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

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

### 

# May 23, 2002

### 2:00pm EST

### 

### Agenda

#### I. Welcome & Introductions

-   Sandra Chapin, Truman Fellow, Department of Health & Human Services,
    Jay Surdukowski, Incoming Truman Fellow, DHHS

**Participants:** Lynne B. White, Karen DeRosier, Dave Rubin, Leslie
Bloom, Laura Russ, Jackie Doig, April Bender, Jackie White, Julie
Zimmerman, Joe Barker, Jennifer Pace, Brad Davis, Rochelle Finzel, Frank
Garcia, Justine Adams, Laurie Revell, Sandra Jones, Calise Munoz, Mary
Caferro, Elizabeth Lovas.

#### II. Special Presentation: TANF Reauthorization and the Rural Perspective

**Chuck Fluharty**, Director of the Rural Policy Research Center (RUPRI)
We have two major challenges right now. The entire TANF Reauthorization
process is being politicized. We will need to build a strong
constituency for rural services. This infrastructure is lacking from the
rural perspective. There's lots of work to do. In summing, the effort
needs to be further policy definition, and we will need political
"vehicles" for this. Funding and resources, block grant, MOE,
eligibility, time limits and exemptions. We need a unique "vehicle" for
this. Transition and training programs are very crucial. A community
context for rural, linkages, targeted community context. I'll let Bruce
talk about some specifics of a research project that was just completed.

**Bruce Weber**, Chair of the Rural Welfare Reform Panel for RUPRI.
Several years ago we started a process with the Joint Center for Poverty
Research. We found what many of us already knew: rural areas have higher
poverty, low education levels, and fewer services available. Rural folks
have fewer job opportunities and fewer support services. We've been
doing work with Brookings Institute in terms of single moms in both
rural and urban. Between 1992-1998 single moms in both central cities
and remote rural areas had fewer income gains. We have five key
findings 1) in central cities, adjacent rural and remote rural the
percentage of single moms with earnings increased everywhere, but
earnings in real terms went down in these areas, and went up in adjacent
and in remote rural. Is this because they are getting part time, or part
year? Earnings increased slightly but the work effort increased
dramatically. We looked at poverty rates before and after welfare
reform: In the central cities and remote rural areas the poverty
declined the slowest. Poverty went down everywhere but here. Persistent
poverty between 1992-1998 was most persistent in these areas, central
cities and remote rural, for all five years.

People had most difficulties getting off public assistance. Caseload
reduction slower in these areas as well.

**Lee White Posey**, Senior Policy Specialist with the National
Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), Her organization represents the
state legislators @ 7,400 state legislators. She works for the Human
Services Committee and Taskforce. NCSL has been working since early fall
to draft policy to add to that area. She agrees that welfare reform is a
success in terms of caseload reduction, but is worried about states
having the flexibility under the new proposal. We have 50 different
programs and the states will need the flexibility they were given in
1996. The current caseload needs additional resources, they are harder
to serve. We need to make sure we will be supporting work and offering
services to folks who were working. 46% of folks still on aid have
barriers to work. The idea of increasing the participation rates to 70%
and the proposed requirements of 40 hours concerns us very much. This is
particularly troubling news for folks in rural areas. You will have to
have specialized programs to meet those hours, and we are concerned
about additional childcare costs. There is less "center-care" in rural
areas. Irregular hours, transportation are all difficult barriers.

States are facing a \$25 billion shortfall in funding because of budget
conditions. 40 states and DC have had to make cuts in spending. Rural
needs to recognized because there are place differentials.
Administrating these additional requirements are going to be costly.

**Barbara Pryor,** Senior Staff Member for Senator Rockefeller.
Rockefeller recently joined a working group of Senators. We decided to
work together as a bi-partisan group. Several principles: We want to
start a different type of debate. We tried to find the common ground
between us. Universal engagement: our group completely endorsed this.
Everyone should have a plan for self-sufficiency, an Individual Plan
that works for the family. Every family has to develop an individual
responsibility plan: a path to get to work. We also need to add
provisions for child well-being. We are developing common principles of
how to get there and the steps to get there. We would move from 20 to 24
hours, but keep the maximum count at 30 hours. Most welfare recipients
moving into their first jobs aren't offered 40 hours a week. Finally we
would want to fully fund childcare.

Rural perspective: It costs more to do welfare reform in rural areas.
Transportation, childcare, difficulties in getting good jobs, or any
job. That's why we want flexibility for definition, also parents with
children under 6 years old should be exempt. We believe that we should
add on and build on the successes of 1996, instead of adding new rules.
Baucus is interested in working on initiatives with Tribes.

