CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Advocates for impoverished people are urging West Virginia lawmakers to oppose two bills being heard in a House committee Thursday, that they claim punish low-income people and drug users.

Senate Bill 387 would make permanent a pilot program that screens recipients of the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, for drugs.

Josh Lohnes, food policy research director at West Virginia University, thinks the bill places an unnecessary burden on low-income people and is a waste of taxpayer dollars since not many recipients test positive.

He pointed out the bill would restrict access to cash for the most vulnerable families with children during the pandemic, when they need assistance most.

"This is anti-poor legislation," Lohnes argued. "It's discriminatory, and there's this notion that the poor are irresponsible with their funds, that they don't know how to manage money, and they're going to go and use state funds to buy drugs, which is absolutely untrue."

Supporters of the bill say it's meant to help folks with substance-abuse problems get clean.

West Virginia is one of only 15 states in the nation to require drug screenings for cash assistance.

The second bill the House Committee on Health and Human Resources will consider would make it more difficult to run harm-reduction programs such as needle exchanges and syringe services that decrease the spread of diseases.

Jill Kriesky, retired associate director of the Southwest Pennsylvania Environment Health Project and author of a West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy report on harm-reduction solutions in the state, said the bill's requirements would make the programs too expensive to run and harm folks who depend on clean equipment.

"People who don't have access to clean syringes will reduce or share syringes, and diseases that are carried through used syringes like HIV and hepatitis C will increase significantly," Kriesky predicted.

She added the bill's provisions go against the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and will cost more money for medical care.

Advocates for Senate Bill 334 say the programs cause needle litter and needle-stick injuries and pose a risk to the public.


get more stories like this via email

By Katie Fleischer for Ms. Magazine. Broadcast version by Lily Bohlke for California News Service. Reporting for the Ms. Magazine-Public News Service Collaboration

Despite children younger than 12 still being unable to get vaccinated and the Delta variant surging across the country, most schools are opting to reopen in-person classes this month.

In states and localities without mask mandates for students, teachers or staff, youths are at an even higher risk of contracting COVID and transmitting it to vulnerable family members, and as children get sick, parents will be forced to leave their jobs to stay home. In two-parent heterosexual households, data shows mothers are still 10 times more likely than fathers to stay home with a sick child. For moms who are primary or sole caregivers, this creates an acute crisis.

Of course, a second year of remote schooling also presents challenges and its own set of gendered impacts, not only for children but for the caregiver who must stay home with them. During the first year of the pandemic, as schools and day-care centers closed, a disproportionate number of women left the workforce in order to take on child care and schooling responsibilities, averaging 15 hours more than dads per week.

Also complicating this year's return to school are low vaccination rates and rampant vaccine misinformation, leading to increased hesitancy and distrust of COVID vaccines. Even though the Food and Drug Administration has now granted the Pfizer vaccine full approval, more than half (52%) of Americans are fully vaccinated. For many, it can be hard to tell if sources are providing accurate scientific information or peddling an anti-vax agenda, contributing to uncertainty and fear surrounding the vaccines.

In particular, people of color tend to be more hesitant than white Americans to receive the vaccine, and along with women and low-income people, they are also more likely to face logistical problems preventing them from accessing it. Negative experiences with racism and sexism from medical professionals may be contributing to the hesitancy, as well as gendered misinformation such as false allegations of the vaccines affecting fertility. (Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists now are actively encouraging people who are pregnant or breastfeeding to get vaccinated).

I'esha (last name withheld), a pregnant mother of two and recipient of guaranteed income from Magnolia Mother's Trust, said she was hesitant at first about getting vaccinated during her pregnancy.

"I was very hesitant about the vaccine initially, but I got my first Pfizer shot a few weeks ago, and then I'll get my second shot next week, right before I deliver my baby," she said. "I made the choice to get it because my doctor had a patient who was not vaccinated and contracted COVID, and it really complicated her delivery. I decided getting the vaccine was worth any potential risk to protect me and my baby from getting sick."

