liheap income limits and assets tests: a review of state policies
TRANSCRIPT
LIHEAP INCOME LIMITS AND ASSETS TESTS: A
REVIEW OF STATE POLICIES
INCOME MAXIMUMS: LIHEAP STATUTE• NO LOWER THAN 110% OF THE
FEDERAL POVERTY INDEX
• NO HIGHER THAN 150% OF THE
FEDERAL POVERTY INDEX, OR 60%
OF THE STATE MEDIAN INCOME,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER
INCOME MAXIMUMS: 2005 HEATING ASSISTANCE• 110%: 4 STATES
• 111% - 149%: 14 STATES
• 150%: 20 STATES
• OVER 150%: 6 STATES
• 60% OF STATE MEDIAN INCOME: 6 STATES
• OTHER: 1 STATE (50% OF STATE MEDIAN
INCOME)
INCOME MAXIMUMS 2005: CRISIS ASSISTANCE• 110% OF POVERTY: 2 STATES
• 111% - 149%: 13 STATES
• 150%: 22 STATES
• OVER 150%: 6 STATES
• 60% OF STATE MEDIAN INCOME: 7 STATES
• OTHER: 1 STATE (50% OF STATE MEDIAN
INCOME)
INCOME MAXIMUM ISSUES
• FEDERAL FUNDING UNCERTAINTIES
• STATE STATUTORY, POLICY
RESTRICTIONS
• DILEMMA: PROVIDE SMALLER
BENEFITS TO MORE HOUSEHOLDS
OR LARGER BENEFITS TO FEWER
HOUSEHOLDS?
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: INDIANA• INCOME MAX= 125% OF POVERTY
• RATIONALE – WITHOUT ADVANCED
FUNDING, STATE DOES NOT FEEL
SECURE RAISING LIMIT
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: IOWA
• INCOME MAX = 150% OF POVERTY
• EXCEPTION – NON-REIMBURSED
MEDICAL EXPENSES CAN BE
DEDUCTED IF INCOME EXCEEDS
150%.
• LITTLE WORKLOAD ISSUE
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: CONNECTICUT• INCOME MAX= 150% OF POVERTY
• INCREASED MAX TO 60% OF STATE
MEDIAN INCOME WHEN FEDERAL
CONTINGENCY FUNDS RECEIVED
• ISSUE – ARE DENIALS FOR OVER-
INCOME RECONSIDERED WHEN
MAXIMUM RAISED?
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: UTAH• INCOME MAX = 125% OF POVERTY
• RATIONALE – DO NOT WANT TO
REDUCE BENEFITS TO SERVE MORE
• 20% REDUCTION FOR EARNED
INCOME
• DEDUCTIONS FOR MEDICAL, CHILD
SUPPORT AND ALIMONY EXPENSES
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: FLORIDA• INCOME MAX = 150% OF POVERTY
• WENT FROM 125% TO 150% 3 YEARS
AGO
• RESISTANCE TO INCREASE: BENEFITS
WOULD BE TOO SMALL
• RATIONALE FOR INCREASE: CAN NOW
SERVE 2-MEMBER ELDERLY HOUSEHOLDS
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: OKLAHOMA• INCOME MAX = 110% OF POVERTY
• RATIONALE – STATE VIEWS LIHEAP
AS “SAFETY NET” RATHER THAN
“INCOME SUBSIDY” PROGRAM
• SERVING ONLY 40% OF 110%
GROUP
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: WISCONSIN• INCOME MAX = 150% OF POVERTY
• SET BY STATUTE, THUS DIFFICULT TO CHANGE
• CONSIDERING FUTURE DEDUCTIONS FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES
• CONSIDERING RE-DEFINITION OF SEASONAL INCOME
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: COLORADO• INCOME MAX = 185% OF POVERTY
• RATIONALE 1 – BETTER TO HELP
MORE PEOPLE WITH FEWER
DOLLARS THAN FEWER PEOPLE
WITH MORE DOLLARS
• RATIONALE 2 – IMPORTANT TO HELP
THE “WORKING POOR”
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY: COLORADO (CONT.)• TWO-PAYMENT METHOD ALLOWS
STATE TO ADJUST BENEFITS UP OR DOWN BASED ON AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE FUNDS
• LIHEAP RECIPIENTS RECEIVE AUTOMATIC 60-DAY SHUTOFF HOLD
• LOCAL FUEL FUND AIDS THOSE ABOVE LIHEAP INCOME MAX
INCOME MAXIMUM RECOMMENDATIONS1. SET HIGH TO HELP AS MANY HOUSEHOLDS AS
POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY THE “WORKING POOR”
2. DO NOT LOWER INCOME MAX – COLORADO EXPERIENCE RESULTED IN PERMANENT LOST CLIENTS
3. PAY IN 2 INSTALLMENTS TO ALLOW MID- COURSE BENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS
4. COORDINATE WITH LOCAL FUEL FUNDS, SO THEY HELP THOSE LIHEAP CAN’T
INCOME MAXIMUM RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT.)5. PUSH FOR FORWARD FUNDING
6. PUSH FOR INCREASED FUNDING
7. MAXIMIZE LEVERAGING EFFORTS
ASSETS TESTS: STATE BREAKOUTS• 11 STATES CURRENTLY APPLY ASSETS TESTS
• MAXIMUM ASSETS RANGE FROM $1,500 TO
$10,000
• VARIOUS STATES ADJUST FOR HOUSEHOLD
SIZE, ELDERLY, ILLNESS
• NO STATE COUNTS HOME AS AN ASSET
• MOST STATES CONSIDER “LIQUID” ASSETS
ASSETS TESTS: PRO
• GUARDS AGAINST HOUSEHOLDS WITH EXCESSIVE RESOURCES FROM QUALIFYING FOR LIHEAP
• PRESERVES FUNDS FOR THOSE IN THE GREATEST NEED
• KEEPS LIHEAP CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS LIKE TANF
ASSETS TESTS: CON
• DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PEOPLE WHO SAVE, ESPECIALLY THE ELDERLY
• MUCH FALSE REPORTING – PUNISHES THOSE WHO REPORT ACCURATELY
• LOCAL OFFICE WORKLOAD
• IF PRIMARY CAR IS EXEMPT, WHAT IF IT’S A MERCEDES?
ASSETS TESTS: CON (CONT.)• LENGTHENS THE LIHEAP
APPLICATION FORM
• THOSE WITH HIGH VALUE ASSETS
GENERALLY WILL NOT SEEK LIHEAP
ASSISTANCE ANYWAY
• WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
ASSETS TEST ELIMINATION: COLORADO EXPERIENCE• AS HEATING COSTS ROSE, ELDERLY
COMPLAINED TO LEGISLATURE (2001)
• ELDERLY DID NOT WANT TO DEPLETE SAVINGS TO QUALIFY FOR LIHEAP
• LOCAL LIHEAP OFFICES, CLIENT ADVOCATES STRONGLY SUPPORTED END TO ASSETS TEST
ASSETS TEST ELIMINATION: COLORADO EXPERIENCE (CONT.)
• ONLY .4% REPORTED ASSETS OF OVER $10,000 IN FIRST TWO YEARS AFTER TEST ENDED
• ESTIMATED 10-15 MINUTES PER CASE SAVED IN PROCESSING TIME
• LIHEAP APPLICATION FORM SHORTENED BY ¼ PAGE