Welfare Reform: Unintended Consequences for Utah Counties

CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION University of Utah

WELFARE REFORM INITIATIVE

Authors: Shirley A. Weathers, Ph.D. William P. Walsh, Jr. Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies with Hillary Diamond, Graduate Research Assistant Center for Public Policy and Administration

Project Staff: Center for Public Policy and Administration

James J. Gosling, Director and Professor of Political Science Laurie N. DiPadova, Policy Fellow and Principal Investigator Sara McCormick, Project Specialist Sopon Permpoonwiwat, Graduate Intern

Thrasher Research Fund Victor Brown, President and CEO

Financial supporters of this project and report: Salt Lake County Government/Community Development Block Grant Utah Association of Counties

Financial supporters of CPPA===s Welfare Reform Initiative: Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Humanitarian Service Holy Cross Ministries IHC Foundation Intermountain Health Care, Mission Services Thrasher Research Fund Utah Department of Human Services Utah Department of Workforce Services

COPYRIGHT 8 2000 by the Center for Public Policy and Administration Center for Public Policy and Administration Welfare Reform Initiative Advisory Committee

Pamela Atkinson, IHC Mission Services

Amanda Barusch, Social Research Institute, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah

Victor Brown, Thrasher Research Fund

Laurie DiPadova, Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

Jim Gosling, Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

Garth Mangum, Department of Economics, University of Utah

Sara McCormick, Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

Roz McGee, Utah Children

Lloyd Pendleton, Humanitarian Service, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Pam Perlich, Demographic & Economic Analysis, Governor's Office of Planning & Budget, State of Utah

Ross Reeve, Demographic & Economic Analysis, Governor's Office of Planning & Budget, State of Utah

Thayne Robson, Bureau of Economic & Business Research, University of Utah

Kerry Steadman, Salt Lake County Department of Human Services

Mary Jane Taylor, Social Research Institute, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah

Bill Walsh, Walsh & Weathers Research & Policy Studies

Shirley Weathers, Walsh & Weathers Research & Policy Studies

Cathy Zick, Family & Consumer Studies, University of Utah TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ...... v

Abbreviations ...... vi

Prioritized Recommendations by Responsible Entity ...... vii

Executive Summary ...... Executive Summary 1

I. Introduction ...... 1

II. Methodology ...... 9

III. Findings ...... 11

Who is responsible for families with dependent children enrolled in the Family Employment Program after time limits take effect? ...... 11

In your program service area, what will your agency do if there is increased demand for services? ...... 14

Agency prospects of increasing resources to meet increased need...... 16

If the economy worsens, how will your program be likely to respond? ...... 17

Critical shortages of resources needed for self-sufficiency ...... 18

Specific federal or state welfare policy concerns ...... 19

Implementation concerns ...... 22

IV. Key problem areas and possible recommendations for solutions ...... 27

Selected References ...... 37

Appendix A: Selected profiles of Utah===s twenty-nine counties ...... 39

Appendix B: National Association of Counties Human Services and Education Steering Committee Resolutions...... 45

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Center for Public Policy and Administration conducted focus groups regarding welfare reform in the summer of 1999. Thirty-six county elected and appointed officials across the state attended. Without question, we owe these people an enthusiastic expression of thanks. Our promise of anonymity prevents us from naming them, but that does not diminish our gratitude.

We would also like to acknowledge the following individuals who assisted us with possible names for focus group invitation lists: Judy Kasten Bell, Nancy Bentley, Barbara Dougherty, Linda Hilton, Beth Cottam, and Jolaine Randall.

These focus groups would not have taken place without the interest and help of Kerry Steadman, Director of Salt Lake County Human Services Department. We thank him for his time, advice, and inspiration for this project. We also express our appreciation to Salt Lake County government, which provided Community Development Block Grant funds to the Center for Public Policy and Administration=s Welfare Reform Initiative to research the impact of welfare reform on counties in Utah.

v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABAWD Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents (Policy) AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Program) CHIP Child Health Insurance Program DWS Utah Department of Workforce Services FEP Family Employment Program GA General Assistance (Program) PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act SRI Social Research Institute SSDI Social Security Disability Income SSI Supplemental Security Income (Program) TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Program) UAC Utah Association of Counties

vi PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE ENTITY

The Welfare Reform Initiative of the Center for Public Policy and Administration (CPPA), under contract with Salt Lake County, conducted focus groups of country elected and appointed officials in the five Department of Workforce Services (DWS) regions in July and August 1999 and presents findings in the current report, Welfare Reform: Unintended Consequences for Utah Counties. At the request of the funder, researchers synthesized problem statements and, utilizing respondent information and, in consultation with key county and DWS officials, developed recommendations for solutions. Not surprisingly, that exercise yielded suggestions for actions by a number of different entities in the state, as well as those on the national level. Below are the recommendations, grouped by entity to which they are addressed and placed in priority order by CPPA, which in part reflects the relative immediacy of the recommendation. Where a recommendation indicates a joint action by two or more entities, it appears in the section for each of those entities. A more detailed discussion of problems and their corresponding recommendations can be found in the body of this report.

County government entities

Near-term actions

Recommendation #2: That County Commissioners redouble their efforts to attend and participate in Regional Workforce Services Council meetings to ensure that they are part of the monitoring and decision-making process.

Recommendation #1: That the Utah Association of Counties (UAC) work with the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) to increase Regional Workforce Services Council authority to facilitate broader-based local planning, problem-identification, problem-solving, and implementation of policies and practices.

Recommendation #26: That DWS collaborate with local and state entities to develop special job preparation and transitional skill developing projects in counties and areas such as Indian Reservations where unemployment rates are significantly above the statewide average. DWS should take advantage of local flexibility granted by PRWORA to make decisions based on local circumstances and cultural realities.

vii Longer-term actions

Recommendation #25: That individual county commissioners in high unemployment areas of the state become involved in working with DWS Employment Centers and private sector employers to address unique situations facing FEP families and other needy individuals. This should include seeking ways within the work first environment for clients to obtain training for existing jobs.

Recommendation #22: That UAC work with the Department of Community and Economic Development to encourage a substantial increase in the affordable housing stock throughout the state.

Recommendation #3: That the UAC Health and Human Services Committee review the Family Employment Program State Plan and identify possible ways for county commissioners and/or county service providers to work with DWS to maximize program performance and customize program operation to local needs and circumstances.

Recommendation #5: That the UAC Health and Human Services Committee examine the memberships of all Regional Workforce Services Councils to ensure that both the religious and nonreligious charitable sectors are represented, as well as the private sector employers and any other appropriate entities.

Recommendation #20: That the UAC Health and Human Services Committee develop a strategy using county resources to assist the Departments of Workforce Services, Health, and Human Services, and the Division of Child and Family Services to publicize the toll-free numbers of their constituent services representatives.

Department of Workforce Services

Near-term actions

Recommendation #13: That DWS finalize and implement policy governing applications for hardship extensions by families whose cases have been closed due to time limits.

viii Recommendation #8: That DWS set up a mechanism to systematically track families who leave the welfare rolls for any reason or who are diverted from enrolling and analyze the results of the tracking.

Recommendation #9: That DWS commission a study to track families who left the welfare rolls or were diverted from enrolling during the first three years of FEP.

Longer-term actions

Recommendation #1: That the Utah Association of Counties work with the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) to increase Regional Workforce Services Council authority to facilitate broader-based local planning, problem-identification, problem-solving, and implementation of policies and practices.

Recommendation #17: That DWS formulate policy that articulates and directs agency practices required by the agency=s significant and essential role in providing emergency assistance to needy families and individuals, as related to, but distinct from, its employment role.

ix Recommendation #4: That DWS ensure that Regional Workforce Services Council meetings include a substantive, clearly defined and regularized agenda component devoted to considering the various assistance programs designed to support Utah=s vulnerable families and individuals. Data reflecting the status of families and program utilization statewide and by DWS region should be prepared and reported at these meetings.

Recommendation #11: That DWS establish a knowledgeable, broad-based task force to gather information related to potentially problematic provisions and implementation issues and develop possible solutions where needed.

Recommendation #21: That DWS develop a broader publicity campaign about the resources and functions of constituent services representatives. This process should involve the entire community of service providers and their clients. In conjunction, a process should be established whereby constituent services representatives report on problems brought to them, including solutions devised and unresolved problems. Results should be considered by program administrators so that appropriate steps can be taken to improve services.

Recommendation #16: That DWS develop a strategy to educate community resources, lawmakers, and others about key welfare changes and essential rules and regulations.

The following recommendations have not been broken into near-term or longer- term actions due to the relatively small number directed to each entity.

Governor Leavitt

Recommendation #14: That Governor Leavitt, as Chair of the National Governors= Association, initiate efforts to a) allow states to repeal the A20 percent extension@ provision in their state statutes and replace it with an extension provision based on individual family circumstances, thereby ensuring that the total number of extensions would not be limited, and b) amend PRWORA to address this and other unintended consequences of welfare reform when the Act comes up for reauthorization.

x Utah Legislature

Recommendation #24: That the Utah Legislature amend the Utah law to provide for extensions of financial assistance beyond 36-months to families who live in counties or areas with unemployment rates above the state average and reach their time limits without being able to find family-sustaining jobs.

