TANF WORK GROUP

MINUTES

Monday, September 25, 2006

Approved 11/13/06

Members present:  Representatives Mark Larson and Ann Pugh; Senator Diane Snelling (at 9:30 a.m.); 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:  Senator Jeanette White

Also present:  Legislative and Joint Fiscal staff, members of the Administration, and the public

Recording:  CD 2006 – 7, 8, 9

Convene, Review and Approve Minutes

Representative Larson convened the meeting at 9:15 a.m. in Room 11 of the Vermont State House.  Minutes of the August 21, 2006 TANF Work Group meeting were approved, without changes, 5-0-2.

Verification Plan – Review Draft

Documents distributed:

• Draft Verification Plan provided by the Economic Services Division
• Letter from the Disability Law Project to the TANF Work Group provided by Karen Lafayette

Diana Carminati, Welfare-to-Work Programs Director, distributed the draft verification plan.  The purpose of the plan, she explained, is to ensure accurate verification of hours counted toward the work participation rate (WPR).  She also explained that the Division of Economic Services employed a threefold approach to developing the plan.  Specifically, the plan was developed to build on existing practices, be capable of being improved over time, and easy to implement.  She specified that the plan only includes things the division can absolutely do because the state will be held accountable for any implementation problems.  She also indicated that the plan will be negotiated at the regional and national level, and might not be approved until January or February of 2007. 

Diana then walked through the document section by section, highlighting significant changes.  She clarified that verification would be based on a “sampling” method for calculating how many hours were worked.  This would mean the division would have to look at between 450-500 cases, and only those cases would be subject to federal audit.   Upon approval of the plan, sampling would begin around April 2007. 

Paula Gottwik, Senior Policy and Regulatory Attorney-Analyst, Planning, Policy and Regulation, DCF, AHS, explained that the plan was aligned with the new federal requirements related to work activities.  She clarified that the plan applies only to individuals in work activities, and there was now less opportunity for “blending” programs.

Diana explained that final TANF rules may not be available until June 2007 and, until then, the plan must be based on the final interim rules.

Representatives Larson and Pugh recommended that the plan reflect the Work Group’s comments on the interim rules to the extent possible and reflect the broadest interpretation of the rules possible.  This would require the federal HHS to determine which components are not acceptable and ensure that Vermont’s plan is not unnecessarily restrictive.

Specific areas highlighted by Diana and Paula included:

• Flexibility within the plan for using state or federal minimum wage when counting      self-employment hours.
• Modification of current requirements for documenting unpaid work and training activities (based on actual, not scheduled hours)
• Consideration of methods for counting unsupervised homework hours, subject to instructor specifications
• Defining excused absences by the hour, not the day; and counting one day as 8, rather than 6 hours
• Analysis of whether the Simplified Food Stamp Program should be adopted in Vermont (there is concern the sanctions might be too harsh)
• Federal limits on the state’s ability to define who is work eligible
• Additional staff needed for quality control functions, which should not be commingled with direct client services

Representative Ann Pugh expressed a strong desire to have legislative oversight over plan amendments because they would not have the benefit of going through the rulemaking process.

At 11:00 a.m. the Work Group took a 15-Minute Break

Preliminary Recommendations for Priority Policy Areas

Documents distributed:

• Solely State-Funded Options document distributed by the Economic Services Division

Joe Patrissi, Deputy Commissioner for Economic Services Division, DCF, reviewed the “headlines” on the division’s new approach to service delivery, such as:

• Division staffing will now allow greater case management based on the needs of the participants.  Staff ratios will reflect temporary, transitional, and intensive needs: 25, 40, and 30 percent, respectively.
• Additional support services post employment
• Higher income disregards
• Assisting recipients to secure higher paying jobs
• Assisting recipients to secure professional credentials tailored to the individual
• Amending Reach Up statute to allow for greater program flexibility

Ed Cafferty, Community Services Administrator, reviewed the document he distributed and on solely state-funded options.  He explained that solely state-funded programs were one strategy for meeting the WPR.  Essentially, state-funded, nonmaintenance of effort (MOE) programs would allow the state to take families out of the WPR by using state money to provide benefits without claiming it as state spending in the TANF program.  In particular, the state could remove from the program families not likely to meet the work requirements.  By removing them from the denominator (or total of families in Reach Up), the state would have a higher WPR.

Representative Larson expressed an interest in information regarding recipient’s relationship to meeting the work requirement beyond just how many are and how many are not meeting the work requirement.  This would differentiate those that are close to meeting the requirement and those who are not close to meeting the requirement.

Diana Carminati responded that this analysis could be done at the regional level.  She also suggested that accessible community service programs might provide some families the opportunity to meet their work requirements if, for whatever reason, their countable work hours were otherwise not quite high enough in any given time period. 

Deputy Commissioner Patrissi recommended that community group work sites be more accessible and that they provide more meaningful work opportunities so that individuals are engaged and able to grow professionally based on their experiences there.

Representative Ann Pugh suggested the division provide data on the number of children per TANF family. 

Karen Lafayette asked how the division was addressing barriers to employment.  She expressed concern that the state not unfairly sanction individuals who face barriers which could be overcome with relatively modest state assistance.

Break for lunch at 12:20 until 1:15

Maintenance of Effort Analysis and Discussion

Documents distributed:

• TANF – Maintenance of Effort memorandum by Stephanie Barrett

Stephanie Barrett, Joint Fiscal Office, distributed and reviewed her memorandum on excess MOE and replacement MOE strategies for meeting the federal WPR.  She explained that MOE is money the state must show it spends on TANF or TANF-related programs 75 percent of the 1995 level.  She indicated that Vermont has been reporting close to 100 percent.  Pursuing both strategies would mean the state would have to find existing state or local expenditures that could be claimed as MOE in order to “free up” state general funds currently expended in Reach-Up for state-only programs.  The amount needed will depend on the actual state-only programs created but freeing up the entire amount of state funds requires $14 million of alternate MOE expenditures.  Stephanie then reviewed her list of state and local investments that might meet the TANF criteria and be claimable as MOE.  In particular, she indicated that early education programs have been well received at the federal level provided they do not fall under the category of generally available public education monies.

Ed Cafferty indicated that the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation (VSAC) provides scholarships and grants to financially needy students.

Stephanie asked how the use of solely state-funded programs would impact caseload.

Paula Gottwik explained that the state would get a caseload reduction credit only if individuals moved to a solely state-funded program voluntarily, so there must be incentives for the move.  Likewise, however, the state should provide incentives or bonuses to keep in the Reach Up program individuals who are meeting their work requirements.  With respect to moving individuals into solely state-funded programs, Paula cautioned that the state would want to ensure that the move did not adversely affect recipients vis à vis their other benefits.

Deputy Commissioner Patrissi said the Division was working on preferred scenarios to present to the work group, which would include things such as a diversion program.

Representative Larson suggested the work group consider existing MOE, new investments that could count as MOE, and current TANF dollars to help the state make determinations about where new investments should go. 

Deputy Commissioner Patrissi indicated that Vermont’s caseload has been following a linear regression.  The availability of money for reinvestment in the Reach Up program, however, would depend on caseload and the cost per case.

Representative Larson suggested items for the next and final TANF Work Group meeting:

• Draft recommendations by Legislative Council
• Update on division’s headlines
• Division’s preferred scenarios relative to MOE
• Update on status of proposed rules
• Federal response to comments submitted on interim final rules
• Update on verification plan
• Other relevant evaluations by the Division

Future Meeting Planning

The Work Group agreed to meet Monday, November 13, beginning at 9:00 a.m.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Maria Royle

Legislative Council