Shriver Center: May 2005

Administrative Failures Linked to Dramatic Decline in TANF Caseloads

2006-07-13T16:23:55Z

A major research report casts light upon significant and troubling deficiencies within Illinois’s public benefits system. The deficiencies are largely due to the inefficacy of an administrative system in which paperwork is too frequently mishandled and lost, confusion about scheduling and appointments persists, verification requirements are misinterpreted or misapplied, and administrative errors are not identified and remedied in a timely manner. The report, entitled Accessing the Safety Net: Administrative Barriers to Public Benefits in Metropolitan Chicago, was released on May 24 by the Public Benefits Hotline Steering Committee and the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago (LAF).

A study conducted by a team of University of Chicago researchers, Accessing the Safety Net is a careful analysis of data collected over one year from Chicago-area residents who contacted the Public Benefits Hotline. Operated by LAF, the Hotline is a call-in service dispensing free advice, administrative advocacy, and legal representation to applicants and recipients of public benefits, including food stamps, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These public benefit programs, administered through the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), are crucial sources of support for lower-income families and individuals who experience challenges in trying to meet basic nutritional needs, obtain medical care for themselves and their children, and achieve economic stability within their households.

The Hotline was created in 1997 to help Cook County residents who were having trouble with Illinois’s public benefits system in the wake of welfare reform following the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The Act significantly altered the landscape of federal welfare policy, for example, by doing away with the entitlement program Aid to Families with Dependent Children and creating the TANF program, which introduced new work requirements and time limits on receiving assistance. The Act also shifted much of the authority over welfare policy from the federal government onto states; thus individual states had greater freedom in designing and implementing their own TANF programs. With this new freedom came less accountability to the public at large and to the individuals and families most in need.

The Public Benefits Hotline Research Project was designed to evaluate Illinois’s response to welfare reform by analyzing data collected through the Public Benefits Hotline. Since its inception, the Hotline has received more than 33,000 telephone calls and handled more than 16,000 cases. Hotline data analyzed for Accessing the Safety Net were collected between August 1, 2000, and July 31, 2001, three years after the initiation of welfare reform and during a period when difficulties associated with implementing a new program should have mostly been resolved.

Findings from Accessing the Safety Net reveal that administrative performance—marked by disorganization, confusion, inaccuracy, and nonresponsiveness—creates barriers to accessing public benefits. Key findings of the study include the following:

Administrative failures are linked to a decline in welfare caseloads. An analysis of the Hotline data shows a positive and statistically significant relationship between the volume of Hotline calls reporting problems and rate of decline in local office TANF caseloads.
Routine problems in case processing block access to benefits. Lost and mishandled paperwork, confusion over scheduling and appointments, and miscommunication between agency staff, clients, and among different departments are among the hassles that clients encounter.
Mismanagement, confusion, and errors occur often when determining eligibility of benefits. Verification documents are lost or misplaced while some clients are asked to supply documents that exceed verification policy requirements. Also, documentation of clients’ participation in or exemption from work activities (needed for TANF and sometimes food stamps) is often done incorrectly, or verification rules are misinterpreted, caseworkers fail to help clients obtain inaccessible documents, and records are not promptly updated.
Difficulties accessing benefits were most acute in the TANF program. Nearly half (46 percent) of all calls to the Public Benefits Hotline were to report problems with TANF. (Thirty-three percent of all calls reported problems with food stamps, and 21 percent had difficulties with Medicaid only.)
Working families are particularly at risk of losing access to food stamps and Medicaid. Management record-keeping and information systems are poorly designed to handle routine changes in employment and work hours, which are common features of low-wage jobs.

In light of the rise in Illinois’s poverty rate in recent years—12.6 percent of the state’s population lived in poverty in 2003, compared to 10.7 percent in 2000 (see U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, Table 21, www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov21.html)—the findings in Accessing the Safety Net highlight the need to take action in order to protect continued access to public benefits. The report recommends three action steps:

Improve administrative infrastructure in order to enable caseworkers to do a better job of managing bureaucratic case-processing functions.
Improve internal monitoring and feedback in order to advance accountability for protecting access to benefits.
Use external monitors, advocates, and citizens as agency watchdogs in order to safeguard access to public benefits and help improve administrative accountability.

Accessing the Safety Net contributes to efforts to improve Illinois’s public benefits system. Through its findings and recommendations, it focuses attention upon the need for systemic reform in order to ensure that public benefits made available by law are available in practice.