Recommendation #10: That the Utah Legislature, during the 2000 Interim, study ways to provide more time to assist families reaching time limits.

Departments of Health and Human Services

Recommendation #15: That DWS, in collaboration with the Departments of Health and Human Services, investigate whether current and former FEP families, diverted families, and other needy individuals are utilizing available assistance programs. To correct under-utilization problems that may be identified, strategies should be devised, shared with elected decision-makers and the public, and implemented.

Department of Community and Economic Development

Recommendation #22: That UAC work with the Department of Community and Economic Development to encourage a substantial increase in the affordable housing stock throughout the state.

Local government and other local entities

xi Community-based organizations

United States Congress and the Executive Branch

Recommendation #27: That Congress and the Administration impanel a Blue Ribbon Committee to study state experiences as they have implemented PRWORA and other related legislation, identify pertinent problems, and offer recommendations to resolve unintended, negative consequences of welfare reform.

Private sector employers

Center for Public Policy and Administration

Recommendation #28: That CPPA or another appropriate entity be responsible for assessing action on the above recommendations in twelve months.

xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background on Welfare Reform

Also in 1996, the Utah Legislature passed its own welfare reform law; additional changes required for compliance with PRWORA were passed the following year. Utah=s TANF programBthe Family Employment Program or FEPBwas established. FEP=s work-focus is more intensive than that required by TANF. The federal law requires work after 24 months to continue receiving financial assistance, families enrolling in Utah=s FEP must begin participation in work- related activities almost immediately. Also, Utah lawmakers elected to shorten the lifetime limit on FEP to 36 months, two years less than the limit imposed by Congress. Mirroring the federal law, there is a A20 percent extension@ in the Utah law intended to assist families with severe employment barriers. Neither statute addresses the fact that the extension pool is finite and therefore, eventually will be depleted. The Utah law creates an additional type of extension for families still income-eligible for FEP, but who have been working part-time. These extensions last as long as the recipient continues to work. All extensions are month-to-month.

Initially, the big news about these welfare changes has centered on impressive reductions in the number of families enrolled in TANF programs. These reductions have been cited by both state and national elected officials and program administrators as evidence that welfare reform is working. Certainly, the old system needed to be reformed and there are success stories among those who have left welfare.

Charitable and county government service providers are finding they must focus their attention on those who do not fare so well under welfare changes. Across the nation, information indicates that falling enrollments in TANF and other federal assistance programs are coinciding with increased requests for services from other entities. While welfare caseloads are declining, demand at food pantriesBboth within the charitable sector and on the local government levelBis increasing, in some places, dramatically. Increases in requests for other kinds of help are gradually gaining attention, as well. Concern is growing that demands may outstrip capacity. What is even more troubling is that this has been occurring during an exceptionally strong economy and, in Utah, months before the state's 36-month lifetime limit on the receipt of TANF assistance has been reached by any families.

Executive Summary 1 Focus Groups

Salt Lake County contracted with the Center for Public Policy and Administration (CPPA) of the University of Utah to take a first look at the impact of welfare reform on counties throughout the state. CPPA is already involved in ongoing research of the impacts of welfare change on the charitable sector. This report summarizes the results of focus groups with elected and appointed county officials regarding welfare reform and TANF eligible families.

Five focus groups were conducted during July and August of 1999Bone in each of the Department of Workforce Services' Regions. A total of thirty-six officials attended, many of whom were well informed about changes required by PRWORA and Utah's own welfare laws.

Problems and Recommendations

Focus group participant views of welfare reformBincluding much acclaimed caseload reductionsBare not particularly optimistic. They voiced specific concerns about welfare policies, but researchers noted that a significant share of what focus group members found disturbing were unintended consequences of welfare changes. These include impacts on individuals, families, and the various entities with whom they come in contact that may not have been anticipated by lawmakers. Taken together, participant answers to facilitators= questions and interchange with each other surfaced a number of specific problems.

At the request of our primarily funder, Salt Lake County Government, the problems raised by the focus groups are synthesized below and followed by recommendations. The recommendations are based on focus group participant input and more fully developed by the researchers, in consultation with key county and DWS officials. The primary goal of both problem statements and recommendations is to assist public policy-makers and others to focus on unintended negative consequences of welfare changes and facilitate necessary corrective action.

Although all of these problems have bearing on county government, solutions to problems and concerns of such complexity require action by various entities. County Commissioners or other county entities, including the Utah Association of Counties, are named as key players in Recommendations 1-3, 5, 18-20, 22 and 25 and as partners in Recommendations 6, 7, 11, 21, and 26. Other recommendations would require action by or participation of the Utah Department of Workforce Services, other state agencies, the Utah Legislature, Governor Leavitt, other local government entities, low-income advocacy groups, information and referral agencies, education and training providers, research entities, faith-based and non-faith-based charitable organizations, private sector employers, clients, andBfor solutions that can be devised only on the national levelBCongress and the President. Undoubtedly, more recommendations can and will be formulated beyond this work. It is hoped that these will be helpful to those dealing with welfare reform-related issues across the state.

The following are abbreviated problem statements and recommendations. Additional details are found in the body of the report.

Executive Summary 2 Problem: A higher degree of information-sharing, cooperation, and collaboration among all entities offering services to TANF/FEP families than currently exists is needed to strengthen families and support their self-sufficiency efforts and stability.

Recommendation #4: That DWS ensure that Regional Workforce Services Council meetings include a substantive, clearly defined and regularized agenda component devoted to considering the various assistance programs designed to support Utah=s vulnerable families and individuals. Data reflecting the status of families and program utilization statewide and by DWS region should be prepared and reported at these meetings.

Executive Summary 3 Problem: Little is known about the circumstances of Utah families who have left welfareBwhether for work or other reasons.

Recommendation #8: That DWS set up a mechanism to systematically track families who leave the welfare rolls for any reason or who are diverted from enrolling and analyze the results of the tracking.

Recommendation #9: That DWS commission a study to track families who left the welfare rolls or were diverted from enrolling during the first three years of FEP.

Problem: The implementation of PRWORA has tremendously challenged administering agencies in all states. However, states with shorter time limits than the federally mandated 60 months have been forced to compress necessary tasks and system implementation even more, making it difficult to identify and address statutory, policy-level, or implementation difficulties before time limits begin to affect families.

Recommendation #10: That the Utah Legislature, during the 2000 Interim, study ways to provide more time to assist families reaching time limits.

Problem: The A20 percent extension@ provision in the Congressional and Utah law is not adequate to protect families with serious work barriers and those who are unable to become self-sustaining.

Recommendation #13: That DWS finalize and implement policy governing applications for hardship extensions by families whose cases have been closed due to time limits.

Executive Summary 4 Problem: Increased pressure on emergency food and other services seem to indicate that some families and individuals who have left the welfare rolls have not reached self-reliance, contrary to the public impression created by declining caseloads.

Recommendation #15: That DWS, in collaboration with the Departments of Health and Human Services, investigate whether current and former FEP families, diverted families, and other needy individuals are utilizing available assistance programs. To correct under-utilization problems that may be identified, strategies should be devised, shared with elected decision-makers and the public, and implemented.

Problem: Clients, county and charitable service providers, decision-makers, and the public are not adequately informed about welfare changes, policies, and practices.

Recommendation #16: That DWS develop a strategy to educate community resources, lawmakers, and others about key welfare changes and essential rules and regulations.

Recommendation #17: That DWS formulate policy that clarifies the agency=s significant and essential role in providing emergency assistance to needy families and individuals.

Problem: Available resources do not appear sufficient to cover the needs of individuals and families now that federal resources are more limited; these deficiencies are exacerbated by lack of information about the extent and whereabouts of the help that exists.

Problem: Program and departmental rules and operations are difficult and people using those services are not necessarily informed about who may be able to help them.

Executive Summary 5 Recommendation #21: That DWS develop a broader publicity campaign about the resources and functions of constituent services representatives. This process should involve the entire community of service providers and their clients. In conjunction, a process should be established whereby constituent services representatives report on problems brought to them, including solutions devised and unresolved problems. Results should be considered by program administrators so that appropriate steps can be taken to improve services.

Problem: There is a critical shortage of affordable housing throughout Utah.

Recommendation #22: That UAC work with the Department of Community and Economic Development to encourage a substantial increase in the affordable housing stock throughout the state.

Problem: The work-first focus of welfare reform is swelling the ranks of the working poor while shrinking TANF caseloads. As a result, the problem of poverty is not being addressed.

Problem: There are some parts of the state where the challenges for welfare recipients seeking work are significantly greater than statewide economic indicators reflect, yet both federal and state law ignore local job market conditions in specifying job search and work participation requirements.

Executive Summary 6 Recommendation #26: That DWS collaborate with local and state entities to develop special job preparation and transitional skill developing projects in counties and areas such as Indian Reservations where unemployment rates are significantly above the statewide average. DWS should take advantage of local flexibility granted by PRWORA to make decisions based on local circumstances and cultural realities.

Problem: A number of problems with welfare changes being experienced in Utah are beyond the power of state entities to solve, rather they will require Congressional action.

In conclusion, at the request of our funder,

Recommendation #28: That CPPA or another appropriate entity be responsible for assessing action on the above recommendations in twelve months.

Executive Summary 7 This page intentionally left blank.

