In Attendance

Helen Thatcher, Department of Workforce Services (DWS)
Cindy Moss, Housing Authority - County of Salt Lake (HACSL)
Steve Cuthbert, DWS Mountainland Region
Melissa Finch, DWS Mountainland Region
David Ostrom, DWS Mountainland Region
Shauna South, Utah State Office of Education (USOE)
Dave Steele, USOE, Adult Education
Richard Maxfield, author
Garth Mangum, author, Utah Issues
Mike Richardson, DWS
Suzette Martellaro, DWS
Karen Silver, Salt Lake Community Action Program (SLCAP)
Sheila Walsh McDonald, SLCAP
Cathie Pappas, DWS
John Woeste, Utah State Office of Rehabilitation (USOR)
Don Uchida, USOR
Marty Blair, Center for Persons with Disabilities/Utah State University (CPD/USU)
Bob Haywood, Department of Human Services (DHS)
Bob Gilbert, DWS Eastern Region
Robin Arnold-Williams, DHS
Sarah Brenna, DWS
Jolyn LeFevre, DWS
Shirley Weathers, Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies (WWRPS), UREAP staff
Bill Walsh, WWRPS, UREAP staff

Introductions

    Bill Walsh welcomed everyone. Everyone introduced themselves.

UREAP II

    Shirley Weathers described the origins of the Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP). She summarized UREAP's work over the past two years on the reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reauthorization Act (PRWORA, or the 1996 Welfare Reform Law). She explained that UREAP has been extended for the purpose of continuing work on PRWORA reauthorization, as well as to help Utah have a voice in the Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). UREAP currently has 25 official members. These are private entities and their names are listed on all communications from UREAP including position papers. Public entities are generally not able to join bodies like UREAP, but their help is needed as partners. There are currently over 450 people around the state who are on UREAP's email list and utilize UREAP's website to learn and provide input on UREAP's work.

    Shirley explained that the UREAP operates by studying issues related to the reauthorization of these two congressional Acts, developing common ground approaches to those issues based on Utah experience, and communicating those common ground recommendations to Utah's Congressional Delegation, key Congressional Committees and staffs, and other interested parties.  Position papers and other major documents are developed by staff and put forward to email participants and those who attend UREAP monthly meetings for comment before they are finalized. Most communication is done through e-mail and the UREAP website, www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm. The website contains numerous documents which will be referenced in emails. The web site is constantly updated and now contains links to each "half" of this phase of UREAP (UREAP II): WIA and Welfare Reform.

    Early in the first phase of UREAP, participants developed and adopted 12 Principles concerning welfare reform, which have formed the foundation for UREAP Position Papers and have driven all of our other work. Shirley indicated that it is expected that additional Principles will need to be developed to guide our work on WIA reauthorization, or perhaps a whole new set of WIA Principles will be needed.

    Presently, UREAP Position Papers include:

• TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), including Native American issues
• Food Stamps
• Family formation
• Transitional Medicaid Assistance (TMA)
• Child Care
• Child Support
• Child Welfare and Child Well-being
• Family Formation
• Families with Disabilities

    Continuing with the UREAP process, Shirley explained that, as legislation is considered by Congress, UREAP staff communicates UREAP positions to the President, House and Senate. A great deal of this work is done through congressional staff. Over the past two years, UREAP submitted a formal comment to the Bush Administration; conveyed its Position Papers to the Bush Administration, members of Utah Congressional Delegation, and other elected officials, including Governor Leavitt; commented on draft legislation, and met with Utah's Congressional Representatives last spring and fall. UREAP worked very closely with Senator Hatch's welfare reform national staff person, Becky Shipp, who just recently was promoted to Staff Director of the Senate Finance Committee.

    The e-mail process of communication works in the following way. Participants receive e-mails from UREAP staff with the subject "UREAP News" and a message including a link to the UREAP Main Page web site. The Welfare Reform page has historical and updated contents. The WIA page is shorter at present, but both are being developed constantly. Salt Lake CAP maintains the web site for UREAP.

