The Shriver Brief : Poverty Law Commentary & Insights : Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law : Affordable Housing, Healthcare Reform

Put Illinois to Work (PIW) is a new jobs program that provides employers with a unique and promising opportunity to benefit from federal stimulus money, at no cost to the employer, while supporting Illinois’ economy and workforce. Participant employees are paid $10/hour by the state and are expected to work at least 30 hours/week. The PIW program is currently funded through September 30, 2010, but prospects are good that the funding will be extended for another year. 

Employers benefit from PIW in several ways:

1. PIW provides access to temporary free labor.

2. There is no long-term commitment. Although encouraged to hire PIW workers after the program ends, this decision remains entirely at the discretion of the employer. 

3. If employers do decide to hire PIW participants full-time at the end of the program, they will receive tax credits.

Virtually all employers -- public, private, and non-profit -- are eligible to participate in PIW. Participant employees are paid out of a fund created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in exchange for employers’ in-kind contribution of supervision and training.

PIW was launched by the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) on April 1, 2010. Already, nearly 350 employers across the state have signed up to participate, creating more than 2,825 jobs. Recently, the New York Times published an article highlighting the positive experiences of two participating employers, Michael’s Fresh Market and DeNormandie Towel and Linen Supply Company.  

For more information and to become a PIW employer, go to www.PutIllinoistoWork.Illinois.gov.

This post was coauthored by Jessica Sklarsky.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Every day organizations throughout the state of Illinois are actively enrolling children in the state’s comprehensive health insurance program called All Kids.  According to the All Kids website, All Kids Application Agents (AKAAs) are faith-based organizations, medical providers, unions, day care centers, local governments, and other community-based organizations that help families enroll in the state’s public health insurance programs. AKAAs provide families with the support and assistance they need to enroll in the state’s public health insurance programs. AKAAs are organizations and individuals that families trust, which is crucial in a process that asks families to provide personal information. 

Imagine how many kids AKAAs could enroll if brought together for a single, community-wide, well-publicized event. This was the thinking behind the 1,000 Healthy Kids Campaign undertaken by Resurrection Health Care in the summer of 2008. Families are often unaware of the state’s option for uninsured children. By partnering with organizations that families trust and getting the word out about the program and the event, the 1,000 Healthy Kids Campaign was able to enroll over 1,000 kids in All Kids in one day. 

The 1,000 Healthy Kids Campaign enlisted the help of community leaders to ensure that their event was a success. Involving people in the community who families already know and trust is a crucial part of a successful event. Rosemary Kaminski and Andrea Hernandez at the Laboure Outpatient Center at St. Joseph Hospital, which is part of the Resurrection Health Care network, enroll children everyday at the clinic, hold an annual health fair, and were a pivotal part of the 1,000 Healthy Kids Campaign. Kaminski says that the trust and reputation the clinic has goes a long way in getting families enrolled in All Kids, “We get referrals from our patients and they know we’re here…There is a big trust there.”

Those involved in the planning, preparation, and execution of the event said that seeing their hard work come to fruition on the day of the event made their work worth it. Julie Derrig, who was part of the team that planned the event and served as a field captain on the day of the event, recounts that by 8:30 a.m. families were already lining up to enroll their kids in All Kids. 

The 1,000 Healthy Kids Campaign event successfully enrolled over 1,000 kids, but equally important the campaign made the people of the City of Chicago aware of a wonderful program available to families. The effort equipped families with the information and tools to enroll their children in health insurance, even if they were not able to enroll on the day of the event. Although the event was Chicago-based, the event headquarters received phone calls from families in Lake County looking for information. Outreach and education around All Kids can be as important as enrolling people in the program. 

The success of the 1,000 Healthy Kids Campaign can serve as inspiration for other enrollment events. However, organizations and communities should not feel like an effort is futile unless they can enroll 1,000 kids. Every kid enrolled in All Kids is another kid who will have access to the health care they need and another kid who will be connected to a primary care doctor. Check out the Shriver Center’s All Kids Enrollment Event Toolkit for more information on executing an enrollment or outreach event in your community.

This post was coauthored by Carrie Gilbert.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The House passed the monumental American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) almost a year ago. Since then, there have been two climate bills introduced in the Senate, the Kerry-Boxer bill and the Cantwell-Collins bill.  And, for several months, everyone awaited the introduction of the tri-partisan Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill . . . an introduction that would never come to pass. Last week, after Senator Graham (R-SC) dropped his sponsorship, Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) released a third climate bill in the Senate, the American Power Act. 

