New report issued:

TANF: Failing America’s Poorest Children
by Athens County Job & Family Services

December, 2007

Executive Summary:
There are currently 5.5 million children living in extreme poverty in the United States. Extreme poverty is defined as living in a family whose income is less than 50 percent of poverty. The 2007 poverty level for a family of three is $17,170 annually. That means for a family of three living in extreme poverty, their income would be less than $8,585 a year.

These children live in desperate conditions of homelessness, unsafe housing, hunger and isolation. 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 isolated from society because they are poor. These families suffer, trying to make ends meet without the financial means to do so. As a result, many turn to the welfare system for help.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has evolved from a safety net designed to help children and their families to one which insures their deprivation. This has happened in virtually all states at the hands of members of both political parties. TANF cash assistance caseloads dropped dramatically during the first years of welfare reform but have leveled off in the past five years.

There are currently 3 million children nationwide that receive cash assistance through the TANF program. States have the flexibility to design the program to meet the needs of their unique situations, yet are setting policies and issuing benefits that they know will not meet the needs of these families. Most state TANF programs, by design, restrict the income of a family to less than 50 percent of poverty. These children live in families who comply with all of the strict rules of welfare reform, yet the benefits they receive are too low to meet basic human needs.

The latest TANF reauthorization did not focus on the dynamics of why families are left on the cash assistance rolls, it focused more on paperwork. Instead of increasing maximum payment standards, states are choosing to spend less money on basic cash assistance and implementing new programs or increasing services through other programs like child care. Families who rely on cash assistance are desperate. Many cannot work or are struggling to find employment. Some are mentally or physically ill or disabled. Not that programs like child care or other support services for the working poor are unimportant; they are greatly needed. But families living at half the poverty level should not be asked to sacrifice their basic needs to support the working poor at much higher incomes. That support should come from those able to afford it.

Meeting basic needs for our most needy citizens should be the first priority for TANF funds, not the last. Now is the time to provide a decent standard of living for America’s poorest children.

Jack Frech, Director

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

The Deficit Reduction Act

The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 was signed into law February 8, 2006. The DRA reduces direct federal spending by $39 billion for the five-year period of 2006-2010. The act saves nearly $40 billion over five years. This includes savings related to program changes that are required, as well as optional programs and initiatives that states may pursue.

Within the provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), Congress has provided several opportunities for states to help enhance the financial support available to low income families that receive child support. While considered a way of recovering money for the state when initially implemented, the child support program is now seen as an important and effective “family-friendly” financial support program. With so many families struggling to meet basic needs on a daily basis, Ohio needs to make the commitment now and enact these optional measures.

The DRA provides several important changes to how child support will be treated when a family is receiving cash public assistance benefits. The DRA requires that pre-assistance child support arrears will no longer be required to be assigned to the state upon application for assistance. Optional provisions contained within the DRA include changes in child support disregard and pass through rules, the ability for the state to release its claim in favor of the family to several types of arrears, and, perhaps most importantly, the ability for payments collected through the federal income tax offset program to be paid to the family first instead of the state.

Currently, as part of the application process for public assistance, the family must assign its right to receive child support payments to the state, as a way of reimbursing the state for the cost of the assistance. This assignment of rights includes assigning away the right to child support arrears that accumulated prior to the family applying for assistance. Under the DRA that assignment of pre-assistance arrears must stop. The option that the DRA provides with regard to pre-assistance arrears is the effective date for implementing the ban. The ban on the assignment of pre-assistance arrears must be enacted in Ohio no later than October 1, 2009, but can be enacted as early as October 1, 2008.

The DRA allows Ohio to disregard child support payments ($100 per month if one child and $200 per month if more than one child) when determining eligibility for cash assistance, as long as that child support is then passed through to the family. This disregard and pass through would allow a family to retain full eligibility for cash assistance and would enhance their monthly income by the child support collected. Currently, child support collected for a family receiving cash assistance goes to the government.

Other family-friendly options include modifying the distribution rules, so that more of the child support collected is paid to the family first, instead of the state. The most important of these options relates to the distribution rules surrounding money collected through the federal income tax refund offset program. Currently, payments received through tax refund offset are paid first toward any arrears owed to the state. Adopting the family-friendly option of paying those collections to the family first will be a tremendous improvement in Ohio’s support for families as the federal tax refund offset program is a significant source of collections on child support arrears.

