In Attendance

Debbie Abrams-Cohen, Social Research Institute (SRI), U of U
Representative Chad Bennion, District 44, R
Stan Eckersley, Office of Legislative Fiscal Analyst
Representative Brent Goodfellow, District 29, D
Mark Greenberg, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), on speaker-phone
Bob Haywood, Department of Human Services (DHS)
Sid Jefferies, FTT, Inc.
Jolyn LeFevre, DWS
Garth Mangum, retired, Economics Department, U of U
Representative Steven Mascaro, District 47, R
Pat Nielson. Salt Lake League of Women voters
Cathie Pappas, Department of Workforce Services (DWS)
Steve Savner, CLASP, on speaker-phone
Phyllis Sharples, Valley Mental Health
Tim Shultz, Utah Issues
Karen Silver, Salt Lake Community Action Program (SLCAP)
Helen Thatcher, DWS
Heather Tritten, Utah Issues
Don Uchida, USOR
Mary Beth Vogel-Fergeson, SRI, U of U
Representative Peggy Wallace, District 42, R
Bill Walsh, Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies (WWRPS), UREAP Staff
Sheila Walsh-McDonald, SL CAP
Shirley Weathers, WWRPS, UREAP Staff
Penny White, Housing Authority of SLC
John Woeste, Utah State Office of Rehabilitation (USOR), Independent Living Programs

Welcome and Introductions

Everyone introduced themselves.

Bill Walsh explained that Mark Greenberg of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) was on the speaker-phone. With the Iraq War having just begun, Mark and his family were uncomfortable with his leaving the Washington, D.C. area, so the speaker-phone was the next best option. Mark said he looked forward to coming to Utah soon. Mark introduced Steve Savner, CLASP's lead staff on WIA, who was also on the line.

Bill also explained that Linda Gibbons of Senator Hatch's Office sent regrets that she could not attend this meeting due to a scheduling conflict. In addition, Robin Arnold-Williams was ill and was on her way to the doctor. Helen Thatcher agreed to take Robin's part of the agenda.

Basics of Reauthorization, PRWORA and WIA

Shirley Weathers presented information and a hand-out that will be posted on the UREAP web site: "Congressional Welfare Reform and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Reauthorization - The Basics." She began by stating that Congress, much like the Utah State Legislature, when starting a program, often sets a sunset date a few years out to examine the program operations, make revisions, and "reauthorize" it for the future. Reauthorization is an opportunity to make improvements in policies and funding. The 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the "Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" (PRWORA) was scheduled for reauthorization in 2002. The 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is scheduled for reauthorization in 2003.

In 2002, the House passed a welfare reform bill based on President Bush's proposal, but the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee--the bipartisan "Work, Opportunity, and Responsibility for Kids" (WORK) Act--did not make it to the Senate Floor for debate. This year, the House has already passed HR 4, "The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003," nearly identical to last year's bill. The latest plan is for the Senate Finance Committee to mark-up a welfare reform bill by Easter and send it to the Full Senate soon thereafter. Major issues include House/Senate differences in hours parents must work, which activities will be "countable," state participation rates, and funding--for child care, etc.--among others.

In 2003, the President has presented his reauthorization proposal and the House has passed HR 1261, "Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003." The President wants to establish a new program, "Personal Reemployment Accounts" (PRAs), and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has passed HR 444, the "Back To Work Incentive Act," to support him. The PRA program is proposed to last for two years and to cost $3.6 billion. Other WIA programs are being cut back. The Senate has not started on WIA yet. Issues being debated include: best use of the $3.6 billion, taking funds from WIA "partners" to fund operations in the One-Stop system, governance issues, Youth program funding and policies. There is broad agreement over a positive move: to eliminate sequencing program eligibility, or the "work first" approach. According to HR 1261, a person would be able to receive intensive or training services if found to be "unlikely" to find "suitable" employment, rather than being required to demonstrate an "inability" to find work of any kind, as in the current law.

Shirley summarized UREAP activities on PRWORA and WIA Reauthorizations from April 2001 to this point. UREAP has produced and submitted comments to Utah's Congressional Delegation and appropriate Congressional Committees. UREAP has 28 official members and e-mails over 400 Utahns for input on these communications. The final comments are posted at the UREAP website, http://www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm.

