Text of email sent to Congressman Cannon (very similar emails also sent to each of Congressmen Jim Matheson and Rob Bishop) on Friday, February 7, 2003:

Dear Congressman Cannon:
 
We are hearing that you will vote on HR 4, "Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003" next week. We are writing today to share our views on some of the provisions in that bill.
 
The Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) met with you last August 5, in Provo. We appreciated that time with you and it was helpful to have a chance to talk about welfare reform reauthorization. As we related at that time, UREAP has been studying welfare reform reauthorization since April 2001, seeking common ground modifications to the 1996 law for the next phase of welfare reform. UREAP is a statewide organization with 25 official member organizations (list below) and works through monthly meetings and electronic connections, including a website and an email list of over 400 Utahns. We are continuing to work on welfare reform reauthorization, as is the 108th Congress. This year we are also addressing the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and will be in touch with you on that at a later time.
 
Turning to the specifics of HR 4, we are pleased that several provisions have been carried forward from HR 4737.

• Two of the UREAP Principles are addressed in changes to the goals of TANF: the addition of the reduction of poverty and enhancement of attention on the issue of child well-being.

• TANF Block Grant funding of $16.5 billion per year represents acknowledgment of the fact that, although caseloads have declined, successful self-sufficiency efforts by vulnerable families--both on and off welfare--require additional supports. In Utah, as elsewhere, a large proportion of TANF dollars are spent on types of assistance other than monthly cash assistance, including for many of the families who are now off welfare and working at low-wage jobs. Additionally, economic weakness is being accompanied by increased unemployment. Caseloads in almost all states are going back up as low-end jobs are phased out. At least flat funding from previous years will be important to states like Utah that are in serious fiscal crisis.   

• Extension of the Contingency Fund and Supplemental Grants are also important, for reasons stated just above.

• We continue to support reclassification of child care and transportation to "non-assistance" and permission to states to draw down unobligated funds for a Rainy Day Fund.

• Continuation of Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) Funding at levels in the current law will assist Utah to serve vulnerable populations including senior citizens, people with disabilities, poor families, and families with serious barriers.

• An increase in funding for child care is needed to provide care to a larger proportion of low-income eligible children not now being served. (More will be said about child care funding below.)

• As we discussed with you in August, it only makes sense as we focus on family formation to ensure that we systematically remove disincentives to two-parent families needing help from government programs. HR 4 takes a step in this direction.  

• We appreciate the approach to promoting healthy families that avoids funding set-asides or strategies that would harm families

• It is important and productive to increase child support pass-through to TANF families.

We do, however, have some concerns with provisions in HR 4:

• Although additional Discretionary Funds for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)--$2.1 in FY 2003 with increases each year to $3.1 billion by FY 2008 and $2.9 billion annually in CCDBG Entitlement Funds--are welcome, analyses of the amounts needed to cover the increased participation rates and hours of work included in HR 4737 and HR 4 convince us that far greater funding enhancements are needed if children are to be safe while their parents work. We must be extremely cautious that war, homeland security, and tax cuts do not leave a large percentage of our nation's poor children more vulnerable to harm than they already are.

• Enhancements in countable activities will enable troubled parents to engage in employability activities that will result in their success at employment activities. Utah research has shown the extent and multiplicity of barriers many TANF families struggle with and the state's long-standing policy of working with those barriers has shown that work preparedness activities lead to successful employment. It is clear that jobs obtained by most TANF recipients tend to pay too little for those families to truly become self-reliant, as the 1996 Welfare Reform Law proposes. Access to education and training to allow parents to obtain better-paying, more stable jobs, resulting in better outcomes for families.  HR 4, with a reduction in countable activities from even the current law--especially in the face of increased state work participation rates--is going in the absolutely wrong direction. The 1996 Welfare Reform Law promised flexibility to states to find the best ways to help their families become employed and self-reliant. HR 4 takes away a great deal of that flexibility.

• HR 4 seeks to require families to work 40 hours per week to be counted towards ever-increasing state participation rates. Coupled with more restrictions on countable activities, this is a formula for forcing many families into activities they are not prepared to succeed in and will increase the already intense stress on parents trying to find the energy to effectively raise their children. It may seem to many in the Bush Administration and Congress that, as work has worked for some welfare families, more work should be better. However, in pursuing additional requirements on the families left on welfare--many of whom suffer from a vast array of troubles--we are paying too little attention to what we know about a considerable group of families who cannot cope with even the requirements in the current law. Utah's research on long-term families shows ample evidence of the tragic outcomes for this group of families, including specifically, their children. Until we discover how to meet the needs of these families, we believe it is premature to increase the hours of participation.