    There was a question about monitoring particular budgets in Congress, since rumors of omnibus reconciliation legislation are circulating. UREAP staff will watch for such activity.

    Shirley was asked to read the twelve UREAP Principles for Welfare Reform which she did. A participant suggested adding a principle around "prevention."

    Utah is fortunate to have Utah voices being listened to at the national level. Robin Arnold-Williams heads the American Public Human Services Administration (APHSA) Reauthorizations Committee. Governor Leavitt is active in the National Governors Association (NGA). At the Department of Workforce Services (DWS), Rayleen Ireland as Director and some of her staff serve on national committees. UREAP works with a number of national advocacy groups, monitors the views of a broad range of players across the political spectrum, and last year two, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), came to Utah to support work on Welfare Reform reauthorization.

WIA Reauthorization

Overview 

   Bill introduced Helen Thatcher, DWS Deputy Director, who provided an overview on WIA. WIA passed in 1998 and has five Titles:

• Title I: Workforce Investment Systems
• Title II: Adult Education and Literacy
• Title III: Workforce Investment Related Activities
• Title IV: Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998
• Title V: General Provisions

    WIA Youth Services are very prescriptive: 5% need not be low-income, and at least 30% need to be out of school; "youth" can be up to 21 years of age. Helen said that the more prescriptive the rules, the more difficult it becomes to access services predictably, i.e., programs are open then closed, recruitment is speeded up or slowed down. A participant pointed out that provider outcome data is different if program missions are different from DWS's mission. Helen said there are WIA issues on accountability with the Department of Labor, (DOL) that are usually tied to funding. It often forces difficult choices.

    Helen discussed some of the programs in the various Titles that have WIA pieces, but these programs also have their own statutes driving them. DWS has Memorandums of Agreement (MOA) with some programs and a Cooperative Agreement with Utah's Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (Voc Rehab). WIA's General Provisions Title cover the Unified Plan, grants, and funding authorizations. DOL's Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Administration, Emily DeRocco, has as her assistant Mason Bishop, a former Utah state employee, both of whom are heavily involved with WIA Reauthorization. Emily stresses partnership with employers and training people to meet workforce needs in this country. Helen concluded with a quote from Emily: "WIA should be an instrument of economic development with social benefits, not a social benefits program with some economic development."

    An audience participant commented that non-profit organizations play important economic and workforce roles in the community and Helen concurred, especially if certain TANF provisions for Community Work Programs are enacted.

DWS Reauthorization Issues

    Next Sarah Brenna, DWS Legislative Liaison, provided DWS initial WIA Reauthorization issues and recommendations. Main themes so far are Rules and Regulations, Funding, Performance Standards, and Eligible Training Provider Requirements. DWS as a One-Stop seeks consistent definitions, e.g., income guidelines, "family," and counting administrative costs among programs. Funding issues include different funding silos with specific reporting data, eligibility criteria, and outcome measures. Each state is concerned with cumbersome Provider Requirements; for instance, educational and training institutions are required to provide outcome measures on all students, not just those enrolled in the DWS system, so are choices being limited for students? Sarah predicted that many additional issues will surface in WIA Reauthorization.

    An audience participant asked about the President's Re-employment Proposal--whether it would drain resources from existing programs. No one had a specific answer, although someone responded that it seemed likely. Another questioner asked if DWS had made presentations to Congress with recommendations. Sarah responded that DWS had made comments on proposed legislation, but had not yet made recommendations. She said Rayleen Ireland was on an APHSA WIA Subcommittee that will develop recommendations. Many groups are in the process of developing recommendations around governance and other issues.

  Don Uchida from the State Office of Rehabilitation (USOR) distributed a handout, "Principles for USOR Regarding the Reauthorization of WIA," and spoke to them.

