New child support rules hit low income parents in the wallet

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services’ Office of Child Support is proceeding to implement new provisions related to cash medical support. Cash medical support is an additional cash obligation imposed on the non-custodial parent that was intended by the federal government to help offset the cost of health insurance premiums paid by the custodial parent and/or help cover the cost of uninsured medical costs, things that Ohio was already dealing with in its child support orders. But instead of using the cash medical provisions to help custodial parents, Ohio has instead chosen to use the provisions primarily as a way to recover Medicaid costs. As a result, low income working custodial parents with a child on Medicaid will now receive less child support.

Were it not for other examples of how the Strickland administration is expanding social services to cover people at higher income levels by taking away support from people at lower income levels, this would be just another sad example of one hand of government not knowing what the other hand is doing. On the one hand, the Office of Child support is implementing new rules that will allow the state to recover part of the cost of providing Medicaid coverage by allowing the state to take part of a low income working custodial parent’s child support. Yet on the other hand, Governor Strickland established his Anti-Poverty Task Force which has a mandate to recommend ways to reduce the number of Ohioans (3.4 million) living below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. It is impossible to believe that any low income working custodial parents will be elevated out of poverty by having the state take part of their child support payments. It is also impossible to believe that any low income working non-custodial parent making between 150% and 200% of poverty will be elevated out of poverty by having more money withheld from their wages to pay cash medical support to the state.

The amount of child support lost to the custodial parent is a regressive tax on low income working custodial parents. By taxing these custodial parents the governor continues his practice of taking funds away from people with lower incomes to pay for expansion of services to people with higher incomes. Governor Strickland intends to pay for his promise to expand Medicaid coverage to children at higher income levels by taking child support funds that would have previously gone to low income working custodial parents. The cash medical provisions also operate as a regressive tax on the non-custodial parents. The cash medical amount for one child for a non-custodial parent making $16,640 per year is the same for a non-custodial parent making $44,000 annually, $775.00 per year. The cash medical amounts to 4.7% versus 1.8% of the total annual income for each non-custodial parent respectively.

Another example of where the governor has taken money from people with lower incomes and given it to people with higher incomes is the governor’s expansion of day care and his increases in day care reimbursement rates using federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds. Instead of using the TANF surplus to help address the immediate needs of the 130,000 poorest children in Ohio receiving Ohio Works First (OWF) benefits who live at about 50% of the poverty level, Governor Strickland choose instead to increase day care eligibility to families earning up to 200% of the poverty level and to increase the rates paid to day care providers regardless of their income.

This regressive taxing policy being implemented by the Strickland administration reverses a national philosophical trend to see the child support program as a family support program and not as a government cost recovery program. While considered a way of recovering money for the state when it was initially implemented, the child support program is now generally seen as an important and effective means of providing valuable financial support to a family, i.e., a “family friendly” program.

This trend was continued at the federal level with various provisions within the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA). In the DRA, Congress provided several opportunities for Ohio to help enhance the financial support available to low income families that receive child support. But Ohio has failed to implement any of the options. Instead, Ohio has chosen to reverse course with its child support program and make Medicaid cost recovery a primary program goal. In moving toward that goal, the money that the custodial parent loses is taken by the state. That is certainly not family friendly.

Therefore, one obvious recommendation for Governor Strickland’s Anti-Poverty Task Force should be to stop the Office of Child Support’s implementation of new child support rules surrounding the collection of cash medical support. Adopting the “family friendly” provisions allowed by the DRA should also be one of the recommendations of the governor’s Anti-Poverty Task Force.

In these times of shrinking budgets and hard choices, those with the least should not be asked to pay for the benefits provided to those with more. Yet, the Strickland administration continues to tax and take away from the families with the lowest incomes in order to expand benefits to those higher incomes. Our priorities must be to use scarce resources to help those with the least first.

By implementing the provisions surrounding cash medical support, Ohio is implementing changes to its child support program that will make the calculation and payment of child support more complex, confusing, and costly for parents, more difficult and costly for employers and which provides no additional benefits to the children served by the program. A low income working custodial parent with a child on Medicaid will receive the same Medicaid coverage. The difference will be that the non-custodial parent will pay more and the custodial parent will receive less child support under these new rules.

~ Gregg Oakley, Athens County Child Support Enforcement Agency

Fast & Free Tax Center

Yes, it’s that time of year again: Tax filing season. Anyone who had earned and even some unearned income last year will need to file a 2007 income tax return, or as the IRS calls it, a 1040.

