Economists called it the Great Recession — a slowdown in the American economy that officially began in late 2007 and ended in the summer of 2009. Oct. 23, 2011 — mlive.com

Michigan’s winter is expected to be harsh. Oct. 24, 2011 — Lansing State Journal

Jan Hudson, Senior Policy Analyst, MLHS. Jan’s interview on “Understanding Medicaid: Complex, Compassionate, Cost Effective” report. Oct. 24, 2011 — 1320 WILS

Nov. 1 is right around the corner, the date when the state is expected to implement the time limits on cash assistance after a court ordered a month delay so the Department of Human Services could give   recipients adequate notice that benefits would end. 

What few know is that DHS will be counting the Extended Family Independence Program grant, also known as EFIP, toward the time limits on cash assistance. Cash assistance is limited to a total of 48 months under state law or 60 months under federal law.  A token EFIP grant is given to those who start to earn too much to get the regular Family Independence Program grant. Their grant would have otherwise closed due to earnings but with EFIP it remains open for six additional months. This grant is only worth $10 a month but counts as much as a full grant in the lifetime limits. That leaves some asking: How is that fair?

The program was set up in 2007 as a win/win: It helps the state meet federal work participation rate requirements, and it helps the families by offering Medicaid and child care for six additional months by keeping their FIP case open. 

By counting EFIP, this program has turned into a win/lose for recipients.  Because the new time limits are retroactive, they look back over time and count months on EFIP toward the lifetime limits. This is a due process concern because recipients were not informed by DHS of the negative impact of this automatic payment.  Counting EFIP toward the time limit was a state policy change that was not publicly discussed during debate on House Bills 4409 and 4410, the enabling legislation that implemented the 48-month time limit. Counting EFIP effectively limits the cash assistance to much less than 48 months.

Here is how it works:  FIP clients can cycle on and off  assistance depending on their earnings.  The average family is on assistance for 15 months.  For example, FIP parents with seasonal jobs may have wages that exceed the FIP earnings limit during the holidays, but the employee’s hours and earnings are cut back in January.  With the first episode of assistance, the family could be given 15 months of regular assistance and then six months of EFIP, automatically. This totals  21 months. Time passes and they qualify for assistance for the second time.  Another 21 months is counted.  This leaves six months left on the third episode of assistance.   With this scenario, the family would be given a total of 36 months of regular assistance and 12 months of EFIP at $10 a month. That equals a total of $120 in payments on EFIP.  What’s the result? An average family on FIP could be limited to 36 months of regular benefits. 

At what income does a family of three earn too much? With the new disregard implemented on Oct. 1, 2011 a household’s earnings (or combined earnings and benefit) may not exceed $1,183. (At $1,184 the household loses its eligibility). The maximum grant they can receive is $492/month. The disregard increased from the first $200 +20% to $200 + 50% on Oct. 1, 2011.  It sounds better to allow the family to keep more of their earnings while still receiving assistance but this new policy has a negative impact, as FIP clients receive a smaller grant but use up the same month of benefit toward the time limits. 

There are solutions.  Policy changes could be made through DHS policy or legislation:

1. Do not count months on EFIP toward lifetime limits or, at the very least, only count them going forward and give clients the option of refusing EFIP so that they don’t count against lifetime limits. 
2. Before counting a month toward the lifetime limit, specifiy a minimum amount of cash assistance help in any given month that will be counted toward lifetime limits.  That means deciding what is a full month of benefits. 

– Joanne Bump

October 26th, 2011 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Health Care,Human Services | Comments (1)

As former budget directors working for Republican and Democratic governors, we urge the administration of Gov. Rick Snyder to reconsider the new food stamp asset test that will eliminate food benefits for thousands in Michigan. Oct. 14, 2011 — The Detroit News

Robert Emerson and Don Gilmer are board members of the Michigan League for Human Services.

Here we go again. Congress is once more balking at extending the lifeline to unemployed workers and their families as they look for work.

In Michigan, inaction by Congress would mean 66,700 unemployed workers would lose access to Unemployment Insurance benefits, according to a new paper by the National Employment Law Project called Hanging On By a Thread.

Normally, states only offer their unemployed workers Basic UI, which is funded by the state and federal taxes collected from employers. In most states, Basic UI is available for up to 26 weeks; however, Michigan’s Legislature, displaying insensitivity to the very real economic hardship in this state, cut that maximum down to 20 weeks.

In states in which the unemployment level is especially high, states can provide Extended Benefits for 13 or 20 weeks (depending on the level of unemployment) to workers who have exhausted their Basic UI, with the cost split between the federal government and the state. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, however, incentivized qualifying states to offer Extended Benefits by making them entirely federally funded.

In July 2008, the federal government responded to the extraordinarily high unemployment rate by offering what is call Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), which is also entirely federally funded. EUC offers 34-53 additional weeks of UI benefits, in four tiers, to states with very high unemployment rates. Because Michigan had a very high unemployment rate, long-term unemployed workers in this state could collect the maximum number of benefits from both Extended Benefits and EUC, in addition to Basic UI — a total of 99 weeks for workers who, despite looking for work for nearly two years, could still not find employment.