Executive Summary 8 I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of qualitative research on the impact of welfare reform on county human services programs. Under a contract with Salt Lake County government, the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Utah conducted a series of focus groups involving elected and appointed officials. This report summarizes their observations and ideas as reported during those meetings.

Background on welfare reform

Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996. Among other changes, the Act replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)Ban entitlement programBwith Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)Ba block granted program focused on employment. PRWORA devolved a great deal of policy-making responsibilities to the states, but Congress prescribed several important rules, including a maximum lifetime limit on financial assistance of 60 months. A limited number (constituting 20 percent of the average caseload) of extensions beyond time limits can be granted to families meeting Ahardship@ criteria with respect to their ability to work. PRWORA reduced federal financial commitment to a number of other assistance programs for the poor. In the Food Stamp Program, this was accomplished largely by restricting eligibility, such as by excluding most legal immigrants and instituting time limits for childless adults, and by reducing benefits across-the-board for remaining Food Stamp households. Some children and adults lost eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Child Care was block granted, but eligibility is still based on income and is not subject to time limits. Medicaid was not affected by PRWORA. Families who lose TANF assistance due to time limits may be covered by Medicaid if they still meet the other requirements.

1 intensive than that required by TANF. Whereas, the federal law requires work after 24 months of receiving financial assistance, families enrolling in FEP must begin developing an employment plan before their assistance case is opened and start participating in work-related activities as soon as their plan specifies. Also, Utah lawmakers elected to shorten the FEP lifetime limit to 36 months, two years less than the limit imposed by Congress in PRWORA. Mirroring the federal law, there is a A20 percent extension@ in the Utah law intended to assist families with severe employment barriers. Neither statute addresses the fact that the extension pool is statutorily finite and therefore, eventually will be depleted. The Utah law goes beyond PRWORA by allowing extensions to time limits for families still income-eligible for FEP, but who have been working part-time. These extensions last as long as the recipient continues to work. They are not counted in the A20 percent extension@ calculation.

Initially, major pronouncements about these welfare changes have centered on large reductions in the number of families enrolled in TANF programs. These reductions have been cited by both state and national elected officials and program administrators as evidence that welfare reform is working (Kamen, 1999). Certainly, the old system needed to be reformed and there are success stories among those who have left welfare. However, as time goes on, other information calls for caution in enthusiasm for the new system and legitimate concern in some sectors.

The impact of welfare reformBwhat is emerging and what is not known

Despite word of success, charitable and county government service providers are finding they must focus their attention on those who do not fare so well under welfare reform. Across the nation, information indicates that falling enrollments in TANF and other federal assistance programs are coinciding with increased requests for services from other entities (Byram, 1998). While welfare caseloads are declining, demand at food pantriesBboth within the charitable sector and on the local government levelBis increasing, in some places, dramatically (Wynder, 1998). Increases in requests for other kinds of help are gradually gaining attention, as well. Concern is growing that needs may outstrip the capacity to meet them. What is even more troubling is that

2 this escalation has been occurring during an exceptionally strong economy and, in Utah, months before the state's 36-month lifetime limit on the receipt of TANF assistance has been reached by any families.

It is impossible to ascertain the exact impact of welfare changes on the various programs and services available because this would require a solid understanding of family circumstances. It would be necessary to know the current status of families who have left the rolls for any reason and those who have chosen not to apply, as well as those who will leave welfare in the future. Whether or not they have become self-reliant has a great deal to do with what unmet needs they may have and what services they may seek to fulfill those needs. However, little information about these families is available or being gathered. From October 1996 to October 1999, Utah=s FEP caseload fell by 30 percent, from 12,946 to 9,082 (Utah Department of Administrative Services, 1999; Utah Department of Workforce Services, 1999). This is a difference of 3,864 families. Since the average size of these families is three (one adult, usually a single mother, and two children), the information gap involves more than 11,000 Utahns, including around 7,700 children.

While the new focus on employment and an extraordinarily strong economy seem to have worked together to reduce caseloads and move welfare recipients into the workplace, studies in other states show that wages are generally very low, and jobs are often unstable, sporadic, or part-time (National Governor=s Association, 1998). In short, many of those who have left welfare for work during economic boom times have joined the ranks of the working poor and are quite far from being self-reliant.

A combination of welfare changes and a variety of other complex factors are causing reductions in Utah=s welfare population. For example, each month, nearly 150 families who would be eligible for FEP choose instead to receive a sum of moneyBa Adiversion payment@Brather than to enroll. Families sanctioned for non-participation, 55 to 108 per month between July 1998 and June 1999, had their cases closed. Of the approximately 1,000 families sanctioned during that year, 20 percent have been reinstated; the remaining 80 percent have not

3 reapplied. Studies of sanctioned families being done in other states reveal a greater tendency toward unemployment among this group (Janzen, 1999). As December 31, 1999 approachesBthe date when the first wave of Utah families will reach their 36-month lifetime limit on the receipt of financial assistanceBsubstantial numbers of them are leaving. Some may be finding jobs. Others may be closing their cases voluntarily, Abanking@ the months they have left in case times get harder in the future. Many other scenarios are possible, but there is no factual information about either this group of Awelfare leavers@ or any of the other groups described above.

In fact, most of Utah=s families who have left the FEP rolls are not being monitored or tracked; therefore, service providers lack data to plan for what these families may need. Thus far, the state of Utah is supporting one tracking effort that involves 100 former recipient families and in January 2000 will survey 50 of the first families whose cases close due to time limits. Although important information is expected from this project, the sample size and the study=s focus on only long-term families suggest more will be needed. To the extent that families somehow have been able to take advantage of Utah=s economic good times and have left the rolls, they are likely to need less assistance from other sources. If, on the other hand, they are marginally employed, underemployed, or unemployed, the chances are good that they are part of the new wave of people driving the large increases being reported by both charitable and local government service providers across the state. Until more extensive data is collected, the interplay between welfare reform and the assistance provided by the charitable sector and local government entities can only be guessed.

Terminations due to Utah===s lifetime limits

Lifetime limits on financial assistance passed into law in 1996 are expected to place additional pressure for services on other service providers as an important option for families is closed off. The first Utah families will be affected on December 31, 1999. Comprehensive research involving long-term families was released by the University of Utah=s Social Research Institute (SRI) in February 1999. SRI=s study found that the vast majority of welfare recipients who stay on welfare for 36 or more months have one or more substantial barriers to self-

4 sufficiency. Thirty percent of the sample surveyed had a work-related barrier, 32 percent had an educational barrier, and many had family barriers, such as 42 percent with a child with health problems and 74 percent with a history of domestic violence. Nineteen percent had all three types of barriers (Barusch and Taylor, 1999).

The Utah Department of Workforce Services (DWS) is watching closely as this first group of families moves toward their lifetime limits on December 31, 1999. As of December 15, 1999, 397 FEP families statewide were in this group, and case managers predicted various outcomes depending on families= eligibility for extensions. As noted above, Utah law allows extensions to time limits on a month-to-month basis, either because recipients meet certain employment minimums for hours and months worked, or because they have particular Ahardship@ barriers to employment. Of this Afirst wave@ of 397 families to reach time limits, an estimated 43 families appear to qualify for employment extensions. It appears that another 133 families could qualify for a hardship extension under one of the four specific allowable criteria as follows: 118 because of medical problems, ten due to medical needs of a dependent, five because of a domestic violence situation that prevents work, and none because the parent is under age 19. A fifth criterion is designed to respond to certain other extraordinary circumstances and 37 families were thought likely to receive that type of extension. Of the remaining 184 families counted in the Afirst wave@ of families to hit time limits, 33 are predicted to be earning enough that their cases would close before December 31. The final 151 families are likely to have their cases closed due to the time limit because they do not appear to qualify for extensions under any of the criteria (DWS, 1999).

The breakdown by DWS region of this same group of 397 families and the number predicted to close without extensions are the following:

$ 108 reaching time limits in the Northern region (Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Morgan, Rich, and Weber Counties); 37 to close $ 146 reaching time limits in the Central region (Salt Lake and Tooele Counties); 57 to close

5 $ 71 reaching time limits in the Eastern region (Duchesne, Daggett, Carbon, Emery, Grand, San Juan, and Uintah Counties); 26 to close $ 31 reaching time limits in the Mountainland region (Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties); 14 to close $ 41 reaching time limits in the Western region (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, Washington, and Wayne Counties); 17 to close

As noted, the circumstances of this group of 397 families, as well as the families expected to reach time limits each month thereafterBan estimated additional 54 families on January 31, 2000Bwill determine how much help they request from county and charitable providers, now or in the future. If they exhaust their 36 months on FEP without attaining self- reliance and also do not receive an extension, they may need to turn elsewhere for help. Those who receive extensions for employment must work continuously for each new month=s extension to be approved. If a job ends and the recipient is unable to find new employment within a month, it is likely to mean that the extension is permanently lost.

Where do Utah counties fit in?

Families who are affected by time limits and are still not self-reliant, will almost certainly raise serious concerns for all service providers to whom they appeal. These families may carry with them significant employment barriers and may also suffer additional stress from increased poverty and reduced options. Therefore they may experience higher susceptibility to existing vulnerabilities, possibly leading to mental health crises, substance abuse, domestic violence, crime, or a combination of these difficulties.

