Wouldn’t it be great if all the children in Michigan lived in communities with great schools, quality medical care and safe outdoor places to play? 

Unfortunately one of every seven of the state’s children doesn’t.

They live in communities where almost one-third of the population subsists on income below the poverty level ($17,000 for a family of three and $22,000 for a family of four), according to an analysis by the KIDS COUNT project at the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

Even if their own family has income above the poverty level, children living in such areas are more likely to suffer from harmful stress and severe behavioral and emotional problems than children overall. Living in a community where so many people lack income to cover their basic needs has a ripple effect on the quality of life for everyone there.

Over the last decade, as unemployment persisted and poverty encompassed more state residents, more Michigan children found themselves in such communities. Between 2000 and 2006-10, the number of children affected jumped by 124,000—a number equal to the entire population of first graders in the state. Overall 341,000 children in the state lived in high-poverty areas.

Among the Great Lakes states Michigan has the largest percentage of children living in high-poverty communities—nearly triple that of Minnesota (5%).  In fact, among the 50 states Michigan ranks 44th (with No. 1 being the best or lowest rate) on this indicator, and the state rate (14%) is well above the national average (11%).

Even more troubling, two of every three Detroit children live in such areas. Among the 50 largest cities in the nation, Detroit has the largest percentage of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods; its percentage of children affected (67%) is 10 percentage points above the next worst city, Cleveland (57%). Roughly 146,000 Detroit children are growing up in areas of concentrated poverty.

But concentrated poverty in Michigan does not occur only in Detroit and Wayne County. Eight other counties had at least 20 percent of their children living in high-poverty communities—and half of those counties were in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.

So what are state and local policymakers doing to address this issue? Certainly Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposal to promote regional transportation in southeast Michigan would provide more opportunities for employment and education to those in areas of concentrated poverty. In Fiscal Year 2012, however, state policymakers have intensified economic insecurity for many low-income families by making substantial cuts to work supports such as the child care subsidy and the Earned Income Tax Credit at the same time as Michigan families struggle with eroding wages and job opportunities and rising costs for transportation and rental housing.

The Casey report recommends a number of approaches to address concentrated poverty. Among them:

– Promoting mixed-income communities combining physical revitalization with human capital development
– Leveraging anchor institutions, such as hospitals and universities, to provide employment for area residents
– Advancing federal and state policies that support work, asset building and employment
– Connecting neighborhood improvements to citywide and regional efforts
– Increasing access to affordable housing in low-poverty communities.

Shouldn’t all children have the opportunity to live in a supportive community with adequate resources? Should place dictate fate in a democratic state?  If we believe in equal opportunity for all children, why are we not having serious conversations about the growing numbers of children living in concentrated poverty and the strategies to address the issue? If we need an educated workforce for our economic recovery, why is it not a priority that more children in the state have what they need to become successful learners, earners and citizens?

– Jane Zehnder-Merrell
          
      

The link between poverty and the economy is often ignored.  The poor are often categorized as the “other” and blamed for their financial condition. 

Poverty, however, is a deficiency that makes our economy incomplete, as spelled out in the new report Ties that Bind: Poverty and Michigan’s Economic Recovery.  Without addressing the condition of poverty and understanding the effect it has on the state economy, it will be difficult for Michigan to recover from the recession.

Poverty means there is less disposable income so consumer spending is reduced and businesses are forced to lay off workers or shut down entirely. This means less revenue for the state as incomes decrease and the tax base shrinks.

Public structures that help children and families also work to stabilize incomes and consumer spending and speed up economic recovery. With 16.8 percent of Michiganians living in poverty, programs such as cash assistance, food assistance, unemployment insurance and homelessness prevention can help provide the temporary relief needed by so many families in Michigan as well as bolster the economy so that it can grow and thrive.

While it is easy to look at those living in poverty as the “other”, 58 percent of Americans between ages 20 and 75 will experience at least one year of poverty during their life and few have been immune to the economic downturn. The number of Michigan households making less than $25,000 a year has grown by 17.5 percent while those making over $100,000 or more a year have declined by 16.1 percent.

Children have been especially harmed. In 2010, 23.5 percent of the children in Michigan lived in poverty. One of the most alarming statistics is the increase in child homelessness, which grew by 40 percent between the 2009–2010 school year and the current school year. 

It is unfathomable, but more than 31,000 children in Michigan are homeless and more than 700,000 are on food assistance. 

Though quality education is the No. 1 predictor of future success for kids, deep cuts are being made to education and assistance programs that will only further hurt Michigan’s children. Investing in Michigan’s children is investing in Michigan’s future workforce and helps build a citizenry and state that is economically secure.

Policies that seek to undermine programs that keep families stable and people spending money into the economy will only slow the state’s recovery.