Helen Thatcher speaking for the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA)

Helen Thatcher focused her comments on the potential impacts of  PRWORA and WIA Reauthorizations to Utah and its programs. She said that HR 4, with its emphasis on bureaucratic process rather than outcomes for people, could remove the individualized approach to customers that Utah has featured in its system. She said that, in the House, advocates for people with disabilities found less opportunity to effect changes as the TANF bill went through than they are finding as the WIA bill goes through its two committee mark-ups. She said that the WIA debate on partners and coordination has already occurred in Utah, but many states were just starting their discussions on this issue. Helen indicated that the sequencing of services ("work first") in the original WIA law has been burdensome. Utah's Youth Councils are coming into their own and it takes time to develop them. HR 1261 has followed the President's lead in making Youth Councils voluntary, as well as in directing funding away from at risk students who are still in school in favor of out-of-school youth. She said PRAs sound good at first, but it will take some time to set up another system, operate it, and enforce the new rules. PRA clients will have to be profiled by DWS and they will have to agree to lose all other One-Stop services for 12 months.

Helen was asked to give some history of welfare reform in Utah and what HR 4 could do to it. She said Utah used federal waivers to design its programs to respond to what had been learned about helping people on welfare become self-sufficient. Utah believed that people can be connected to the labor market and single parents, if supported, can work their way out of poverty. The approach was individual and structured; it did not even instruct Employment Counselors about participation rates. HR 4 would require developing a new infrastructure to design and operate workfare projects. The proposed higher participation rates cannot be met without redesigning Utah's approach away from what we have been doing for 10 years.

There was a question about why Congress desires states to act the same. Helen said states develop their own solutions and the federal government wants to make comparisons between them. Outcomes are much more important than process reporting.

It was pointed out the Utah was an early implementor of WIA. Helen said that Utah's coordination and integration of TANF and WIA is ahead of most states. However, while WIA Reauthorization may not have a major impact on Utah, PRWORA as in HR 4 certainly could.

Mark Greenberg, CLASP, discusses Welfare Reform

Mark Greenberg, Director of Policy for CLASP, explained that he had read Utah's waiver proposal (SPED) in 1992 and was impressed by its creativity and energy, its goal to help families escape poverty, and has considered it a national model. He has subsequently visited Utah numerous times to study welfare reform and One-Stops, looking at TANF/WIA coordination in light of comprehensive workforce development. He agreed with Helen's comments.

Last January while in Utah, he asked Utah Employment Counselors how they dealt with participation rates, he was told that they take care of that at the state level. That could be problematic with HR 4. He also agreed with Helen that measuring outcomes is much more important than measuring process. The HR 4 measures would turn back the clock on state creativity.

Mark updated Welfare Reform's progress in the legislative process. The House has passed HR 4. The Senate Finance Committee will take up Welfare Reform soon. Whatever bill is passed there will go before the entire Senate. Welfare Reform will then be finalized in a Conference Committee. The best chance to improve the reauthorization law is in the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Orrin Hatch was a key player last year in forging a tri-partisan compromise and he will be again this year.

A question was asked about countable work activities. Mark relayed the D.C. conversation at this point. It is likely that the Administration will get more hours and a higher participation rate, but not as much as it wants (40 hours of participation per week). It seems likely that universal participation--a Utah provision--will be part of the final bill. There is debate about countable activities, number of hours, participation rates, and whether states should be given credits for caseload reduction or for helping clients make progress through employment. These matters will be negotiated, but the focus should be on outcomes. Workfare versus education and training is a big issue of debate.

A UREAP comment on Welfare Reform directed to the Senate Finance Committee in conjunction with its hearing on March 12  was distributed and will be posted at the UREAP web site.

Steve Savner, CLASP, discusses WIA Reauthorization

Steve Savner is CLASP's lead staff on WIA Reauthorization and he has also been in Utah. He updated the legislative process by saying that the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee has marked up a bill, the full Committee is scheduled to vote on March 26, and then it will move to the floor. The speed of this bill is remarkable and the bi-partisan nature of it has broken down.