Utah law does not require counties to provide financial assistance once state or federal assistance is withdrawn, but the impact of unmet needs due to these changes may be experienced by county governments in at least three ways:

6 1. Counties are required by law to provide certain services likely to be needed by this population, including mental health and substance abuse treatment and certain public health, aging, and youth services. County housing authorities also offer important help. Pressures from the loss of assistance and other crises may increase the need for these and other services.

2. Some counties in Utah contract with charitable organizations to provide services funded by the federal Social Services, Community Services, Community Development, and Child and Maternal Health Block Grants. If charitable groups begin to run short of funds due to increased needs, counties may see higher funding requests from these organizations.

3. If the unmet needs of vulnerable families increase, the effects are likely to be felt by the entire community.

Meeting separately in focus groups with county and charitable and faith-based service providers across the state, the Center for Public Policy and Administration has learned about increases in requests for help in the years since welfare reform was implemented. This is the case despite an exceptionally strong economy. Congress expressed the intention that charitable providers, including churches, would play a greater role in caring for the needs of the poor as federal assistance was scaled back. It appears this is occurring already, even though time limits on financial assistance imposed by Congress and the Utah Legislature have not yet been reached by most families. It also appears that county human services are experiencing increased requests, as an additional outgrowth of welfare changes, and most are gearing up for even greater impacts.

7 This page intentionally left blank.

8 II. METHODOLOGY

Researchers at the Center for Public Policy and Administration conducted five focus groups with county elected and appointed officials, one in each Department of Workforce Services (DWS) region, between July 19 and August 30, 1999. One Commissioner from each of Utah=s 29 counties was invited, as well as administrators of county mental health and substance abuse programs, local public health departments, youth and aging services, housing authorities, and representatives of the Associations of Governments (AOGs). Six elected officials (five county commissioners and one county councilperson) attended focus groups. Attendance from appointed officials was very good. Out of 50 who committed to attend, 30 participated.

The format of each focus group was standardized. Confidentiality was assured. A short briefing described major welfare changes instituted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, Utah law, and highlighted some of the key policy provisions due to begin affecting families and communities at the end of the year. Each participant was asked to describe the relationship between the services their entity delivers and families receiving FEP financial assistance.

Three discussion questions were then asked:

$ Who is responsible for families with dependent children enrolled in the Family Employment Program after time limits take effect? $ In your program service area, what will your agency do if there is increased demand for services? $ If the economy worsens, how will your program be likely to respond?

In the course of focus group discussions, information emerged that appeared to address four additional themes:

$ Agency prospects of increasing resources to meet increased need

9 $ Critical shortages of resources needed for self-sufficiency $ Specific federal or state welfare policy concerns $ Implementation concerns

This report presents the results of the focus groups. All five meetings yielded an impressive amount of information and revealed deep commitment on the part of focus group participants, their solid grasp of the issues, and a broad range of concerns for the individuals and families using county, state, and federal programs. The direct answers to the three questions are presented in the Findings section of this report, as well as other comments and information that coalesced under the four additional themes. Participant views are either quoted or paraphrased and every effort has been made to convey faithfully focus group participant responses and perspectives.

Problem descriptions in the AKey problem areas and possible recommendations for solutions@ section of this report were synthesized from focus group participant comments and discussion. Recommendations were based on participant input, and more fully developed by the researchers, in consultation with key county and DWS officials.

10 III. FINDINGS

Who is responsible for families with dependent children enrolled in the Family Employment Program after time limits take effect?

During the first focus group which was held in the Central Region (including Salt Lake and Tooele Counties), it was revealed that the Salt Lake County Attorney has determined that the responsibility to meet family financial needs beyond time limits does not legally reside with the state=s counties. Utah law does not prohibit counties from filling the gap if they wish. This information was shared with participants in all other focus groups.

County focus group participants acknowledged that there is no governmental entity ready to take up the slack for the vast majority of families still needing significant financial assistance once they reach their time limits. A Salt Lake County participant noted that his county commission has taken the position that local governments ought not take on the task of providing income maintenance to terminated families. In addition to lacking the financial resources to run such programs, separately designed and run financial assistance programs in each county would likely result in inequities, abuse, and confusion. They reasoned, therefore, that financial assistance programs are better administered at the state level.

No nongovernmental alternatives were identified either. Although Congress stated as they debated PRWORA that the charitable sector could and should take on more responsibility, the one county focus group participant who mentioned a role for churches and nonprofits made it clear that they could not be expected to step in with ongoing monthly cash assistance. They are already stretched thin and cannot be expected to do much more. GovernmentBlocal, state, and federalBwould instead be the only practical source of long-term assistance to families.

Participants pointed out that federally funded financial assistance could be available to those able to qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability

11 Income (SSDI). It was noted that the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) has required case managers to identify from among long-term families on its caseload all FEP families with a parent or child who might meet the specific disability criteria for either of these two programs. DWS policy outlines types of families who may be eligible for extensions to time limits. It includes those where an application for SSI or SSDI is pending. Participants worried that this offers only limited hope. It frequently takes over a year for successful applicants to begin to receive benefits, and people whose disability is related to substance abuse no longer qualify. Additionally, DWS= plan to time limit the all state-funded General Assistance Program (GA) would close off options for single individuals and childless couples with medical barriers to employment. [As of October 1, 1999, GA was time limited to 24 months out of every 60 month period, retroactive to March, 1998.] However, for those who qualify, these safety nets exist.

Participants referenced federal programs and services that should still be available to families, even after their financial assistance cases had been closed. They pointed out that Medicaid eligibility for FEP families is unaffected by time limits on financial assistance and that some services like substance abuse treatment now come under Medicaid, so these cases may continue. However, there was considerable concern that many Medicaid cases will nonetheless close at the same time as time limits are reached. There are several reasons for such case closures. Worker error was cited as one. It was also noted that, once their financial assistance case is closed, families may not bother completing the paperwork necessary to continue their Medicaid case. Some may not know how to convert their Medicaid case so that it stays open. Since even some focus group participants had been under the impression that Medicaid, Food Stamps, and some other federally funded programs were also time limited like FEP, the possibility that families may not even pursue continued eligibility for Medicaid is very real. Many may not know they are still eligible or may simply decide they will not Ajump through the hoops@ until they have a medical need.

Each focus group outlined the responsibilities of counties to provide certain services. Utah law requires counties to provide various kinds of social services including substance abuse and mental health treatment, youth and aging services, and local health services. Participants

12 noted that these services, and assistance from housing authorities in some counties, have historically been offered to low-income, disenfranchised peopleBespecially women and childrenBand this is expected to continue. The same is true for mental health services for the chronically mentally ill. A portion of the funding used to carry out county responsibilities in these arenas comes through four block grants: the Social Services, Community Development, Community Services, and Maternal and Child Health Block Grants. These block grants constitute a major continued involvement of federal resources tied directly to county responsibility.

Some participants charged the individual with some responsibility for his or her own outcomes. One provider stated that there is sometimes a fine line between a program helping and hindering, regardless of who is running it. It may come down to whether the person makes good choices or attains a positive, functional attitude. There was some agreement that the exception to this could be people with mental and physical disabilities.

A clear theme throughout the focus group discussions was the extent to which responsibility for the poorBincluding, but not exclusively concerning time limitsBis shared. While the majority of that sentiment related to a desire for a strong working partnership between state and local government entities, many saw the need to expand collaborative efforts to include allied religious and nonreligious community resources, as well as families, neighbors, and other individual citizens.

Some realities about systems that may be called upon to help the poor seemed to call for shared responsibility from another perspective. In the words of one participant, ABureaucracy is not timely. Charities have the ability to treat people more individually and timely; they can do some things government cannot. Government is more likely to have permanent, ongoing resources, but some things are better done through charities. Government cannot discriminate against certain groups. Churches may have to discriminate when they have limited resources. Somewhere there is a balance between equality and flexibility.@

13 Finally, a general undercurrent of concern was expressed regarding holes in the web of responsibility under the circumstances created by welfare changes. Ironically, despite the conscious withdrawal of basic financial assistance by the state and federal government, some participants sensed that taxpayers consider their tax payments as fulfilling their responsibility to assist the poor. They may not understand why more is necessary. More than one participant raised concern that elected officials do not want to take responsibility so they try to pass it to other entities. These officials may not take action until the signs of disruption and family devastation have gone too far. The community, one said, may not be responsible, but that is where the effects of time limits will be felt.

A sizable number of focus group members who direct county programs expressed concern that county commissioners are largely unaware of welfare changes and the impact they may be having, or soon will have, on communities and available local resources. They feared that it may take a crisis for broader understanding of important welfare reform implications to Ahit home,@ but the consequences for those in need would be great by that time.

In your program service area, what will your agency do if there is increased demand for services?

Across the state, a pervasive underlying assumption was in evidence: increased pressure on county services such as mental health, substance abuse treatment, housing assistance, emergency food, and youth services has already started to occur and this would be bound to continue. These would be unintended, but nearly certain, consequences of any welfare changes that result in case closures for any reasons other than because families have become truly self- reliant. Although scenarios would vary from family to family, the increased pressure on struggling parents exerted by the withdrawal of cash assistance would be likely to exacerbate whatever existing vulnerabilities they may have. Pushed closer to breaking points as their options are constricted, some may suffer greater mental health problems and others may abuse alcohol or drugs. Domestic violence, neglect, and crime were predicted to increase.

