TANF WORK GROUP
MINUTES
Monday, August 21, 2006
Approved 9/25/06
Members present: Representatives Mark Larson and, at 11:00 a.m., Ann Pugh; Senators Diane Snelling and Jeanette White; Maureen O’Reilly, Vermont Legal Aid; Joe Patrissi, Deputy Commissioner for Economic Services, Department for Children and Families; Karen Lafayette, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council
Members Absent: None
Also present: Legislative and Joint Fiscal staff, members of the Administration, and the public
Recording: CD 2006 – 3, 4, 5, 6
Convene, Review and Approve Minutes
Representative Larson convened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. in Room 10 of the Vermont State House. Minutes of the July 25, 2006 TANF Work Group meeting were approved, without changes, 6-0-1.
Brief Review: New TANF Requirements; Reach Up law; Funds/MOE
Documents distributed:
· Packet of hand-outs provided by the Economic Services Division: specifically, the maintenance of effort (MOE) information was reviewed
Robin Lunge, Legislative Counsel, provided an overview of the new TANF requirements, focusing on the four major areas of change. Those areas include the work participation rate (WPR), which is now calculated using a different comparison year; the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement, which broadens the criteria of what counts toward MOE; separate state programs (SSP), e.g., postsecondary programs, which, if counted under MOE, must be included in the WPR (Robin explained that some states are considering creating separate state-funded programs and not counting them as MOE); and work activities and verification procedures, which have been defined in regulations.
Paula Gottwik, Senior Policy and Regulatory Attorney-Analyst, Planning, Policy and Regulation, DCF, AHS, added that, regarding the WPR, our rates are really affected for two reasons: first, because all families who are in separate state programs will be included in the WPR; and second, because there is a change in how caseload reduction credit (CRC) is calculated for base year, which renders the state basically no CRC.
Paula then reviewed TANF MOE information. She explained that the MOE is determined by a calculation based on what states spent on ANFC or AFDC programs. The 80- and 75-percent levels are important because the latter is the minimum a state has to spend on MOE; the former is what the state has to spend if it fails to meet the participation rates. Current advice is to try to maintain the 80-percent level. Paula explained that in 2005 we exceeded the
80-percent level, and she offered that perhaps the state no longer wants to claim it all as MOE but instead use it in solely state-funded programs. Paula also explained that MOE can be used for one of the four TANF purposes, but cannot be used as match money to bring down other federal funds. Paula also reviewed total state MOE expenditures under the program for FFY ‘05 and the total number of families served under the program (see packet pp. 1-2 (a) – (g)).
Mark Larson asked if the Reauthorization added new categories to what can be part of MOE?
Lee Posey of the National Conference of State Legislatures explained that there was a change that allows spending which is reasonably related to TANF purposes 3 and 4 to count as MOE without an income eligibility requirement in the program.
Representative Larson asked how many new families will get included in the WPR calculation?
Paula Gottwik explained that those families participating in Reach Up Parental Nurturing (RUPN), Reach Up Safety Net (RUSN) for minor parents, and postsecondary education programs (PSE) would be added.
Representative Larson then asked what the impact will be of adding families currently in
state-only MOE into the WPR?
Diana Carminati, Welfare-to-Work Programs Director, explained that approximately 400 more people would be included in the denominator, which currently includes about 3,200 people.
Representative Larson noted that of the anticipated 3,600 people, 1,800 will need to meet the work requirement and with the additional 400 new people added to the existing 350 two-parent families, we are fast approaching the 50-percent level of 1,800.
Joe Patrissi, Deputy Commissioner for Economic Services, added that there is also a significant number of disabled people who might not be able to meet the WPR.
Reach Up Redesign Group Report; District Office Feedback
Documents distributed:
· Packet of hand-outs provided by the Economic Services Division, DCF: specifically, the draft component comparison template for funding planning and the Reach Up redesign common themes and references to existing laws were reviewed
· Reach Up Redesign Advisory Group Meeting 8/9/06 Major Points
Diana Carminati reviewed the draft component comparison template for funding planning and suggested that this document be used as a standardized format for providing an analysis of the various Reach Up program components.