• Keep the Rehabilitation Act a separate entity. It may be attached to but not amalgamated into the WIA.
• Preservation and expansion of dedicated funding for programs under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act. That act includes a COLA (Cost Of Living Increase) which is a two-edged sword, but they want it preserved.
• Maintain integrity of the Designated State Unit whose sole responsibility is the VR Program.
• Use of qualified personnel. Keep the Comprehensive System Personnel Development in the Act.
• Accessibility of job training, educational and other service programs. This is in the spirit of ADA and Section 504 of the Rehab Act and includes electronic access as well as physical access to programs.
• Representation of disability interests on Workforce Investment Boards (WIB). Not in Utah because it's done here but across the nation, it is important that a person with a disability along with the Voc Rehab Director sit on the WIB.
• Emphasis on partnerships. The relationship in Utah is great, but other states need stronger, mandatory, partnerships.

State Office of Education, Adult Education and Literacy Reauthorization Issues

    Senator Dave Steele then spoke about WIA/DWS and Adult Education, noting that there have been coordination problems stemming from different missions and outcomes. He gave an example. An education counselor does an assessment and sets educational goals with the student. A DWS counselor seeks to get the customer into a job. The conflict between systems appears when getting a job is the preferred outcome. Education produces skills to enable a person to get a job, but does not necessarily or directly result in a job. He indicated that on page 9 of Helen's handout, under "Performance Accountability, Core Indicators for Youth 14 - 18," he would add to indicators: GED, and strike the age range, so Adult Education can provide appropriate services. Dave also stated how helpful incentive grants were to Adult Education and DWS in the past, but the accounting of outcome data needs to be improved to address both missions realistically. In education, the biggest focus is "competency," which is what employers want. This needs to be part of WIA Reauthorization. Adult Education and DWS and other parties need to make a common comment; a combined voice from Utah WIA interests is desirable. A single parent or a displaced homemaker will often need more time to succeed, some of them cannot work 40 hours a seek and and be educated, so someone needs to say that. Perhaps Adult Education should be represented on the Regional Councils, along with Public and Higher Education. Two goals we all have in common are: 1) help people become self-reliant; this often goes beyond a job, and, 2) make contributions to society. Dave said that the FACT (Families and Agencies Coming Together) program was an example of programs coordination of services and bang for the buck, but it was cut by the Legislature when funds are tight. In the WIA Reauthorization process, we all need to focus on will constitute progress and speak with one voice to that end.

    A member of the audience made an historical comment. He said that WIA was bad legislation, the DOL rewrote the act to stress "work first" and Congress did not correct it, and now is the time to re-write WIA so that displaced and disadvantaged persons are accorded proper attention. Stipends should be considered in WIA Reauthorization. Utah had considerable influence in CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) and JTPA (Jobs Training and Partnership Act) and should again exert its influence at this time.

Welfare Reform Reauthorization

    Bill introduced Robin Arnold-Williams and noted her involvement in welfare reform before and since 1996. She provided two handouts.

    Robin provided "Comparison of Current Law and Provisions in Major TANF Reauthorization Proposals (Jan. 17, 2003)" for people to take home and review. She predicted that the House would likely quickly pass what the President just released. His  2003 Welfare Reform Proposal is nearly identical to his 2002 Working Toward Independence Proposal. In 2002 the House passed HR4737, the Senate Finance Committee passed the WORK Act, but the full Senate did not consider it. Welfare Reform/PRWORA expired in September 2002, but a Continuing Resolution was passed until March 31, 2003. It looks like the House will try to pass a bill by the end of March, but most expect that the Senate will favor another Continuing Resolution until September 2003, providing more time to reauthorize Welfare Reform.

