A student's paper on Human Services budget cuts

Here is another letter to the governor from a student who is concerned about cuts to the Department of Human Services.

I am writing you in regards to your budget cuts to the human services areas. It is not right that other areas are not being as harshly impacted as the human services area. We need to keep the human services portion funded to help the thousands of people in need. Currently, our nation is not in economic standing and I understand that; however, cutting the budget in these areas is only going to cause more strain to the already struggling families. They need the extra assistance to help with their depression, anxiety, and other disorders that are becoming prevalent during the difficult time.

Without child care assistance or after school programs being funded, working parents will not have good choices for their children. These programs allow them to have somewhere safe to go that can also be educational. Unfortunately, many of these children could possibly end up on the streets getting into drugs and other criminal acts without these places to go. Also, the cut would create a huge jump in the unemployment rate in our state. Human services cover a large percentage of our job market in Illinois. The larger budget cut will cause many to lose their jobs and even force a lot of the agencies to shut down. Where are the people to go that need help?

People that have addictions to drugs and alcohol or the mentally ill are going to seek treatment in the places that are convenient, comfortable, and close to home. What are they going to do if there is no agency there for them to go to? What happens when suicide rates increase? It seems like we are just forgetting about these people. They need to feel secure somewhere so that they can stop turning to the drugs and alcohol. Along with them, what about the people who are coping with domestic violence? They are not going to travel long distances to seek treatment. Are we suggesting they continue to be abused?

With these budget cuts, we would only be harming Illinois’ economic status more than it already is. The loss of jobs would cause unemployment rates to skyrocket. Those that need the treatment will not have anywhere to go anymore causing them to continue to worsen.

I would like to ask you, why are human services being hit the hardest? A cut of $500 million has already been made to this section, so why do we need to continue taking from it? I just hope that you can reconsider these cuts and look at other areas to cut from. We really need to help those in need and try to improve our economic status rather than making it worse.

And here is some of my reaction, as I thought about this letter, and several others like it I've received from the students in this class.

I tend to favor empirical evidence, but such evidence is not always the best way to change a person’s mind about something. That said, you do reflect on the $500 billion cut coming out of Human Services.  By my estimates based on data I found at the State Comptroller’s website, I guess Human Services gets about $4.3 billion, or about 14% of the General Revenue Fund. If we need to make cuts in spending of about $5 billion, and a proportionate degree of those cuts need to come from General Revenue, then a fair cut might be $700 million from Human Services (that would be 14% of $5 billion).  I don’t know if we really need to cut $5 billion, but if we do, the $500 billion may not be enough. Bigger slices of the state budget pie include Healthcare and Family Services ($8.5 billion and 28% of General Revenue) and the State Board of Education ($6.5 billion and 21% of General Revenue.  Higher education ($3.4 billion, 11% of General Revenue) is also something that might get steeper cuts so that cuts to human services might remain below $700 million.

Here is a question for you.  If the state cuts $5 billion from the budget, including $700 million from Human Services, does the state just lose that money?  Where does it go?  One possibility is that the cuts in spending allow us to have lower taxes.  The money stays in the hands of private citizens in Illinois, instead of going to service providers and clients.

The question to ask then is, if we let people of Illinois keep $5 billion and we don’t take it away from them in taxes, will that do more good for the state’s economy than would be done if we took the money from them in taxes and spent it in things like human services, higher education, healthcare, family services, and education?  I personally think if we kept that $5 billion in private hands and didn’t cycle it through taxes and state spending we would see some slight economic improvement compared to the taxing and spending. There would be more demand for goods and services (all that money in the hands of individuals who would spend more, rather than spend on state priorities).  

But I ask myself, would this increased economic growth really make life better, and would it be widespread, or concentrated in the wealthiest households, and if only the wealthiest people in Illinois keep those dollars that would have gone to public priorities, will they actually invest that money in Illinois or spend it in Illinois, or will it flow out of the state?  Upon reflecting on these questions, I get a hunch that the quality of life and the morality of our society would erode, and I think in the long-term, we’ll be better off if we pull $5 billion out of the citizens through taxes and fees and put it into investments in education and health services, or support the most unfortunate with human services. 