Unfortunately, there are professional tax preparation companies that take advantage of low-income citizens. Many low-income taxpayers are so eager to get their returns that they turn to "refund anticipation loans," pay stub prep, and new this year, prepaid credit cards, so that they do not have to wait to receive their refunds. These services attract those who can least afford them, promising to put money in their pockets the same day they file a return. Sadly, these services come at a steep price.

Refund anticipations loans (RALs) are just that, they are a loan. Taxpayers receives their anticipated refund amount the same day that they file. However, they are not only charged the cost of preparing the return, but are also charged with incredibly high interest rates, ranging from 40 percent to more than 100 percent.

The new prepaid credit card option is really just a refund anticipation loan disguised as a credit card. Users are charged a fee to take cash out at banks and ATMs, in addition to the fees charged to prepare the return.

Pay stub prep is another approach that many companies use to speed up the income tax process. This occurs when they take your last pay stub of the year and prepare your taxes from it. However, this method is never a good idea, as it can often result in inaccurate results leading to the chance of being audited by the IRS.

A free alternative to these high cost, risky refund approaches is the Athens County Fast and Free Tax Assistance Center. IRS-certified volunteers prepare simple, basic individual income tax returns FREE of charge for Athens County residents. There are no hidden fees and no high interest rates. With direct deposit of your refund into a checking or savings account, you can have your ENTIRE refund in as little as 7 to 10 business days.

The Tax Assistance Center is conveniently located at The Work Station in The Plains. Basic returns are prepared by appointment. If you want your refund fast and free, and you have received all of your tax documents, call the Athens County Department of Job and Family Services Fast & Free Tax Assistance Center today to schedule an appointment at 740-797-2523 or 1-800-762-3775.

This is our fifth year operating the Athens County Fast & Free Tax Assistance Center where we have helped nearly 6000 taxpayers file returns free of charge. Call us at 740-797-2523 or 1-800-762-3775 to see what we can do for you.

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) centers are available in most states. To find one in you area, visit the IRS Web site or call 1-800-829-1040.

Low-Income Citizens Should Have a Voice

As the 2008 election campaign goes into full swing, candidates, politicians and the media are all focused on what votes they can count on: independent, senior, and young voters to name a few. However, an important step in the process that is often overlooked is that before somebody can actually vote in most states, they must be registered to vote.

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act was passed to make it easier for citizens to register to vote. It required states to offer voter registration at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Thus, this act is frequently referred to as the “Motor Voter” law. Recognizing that not all citizens have a diver’s license, Congress imposed other provisions in the Act to ensure that all citizens would have an opportunity.

Section 7 of the act “requires states to offer voter registration opportunities at all offices that provide public assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities.”¹ Although this section was designed to make registering to vote easier for low-income citizens, government enforcement has been lax.

A report to the 110th Congress dated June 30, 2007 shows that Ohio received only 42,599 voter registrations from public assistance offices over the two year period of 2004-2006.² Serving millions of adults annually, public assistance agencies must do a better job in registering low-income citizens to vote.

A total of 882,708 voter registration applications were received over the same time period.³ In contrast, the motor vehicle offices collected 400,562 applications for voter registration.⁴

Cuyahoga and Franklin counties are the two most populated counties in the state, accounting for about 21 percent of the entire state population. However, these two counties combined only accounted for 2003 voter registration applications or about 4 percent of all voter registration applications received at public assistance offices.⁵ Montgomery County, on the other hand, has only half the population of Cuyahoga or Franklin County and recorded 7,925 voter registration applications at their public assistance office.⁶

Clearly, there is a large discrepancy in the services provided to low-income citizens across the state. According to Ohio Revised Code 3503.10, each designated public assistance agency is required to offer each and every client the opportunity to register to vote with “each application for services or assistance, and with each written application or form for recertification, renewal, or change of address.”⁷ If this section of the law were enforced across the board, more low-income citizens would be registered to vote.

However, depending on the county that you live in, there is no guarantee that clients are being asked if they would like to register. Merely having the applications available for clients that specifically ask for the form is not adhering to the current law. Steps need to be taken to assure that all public assistance agencies are asking clients if they would like to register and including the forms with regular applications for services.

The Secretary of State’s office must monitor designated agencies to ensure compliance with NVRA.

Another option to ensure that all Ohioans are able to cast their vote is to offer Election Day Registration (EDR). “Election Day Registration (EDR), sometimes called 'same day registration' (SDR), allows eligible voters to register and cast a ballot on Election Day.”⁸

Currently, nine states offer this option with positive voter turnout results: Maine; Minnesota; Wisconsin; Idaho; New Hampshire; Wyoming; Montana; Iowa and North Carolina.⁹ “More than 787,000 individuals used EDR to register and vote in the 2006 general election.”¹⁰

Ohio should seriously consider Election Day Registration or same day registration to increase participation in one of our most important civic duties: voting.

