Utah Reauthorization Project
P. O. Box 270090 Fruitland, UT 84027-0090
(435) 548-2630 FAX (435) 548-2438 wrw@ubtanet.com
UREAP MEETING SUMMARY
May 29, 2001
Horizonte Education & Training Center
Salt Lake City
1:30 to 3:30 p.m.
Welcome and Introductions
UREAP meeting participants introduced themselves and noted their interests in and experiences with welfare reform. Salt Lake Community Action Program has produced a UREAP web page at www.slcap.org/UREAP/UREAP.htm. Various documents and links are posted there and more will be added as we go along. Hard copies of UREAP-generated materials will be mailed to those requesting it. Bill Walsh thanked Horizonte staff for providing the facilities and reminded participants that monthly UREAP meetings will be held here, in the Lecture Hall, on the schedule already determined (see the meeting summary-posted and downloadable at the website-for the April 26, 2001 UREAP meeting for dates). UREAP has ten official members and other community-based groups are requested to officially join up (also listed at the website). Public agencies will be involved as UREAP partners.
UREAP Principles of Welfare Reform Reauthorization
Bill Walsh led participants in a discussion of UREAP principles (the DRAFT principles document is posted at the website). Principles will express our beliefs, our assumptions, our agreements. Recommendations and actions taken by the UREAP coalition will conform to the principles. It is important to be clear and grounded in principles. He read the first paragraph, or preamble, and the first three principles (out of eight in the draft). There were numerous substantive and editorial comments by participants.
Information about Utah TANF Families (Social Research Institute)
Mary Beth Vogel and Dianne Cunningham from the Social Research Institute (SRI) at the University of Utah Graduate School of Social Work presented information learned from two Department of Workforce Services (DWS) sponsored studies on the impacts of welfare reform on long-term Family Employment Program (FEP) recipients. They focused on data that addressed the four legal purposes of PRWORA, considering each in light of data collected in their study. Former long-term cash assistance families (407) were interviewed statewide in both urban and rural areas. Respondents were asked over 700 questions and were paid for their time to participate in the study. Generally, respondents were interviewed in their homes.Study participants, 94% female heads of household, were grouped into three groups: closed for increased income (about 38%), closed for time limits (about 33%), and closed for "other reasons" (about 29%), including sanctions and numerous reasons.
The first TANF purpose is: "Provide assistance to needy families so children can remain in their own homes or in the home of a relative." SRI data on child welfare showed that those closed for increased income were more likely to be eligible for and utilize child care and to receive child support than the other groups. These supports keep children in their homes. Recently, the loss of Food Stamp cash-out has pressured families' abilities to pay rental/housing costs. Utility costs are taking a bigger share of household cash. It takes cash to keep children in their homes.
The second TANF purpose is: "End dependence of needy families on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage." Among the population studied, SRI does not see dependence ending, rather a shift to reliance on other government and private programs appears to be occurring as cash assistance is time-limited or difficult for some people to maintain. Many families reported that the loss of FEP cash assistance had less impact as long as the other supports were still available for their families. SRI sees the "job preparation and work" component as being realized by DWS policies and practices, but "cluster barriers" continue to persist for many families. These are barriers found among long-term FEP families at far greater frequency than is exhibited in the general populations, e.g., Health/Mental Health, Learning Disability/Educational Achievement, Work History, Domestic Violence, Drug and Substance Abuse, Child Behavior and Protective Service problems. The study indicates that these families need lots of help before they are ready for the workforce. Additionally, the abilities of and resources available to Employment Counselors to address these barriers in troubled families are sometimes lacking.
The third TANF purpose is: "Prevent and reduce the incidence of out of wedlock births." SRI did not have much data on this purpose, except to note the high incidence of sex abuse, teen parenthood, and low education levels in the families interviewed. Other studies have repeatedly shown a connection between these experiences and out-of-wedlock births. Twenty-six percent of those interviewed were never married.
The fourth and final TANF purpose is: "Encourage the formation and maintenance of two parent families." SRI did not find much related to this purpose but did relate anecdotes, especially in rural Utah, where marriage was strongly encouraged as a "solution" for a struggling single mother. They noted that "man-in-the-house" rules disregard the income of a male residing in a household, whereas if he is a spouse or more often the biological father of one or more of the children on financial assistance, income is counted against the family's financial assistance. SRI also found that the likelihood of earned income by a client is lower if a partner is present, suggesting both economic and difficult relationship dynamics.