 Recent policy decisions reducing access to cash assistance and food assistance should be reviewed. The state Earned Income Tax Credit should be returned to 20 percent of the federal EITC. The Legislature should reverse its decision to reduce unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks. Investments in skilled job training and financial supports while workers become ready for employment should be a priority for the state.

In order for Michigan’s economy to recover, investments must be made in the people of the state. An economy that works for everyone will help build a competitive and productive workforce, increase consumer spending and support local businesses. For Michigan to be truly competitive in the future, it must have the people and infrastructure that will attract investment in the state.

Michigan’s financial future will be greater if we build an economy designed to make sure all people in the state are able to maintain stability and economic balance.  Michigan’s economy must work for everyone, and not just those at the top of the income scale.

– Melissa K. Smith

From the First Tuesday newsletter. Sign up here.

As 2011 draws to a close, it’s a good time for reflection. Unfortunately, 2011 was another difficult year for families in Michigan, and we know that policy decisions turned the clock backward.

To paint the 2011 picture for you, I’ve developed a matching game. See if you can connect the answers to questions about child and family well-being.

A. Michiganders who are food insecure
B. Economic activity generated by  $1 of food assistance
C. Rise in childhood poverty since 2000
D. Kids on free or reduced lunch 
E. Unemployment rate 
F. Average age of a child receiving cash assistance
G. Number of children statewide slated to lose cash assistance
H. Tax cut to businesses
I. Amount per person, per day on cash assistance (welfare)
J. Average number of months a family is on welfare
K. Number of weeks unemployment insurance was reduced
L. Percent of people who qualify for Medicaid

1. 64%
2. 10.6%
3. One out of seven
4. 29,700
5. $1.79
6. 83%
7. 14.9
8. Six
9. One in five
10. $5
11. 7 years old
12. 50%

Key: (A-3, B-5, C-1, D-12, E-2, F-11, G-4, H-6, I-10, J-7, K-8, L-9)

The numbers tell the story and there are no winners in our game. We hope that you will help us tell the story by donating to the League. Our research, data, and advocacy have never been needed more.

Please give generously by clicking on our Donate button and have a joyous holiday season.

– Gilda Z. Jacobs

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)

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)

As a lifelong Metro Detroiter, it’s heart-breaking to see the latest poverty statistics for our already troubled region.

Among the country’s 50 largest cities, Detroit has the dubious distinction of having the largest share of children living in poverty or in low-income families.
Four out of every five kids in Detroit lived at less than 200 percent of poverty — the level many experts consider necessary to cover the most basic needs, according to KIDS COUNT.

Statewide, one in every four kids lives in poverty. Overall the poverty rate is nearly 17 percent with the rate for African Americans double that – nearly 34 percent.
As troubling as the poverty numbers are, they don’t show the full picture of families struggling to make ends meet. The Census Bureau considers a family of four to be living in poverty if its income is below $22,314, but most studies suggest families need at least twice that to pay their bills.

Today, one in nine workers in Michigan, and one out of 11 nationally, are unemployed. Nationally, 6 million workers –- that’s how many total people live in Wisconsin plus the Upper Peninsula –-  have been out of work for at least six months. These workers have spent their savings and many have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

Poverty and unemployment also have longer term consequences. Unemployed workers lose critical job skills. Poor children’s health and development suffers, and they do worse in school, threatening their ability to become productive workers as adults. Seniors in poverty can’t afford the health care they need to stay strong and independent. 

By 2018, our country will have 3 million fewer new workers with bachelor’s or associate’s degrees than it will need. That limits our capacity for sustained economic growth and harms us all.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We know how to help people through hard times and prepare for a stronger economic future. For example, the availability of public health insurance meant that while the number of people with private health insurance fell this year, the share of Americans who are uninsured did not grow.

President Obama’s jobs package is a step in the right direction to reduce the number of people falling out of the middle class and build a stable, strong economy. Attempts to reduce the deficit through cuts in health care or other essential services are bound to fail because they will reduce jobs, cripple economic activity, and shrink tax revenues.

Right now we face a triple threat. Rising poverty creates more demand for critical services, just when states and the federal government have cut services. Here in Michigan we have already cut education, public safety and safety net programs.  Now Congress is considering additional cuts, which is exactly the wrong choice.
We need our leaders to have the courage to make the right choices. 

A congressional  “supercommittee” is developing a plan to reduce our federal deficit. The surest way to reduce the deficit is to get people back to work and paying taxes. The “supercommittee” should develop a plan that creates jobs and continues unemployment insurance. It should ask millionaires and profit-rich corporations to pay their share in taxes and cut expensive contracts and other waste in our defense budget. 

Our country and our state cannot thrive when so many people are struggling.  We must act now.