Also, I don’t think money and wealth is the end toward which we should be steering.  We should be directing our social institutions such as our state government toward maximizing our happiness and increasing fairness or justice in our society. Whether we keep money in private hands or cycle it through government spending is a means toward this end, and so is economic growth. 

I mention this because your letter is very much about the harm of cutting the spending on human services. And yet, we also need to consider the “harm” of maintaining spending on human services.  Considering the alternatives will allow us to address them.  Yes, we will all suffer if we continue to pay full price for state services without collecting money to pay for these services, because to make up the deficits, we must eventually either cut services or raise taxes.  Facing this reality helps us consider which we value more, higher taxes with services maintained at their current level, or current tax levels with severe service cuts, or even lower tax levels with even more drastic cuts in services. 

Many people still think most state spending is wasted, or lost in corruption. Such people demand lower taxes and cuts to state spending.  I know intelligent people who work for the state who have told me they honestly believe 20% to 40% of state spending is wasted money, lost in corruption or stupid programs that fail to achieve anything of value. I marvel at this.  Is it really plausible that $7 billion of the General Revenue fund is lost to corruption, waste, mismanagement, and that sort of thing?  If we could target our cuts, is it plausible that we could find $1 billion in cost savings in the $4.3 billion spent in human services that would only target waste, fraud, and abuse, and this targeted cut would leave truly needed and valuable services untouched? 

Taking our university as an example, with an approximately $50 million budget, I doubt we lose more than $1 million to gross incompetence and corruption and waste in any given year (about 2%). I can think of some drastic cuts I could make and some streamlining I could do, that would, I think, give us better education quality and lower costs, but even in my fantasies of doing this I would not cut more than $1 million (2%) from our budget.  I'm intimately familiar with the university's budget, and there just isn't enough waste, fraud, abuse, stupidity, or extravagance in the campus to give us the possibility of trimming more than about 2% to 4% from the budget before we start to diminish the quality of education our students receive. 

Your letter anticipates this argument that we could somehow cut spending in human services by hundreds of millions simply by going after non-essential services and waste. You do this by focusing on the sort of misery we will actually get by cutting the $500-$700 billion proposed in the austere state budget for FY 2012. You argue against such cuts.  In essence, you are arguing for higher taxes, because you suggest that we get good value from public spending on human services (and education, and health services, and so forth), and we’re better off paying for these things, rather than cutting them, even if that means we need to raise more money from the voting, taxpaying public.

A student's letter to the governor on DHS cuts

I thought this was a reasonable letter to the governor by one of my students.  

Dear governor Quinn,

                  I am writing to you today in regards of your proposed budget cuts to the Department of Human Services.  This includes the substance abuse and treatment facilities.  This cut would send almost 80% of individuals that are in substance abuse programs now out on the street.  Also it would eliminate many jobs and then as an effect, hurt many hard working families.  Then you stated how you intend to give a 10% increase to the department of corrections in return.  This to me makes little or no sense at all.  There is actual proof that the recidivism rate is lower for individuals who go to treatment than those who go to the prison system.  Yes, there is treatment in prisons but very little bed space, and lack of counselors makes it difficult to really make it effective.  Also the price to house an inmate yearlong in prison is almost 27,000 dollars!  It cost between 5,000 and 10,000 to send someone to treatment.  Addiction is a disease and you have to treat the individual, not punish him.  In Sangamon County where I am from we just started a drug court system, and cutting the Department of Human Services—specifically the drug and alcohol programs—would really hurt the drug court.  These drug courts help individuals start a new life with intense probation, mandatory drug testing, and specific guidelines like getting a job or taking classes to improve the person’s education.  This is also proven to work better than prison, if you look at the recidivism rates from the Department of Justice.  One other issue of cutting this part of the budget is that this means the state would stop funding non-Medicaid addiction treatment and prevention.  This announcement by your office has already started many treatment programs to stop taking in clients from the courts or the streets.  This then has left many clients stuck or out of a place to seek help.  To me this is just wrong.