    Robin presented overheads (and provided copies of) "UREAP II: PRWORA Reauthorization in 2003 (Jan. 17, 2003)." Certain items in reauthorization legislation are not expected to change: it will remain a block grant, funding will probably stay at $16.5 billion, and  the 60 month lifetime time limit will be retained. Areas of likely change because of substantial support may include: a broader definition for the use of TANF funds and Child Care and Transportation assistance may be redefined so as to not trigger the TANF time clock. Some provisions that will likely change from the status quo are:

• Universal Engagement, as is the case in Utah, will be added with penalties for states not meeting Congressional timelines
• Screening, Assessment, and Planning requirements will begin sooner after a family's case is opened and will stress family barriers and child well being (states fear administrative burden if requirements get too specific)
• Participation Rates, Hours, and Activities are the most controversial: state participation rates will rise; countable participation for individuals of 30 - 40 hours per week are proposed; "priority work hours" will go to 24 hours per week from the present 20
• What states get "Credit" for in terms of state participation rates means countable activities. There are 12 now in PRWORA. The House wants to scale back to seven strictly related to work, while the Senate adds countable activities in supporting education and training services, including a state optional 2 - 4 years of post-secondary programs. The Senate also wanted to count limited rehabilitative programs.

    In child support more funds collected will go to families and children, but that will affect state and national budgets. Family Formation activities will be state options to apply for grants from the federal government.

    Robin said many of the issues she described would end up in a Senate-House Conference Committee.

    Under the category "Who Knows?" Robin listed additional items. There could be new TANF purposes addressing child welfare or poverty reduction, or not. Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funding levels have eroded from $2.8 billion to $1.7 billion per year, which in Utah translates from $22 million to $13 million. The President proposes to restore SSBG funding through the Senate CARE Act. Child care funding is increased in Senate, but not in the House or the President's proposal. Waivers, whether renewing old or removing the cap on new, is up in the air. Last year's Superwaiver, which the House amended and the Senate ignored, has reappeared as the Ticket To Independence in the President's 2003 proposal. Whether restoring services to legal immigrants happens is still controversial in TANF, Medicaid and SCHIP, while access to Food Stamps for them was restored last year.

    Robin concluded addressing timing of welfare reform and maybe WIA. The President's State of the Union is January 28, and the President's Budget is due February 3. The questions of war and economic stimulus may affect Congressional processes. Robin admitted many people were wrong about their predictions that Welfare Reform Reauthorization would pass last summer, but she and others are now predicting it would pass in the summer of 2003.

    In responding to a question about exemptions for families with disabilities, Robin said the Senate proposed to exempt those families from work requirements, but the House did not. Right now it is a state option and states like it that way. The Senate proposes more options for states to choose.

UREAP II Next Steps

    Bill shared the UREAP "Make Your Voice Heard in Washington, D.C. Contact Information" sheet. He said changes occur often and noted two that happened this week: Becky Shipp has moved from Senator Hatch's staff to the Senate Finance Committee and Quinn Warnick has left Washington and is now in St. George, although still working for Senator Bennett. This sheet will be available and updated on the UREAP web page, along with state and national links to Welfare Reform and WIA organizations.

    Bill reviewed UREAP Membership status, presently at 25 groups, and encouraged other private or non-profits groups to join. He reiterated that government entities are essential UREAP partners and encouraged participation. He asked DWS Regional Councils to consider membership in UREAP. Members and non-members cooperate to reach common ground UREAP Position Papers, but UREAP members are listed on all correspondence and more are welcome. You can sign up on-line or with a hard-copy form.

    A UREAP meeting schedule was proposed.
 
   PLEASE NOTE: the schedule handed out at the meeting on January 17 HAS BEEN CHANGED!
 
   The UREAP II Meeting Schedule for 2003 will be:
on Tuesdays, rather than Thursdays as suggested at the meeting: Feb. 25, Mar. 25, Apr. 22, May 27, June 24, July 29, Aug. 26, Sept. 23, Oct. 28
Time: 2:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Place: Horizonte Center, 1234 S. Main, SLC, Ed-Net Room in the Library, Room 430.

    Sheila Walsh-McDonald encouraged all interested persons to get on the UREAP email list, whether you join UREAP or not, to be part of the discussion. There are over 425 persons on the UREAP email list.

    Bill and Shirley thanked everyone for attending and the speakers for their excellent presentations.

Next UREAP Meeting: Tuesday, February 25, 2:30 - 4:30, at Horizonte, Room 430.