Rebekah Evans, Administrative Intern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Voting Section Home Page. About the National Voter Registration Act. Retrieved from: target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/nvra/activ_nvra.htm, last accessed January 8, 2008.

2, 3, 4. U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office 2005-2006. A Report to the 110th Congress, June 30, 2007, page 34. Retrieved from: http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/Publications/EAC_NVRArpt2006.pdf, last accessed December 11, 2007.

5,6. E-mail communication on 12/12/07 with Brian Green, Elections Counsel, Office of the Secretary of State. EAC Voter Registration Report.

7. Law Writer. Ohio Laws & Rules. Chapter 3503: Voters = Qualifications; Registration. Retrieved from: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3503, last accessed January 9, 2008.

8, 9, 10. Demos: A Network for Ideas and Actions. Voters Win with Election Day Registration. Updated winter 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.demos.org/pubs/Voters%20Win.pdf Last accessed January 9, 2008.

The SCHIP Debate: Missing the point

Who are America’s poorest children? “A child living in extreme poverty is defined as a child living in a family with income less than 50 percent of the poverty threshold.”(1) The current SCHIP debate between the President and Congress fails to focus on the children living in extreme poverty. In fact, the programs intended to help these children are not enough to provide for their basic needs.

Under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, most states restrict a family’s eligibility for cash assistance to those living below 50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). These families struggle to meet their daily basic needs. These children live in desperate conditions of homelessness or unsafe housing, hunger and isolation, just to name a few. Their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and transportation are not being met, let alone their ability to be kids by participating in school or community activities. These children are being isolated from society because they are poor.

America’s poorest children are those with little support. There are currently 3.1 million children living on the cash assistance payments under the TANF program, which varies widely by state. The current maximum benefit level for a family of three ranges from $923(2) in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi,(3) both remaining unchanged since 1999. The average amount of cash assistance a typical family of three receives in the United States is $432 a month. How many of you could pay rent, utilities, food, or even personal household items out of this amount? Sure, these families probably receive Food Stamps and Medicaid too. But, Food Stamps, when implemented, were never intended to meet the household’s full food costs. The maximum amount of Food Stamps for a family of three is $426 a month, but the average is more like $208 a month.(4) Even when combined, could you survive on $640 a month in cash and Food Stamps?

Just because these families likely qualify for Medicaid coverage from their receipt of cash assistance doesn’t mean we should ignore their most basic needs. Childhood is supposed to be fun; kids shouldn’t have to worry about health insurance, food, shelter, clothes or when they are going to move again. Unfortunately, families living at 50 percent of the FPL or lower have no way of protecting their children from those thoughts and ensuring a happy childhood.

This chart shows the current cash assistance benefit for each state and how it relates to the poverty level.

As one can see, these families live in desperate conditions, far below the 300% Medicaid expansion. A family of three living in Mississippi is at a meager 11.88% of the poverty level, while receiving only $170 in cash a month to survive. Twenty-one states give a family of three less than 25% of the poverty level. Just two states, Alaska and California, issue cash benefits to a family of three at slightly above 50%.

As one can see, these families live in desperate conditions, far below the 300 percent Medicaid expansion. A family of three living in Mississippi is at a meager 11.88 percent of the poverty level while receiving only $170 in cash a month to survive. Twenty-one states give a family of three less than 25 percent of the poverty level. Just two states, Alaska and California, issue cash benefits to a family of three at slightly above 50 percent.

What is the federal government doing to help these kids? Absolutely nothing. Why? Who knows? It’s not as though they don’t have the money; it’s already been issued to the states. But there is no federal oversight to make sure that states are focused on meeting the basic needs of our poorest children. States have the flexibility to issue cash assistance or other support programs, like child care and transportation however they see fit. Most states use only a small portion of their TANF funds to support cash assistance; only 38 percent nationwide.

Yes, it is a parent’s responsibility to care for their children. This adage makes no room for the scary possibilities that often become realities for families: job loss, disability, illness, economic downturns and other unforeseeable events that can devastate even the most economically stable families.

Families receiving cash assistance are means tested, put through a rigorous application process, comply with strict work rules, and they put aside their pride to even apply. These families want to work; they want to provide for their children.

Are the President and Congress ready to fight the same battle as the current SCHIP debate for our nation’s poorest children? How long do these families have to wait to put food on the table and a roof over their heads? These 3.1 million children living in extreme poverty as America’s poorest children need help now.