Meeting participants debated the pros and cons of the fourth purpose. It was noted that heads of households are uncomfortable with the idea that the state is attempting to meddle in family composition. Robin Arnold-Williams said that this item is a favorite among some House members in D.C.
Mary Beth said that when clients were asked about their own priorities and barriers to work, often entirely new issues were raised than their case managers may be aware of. For instance, a number responded that they fear that their children would be taken away, and that is where they found themselves directing their energies-that has become the major barrier to their compliance with employment plans, looking for work, etc.
Overall, families with more education and more informal and formal supports did better than those without those resources. These findings match up with other states who are saying that there's a group of families that need intense services and are not getting them, and that most families with fewer barriers are the ones being well served by welfare reform. The Children's Defense Fund study, based on interviews with 5,000 clients, agrees with several SRI findings. One example is the critical role case managers can play in client success if they are actively working to support families in their efforts, in getting child care, and in obtaining continued access to health care assistance. Another is that parents and families who enter the system with greater skills and fewer problems have a greater likelihood of success, no matter what the level and efficacy of services available to them. Those with multiple barriers often suffer from communications break-downs, either because the rules are too complex for them to grasp or focus on or they are too stressed to communicate well with "the system" or both.
SRI will continue to study these same families at 6 and 12 month intervals and 750 more families have been added to the study sample, for a total of 1,150 families.
Formulating UREAP Recommendations
Shirley led a discussion on developing UREAP recommendations. She noted that UREAP recommendations will be confined to those that are directed to Congress and relate to PRWORA and related discussions of welfare reform expected to occur. She noted that it will sometimes be hard to sort out the exact focus for solutions. We may raise problems where the first questions to be answered is: is it local? is it state? is it federal regulations? or is it a Congressional matter? Some research may be needed to determine the answer, e.g., states are still learning about flexibility they have under the 1996 law, so that sometimes some guidance will be needed to know whether states can solve problems or whether Congress will need to act first. When it is clear that Congress is not the answer, issues will be noted and directed to an appropriate forum. Helen Thatcher agreed to assist with this arrangement.
Shirley said that Congress is our primary "audience" and that many lack more than "a newspaper" knowledge of welfare reform. We will need to be careful to start our work where Congress is, i.e., a set of our recommendations and information will focus on quite basic issues. Deciding on these recommendations will bring us into areas where there is very broad agreement by people and organizations who have studied welfare or at least have greater experience with its impacts. She said that there were many allies at the national level and many recommendations already developed that UREAP can consider in these areas. An organization like the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) is well positioned to show us the way towards where to start. She called on Robin Arnold-Williams to explain APHSA's processes and goals in formulating its body of recommendations.
Robin described the role of consensus-building in the policy recommendations developed by APHSA. APHSA is very interested in finding common ground-among state agencies and administrators and with advocacy groups. She said that APHSA, Second Harvest, and the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) are in dialogue over Food Stamp issues, looking for agreement on major, if not all, areas. She noted that the power changes occurring in the U.S. Senate may affect welfare reform discussions, if only because of changes in committee leadership and the setting of agendas. Robin noted that $16.7 in TANF Block Grant funding is the result of consensus-building among APHSA members-some states would prefer changes-but the final APHSA position is maintenance of the PRWORA levels, without set-asides and mandates, and with the same level of state flexibility.
Robin reminded attendees that APHSA's recommendations are contained in the Executive Summary and Summary of Proposals sections of Crossroads: New Directions in Social Policy. These can be downloaded, along with the full document if desired, at www.aphsa.org. Shirley said she would put links to these documents at the UREAP website and encouraged attendees to review them in preparation for further discussion. Robin noted that UREAP may well not find all of what it would like to recommend there. She stressed that an element of APHSA in selecting issues and framing recommendations has been political do-ability. On the issue of time-limits, for example, most believe that a reversal is unlikely, so this has not been recommended. However, there are a number of more politically feasible mechanisms being suggested by a number of groups that could get at issues related to time limits, for example, changing definitions of extensions to include work, as Utah has done. Shirley mentioned that another way to accomplish the same effect is to make earned income stop a family's time clock.
Announcements, feedback, comments, questions
C:\MyUREAPFiles\UREAP52901mtngsumm.wpd