![](media/image1.png) ![](media/image2.wmf)

####### *A taskforce of the National Rural Development Partnership*

November 16, 2000

### 1:00pm EDT

### 

### **Minutes**

#### I. Welcome & Introductions

-   **Present on the call**: April Bender, Lisa Billups, Kim Brown,
    Karen DeRosier (Chair), Peter Froning, Jim Ivery, Dianne McSwain,
    Vanessa Orlando, Claire Parins, Jane Poertner, Carol Sharlip, Linda
    Snedigar, Sarah Vokes (Truman Fellow), Julie Zimmerman

-   **Presenters**: Amy Lockhart (ASL) and Elizabeth Lower-Basch (ASPE)

#### II. Presentation: Reauthorization of TANF (Amy Lockhart & Elizabeth Lower-Basch)

-   **Introduction to Process & Legislation:** Amy Lockhart,
    *Legislative Analyst*, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
    Legislation (ASL). Amy provided a brief overview of the process of
    reauthorization, including the **political climate, the steps, and
    discussion & questions.**

**Political Climate:** She first and foremost stressed the uncertainty
of the process, because no new administration is in place yet. Key
factors in reauthorization that are still unknown are the makeup of the
committees that have jurisdiction over welfare:

-   Finance Committee (Senate): 7 seats are up in the air. (Chair: Sen.
    Grassley- IA, Ranking Member: Sen. Baucus- MT. Sen. Daschle --SD,
    likely to take back his seat)

-   Ways & Means (House): Human Resources sub-committee chair will be
    new.

> **Steps for Reauthorization:** Although specific details/dates are not
> known, his is what is expected to happen. Reauthorization happens in
> 2002, but preparations are starting soon.

-   **Bills**: Any member of Congress can introduce a bill, so there
    could be a multitude of bills or there could be 2 representing the
    majority and minority opinions on the matter. The administration
    will also propose its own ideas, which can be broad or very
    detailed.

-   **Hearings**: The Ways & Means committee will hold hearings to
    gather information on the program. Hearings are held either by the
    entire committee or by a subcommittee. Hearings can be held on the
    merits of the program or on particular details of the bill.

-   **Mark-up**: *This stage is key!* This is when the committee votes
    on the bill before it is sent to the full congress for
    consideration. \*If you want to work with your members of Congress
    and make your views known, it's a good idea to do it *before* this
    stage.\*

-   **Sent to the floor:** The bill proceeds to floor for full
    consideration. There are a variety of rules that govern the
    proceeding, with different rules in Senate & House.

-   **Conference Committee:** Once a bill is passed by both the House &
    Senate, it is likely that the bills are going to be different. The
    Committee is appointed to resolve the differences between the 2
    bills. Each chamber votes to pass the agreed-upon bill.

-   **Presidential Action:** Once the bill is passed by both the House
    and the Senate, then the President has 10 days to act upon the bill.
    Presidential actions are generally not a surprise. Views are made
    known by the administration throughout the process.

> **Discussion/Questions:**
>
> *Q: Will the Supreme Court Case with the Valasquez have any effect on
> reauthorization?*
>
> A: No information available. (Ask Claire Parins about this if you'd
> like to know more.)
>
> *Q: What are the best points for groups to have input in the process?*
>
> A: Keep in close contact with your Congress members at all points in
> the process to make them aware of your views. Also, unite with others
> to give your views more credibility. Mark-up is a key step in the
> process.
>
> *Q: What opportunities for dialogue within the department will exist?*
>
> A: It should start soon, but it's hard to say exactly without a new
> administration in place. It's such a big program that a lot of time
> will be needed.
>
> *Q: Who is working on Reauthorization now?*
>
> A: APHSA (Association of Public Human Services Administrations) is
> pulling together a position paper. National Governor's Association
> (NGA) has put together a taskforce. The Center for Law and Social
> Policy (CLASP) is focusing on it as well. The Welfare Information
> Network has a separate section for reauthorization and they're
> starting to post papers and reports on the subject. The Ford Institute
> is sponsoring a conference in the beginning of February. (see
> http://www.spp.umich.edu/Conferences/feb_conf_schedule.htm#general)

-   **Policy Issues & Research Findings:** Elizabeth Lower-Basch,
    *Social Science Analyst*, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
    Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). Elizabeth discussed some research
    findings on the results of TANF, as well as some of the issues
    likely to surface during reauthorization.

> **TANF Findings:**

-   **Caseloads** are down 50% nationally since August 1996. This
    decrease is the result of welfare reform and a good economy.

-   **Funds:** With the decline in caseloads, states have more funds per
    case -- TANF is a block grant that doesn't increase or decrease by
    caseload. TANF funds can be spent on a number of programs and to
    promote different values (support systems, promoting marriage, etc.)

-   **Employment**: Reform resulted in a large increase in work in
    recipients and former recipients. From 7% of recipients working in
    1992 to 36% in 1999. Even the most disadvantaged recipients are
    working more.

-   **Leavers**: Between 45-60% of those who have left welfare are
    employed in any given quarter. 63- 75% are employed at some point in
    a year.