The options provided by the DRA are significant and the benefits to the affected families are undeniable. The obstacles to enacting the various modifications to current policy have nothing to do with the obvious wisdom of enacting the changes. The obstacles relate to budget considerations surrounding the cost of foregoing the reimbursement provided by the child support collections and the cost of modifying computer systems.

Despite any costs, all of the available options should be enacted and implemented as soon as possible. Families with incomes low enough to qualify for cash assistance are struggling to survive on a daily basis (on less than half of the resources that we know they need to meet their most basic needs). These families need the extra support offered by the DRA now. It must be the highest priority to enact these options as soon as possible. Money must be found in the current budget. The survival of these families depends on Ohio becoming “friendly” now.

Sources/More Information
Dept. of Health and Human Services

Clasp.org

Thomas

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

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]

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]

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]

State Legislature Approves Ohio's Budget

With a nearly unanimous vote of approval, the Ohio legislature passed Governor Strickland's proposed budget for FY2008-2009. (State Rep. Diana Fessler, R-New Carlisle, was the only legislator to vote against the budget.)

Focusing on health care, education and a few other key issues, the new budget will certainly have a major impact at both the state and county levels for the Department of Job and Family Services as well as our clients.

Stay tuned for highlights of the budget as it relates to our department and those we serve!

In the meantime, here are a few news articles to peruse:
Akron Beacon Journal

Coshocton Tribune

Chillicothe Gazette

Budget Blues: Shortcomings of Ohio's proposed budget

The new state budget includes some program expansions and improvements that will be very beneficial to struggling Ohio families. An increase in the income eligibility for Medicaid to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level will help thousands of uninsured children. An increase in child care provider payments will help many deserving child care providers. Expanding child care subsidies and early learning programs for families up to 200 percent of the poverty level will be a great benefit for children and their parents. Subsidies for food banks, home energy assistance and a variety of special earmarked programs will provide valuable resources for low-income Ohioans. With the support of the governor and the General Assembly, life will be a little better for many Ohioans.

But there is another side. Who lost so these programs could grow? Unfortunately, lawmakers have chosen to help the needy at the expense of the even more needy. While expanding eligibility for Medicaid for children up to 300 percent of poverty, the General Assembly rejected the governor's proposal to restore eligibility for the parents of children between 90 percent and 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. While they'll offer assistance to children in families making more than $50,000 a year, they deny help to parents making less than $15,000. I'm not sure why lawmakers imagined that the children in families below the poverty level don't suffer when parents can't get health care or are forced to pay out of pocket and face destitution.

All of the child care and other program expansions were funded out of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant. While they are all beneficial, these expansions do not resolve the most severe problems that the lowest income families face. Families who must rely on TANF cash assistance are forced to live on an income of only 50 percent of the FPL. Ohio has consistently chosen to provide a grossly inadequate benefit level despite a wealth of available TANF funds. The first priority for the use of TANF funds must be to meet the basic needs for our poorest children--and they are not doing that. Ohio's poorest families will pay so those with more resources can benefit.

My concern is not whether the program expansions are needed or worthy. They are. However, it seems that the less fortunate have been forced to continue to suffer in order to pay for these expansions. Unfortunately, this decision was politically easier than asking those who are already comfortable to sacrifice more.

Testimony Before the State Senate

On May 31, director Jack Frech testified before the Ohio State Senate on behalf of OWF recipients. Below is his testimony:

There are 130,000 children who must depend on the Ohio Works First (OWF) program. There is no state policy that is more intentionally harmful to children than the decision to force these children to live on an income that we know will not meet their basic needs.

An average family of two on OWF receives $336 in cash and $284 per month in food stamps. This combined income rises to only about half of the federal poverty level. Life for these families is a constant struggle to find enough food and to keep a roof over their heads. Over half of the OWF caseload is made up of 'child only' cases in which the grandparents or other relatives are the caretakers.

Why do I say intentional?

We know these families have no other resources. They must follow all of our eligibility rules and work requirements. We have more than ample funds to offer a decent level of benefits and yet we simply choose not to.