14 As participants commented on how their agencies would cope with increased needs for services, there was general agreement that the choices were not good ones. Various strategies were mentioned that would keep caseloads at manageable levels, but participants cautioned that such mechanisms would result in either lower service quality, quantity, or both. One official said case management would be used to rank clients. That would mean picking and choosing among many troubled people to decide who among them is the worst off. Another suggested that waiting lists would be implemented first, and then as those lists became longer, the wait of length before service is received would increase, as well. Agencies may even need to develop a priority system for getting on waiting lists. One provider suggested that there would be a tendency to try to hold down administrative costs to funnel money toward services. Another predicted exactly the opposite, saying that processes set up to prioritize recipients of services require more resources for staffing and therefore reduce service dollars even further. Workload problems also mean poorer quality of help. One example given was longer wait times Aon hold@ when clients telephone agencies.

Some of the deepest concerns centered around the unintended consequences of severely constricted services as a result of inadequate funding. A hospital administrator lamented that eligibility criteria would likely be made more restrictive under overload circumstances. Income guidelines for charity care could be lowered so that fewer people would qualify, essentially creating ways to say Ano@ to more people. One agency director admitted that services could simply be ended when the money runs out. He said that currently the organization runs out of money three-quarters of the way through the year; under new pressures, this entity would run out of money even sooner. WIC reductions were given as an example of how shortfalls are often managed. AThe money got tight and now fewer people are eligible.@ A mental health provider noted that the agency would probably do more group counseling to cut costs, even if the individuals involved really need individual counseling. Another provider warned that shortages could result in someone who is a threat to the community simply being put on a waiting list. This could jeopardize the community.

15 When capacity is restricted, one explained, the definition of acuity becomes the answer. For example, increasing numbers of children needing mental health services coupled with tighter resources will require that the definition of acuity become progressively more severe and restrictive. Children who have less severe problems have a good chance of rehabilitation with intervention, but they will have to be dropped to afford to serve the children who fit the more restrictive definitions. This could happen across the spectrum of services and populations. AWe will be driven by dollars to give the service we can afford, but in the long run, we will be assuring that peoples= troubles will become more severe and costly to treat before they fit our criteria,@ cautioned one provider. ABy pushing the situation to its logical extreme, you only respond to serious crisis situations and never have a chance to catch up.@ Prevention programs could be the first to go. One respondent reported that his agency had already cut them. AThose programs can be helpful, but it is harder to prove their usefulness when every dollar is being squeezed.@ A summary statement showed frustration: AA clear result is that we will wind up serving only the most severely troubled people and the rest would go without. We would lose the ability to take any steps toward prevention and to work with those who have a chance to be rehabilitated.@

Agency prospects of increasing resources to meet increased need

Focus group participants also brought up the fact that traditional sources of funding are decreasing at the same time as demand is growing and the prospects of increasing resources to meet increased need were seen as bleak. In counties that contract with nonprofit organizations, there was concern that increased needs confronted in that sector will bounce back to counties, but they will not have more to give. Nonprofits will also serve fewer people, trying to target those with more acute needs. The same result will occur as in county services: families and individuals will be turned away until their needs have become serious, more difficult, and more costly to address.

As for the prospects of raising new dollars, a number of complexities were raised. Some agency representatives talked about applying for grants, but stated that there is an end to that

16 money, particularly beyond the Aseed money@ phase. Several raised the fact that the availability of funding from the community is subject to specific eventualities and, at present, there is more competition than usual. Concern about Y2K can be expected to slow emergency food donations as people store food for their own reserves. The 2002 Olympics were acknowledged as Asomething we cannot begin to compete with.@ Traditional corporate donors to human services causes were seen as highly likely to respond to the Olympic requests for contributions at the expense of help for the poor. AYou do not get recognition for contributing to social services programs like you are promised for supporting the Olympics,@ lamented one participant. Additionally, ongoing funding requests continue. A wry laugh greeted another participant=s suggestion that a social service program could compete successfully against a high school project to pay for football trips.

There was some degree of chagrin expressed over what the community and even elected officials may expect of social services agencies. One participant addressed using volunteers, a strategy that has retained popularity over a number of years, ASome would like to think that we can use volunteers, but much of what needs doing is not what volunteers like to do or can do. Plus, lots of what we do with money is to purchase services. Volunteers cannot help in any way with that.@ Priorities become the deciding factor when limited dollars are needed in various areas. One respondent questioned why there is not support for tobacco settlement money to go toward health and substance abuse programs.

Some hoped that new solutions might present themselves. Final federal regulations for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program were thought to hold some possible help with funding, although those who mentioned it were not sure of the specific implications. Some wondered whether mental health, substance abuse, housing and other family-oriented services could be paid for with TANF dollars under the new, reputedly more flexible, rules.

17 If the economy worsens, how will your program be likely to respond?

There was general consensus about the answer to this question. Most who commented said that, even with the strong economy, it is already hard to meet needs; a downturn would certainly force many more people into the system. Some noted with regard to health care that the uninsured population is rising. The system is working all right now, but if the economy worsens, the situation could become very bad and resources could dry up. Across all services, it was predicted that, if the economy worsens, providers will still be dealing with the same people, but they will have more burdens as various safety nets drop away. They will become harder to work with and their problems will be harder to solve. They will also be likely to need to go to more than one entity to get their needs met, causing the impact to grow geometrically.

In areas where population changes have occurred recently, there were other concerns. County officials from both small and large communities where immigrant populations have been increasing commented that there could be a kind of backlash if the economy turns sour. Regardless of their legal status, longer term residents tend to believe that immigrants are illegal aliens. Sentiment could turn to one of "us versus them."

The point was also made that communities tend to feel more charitable about some people in need than others. Without being specific, one participant worried that there are certain populations people do not like to talk about, but they need help. When resources are tight, people begin to ask if certain groups deserve services.

Critical shortages of resources needed for self-sufficiency

Focus group participants in every part of the state were adamant that the shortage of affordable housing needs to be addressed. People need jobs with adequate wages for a decent quality of life if families leaving or avoiding welfare are to be able to reach self-reliance, but if housing costs are exorbitant, wages almost do not matter. The problem is more often doubly acute, as welfare recipients can only find low-paying jobs and high-cost housing.

18 Subsidized housing is almost nonexistent, several participants said. Waiting lists continue to be long. One participant noted that 150 were on the waiting list in her area. Some housing authorities have closed off their waiting lists because they would become too long to make sense. If conditions of available housing are unacceptable due to health or safety conditions, people have no choice but to rent anyway.

It was seen as more than a money issue, too. AWe can pay now or laterBespecially in housing. If housing is not provided, then symptoms of other social ills are seen. Health is a big problemBhygiene. That becomes a community wide problem.@ Overcrowding was mentioned by another participant. AOne housing unit may have 20 families living in it.@

In addition to housing, the availability of supportive services in general was questioned. To function, families with children need to be able to meet their basic needs, as well as special needs. Here too, the issue of low-wage jobs came up. Families scrape by, getting some needs met however they can manage and in some cases, going without. Getting off of welfare is not all there is to it. AFor those who can work and can find jobs, if we do not have supportive services for the working poor, we have not solved a thing.@

Specific federal or state welfare policy concerns

Focus group participants pointed out that individual welfare recipients face different challenges in getting into the workforce, and neither PRWORA nor Utah=s law acknowledge the complexities involved. Several noted that some counties simply do not have jobs, especially for people with the kinds of skills and education levels of many welfare parents. More flexibility is neededBa Aone-size-fits-all@ approach is inappropriate.

There was general agreement that striving to place people in minimum wage jobs was not the answer. Funneling welfare families into the ranks of the working poor just moves the problem in a different direction. Participants noted that there is often a need for training, yet few

19 recipients are getting it. They noted that parents are generally discouraged from pursuing job preparation such as further education or job training. Low wage jobs can actually act as a barrier to self-sufficiency because people can not catch up and stay even with the cost of living. They may not be on welfare any longer, but they certainly will continue for the foreseeable future to need many other kinds of help.

Several participants commented on federal pressures on states to elevate work activity above what may be positive for families. Those with serious employment barriers, such as various kinds of mental health problems, are particularly vulnerable. They are not always easy to recognize and individuals frequently do not disclose their conditions. Sometimes people do not know the extent of their own barriers so they do not seek help. Unless case managers have special skills and time to do an adequate assessment, intervention may never be received.

Clearly, one of the most troubling policy issues identified by focus group participants was lifetime limits on financial assistance. Imposed by lawmakers to ensure that receipt of government financial assistance is temporary, one provider explained that time limits have nothing to do with the chances some people have of getting out of poverty. As long as the goal is something other than trying to solve poverty, more problems will surface and these new issues will have to be dealt with.

One major concern of participants centered around outgrowths of increased stress on families. APolicies that increase financial stress on families will have a domino effect,@ said one county official. AThose in mental health will come here for help, but we do not have money. Counties do not have funds either.@ Another pointed out, ABeing fee-for-service, we can provide all the mental health services people need, but they need money for rent and other basics and cannot get it under the new rules. This stands Maslow=s hierarchy [of human needs] on its head.@ A provider in another county predicted that increased need for mental health services are guaranteed by the stresses of some welfare changes, but in capitated systems, the money will run out as Medicaid enrollments decrease.

