Interfaith Council Blasts RI Works - Failed Safety Net

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

 

View Larger +

Interfaith leaders target RI Works Program for improvement in 2013.

Interfaith leaders and supporters blasted the state’s RI Works program as a failed safety net, lacking the tools necessary to support those families who are most at risk and vulnerable. Meeting at Rhode Island College for theFifth Annual Rhode Island Interfaith Coalition's Poverty Conference, coalition members targeted improvement in the program as one of three key issues of their 2013 Advocacy Agenda. 

“The program, as enacted five years ago is not living up to what it is supposed to do,” said Linda Katz, J.D., Cofounder and Policy Director of the Economic Progress Institute formerly the Poverty Institute). “The bottom line is that this program is supposed to act as a safety net for the most vulnerable. It’s supposed to assist in avoiding homelessness and hunger. If fails in doing so.”

According to Katz, increases in the number of Rhode Islanders living in poverty should have seen commensurate increases in program numbers and the number of people being serviced. Instead, there was a steady decline in numbers. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of families in Rhode Island receiving cash assistance decreased by 64% from 18,428 families to 6, 604 families, not based on need but due to stricter eligibility policies enacted under the RI Works Program. Enactment of these new guidelines, as successor to the Family Independence Program, significantly contributed to the decline in families across the state receiving assistance according to the Economic Progress Institute.

View Larger +

State contribution to cash assistance program ended.


“There used to be a state general revenue fund contribution for cash assistance in addition to the federal funds. "That contribution steadily declined until it went to zero three years ago,” said Katz. “In 2007, under the Carcieri administration, regressive policies were put in place. The policies were not responsive to family needs.“

Three significant contributors to the decline in eligible families were the repeal of the children’s entitlement to assistance, limitations on eligibility for lawful permanent residents and implementation of time limits on participation in the program, more stringent than federal guidelines.

The program also failed in implementing cost of living or economic adjustments when calculating maximum cash assistance allowances, maintained at $554 for a family of three for more than 20 years.

"That’s true,” said Fred Sneesby, Public Information Officer for the Department of Human Services (DHS). The standards of the system haven’t changed in years. In 1997 when the Welfare Reform Bill was enacted, at that time they were reforming AFDC and there were 21,000 participants then. There are about 7,000 now. If that is the dramatic decline they are talking about, then yes, there are a lot less people participating in the program.
The maximum benefit amount of $554 has not changed in many years. The amount is set by DHS, not by the legislature.

“I’m not sure whether the changeover to RI Works was responsible for this drop in numbers. It was a federal act that time limited the program and made it more goal-oriented towards “work activities.”

Erik Stegman, Manager of the Half in Ten Campaign, noted that strong policies are necessary as a support tool for struggling families.

"In 1964 through 1973, which is less than ten years, the poverty level fell by 40 percent," he said. "This was due to two things. One, we built an economy that was an equal economy. It was an economy where everyone could access a job. We also provided a really strong network of policies that protected families when they fell on tough times and that's exactly what it was designed to do."

"Having a good economy and having policies to really protect families during hard times, helped us to cut poverty by 40 percent in less than ten years," said Stegman. 

Half in Ten is dedicated to cutting U.S. poverty in half in ten years, a measure that has been achieved twice in the nation's history. 


Rhode Island standards more stringent than federal guidelines.

Federal requirements changed the program. The RI Works program added further time limits. The time limits are shorter than the federal limits. The federal guidelines call for a 60 month or five-year limitation on cash assistance. The Ri works pgram has two time standards. The first is an overall limit of 48 month lifetime limitation. The second is a 24 month consecutive month limitation. No individual is allowed to collect cash assistance for more than 24 months consecutively unless applying for and receiving a hardship extension.

The State receives $95 million in federal block grant funding, which is distributed under set criteria and federal parameters. The state allotment has remained steady at $95 million for several years per Sneesby.

View Larger +

RI Interfaith Leaders respond to poverty initiatives.

Benefits are available to those who apply in addition to the cash assistance program. Those benefits include the following:

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST
  • Rite Care - Medical Program
  • SNAP Benefits
  • Education and Training Programs
  • Childcare assistance Programs
  • Transportation Assistance (bus passes)

The entire range of benefits and services are paid out of that block grant. “I believe the number is $36 million distributed to families as cash assistance. The rest covers the additional benefits,” said Sneesby. “The cap of $554 is set by the State of Rhode Island as a departmental policy. Prior to the federal changes, 73% of the funding went to cash assistance payments, nationally. Now that figure is under 40% nationally.”

States are somewhat constrained in the amount that they can allocate.

"The program is constantly being evaluated and we try to make it as effective as possible, within the constraints of the Federal program," said Sneesby.

The problem of poverty is complex, according to Sneesby and cannot be characterized as resultant of any one particular problem.

“It may be asking too much of this problem to saddle it with the task of solving the burden of poverty. In terms of trying to reduce poverty, it would be unfair to characterize this program as being a contributor for Rhode Island’s poverty issues.”
 

 
 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

 
 

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast

I want to follow on Twitter

I want to Like on Facebook