If you or someone you know lives in Cook County and needs help obtaining or retaining public benefits, contact the Public Benefits Hotline Hotline at 1.888.893.5327. To download Accessing the Safety Net: Administrative Barriers to Public Benefits in Metropolitan Chicago’s research brief or full report, go to www.povertylaw.org. For more information, contact Wendy Pollack , chair of the Public Benefits Hotline Steering Committee, at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law at 312.263.3830 ext. 238.

General Assembly Delays Consideration of Revenue Reform

2006-07-13T16:23:55Z

Comprehensive revenue reform gained momentum in this spring’s General Assembly session, although the session will conclude without final action on this crucial issue. Senate Bill 750, as amended, contained the necessary elements for a comprehensive reform that would not only repair school funding but also roll back property taxes and take the general revenue fund out of its constant deficit crisis (known as a “structural deficit”). The bill gained substantial support in the legislature and became the subject of bipartisan negotiations. Those negotiations produced a compromise package, S.B. 755, which moved out of committee but then stalled on the floor. Since the sponsors were unable to procure a confirmed veto-proof majority in time to put the bill to a vote, they decided to postpone the vote for the time being.

The progress this session was substantial and establishes important momentum. While S.B. 755 is not the comprehensive package that is necessary, it nevertheless represented important political movement toward the needed reform. S.B. 755 is limited just to school-funding reform, whereas S.B. 750 contains all the elements necessary to repair the state’s finances.

Part of the problem with revenue reform is the political difficulty of increasing taxes. While most knowledgeable people agree that it is necessary, all concede the political risks. Part of this equation is to emphasize the rapidly growing political risks of continuing to do nothing. Another part of it is to get complete coverage of the issues in the mass media. For example, the Chicago Tribune published an article just as the Senate was poised to consider S.B. 755 in mid-May. The article contained interesting information, but it did not fully treat the issues. Here is the text of a letter to the editor that the Shriver Center sent to the Tribune in response to the article ( Illinois Welfare News goes to press before we know whether the Tribune will run the letter):

Dear Chicago Tribune:

In “Tax Proposal Shifts Pain” (May 18, 2005), Diane Rado reports on the potential net impact on taxes of property owners in metropolitan Chicago if the major state revenue reforms debated last week in Springfield were to become law. Two additional aspects of this issue should be considered.

First, to determine whether the proposal is a good one or not, people should pay attention not only to what the proposal costs but also to what it buys. Most economists and veterans of state budget wars concede (perhaps only in private) that the Illinois tax system is antiquated, unfair, and inadequate to support the programs and services most Illinoisans have come to expect. This includes not just public education but also many other state services that improve economic opportunity, support families, and care for our vulnerable populations—especially the elderly, the disabled, and children. The Blagojevich administration and the General Assembly have done a reasonably good job of patching together budgets without increasing general taxes. However, only a substantial reform of the whole revenue system will put the State on responsible and stable financial ground, capable of meeting obligations and policy goals to a reasonable extent.

The Shriver Center supports revenue reform that not only deals with school funding inequities and inadequacies but also stabilizes the whole state budget. Indeed, if the regular state budget deficits are not alleviated, any school funding progress we make through a more limited reform will never last. A revenue reform proposal that makes Illinois fiscally stable will be well worth the marginal increase in taxes that many (though not all) Illinoisans would face to pay for it. And those reforms would still leave Illinois in the bottom third of all states in household tax burden.

Second, while Ms. Rado’s article focuses on the impact on property owners, a recent study by the Metropolitan Planning Council focuses on the impact of the revenue reform proposal on median-income families (an on-average less affluent group than property owners). Seen through this lens, the impact of the proposal was much lower—in the low hundreds of dollars per family per year. For most families, that is the figure to consult when deciding whether what the proposal would accomplish is worth the cost.

Will your grandfather be able to get his medicine? Will your disabled spouse be able to receive needed therapy? Will your child’s school system be adequately supported? Will the nursing home, hospital, medical practice, community-based living facility for the disabled be there when needed? If you care about the answers to questions like these, you have to think carefully about supporting the full reform of the Illinois revenue system.