• Often the same families mentioned just above manifest their personal and family difficulties through participation problems. In Utah since 1993, a carefully crafted "Conciliation Process" has been employed to help parents and employment counselors discover the source of participation problems and work together to find solutions. Often barriers not discovered during initial assessment are revealed through this process. By mandating full family sanction on a set time schedule, HR 4 would force Utah to abandon this home-grown, effective policy that aims to resolve participation problems and help families move ahead. We believe this is a serious mistake, especially when Utah's research on sanctioned families indicates a high level of family disintegration.

• Utah has continued to provide financial and employment assistance to legal immigrants after 1996 by using all state dollars. This has been done for a number of reasons, one of which is a belief that leaving immigrant families out when they need help will only cost our society more in the long term. There is a great human potential to be realized to the extent that all of our residents are able to meet their basic needs, as Congress acknowledged regarding Food Stamps in the Farm Bill of 2002. We believe a positive change to the 1996 Welfare Reform Law would be to allow states to expend TANF dollars to provide assistance to legal immigrants, making it possible for Utah to devote more of its MOE dollars to other needed services. We also favor allowing state options to expend SCHIP and Medicaid monies on children and pregnant legal immigrants.

• UREAP is on record supporting more resources for Tribal organizations, increasing the quality and types of services they can provide to their people and making it more feasible for them to operate their own welfare programs as the law allows. HR 4 allows access to more resources available to states. This is a welcome change. However, more resources that will facilitate gains in economic development are needed.

• The 1996 Welfare Reform Law rewarded states for reducing caseloads. Over the first six years of welfare reform, we can see that the success of welfare reform occurs when parents are able to become employed at stable jobs that pay a family-sustaining wage and include the opportunity for advancement. We know that families who are off welfare and not working are generally doing poorly and have little hope of reversing their circumstances. We believe that in 2003, continuing to reward states for simply getting people off of welfare is wrong-headed. States that do a good job of helping their families find jobs--good jobs--fulfills the self-sufficiency purpose of the Act and for that, not caseload reductions, states should be rewarded.

• We are very concerned about the provision in HR 4 that would allow states to develop and obtain administrative approval to run "Program Coordination Demonstration Projects" involving a large number of federal programs established and defined by Congress, without Congressional oversight. We are also opposed to block-granting Food Stamps.

Thank you for your attention to these matters and for the work you do for the people of Utah. We know that each vote you cast is a difficult one and we will appreciate anything you can do to raise awareness of these points among your colleagues in the House of Representatives as welfare reform reauthorization moves forward.
 
Sincerely,
 
Shirley Weathers and Bill Walsh, UREAP staff
for the Utah Reauthorization Project and its members:
 
Active Re-Entry, Price, (Southeastern Utah)
Box Elder Family Support Center, Brigham City, (Box Elder County)
Bringing Hope to Single Moms Foundation, Logan, (Cache and Box Elder Counties)
Community Action Services, Provo, (Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties)
Disabled Rights Action Coalition (DRAC), Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake County)
Family Support and Children's Justice Center of Carbon and Emery Counties, Price
International Rescue Committee, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
JEDI for Women, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
League of Women Voters of Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake County)
Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Mental Health Association in Utah, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Options for Independence, Logan, (Northern Utah)
Peace & Justice Commission, Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
People Helping People, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake County)
Salt Lake Community Action Program (SLCAP), Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake and Tooele Counties)
Tri-County Independent Living Center, Ogden (Weber, Davis, and Morgan Counties)
United Way Executive Directors Association (UWEDA), SLC, (Salt Lake County)
Utah Children, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Utah Community Action Program Association (UCAPA), (statewide)
Utah Issues, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Utahns Against Hunger, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Valley Mental Health, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake and Tooele Counties)
Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies, Fruitland
Your Community Connection, Ogden, (Weber County)


For more information about UREAP, including our Principles, comments, position papers, correspondence with Utah's Congressional Delegation and other elected officials, we invite you to visit our website at www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm. There are also links to Utah research at that site.