Tami Collins



Sources:
1. Federal Interagency Forum on child and Family Statistics. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2007. Found at: http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/eco1.asp, last accessed October 29, 2007.
2. Alaska Temporary Assistance Program. Income Limits and Maximum Payments. Found at http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dpa/programs/atap/, last accessed November 1, 2007.
3. Mississippi Division of Economic Assistance. TANF-Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. How much will the TANF payment be? Found at http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/ea_tanf.html#How%20much, last accessed November 1, 2007.
4. United States Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2006 Summary. September 2007. Found at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/FILES/Participation/2006CharacteristicsSummary.pdf, last accessed October 29, 2007.

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

SCHIP and Ohio's Poorest

SCHIP, established in title XXI of the Social Security Act, allows states to provide health care coverage to uninsured children up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The stated intent of Congress when it established the program in 1997, was to expand coverage beyond those who were poor to "targeted low-income" children–-which meant those above Medicaid's eligibility requirements and in uninsured households up to 200 percent FPL.

Most recently the U.S. House and the Senate approved the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIPRA), to reauthorize SCHIP. Under CHIPRA, eligibility would increase up to 300 percent FPL and would include expanded outreach to enroll those currently eligible but not enrolled. However, the act was vetoed by the President on October 3, 2007. The full text of CHIPRA is available here.
Note: in government definitions, generally “poor” is below the 100 percent FPL and "low-income/working poor" is 100 percent to 200 percent FPL. For more on poverty guidelines and measurements, click here.

Here’s a look at the Federal Poverty Levels are in terms of family size and household annual income:
People----100%FPL-----200%FPL-----300% FPL
----1-------$ 10,210-------$ 20,420-------$ 30,630
----2-------$ 13,690-------$ 27,380-------$ 41,070
----3-------$ 17,170-------$ 34,340-------$ 51,510
----4-------$ 20,650-------$ 41,300-------$ 61,950
----5-------$ 24,130-------$ 48,260-------$ 72,390
----6-------$ 27,610-------$ 55,220-------$ 82,830

When we look at this struggle over CHIPRA, we agree that no child should be without health insurance. At the same time, we are trying to understand why the country is not more focused on the basic needs of our poorest citizens first. We have many children and families living below poverty, and even with the help of public assistance programs, they are unable to meet their basic needs to live day to day. Shouldn’t our priority be to our poorest citizens first? Where is the time and energy to focus on those who have the least?

In Ohio alone, 130,000 children are on the cash assistance program, Ohio Works First (OWF), which is funded by the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (federal welfare dollars). A typical family of two on the Ohio Works First cash assistance program receives only $336 a month in cash and a maximum of $284 in Food Stamps. How many people do you know that can live on only $620 a month? This amount is $521 a month below poverty – around 50 percent of the FPL. This means that these families must make difficult choices between the necessities of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and other basic needs.

In our report, Ohio’s Poorest Children, we analyzed the costs of the most basic needs for a typical family of two: housing, utilities, food, and transportation. Health care was not included since these families would be covered by Medicaid.

Monthly Cost of Basic Needs for Family of Two:
Rent $613; Utilities $227; Food $248; Transportation $250 = Total $1,338
Looking at the very basic needs, we came to a minimum of $1,338 per month. This total doesn’t even begin to factor in other basic needs such as: first aid supplies (band-aids, over the counter medicines), school fees, cleaning supplies, paper products (toilet paper, tissues), personal hygiene products (soap, shampoo, hair brush, tooth brushes, toothpaste, feminine products), clothing (socks, underwear, coats, shoes), diapers, unexpected emergencies and more.

(For an even more in depth analysis of poverty, take a look at our report:An in-depth look at the issues of poverty.

Shouldn’t meeting basic needs of our nation’s most needy people (children and adults) be the FIRST priority for funding at the federal, state and local levels?


[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

Worse than it seems

The recent Census report regarding income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the United States for 2006 got quite a bit of media attention. Yet, perhaps the least reported but most significant statistic is the increase in individuals who are living at less than 50 percent of the poverty level. Clearly, people living at this income level have a very difficult life, struggling to meet their most basic human necessities. When compared to the 2000 Census, there has been an increase in the total number of people, roughly 5.3 million, living below the poverty level. During the same time frame (2000-2006), there has been an increase of 3.2 million people living at less than 50 percent of poverty. This basically means that of the people that have fallen into poverty during these last six years, the fastest and largest growing segment, roughly 60 percent, has been those living at less than half the poverty level. The difference between a family living at less than 50 percent of poverty (less than $10,000 per year) versus a family under 100 percent ($20,000 a year) is huge. Obviously, all poor families are desperately struggling and are living in difficult circumstances. However, we are somewhat cavalier about the growing number of people that are living on less than $10,000 a year.