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

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

by David Yen

The new bankruptcy law, Public Law No. 109-8, was signed by President Bush on April 20. The changes that affect low- and moderate-income debtors in Illinois apply to cases filed on or after October 17, 2005 (180 days after enactment). As mentioned in my article in the March 2005 issue of Illinois Welfare News (“Don’t Believe the Hype: Bankruptcy Bill Will Harm Low- and Moderate-Income Debtors”), 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 has public benefits overpayments that are alleged to be fraudulent. Elimination of the Chapter 13 “superdischarge” for debts incurred by fraud means that (a) if overpayment was fraudulent, it will not be discharged in a Chapter 13 plan; (b) even if it was not, debtor may have to rebut a claim that the overpayment was fraudulent or else the debt will not be discharged in Chapter 13. Many debtors cannot afford the legal fees needed to show that the overpayment was not the result of fraud. Under existing law, debts incurred by fraud are discharged when a debtor successfully completes a Chapter 13 plan even if the debts were not paid in full. This means that the debtor who files a Chapter 13 plan in good faith does not have to litigate the issue of fraud. Since debts incurred by fraud will no longer be discharged in a Chapter 13 case, if the debtor cannot rebut an accusation that the debt was the result of fraud, the debtor will have to pay 100 percent of all debts in order to get a discharge.

Debtor owes money to utilities or other creditors due to alleged fraud, theft, embezzlement or a willful and malicious tort which caused personal injury or death but which was not the result of drunk driving. Elimination of the Chapter 13 superdischarge also applies to these debts. (Debts resulting from drunk driving were already not dischargeable in either a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy). Debtors frequently have problems proving that these debts should be discharged since a trial may be required, the debts may be old, and the creditor may have better records and more resources. The consequences can be dire. If a utility claims that service was stolen and the debtor cannot rebut the charge, the debtor will have to pay 100 percent of all debts in order to get a Chapter 13 discharge. If the debtor does not have enough income to do this, then the debtor may not be able to obtain a Section 8 voucher. A debtor who has a large, nondischargeable tort judgment arising out of willful and malicious conduct may be faced with 20 years of wage garnishments.

Debtor is “upside down” on a car purchased after April 21, 2003. A debtor is “upside down” on a car when the debtor owes more than the car is worth. Under existing law, the debtor can “strip down” any debt where the value of the collateral is less than the amount owed. The debtor pays 100 percent of the value of the collateral, with interest, and the difference between the value of the collateral and the amount owed is paid along with other unsecured debts, without interest, usually at much less than 100 percent. The new law eliminates a debtor’s ability to strip down a loan that was used to finance the purchase of a vehicle within 910 days before the filing date. If a car was purchased before April 21, 2003, the debtor will still be able to strip down the loan. However, if the car was purchased after April 21, 2003, and the case is filed after the new law becomes effective, the debtor will have to wait until it has been more than 910 days since the car was purchased to strip down the loan. If the loan has a very high interest rate, the debtor may be able to reduce the interest rate by filing for Chapter 13, but the debtor will not be able to reduce the amount that has to be repaid to reflect the real value of the car. This is not limited to new cars—it applies to used cars purchased by the debtor as well.

Debtor received a discharge in a case filed between October 17, 1997, and October 16, 1999, and is in need of Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. The time between Chapter 7 discharges has been extended from six years to eight years. This means that the debtor who got a Chapter 7 discharge during this period may get a discharge if a case was filed within six years and before the new law goes into effect but would have to wait up to two additional years if the debtor does not file before October 17, 2005.

Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge after October 17, 2001, or a Chapter 13 discharge after October 17, 2003, and is in need of Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. Under current law even if the debtor has recently received a bankruptcy discharge, the debtor may still file for Chapter 13, and as long as a plan is filed in good faith and meets other requirements for confirmation, the debtor may confirm a Chapter 13 plan even if the plan pays less than 100 percent as long as the plan represents the debtor’s best efforts to repay the debts for at least three years. This may preserve or reinstate a driver’s license needed for employment, preserve or restore essential utility service, protect wages from garnishment, or prevent recoupment or offset of public benefits. The new law says that if the debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge within the previous four years or a Chapter 13 discharge within the previous two years, the debtor may not get a Chapter 13 discharge. The debtor would either have to wait until the time period passed to be able to file for Chapter 13 or would have to propose a plan that would pay 100 percent of unsecured debt, with interest, and this may be beyond the debtor’s ability to pay. A debtor who needs to file for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to stop a mortgage foreclosure may still do so, but such a filing may be more expensive if the debtor also owes other debts.

This is the first half of a list of reasons to file bankruptcy before the new federal law goes into effect. Next month’s issue of Illinois Welfare News will feature four more reasons.

David Yen is the bankruptcy specialist at the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago (312.347.8372).