Now, as schools scramble to deal with the Delta variant, moms -- especially in districts lacking mask and vaccine mandates -- are being forced to make a tough choice: Send their kids to school, knowing that they are likely to be exposed to unvaccinated students, teachers and adults; or continue remote schooling, which contributes to financial stress and inequities.

"I joke that I'm excited for them to go back to school, because my power bill when they started doing remote school went way up since they were home all the time," I'esha wrote in Ms. "But really I am scared about the Delta variant, and the high rates here in Mississippi and how the virus is affecting children. I would rather pay a high power bill than have them at school, honestly. But they are required to be back in school, even though I would love for them to continue to be schooled virtually." (Mississippi now ranks second in the country, behind New Jersey, for most COVID deaths per capita.)

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Education issued a formal warning to leaders in Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah, all states with statewide bans on mask mandates. The department's Office for Civil Rights is investigating whether their bans are discriminatory against students with disabilities, who may be more at risk from COVID-19.

Virtual schooling comes with its own built-in inequities for low-income students and students of color, setting them back in terms of curriculum and increasing existing education disparities. On average, K-12 students now are five months behind in math and four months behind in reading. But majority Black schools are six months behind and low-income schools are seven. One analysis suggested that this learning gap may result in students earning $49,000 to $61,000 less over their lifetime.

During the 2020-21 school year, as both teachers and kids struggled to adjust to virtual schooling, moms disproportionately carried the burden of helping their kids learn. Virtual classes added to their responsibilities at home, leading some moms, such as Chephirah, to leave the workforce permanently to ensure their children could still be successful at school.

"The pandemic really hurt my ability to work," she wrote. "I just couldn't get enough hours. I was getting maybe two days a week, then not getting anything for a week, or I'd get shifts that were just two or three hours. It wasn't enough to pay the bills and it was also during the pandemic, so I decided it was just better to stay at home with my daughter since she was doing online school. She really had a hard time with switching to virtual learning; she is much better and happier doing face-to-face in the classroom."

Similarly, Johnnie was forced to make the tough decision to leave her job in order to keep her family safe.

"When the pandemic first hit, I was working at Koch Foods as an office clerk," she said. "It was stressful during the pandemic, because drivers were coming from all over the country and we stayed open because the food-service industry were deemed essential workers. I ended up leaving my job because it was not safe and my daughter was not able to continue with school without my help. If I could've had somewhere to take her where she could get help with her online school, then that would've allowed me to keep my job. But I didn't have any options, so I had to quit my job to help my baby. I want her to have an education and I couldn't let her fall behind."

For families who dealt with the repercussions of remote schooling last year, programs such as the Magnolia Mother's Trust, which provides $1,000 per month in guaranteed income to Black women-led households living in extreme poverty, have made a huge difference. Guaranteed income involves payments directed to specific groups, such as women living in poverty, in order to address economic inequities.

During the pandemic and beyond, guaranteed income can help impacted communities overcome economic issues caused by systemic racism and sexism, and give low-income women the ability to set themselves and their children up for success. Johnnie explains how a federal guaranteed-income policy would make a huge difference for working moms:

"During the pandemic, it was really hard for me because it was mandatory for me to go to work, but then my daughter was home from school and I didn't have anyone to be there to help her," she said. "I also didn't have internet at home, so I had to pay to get that so that she could do her school work online.

"If I would've had some assistance from my employer, I also wouldn't have been behind on my rent," she said. "I really think the government needs to have some kind of program to make sure that essential workers are taken care of if there's another pandemic. I really just think that employers and the government need to be prepared better for something like this -- have supplies, have support programs, have a plan in place."

As schools reopen, combating vaccine misinformation is essential to keep families safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19 variants. But vaccinations on their own are not enough to help the country fully recover from the pandemic. The past year of virtual schooling will have a lasting impact -- for the women leaving the workforce in droves, kids falling behind in school and families forced to juggle work, child care and household tasks with lowered incomes.