It would be difficult to deny that many of these families are in this desperate circumstance because of state and federal government policies which have drastically limited the assistance available to them. Families that receive Ohio Works First cash assistance, funded through the federal TANF Block grant, must have a gross income of less than 50 percent of poverty level in order to meet the initial means test for eligibility. Even worse, the cash benefits that we provide these families is only 28 percent of the poverty level. The Ohio Works First program serves over 120,000 children.

Furthermore, there is an increasing number of families who are not eligible for cash assistance due to time limits, sanctions and other program limitations. We are forcing more families to combine households just to survive. This increase in household size without an increase of income is driving more families to live further and further below the federal poverty level.

Other detrimental program policies include the failure of the federal government to resolve the eligibility problem for Social Security Disability and SSI. Currently, 70 percent of initial applications are denied and a majority of people must file for a hearing with an administrative hearing officer in order to have benefits established. The waiting time to get these hearings is frequently as much as two years. During that wait, many of these disabled individuals have no income whatsoever. This, coupled with the virtual elimination of programs in Ohio to provide any financial assistance for those individuals 18 to 65 without children, leaves a large number of people who are either forced to double or triple up in housing simply because they have no income.

The country was horrified to see families in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina who had no place to live, no food, no medical care and were struggling to survive. We are far less sensitive to the fact that we are driving more and more families and individuals into these similar desperate circumstances by design and choice rather then as a result of a natural disaster.

--Jack Frech
Director

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

The "type" of people who get public assistance

On Tuesday Casey Elliott of the Athens Messenger completed a three-part series delving into the lives of three families receiving public assistance in Athens County, Ohio.

There are about 1,400 people receiving such assistance in the county, and though this series featured only a few, it demonstrated an undeniable fact about the type of people who receive public assistance:

There is no "type" of people who get public assistance.

This myth about poor people--that they're lazy, unintelligent, uneducated, self-serving, or any other negative descriptor--is not only an inaccurate and unfair generalization. It's also, from what I've experienced and from what Elliott has demonstrated, usually the opposite of characteristics visible in those who've found themselves in poverty.

Countless unforeseeable events can and do lead intelligent, generous and hard-working individuals down paths that end in destitution. A serious injury, a plant shutdown, a sick family member or a house fire are just a few examples of extenuating circumstances that push families from "just making ends meet" to sucking up their pride and asking for assistance.

This is often the hardest decision the head of a household ever makes. Many view seeking public assistance as an admittance of failure, a recognition that they can't take care of themselves or their families. Would you be able to walk into Job & Family Services and ask for money? Would you be willing to jump through the hoops that welfare reform established, the work requirements and probing questions that are designed to prevent fraud but also make it extraordinarily difficult for deserving families to get assistance?

We at Job & Family Services see the faces of poverty every day, and can vouch that the circumstances that bring them to our door are numerous. Those who live in poverty do have some responsibility for where they are and where they’re going, but their situations aren't entirely within their control. Poverty has been pervasive in this region for decades, and the scarcity of good jobs, lack of affordable health care, limited education opportunities are just a few problems that fuel this persistent issue.

We applaud Elliott and the Messenger for putting names and faces to the often anonymous and overlooked poor families in Athens County. Her objective description of these families makes it a little more difficult for welfare opponents to make sweeping generalities of those on assistance that invalidate their needs and further stigmatize them.

Reanna Stoinoff, community relations intern

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

Athens Messenger Features Public Assistance

Casey Elliott, a reporter at the Athens Messenger, began on Sunday a series of articles about people receiving public assistance in Athens County, Ohio.

Check out the first article


....and the second!

Finally, the third.

Let us know what you think!

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

Back to school, but not for free

There is a long held myth in this county about the availability of a “free” public education. While it is true that many states have constitutions that require the availability of a free education, that is not true in all states. Ohio is one of the states that do not include specific constitutional language guaranteeing a free education.

In fact, Ohio goes a bit farther by actually having laws that permit schools to charge fees. Ohio simply regulates the type of fees schools can charge. It is therefore common for schools throughout the state to charge a “fee” of anywhere from $25 to $50 simply to attend school. Many schools also require that students bring in supplies ranging in cost from $10 to $50. These requests go far beyond simple paper, pencils, and crayons to include such items as tissue, plastic bags, and toilet paper. A family with two young children may have to pay as much as $200 to get their kids in the school door. This does not include the expense of school clothes, shoes or other personal items that a child may need.