20 The existence of extensions to time limits did not calm participants= concerns. They noted that many barriers are not easy to spot and case managers may not recognize them adequately to recommend extensions. One mental health provider raised the issue of Acharacterological@ individuals who have difficulty getting and holding down jobs. They may come from abusive situations and have real problems. Additionally, they do not have a very good chance of qualifying for extensions when they cannot find jobs because they are hard for case managers to work with due to anti-social or narcissistic behavior. The whole matter of troubled children worried some participants. AChildren with behavior problems make it difficult for parents to work, especially at marginal jobs.@ There are no extensions available for families with children who are in trouble. The limited number of available extensions came up. Participants indicated suspicions that more than 20 percent of families on welfare will not be able to become self-sustaining within 36 months and many families will never be able to be independent. One provider had a general warning, APeople will be pushed to the limit. When push comes to shove, will Congress back down and make more lenient requirements?@

Focus group participants expressed belief that such drastic changes to the welfare system may result in outcomes that are worse than under the old welfare system. Some of their comments include: ! AThe composite of this change is like an impending train disaster. Families are going to be significantly hurt. The people in the front of the train will be smashed. Those hitting time limits later on will be better off because everyone will be better informed.@ ! A[In the first wave of time limit closures], most likely half of the moms will be homeless.@ ! AThe federal government is trying to weed out abusers of the system at the expense of the people who really need it.@ ! AWe can expect an increase in crime if welfare is not available.@

A mental health provider pointed out another kind of problem. AIn this area, we have tried to transition the mentally ill into the community. They are housed in the open rental market.

21 If there is an influx and people lose their source of money to pay rent, we are in trouble. A major philosophical retooling would be required to respond.@

A large number of concerns about unintended consequences pertained directly to children. AIt is important to remember that when 100 families are cut off of financial assistance because of time limits, this means approximately 300 peopleB200 of them are children and their average age is under 6 years old.@ AMothers with infants are a major concern. Maternal and child health issues are key. Children are healthiest if they have mothers to take care of them. Many mothers that will be impacted will not have enough resources to adequately care for their children. This will put [their] child at greater risk.@ AAt the end of the time limits, children are three years older. Expenses and needs of children are frequently greater as they growBnot smaller.@ AIf parents cannot support their children financially, they are put in foster care or state custody. . . . In situations like this, it is not the fault of the parent. They are not abusiveBthey are dependent. This has a huge impact on the child welfare system.@ AAre we going to see increases in orphanages as a result?@ ADomestic violence will likely increase.@ APoverty leads to child abuse more than drugs and alcohol.@ AThe time limit decision was made without the right information.@

Focus group members worried about the availability of health care; a number of comments indicated belief that the health care dilemma needs resolution if welfare reform is to work. Issues traditionally part of the work world, like employer provided health insurance benefits, play an important role in families= ability to move beyond low-income assistance programs like Medicaid, but these benefits are becoming a thing of the past. Transitional stepsBsuch as the Child Health Insurance Program or CHIPBhelp children, but not their parents. While it is true that Medicaid eligibility is no longer tied to receipt of financial assistance and it is not time limited, when a parent earns just enough to no longer qualify for Medicaid and still is not receiving employer-paid health coverage, there are few affordable alternatives.

22 Implementation concerns

Across the state, a consistent thread centered on concerns about how welfare reform is being implemented by the DWS. Participants appeared fully cognizant of the challenges presented by a brand-new department of state government attempting simultaneously, (1) to merge the interests of employers with the well-being of vulnerable families, and (2) to implement massive regulatory changes required by Congress in the new welfare reform law. Nonetheless, clear signs of continued vulnerability in their own encounters with FEP families and former recipients brought the general concern that too much was happening too fast. They worried that the new department may not be able to provide the kind of attention families need to make the most of their limited time on assistance or cope with other welfare changes.

According to focus group participants, evidence of this was DWS=s apparently inadequate grasp of the circumstances and needs of families approaching time limits. They pointed out that early assessments are essential if appropriate interventions to address barriers are to be started in the first few months of the 36 allowable months. Without this, there may be little hope that employment barriers can be removed and family stability can be achieved in time. There was concern that, during these first three years of FEP, this process did not appear to be operating. Participants noted that there has been pressure for months for DWS to get an idea of the scope of the situation regarding individuals= and families= barriers to employment, but worried that time may run out before people=s problems are known. A number of questions were raised: How can extensions be given out rationally without this information? What will happen to families whose actual barriers have not ever been discovered? Is there adequate help to assist those who may be eligible for SSI to get through the process to qualify? Are families being informed about what is really going to happen at the end of their three years? Families do not appear to be getting consistent treatment at DWS. People are assigned to case managers and then moved to teams. Can families move ahead if one-on-one attention is disrupted? One participant was quite blunt, ADWS is in state of flux. They are not yet where they ultimately want to be; they are not prepared to do what needs to be done.@

23 Participants lamented the lack of adequate understanding of welfare changes, saying that without good information, neither those who have help to offer nor those who need it are well served. Federal and state assistance program rules have always been difficult to follow, they admitted, but the magnitude of changes triggered by PRWORA and new policymaking powers now vested in state legislatures and administrative departments raise the dilemma to far higher levels. Funding cuts in the Food Stamp program reduced benefits across the board, but reductions in the Food Stamp caseload may result in part because people do not understand the new rules that pertain to some groups. Examples mentioned included work requirements for single individuals and couples of working age who do not have children in the home. [A PRWORA change to the Food Stamp Program known as the AAble-Bodied Adults Without Dependents@ (ABAWD) rule.] They may not understand what options exist to help them fulfill the requirements. Some have heard so much about time limits that they mistakenly think Food Stamp receipt is time limited along with financial assistance.

There were substantial concerns raised about the lack of information to show what has happened to families no longer receiving assistance through FEP. One participant pointed out that an unknown but significant proportion of families now off the rolls may really be casualties of welfare reform. They may be working, but not making enough to support their families. Others may not have jobs at all. Several mentioned suspicions that misunderstandings about new rules and requirements may have forced other people off, including those with little hope of employment. Recertification by telephone through Eligibility Service Centers was mentioned as causing problems for clients. Conciliation processes, designed to prevent inappropriate sanctions, may not be working as intended. A number of focus group participants acknowledged that they knew of parents who had asked to have their FEP case closed to Astop their clock from ticking.@ Providers wondered how many long term recipients leaving FEP in recent months are part of this group that seems to be Abanking@ months of eligibility and how they might be meeting family needs. They indicated that better information about FEP families will be needed if effective ways of addressing their needs and perhaps helping them to access available resources are to be found.

24 Focus group participants questioned whether basic and emergency assistance needs of poor families and individuals receive adequate attention among the employment-related priorities of the DWS. While the vision for the new department was Aone-stop shopping,@ the point was made in various discussions around the state that the task of delivering supportive services, from financial and nutrition assistance to emergency assistance and transitional help, may have gotten lost. As one participant put it, ADWS took on the personalities of staff, either Job Service or Human Services. The Job Service personality prevailed with the approach that >work can cure everything,= but sometimes that is not the case.@ Here, again, there was a question about the Aone- size-fits-all@ approach. AThere are people who are unemployable. They cannot make it in 36 months.@

Several participants referred to fanfare in Utah and across the nation about welfare recipients going to work, but stated that families need more than a job for long-term success. Focus on jobs over adequate earning capacity was described as counterproductive and unworkable over the long term. To the extent that basic needs are not effectively met, poor individuals may actually find themselves with greater barriers to employment. Said one provider, AThe working poor may even make enough so they do not qualify for programs, but some still do not know how to take care of themselves.@ Another pointed out that former recipients get jobs that are both low-paying and part-time. ASo we say, get three jobsBbut if you neglect your kids, we will take them away.@ Not only job training is needed, but parenting training, and life skills training are essential to shore up troubled families. If people go to work and cannot make enough money to make ends meet, it is essential that all necessary supportive services are carefully and effectively provided to people in transition from welfare to work. A number of participants were concerned that those connections are not being made.

Emergency services appeared to some participants to be one of the most troubling aspects of the diminished Ahuman services@ side of DWS. Several had the impression that people who have short term, one-time needs are not being helped by DWS, rather they are being referred to other organizations. However, under the current structure, there simply is no other place to which vulnerable Utahns can turnBthe majority of assistance needed is only available through

25 DWS. If needy people go away without receiving help, they miss getting into the system designed to provide immediate and longer term help, existing resources are being less effectively used. At the same time, the demand for help from county and charitable providers is unnecessarily increased, and county resources simply do not exist to meet many of these needs. Participants also did not feel confident that people are getting help with their transitions from welfare to work.

County service providers and elected officials were clear in their belief that a key hope in protecting families and communities from the worst case scenarios of welfare reform lay in clear and open communication, collaboration, and cooperation among all with resources to offer. A significant amount of attention was given to this issue in focus groups around the state. In general, participants agreed that discussions should involve both government and nongovernmental entities, but observed that not enough had been accomplished in that direction. There was consensus that no agency was taking the lead in facilitating the effort. DWS was named as the logical entity to be doing that. However, one provider put it this way, ADWS is not talking to service providers, so we do not really know what is going on.@ In another part of the state, it was said that DWS and mental health agencies had met, but discussions have not progressed much farther than Ajust doing introductions.@ The Interagency Council meets regularly, but DWS does not attend those meetings.