We spend a great deal of time and money to prove that these families are poor. With over $300 million dollars budgeted for entitlement administration and over $100 million a year spent specifically on eligibility determination, we are sure that these folks are poor. There is probably no other financial eligibility system that is as detailed or closely monitored than Ohio’s welfare programs.

Welfare was "reformed" ten years ago. It is complete with time limits and work requirements. It was supposed to satisfy our concerns that welfare be limited to only those who are "deserving." Those currently receiving OWF assistance must comply with all of the program rules.

The most obvious example of our intentional mistreatment of these children has been the way Ohio has dealt with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. As the name implies, the first goal of the program is to support children in their own homes. Ohio has under spent its $1.14 billion TANF budget in almost every year for the past eight years. We accumulated the largest unspent balance of TANF funds in the nation with balances usually exceeding the $728 million federal annual TANF allocation. During this time, we have routinely spent only a third or less of the TANF budget on OWF cash assistance. Even with the Governor’s proposed $10 a month increase in benefits two years from now, the portion of TANF funds spent on cash assistance will drop to 22%.

Every year we devise a TANF spending plan that is supposed to spend down the balance. Most years, we simply don’t spend the money. Other years we have used the funds to replace state General Revenue Fund (GRF) dollars. This has relieved some of the budgeting stress on the administration and legislature at the expense of these poor children. It should be noted that supplanting of state and local funds is not permitted by federal rules and those same rules also limit the use of carry over TANF funds to cash assistance.

Governor Strickland, with the support of the Ohio House of Representatives, has chosen to spend the carry over TANF funds on an increase in childcare provider payments rather than addressing the critical problem of inadequate OWF benefits. All of the Governor’s plans for improved early childhood education and child care will have little effect on children living in families without sufficient food and with constant stress to pay for basic shelter costs and other necessities.

I could say that most people can’t imagine what life is like for these kids and their families. But the truth is, we spend a lot of effort to know exactly what life is like for them.

So I repeat: There is no other state policy that is more intentionally harmful to children than the low level of OWF cash benefits. It is time to take our foot off the necks of these poor families and their children.

We must provide a significant increase in OWF benefits.

--Jack Frech, Director

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 7

The final words on this topic belong to the people on the receiving end of cash assistance, because it is their lives that this meager investment affects to such a great extent. In March, we surveyed recipients of OWF and asked them what they’d do if they could get an extra $100 a month in TANF funds. (A bill introduced by State Representative Jimmy Stewart (R-92) last year would have provided this additional assistance; it was dismissed.) We heard back from dozens of recipients; excerpts from some of the most telling responses are below:

“Right now we get $410 a month and the bank takes $5 out to cash it and $400 goes straight to my landlord. So my family is left with $5.”

“$100 a month doesn’t seem like much to very many people. It does to my family and myself...I could have good roofing nails put in my roof to replace the old used ones, so maybe my roof wouldn’t leak as often. I could save and maybe have struts put on my car, then it won’t scare me when the kids ride with me. $100 could do a lot to make our lives a little nicer and even safer.”

“A trip to the zoo wouldn’t be out of the question. It’s not much fun telling your child maybe next month we’ll be able to afford it, knowing that we won’t.”

“We have to plan only the most necessary trips to town or school in our car. We have to wash clothes by hand in the bathtub instead of going to the Laundromat. I’m always scared that I’m not going to be able to keep the electricity on. My son is a freshman in high school and he’s an excellent student with perfect attendance. It breaks my heart when he feels my despair and I wish that life could be a little more fun for him.”

“My husband is disabled and I’m medically not allowed to work. With the amount of money that we get from the state, I can’t pay all of the bills. With rent, water, trash, gas, phone, electric and car insurance, we come about $200 short every month. And that doesn’t include the extra food that we have to buy with cash because the food stamps aren’t enough to feed four people fully.”

“I face utility shutoff every month. I receive $336 a month; my rent is $300 and that is the cheapest I can find. That only leaves me $36 to pay utilities and buy diapers for my two-year-old son.”

“If I had another $100 dollars I could at least fully pay my rent. My rent is $425 a month and OWF sends me $410. My rent does not include utilities and I have two small children, ages 3 and 3 months. My car needs fixed and I can’t afford a babysitter. I struggle every month, thinking that month my kids and I may not have a roof over our heads. The stress of no money makes it hard to see the little things in live anymore.”