                  I am mainly asking you to support HB-106, which is a resolution signed by nearly two dozen representatives, that opposes the funding cuts to non-Medicaid addiction treatment and prevention.  Stop the cuts to this part of the budget and look at the consequences if you go through with these cuts.  Almost 5,000 people will lose their jobs, over 50,000 clients will be asked to leave the facilities in which they are currently in, and over 229,000 youth will lose prevention services.  Also 80% of clients are not eligible for Medicaid funding for their treatment, causing many people that are seeking help with their addiction to not receive it.  This proposed budget cut to these services may be life or death for many individuals and is just not right to do or ethical. Please stop and really take a look at what this will do.

                  I understand that with the current Democratic leadership in the House and stiff Republican opposition it would be difficult for you to raise revenue through, for example, broadening the sales tax. Thus, you do need to make cuts. The Department of Human Services gets about 14% of the General Revenue Fund, and it would be fair if the cuts to that department were close to 14%, not the 50% or more cuts you have proposed to substance abuse treatment and prevention. For ethical, practical, and long-term financial reasons it makes more sense to maintain substance abuse and prevention funding and make cuts elsewhere, almost anywhere else. 

A student endorses the plan to end homelessness

The letter below was written by a student who was impressed by a recent report by the Interagency Council on Homelessness on how we could prevent and end homelessness. 

I am a social work student at the University of Illinois at Springfield. I care about the welfare of everyone, especially the homeless. In Springfield alone, there are more than 300 people that are living in shelters or on the streets on any given day, not including the homeless people that are staying with friends and family. I am writing to you because I support the plan to end homelessness in Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness (2011). As part of this plan, $83 million have been distributed to homeless programs in Illinois to help prevent and end homelessness. According to the Interagency Agency on Homelessness (2011), this program intends to focus on five area of action: “Increasing leadership, collaboration, and civic engagement, increase access to stable and affordable housing, increase economic security, improve health and stability, and retool the homeless response system”.

Our civilization has failed to prevent or end homelessness, and if we are to ever achieve a victory in this, we will need the support and direction of well-informed and sincerely committed leaders. It is almost impossible for one agency alone to overcome the obstacles associated with homelessness; therefore various leaders from social service agencies and political parties need to collaborate to accomplish this tremendous goal.  It is my hope that these leadership positions are filled with individuals based on their integrity and passion to rid homelessness, instead of their political affiliations.

Affordable housing, which is configured so that a person should only be paying 30% of their salary for their housing and utility needs, is hard to find considering the amount of people that work full-time for minimum wage. In the United States, 44% of households are paying over this affordability amount for their housing. Commitment to programs that provide affordable housing will help stop the cycle of homelessness.

 Improving economic security, health, and stability are also essential components that may reduce or prevent homelessness. Increased employment opportunities may provide individuals with the income they need to improve their well-being and their ability to move beyond being homeless. We need increased employment opportunities to give those able and willing a chance to earn enough to pay for their housing, and if the private sector doesn’t provide these opportunities, we ought to focus some government spending on creating such jobs, either through direct government employment (as was done by agencies such as the Civilian Conservation Corps) or by federal spending targeted at helping private agencies and companies hire more people to get important work done.

Increased healthcare and social support programs will offer vulnerable individuals the support they need to overcome the obstacles that could lead to homelessness. Approximately 25% of individuals who are homeless have a mental disorder. Persons who struggle with mental illness are more likely to become homeless, and persons who are mentally well and then become homeless are more likely to develop mental illness in response to their homeless state. In either case, improved availability, affordability, and effectiveness of community mental health and public health services, which are currently shamefully underfunded, would decrease homelessness. War veterans, who may have post-traumatic stress disorder, and survivors of abuse could potentially become homeless because they cannot cope with their mental illnesses.

The final part of this plan is increasing the response to homelessness. If the homelessness response is transformed into a rapid response, then people are more likely to receive assistance faster. Also if the assistance is obtained earlier on, then the individuals will be able to recover from homelessness sooner. Furthermore, they may not have to suffer as much with the feelings of insecurity and the loss of their home.