The American Power Act, similarly to ACES, would place a cap on carbon emissions, requiring large emitters (over 25,000 tons annually) to have allowances that could be bought and sold, creating a cap-and-trade system.  Among other provisions, the bill sets aside $7 billion annually to improve our transportation infrastructure, provides $2 billion in incentives annually to research and develop “clean coal” technologies, and provides substantial financial incentives to increase nuclear power generation. In the aftermath of the BP oil leak, the Act also grants to states a 37.5 percent share of revenues collected from off-shore drilling in federal waters off their coastlines, giving states the “option” to veto off-shore drilling within 75 miles of their coasts.

The cap on carbon emissions would hopefully begin to curb global warming, but it would also increase energy costs and the costs of energy-intensive goods for American consumers. The Act includes special consumer protection measures aimed at our nation’s poorest, but are they sufficient? Chad Stone, Chief Economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, believes they are, characterizing the protections as “the soundest approach to protecting low- and moderate-income consumers in a comprehensive energy and climate bill.”

The Act creates the “Energy Refund Program” for families with incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level. Each state’s human services agency would administer the program, and benefits would be delivered on the same debit cards currently used to administer food stamps and other benefits. Families who already receive food stamps or SSI would automatically be enrolled in the program. Families with slightly higher incomes, between 150 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level, would be eligible for a refundable credit distributed through the tax system.

Although these special provisions may be enough to protect our nation’s most vulnerable, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) believes that, in terms of consumer protection for the average American, the Act falls far short of the House bill passed last year. 

The bill could be strengthened in many ways, but it may represent the last chance (at least for many years) to pass badly needed comprehensive climate change legislation. Many already doubt the Senate’s ability to pass a bill, but after elections this fall, chances will be even slimmer. We need a climate bill, and we need our Senators to step up to the plate now.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Sargent Shriver Center on Poverty Law joins advocates across the country in celebrating Chase Bank’s recent announcement that it will exit the Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) industry.  Chase Bank was the largest provider of short-term, high-interest-rate bank loans, or RALs, contracting with over 13,000 independent tax preparers nationwide.  According to the Woodstock Institute, Chase provided 1.5 million RALs annually based on expected income tax refunds. 

As discussed in our previous blog, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently creating a task force to review RAL loans issued by tax preparation sites in order to regulate the industry.  While no rules, regulations, or recommendations have been issued yet, the formation of the task force and the increased scrutiny of such products by regulators appear to be having the intended effects. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also issued new guidance on the delivery of RALs earlier this year.

Chase joins other banks and financial institutions that have recently left the market; Jackson Hewitt lost its RAL partner when Santa Barbara Bank & Trust was forced to stop selling RALs, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) mandated a cease and desist order for Republic Bank & Trust’s RAL program until reforms were implemented.

Despite their history in the RAL industry, Chase claimed that its sale of RALs was no longer a “strategic fit” for their business model, and cited increased scrutiny and additional regulations as part of its decision to leave the market.  While we applaud Chase Bank for being responsible and exiting the RAL industry, its actions were the direct result of constant pressure from community organizations and consumer advocates, including the Shriver Center. In sum, Chase was forced to comply with the new OCC guidelines, or exit the RAL industry.  This withdrawal is another victory for working families and may mark the beginning of the end for refund anticipation loans.

This post was coauthored by Susan Ritacca.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In the last 25 years, credit has taken on an increasingly important role in our economy. Yet, an estimated 50 to 70 million Americans remain un-scored or have a thin credit file, meaning that the big three U.S. credit bureaus (TransUnion, Experian and Equifax) do not have enough information about these individuals' finances to assign them a credit score, whether good or bad. Accumulating assets is necessary for low-income families to move out of asset poverty and become financially secure. 

Without a credit history, it is difficult, if not impossible, to qualify for a mortgage, obtain a credit card, buy a car, or finance a small business. Increasingly, even employment and rental housing decisions hinge on a credit score. These computer-generated scores have, in just a couple of decades, become the benchmark for lending. Banks use credit scores to determine eligibility and pricing for loans. Although banks argue that standardization of credit scoring has enabled millions of consumers to get loans quickly and at a low price, without regard to race, gender, or residence, estimates indicate that 32 million consumers have credit files that are too thin to score, and 22 million have no files at all. Many of the “un” or “under” scored are minorities, young adults, and women.