There needs to be enough funding for the training and support of welfare
recipients. We now have a consensus on a tri-partisan employment credit.
This would be a change to give states credit for people who go to work,
versus only lowering the rolls. There would be bonus credits for states
that help people who go to work for higher wage jobs. This would be a
clear, direct incentive to states to take the time and effort to get
recipients into good jobs. We also support 24 months of vocational
education as long as it linked to a job at the end.

**Derek Miller**, deputy director for policy for the Congressional Rural
Caucus for Representative Clayton. Clayton is the Co-chair of the
congressional rural caucus. There are unique rural challenges. The
research is fairly unequivocal and the debate has not reflected that so
far. We haven't discussed at all about how that will differ among
regions. Clayton is trying to inject some of the rural concerns into
this debate. The debates are turning into much more partisan than I
hoped. But on rural issues there is some common ground between D's and
R's. It is a matter of bringing up these issues. Agreement to include
language in conference committee that would require states to show how
they will approach dealing with rural areas.

The issue of flexibility. Flexibility needs to be combined with
resources. There is a tension between flexibility and action. Just
because a state has flexibility doesn't mean that the state will do
anything about it. Provide targeting in addition to resources. Her
legislation would provide \$75 million a year in comparative areas so
rural areas can combine work with education and training. They'll need
skills to move up in the job area. It's not just work and not just
training, but a combination of both for folks to leave welfare. She
would like to see a rural workforce advancement program: grants from
federal government directly to rural areas where stakeholders come
together. It would be a Federal to local program, so money wouldn't just
flow through the states. This way localities would have the option to
apply for dollars.

In the finance working group, because of universal engagement, there is
no language about training frontline workers, but they are aware it
needs to happen.

#### III. Discussion

**Chuck Fluharty**: We have the potential with Secretary Thompson's
Rural Initiative to build more community based efforts. Many of us are
very hopeful he will give greater awareness to create a framework for
policy development and implementation. The major foundations are also
rethinking their rural framework.

**Lee Posey**: NCSL has called for more TA for program integration. It's
extremely important for

Tribal programs, we would like to see more technical assistance there.

**Julie Zimmerman**: Im curious about language about factors to help
facilitate research in rural areas. Our knowledge base seems limited and
fractured. We have some challenges in finding out answers to our
questions, consistency in data. Changes in data reporting requirements.

**LP:** NCSL has a major draft policy in place.

**CF:** We need a major rural policy package to work with our friends at
HHS.

**DM**: It can be difficult to find solid research, but there are
questions beyond that. Existing research is there but folks on the Hill
haven't necessarily seen it. The greater need is to get it into the
hands of the people on the house floor arguing about hour's
requirements. Ask folks to consider what policy changes mean to people
in rural areas. It adds to the issues of political will.

**Lynn White**: I managed grants for rural outreach pilots. Some of the
kinds of things I hear us talking about don't get addressed in the way
policy is defined. We talk about gathering data. I see workforce people
use the same data-bases they have always used even though we are now
mentioning something different. There are very few jobs that are
descriptive of the rural experience. Rural needs to define what they
offer, but workforce people couldn't operationalize it because it didn't
fit into the box. We need strategies that work in rural. We turn off the
very people were trying to engage with the policies that we have.
Entrepreneurship is very important to rural areas.

**BP**: Rockefeller wants more rural research. Welfare reform played out
differently than anyone thought. It's a big bold step and it takes a
while to figure out. The 5-year time clock will be also be clicking in
for some folks and now the economy is different. We need more research
for sure, and we don't know enough about rural areas as we need.

We also asked for an employment credit: The Make Work Pay Act. The State
would report about folks leaving welfare and actually track them, they
would provide extra data. If they provide more data then they would get
a bonus. It would be a different starting point..

**Joe Barker**: what are four or five things we can do to inject a rural
voice into the Senatorial process.

**BP**: Get in touch with your reps or senators, but you've got about
six weeks to get to know them very well. Not just lobbying, give them
specific timely information. Letters take about four weeks, so send a
fax. State legislators are wonderful partners, so are Governors. They
need info from the ground level about how these proposals will affect
people in their districts.

**DM**: also invite them to your communities to share information and
show them what it's like. Sometimes they are not aware of the place
differentials.

**[IV. Future Meetings]{.smallcaps}**

-   **June Conference Call**: Possible topics: Introductory Call for my
    successor, Jay Surdukowski, NRDP Honors Intern.

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

> Sandra Chapin

####### NRDP Truman Fellow

> Department of Health & Human Services
>
> Phone: 202-205-3505