Major Immigration Reform Bill Introduced in Congress

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

Comprehensive bipartisan legislation aimed at fixing the nation’s broken immigration system was recently introduced in Congress. The legislation provides for legalization of current and future immigrants while it tightens border security through a series of measures, including a functional system for employers to verify that the people they hire are authorized to work in the United States. The original cosponsors of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 (S. 1033 and H.R. 233) are Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John McCain and Representatives Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake (both Arizona Republicans) and Representative Luis Gutierrez of Chicago.

Earned Legalization for Current U.S. Residents
An estimated 10 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States, including 400,000 in Illinois. The legislation would make undocumented immigrants who entered the United States on or before the date the bill was introduced (May 12, 2005) eligible for “earned legalization” by applying for H-5B status. These immigrants would have temporary legal status for six years, after which they could apply for lawful permanent residence (a “green card”). To obtain temporary legal status, they would have to be working or attending school full-time or both. Applicants would be fingerprinted and subject to a criminal background check and would be excluded if they had been convicted of a serious crime. They would be required to pay a $1,000 fine when they applied for temporary legal status and another $1,000 fine six years later when they would apply for permanent residency.

While in temporary status, they may work and travel without fear and would be eligible for loans and work-study, but not grants, to attend college. They would be issued social security numbers and be eligible to apply for a driver’s license. To become a legal permanent resident, they would have to pass English and civics tests equivalent to the citizenship test. Persons pursuing this track would not be eligible to apply for residency through any other channel (such as marriage to a U.S. citizen). There would be no numerical or time limit on applications under this provision. And spouses and children of applicants who enter the United States later would be eligible for the same temporary legal status and eventual application for permanent residency.

Essential Worker Program
The legislation creates a new temporary worker visa (H-5A) for immigrant workers who do not fit into the existing visa categories for agricultural and highly skilled workers. Immigrants with evidence of an employment offer in the United States will be eligible for a three-year visa renewable for an additional three years. If they lose their job, they will have 60 days to become reemployed, or they will have to leave the United States. Participants may apply for an employer-sponsored green card or, after four years in the United States, may self-petition for a green card. There will be 400,000 new visas in this category in the first year, with the number being adjusted for subsequent years based on utilization. Persons with these visas may apply for residency through any other means that apply to them (such as through a family relationship).

Enforcement Mechanisms
Within six months, all new visas and immigration-related documents must be machine-readable and tamper-resistant and include biometric information. Also, the legislation would create a national employment verification database through which employers will be able to check a job applicant’s eligibility to work within one day. Database information must be verified annually.

Border Security
The legislation includes several provisions to enhance protection of the international borders of the United States.

Labor Protection Provisions
H-5A visa holders would have the same legal rights as U.S. workers. The fines for unfair labor practices involving immigrants would be doubled.

Defrauding Immigrants
Only legally qualified representatives—attorneys and accredited representatives from nonprofit organizations—may advertise immigration-related services. Aggrieved immigrants may sue and receive triple damages.

Locally the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights has endorsed the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 and will be leading the local organizing efforts in support of this bill. The coalition already has convened local leaders from the immigrant community with Representative Gutierrez to map out a plan for building support for this comprehensive immigration reform.

For more information and to get involved in this effort, contact Gabe Gonzalez , Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, at 312.332.7360 ext. 16.

HUD Is Sued to Save Subsidized Housing Units

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the defendant of a federal class action lawsuit that the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and the Minnesota Housing Preservation Project filed on behalf of Chicago ACORN and 1,000 residents of a federally subsidized project-based Section 8 housing called Lawndale Restoration on Chicago’s West Side. The suit, filed on May 23, alleges that HUD is violating federal law by refusing to maintain the project-based Section 8 contract for the property.

The Lawndale Restoration buildings provide the majority of affordable, subsidized housing on the West Side. In October 2004 the project’s owner, Cecil Butler, was revealed to have fallen considerably behind on payments for a $51 million mortgage from the Illinois Housing Development Authority. In spite of glowing inspection reports from HUD, the property was also discovered to have suffered from serious building and federal housing quality standard code violations, including cracked masonry, defective porches, rodent infestation, leaks, broken doors, missing locks, and standing water.

Since the fall of 2004, organizers from Chicago ACORN have been meeting with residents, raising concerns about conditions, and trying to gauge what the residents would like to happen with the property. A majority of residents, assuming the property would be repaired and under new management, would like to remain in their homes. The City of Chicago also wants to maintain the property as project-based Section 8 and allow residents to continue to live there.

Nonetheless, HUD said that it would foreclose on the property and terminate the project-based Section 8 contract. HUD would then “voucher out”—that is, provide all eligible tenants with tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers—the property and sell the buildings either to interested private developers or to the City of Chicago if the City gives up its bid for maintenance of the project-based subsidies.