“We are raising our three granddaughters on what my husband gets from SSI and the $410 from OWF. $100 may not seem like a lot, but it would help to get the girls clothes and shoes when they need them.”

“I struggle with keeping my baby in diapers and having enough money for bills and rent. My baby goes without diapers sometimes because I have to pay my rent and bills so I’m not homeless with four children.”

“I could buy more healthy food for my children.”

“To some people $100 is nothing. My family struggles every day to pay bills, put food on the table and the extra money would help. I have a child in kindergarten who always needs something for school. Her father works but doesn’t make enough to support a family our size. My kids are always in need of something and I hope you realize how this would help our families and our kids. I feel bad for receiving any kind of help from welfare but we do try to provide—everyone has a hard time once in awhile. Please, don’t let the children go without. Help us get by a little better.”

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 6

The proposed budget

The Administration has indicated that their rationale for not providing a decent increase in the level of public assistance is that OWF children will be receiving other services that will somehow help compensate for the fact that they do not have enough money to meet their basic needs. A review of the governor’s budget proposal would indicate that there are several areas in which families may receive some additional help.

The largest increase in the governor’s budget for TANF is going to a fee increase for child care providers. They will receive an increase of 11 percent, beginning this May. This will increase the average payment per child from approximately $400 to about $440 a month. Only about 25 percent of OWF children receive child care assistance. Those assistance payments are made directly to the child care provider and not to the OWF family. While increasing these provider fees may be very well warranted, it does not help OWF families pay their bills and put food on the table.

The governor’s budget also calls for expansions of the Early Learning Initiative (ELI) and other child development activities. All of these activities are already available to OWF families; however, none of these programs provides any assistance to help these families meet their basic needs. Though these development activities can potentially do a lot of good, participation levels are low. In the face of possible eviction, empty dinner plates and spotty employment, it is difficult for families to find the time or energy to focus on learning activities. Recent studies regarding the long-term effects of child care on the developmental abilities of children have determined that the quality of life within the family is a more significant determinant of success for children’s development than is child care or any other activity.

Another issue that has been raised regarding the potential increase in OWF benefits is “sustainability.” There is no doubt that the TANF block grant is a fixed, limited amount of money. Even with the huge unspent balance of funds(about $403 million was unobligated before the new budget proposal), there is obviously a finite limit on how many activities can be funded through this source. It is ironic that the issue of sustainability seems to be raised more often with issues such as providing direct cash assistance to families than it does for the wide range of other services funded through TANF dollars.

In reality, cash assistance accounts for only about 25 percent of all TANF funding, despite the fact that meeting basic human needs should be the first priority for these funds. There must be a serious discussion about what the priorities for TANF funding should be as we move forward, and it should involve a discussion of the full range of services currently funded.

There is no less guarantee of “sustainability” for kinship care or child care than there is for cash assistance. For the past 30 years, while many social services programs have come and gone, we have always provided cash assistance to low-income families (albeit at an inadequate level.) It is also true that during that entire 30-year span, and in the face of serious budget challenges, no governor or general assembly has ever actually cut the level of benefits for the assistance being provided through the OWF or the former Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program. It is highly unlikely that cash assistance benefits would be cut in the future. In fact, it is far more likely that it would be some of the other wide range of TANF-funded services that would be in jeopardy. Perhaps this is why there has been so little support throughout the human services community for an increase in public assistance benefits. Despite a lack of support, the obvious fact is that an increase in cash assistance is necessary and would improve the lives of Ohio’s neediest children.

--Jack Frech, Director

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 5

Additional benefits that OWF families may receive

Most OWF families are also eligible to receive Medicaid and Food Stamps. County Job and Family Services offices offer a wide variety of emergency and employment support assistance through the Prevention, Retention and Contingency (PRC) program, based on each county’s individualized plan.

Fewer than 7 percent of OWF families receive subsidized housing assistance.

Families with children under the age of five and pregnant women may receive help through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. The average benefit is $34 per month and goes toward nutritious food.

The Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) offers financial aid for heating costs. The average benefit is $296 per heating season. The Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) offers low income consumers of regulated utilities an extended payment plan to reduce the high cost of energy during the heating season. There is no subsidy in the program and low income families participating are over $530 million in debt to utility companies in electrical services alone.

There are a number of local services such as food pantries, soup kitchens and homeless shelters intended to provide help in “emergency” situations. Unfortunately, many OWF and working poor families have been forced to rely on them on a regular, recurring basis. Only about 25 percent of OWF families receive child care services. While beneficial, these services can’t bridge the gap between OWF benefit levels and the basic needs of these families.

--Jack Frech

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 4

Determining eligibility

The state spends millions of dollars determining eligibility for OWF. Ohio has one of the most sophisticated means testing systems in the country. Families are screened through a centralized computer system. Computer matches are run against other financial database systems as well, including reports of new hires from employers. Social Security, Internal Revenue Service, Unemployment and Workers Compensation benefits and banking records are all cross matched with public assistance data.

Recipients are required to present a Social Security number for all household members. They must also furnish written proof of identity, age, citizenship, residence, income, pregnancy, disability, or termination of employment.

Eligibility must be re-determined every six months for benefits to continue. Recipients are required to report any change in status (such as employment, household number, etc.) within 10 days.

If they are physically able, adult recipients are expected to meet a 30-hour per week work requirement.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services closely monitors the performance of the counties in their compliance with federal and state rules regarding the OWF program. (The only exception is the law requiring counties to offer all OWF recipients and applicants the opportunity to register to vote. There is no monitoring of compliance with this law.)

Ohio goes to great lengths to verify that the 130,000 children that remain on OWF cash assistance with their families are indeed poor and need the assistance. Nevertheless, we still provide benefits that rise to only 50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. We are spending only about 25 percent of the TANF block grant on cash assistance. We are neglecting the needs of these families on purpose.

--Jack Frech, Director

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 3

Living with grandparents

The most common OWF households consist of one or two children living with a relative who acts as a caregiver. Typically these caregivers are the children’s grandparents.

Of the roughly 80,000 households receiving OWF in December 2006, more than half (52.5 percent) were “child only” cases, meaning that only the children in these households receive public assistance. Child-only assistance groups have been steadily increasing over the past several years.


Of the 79,592 OWF cases in Ohio, about 52 percent are child-only cases, many with grandparents as caregivers. The average OWF household size is now two, given the larger increase in child-only cases.

More than 75.5 percent of OWF children are younger than 13. About 42 percent are under the age of six. Of the total OWF caseload in December 2006, 76 percent were children.

--Jack Frech, Director

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 2

There are 130,000 children who depend on the TANF-funded cash assistance program, Ohio Works First. These children’s families are very poor. We spend a great deal of money, time and effort through our local County Department of Job and Family Services offices to prove that families receiving OWF assistance don’t have other resources and comply with all the program work requirements and time limits. After all this, we give them only about half of the amount we know they need to live on according to Federal Poverty Level standards. There is no doubt that this has caused many hardships for these children and their families.

We provide a typical OWF family with about $320 a month in cash and $280 in Food Stamps, with which they cannot meet their basic needs. Ohio has accumulated the largest balance of unspent TANF funds in the nation—about $431 million in unobligated funds—because we have been unwilling to provide a decent level of assistance for these kids.

The governor’s budget, which is still currently undergoing the approval process, does a lot to help children, just not the poorest children. It calls for a “cost of living” adjustment in January 2009 for OWF families at a cost of $4.6 million. It will be 3 percent, or about $9 a month. Because of a projected drop in caseloads, the actual OWF line item will decrease by about $25 million a year. Two years from now, children relying on TANF funding clearly won’t be any better off with this increase than they are now; it’s likely they’ll be worse off.

Last year, Representative Jimmy Stewart (R-District 92) introduced a bill to raise OWF benefits by $100 a month at a cost of $100 million in TANF funds. It was dismissed as being unsustainable. The governor’s new budget increases TANF funding expenditures by $200 million a year to go towards programs such as the Early Learning Initiative and child care provider payments. These programs are all necessary and helpful to the community at large, and may require additional funding, but they won’t pay the bills for the families on cash assistance.

--Jack Frech, Director