Representative Larson indicated that that was a great idea and further suggested that the template include “shades of gray,” that is, an assessment within each component of the participants to determine who is or is not close to meeting the work requirement. This might help the State to design programs in a way that assists individuals with getting to the next level. He also suggested that the department assess the impact on the CRC for MOE spending above 80 percent.
Deputy Commissioner Patrissi reviewed the common themes that resulted from the Reach Up redesign district planning process. He began by explaining that this process was initiated in April of 2006 at the direction of Commissioner Dale, who asked that the districts provide the DCF with recommendations by July. In general, he explained, the districts recognized that helping recipients to secure and retain higher paying jobs by offering necessary support services is key to moving families out of poverty. He also conveyed the view that districts may benefit from having greater discretionary authority at the local level with respect to authorizing monetary disbursements based on a particular client’s need. He mentioned, as well, a troubling tendency for TANF caseworkers, who often need to respond to the need for immediate benefits in emergency circumstances, to become overly involved with other benefit programs, such as general assistance and food stamps, and that, as a result, they have only a limited amount of time to do proper TANF casework. Deputy Commissioner Patrissi reviewed as well some of the other district proposals, include those relating to providing clients with a one-time lump sum payment, diversion programs, and sanction policies and penalties.
Regarding penalties, Diana Carminati mentioned that a small number of TANF recipients have stated they would never comply with program requirements, because they feel it is necessary to stay at home with their children. Under the current statute, an individual would receive a reduced grant if he or she did not comply, and some case workers felt that the reduction was not a sufficient incentive.
There was then general discussion on how it might be possible for the State to promote positive rather than negative behavior. Suggestions included creating a loan program, permitting individuals to obtain a “hardship” driver’s license for going to work, addressing the three major infrastructure issues (child care, transportation, and housing), and eliminating the “phases” current set up in rule.
Deputy Commissioner Patrissi then handed out a summary of the major points made at the first big Reach Up Redesign advisory group meeting and indicated that he would also provide the TANF Work Group with a list of advisory group members and the proposed work groups.
The Work Group took a 15-minute break beginning at 10:15 a.m.
TANF Innovations in Other States
Documents distributed:
· State options to strengthen TANF programs and increase work participation rates, National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
· Hard copy of power point presentation entitled, Maintaining TANF Flexibility in Vermont, Lee Posey and Jack Tweedie, NCSL
(Phone participants: Jack Tweedie, Elizabeth Lower-Bash, Karin Martinson)
Lee Posey and Jack Tweedie (via telephone) provided a power point presentation on how Vermont could maintain state flexibility. In particular, they reviewed three broad strategies for meeting the new work participation requirements, including work engagement strategies,
take-out strategies (state-funded, non-MOE programs), and post-employment (Add-in) strategies.
Jack clarified that, under federal law, state spending means “nonfederal” money and therefore may include local or school spending. The state just needs to obtain a letter of agreement verifying that the money is being spent for an allowable purpose.
In general, Jack also explained that some strategies create greater flexibility but do not necessarily lead to better outcomes, whereas others do both. The new federal requirements should be viewed, he suggested, as an opportunity to strengthen Vermont’s TANF program.
Lee indicated that there was some flexibility with regard to pursuing different strategies within the federal fiscal year and also over a period of years.
Brainstorming: Innovative Ideas (Group Discussion)
Representative Larson suggested that all the phone participants join in a group discussion regarding strategies.
The phone participants included: Pamela Holcomb, Urban Institute; Karin Martinson, Urban Institute; Elizabeth Lower-Basch, CLASP; Liz Schott, CBPP ?
Suggested strategies included:
· Transitional job strategy for hard-to-employ individuals who work in subsidized employment, such as the Philadelphia Work Corporation (PWC) and programs in WA.
· Subsidized employment – 6-month reporting
· Combine work and school (PSE), such as internships (Kentucky)
· Minnesota work diversion program (4 months, still get child care and food stamps); designed to increase work participation, gives you time to figure out where you want to place families.