Before filing suit, Shriver Center attorneys Kate Walz and Raj Nayak and Housing Preservation Project attorney Jack Cann tried to resolve the case short of litigation, even meeting with local HUD officials in late April. No settlement discussions went forward.

A loss of a subsidized property of this size (1,240 units) is troubling in the Chicago area since over 38,000 units of subsidized housing are at risk of losing their affordability restrictions over the next five years. This potential loss of housing, coupled with the loss of public housing units through Chicago’s Plan for Transformation and the deep financial cuts in the Housing Choice Voucher program, only worsens Chicago’s affordable-housing crisis. That HUD will not consider maintaining subsidized properties at risk of foreclosure also sets a dangerous precedent nationally.

Worse still, nearly all of the Lawndale residents are African American and include many disabled residents, senior citizens, and families. If displaced with Housing Choice Vouchers, these residents would likely follow the trend of Chicago’s current voucher population—move to high-poverty, racially segregated areas of Chicago and lose all ties with their historic, gentrifying community at Lawndale.

For more information, contact Kate Walz

Support the Ensuring Success in School Act (ESSA): Help Teen Parents and Victims of Domestic or Sexual Violence Succeed in School

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

Teenage parents who apply for or receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in Illinois are required to participate in the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) Teen Parent Services (TPS) program. Teen parents in low-income households who are not on welfare are encouraged to participate in TPS on a voluntary basis. TPS assists them in enrolling in and staying in school to obtain a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) certificate. Many of these teens have serious barriers to educational success. They suffer from homelessness, lack of child care, health problems, lack of family supports, low literacy levels, and domestic violence and sexual assault issues. TPS case managers strive to help them overcome these obstacles and succeed in school so that they may ultimately become self-sufficient and economically independent. This often involves advocating for them in situations where there may be institutional barriers to obtaining services. For instance, TPS provides welfare advocacy to assist teen parents through the daunting steps and requirements of the IDHS intake process to obtain TANF.

I worked in the IDHS TPS program for the last twenty years, planning and providing services to teen parents and advocating policies and resources to meet their needs. These young parents are usually school dropouts when they first enter TPS, although “dropout” is often a misnomer. Many did not leave school voluntarily but were disenrolled due to excessive absences or academic failure. In many cases, the disenrollment could have been prevented if the student had been informed about the availability of home/hospital instruction, encouraged to continue in school, and referred to existing service providers in the community for additional help.

For example, a 17-year-old woman contacted me at TPS to ask for help finding a GED program. She had missed six weeks of high school to have her baby and was shocked to find that her locker had been emptied during her absence because she had been officially disenrolled from school. School staff advised her to pursue a GED. Certainly her pregnancy was a factor, but it need not have led to this outcome. If someone at school had paid attention to this young mother, there are many ways this tragic result could have been avoided.

Chicago elementary school students who become pregnant are sometimes told that they cannot continue to attend their neighborhood school. They may be referred to Simpson Academy, a school that specializes in serving pregnant and parenting students. But because Simpson can accommodate only 300 students, it has a waiting list. In one TPS case, the mother of a pregnant 11-year-old girl told us that the school principal told her to take her daughter home and then enroll her at Simpson where they could better meet her needs. The mother did not feel it was safe for her young child to travel far from her home on public transportation and wanted her daughter to remain in her neighborhood school. When she was unable to persuade the neighborhood school to allow her daughter to continue to attend classes, the mother, together with her daughter’s TPS worker, decided to apply for home/hospital instruction since the pregnancy was now advanced and high risk. Actually getting home instruction took several months. The physician’s statement had to be submitted twice, as the first time it was misplaced by the school. Even after the Chicago Public Schools’central office approved the services and a teacher was assigned, there were additional delays at the local school level. It literally took daily advocacy to obtain the services so that this elementary-school student could continue her education during her pregnancy.

Across the state, the most difficult task of a TPS case manager is to find an elementary or high school that will immediately reenroll a pregnant or parenting student who has been disenrolled, especially if the youth is too old for elementary school but lacks an eighth-grade diploma. In Chicago some of these students are served by the Achievement Academies, but other students have reported encountering multiple difficulties in trying to enroll there as well.

For example, I recall one student and her mother who were sent to three different schools in an unsuccessful search for the student’s school records. One elementary school assumed that the girl had transferred and sent her records to another, but the girl dropped out and never actually transferred. The receiving school said that they sent the records to the neighborhood high school because of her age. Eventually the Chicago Public Schools told the TPS case manager to go to a storage facility on Pershing Road, where the records were finally located and the student was admitted to the Achievement Academy. Faced with such barriers, many pregnant and parenting students grow discouraged and drop out of school permanently.