While this expense is a hardship for many families, for some, it is a catastrophe. The truth is that there are hundreds of thousands of families in Ohio whose income falls below $12,000 a year. For those families, $200 represents twenty percent of their income for the month. I wonder if folks with a household income of $60,000 per year would be so willing to accept such fees if they were being asked to pay $1,000 to send their children to public school.

Fees charged by schools have become a perfectly legal and acceptable form of taxation initiated at the hands of the local school boards with few limitations or restrictions. These fees are also an extremely regressive type of tax, one that hurts those children in families who are already having the greatest challenges succeeding in school. Poor families are dealing with the day to day crisis of meeting their basic needs at home. Items like food, clothing, shelter, and transportation cannot be taken for granted in families living in the very lowest income levels.

It is these same children that already miss out on educational opportunities outside of school like vacations, educational toys and books. These same children are frequently precluded from participating in extra curricular activities in school. There are many people who are poor and are struggling every day just to get by. The last thing they need is another financial hurdle to overcome just to have their children participate in the local public school.

All children should be able to attend school and participate in school activities without needing to have money in their pocket. The concept of universally available education is one of the absolute cornerstones of our democracy. Education is intended to level the playing field for underprivileged children. Unfortunately, we are slowly but surely allowing one of our mainstream institutions, our public schools, to go the way of the “have versus have not.” To be sure, there are many schools that have chosen not to charge fees and have solved their financial problems without turning to this form of “taxation” on parents. Additionally, there are thousands of teachers who simply dig into their own pockets to help provide those supplies needed for children to participate in activities. All of this is unnecessary. Ohio needs to adopt the principle and practice of a free public education.

The average cost of education in Ohio’s K-12 schools is about $9,500 per child per year. The $100 collected in fees and supplies is roughly 1% of this amount. Perhaps the next increase in school funding could be targeted to eliminate school fees and pay for supplies. A “free” education would not be difficult to attain. The educational benefits to children in our society would be far greater than the minimal increase in funding that may be necessary to offset this loss of revenue.

--Jack Frech, director

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

Help is NOT on the way

On July 29, 2007, USA Today ran stories: Disabled worker cases at record and Disability delays can lead to personal havoc, about the lengthy delays individuals have to wait for Social Security disability claims. The articles included a list of the Social Security Administration offices with the shortest and longest average waits for hearings on whether an applicant is too disabled to work, which included on the longest waits: Columbus with 841 days and Dayton with 735 days.

In Ohio, this means an average wait of 2 to 2 ½ years for determination; one of the slowest states in the nation. Not only is this havoc for the applicants, but for their families, many of which have dependent children. Families waiting for Social Security determinations are forced to rely on cash assistance (Ohio Works First) benefits from the state in the meantime. But living on cash assistance in Ohio, means living well below the poverty level; and in Ohio, there is a lifetime limit of 36 months for cash assistance benefits – which is likely to run out before disability determination is made. A typical family of three receiving OWF benefits would receive a maximum of $410 a month (Federal Poverty Level for family of three is $1431 per month).

For these families life is a constant struggle to meet basic needs. In Athens County, nearly one-third of the adults receiving OWF assistance have some serious disability. And, their family struggles are further compounded by the fact that the one or more caretakers in these families are disabled and trying to care for children while trying to deal with their own disabilities.
From the article, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue says the backlog of cases doubled in six years and could reach 1 million by 2010. Clearly, no help is on the way.

Reforming Welfare Reform

With the passage of the most recent budget, Ohio has remained in a pack with a great many other states who have chosen to allow their poorest children to struggle to meet their basic needs. Most states have done little or nothing to improve the benefit levels they provide for those families left on public assistance. One has to wonder when we, as a nation, are finally going to decide to stop punishing those people who must depend on the state for assistance. Oddly enough, expanding subsidies to those with higher incomes for child care or Medicaid is not considered as extending “welfare." Certainly those recipients, at the higher income levels, are not treated with the same disregard as we do the poorest of the poor families.

When Congress recently re-visited the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program through its reauthorization process, they apparently concluded that the biggest problem facing poor people was that too many who were sick, disabled, mentally ill or suffering with substance abuse, were getting off the hook from the work requirements of the TANF program and changed the requirements to limit the time allowed to address these issues. Apparently they also felt that they didn’t have enough paperwork changing hands between the state and federal government regarding documentation of work program participation. Obviously, they felt these two things were going to make life better for struggling families who live on TANF assistance.

