Breaking Ground - November 1999

COHHIO Releases Homelessness Attitudes and Opinions Poll

President Signs VA/HUD Appropriations Bill...

Ohio Department of Development News

Freddie Mac's Press Release With Incorrect Faulty Interprations of Results Reinforce Racial Stereotypes

COHHIO Web Page Update

The Community Reinvestment Act...Where Do We Go From Here?

Cockroaches and Asthma

Fact Sheet - Civil Right Violations

COHHIO's Annual Conference

What Can Foundations Do to Support Affordable Housing?

House Pins and Ornaments

THE FACTS: Debit Cards

OCRP Update

AmeriCorps Member Spotlight

AmeriCorps Makes A Difference

Are You Spending Too Much Money On Your Workers' Compensation?

Safety Information

Resources...

 

COHHIO Releases Homelessness Attitudes and Opinions Poll
The Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio is releasing the results of a poll conducted in Franklin County regarding attitudes and opinions on housing for the homeless.

A telephone survey was conducted from October 1 - 5, 1999 of 500 randomly selected residents age 18 and over. Of those polled, 10 percent indicated that they have stayed in a homeless shelter or been without housing, and 18 percent had family memwho have been in a shelter or without housing. This is consistent with similar studies conducted across the country. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population for Franklin County in 1998 was 1,021,194. This would mean then that according to the results of the poll, an estimated 102,119 persons in Franklin County have experienced homelessness at some point in their life. Three-fourths of those polled had spoken with a homeless person and two-thirds had donated money or volunteered at a soup kitchen or shelter.

The results of the poll were very encouraging. Homelessness is a major local issue, receiving a second ranking only to "drugs and crime" as a community concern. Nearly nine out of ten residents (86 percent) were concerned about too many homeless people on the streets.

As for perceptions of homelessness, an overwhelming majority (72 percent) agreed that homeless people are normal people facing temporary problems like unemployment or sudden rent increases. The public was much more likely to believe in external causes of homelessness (e.g. unemployment) as opposed to internal causes such as mental illness. While only eight percent believed that most homeless people are violent, nearly 20 percent believed that homeless people vandalize and damage property.

Most people viewed job training as an effective means of reducing homelessness in the community. Other very effective solutions were switching from large emergency shelters to smaller housing facilities with services, creating more affordable housing, and providing more funding for local agencies and non-profits that help the homeless. The community overwhelmingly rejects a strategy of making life on the street more difficult and unpleasant until the homeless decided to leave town as an effective means of reducing homelessness.

There was significant support for providing housing for the homeless throughout the community. By a margin of nearly 3-to-1, residents said they would support a proposal to build supportive housing for the homeless somewhere in their neighborhood. Supportive housing was defined as affordable housing that includes services such as medical and psychiatric care or job training. By a margin of greater than 6-to-1, the public agreed that supportive housing for the homeless can fit in a neighborhood if it is well-designed and well-maintained. Residents also strongly agreed (82 percent) that more supportive housing with services needs to be built to get homeless people off the street. Somewhat surprisingly, 70 percent of those polled agreed that wealthy and middle-class neighborhoods and suburbs should get their share of supportive housing for the homeless.

If you would like the full report from this study, please call COHHIO at 614/280-1984 or visit our website at index.html. The report should be available on the web site by December 10.

 

President Signs VA/HUD Appropriations Bill...

On October 20, President Clinton signed the Fiscal Year 2000 VA/HUD appropriations bill, bringing to a close nearly two months of frenzied activity. This bill is a long way from the one that emerged from the House of Representatives in early September, which would have resulted in cuts across the board.

As you may rememfrom last month’s newsletter, it was reported that the House/Senate Conference Committee decided to put partisan politics aside, and attempt to address this nation’s affordable housing crisis. The increased funding levels described in the final legislation, though modest at best, represent a step in the right direction. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Secretary Andrew Cuomo, this is “the best HUD budget, the best HUD legislation of this President's administration. We had some very real problems in housing and urban development in this nation that this bill goes a long way towards addressing. It is the largest number of new, affordable housing units of any budget President Clinton has passed -- 60,000...new Section 8 vouchers -- 60,000 new housing opportunities; the largest amount ever for this President in his seven years; more funding for the homeless; more funding for fair housing initiatives...”