– Gilda Z. Jacobs

Kids across Michigan today are lining up for school buses, breaking open those new packages of Crayolas and settling in for storytime.

The first day of school is thrilling and we want all of our children to partake in the promise and excitement that a new school year brings.

But for children living in poverty there are economic problems that can disrupt that good start to the school year.

Sometimes people tell stories, and sometimes data tells the story. Let’s look at the story that begins this school year. Once upon a time . . .

• The national KIDS COUNT Data Book (pdf), while showing some improvements, ranks Michigan 36th for babies born too small, which elevates their risk of chronic disease, developmental delay and even death. (This could cost us more down the road.)

• More than half of Michigan’s unemployed adults of prime working age (25-54) last year spent a half year or longer looking for jobs (pdf) — the longest on record. Unemployment hovers around 11 percent, much worse in rural and urban areas. (The legislative response was to pass a 48-month, retroactive limit on cash assistance, making Michigan the harshest in the Midwest and to reduce unemployment insurance from 26 weeks to 20 weeks.)

• The 48-month limit is expected to impact more than 11,000 families with nearly 30,000 children. The average age of a child on the Family Independence Program caseload is 7. (At a time when a second-grader should be learning to read, he or she may be forced to move and be uprooted from their school come Oct. 1.)

• Child poverty is up 64 percent in our state (pdf) over the last decade at a time when we want to improve the business climate. (Poor kids usually grow up to be poor adults-not a good training ground for the new economy or something that attracts potential employers to our state.)

When my kids were little, I read to them from a series of books where they could choose their own ending. We can do the same thing now by changing policies that will have a more positive impact today, as well as into the future. My story book would have the following policy changes:

• Restore unemployment benefits to 26 weeks
• Continue and enhance our investment in early childhood programs
• Return the state Earned Income Tax Credit to 20 percent
• Increase investment in adult basic learning skills, community colleges, and higher education
• Improve women’s access to health care
• Enhance maternal and infant health in communities of color, as well as eliminating the disparities in unemployment
• Provide more robust family support services to at-risk families
•Create a workforce development plan that is inclusive of all workers, including low-skill workers

Our policymakers face a great challenge, but I am convinced that they can truly create a happy ending for the kids and their parents in our state by making targeted investments now.  Our families need changes that will help them today, rather than waiting for a fairy godmother to show up down the road.

– Gilda Z. Jacobs

September 6th, 2011 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Events,Health Care,Human Services,Kids Count | Comments (1)

As I listened to a recent news report about Detroit area groups reaching out to remind families to get their children to school next week, I couldn’t help but think of the families with children who are likely to be destabilized and possibly rendered homeless by the legislation approved last week. 

The policy is the strict limitation of cash benefits (Family Independence Program) to families for 48 months regardless of what the family is doing to achieve self-sufficiency, currently a requirement for receiving the assistance.  With a few very exceptions, families who have already received cash benefits for 48 months over their lifetimes will be terminated effective Oct. 1. House Bills 4409 and 4410 were finalized on Aug. 24 and are expected to be signed by the governor. Families will have very little time to prepare for this significant policy change and loss of family income.

While Michigan does currently have a time limit for cash benefits, the clock stops when families are meeting their self-sufficiency plans, and also for families who live in counties where the unemployment rate is 25 percent above the statewide average, which would equate to 13.6 percent in July. Those reasonable policies have been replaced by a strict limit that ignores economic conditions that greatly impact individuals’ abilities to land a job.

The loss of cash assistance on its own is enough of a blow to these very low income families (they currently lose eligibility when their family earnings reach $814/month or 44 percent below the federal poverty level), but they could also lose their companion Medicaid and child care benefits. 

Recent estimates indicate more than 11,000 families will lose benefits on Oct. 1, including nearly 30,000 children. While passage of the FY 12 budget was touted as a “jobs and kids budget,” it is unlikely these kids would agree. According to the MIDashboard, “Many parents are unable to provide their children with the basic food, clothing and medical care they need. Children who live in poverty are more likely to have low academic achievement and health, behavioral and emotional problems.” It is hard to imagine how the 48-month cash limits will improve the lives of these children or move the dial on the goal to reduce child poverty when the current Kids Count  indicators already show child poverty moving in the opposite direction.

In thinking about this policy, I also recalled the budget woes in the early 1980s when proposals were made to protect education funding and cut everyone else by 9.2 percent. It was very telling and unforgettable to have school superintendents come to the then-Department of Social Services legislative committee hearings and make impassioned pleas to not cut social services funding while protecting education funding. They argued it was better to protect social services funding so that children would not be coming to school in crisis, but rather coming to school “ready to learn.”