Oddly enough, Congress seemed to pay little attention to the fact that caseloads have dropped dramatically, as much as two-thirds, and people currently on assistance are likely to fall into one of two categories. Nearly half of them are in what is known as “child only cases” in which a child on assistance is living with someone other then their natural parent, usually a grandparent, aunt or uncle. The second group would be those families who have significant barriers to employment as a result of low functioning levels, mental health problems, substance abuse, criminal records and a wide range of other serious challenges. More specifically, there are thousands of disabled parents who are waiting years for approval of SSI and must rely on TANF cash assistance in the meantime. It’s not such a stretch to understand that when you take a significant portion of the poverty population and basically filter out those that are employable, those left will have much more significant problems that must be addressed if or before they can become gainfully employed.

The states did implement a wide range of job training programs, expanded health care coverage and child care subsidies, all of which have been very helpful in removing families from cash assistance and providing support for them in their effort to survive working poverty. But nevertheless, this current welfare population, which has been relatively stable in number, has little choice but to endure their dependence on public assistance to meet their basic needs. The majority of these recipients are children.

It’s time for the federal government to take a serious look at those families left on assistance and consider the need to completely redesign the public assistance system. They need to address those families who are having the most difficulty in functioning in the workplace and perhaps, most of all must deal with the fact that there will always be some families dealing with insurmountable obstacles who must rely on public assistance to meet their basic needs. The fact that most states are providing assistance at only half of the poverty level can only amount to state-sponsored child abuse. Again we must remember, the primary recipients of cash assistance through the TANF program are children.

--Jack Frech, Director

Letter to the Editor

Our first guest blogger is Kim Hobbs, a staff member at the Work Station. She sent in this Letter to the Editor to the Athens News. It was published Monday, July 16. We welcome your comments!

To the Editor:

Poverty definitely looks different today than it did when I was growing up. We were poor but I didn’t realize it. While we had toys, we spent the majority of our time outside creating our own “live” roll playing games, building forts out of sheets, having plays for the parents in our garage, and playing countless games of hopscotch on the sidewalk. These activities cost next to nothing. I did not have a TV in my room (remember having only three stations to choose from?), an iPod, a cell phone, Playstation, etc. A once a year trip to Geauga Lake and an occasional meal out at The Ground Round were luxuries. Today, most kids would be devastated to live this way. Believe me, I am as guilty if not guiltier than the next at spoiling my kids. We need to re-think our lifestyles and how we are bringing up our children.

Poverty is growing. Unfortunately, it is becoming a permanent part of our everyday structure. Food banks can’t keep up with the demand. Food stamp use has increased and while I applaud this assistance, it has also aided in creation a new “health hazard” for poverty stricken families. Obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes have immensely increased over the years. Why? If a family of five has to budget $300 a month for food, how is it spent? Buying lean cuts of meat? Fresh vegetables? Whole grain breads? No: most opt to stretch their dollar. A package of hot dogs, buns, bag of chips, and a can of vegetables for dinner could cost a family of five approximately $4. It's cheap and quick but the salt, fat and lack of nutrition in a meal like this can be really detrimental to a family when it's the only thing they eat. Most wages are too low to provide adequately for a family and lead a normal economic lifestyle.

There seems to be a hardening attitude from people towards the poor. People are now tending to blame the poor for their situations. While I agree some take advantage of the system, I can guarantee you that the poor want nothing more than to change their situation. DJFS has made it harder to sit at home and collect the “welfare” check. Today, most recipients must perform some type of job training or labor in order for them to maintain their benefits. This is providing the unskilled with new founded skills to take with them to new jobs or education.

While I don’t think poverty can be eliminated, it can be reduced. As parents, we should all get back to the basics with our children. We need to teach them the importance of a good education and good family values. It is so much easier to agree with your kids when they ask for something that they don’t need than to say no and create an argument. As employers, we need provide wages and benefits to our employees that they can live on. As consumers, we should purchase good and services locally and reinvest in the local economy.

I truly believe that as a team we can work towards a goal of reducing poverty.

Kim Hobbs
Work Inforcement Act Social Program Coordinator


For some recent news/opinion in the Athens News regarding poverty and food, check out these articles:

Concerned about the rising cost of food? You better get used to it by Gwynne Dyer (Pub. 7/12)

Letter: Step into the shoes of someone who's poor to really understand by Missy Cangiamilla (Pub. 7/12)

Squeezing Blood from a Turnip, Part Two

As a follow up to the June 25 post, here's a little more information about businesses that target low-income families and potential alternatives that can save a lot of money. (For a recap of how we got on this topic, check out this Business Week article.)

Taxes
Similar to a payday loan, instant tax returns from tax preparation companies can be an enticing and quick way to get back money. Low-income workers are often entitled to the Earned Income Tax Credit and can get a pretty substantial amount of money back—but if they get their refunds instantly rather than waiting a week or two, they can incur substantial fees. One available alternative for people who just need to file simple 1040 forms is the Athens Fast & Free Tax Assistance Center, operated by Job & Family Services. All Athens County residents, no matter their income, can get their taxes done for free from this service. With E-Filing, returns come back in as little as a week—and you get your ENTIRE return, with no fees deducted.