The bill signed by President Clinton includes:
• McKinney Homeless Assistance Program (Continuum of Care) funded at $1.02 billion, $45 million over the FY 1999 level;
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funded at $4.8 billion, $50 million over the FY 1999 level;
• HOME Investment Partnership Program funded at $1.6 billion, even with the FY 1999 level;
• Public Housing Capital Fund at $2.9 billion and the operating fund at $3.138 billion, a decrease in the capital fund, but an increase in the operating fund;
• HOPE VI funded at $575 million, $50 million less than the FY 1999 level;
• Full funding for Section 8 contract renewals;
• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funded at $232 million, $7 million over the FY 1999 level;
• Supportive Housing for the Disabled (Section 811) funded at $201 million, $5 million over the FY 1999 level;
• The committee appropriated funding for 60,000 new Section 8 vouchers; and
• The Community Builders survive the proverbial “chopping block” but only until September 1, 2000 (when they revert back to Civil Service positions).

While the VA/HUD appropriations bill represented a bipartisan effort to attempt to address this nation’s affordable housing crisis, there is still much work to be done. The modest increases authorized by this legislation do relatively little to change the fact that while this nation’s economy is growing by leaps and bounds, 5.3 million households are experiencing a housing crisis. According to Secretary Cuomo, “we have less affordable housing in this country today than at any point in history. "What's happening is the market is so hot, the economy is so hot that it's driving up the rents, and you can't afford the rents. People on fixed income, people on the lower end of the income spectrum literally can't reach the rents. So it's a housing affordability crisis, a housing supply crisis...,”

Another issue that is proving to be quite contentious relates to the across-the-board cut in federal spending proposed by Congressional Republicans. In an effort to maintain a “balanced” budget, one that does not tap into surplus Social Security revenue, they included a provision which would cut all 13 appropriations bills by one percent. This “cut,” as part of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, has been passed by both the House and the Senate. President Clinton has issued a veto threat.

With that being said, it is unclear at this point how the proposed cuts would be applied to each of the appropriations bills. There is, however, reason for concern. With respect to the HUD budget, it has been speculated that the 60,000 new Section 8 vouchers would be first to go. Since they are “new,” it would be easier to lose them as opposed to cutting an existing program. Again, this is just speculation. With the threat of a Presidential veto looming overhead, perhaps Congress will revisit the notion of an across-the-board budget cut. For more information, contact COHHIO at 614/280-1984.

 

Ohio Department of Development News
Housing Trust Fund RFP. The Office of Housing and Community Partnerships (OHCP) received 126 applications for the Housing Trust Fund RFP. While up to $9 million is available, over $16 million was requested, $10.5 in Category 1 funding and $5.5 in Category II funding. OHCP expects to make announcements in December depending upon action by the Controlling Board. Contact Bill Faith at COHHIO at 614/280-1984 or Bob Johnson at OHCP at 614/466-2285 with any questions.

 

Ohio Consolidated Plan. ODOD has released the FY 1999 Plan, which includes Ohio's plans for the Ohio Small Cities CDBG Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Emergency Shelter Grant Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Program and several state-funded programs. To receive a copy, contact OHCP at 614/466-2285.

 

Building Doctors. Any organization interested in hosting a two-day Building Doctors Clinic should contact the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. The Building Doctors Clinics teach care and maintenance of buildings built before 1950. Interested sponsors should contact Mariangela Pfister, coordinator of the OHPO Building Doctor Clinic program, at 614/297-2470.

 

Freddie Mac's Press Release With Incorrect Faulty Interprations of Results Reinforce Racial Stereotypes

A press release issued by Freddie Mac on September 2 draws faulty conclusions about the credit ratings of African-Americans. This press release was picked up by most major news outlets, which reported from the press release that African-Americans have worse credit than white Americans. The press release reads: "Minority borrowers are more likely than white borrowers to experience credit problems: 47 percent of African-American borrowers have 'bad' credit records and 34 percent of Hispanic borrowers have 'bad' credit records, compared to 27 percent of white borrowers."

The press release stated that "poor credit is especially a problem in the African -American community," and that it is a "leading factor" in the differential between white homeownership rates (72 percent) and black homeownership rates (47 percent).

Although the study has not yet been written (it won't be available until January), the Executive Summary of the report is available. Contrary to the press release, the Executive Summary of the actual report states that the percentages reported are survey respondents' perceptions of their credit, not their actual credit ratings. The report justifies using respondents' perceptions of their credit as reality by stating: "The [survey] shows that, in general, people have a reasonably accurate sense of their credit records," and provides examples of this fact.

However, in the next paragraph, the report states that "22 percent of African-American respondents with 'good' credit self-assess their own records as either 'bad' or 'very bad'." This fact is not taken into account anywhere else in the report. If it had been, the percentages of African-Americans with bad credit would be more in line with white borrowers.

The CCS Executive Summary goes on to imply that the cause of African-American credit problems is due mostly to poor spending habits and lack of financial knowledge. There is no mention anywhere in the report of the effects of historic or current discrimination on credit ratings or ability to buy a home.
Freddie Mac recently performed a different study of the subprime loans in its portfolio that showed that 63 percent of subprime borrowers had A-minus credit ratings, and at least half of these could have gotten an A-credit conventional loan. Giving an A-credit borrower a subprime loan is a predatory lending practice. When borrowers are overcharged this way because of their race, sex, national origin, handicap, or age, it is a violation of the fair lending laws.

Although presumably Freddie Mac had the ability to look at race as a factor in their research on subprime borrowers, they did not include race as a part of their report. However, CRA*NC's research on subprime lending leads shows that most of these subprime borrowers with good credit are African-American. Because of a history of redlining and discrimination against minorities by mainstream financial institutions, as well as the reality that discrimination still exists, African-Americans often go directly to subprime lenders for loans, even if they are qualified for A-credit products.

Unfortunately, these borrowers are trapped into the subprime market. Even if they have never had a late payment, merely having a subprime loan lowers their credit score. Also, many subprime lenders do not report the good payment history of their borrowers to credit bureaus, in order to prevent their customers being targeted with advertising by other lenders. Greentree Financial, a subprime lender that has the largest market share of American-American borrowers in the state of North Carolina, recently admitted publicly that it does not report good payments.

This press release was meant to be an announcement of a new Freddie Mac Consumer Credit Initiative in partnership with five Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Freddie Mac is launching a consumer education campaign to boost minority homeownership. While the goal of financial literacy is applauded, there are serious concerns about the racial stereotypes Freddie Mac is reinforcing with this press release.

Reprinted from the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina.

 

COHHIO Web Page Update
The COHHIO web page has now added several homelessness factsheets from the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. COHHIO has also added the lists of Mark to Market Properties to the web page as well as the action taken on each property. Please visit the COHHIO web page and see how the information provided can help you.
index.html.

 

The Community Reinvestment Act...Where Do We Go From Here?
Even as the newsletter goes to print, the future of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and its ability to direct much needed resources into traditionally underserved communities throughout this country, remains unclear. In the early morning hours of October 22, memof the House/Senate Conference Committee along with representatives from both the Treasury Department and the Clinton Administration, emerged from “closed-door” discussions, to announce that a deal had been struck. This deal, which fundamentally changes the landscape of the financial services industry in this country, culminates nearly 25 years of work by financial institutions, insurance companies and securities firms.

Depending upon whom you ask and which constituency they represent, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, either tinkered around the edges while leaving CRA basically intact, or it weakened CRA to the point where it can no longer be an effective tool. Regardless of your ideological slant, the realization is that the financial services industry in this country has changed for better or worse.

Some would have you believe that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act ends “depression era” restrictions, thereby allowing banks, insurance companies and securities firms the opportunity to provide an unprecedented level of financial services to customers. Others would have you believe that it rolls back the very law that has been responsible for making the American dream of homeownership a reality for millions. It seems as though everyone has an opinion on this issue. The Local Initiatives Support Corporation supports the bill, while the National Community Reinvestment Coalition opposes it.

Where is COHHIO on this rather divisive issue? COHHIO feels as though CRA survived an overtly aggressive and orchestrated attack by Senator Phil Gramm. Under the guise of “financial modernization,” he and the entire Senate Banking Committee staff set out to destroy the very tool that has helped pump $1 trillion in loans and investments into minority and working class neighborhoods in this country. They continually misstated the facts and misrepresented the terms of agreements, in an attempt to paint CRA advocates as “extortionists,” and as organizations out to simply “make a buck.”

In spite of this attack, the Community Reinvestment Act survived. When comparing the language contained in the Senate version (S. 900) to that of the Conference Committee report, it appears as though at least on some levels, the merits of CRA won out over the rhetoric. For example, the language contained in the final report leads one to believe that CRA will remain vital to and relevant in the new financial landscape. This statement, however, should not be construed as an endorsement of the financial modernization legislation passed by this Congress, and signed by President Clinton. As it stands, CRA lost ground to the benefit of “Corporate America.”

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act does offer some token concessions with respect to CRA. For example, the Committee report preserves the current CRA review and comment process when a bank attempts to acquire or merge with another bank; it extends CRA to cover banks and/or bank holding companies commencing new activities, or acquiring or merging with non-bank entities; it eliminates the “small bank exemption” provision; it eliminates the “safe harbor” provision; and it does not allow for the creation of Wholesale Financial Institutions (WFI’s).

These token concessions, however, came at a price. Gramm-Leach-Bliley requires the full disclosure of agreements between banks and community-based organizations made pursuant to, or in connection with the Community Reinvestment Act. While the full scope and magnitude of this “sunshine” mandate is still in question, it appears as though the language contained in the final legislation is not as stringent as what was originally proposed. In addition, some concerns have been expressed regarding the legality of such a requirement.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley also institutes a revised examination schedule for banks with less than $250 million in assets. The final legislation extends the time period between routine examinations for those banks (both urban and rural) with an “outstanding” CRA rating to once every five years (that’s twice a decade!), and once every four years for banks with a “satisfactory” CRA rating. Examinations for banks with less than a “satisfactory” rating would be at the discretion of the appropriate regulator.

Finally, Gramm-Leach-Bliley requires that the Federal Reserve Board conduct a comprehensive study of CRA, which is to focus on default rates, delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in conformity with CRA. The report must be submitted to the House and Senate Banking Committees no later than March 15, 2000. In addition, the Treasury Department is required to conduct a study that examines the extent to which adequate services are being provided as intended by CRA. But how comprehensive can the study be when it is conducted in three months?

While many of the details regarding the “sunshine” mandate, the revised examination schedule, and the required CRA studies will be spelled out in the final regulations, it is worth noting that the end result could have been much worse. Granted, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 does not contain the pro-CRA provisions that advocates pushed for. Neither does it contain provisions that would effectively exempt more than 80 percent of the nation's banks from CRA. While the fight goes on, it is imperative that we not lose sight of the collective difference we have made.

Financial institutions, insurance companies and securities firms have been pushing for this piece of legislation since the 1970’s. Since the beginning of this year alone, the “financial services industry” has spent in excess of $30 million on lobbying activities. Careers have been built around and portfolios have been banked upon the hope that our financial services industry would some day be “modernized.” If not for our actions, there is little doubt that this modernization would have completely destroyed the Community Reinvestment Act. For more information, contact COHHIO at 614/280-1984.

 

Cockroaches and Asthma
What does affordable housing have to do with hunger? The quick response is that hunger in the United States is all about poverty. We could discuss for a long time why there is poverty, the first question being whether someone is living in poverty because they have failed or because the economy has failed them - or some mix of the two.

But people are hungry because they don't have the money to buy food. And the rule of thumb has been that people should be paying no more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

But what do you do when there is no housing available to be had at 30 percent of your income? Because housing is so important many people end up paying more. In fact, a recent study, the American Housing Survey, found that 12.5 million people, 4.5 million children, pay at least 50 percent of their income for rent. And that doesn't count those who are homeless.

The result is, of course, little money for utilities, clothes, transportation, medical costs and food. And there is the connection with hunger.

But it turns out there is more to the story than making the choice between food and shelter. A sampling of the research findings shows that:
* 21,000 children have stunted growth attributable to a lack of stable housing.
* 120,000 kids suffer from anemia attributable to their families' inability to afford both rent and food.
* Homeless children suffer almost twice the respiratory infections, five times the diarrhea infections, seven times the iron deficiency, twice as many hospitalizations and significantly worse health status to housed children.
* 2.5 million I.Q. points will be lost among children ages 1-5 from lead poisoning.
* 10,000 children between the ages of 4 and 9 are hospitalized for asthma attacks each year because of cockroach infestation at home. Poor children were 4.2 times more likely to be exposed to cockroaches.
And the depressing findings go on and on.

But to make matters worse, we are not gaining ground; we are falling behind. The U.S. has lost 1.5 million affordable housing units in the past two years. The project-based Section 8 program lost nearly 100,000 units as owners contracts expired or as mortgages were paid off. Ohio has lost 3,249 federally-subsidized housing units since 1997.

Rents on the open market have increased, making 1.3 million units in the U.S. newly unaffordable between 1996-1998.

Public housing has been upgrading, which has been necessary, but in the process usually only has replaced 45 percent of the units.

Another effort to make housing affordable is with vouchers, permitting renters to chose their own place, subject to the owners' approval. However, Congress first slowed the issuance of new vouchers from 230,000 a year from 1978-1984 to 126,000 from 1985-1995 and then stopped it between 1995 and 1998, when finally 90,000 new vouchers were added.

Express your concern to your elected officials. No child should be suffering from asthma due to cockroaches! For more information from this report, go to: www.igc.org/housingamerica. Reprinted from the Hunger Network in Ohio newsletter.

Fact Sheet - Civil Right Violations
Many cities have enacted, enforced, or are currently considering laws or policies directed against homeless people. These include public place restrictions, sweeps, anti-panhandling laws, discrimination and limits on service providers. Such policies may be unconstitutional. In addition, actions by cities which discriminate against homeless people because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and/or disability may violate federal law.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Local city governments may violate the Constitution if they single out homeless people for punishment, limit free speech, punish involuntary behavior or unreasonably seize or destroy homeless person's property.

Examples of potential constitutional violations by cities include:
- a policy's purpose or effect is to drive homeless people from the city or an area of the city;
- a law makes it illegal to perform harmless, life sustaining activities in public when there is nowhere else homeless people can perform them (for example: an anti-sleeping law that is enforced despite the fact that there is no alternative place for a homeless individual to sleep);
- a law's vagueness allows for arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by police against homeless people;
- a rarely enforced law is used against homeless persons or service providers;
- a law forbids all panhandling;
- police seize or destroy homeless people's possessions without good reason or without providing a fair way to get them back.

FAIR HOUSING ACT PROTECTIONS
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against a person based on their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and/or disability, in a multitude of activities involving housing. While the status of being homeless does not qualify for protection under the Act, homeless people may fall within one of the protected classes. For example, group homes for homeless people who are disabled may qualify for protection.

Examples of potential Fair Housing Act violations include:
- a city will not allow group homes for persons who are mentally ill or recovering substance abusers (including those who are homeless);
- a city imposes additional requirements on group homes for persons who are mentally ill or recovering substance abusers (including those who are homeless), such as more restrictive spacing requirements, that are not imposed on others.

These examples are only meant to serve as a tool to alert you to types of activities that may violate the rights of homeless persons. For more information, please contact Kelly Cunningham-Bowers, Staff Attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty at 202/638-2535, or email at kellycb@nlchp.org

Additionally, please contact Pam Argus at COHHIO at 614/280-1984 with information about civil rights violations in your community. We need to know the extent of such violations throughout the state. Information reprinted from the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

 

COHHIO's Annual Conference

March 13, 14 & 15, 2000, COHHIO Annual Conference, Columbus Marriott North. Save The Date! More information will follow in upcoming newsletter issues!

 

What Can Foundations Do to Support Affordable Housing?
General Suggestions
Look for proposals which effectively incorporate one or more of the following strategies:
• strategies to encourage resident participation in developing housing policy and in planning and operating of housing programs at the local/state levels;
• strategies to foster new and expanded investments in affordable housing by the public sector at the local, state and national levels;
• strategies which build collaborations between housing programs and the employment, transportation and/or human service systems;
• strategies which approach solutions to affordable housing as a regional issue;
• strategies which involve different types of housing-related organizations in collaborative projects.

Priority Recommendations for Investments by Foundations
Advocacy Work
The vast majority of foundations simply do not have the financial capacity to deliver significant resources to be used for actual housing development on an appropriate scale given the volume of need facing our communities. However, modest investments in advocacy efforts at the national, state or local levels can lead to real resource gains and progressive policy changes by the public sector to facilitate increased funding of affordable housing that effectively serves the lowest income residents.

EXAMPLES: In Ohio, the George Gund Foundation has supported the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio’s project to raise awareness and support for the Ohio Housing Trust Fund. The fund is used by the state to support a range of local housing projects with a priority for those serving people below 35 percent of the area median income. The Gund Foundation provided COHHIO four grants in the $30,000 to $60,000 range each. To date the HTF has received $130 million from various revenue sources provided by the General Assembly.

Nationally, The Butler Family Fund and the Melville Charitable Trust support the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s Preservation Project, which focuses on preserving the Section 8-project based units across the country. NLIHC’s efforts have focused on coordinating the work of numerous local, state and national groups who are concerned about the policy issues with this program. Due in large part to this project, major new legislation is very likely to pass Congress yet this year which will help to preserve large portions of this national housing resource.

Make Devolution Work - Resident and Community Participation
The federal government still provides the largest portion of resources for affordable housing, particularly for those with the lowest incomes. However, federal policy has devolved increasingly to the state and local levels. Public Housing Authorities(PHAs) now must set their own priorities through a local planning process which includes public housing and Section 8 tenants through Resident Advisory Boards. These local plans cover everything from who will be given preference for admission to which projects may be demolished. The extent of the role residents or community groups will have in setting those priorities remains to be seen. States are now involved in restructuring Section 8 project-based properties. Organizations in over 20 states have been funded to assure participation of tenants and community organizations in the process. However, no comparable funding stream exists to facilitate resident or community participation in the public housing planning process.

EXAMPLE: Through the Center for Community Change (CCC) Public Housing Initiative, CCC has been working with legal services lawyers, community groups and coalitions on the fight to save and improve public housing. The project has been funded by the Ford Foundation for three years, however the grant is expiring and CCC has not been able to find other sources of funds. The Ford grant was $250,000 a year and included travel costs to involve tenants and others in face to face meetings with HUD, etc. The project has included creating the Public Housing Residents National Organizing Campaign, which involves about 50 tenant leaders and others in working on national public housing policy issues. CCC works with them at the local level, helping them build coalitions and address local issues and bringing them together and assisting them at the national level to influence public policy.
One policy issue the project pursued was the new requirement that PHAs have tenant representation and tenant participation requirements in developing the five year plans.

Capacity Building - Training and Technical Assistance
With the vast changes in welfare reform and federal housing policy issues, local and state housing organizations need training and technical assistance to understand and act on these changing realities. Organizational development issues need to be addressed in light of the new challenges and opportunities that these changes present. Foundations should ensure that grantees build in the purchase of capacity building services and other technical assistance in their budgets. Foundations should also support national or state level intermediaries to provide expert consultation and training on particular issues.

EXAMPLE: Several states, including New Jersey, Connecticut and Minnesota, have begun to use TANF and other funds to provide housing vouchers to poor families moving from welfare to work. With the accumulation of unspent TANF block grant funds, many states now possess the fiscal capacity to adopt similar programs if they choose to do so. With financial support from the Butler, New Prospect, Clark and Rockefeller Foundations, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is providing technical assistance to policy makers and advocates considering or promoting such programs, and prepares publications and provides conference workshops to spread awareness of the possibility of using TANF funds for such purposes.

Promote Positive Role of Housing Agencies in Welfare Reform and Resident Employment
Welfare Reform presents tremendous challenges but also opportunities. Access to affordable housing where jobs exist can make the critical difference in a successful transition from welfare to work. Housing providers have a unique relationship to some of the hardest-to-serve families, as well as the physical setting that yields economies of scale in service provision. Human services and housing agencies rarely work closely together, human service organizations seldom consider access to affordable housing in their welfare reform plans and housing agencies rarely consider access to jobs in their design of housing programs. Welfare reform is having a significant impact on housing programs. Time limits and the resulting loss of income to housing residents will further place huge challenges on housing projects. Projects should be supported which develop housing-led employment programs as well as efforts to encourage human service officials to provide housing assistance as part of welfare to work strategies.

EXAMPLE: The non-profit Common Bond Communities in Minnesota devotes $1 million of its $13 million budget to on-site multipurpose Advantage Service Centers that operate in many of its 35 developments, which includes 2,400 affordable housing units mostly for those with Section 8 rental assistance. Nearly 80 percent of the cost of the Advantage Centers come from foundations as well as from corporations, church groups and others.

Project Specific Support
Funding housing activities directly is generally much more expensive than what most foundations can seriously consider. However, there are some housing related expenses which few public sector funders cover. These include pre-development costs for specific projects and operating costs for non-profit housing development organizations.

For more information, contact: Bill Faith, Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio - 614/280-1984 or Barbara Sard, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - 617/232-0573.

 

House Pins and Ornaments
COHHIO has 1999 ornaments available for $15. The ornaments have a blue background with a red house, snow and a reindeer pulling a sleigh with a decorated tree inside. COHHIO also has house pins and tie tacks available. We have several special pins including Thanskgiving, Christmas, Halloween, spring, Easter and others have cats, birdhouses, urban settings, ladders, cars, and rural settings (with cows). House pins and tie tacks are available for $13. Any of these would make perfect gifts or stocking stuffers, while at the same time, benefitting COHHIO. Please call Janet Holcomb at COHHIO at 614/280-1984 for more information.

 

THE FACTS: Debit Cards

What is a debit card?
A debit card is a plastic card that can be used in Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) to get money or at Point of Sale (POS) terminals to buy something. Many businesses also allow you to obtain cash when making a purchase. Some businesses add a fee if a debit card is used. Still, debit cards are convenient and some can be used in other countries. Generally, your debit card can be used where you see the logo on your card posted on an ATM, a store’s door or a cash register. You usually do not have to show other types of identification when using your debit card.

Debit cards are sometimes called check cards because the amount of your purchase is automatically deducted from your checking or share draft account. Be careful not to confuse them with your credit card. Some financial institutions charge a monthly fee and/or a per-transaction fee for debit card use. Check with your institution.

Types of debit cards:

PIN-Based Debit Cards
• Your Personal Identification Number or PIN (account password) authorizes the transaction.
• The amount of the transaction is immediately deducted from your account.
• Financial institutions generally issue these cards to all account holders requesting them.

Signature-Based Debit Cards
Signature-based debit cards offer the same services as PIN-based debit cards, including the following features:
• Your signature authorizes the transaction.
• The amount of the transaction is generally deducted from your account within two or three business days after the transaction.
• You may have to meet financial institution requirements (satisfactory credit history, account in good standing and/or account open for a specified period of time) to receive cards with this feature. Check with your financial institution for specific information.

Debit Card Safety Tips
• Record your debit card transactions in your checkbook register. Compare them to your statement. Contact your institution immediately if there are any errors. Call first, and follow up with a letter.
• Keep your debit card in a safe spot. Do not share your PIN with anyone. Know where your card is at all times.
• Keep your account number, card expiration date and the telephone number of your institution handy in case your card is lost or stolen.
What do I do if my debit card is lost or stolen?
Call your institution right away, and follow up with a letter. The longer you wait, the more money you may lose. If you report your card missing before it is used, you will not be held responsible for any unauthorized use.

If you report your card missing after is it used, the amount you can be held responsible for depends on how quickly you report the loss.
• Within two business days after you learn of the loss or theft of your card -- you can be held responsible for no more than $50 in unauthorized withdrawals.
• After two business days, but within 60 days after the institution sends you a statement showing an unauthorized withdrawal -- you could lose up to $500.
• After 60 days -- you could lose all the money that was taken from your account after the end of the 60 days and before you report your card missing. Reprinted from the Financial Services Education Coalition.

 

OCRP Update
On October 18, Ohio Community Reinvestment Project Steering Committee memmet with Charter One representatives to discuss the bank's year-end report for 1998 and their mid-year report for 1999. The only word to describe their numbers is impressive! Not only did Charter One meet their goals for 1998, but they exceeded them in every aspect of the agreement. Charter One's numbers for 1999 also look great. This is the type of banking every financial institution should maintain. Charter One representative Michael Lisman spoke of a home buying counseling course that is like no other. This course can take up to two years to complete, to ensure a “no default loan status”. Charter One takes the time and money to work with their client’s spending behaviors. It is results like these that the OCRP strive to obtain when we make agreements with banks. For more information, contact Christina Buzzard at COHHIO at 614/280-1984.


AmeriCorps Member Spotlight
COHHIO's AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless Program has memall across the state working on homelessness and housing issues.

Leslie Benedict: In June of 1998 I interviewed, was offered, and then accepted a job starting July 1st at the Domestic Violence Shelter in Mansfield. It was only after I accepted the job that I realized that there was a lot more to it than I was told about in the interview. During the interview I wasn’t told about the sense of community I would find among my fellow AmeriCorps mem They didn’t tell me about the friends I would make, the fun we would have whenever we had a reason to get together, and the high quality seminars I would attend. They also didn’t tell me how hard it would be to budget on an AmeriCorps stipend. I liked it so much I decided to do a second term despite budget concerns. Currently I am a licensed social worker, and since I promised myself a Masters degree, I’m going to be hitting the books again next year.

Emmanuel Green: I am a second term AmeriCorps Member serving at RESTOC in Cincinnati. After a lifetime of taking from my community, AmeriCorps gave me the opportunity to give back. During my term I have worked with hundreds of volunteers, been involved in the planning and execution of dozens of service projects and have served as a team leader and InterCorps Council Representative. By using the skills I have acquired as an AmeriCorps Member, I plan to seek employment in related fields.

James Rowe: I have served two terms of AmeriCorps volunteering with the Central City Economic Development Council in Mansfield. I have really enjoyed my time with AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless and I will really miss it when I leave. During my tenure with AmeriCorps I have learned a lot. At my site I was able to lead work crews of 17 to 18 prisoners from the Mansfield correctional facility. It was really great to see these young men giving back to the community. Upon completing the program most of them showed significant positive change. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to serve my country twice, once defending our shores in the US Navy and the second time providing shelter to our fellow citizens.

Alicia Stefano: I am currently serving my second year as an AmeriCorps volunteer in Port Clinton at WSOS CAC. I serve as a Family Development Specialist to help homeless individuals and families become self-sufficient. During the past two years I have been extremely blessed to work with such a wonderful group of professional, talented and gifted individuals within the AmeriCorps organization and WSOS. My appreciation and gratitude goes out to the AmeriCorps staff and the WSOS staff and supervisors for making the past two years possible. I will forever treasure the experience and friendships that I have make during my terms of service. My plans for the future include completing my degree in social work and obtaining a Masters degree, spending time with my son and my husband and continuing to volunteer in my community.

 

AmeriCorps Makes A Difference
Saturday, October 23, was National Make A Difference Day. AmeriCorps Members from COHHIO participated in the following activities: AmeriCorps Members in the Central region participated in the 1999 Columbus Stand Down at Veterns Memorial. Members provided information to participants on AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless and upcoming service opportunities. Members also assisted participants in locating services that they needed. Seven Members, from the Southwest and Central region, came together and installed siding on a newly built house in Fayette County. Members in other regions volunteered to help on projects that were set up in their areas by other AmeriCorps or non-profit service organizations. All together the COHHIO AmeriCorps Members served their communities with over 150 hours for Make A Difference Day. Way to go AmeriCorps!!

 

Are You Spending Too Much Money On Your Workers' Compensation?
The Bureau of Workers' Compensation allows organizations to group together to save them money on their workers' compensation premiums. COHHIO sponsors such a group, that saves our group memvaluable dollars that can go to other more important work. According to the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the COHHIO group rating program saved its mem79 percent on premiums last year, and is saving mem84 percent this year. COHHIO savings have been among the highest in the industry for three years in a row now. For example, a group not affiliated with a group would pay 100 percent of their premium. With COHHIO's group, your organization last year would have only paid 21 percent of your premium, and only 16 percent this year. Joining a group rating program is the only way to ensure that you won't pay any more than you have to for workers' compensation. If you are interested in joining COHHIO's program, please fill out the Savings Estimate Authorization (AC-3) on the next page. You can fax it or mail it to Frank Gates Company. You will receive a free, no obligation-group rating savings estimate. At that point, you can decide if you'd like to join COHHIO's group. If you have any questions, please call Susan Francis at COHHIO at 614/280-1984. Don't delay, December is the last month to sign-up!

 

Safety Information

On-The-Job Crashes
According to a survey conducted by AAA, almost 40 percent of American workers are effected by motor vehicle crashes each year. The crashes cause workers to miss an average of 4.3 hours of work. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that motor vehicle crashes cost employers over $50 billion annually in property damage, lost productivity and legal expenses.

Mental Illness at Work
Depression is the cause of 80 percent of all psychiatric disabilities. According to Cigna Corporation, this health problem costs US employers $24 billion annually in lost productivity and workdays. Placing the employee back into a productive work environment as soon as possible can benefit the employee and employer.

Myths about mental health can be barriers to successful return to work, Cigna notes. Such misperceptions include: many of those who return to work will fail. Cigna suggests the following to make returning to work successful:
• Focus on returning the employee to the same work level that they functioned at before the disability.
• Adjust workplace conditions and job requirements to assist with the disabled employee's transition back to work.
• Address the medical and behavioral components in case management.

Many Workers Angry
One out of every four adults is angry at work, a recent Gallup telephone survey discovered. The most common cause of anger is actions by supervisors or managers. Angry workers usually take out their frustrations by doing less work, just enough to get by, resulting in hurting workplace productivity.
Sometimes, workplace anger takes a violent turn resulting in workplace shootings or attacks on co-workers.

Workers who keep their anger to themselves can suffer from health complaints including anxiety, depression, high blood pressure and heart disease.

Authors of the study titled, "The Experience of Anger at Work: Lessons from the Chronically Angry," advise managers to communicate more with workers to keep anger from impacting productivity or worse.

Q & A: The Division of Safety and Hygiene
Q: How much does it cost to use state safety services?
A. Nothing. The BWC's Division of Safety and Hygiene offers safety services to Ohio employers for no additional cost. The programs are paid for through a portion of employers' workers compensation premiums.

Q: Will the BWC fine me for safety violations if I use their services?
A: No. Unlike OSHA, the BWC's Division of Safety and Hygiene is a non-regulatory agency. The Division's purpose is to prevent workplace accidents through education, training and by offering hands-on assistance to employers.

Q: What services are available through the Division of Safety and Hygiene?
A: There are a number of programs available to employers including: Safety Grants, Safety Loan Programs, Premium Discount Program, Safety Consultants, Training Center, Safety Library, and the Ohio Safety Congress & Expo.

Information taken from the Frank Gates Bulletin, Fall 1999.

 

Resources...
December 7 - Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, Affordable Housing Program Seminar, Columbus. The seminar will discuss changes and instructions on applying for funds. For more information, contact 513/852-7615.

Countryside Program materials. The Conservation Development Resource Manual includes model zoning and sub-division regulations for residential planning and development activities. Countryside also has a slide program that illustrates the differences between conventional subdivisions and development where the unique characteristics of the site are incorporated in the project's design. For more information, call 216/691-1665.

Computer Resources (all free!)
• http://www.timedance.com. Allows you to schedule group meetings or conference calls. Each person in the group gets an email from you, with a pointer to a special page you create on Timedance. There, they check off the times when they are available, and Timedance sends you back a report with the hours when everyone is free.
• http://www.listbot.com and http://www.egroups.com enable you to create mailing lists to communicate with their mem as well as discussion groups which people can join to talk about any issue of common interest.
• http://www.visto.com and http://www.jointplanning.com and http://www.eproject.com offers "groupware" that allows you to share documents, calendars, to-do lists and address books.
• http:www.freedrive.com allows you to store your files, up to 20 Megabytes of disk space, which you can access from any Web browser.
• http://www.alltheweb.com is a new search engine, that is fast and easy to use. It also is advertising free.

Computer resources taken from the Action Without Borders newsletter, http://www.idealist.org/newsletter.html.

(614) 280-1984 Voice
(614) 463-1060 Fax

cohhio@cohhio.org