Text of UREAP Email to Jace Johnson, Senator Hatch's Staff Specialist
on Welfare Reform, sent on April 24,2004
Hello Jace,
Thanks again for your update prior to the UREAP meeting last Tuesday. People
were very appreciative of hearing the news you could give at that time.
Today we'd like to follow up on a few specific items. As we're sure you're
aware, everyone is talking about meetings staff are having regarding TANF
reauthorization legislation during the Easter recess. We thought we would
get in touch and pass on some thoughts on a few issues we are hearing about.
We know you have already heard from us on all of these (we have attached
UREAP's comment as part of the Finance Committee's hearing last month for
your convenience) and we apologize in advance for the length of this, but
on each item, you will see that we are asking for your sense of Senator Hatch's
level of support and willingness to take a leadership role. We hope the additional
detail may be of some help as you consider the potential answer to those
questions.
1) Work requirements are (no surprise) paramount. There is great hope here
that Senator Hatch will be able to lead a very solid charge in support of
a broader array of allowable countable activities--at least as broad as was
included in last year's Finance Committee bill. We know he has been out front
on this before--as Becky passed on to us when we met in SLC last December,
the Senator's overall approach of wanting people to "get somewhere" rather
than to just get "off welfare" and his votes are consistent with that--but
this is so important that we want to stress it again at this time. With higher
state participation rates in the offing, it is more important than ever that
states are able to count people participating in activities that will prepare
them to "get somewhere" or they simply won't be able to allow parents to
do so without risking fiscal penalties for failure to meet rates. If countable
activities were to include only very specifically work-related activities,
as in HR 4, we can see no other outcome than that Utah's very successful
TANF program will be derailed in an attempt to meet high participation rates
via activities and hours that TANF parents cannot successfully sustain.
We see a couple of directions of importance. First, we appreciate greatly
the Senator's support of activities that will help prepare TANF parents for
better jobs and to better meet the needs of employers. Increased months of
education and training is key. We know that last year, Senator Hatch supported
this and Senator Snowe's effort to extend the role that post-secondary education
can play in the lives of TANF parents. We wonder if he might be willing to
take an even more active role in that direction this year. Perhaps there
are other colleagues on the Committee who would join in on that, too (?)
The second direction that would help Utah continue to offer TANF parents
the chance at activities that will help them get somewhere pertains to parents
with barriers to employability. Utah's welfare reform efforts, culminating
in the SPED, made it apparent long ago that many welfare families had problems
that stood in their way of effective work. Employers--both private and non-profit--who
sought through various programs run here stressed the need to ensure that
people with substance abuse problems, mental health issues, and suffering
the effects of domestic violence receive help overcoming their problems if
they are to be able to function in the workplace. Over five years of study,
the Social Research Institute at the U of U provided valuable information
that indicates the extent of these problems, as well as the role intervention
(or the lack thereof) plays in outcomes. The WORK Act last year took some
important steps in the direction of ensuring that parents with substance
abuse problems and mental health conditions would be able to get that intervention.
It is not easy for people to address their substance abuse and mental health
problems.
We are anxious to learn whether Senator Hatch would be willing to support
or even take leadership for what is being called the "3 plus 3 approach"
towarding allowing/counting treatment activities, including a provision that
would allow additional months of receipt of these services to count in selected
cases where parents have severe barriers. SRI's research and DWS contacts
all show that some people need more time in treatment. If they receive it,
the rewards will be worth it. Up to now, Utah employment counselors have
been able to allow longer treatment time when needed--which differs from
case to case--and we sincerely hope that they will be able to continue to
do so. Hence if Senator Hatch could help insert a provision that could allow
states the flexibility of extending some beyond 6 months when it is believed
that this will make a difference, that would be most useful to achieve positive
outcomes. Are there other Republican Senators who might move forward in tandem
with Senator Hatch if he were to lead out? If so, is there anything UREAP
can do to help bring them on board?