Without effective collaboration, participants indicated that they had many unanswered questions about how to respond to increased needs. There were questions about allowable uses of TANF dollars. Some wondered how they would be able to find people whose assistance had been terminated for time limits or other reasons. In one focus group, one participant reported that DWS had promised that people are not really going to lose their assistance at all, but he didn=t understand what that meant or how that could be. Only in the Mountainland Region focus group was there a sense that a good working relationship had been established between DWS and other entities. Elsewhere, frustration and perplexity were quite marked.

26 Serious concern in one part of the state related to Medicaid. Eligibility for medical assistance was, in the past, linked closely to eligibility for financial assistance. People who have left or were diverted from FEP may not know that this is no longer the caseBthat now families can receive Medicaid as long as they remain income eligible. As people leave the welfare rolls they often do not try to get Medicaid even if they are still eligible.

Another area of concern is mental health care if providers lose funding because the pool of Medicaid enrollees decreases. Concerned providers explained that funding is based on a capitated rate calculated on the number of enrollees in Medicaid and when the number of enrollees drops, there is less money available. Meanwhile, the enrollees that are left are more likely to use services and deplete the funding supply more quickly than if there were a broader mix of enrollees. Then, when people have a crisis and need services, they will apply for Medicaid/Mental Health care. To compound the problem, the care they need may be more expensive because they waited. Just as an insurance company could not afford to operate if people only register in time of crisis, services funded by Medicaid are likely to be in trouble under this scenario. The solution to this problem is probably both administrative and legislative (budgetary), but the first steps needed were believed to be communication and cooperation among DWS, the Department of Health, and county providers that will be impacted. Participants commenting on this issue said that no action in that direction had begun.

27 IV. Key Problem Areas and Possible Recommendations for Solutions

Participant views of welfare reformBincluding much acclaimed caseload reductionsBare not particularly optimistic. They voiced specific concerns about welfare policies, but researchers noted that a significant share of what focus group members found troubling were unintended consequences of welfare changes. These include impacts on individuals, families, and the various entities with whom they come in contact and these consequences may not have been anticipated by lawmakers. Taken together, their answers to facilitators= questions and interchange with each other surfaced a number of specific problems.

Although all of these problems have bearing on county government, solutions to problems and concerns of such complexity require action by various entities. County Commissioners or other county entities, including the Utah Association of Counties, are named as key players in Recommendations 1-3, 5, 18-20, 22, and 25 and as partners in Recommendations 6, 7, 11, 21, and 26. Other recommendations would require action by or participation of the Utah Department of Workforce Services, other state agencies, the Utah Legislature, Governor Leavitt, other local government entities, low-income advocacy groups, information and referral agencies, education and training providers, research entities, faith-based and non-faith-based charitable organizations, private sector employers, clients, andBfor solutions that can be devised only on the national levelBCongress and the President. Undoubtedly, more recommendations can and will be formulated beyond this work. It is hoped that these will be helpful to those dealing with welfare reform-related issues across the state.

28 Problem: A higher degree of information-sharing, cooperation, and collaboration among all entities offering services to TANF/FEP families than currently exists is needed to strengthen families and support their self-sufficiency efforts and stability.

Recommendation #4: That DWS ensure that Regional Workforce Services Council meetings include a substantive, clearly defined and regularized agenda component devoted to considering the various assistance programs designed to support Utah=s vulnerable families and individuals. The agenda of each meeting should include updates and information about pertinent policy matters relating to the Ahuman services@ side of DWS. Data reflecting the status of families and program utilization statewide and by DWS region should be prepared and reported at these meetings.

29 employers and any other appropriate entities who now play a substantial role in the support of vulnerable citizens due to reduced state and federal commitments.

Recommendation #6: That DWS consider the feasibility of establishing ALocal Workforce Service Councils@ to provide a coordination and problem-solving mechanism that is closer to the county level and to generate the kind of local information needed by Regional Workforce Services Councils. Perhaps the councils could be established on the same geographical bases as DWS Employment Centers. They could follow the same basic format as Regional Workforce Services Councils, including the addition of regular attention at meetings to human services issues as described above in Recommendation #5. Membership would include county commissioners or their designees, and representatives of other local government entities, the charitable sector, other service providers, and advocacy groups. These councils would report to and be represented on Regional Workforce Services Councils.

Recommendation #7: That Governor Leavitt convene a Welfare Reform Summit to bring together state and local government agencies, faith-based and non-faith-based charitable organizations, advocacy groups, and other key players to construct collaborative, coordinating mechanisms that will provide maximum protection against families and individuals Afalling through the cracks.@ The Summit would facilitate the sharing of perspectives, and would aim to explore and develop strategies to utilize available resources creatively to strengthen families and increase their earning capacity. It would be helpful if the Summit were to take place as soon as possible.

Problem: Little is known about the circumstances of Utah families who have left welfareBwhether for work or other reasons.

Recommendation #8: That DWS set up a mechanism to systematically track families who leave the welfare rolls for any reason or who are been diverted from enrolling. Four purposes of the tracking could be considered: 1) to obtain a picture of their financial

30 circumstancesBboth for those who have an employment history and those who do not, 2) to understand their utilization of both governmental and non-governmental support services, 3) to ascertain types of help they may need, but are not receiving, and 4) to discover other important information related to the well-being of individuals in the family and of the family as a whole.

Recommendation #9: That DWS commission a study to track families who left the welfare rolls or were diverted from enrolling during the first three years of FEP. The purposes of the study should mirror those described in Recommendation #8.

Recommendation #10: That the Utah Legislature, during the 2000 Interim, study ways to provide more time to assist families reaching time limits. In accordance with any changes deemed necessary, all families whose cases have been closedBbefore, on, or after December 31, 1999Bshould be contacted and informed that they may have their circumstances reviewed to determine whether they are eligible for additional services, including help addressing their employment barriers. Changes should also be publicized widely to allow families who have left welfare for other reasons to consider applying for that help.

31 $ Public/community/interagency information $ Emergency assistance $ Assessment and intervention processes under time limits $ Case closures for reasons other than income $ Data needs $ Client recertification through Eligibility Service Centers

Problem: The A20 percent extension@ provision in the Congressional and Utah law is not adequate to protect families with serious work barriers and those who are unable to become self-sustaining.

Recommendation #12: That the Utah Legislature repeal the A20 percent extension@ provision and replace it with one based on individual family circumstances. The total number of extensions would not be limited. Instead, DWS would fully document a barrier assessment process appropriate to each individual family, including a clinical assessment beyond tools currently used for all clients as soon as possible after the existence of significant personal or family barriers are discovered. The case manager would involve trained professionals and the parent(s) in developing a treatment plan aimed at strengthening the family and maximizing their self-reliance with the help of necessary short- and long-term supports. Subsequent intervention and progress should be monitored and documented. Periodic reassessments should be done to ensure the continued appropriateness of the plan and services. A careful review should be triggered when no less than six months remain before the family=s time limit is reached, beginning a careful process to determine whether an extension is likely to be needed.

Recommendation #13: That DWS finalize and implement policy governing applications for hardship extensions by families whose cases have been closed due to time limits.

Recommendation #14: That Governor Leavitt, as Chair of the National Governors= Association, initiate efforts to a) allow states to repeal the A20 percent extension@

32 provision in their state statutes and replace it with an extension provision based on individual family circumstances, thereby ensuring that the total number of extensions would not be limited, and b) amend PRWORA to address this and other unintended consequences of welfare reform when the Act comes up for reauthorization.

Problem: Increased pressure on emergency food and other services seem to indicate that some families and individuals who have left the welfare rolls have not reached self-reliance, contrary to the public impression created by declining caseloads.

Recommendation #15: That DWS, in collaboration with the Departments of Health and Human Services, investigate whether current and former FEP families, diverted families, and other needy individuals are utilizing available assistance programs for which they are eligible such as Medicaid (including Transitional Medicaid for those whose cases have closed due to income and Medical Assistance Only for those who are income eligible, but are no longer receiving financial assistance), Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Food Stamps, and Child Care. To correct under-utilization problems that may be identified, strategies should be devised, shared with elected decision-makers and the public, and implemented.

Problem: Clients, county and charitable service providers, decision-makers, and the public are not adequately informed about welfare changes, policies, and practices.

Recommendation #16: That DWS develop a strategy to educate community resources, lawmakers, and others about key welfare changes and essential rules and regulations. Information should be complete enough that a broad range of service providers and private citizens, including those who volunteer for charitable entities, are able to assist and refer troubled families and individuals effectively and accurately.

Recommendation #17: That DWS formulate policy that articulates and directs agency practices required by the agency=s significant and essential role in providing emergency

33 assistance to needy families and individuals, as related to, but distinct from, its employment role. The action should ensure that effective steps are taken to maximize the use of federal emergency assistance programsBincluding those aimed at providing nutrition and health care assistance to the poorBthrough an aggressive effort at outreach and clear information on benefits and application processes that facilitate the receipt of services by eligible families and individuals.