Domestic and sexual violence is reported all too frequently among teen parents, and young people in general. Young people who are the victims of domestic or sexual violence also face school challenges that hinder their academic success and school completion. While working at TPS, I frequently encountered young women who had dropped out of school to avoid boyfriends who abused and/or stalked them at school. Other victims of domestic violence reported being blamed by school officials for the violence they experienced. On occasion, victims of sexual assault have been expelled, and, in some instances, schools have refused to honor civil protective and no-contact orders. For these students, safety concerns often trump the desire to remain in school.

My experiences at TPS have shown me both the benefits of a high school education and the difficulties that many students encounter as they try to obtain one. For these reasons, I am working with the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law to promote House Bill 3615, the Ensuring Success in School Act (ESSA), which is pending in the Illinois House of Representatives. ESSA promotes the school success of Illinois students who are expectant parents, parents, or victims of domestic or sexual violence. ESSA provides specifically for

immediate enrollment or reenrollment of expectant or parenting students and victims of domestic or sexual violence;
inclusion of pregnancy-related medical appointments, fulfillment of parenting responsibilities, and addressing circumstances resulting from domestic or sexual violence as valid cause for student absences;
establishing a statewide working group to develop resources to assist school districts in promoting success and safety for all students;
training of key school personnel to understand, give information and referrals, and address issues concerning pregnancy, parenting, and domestic and sexual violence; and
greater awareness of and access to home/hospital instruction.

Young people who are expectant parents, parents, or victims of domestic or sexual violence are at great risk of not completing their education and living in poverty. I saw the consequences firsthand at IDHS. I have worked with countless teens who left school in eighth or ninth grade but still read at a third- or fourth-grade level. These young parents will never get a high school diploma; they will likely never get a GED either. These teens—and indeed their children—deserve something better. Educational achievement is a predictor for almost every facet of success and social well-being. ESSA will promote the long-term social and economic prosperity of these young families by helping them remain and succeed in school. I encourage you to join me in supporting the efforts of the Shriver Center, in coalition with other organizations, to advocate on behalf of these young people in Illinois so that they may stay in school and complete their high school education.

Learn more about H.B. 3615 here, where you will find fact sheets about the bill and view a growing list of the bill’s supporters.

Sally Polasek recently retired from the Illinois Department of Human Services after 37 years of service to the community. For more information, contact Wendy Pollack , 312.263.3830 ext. 238, or Aleeza Strubel , 312.263.3830 ext. 229.

Bush Administration, HUD Again Try to Dismantle the Housing Choice Voucher Program

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

As one advocate said recently about the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there really is no bottom to the barrel when it comes to finding a supply of HUD officials solely committed to eroding federal housing programs. In April HUD and the Bush administration proposed companion House and Senate legislation, entitled the “State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005,” which would fundamentally change the face of the Housing Choice Voucher program.

The danger behind this latest effort is that unlike the prior legislation and HUD antics last year that drastically cut public housing authorities’ budgets, putting housing authorities and advocates in rare alignment against HUD and the Bush administration, many housing authorities are now voicing their support for this proposed legislation. While distressing, this position is not altogether surprising. With their shrinking budgets, housing authorities are finding it difficult to maintain their current programs while meeting all of the voucher program’s existing requirements.

This latest proposal would move housing authorities nationally to a “flexible” voucher program, similar to the Moving to Work authority that the Chicago Housing Authority and other housing authorities enjoy already, giving housing authorities greater leeway as to how they run their voucher programs and to whom they offer vouchers. The legislation include the following highlights:

Vouchers would no longer be reserved for the lowest-income families. Currently 75 percent of vouchers must go to families with incomes of $15,000 a year or less. The proposed legislation would allow housing authorities to target families of higher incomes. No longer focusing on those who need it most, the new program would require 90 percent of vouchers to go to families making about $30,000 or less.
Beginning in 2008, five-year time limits may be imposed on all families who are not elderly or disabled. Advocates may recall that one of the Bush administration’s earlier failed proposals, HANF (Housing Assistance to Needy Families), had this same objective of limiting families’ participation in the program, regardless of their financial circumstances.
Under the new program, families may be required to work, comply with a self-sufficiency contract, or meet other requirements in order to receive assistance. This component was also part of the HANF initiative.
Housing authorities may determine how much tenants would have to pay in rent regardless of the tenant’s income. Housing authorities may establish minimum rents or “flat” rents of any amount. The bills allow for no hardship exceptions, even for families facing unemployment or medical emergencies. This proposal will likely force many families to have to pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent.
Limits may be set on the amount that the voucher is worth. This proposal may severely limit the choice of neighborhoods for families, especially large families and families trying to move to racially diverse, economically thriving communities.
Housing authorities may severely curtail portability. Families’ efforts to move to other housing authorities’ jurisdictions will be conditioned upon the consent of the departing and receiving housing authority. Because of the budget constraints, housing authorities will likely reject requests for moves to economically thriving communities due to the increased expense. Housing authorities will be subject to regional boundary restrictions, that is, moves out of state will be prohibited unless the housing authority’s jurisdiction falls within a certain region.
Federal law would no longer require agencies to consult with voucher holders, any other stakeholders, or the public. Voucher holders will be prohibited from serving on the housing authority board. Voucher holders would not be able to comment on proposed changes in housing authorities’ policies regarding the administration of their voucher programs.

Before we allow this proposal to move forward, remember that much of what HUD and the Bush administration proposed in previous years faced bipartisan criticism and eventual defeat. Federal, state, and local Republican and Democratic officials understand that housing security is a critical component toward anchoring a family’s economic stability.

For more information, contact katewalz@povertylaw.org at 312.263.3830 ext. 232.

U.S. and Illinois Fall Short on Asset Goals, According to CFED

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

While Illinois, along with 20 other states and the District of Columbia, received an overall asset policy rating of “favorable” in CFED’s 2005 Assets and Opportunity Scorecard, Illinois’s score for overall asset outcomes was a “D,” that is, many Illinoisans are not getting ahead and instead are living with no safety net at all. Illinois received a “substandard” rating for income tax threshold and asset limits for public assistance.

CFED, which bills itself as a “ nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works to expand economic opportunity,” released its 2005 scorecard earlier this month. The scorecard ranks the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their performance in 69 asset outcome and policy measures in the areas of financial security, business development, homeownership, health care, education, and tax policy and accountability. The scorecard is designed to gauge how easily or hard for families to get ahead and is meant to be used as a tool for states to see what works and change what does not. CFED states, “‘Getting by’ may require only a paycheck, but getting ahead requires a variety of assets, a financial safety net, education, and health care.”

Nationally the results are mixed. The scorecard showed that the health insurance coverage rate was less than 65 percent, which is terrible for a developed country. By contrast, homeownership is at an all-time high with a rate of almost 70 percent. Overall, however, the asset reality for many families is bleak. Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, only 10 were given an overall rating of A, while the majority got a C or below. In the asset policy area, 26 states got a “substandard” ranking, the lowest score. Too many Americans, especially nonwhites, women, and low-income people, do not have the access or the opportunity to build and maintain assets. States and the nation as a whole have a lot of work to do before they can say that they are taking care of their citizens.

The scorecard divides the results into two categories: asset policies and asset outcomes. CFED says that “state policies can play a key role by removing barriers to asset accumulation, supporting asset building, and protecting assets that already exist.” The Illinois Asset Building Group (IABG), a coalition cochaired by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and the Heartland Alliance, will be using the scorecard to develop a policy agenda aimed at improving asset policies for low- and moderate-income people in Illinois.

CFED divides asset outcomes into five categories: financial security, business development, homeownership, health care, and education.

The first, financial security, asks whether people are able to build and protect their wealth. With scores of 38 in bankruptcy rates, 24 in households with zero net worth, and 33 in asset poverty by gender, Illinois received a C in financial security. However, in racial household asset equality, Illinois ranked ninth, indicating that the racial difference in asset equality is not extreme.

In business development, Illinois earned a D, which means that Illinoisans have limited access to start and grow a business. In fact, Illinois ranked 49th in small-business ownership. For many Americans, small-business creation has been the best way to enter the middle class.

Illinois also received a D in homeownership, with rankings of 31 in racial diversity of homeownership and 41 in homeownership by gender. Homeownership is the single largest source of equity for Americans. Overall the national rate has risen, although there remains a homeownership gap between whites and nonwhites.

While Illinois rated a C in health care, it ranked 10th in uninsured low-income parents and 19th in employer-provided insurance. CFED’s study showed that employer-offered insurance decreased nationally, while nearly half of all bankruptcies resulted from illness or medical bills.

In education, an asset closely tied to income and the ability to obtain and keep good employment, Illinois received a C, with average rankings for outcomes and educational policy for K-12 and college education.