Most credit scores are based on some variation of Fair Isaac's FICO score, which ranges from 300 to 850. The lower the score, the greater the risk. The main factors used in a FICO score are payment history for credit cards, mortgages, and other retail accounts, the amount a consumer owes, the length of time he or she has held credit, and the amount of recently opened credit cards. In order to increase access to credit, some advocates are calling for the inclusion of  alternative data in credit reporting.

A 2006 study indicated that an overwhelming majority of lenders believe that increasing numbers of individuals could borrow money if nontraditional data were incorporated into lending decisions. In fact, half of the lenders interviewed in this study said that they were already using or evaluating the use of alternative data sources. Yet, a closer look at the credit reporting system seems appropriate before incorporating such data. 

If, as some claim, the current credit system’s lack of transparency and inaccuracy already discriminates against low-income families, should we first work on making the credit bureaus accountable and transparent before adding more information into a seemingly vacuous and obscure system? If a new reporting system is needed, how should it be constructed so that minorities and low-income workers do not become even more vulnerable?

Moreover, not all alternate credit reporting and scoring methodologies are created equal. What types of data predict creditworthiness and should therefore be reported? Should it be limited to data such as rent, telecom, and utility payments? Should alternative data reporting also include things such as child care, medical, and other payments not currently or routinely examined by the large credit-reporting agencies? As part of incorporating such alternative data, should the reporting process be adjusted to provide an opt-in for those who want it, rather than automatic reporting for all? Or should extra weight be given to payments, such as child support, thereby making credit scoring not only a predictor of creditworthiness, but also a basis for social policy?

The Shriver Center is hosting a webinar to explore the effect alternative data reporting will have on low-income families. Join us on May 27th at 1 p.m. CDT to learn about current research on the impact of alternative data reporting based on firms that already report both on-time and late payment, including full data reporting of NICOR and DTE customers; current gas and electric utility credit and collection data from states around the country; the National Credit Reporting Association’s perspective on alternative credit reporting, and proposed legislative amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This article was coauthored by Susan Ritacca.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The General Assembly recessed on their planned adjournment date of May 7, having failed to enact a state budget for fiscal year 2011. May 7 was an artificial deadline. The real deadline is May 31, after which bills may not take effect before January 1, 2011 unless they pass by a 3/5 majority, which would require there to be Republican votes  to pass a budget bill. May 7 may have served a useful purpose for Senate President Cullerton and House Speaker Madigan, however, since it allowed them to determine exactly where the fault lines lie and determine what they must do to get a budget enacted before the May 31 deadline.

The failure of the General Assembly to agree on a budget is a temporary victory for the Responsible Budget Coalition since the only budgets that were on the table on May 7 were fiscally irresponsible and would have inflicted severe pain on our most vulnerable state residents. The House resoundingly rejected both proposed budgets – one that would have required massive cuts in services and the other that would have resulted in massive borrowing. Speaker Madigan did not allow a vote on the other option – raising revenue.   

In the waning days of the session before the May 7 recess, the General Assembly also gave serious consideration to enacting an Emergency Budget Act. The proponents apparently believed that putting all responsibility for budget cuts on the Governor would allow them to escape detection when the residents of Illinois dust for fingerprints on the elimination of services to the mentally ill, developmentally disabled, homebound elderly, infants and toddlers, and so on. The Emergency Budget Act would allow the Governor to implement emergency rules to cut programs, make all state programs “subject to appropriation” and thus optional instead of mandatory, and establish contingency reserves that could be used to eliminate budgeted state programs. In short, the Emergency Budget Act would give the Governor unilateral power to cut spending and eliminate programs as he sees fit, without legislative review.

Governor Quinn would exercise these extraordinary powers for the first six months of the fiscal year that begins on July 1. If Quinn were to lose the November election – and all the polls show him trailing -- then the power to eliminate any and all state programs would fall into the hands of Senator Bill Brady for six months until the emergency powers expire on July 1, 2011.  Brady has proposed cutting taxes by $1 billion in the face of Illinois’ $13 billion revenue shortfall, a position so extreme that it’s not even embraced by the radical free market Illinois Policy Institute.

So how do you close a $13 billion budget shortfall?  Here’s what the General Assembly was considering:

That's right--$4 out of every $5 used to "balance" the state budget would be either borrowed or obtained by not paying our bills.