· Job search supervision (daily supervision is difficult in rural areas)
- Reasonable supervision for job search; e.g., report every couple of days,
- Intent of HHS, though, is intensive supervision in this area
- But be bold initially or will never know the limits of federal law
- Link with higher paying jobs, if possible
· Child-support area: eliminate or increase pass-through; tax interception
· Partner with employers: training options
· Work with community colleges: short courses geared to jobs in area, see, e.g., Portland (Oregon) Community College web site; combine job training with basic education; study hours is a general problem
· Take families off with postemployment assistance, increase caseload reduction credit; postemployment services = family on = increase in meeting work rates and increase outcomes
· Issue: eligibility changes versus new eligibility; choose between state-funded non-MOE or TANF MOE program; count as CRC instead of WPR
In discussing the various strategies, Jack Tweedie suggested that Vermont design programs first according to what will help people get out of poverty and then look at the numbers, i.e., what the state needs to do to meet the rates.
Diana Carminati offered that programs need to look at individual families and their needs, such as job flexibility to meet the needs of children, and not just focus on helping individuals to build a career path. For example, being a teacher’s aide is a great job for some parents because it allows them to be off work when the children are out of school.
Deputy Commissioner Patrissi noted that prevention is critical when working with children, and programs should coordinate with the child development division, the school system, and substance abuse and mental health programs. Many TANF recipients are working single parents of latch key kids, resulting in a lack of supervision for children that often leads to trouble, and making it difficult for parents to focus on work. Moreover, there is a lack of community supports in the existing system, and this affects how a family self-actualizes.
Senator White offered that it was imperative to look at why people are in poverty so that we can direct resources effectively.
Representative Larson indicated that the Work Group needed to develop a plan of action.
Suggestions for a plan of action included:
· The most programmatically involved people should make a recommendation to the Work Group.
· Late September, review of verification compliance plan. Following meetings should include the Department’s proposals on programmatic changes.
· Additional work on the template provided by the Economic Services Division
Jack Tweedie indicated he would be happy to come to Vermont in the future and assist the Work Group.
Work Group broke for lunch at 12:30 p.m. (45 minutes)
Group Discussion Continued
Documents distributed:
· Analysis of California’s work participation rate, Donna Pavetti, Mathematica
Representative Pugh said it would be helpful to hear from families currently participating in Reach Up to determine what is working for them and what barriers they face.
Representative Larson stated that topics that should be pursued include: (1) options table (division template); (2) analysis of the “shades of gray”; and (3) a financial analysis of what new spending could be included in MOE. He also suggested that we consider how well the state currently measures outcomes and documents work participation.
Karen Lafayette suggested that the State take a comprehensive look at staffing and funding issues.
Review and Discuss Draft Comments on TANF Proposed Rules
Documents Distributed:
· Draft Comments on the TANF Rules prepared by Robin Lunge and Maria Royle, Legislative Council
Robin Lunge provided an overview of the draft comments, beginning with general comments and then moving on to specific comments.
In general, the Work Group was pleased with the comments. Suggestions included indicating, where appropriate, that research supports the Group’s comments, including a specific statement that the time frame would require Vermont to count work activities in a way that conflicts with state law, including social work as another example of education with an internship requirement, modifying the terms used around substance abuse, and emphasizing the need for blending activities.
Paula Gottwik then reviewed the comments provided in the Economic Services Division hand-out.
Representative Larson suggested a revised version of the Work Group’s draft comments be distributed by Wednesday, August 23, and any further comments be submitted to Legislative Council by Friday, August 25.
The Work Group concluded by addressing topics for the next meeting, which include:
· Work on template around major program areas
· “Shades of gray” information
· Department and JFO analysis of excess MOE ideas
· Department proposals and recommendations
· Assessment of staffing and resource needs
· Public testimony
· Review of draft verification plan
Future Meeting Planning
The Work Group agreed to meet Monday, September 25, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Maria Royle and Robin Lunge
Legislative Council