The scorecard also took a look at how race and gender affect asset issues nationally. The report showed that minority and female-headed households fell below the national average in ownership, and many had zero or negative worth. CFED reported that “minority families have only one-sixteenth the net assets of white families.”

For more information on the scorecard or IABG, contact Dory Rand, Shriver Center, at 312.368.2007. To read more about the scorecard, go to www.cfed.org/go/scorecard.

Congress Agrees on a Budget Resolution

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

House and Senate Republicans have agreed on a congressional budget resolution for the 2006 fiscal year (which begins on October 1, 2005). Republicans control both chambers of Congress and did not admit Democrats to the negotiations. The budget resolution lays out the plan for the budget for the next five years, and now both houses will attempt to enact the actual appropriations and revenue bills along the lines set forth in the resolution before September 30, 2005 (the end of the current federal fiscal year).

The plan contains significant cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicaid and discretionary programs such as federal aid to education, but these are more than offset by large increases in tax cuts (mostly for wealthy investors) and defense. The bottom line is that, in spite of the spending cuts, over the next five years the deficit will increase by $168 billion more than it would without the changes in the budget resolution. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has produced an excellent summary of the budget resolution: James Horney, “Assessing the Conference Agreement on the Budget Resolution” (May 6, 2005), available at www.cbpp.org/4-28-05bud.htm. Here is a summary of some of the details involving low-income programs.

Reconciliation
The budget resolution includes instructions to the relevant committees of the House and the Senate to come up with specified amounts of entitlement cuts and tax cuts. Simply given an amount of money to achieve, the committees must come up with what is called “reconciliation” legislation that specifies how the spending and tax cuts will be achieved. Because whatever is included in “reconciliation” legislation is not subject to Senate filibuster, the legislation needs only a simple majority to pass (not the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster). Included in the reconciliation instructions are $35 billion in entitlement cuts and $70 billion in tax cuts.

Entitlement Cuts
About $10 billion of the $35 billion in entitlement cuts is to come from programs under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The assumption appears to be that most or all of these cuts will come from Medicaid. A commission under the direction of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt will be studying how to achieve these Medicaid cuts over the next few months.

The House and Senate Agriculture Committees are directed to fashion legislation cutting programs in their jurisdiction by $3 billion. This sets up a battle between agriculture interests out to protect farm subsidies and limit increases in agriculture-related fees and low-income advocates intent on protecting the Food Stamp Program from cuts.

Tax Cuts
The budget resolution contains $106 billion in tax cuts. Of this amount, $36 billion is to come in legislation outside of the reconciliation process, but $70 billion will be in reconciliation legislation protected from filibuster. While the resolution does not specify the tax cuts, knowledgeable sources expect that they will include extension of the dividend and capital gains cuts enacted in 2003, now scheduled to expire in 2008. Almost 80 percent of the benefit of these two tax cuts goes to families making over $200,000 per year, or the highest 3.1 percent of households.

Discretionary Program Cuts
The budget resolution assumes that funding for domestic discretionary programs (not including entitlements or funding within defense and international areas) will be cut in 2006 by $35 billion from 2005 levels—a 5.9 percent cut. Over the five years, the total cuts in these programs will be $212 billion, some of which will not be effective until after the five years (the cut during the five years is $143 billion).

These cuts would affect almost every domestic program, including TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), child care block grants, and community development block grants. For example, funding for education and training programs would be cut by $35 billion over five years. Natural resource and environmental programs would lose $30 billion over the five years. By contrast, defense would increase by $178 billion over the five years, mostly to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cuts in discretionary programs are not included in the reconciliation process. The budget activity now turns to the relevant committees in both houses to produce the legislation that will accomplish the goals set out in the budget resolution.

For more information, contact John Bouman , the Shriver Center’s director of advocacy.

Financial Education Instructor Training Sessions Offered

2006-07-13T16:23:56Z

The University of Illinois Extension and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law will offer financial education instructor training on the All My Money and Your Money and Your Life curricula on June 9, 10, 16, and 17 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The four-day training session will be held at the University of Illinois Extension De Kalb office in Sycamore. Topics covered will include budgeting, credit, managing debt, avoiding money traps, using financial institutions, choosing insurance, realizing job benefits, making money with money, taking advantage of public benefits, understanding taxes, identity theft, and immigrant banking issues.

The $226 cost per person covers instruction, instructor manual, materials, handouts, and food (breakfast, lunch, snacks). Please make checks payable to the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.

Contact Hannah Avellone at 312.368.8575 to RSVP or for more information.