Last week's action shows that the messages of the Responsible Budget Coalition are penetrating. There is growing momentum to find a real solution to our fiscal crisis and not simply to postpone the problem and, in the meantime, make it worse. Slowly the conventional wisdom that revenue increases are not possible during an election year is being whittled away. The game is far from over though and advocates for a responsible budget that raises the revenue needed to begin to dig us out of our deficit hole still face an uphill climb. Nor is there any sign that the leadership of the General Assembly is willing to seriously entertain a proposal to significantly increase state revenues. In the meantime, there will also be great pressure on the budget holdouts to end their resistance to the enactment of a bad budget. It's still all hands on deck for a responsible budget.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Los Angeles Times recently posted an oddly inviting “state budget balancer" that allows you to have a go at balancing California’s $26 billion budget deficit by clicking on services to cut or items to tax. The “deficit meter” keeps track of how well you’ve done at solving the state’s massive budget shortfall at each click. Other states and cities have these online budget balancing tools as well—for example, in New Jersey, there’s the “You Be the Governor” challenge; for a crack at the federal deficit, see the American Public Media’s flashy “Budget Hero”.

Of course, the consequences of states’ fiscal distress are more complex and varied than these simplistic tools reflect. Among the consequences is an increase in demand for help from legal aid programs when people lose access to vital services (such as those available for “cutting” in the “deficit meter”).

Budget-related advocacy is underway across the country to help those affected by fiscal cuts. For example, the California Budget Project has reported on “Assessing the Impact: How Proposed State Budget Cuts Would Affect Women in California and What You Can Do to Help.” In Illinois, the Responsible Budget Coalition has an ongoing campaign to “Save Our State”; the Shriver Center is an active member of the coalition. And, in the District of Columbia, the Legal Aid Society is urging an equitable approach to the District's fiscal crisis.

What can legal aid do about state budget cutbacks? This is one of the article topics suggested by a participant in an April 20th conference call sponsored by Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, a publication of the Shriver Center. Fifteen attorneys from eleven states offered ideas ranging from health care reform to obligor defenses in child support enforcement to medical-legal partnerships.

Which of these topics would you most like to see covered in an upcoming issue of Clearinghouse Review? Vote now in a new two-question survey. Or post your additional suggestions on the Shriver Center’s Facebook discussion page—we value your input!
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

[This is the last in a series of six articles summarizing the half century history of the US poverty threshold and the dire need for an updated poverty measure.]

As the earlier posts have discussed, the main problem with the currently poverty measure is that its ridiculously out of date. Updating the measure will offer a more realistic view of what constitutes poverty in 2010. The measure will actually have some real relationship to costs rather than rely on antiquated 1955 costs. It’s currently based on the lowest cost food plan available in 1955; a time when food constituted 1/3 of the average family’s budget. Now, however, food is only 1/7 of a family’s budget while the costs of housing, childcare, and health care, none of which are taken into consideration, have all risen disproportionately. The 2008 average poverty threshold of $22,025 for a family of four represents the same purchasing power as the corresponding 1963 threshold of $3,128.

The current poverty measure is also confusing. As discussed previously, the poverty thresholds are published by the Census Bureau and are the original measure and are mostly used for statistical purposes. The poverty guidelines are published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and are used for determining eligibility for certain federal benefit programs. The Census Bureau and HHS also follow different labeling practices. The Census Bureau labels its poverty thresholds by the year to which they are applied, whereas HHS labels its poverty guidelines by the year in which it issues them. Because of these disparate labeling practices, the Census Bureau poverty thresholds for 2008 and the 2009 HHS are actually for the same year. Trying to compare these two versions leads to confusion.

Perhaps most importantly, however, is the fact that such outdated poverty measures are used for benefits determinations at all. Although some means-tested programs do not use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility (e.g. TANF, SSI, EITC), many others do.  Currently at least 82 federal or federally assisted programs use information about numbers of people in poverty in some way in formulas for allocating funds to states or localities, or use some percentage of poverty in calculating benefits eligibility. Federal programs that use the guidelines in determining eligibility include Head Start, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Food Stamps, and Women Infants and Children (WIC). Some federal programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines, such as 125%, 150% or 185%. This is not the result of a single coherent plan, instead, it stems from decisions made at different times by different congressional committees or federal agencies. Additionally, some state and local governments have chosen to use the federal poverty guidelines in some of their own programs and activities such as state health insurance programs.