All of the federally funded EB and EUC benefits are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress does nothing.

In that case, in Michigan, 20,800 long-term unemployed workers will face an immediate cutoff from their Extended Benefits, an additional 26,100 workers will lose their EUC benefits after they complete their current tier, and 19,800 workers will only be allowed to complete their 20 weeks of Basic UI.

As the paper points out, never in the history of the UI program has the federal government let federally funded unemployment benefits expire when the unemployment level is so high. This certainly is not what Michigan needs now.

There is a petition that you can sign to let Congress know unemployed workers need them to renew the federal UI benefits now.

– Peter Ruark

Budget-cutting proponents said recent state budget cuts were needed because state revenue had fallen and the state could no longer afford to provide the services it had in the past. That was the rationale for cutting everything from community colleges and higher education to safety net programs to funding for local governments to K-12 funding.

Well guess what? It looks like the state is going to close out last year’s fiscal year with a surplus.

The House Fiscal Agency estimates that there will be an excess of at least $285 million. And the Senate Fiscal Agency thinks that amount could be at least $431 million. Sen. Roger Kahn, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, says the surplus could be as high as $490 million.

Nowadays that’s a lot of money — almost half a billion dollars in unexpected revenue.

That money could go a long way toward restoring some of the cuts that have been made to important public structures in our state.

It could help needy families and their kids as they continue to struggle during these difficult economic times. With so many looking for work, it could help support community colleges and higher education that prepare people for today’s jobs. Or it could be used in our local schools to prepare our kids for postsecondary education. Or what about using some of that money to help our local communities restore the cuts made to police and fire protection?

The list of ways the money could be used to improve the lives of people in this state is pretty long. 

There are some policymakers who are arguing the money should be put in the state’s Rainy Day Fund. That would be great, except that it is raining right now. Just look around. We are just beginning to see the impact of the budget cuts that took effect on Oct. 1. It’s going to keep raining harder as we move into this fiscal year and as new policy changes are going to leave families out in the rain and the snow.

The state needs to take advantage of the umbrella it has been handed and use the gift of these unexpected funds to restore budget cuts and help people.

– Karen Holcomb-Merrill

Laurie Schmidt of Bay City never thought she’d find herself picking up groceries for her family of three at a local food pantry, but Wednesday morning she was filling out the paperwork required to take home a box loaded with peanut butter, soup and bread. Oct. 13, 2011 — mlive.com

Hundreds of people in the Great Lakes Bay Region could have their welfare food assistance cut off in the months ahead because of state limitations on how much cash they have in the bank or the value of the car in their driveway. Oct. 13, 2011 — mlive.com

At the League, we’ve fielded several troubling calls over the last few weeks as new policies kick in limiting food assistance and putting new time limits on cash assistance.

Some people want to vent, others to cry. Often they don’t want to give their names. Many are frustrated with policies they see as arbitrary and unfair and pulling the rug out from under them at a time when they have few options.

A housewife nearing 60 says her husband is out of work and battling a serious type of cancer. The couple sold their big house, moved into a tiny house, and put the difference into savings bonds to pay their bills. Because of the new asset test they no longer qualify for food assistance. If they had kept their larger house, they would still qualify.

Another call was from a musician who has a wife with an illness and no health insurance. He works two jobs and works hard but with three children, food assistance helps get through the month. He said records available to the Department of Human Services on his two vans (both now junked, he said) put him over the asset limit.

Also calling was a woman struggling with a disability after an accident. She had a nice car purchased in better times. Now unable to work and barely making it, the car’s value puts her over the asset limit.

Yet another was from a suburban mom with two children with a severe health condition that keeps her from working. Her husband is out of work and trying hard to get his career going again. She says she feels so much shame, she has not told even her mother they use food stamps. It’s what is keeping the family out of foreclosure, but partial ownership in a vacation home inherited with siblings will put them over the asset limit and prohibit them from using food benefits.

Cash assistance is another story. One mom is six months pregnant and wondering who will hire her? Her cash assistance is running out before the baby is due. Though she thinks she will be able to get a nursing aide job after the baby is born, what is she to do in the meantime?

Two other moms have detailed to reporters how they had to send their kids to live with relatives. The breakup of families has already started.

Administration officials talk of cracking down on fraud and abuse and people gaming the system or using assistance as a way of life. They do have a point. The lottery winner who started the food assistance crackdown clearly didn’t need food benefits. But it’s also clear that the administration has cast too wide a net — catching people who are struggling every day to make it, pay their bills, and stay afloat.

We’re hoping people will speak up. Send us your stories. It’s important that we hear about the hardworking families in need of assistance, and not just the lottery winner and college students milking the system.

– Judy Putnam

October 11th, 2011 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Health Care,Human Services,State Budget | Comments (2)