Appliances
Another need that often arises in low-income families is for furniture and appliances. A $700 refrigerator is almost always out of the question when income barely covers rent and food, so paying $17.99 a week for a Hotspot refrigerator from Rent-2-Own seems like the only reasonable measure. Compare the refrigerator's posted retail price of $709.99 the total 78 weeks of $17.99 payments you'll make, though, and it's not so much of a deal: $1403.22. That's just under double what that refrigerator is worth.

Rent-2-Own's slogan is "Because we should all have nice stuff." This clearly encourages those who can least afford it to live beyond their means. Yes, in an ideal world, it would be great if we could all have leather recliners and dishwashers—but in the real world, where we don't all even have food on the table every night, it's ludicrous to encourage people to buy what they really can't afford.

The alternatives aren't always easy, but that's the way life is for low-income families. Thrift stores such as ReUse Industries and New to You are often inundated with furniture—especially futons, after the students move out at the beginning of summer. It may not be a pine bunk bed, but it's somewhere for your kids to sleep that doesn't come with the instability of a potential repossession if you can't pay the eight bucks in week 43 of your payment plan. Even local charitable organizations like Good Works offer—with limited resources, nevertheless—the chance for people to volunteer in exchange for furniture and appliances.

Computers are another thing people buy on payment plans at rental stores. Certainly an important tool for homework, job searching and other household uses in the modern age, computers don't come cheap. [Please see comments for a correction regarding this eligibility information. Thanks!]Job & Family Services offers FREE computers, to below households with children at or below 200% of the poverty level and be TANF eligible, which can also mean cooperating with CSEA or pregnant, along with training and a year's internet connection. Since its founding in 2001, the program has provided more than 2,000 computers to local households.

The BW article describes the increasing struggle low-income families are experiencing more and more across the country, and Athens certainly isn't immune from this problem. There are few easy answers for alleviating this problem, but it starts with a need for financial literacy and an increased awareness of just what strings are attached to seemingly great offers.

Squeezing Blood from a Turnip

In Athens as nationwide, companies are finding ways to squeeze blood from a turnip.

Previous entries have pretty thoroughly driven home the point that low-income families have to make a lot of difficult decisions on how to spend their money. This constant position of never adequately meeting all of a family’s needs, often coupled with inadequate financial literacy, can make a tough situation increasingly worse. Unfortunately, when money runs out before the next paycheck or paying eight bucks a week for a children’s bunk bed seems the only reasonable solution, there are many companies that are all too eager to help low-income families part with their money.

An interesting article in the May 21 issue of Business Week describes a number of types of companies that target low-income consumers, including payday lenders, car dealerships that offer credit to anyone, rent-to-own furniture and appliance stores, and high-interest credit card companies. Credit is becoming easier and easier to obtain, but it often comes with interest rates that at times might as well demand your firstborn child as part of the payback.

Payday Lenders
In an area with such high poverty rates as Athens County, it really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that many companies fall into these categories. On East State Street alone, there are three payday lenders and two rent-to-own furniture and appliance stores (a fourth payday lender is on Columbus Road.)

Of course, payday lenders and rent-to-own stores aren't charities and shouldn't be expected to operate as charities. And sometimes, unexpected expenses arise that require people living paycheck-to-paycheck to resort to companies like this—indeed, a payday loan might be a lifesaver once in awhile. But frequent use of services like this can turn those who have very little money into those who have a great deal of debt. "Unsophisticated" consumers, as the Business Week article refers to them, might not understand interest rates or realize just how much debt they are incurring.

For the purpose of this example, take local payday lender Advance America Cash Advance, located at 971 E. State St. The company's online fee schedule indicates that if you borrow money from them, you're going to pay about 15 percent in fees. If you borrow $250, you cut the company a check for $287.50. To their credit, the company's Web site. explains that this shouldn't become a habit:

"Since a payday advance is a short-term solution to an immediate need, it is not intended for repeated use in carrying an individual from payday to payday. When an immediate need arises, we're here to help. But a payday advance is not a long-term solution for ongoing budget management. Repeated or frequent use can create serious financial hardships."

That's where financial literacy and common sense should come in on the part of the consumer, but circumstance doesn't always allow for that. And taking $37 out of an already meager paycheck every week just because you can't afford to wait for it can cost you substantially.

...Stay tuned for: Tax preparation and rent-to-own appliances and furniture!