Use of the poverty guidelines might not have been important if cash and in-kind government benefits for poor families had risen at the same rate. The rate of growth has, however, been very unequal. In the early 1960s more than $8 out of $10 in public means-tested benefits was transferred to poor people as cash, less than $2 as in-kind benefits. By the early 1990s, more than $7 out of $10 was transferred as in-kind benefits. Official poverty statistics, therefore, mask the full extent to which poverty has been reduced by programs to ameliorate it, because they exclude the consumption gains that result from in-kind transfers.

The new poverty supplement addresses many of these deficiencies. Yet, there will likely be little to celebrate from the new data. Given the depth and length of this recession, the supplemental measure will likely confirm what we’ve known for a while – that more and more working families are living on the brink. On the other hand, the new measure could prove transformative if it becomes the central basis by which we establish whether we are making progress on reducing poverty.

The current poverty measure’s failure to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs creates the false impression that poverty is intractable and that we’ll never make a dent in this problem no matter what government does. In reality, research shows that just four policy recommendations, to improve the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, child care assistance, and minimum wage, would cut the U.S. poverty rate by 26% over 10 years.

This new data can help us understand how well the federal government is responding to the recession and what types of policies are most effective at helping those families striving to join the middle class. In particular, these supplemental figures could take on added significance at a time when many in the government point to an overhaul of public benefit programs as the best hope for reducing the ballooning federal debt. The fact that the new measure will not immediately be used as an “official measure” is also beneficial.

Using the new measure as a supplement allows studies of the potential effects such a switch could have. Once this impact is assessed, advocates can then lobby for a change if appropriate.

In the meantime, after such a long discussion about the poverty measurement, it is important to remember exactly what the purpose of the U.S. poverty measure is. As its creator explained:

"Unlike some other calculations, those relating to poverty have no intrinsic value of their own. They exist only in order to help us make them disappear from the scene . . . .With imagination, faith and hope, we might succeed in wiping out the scourge of poverty even if we don't agree on how to measure it."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Among numerous stories I’ve come across about people with criminal records turning their lives around, a recent story from the Quad-City Business Journal caught my attention. The story involves a trio who served time in federal prison for trafficking meth, the employer who hired them, and the federal prosecutor who described their employment relationship as “just terrific.”

Sally Hillman, Frannie Spickers, and Brian Nimrick were all convicted of trafficking methamphetamine. Upon completing their prison sentences, they searched for employment. Usually, a job search for people with past convictions can yield very few results, especially in the current job market. Even when employers are willing to take a chance on someone with a criminal record, those employers often do not expose themselves publicly out of fear of becoming stigmatized.

In this story, though, not only did Hillman, Spickers, and Nimrick find work with Greystone Logistics, but this Bettendorf, Iowa-based manufacturing company openly acknowledged its policy of giving second chances to people with criminal backgrounds. A plant manager explains:

It really comes from the heart. Sure we get great workers with good attendance and good attitudes. But when you hear their success stories — such as getting to see family they had not seen in years — and they are genuinely grateful to have a job and a place to plant their feet to start again, to get that second chance, you know you are doing the right thing.

It makes you want to go the extra mile when you are made aware of the discrimination they have to endure to get a job, to rent an apartment, etc. We truly do want to give these great people a re-chance to adapt and to become a productive member of society. Without employment it cannot be done. When you have that "Grampa" who gets to see his  9-year-old grandchild for the first time, and he is doing everything right so he can see his grandkids, how can you not do this for them?

This chance for Hillman, Spickers, and Nimrick was a chance not only to work, but also to succeed. The story notes, for instance, that Spickers has been working to move up the company ladder since joining Greystone Logistics as a janitor nearly two years ago.

Another other notable person pleased with the trio’s success is Jeffrey Lang, the federal prosecutor in the meth trafficking case that originally landed them behind bars. Now the acting United States Attorney of the Central District of Illinois, Lang praised their story as an example of how the criminal justice system is supposed to work:

The system protected the public back then. They are rehabilitated and now they are productive members of society.

Lang’s words echo a speech by Mr. Lang’s counterpart in the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, who reminded us that like law enforcement, businesses have an important role in ushering people from prison and jail back into society. Greystone Logistics has stepped up to that challenge quite well.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

[This is the fifth in a series of six articles summarizing the half-century history of the U.S. poverty threshold and the dire need for an updated poverty measure.]

As fears about the economy became reality, the call for modernizing how the nation measures poverty took on new urgency. The President’s FY 2011 budget, for example, included a proposal for creating a new poverty measure. 