Recommendation #18: That County human services agencies, along with other pertinent service-providing entities should actively seek to assign and train specific staff or volunteers to keep abreast of available resources and do client referrals as needed. They should be knowledgeable about help through: state, federal, or local governments; quasi-government entities; or faith-based or nonreligious charitable organizations. Training should include networking with counterparts in other agencies to work out webs of services when needed. Where possible, existing FACT programs may provide a vehicle for this purpose. The client assistance specialists should also keep track of the types of problems and needs that present themselves, and provide information to Local or Regional Workforce Services Councils when gaps or other difficulties appear to exist.

Recommendation #19: That the UAC Health and Human Service Committee contact and work with entities involved in the A211" telephone campaign sponsored by the various Information and Referral entities around the state. This statewide project will provide assistance information to clients, simultaneously providing linkages between those with resources and those who need help.

34 Problem: Program and departmental rules and operations are difficult and people using those services are not necessarily informed about who may be able to help them.

Problem: There is a critical shortage of affordable housing throughout Utah.

Recommendation #22: That UAC work with the Department of Community and Economic Development to encourage a substantial increase in the affordable housing stock throughout the state. A productive place to start could be a thorough inventory and review of state and county activities in Utah, as well as in other parts of the country where innovative projects have been proposed or established. Activities that use unspent TANF dollars should be included. Partners for this effort could be selected from among local entities involved in low-income housing, such as housing authorities.

35 Problem: The work-first focus of welfare reform is swelling the ranks of the working poor while shrinking TANF caseloads. As a result, the problem of poverty is not being addressed.

Recommendation #23: That DWS bring together local employers, representatives from educational and training programs, and other interested parties to consider ways to share expertise and resources to improve the earning power of FEP parents. DWS should delineate both restrictions and flexibility in Congressional and state law pertaining to education and training, and work with others to find ways within the community to apply for and utilize job training and education grants. This will enable more families to be provided with job preparation assistance, offering a greater likelihood of permanent success through employment.

36 Recommendation #26: That DWS collaborate with local and state entities to develop special job preparation and transitional skill developing projects in counties and areas such as Indian Reservations where unemployment rates are significantly above the statewide average. DWS should take advantage of local flexibility granted by PRWORA to make decisions based on local circumstances and cultural realities.

Problem: A number of problems with welfare changes being experienced in Utah are beyond the power of state entities to solve, rather they will require Congressional action.

In conclusion, at the request of our funder,

Recommendation #28: That CPPA or another appropriate entity be responsible for assessing action on the above recommendations in twelve months.

37 Selected References

Barusch, A. and M. J. Taylor, 1999. Understanding Families with Multiple Barriers to Self- sufficiency. Social Research Institute, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah, February.

Brauner, S. and P. Loprest, 1999. AWhere Are They Now? What States= Studies of People Who Left Welfare Tell Us.@ New Federalism: Issues and Options for States, The Urban Institute, May.

Byram, C., 1998. AMore Hungry People Are Finding Emptier Cupboards.@ Deseret News. B2. June 12.

DWS, 1999. AStatus Report for Customers Reaching Life Time Limits in December 1999.@

Janzen, F., 1999. Telephone conversation. October 5.

Kamen, A., 1999. AClinton touts decline in welfare rolls, new rules for states.@ Washington Post, April 11.

Nathan, R. P. and T. L. Gais, 1999. Implementing the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996: A First Look. Federalism Research Group, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.

National Governors= Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and American Public Welfare Association, 1998. ATracking Recipients After They Leave Welfare: Summaries of State Follow-up Studies.@ July.

Utah Department of Administrative Services, Division of Finance, 1999. Fiscal Focus: An Annual Report to the Citizens, January.

Utah Department of Workforce Services, 1999. AFamily Employment Program: Characteristics of Participants Receiving Financial Assistance.@ December 1.

Withorn, A. and P. Jons, 1999. Worrying About Welfare Reform: Community-Based Agencies Respond. Boston Area Academics Working Group on Poverty, University of Massachusetts Boston.

Wynder, H., 1998. Utah Food Bank Development Division. October 27.

38 This page intentionally left blank.

39 Appendix A Selected Demographic Data by County

40 Appendix B National Association of Counties Human Services and Education Steering Committee Resolutions (Adopted July 21, 1998) (Excerpt)

Note: Systemic change of the magnitude brought on by implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 can turn focus so local that it is easy to forget that similar considerations are being undertaken elsewhere. For example, it is useful to learn from various studies of the impact of PRWORA on administering agencies that struggle to implement new rules, reprogram computers, collect new numbers, and develop new ways of interacting with allied and community entities are being waged in all states (Nathan and Gais, 1999). Surveys of community-based agencies across the nation reveal a commonality of frustration about the limited availability of information from and interchange with state welfare agencies (Withorn and Jons, 1999). Tracking efforts being done in various states are triggering the same realization that we have far more questions about families being affected by welfare changes than we have answers (Brauner and Loprest, 1999). As for the observations and concerns growing among Utah=s county government officials as gathered in focus groups and reported here, many of the same perceptions exist in other states. The National Association of Counties reflects the vital interest county governments have in welfare changes in the following excerpts from two resolutions adopted in 1998.

6A. Resolution on Increased Intergovernmental Cooperation on Welfare Reform

WHEREAS, Congress passed and the President signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) which dramatically altered the welfare system of this country; and

WHEREAS, PRWORA assigns states the lead responsibility for developing and implementing the state=s welfare reform plan and many states have delegated this responsibility to their counties; and

WHEREAS, successful welfare reform will depend on forging new partnerships and the development of creative community responses that promote success at work, change welfare offices to job centers, maintain critical financial investments, and reach all needy families; and

WHEREAS, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant provides enormous flexibility to design programs, foster involvement of additional parties in the delivery of services and facilitate the movement of families from welfare to work; and

WHEREAS, initial reports on implementation indicated that transportation, child care, and workplace skills and personal living skills are among the most common barriers to achieving self-sufficiency; and

45 WHEREAS, state policies on child care, time limits, work requirements, program financing, and devolution have significant impacts on counties and may increase the demand for services; and

WHEREAS, hearings conducted by the National Association of Counties revealed that assisting welfare recipients to make the transition from welfare to self-sufficiency requires the full support and involvement of all levels of government and the private sector;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Association of Counties convenes an intergovernmental task force on welfare reform implementation with governors, counties, cities, state legislatures, and the private sector to monitor the effects of welfare reform on county government and to work on solutions to address any critical issues that arise.

6B. Resolution on Welfare Reform

WHEREAS, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) revised the welfare system, from an entitlement program to a capped block grant approach intended to move recipients from welfare to work; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of PRWORA has placed full responsibility on the state and county governments for moving individuals from welfare to work; and

WHEREAS, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided significant assistance to counties in meeting the needs of legal immigrants, provided health care to uninsured children of low income families, and created a welfare-to-work grant program to assist long-term welfare recipients find and retain jobs; and

WHEREAS, county governments need additional flexibility to maximize existing resources from the Job Training Partnership Act and Welfare to Work Grants in order to provide the broad array of job training and supportive services needed to enable welfare recipients to move into the work force and remain there; and

WHEREAS, lack of adequate child care and available affordable transportation are barriers to finding and retaining employment; and

WHEREAS, refugees who have been in the United States for more than five years are among the hardest to move from welfare to work, they lose their eligibility for benefits after five years, and there is only sufficient money for several months of federally-funded assistance for them; and

WHEREAS, there is a growing backlog of naturalization applications, preventing legal immigrants who wish to become citizens from doing so, and creating dependence on scarce county safety net services; and

46 WHEREAS, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provides access to health care for uninsured children but not their parents and inadequate health care is a barrier to families transitioning from welfare to work and for low-income working families:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Association of Counties (NACo) strongly supports legislation which promotes consistency in administration, regulation, reporting, and monitoring between the Job Training Partnership Act and the Welfare-to-Work grant program so that counties and Private Industry Councils may have the flexibility to maximize those resources to provide the necessary training and ancillary services to enable TANF recipients to obtain and retain jobs; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NACo supports legislation which:

$ Increases the availability of quality, subsidized child care, especially for infant care and non-traditional hours of care; $ Links child care funding to case load demands; $ Enables linkages between child care services and programs such as Head Start to allow for continuous care at a single location; and $ Offers incentives to employers to provide child care assistance to their employees; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NACo supports legislation which:

$ Increases funding for implementation of transportation solutions in areas where existing transportation is insufficient to meet the needs of welfare recipients moving into the workforce; and $ Offers incentives to employers to provide transportation assistance to their employees; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NACo supports full restoration of Food Stamps benefits to legal immigrants and supports legislation which reduces the backlog in processing of citizenship applications by the Immigration and Naturalization Services; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NACo supports legislation which will allow states to use refugee employment services funds on refugees receiving public assistance who have been in the United States for more than five years and further supports appropriation of sufficient funds to provide full federal assistance during the first thirty-six months that a refugee is in the United States;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NACo supports legislation which:

$ Creates a correction action plan for states which have been unable to implement automated child support systems in time to meet federal deadlines; $ Restricts any Federal penalties to Title IV-D corrective action plan noncompliance; and $ Allows alternative system configurations that allow expanded local flexibility for automated child support systems; and

47 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NACo supports proposals which facilitate health coverage for parents in families whose children are eligible for the new State Child Health Insurance Program adopted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.