Instead of continuing to force low-income moms to choose between putting their children's health at risk or being forced to leave the workforce, federal policies such as guaranteed income can provide a financial cushion that empowers recipients to make decisions not out of life-or-death desperation, but instead to protect their health, support their children's education and do what's best for their families in their specific circumstances.

---

This story was produced with original reporting from Katie Fleischer for
Ms. Magazine.


get more stories like this via email

CONCORD, N.H. -- A court hearing this week will determine whether thousands of Granite Staters can access some federal unemployment benefits that Gov. Chris Sununu cut off early.

Four people who were receiving Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) prior to the June 19 cutoff are plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed last week to reinstate the benefit.

Stephanie McKay, moderator of a Facebook groups called NH Unemployment During COVID-19, said if people were able to file back claims for the past three months since the cutoff, it would make a big difference, even though the program is ending at the federal level this week.

"The unemployed are being villainized," McKay contended. "They're being told you're lazy, you get a job. And I can assure you that the people that were relying on unemployment actually need it. They're struggling to keep up with just day-to-day expenses and looking for work and not finding it."

While New Hampshire was among the states that cut off benefits early in an effort to get people back into the workforce, studies so far have shown no increase in employment.

While the state cut off all the emergency federal benefits, this lawsuit is specifically regarding PUA.

McKay pointed out there is a lot of frustration for people who have not been able to find child care, or work that pays well enough to cover their expenses.

"It's hard for them to take a lower-paying job, or two or three lower-paying jobs, and still not be able to pay the bills," McKay explained. "[The] cost of living in New Hampshire is astronomical."

Mike Perez, attorney for the plaintiffs, said providing retroactive PUA payments would not cost the state anything; it is fully funded by the CARES Act, including administrative costs.

He noted what makes PUA unique is it was specifically created to help people struggling during the pandemic who otherwise wouldn't qualify for unemployment insurance.

"So these are people who are self-employed, gig workers, independent contractors, or people who started a job soon before the beginning of the shutdown, and then stopped working but hadn't been at the job long enough to qualify for typical unemployment insurance," Perez outlined.

He encouraged Granite Staters who were relying on PUA to keep an eye out for the decision, and be ready to file back claims. The suit follows similar cases in other states that cut off benefits early, some of which already have resulted in court orders telling the state to reinstate the program.

HARRISBURG, Pa. - This week marks the 25th anniversary of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the cash-assistance program commonly known as TANF, and a new report in Pennsylvania says changes are needed to improve its accessibility.

The Meet The Need Coalition report surveyed current and former TANF recipients about the program and changes they'd like to see. Louise Hayes, supervising attorney at Community Legal Services, part of the coalition, said the people surveyed see the program as a crucial safety net, but added that current benefits aren't helping families rise out of poverty.

"The number one thing that people mentioned is that the grant amount has not increased since 1990," she said. "A family of three has received, in most counties in Pennsylvania, $403 a month to live on. Since 1990, there's been no change for the cost of living."

TANF is the only form of cash assistance for low-income families and pregnant people that allows them to buy diapers, personal hygiene products and other basic necessities.

Rochelle Jackson, founder and director of coalition-member Black Women's Policy Agenda, said it's critical to see the changes needed for TANF from a racial-justice perspective as well. In the Commonwealth, 53% of TANF recipients are Black. Jackson said she believes it's part of a history of systemic racism that's led to Black women, in particular, dealing with discriminatory hurdles that have made it harder to gain employment.

"Black women who wanted to work, and still want to work today, often are not able to work because people will not hire them because of the color of their skin, and their sex," she said. "So, if we are not dealing with all these different aspects of it, do we really want Black women to succeed, right? Are we really creating a program, and a process, that helps them build a pathway to self-sufficiency?"

The report also recommended increasing the asset limit that now disqualifies anyone in Pennsylvania from receiving TANF benefits if they have more than $1,000 in savings. Currently, 65,000 Pennsylvanians are TANF recipients.