I’m suggesting that we have a set of housing units ready to be used as people near a point of becoming homeless.  Just as there are emergency rooms where persons with medical emergencies go to seek urgent care, there could be “security housing” were persons newly homeless could go immediately to begin living in a safe and satisfactory environment after losing their housing, and thus never become homeless on the streets or in shelters. Or, even more ideal, there would be a program to help people stay in their current home when they reach a point of being very near eviction. For example, for persons living in homes where rents or mortgages are below some set threshold, it might be most efficient to simply pay the rent or mortgage for the household, rather than allowing them to become homeless.

Senator Kirk, I encourage you to please support Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. As a social work student, I have become more aware of the needs facing the homeless and see this as an opportunity to gain a voice in show of support for those who are suffering or on the brink of homelessness. Programs and initiatives that provide hope for those in need give me pride in what my country is doing. I want to thank you for your time and consideration in regards to my views and concerns about homelessness.

A letter about SSI and work incentives

Dear Senator Durbin:

I am writing as a constituent of Illinois. My name is ______ ________ and I am 22-years old. Growing up in New Lenox, IL I have been the fortunate recipient of luxuries such as an outstanding school district, well maintained roads, and a remarkable park district. Never, would I have thought to criticize the government, locally or federally. Yet, as circumstances would have it, my world was turned upside down in the summer of 2003. Having suffered a spinal cord injury after a diving accident, I was rendered a quadriplegic. The newfound limitations of paralysis and incurred medical expenses eventually put me in contact with the U.S. government’s Social Security department. After years of interacting with this agency I have come to conclude that the disabled population continues to be provided little incentive to integrate into the employment sector.

As I am sure you know, the Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI) makes cash assistance payments to the aged, blind and disabled people who have limited income and resources. Tax revenues generate the funds, for which this program operates. The current maximum asset level, to continue eligibility for SSI, is set at the sum of $2,000. Given that I was a young, permanently disabled student attending high school, I quickly qualified to begin receiving benefits. Despite having an active case with the Department of Human Services (DHS), sub agency Department of Rehabilitation Services (DRS), and now Social Security, I was never given an overview of the program’s specifications.

For one to fully encompass the expenses of a disabled individual one must consider medical expenses (including specialized equipment, medication, and services), cost of accessible transportation, the money necessary to employ a personal assistant, and costs associated with accessible housing. With the male medium income around mid-40k and the female medium income estimated to be around mid- 30k in this country, the incentive to work begins to diminish when considering the monetary gains versus loses.

Hidden amongst the regulations of SSI are work incentive programs and individual exceptions. In particular, the Student Earned Income Exclusion allows recipients under age 22, who regularly attend school, to earn up to $1,640 in additional income per month. Yearly maximum exclusion is restricted on amounts exceeding $6,600. Some additional qualifications do apply. Another exception includes having a documented Plan to Achieve Self-Support (PASS). The PASS allows recipients to set aside other incomes besides SSI for a specified period of time so that the individual may pursue a work goal. Under the PASS program, money that has been set aside does not qualify towards the determining of SSI payment amount.

At first glance it appears that the 2009 Federal Benefit Rate set at $674 should be more than adequate for individuals working towards employment, especially, given that the may supplement this income by applying for previously mentioned exclusions. However, these exclusions do little to assist individuals if their existence goes unbeknown to SSI recipients.

This is where the opportunity for change exists. Every recipient of SSI is assigned a caseworker. Often, these same recipients have additional client-agency relationships established at other government run locations (such as my example with DHS and DRS). It would be pertinent if these networks collaborated on client casework. At minimum, there should be regulations within the Social Security Administration that mandate employees fully brief SSI recipients on all the options available to them. I will go so far as to suggest specific emphasis on programs such as the Student Earned Income Exclusion and PASS. In promoting and fostering employment pursuit and training to disabled individuals, the US government demonstrates its support of individuals with disabilities as valuable citizens. Furthermore, it disrupts the cycle of dependence and spiraling US debt.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.