Will the nearly 30,000 children come to school — assuming they make it — in crisis or ready to learn? Will their families instead of focusing on the excitement of the beginning of school be focused on how they are going to survive when they lose their cash benefits? 

If you are concerned about the stability and ability of these families to thrive and pursue self-sufficiency, and the ability of these children to be ready to learn, please make your voice heard.

 – Jan Hudson

September 2nd, 2011 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Human Services,Kids Count,State Budget | Comments (2)

I was not living in Michigan when Leroy Fick infamously defended his receipt of food assistance after winning the lottery. Fick set the state, and the country, on fire. Michigan’s governor and Legislature obviously stood up and took notice, but I was shocked when I heard Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (you might remember him as the guy who caused quite a stir with his budget proposal a few months ago) mentioned Fick’s acts in a phone conference I was on. Thanks to Mr. Fick, the image of all those lazy, cheating, cash assistance spongers is back in circulation.

The anecdotes abound.  My neighbor told me yesterday that he knew someone who had 8 kids, was on “welfare” and drove a Lamborghini.  My sister, a nurse, tells me of one patient who has a ton of kids on Medicaid always in the hospital for something or another. She laments about her abusing the medical assistance program.  My former co-worker’s sister-in-law was reportedly on unemployment for five years (completely impossible by the way). he media reacts and the Legislature acts – drug testing, time limits, asset tests, fingerprinting, and limiting places recipients can use ATMs.

While we need to be careful stewards of our tax dollars, let’s not get caught up in the drama.  For every one Leroy Fick there are millions of Michiganders on cash assistance who need it and are not abusing the system. DHS reports 5,000 prosecutions a year for fraud in ALL assistance programs; that is less than one in 500 participants – about the same odds as catching a ball at a major league baseball game and 2 ½ times the odds of being audited by the IRS. Ifact, nationwide, 50,178 recipients were disqualified from the Food Stamp Program in 2009 for fraud.  Sounds like a big number, right?  Well, that is out of 33.5 million recipients – one-tenth of one percent!

Of course, you don’t have to be low-income to participate in fraudulent activity.  Consider this: in 2009, there was $33.5 billion in retail fraud mainly due to shoplifting and employee theft – more than 100 times the amount of overissuance of food assistance due to fraud nationwide (much of which is eventually recouped from the recipient). More than 6 percent of all households were the victims of identity theft in 2008 – that is 11.7 million people and $17 billion in financial losses.  And how about those tax evaders?  Every year approximately $300 billion goes uncollected by the federal government (budget solution anyone?).   While 30 percent to 40 percent of Americans don’t pay all they owe, about 15 Percent of them are intentionally evading the tax system.

Individuals are not the only ones guilty of making mistakes.  Overpayment of Food Assistance benefits was due to agency error in 46.6 percent of cases nationally and 54.3 percent of cases in Michigan in 2009.  So, when we start screaming foul at all the supposed criminals defrauding government assistance, remember that none of us humans are infallible and most of us try to do the right thing; if it wasn’t for that one bad apple….

-Melissa Smith

Buried in a demographics report from the Department of Human Services is a number that should scare us: 7.

That’s the average age of children receiving help through the Family Independence Program, the state’s cash assistance program.

An estimated 25,000 children are slated to lose FIP grants in October because their parents were on assistance 48 months or longer, under House Bills 4409 and 4410. This dangerous legislation will take away rent money from kids who need it.

The FIP grant is a maximum of $492 per month for a family of three. Many families work but can’t make enough to leave cash assistance. Under the legislation, families will lose this assistance starting in October.

These bills have passed the House (May) and the Senate (July) in different forms and have yet to be finalized. While the League opposes the bills as poor public policy, we believe the Senate version to be better because it at least recognizes the hardship of parents who can’t work because they care for a disabled spouse or child.

Our policymakers are trying to save $77.4 million through this action, which will have devastating effects. Some in the Senate, where no public testimony was taken on the bills, stated publicly that they thought only a portion of the cash assistance, representing the adult share, would be taken away. While the legislation is fuzzy, others say it will close the entire case, and the budget savings are based on closure of 12,600 full cases.

That means 25,000 children and their parents – enough to fill the seats at Comerica Park – would lose an important source of income.

It won’t stop there. The DHS report also finds that there are 3,700 families that could reach their 48-month limit by late winter.

Low- income people have been slammed by other budget-saving moves: A 70 percent cut to the Earned Income Tax Credit and elimination of the back-to-school clothing allowance for 124,000 children. These are the children in our state we should be lifting up, not punishing.

Let’s picture the Detroit baseball stadium filled with first- and second-graders and their parents – nearly 40,000 people. Now picture that many people losing all or a portion of their rent money.  Shelter is our most basic need.  Is this really the path we want to take to balance our budget? I think not.

– Gilda Z. Jacobs