Steve relayed that House staff initially hoped that with only modest changes to WIA Reauthorization, there would be little debate and quick action. However, in its budget message, the Administration pushed for consolidating three funding streams into a block grant and proposed cuts in funding for those and other existing WIA programs. The Administration proposed that WIA Youth money be spent almost entirely on out-of-school youth. This created great controversy and by now, votes tend to follow  party lines.

Steve said that the Administration proposed some positive changes, too. Ending sequencing is positive. Funding the One-Stop infrastructure is positive. The House Committee gave state governors authority to direct federal funds for that purpose. Utah is a state with a single workforce area, or Service Delivery Area, which is not the case in most states. Steve described an "efficiency measure" being proposed as troublesome because it could create disincentives for service to disadvantaged special populations.

Don Uchida, USOR, described issues of concern in the substitute bill. He noted that federal funding for programs serving special populations could be tapped by the Governor. He said that both "required partners" and "optional partners" could be affected, especially in programs that serve people with disabilities.

Steve responded that "permissible" partners could be determined by the Governor and tapped funds from those partners could be directed to One-Stops, which is a concern. GAO studies showed that people with disabilities were not often well-served in many states so being designated permissible partners would somewhat rectify that problem. Taking funding from permissible partners is another, separate, concern.

Steve explained that CLASP was critical of PRAs in its testimony to Congress. The PRA is a new program with various goals, but it is doubtful that benefits will outweigh challenges. The $3.6 billion would be better spent on One-Stop infrastructure, extended Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits, and more resources going into training programs. PRAs look to be administratively complex and more research is needed before a full blown PRA program is attempted. Steve said that PRAs will likely be included in House WIA Reauthorization legislation, but in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the future of the PRA program may be uncertain. Steve doubted that the $3.6 billion requested for PRAs would hold due to budget restraints. He said that efforts are needed to work with Senators on WIA issues.

Q&A 

Bill pointed out that UREAP plans to make comments at appropriate times, so ongoing input is desired.

Karen Silver asked if COBRA payments are to be an allowable expense with PRAs. Steve Savner did not think so, but said he would check and let us know.

Tim Shultz asked Mark about funding implications for state and federal budgets if HR 4 mandates are passed. Mark said that last year GAO estimated work-related costs over a five-year period would be an additional $8-$11 billion. The Administration claims that states were receiving the same amount of money to spend on caseloads that are half the size of what they were. States have redirected TANF funds into child care, education and training, transportation, domestic violence, EITC, and other areas, so the comparison is not valid. Not funding mandates will take funds from other programs for the working poor and is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Helen Thatcher pointed out that TANF funds in Utah were being spent on workforce development, including child care, but if mandates come down, funds will have to be diverted to pay for them.

Garth Mangum questioned the purpose of PRWORA and maintained that helping children, rather than punishing moms, should be the central purpose. Mark said that in recent years the purpose has become linking families to the workforce. Research on moms going to work shows little difference on its effect on children. There is evidence, though, that families benefit when income goes up. D.C. debate, unfortunately, still focuses on process. Steve added that debate in outcome areas is needed. Garth pointed out that the welfare poor have become the working poor. Mark commented that many people see that, and there is more conversation about job advancement and skill-building.

Mark relayed that in D.C. that afternoon, the Senate defeated a child care funding vote 49-50. Another vote for child care using the reserve fund is expected right away.

Wrap Up

Bill encouraged UREAP participants to comment on the draft WIA principles because they are important to writing UREAP comments. At the next meeting the principles will be finalized. Garth pointed out that "suitable" employment should be defined and developed. Karen suggested that PRA allowable expenditures include COBRA payments as a permissible expenditures.     Garth asked that stipends be recommended in UREAP comments. Shirley indicated that this has been done. Sheila Walsh-McDonald suggested that people with disabilities and youth be mentioned in the WIA principles.

Bill and Shirley thanked everyone for attending and providing input.

Next Meeting: The next UREAP Meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 22, at the regular time, 2:30 - 4:30, at the regular place, Horizonte Education and Training Center.