LIHEAP INCOME LIMITS AND ASSETS TESTS: A REVIEW OF STATE POLICIES

1
LIHEAP INCOME LIMITS AND ASSETS TESTS A REVIEW
OF STATE POLICIES
2
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

3
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)

4
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)

5
INCOME MAXIMUM ISSUES

• FEDERAL FUNDING UNCERTAINTIES
• STATE STATUTORY, POLICY RESTRICTIONS
• DILEMMA PROVIDE SMALLER BENEFITS TO MORE
  HOUSEHOLDS OR LARGER BENEFITS TO FEWER HOUSEHOLDS?

6
INCOME MAXIMUM CASE STUDY INDIANA

• INCOME MAX 125 OF POVERTY
• RATIONALE WITHOUT ADVANCED FUNDING, STATE DOES
  NOT FEEL SECURE RAISING LIMIT

7
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

8
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?

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
INCOME MAXIMUM RECOMMENDATIONS

• SET HIGH TO HELP AS MANY HOUSEHOLDS AS POSSIBLE,
  ESPECIALLY THE WORKING POOR
• DO NOT LOWER INCOME MAX COLORADO EXPERIENCE
  RESULTED IN PERMANENT LOST CLIENTS
• PAY IN 2 INSTALLMENTS TO ALLOW MID- COURSE
  BENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS
• COORDINATE WITH LOCAL FUEL FUNDS, SO THEY HELP
  THOSE LIHEAP CANT

16
INCOME MAXIMUM RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT.)

• 5. PUSH FOR FORWARD FUNDING
• 6. PUSH FOR INCREASED FUNDING
• 7. MAXIMIZE LEVERAGING EFFORTS

17
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

18
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

19
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 ITS A
  MERCEDES?

20
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?

21
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

22
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