Text of UREAP Email to Becky Shipp, Senate Finance Committee Staff on
Welfare Reform Reauthorization, Sent on July 16, 2003
Dear Becky,
Some time has passed since we last talked with you about welfare reform reauthorization,
but the time has come. We hope you are well and understand that you are very
busy. Nonethless, we have reviewed information available to us explaining
the welfare reform reauthorization proposal Senator Grassley has put forward
and are very concerned with the impact it would have on the Utah's TANF program
and the families it serves. We are writing now in hopes that some of the
more troubling aspects of the Chairman's Proposal can be mitigated before
the Mark is released. We know you are instrumental in that process.
We have provided our concerns, priorities, and recommendations pertinent
to Senator Grassley's Proposal to Senator Hatch via an email to Jace Johnson.
We will summarize that information as follows:
* We strongly urge that countable activities for core work requirements
include the list of activities in the current law, plus barrier removal activities--mental
health, substance abuse, and domestic violence treatment--for those who are
determined, via an effective assessment, to need such treatment to be able
to become employed. Utah research we shared with you indicates that,
without intervention, parents with these barriers tend to leave the system
without becoming employed and subsequently deteriorate. Public policy should
not ignore this fact.
* Any limits placed on the length of time barrier removal activities can
count towards work requirements, e.g., x months out of 24 months, should
be flexible enough that states can allow extensions in individual cases where
it would be necessary for successful recovery and success in the workplace
or in effective parenting. We recall that a "three plus three" construct
was approved by the Senate Finance Committee last year. At least this sort
of flexibility is essential. A cap on the percentage of caseload that can
be extended would be an improvement over the provision currently in Senator
Grassley's Proposal.
* Similarly, the activities listed in Senator Grassley's Proposal as countable
"for hours above 24" are those needed as front-line (core) activities for
many parents who are not prepared to work yet and for parents who perhaps
can get jobs, but whose low skill levels doom them to low pay and jobs without
benefits. Families should not have to work for 24 hours per week to "earn"
the right to get interventions that will help them "get somewhere." We know
that many of them will not be able to do so. They need the interventive activities
first, before they will be able to work reliably or at all.
* We appreciate support for partial and extra credit for hours "to count,"
but we strongly oppose requiring more than 30 hours for most parents and
more than 20 hours for parents with children under six. We propose a revised
tiered approach that would give credit to parents with children aged 6 and
over as follows:
20-23 Hours: 0.50 credit
24-29 Hours: 0.75 credit
30-33 Hours: 1.0 credit
34+ Hours: 1.25 credit
* We continue to urge the addition of up to 24 months of education and
training to the list of countable activities. We talked last December
of the appropriateness of a goal of helping families "get somewhere" rather
than just to "get off welfare." Education and training is one of the few
ways to accomplish that goal.
* We have consistently counseled against increasing work participation
rates and our concern about this is increasing over time. It is especially
unwise to increase work participation rates precisely at a time when unemployment
is on the rise and states lack the resources to support other essential activities
because of economic slowdown.
* The following is the policy package we believe should be the centerpiece
of welfare reform reauthorization legislation this year:
a) implement the model for universal engagement embodied in the WORK Act:
early assessment and development of Individual Responsibility Plans (IRPs)
that include activities designed to help families get somewhere and to enhance
child well-being,
b) expand the list of countable activities beyond the current law so that
states are able to place parents in activities that are appropriate for their
circumstances and will help them become employable and move forward towards
self-reliance,
c) follow the lead of the Tripartisan group last year by maintaining the
current law's required work hours at 30 and 20 for parents with young children.
d) replace the current caseload reduction credit with an employment credit
that rewards states (and allows them to reduce pressure on families) for
helping families become employed and get better jobs,
e) leave state participation rates where they are.
* Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA), with effective modifications
and adequate funding, needs to be an integral part of welfare reform reauthorization
legislation. To leave it out ignores what was learned in Utah over two
decades ago--low-income parents must have at least transitional health care
coverage if they are to have any hope of working their way out of poverty.
We are extremely disappointed that TMA is not mentioned in Senator Grassley's
proposal.
* Likewise, a substantial amount of additional mandatory child care funding
is desperately needed if child well-being is to be even considered as a goal,
even without expanded work requirements. We are asking Senator Hatch
to continue to work for at least an additional $5.5 billion, the amount that
was agreed to last year and still far short of what is needed.
*UREAP is on record as supporting lifting the ban on using TANF funds
to serve legal immigrants. The overall health of our communities is facilitated
by helping all people to be productive. State fiscal crises make accomplishing
this increasingly difficult. The Tripartisan group last year understood this
dilemma--and our economy was stronger last year--and determined to allow
states to spend TANF dollars to assist legal immigrant families.
* Universal Engagement need to be allowed outside of the administrative
cap. States not already doing this will need at least this much help
putting it in place.
* We support efforts to ensure that the Contingency Fund can be useful
to states in fiscal crisis.
* We support Senator Snowe's proposals to improve child support provisions
in the current law and have urged Senator Hatch to be supportive.
* Penalty relief is welcome wherever it can be accomplished. While
it is important that states be accountable for their expenditure of public
funds, it is counterproductive when penalties are so structured that they
must become central--at the expense of families--if states want to survive.
The penalty cycle, once begun, ultimately harms services to people.
* Some of the language in the "Special Rule--Caring for a disabled child"
needs revision. We are consulting with UREAP members with special expertise
in the disabilities arena, but for now, although there are definitely positive
aspects to the Rule, we believe it needs work to be effective. It should
not be confined to "single parents," the term "continuous care" creates an
unrealistic criterion and should be replaced with "substantial care," and
"no one" should be replaced with "among the most appropriate" when referring
to the role of the parent as a care giver for a disabled child.
* Welfare reform reauthorization legislation should include a number of
changes with regard to Indian Tribes that were included in last year's WORK
Act.
* We are in agreement with a set of changes relating to teen TANF parents
that was developed by a group of young parents and believe those changes
should be incorporated.
Very frankly, much of what we have said about the Grassley Proposal in light
of UREAP principles and positions mirrors what we have expressed to you in
the past with regard to the Administration Proposal and the House bill. We
are gravely disappointed to observe that the work of the tripartisan group
in the Senate Finance Committee last year is imperceptible in the Proposal.
The gains we saw in the WORK Act largely coincided with UREAP's principles
and goals that have driven our position papers and other communications with
you last year. What we believe needed to be done upon the opportunity of
reauthorization will not be done if what is signed into law does not greatly
improve upon the Grassley Proposal and HR 4. We are in support of what you
are hearing from APHSA, NCSL, and NGA related to work requirements, activities,
hours, and the need for state flexibility in determining how to best help
families become self-sufficient. We fervently hope that changes can be made
with all of these perspectives and the Committee members and staff working
together.
Thank you very much for your attention to this information. We know you are
under pressure from many quarters. Nonetheless, we enjoyed our working relationship
with you last year and find it essential to communicate UREAP's views on
these important matters to you at this time.
Sincerely,
Bill and Shirley
Shirley Weathers and Bill Walsh, UREAP staff
Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies
P. O. Box 270090
Fruitland, UT 84027-0090
(435) 548-2630
FAX: (435) 548-2438