-   **Income:** Even though employment is up, most recipients are still
    impoverished. They often either have low-paying or temporary jobs.
    Programs that make work pay are effective; these programs generally
    let the participants keep their welfare check longer. (MN Family
    Investment Program does this and has had positive employment
    impacts, increased family income, and positive non-economic impacts
    (less divorce, less domestic violence, etc.)

-   **Barriers:** Some speculate that those left on welfare are now
    mostly those with multiple barriers to employment. Studies show that
    one barrier to employment is not an impossibility, but the more
    barriers an individual has, the more difficult it becomes to
    obtain/sustain employment (barriers: disabilities, mental illness,
    substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.).

**TANF Uncertainties**

-   **Economy**: What would happen in a recession? The block grants
    don't adjust to the economy, like the old welfare program.

-   **Underground Economy**: What are those who aren't working or
    receiving welfare doing? It's not clear how these people are getting
    by (informal support, underground economy).

-   **Details of the Program**: Congress is likely to look into work
    requirements and time limits. Is 5 years the right time limit? Is
    20% a big enough percentage to exclude from limits? Are the work
    requirements too stringent/loose?

> **Points of Discussion**
>
> Questions were asked of the panelist and the taskforce discussed
> several topics amongst the members. If you have questions about any of
> these specific topics, contact Sarah to find out the context of the
> discussion point.

-   The **underground economy** was brought up -- is there a rural
    differential? Researchers don't know much about this, although
    perhaps service providers know more about the underground economy.

-   The importance of researching the **rural differential** of welfare
    reform. Some evidence shows rural welfare reform having equally
    positive or more positive than in urban areas, but we don't know
    why. We have a lot of data, but we don't know that the data really
    tells us the strategies of success.

-   The **rural picture is complicated**. The nature of the rural
    economy and growth rates impacts each rural community differently,
    as well as the issue of proximity to growth. There is a need for a
    sophisticated approach to sort through these differentials, taking
    into account the regional context. The variables we can't control
    (regional economics) are something to think about when talking about
    the 20% exemption rate.

-   Different counties have different "cultures" -- some social service
    agencies are going to be more apt to cut people off and vice versa.
    People in rural areas may be less willing to leave their
    communities, due to a strong sense of place found in many rural
    areas.

-   Another problem is the **varying data** from state to state. Each
    state has a different program and there are lots of ways to report
    data. There is no national county-level database with the same
    information reported from each county.

-   More research is needed to learn more about the **multiple-barrier
    population** to figure out what is successful with this population,
    as well as what this population is like in rural areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Final advice on how to get involved in the process of the
    reauthorization of TANF: ***It's best to start early to get involved
    in the process. Build relationships, and begin dialoguing early to
    have your voice heard!***

**[III. Discussion of Future Meetings]{.smallcaps}**

-   **Surveys and Topic List**

> **Surveys-** 17 Surveys formally turned in, others have more
> informally expressed interest in remaining a part of the taskforce. 15
> of the surveys expressed interest in participating in calls, 7 in
> participating in projects.
>
> **Topic** **List-** From the survey results, the following topics had
> strong interest: Post Secondary Education & Youth, Faith Based
> Organizations, Philanthropy, Mentoring, Service Integration, Childcare
> & Child welfare, Self-sufficiency, Tribal TANF, Domestic Violence, and
> Workforce & Training. Topics emphasized by taskforce members were
> Service Integration, Domestic Violence, Faith Based Organizations,
> Workforce (Workforce Investment Act) and collaboration with the
> Workforce Development Taskforce.

-   **Criteria for Presenters/Panel**

> Sarah summarized the work of the taskforce in September's meeting as
> follows:
>
> For topic calls, the goal will be to have people with different
> perspectives, from different sectors present on each call. An emphasis
> will be placed on looking for **best practices**, in order to find
> innovations, real experiences, and **useful**, hands-on information
> for the taskforce.
>
> Some of the **different perspectives** that should be incorporated
> into any given panel are: a federal or government perspective; a
> research institution, either university or policy organization; a
> local/rural provider of services; tribal representation; and
> recipients of services. It may not be possible to represent all of
> these sectors on a given call (due to time constraints or the
> uniqueness of the particular topic), but efforts will be made to have
> different perspectives on the panel.

-   **Listserv and Roster**

The welfare reform listserve \<nrdpwelf@listserv.energy.wsu.edu\> is
back up and running, which will make it easier for our taskforce to
communicate announcements. Feel free to post announcements that have to
do with welfare reform on this listserve. Sarah is in the process of
updating the roster, so she may contact you if she does not have your
current contact information!

-   **Next March: NRDP National Conference**

> Something to start thinking about now is the NRDP Conference in March.
> It is going to be held from March 31- April 4. One roll the taskforce
> will have in this conference is recommending workshop topics or
> special consultations. Start brainstorming ideas.

-   **Next meeting: December 11-19?**

> Meeting time was not determined -- it is to be announced soon over the
> listserve.

Do you have any questions, comments or concerns? Please feel free to
contact:

######### Sarah Vokes, NRDP Truman Fellow

######### Department of Health & Human Services

> Phone: 202-690-6093 Fax: 202-690-5672

######### Email: svokes@os.dhhs.gov