Based on this new sense of urgency as well as the many previous proposals and discussions, in March the U.S. Census Bureau announced that it will be developing an alternative way to measure poverty. The Supplemental Poverty Measure will be released in the fall of 2011, at the same time that the official income and poverty measures for 2010 are released. This new measure will be broadly based on NAS’s1995 recommendations, but updated by the research done on this issue for the past 15 years. The precise formula has yet to be determined, but in general it is expected that the measure will:

• Define “family unit” to include all related individuals who live at the same address in order to reflect today’s family structure;
• Use the most recent five years of available data to increase the stability of the poverty thresholds;
• Include in-kind benefits to meet help meet food, clothing, shelter, and utility needs as income, and deduct basic expenses such as work expenses, taxes, child care, out-of-pocket expenses, child support and commuting costs;
• Be updated annually and the measure itself continuously improved based on the latest research; and
• Include some form of geographic adjustments that present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs.

Based on alternative poverty measure figures previously used by the Census Bureau experimentally, it is clear that the new measure will put poverty rates much higher than the official rate. Although it’s impossible to predict precisely what the new supplemental rate will reveal, other alternative measures’ figures would predict the following:

• Overall poverty is expected to increase from 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million people, to 15.8 percent, or 47.4 million, mostly due to rising expenses from medical care and other factors.
• About 18.7 percent of Americans 65 and older, or nearly 7.1 million, will be considered poor compared to 9.7 percent, or 3.7 million, under the traditional measure, due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising Medicare premiums, deductibles, and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit.
• About 14.3 percent of people 18 to 64, or 27 million, will be in poverty, compared to 11.7 percent under the traditional measure, many of which will be low-income, working people with transportation and child-care costs.
• Child poverty should be lower, at about 17.9 percent, or roughly 13.3 million, compared to 19 percent under the traditional measure, since single mothers and their children’s non-cash aid, such as food stamps, will be counted as income.
• And the Northeast and West will have bigger jumps in poverty, due largely to cities with higher costs of living such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

Importantly, this new poverty measure will not replace the official poverty rate, but will instead be published alongside the traditional figure as a "supplement" for federal agencies and state governments. The point of the new measure is to provide a more realistic view of poverty including both the necessary expenses of modern day living as well as the anti-poverty programs currently being used. Issuing a supplemental measure, however, will not change eligibility for any governmental benefits or, in and of itself, cost the government one penny in additional poverty program expenditures. While some may argue that this new measure should immediately become the official measure, such a change shouldn’t be rushed into because the impact of the new measure must first be assessed.

The next and final blog in this series explores what effects, if any, this new supplemental measure will have on current benefit programs and current programs attempting to ameliorate poverty.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Congress and several states take actions to stop evictions of victims of violence

For women and children in this country, domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness. Survivors of domestic violence (of which 90 to 95% are women), dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking living in rental housing are particularly vulnerable to homelessness because they are often threatened with eviction after an incident of violence. These evictions are frequently born out of property owners’ stereotypes about survivors of violence as individuals accountable for the acts of their abusers. Indeed, up until a few years ago, when victims of violence who lived in federally assisted low-income housing called the police to report intruders, being shot, or otherwise terrorized by their abusers, they would immediately receive an eviction notice.

In 2005, Congress adopted federal protections against evictions and denial of housing for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. The 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act prohibits evictions and admission denials of victims of violence who live certain types of federally supported low-income housing. The 2011 VAWA reauthorization should improve upon VAWA 2005 and expand it to cover other types of federal supported low-income housing. Any reauthorization must also extend those protections to survivors of sexual assault. 

On April 27, the Illinois Legislature passed H.B. 5523 and joined several other states, including Indiana, Colorado, Arkansas, Delaware, Texas and Virginia in protecting victims of violence from evictions based upon incidents of violence and/or their status as a victim of violence. Maryland has recently passed a similar bill. The governors of those states should sign the bills immediately.

However, property owners are not the only ones threatening survivors’ housing. A growing number of municipalities have adopted aggressive property nuisance codes or “crime-free” rental housing ordinances that obligate owners, under threat of losing their license to operate rental property, to evict all tenants when there is a crime or multiple police calls for assistance. To limit a survivor’s access to police assistance under threat of homelessness or to blame them for the crime committed against them likely violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution and Federal Fair Housing Act. While we support the idea of improving the quality and safety of rental housing, municipal actions cannot interfere with a survivor’s safety or hold them accountable for a perpetrator’s actions. Municipalities should amend these ordinances to eliminate these harmful and likely illegal provisions.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks