At the risk of opening a can of worms, I have been surprised that some advocates have criticized Governor Strickland’s budget for putting more of an emphasis on funding “programs” then passing the funding directly to “people.” I don’t believe that is actually the case, particularly when one looks at the budget as a whole. Particularly when you consider the investments the budget proposes in financial assistance, emergency food assistance, assistance with utility bills, tax relief, health care coverage expansions, and child care assistance (to name just a few).

Just like in past budgets, much of the conversation about spending priorities is revolving around TANF spending. When I undertook a nearly 10 year review of Ohio TANF and Child Care Development Block Grant spending for the Brooking Institution I found a very clear bias towards spending TANF dollars on programs rather than giving the funds directly to TANF recipients. Of course this bias of funding programs over people is written right into the TANF law itself – the 5 year time limit (3 years in Ohio) on assistance makes that fairly clear. In contrast there is no time limit on services and at least two of the four purposes of TANF don’t event contain a requirement that the dollars be spent to aid needy families. The lack of a time limit on services was welcomed by advocates at the start of the program because they saw it as a way to get ongoing help to needy families.

So in terms of Governor Strickland’s budget and TANF spending; I know that some advocates are concerned that the TANF spending plan doesn’t include more than a single cost of living increase in the TANF monthly grant, and then only in the last six months of the budget. I agree that the TANF budget could probably absorb a cost of living increase in both years of the budget. Having said that, I would also note that the TANF block grant (ODJFS line item 600-689) appropriation levels assumed by this budget are the highest in the history of the program (although the percentage increase is smaller than the percentage increase the legislature authorized in state fiscal year 2005). The effect of this much higher appropriation will be a steady decline in balance of unspent TANF dollars. In fact those programs or services funded in this budget under TANF would be well advised to begin thinking ahead to the next budget and considering how they might be funded in the future.

Advocates shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this budget proposes to spend tens of millions of additional dollars on items that will assist Ohio’s struggling low-wage workers. I’m talking about dollars for food assistance, energy assistance, adoption and kinship care assistance, child care aid, and health care coverage for at least another 50,000 uninsured Ohioans.

Having said all this, I think it's important for advocates to keep two things in mind. One, this is the Governor's budget proposal and the legislature is likely to have their own ideas about how do do things so advocates would be smart to lobby first to protect the things they like in the Governor's budget (and to lobby for those things that should be in the Governor's budget but aren't). Second, I don't think it's helpful for us to allow ourselves to be pitted against one another. The better strategy is make a positive case to the public and policy makers about what we think is important. Ultimately that is the only winning strategy.