327.

A Taste of Reality

2006-07-13T16:23:54Z

Children at William M. and Charles H. Mayo Elementary School in Chicago recently went through a six-week simulated life-application curriculum that taught them about the realities of lifestyles and careers. The reality began with Lesson 1 when the children had to choose among three lifestyles that could uphold their future: “simple,” “American Dream,” or “bling-bling”—each with its own characteristics as well as advantages and disadvantages.

The children were participating in a financial education program of SEED (Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment), a six-year national initiative to develop, test, and impel matched savings accounts and financial education for children and adolescents. Established and funded by CFED, the initiative is being implemented throughout the country by 12 partner organizations, among them the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. CFED, based in Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a view to expanding economic opportunities for low-income people.

In the simple lifestyle the children found out that life was not that simple with minimal education and training. They learned the importance of a college education and other training necessary to succeed in life and acquire assets such as savings accounts and a good credit history. In the American Dream lifestyle the children learned about college as a major option in having successful careers, becoming financially secure, and having an enjoyable future. In the bling-bling lifestyle the children learned that building a future based on talent such as that of a professional ballplayer or hairstylist would require backup plans and education in case of injury or lack of financing to start a business. After some discussion, most of the children selected the American Dream lifestyle and proceeded to the second lesson, involving college and career planning.

The children learned about educational requirements, career salaries, and marketing themselves in the workforce. In Lesson 2 they learned how to make sound career decisions and to make college education a priority for their future. In Lesson 3 the children enjoyed operating in their selected careers and receiving salaries. They selected housing, furnishing, and automobiles and watched their salaries slowly diminish. Lashaun Nash, a 10-year old who wanted to be a lawyer, said, “I won’t have enough to pay my bills.” Other children supported Lashaun and helped him prioritize his needs and wants. The children learned how important it was to take care of one’s needs—housing, food, and clothing.

Lesson 4 consisted of understanding and maintaining a checking account. The children learned the correct way to endorse checks, fill out deposit and withdrawal slips, write personal checks, and maintain a check register. Lesson 5 allowed them to receive household bills, credit card bills, and bills for other expenses. They were held responsible for paying all their bills by writing checks to the authorized companies. Victoria Henderson, an 11-year-old who wanted to be a teacher, said, “I’m tired of writing checks.” Scholonda Lewis, an 11-year-old who wanted to be a chef, replied, “You shouldn’t have made all those choices to have to pay all of those bills.”

For more information on the national SEED initiative, visit the CFED website, www.cfed.org, or contact Nancy Wilson , SEED director, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at 312.368.1073.