2) Another Utah-based issue has to do with how sanctions are handled. Here,
as we discussed before, policy requires that participation problems be subjected
to systematic scrutiny before case closure can be effected. This policy was
written out of a) recognition that a sanction disrupts, or sometimes terminates
progress towards self-fficiency and 2) understanding that the conciliation
process is an additional tool to uncover more severe family barriers that
remain undiscovered during the assessment process. The conciliation process
was implemented specifically because it was found via agency review that
cases had been closed inappropriately (however unintentially), for example,
when participation problems involved serious mental health or domestic violence
circumstances of which the employment counselor had been unaware. The policy
also requires that cases that are ultimately closed for non-participation
to be reopened when participation has resumed. The plan, in HR 4, to require
states immediately to close cases with participation problems is very alarming
to us in Utah. We urge Senator Hatch to resist the inclusion of any type
of provision that would prevent Utah from continuing to work with troubled
families before turning away from them.
3) As you know, Utah felt so strongly that legal immigrant families needed
the kind of help that TANF services provide that we have been spending state
money to cover them. We are hoping to see the same state option to use federal
TANF dollars for this purpose as was included in the Finance Committee bill
last year and wonder if you know whether Senator Hatch would be able to take
a leadership role in making this happen. We are imagining that this would
be agreeable to the Administration, given President Bush's successful efforts
to extend eligibility for Food Stamps to this group; Utah's choice in the
matter of TANF coverage would make this a logical step for Senator Hatch.
Any thoughts on this?
4) We mentioned our concerns about how states will respond to higher participation
rates. On this subject, we understand that there are proposals floating to
allow partial credit to be given towards rates if parents participate less
than the required number of hours to count (which we are hoping will stay
at 30 hours for parents with children over 6 and 20 hours for children under
6 as in the current law) and extra credit if they participate more than the
required number of hours. Having this conversation is somewhat odd for us
because for all these years of seeing welfare parents participate in work
and work preparation activities/interventions, Utah has never had to quibble
over hours to count, rather the focus has been on the value on the participation.
However, with higher participation rates, we predict that it may be unavoidable
for states--even Utah--to press parents to meet the countable hours. Moreover,
we believe states should be rewarded as parents are engaged in things we
value, including if they are only able to engage in activities "part-time."
Extra credit for more hours follows the same rationale. However, what would
be a negative outcome via this seemingly useful construct would be if participation
rate increases wind up making states "slaves" to the rates such that, for
example, a parent who is in countable activities for 29 hours (and therefore
counting as partial credit or, say, .5) is pressured to work more hours,
say 30, in order to count 1.0. We don't think (?) Utah would engage in this
kind of thing, but it potentially could happen if the pressure to avoid fiscal
sanctions is strong enough. So what to do as these discussions proceed?
We are unsure of the answer, but here are some thoughts: a) the credit range
could be lessened, so that the incentive to pressure for a higher score is
less, e.g., partial, full, and extra credit could be set at .75, 1.0, and
1.25, respectively.
b) Fiscal penalties could be forestalled if a state not meeting the participation
rate is, nonetheless, making progress since the previous year.
This is looking like a very difficult numbers game to us, but clearly, the
intent of increasing state participation rates is not to cause states to
lose focus on the purpose of the act and the goals of their programs to assist
families to become self-sufficient. Where is Senator Hatch on this matter?
5) UREAP is strongly supportive of making changes to the child support collection
process so that families receive more of any collections made. We understand
that Senator Snowe has a bill that would take solid steps in this direction.
It appears more likely to benefit children than the provisions in HR 4 and
we are hoping that Senator Hatch will be able to work with Senator Snowe
in taking this important issue farther.
6) Very short--we are pulling for every dime in additional child care funding
the Senator can get into the Mark!
Again, we apologize for the length (and we know you are busy). We will appreciate
feedback on these issues and questions. We will try to reach you by phone
tomorrow.
Thank you again for your good work and help to UREAP!
Sincerely,
Shirley and Bill
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