[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3701-H3702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       WORK REQUIREMENTS--TEMPORARY FAMILY ASSISTANCE BLOCK GRANT

  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, we do need to reform the welfare system. I 
rise in support of the Deal substitute and wanted to raise one issue to 
my colleagues.
  Yesterday during this debate the Utah demonstration, welfare 
demonstration, was raised by one of my colleagues on the Republican 
side as an example of work requirements which work, which H.R. 4 was 
patterned after. I would like to just share a memorandum from the State 
of Utah Department of Human Services and let me quote:

       We do need to alert you to the impact which one key 
     element, prescriptive work requirements, will have on our own 
     very successful welfare reform demonstration program. Our 
     understanding is that the work requirements were modeled 
     after Utah's program. The following is meant to clarify that 
     the prescriptive work requirements of title I are not 
     congruent with our policy.

  They go on to say that the act, as drafted, would prohibit this 
approach, the act, as drafted, would require dramatic changes in how 
SPED is operated in Utah. I would urge my colleagues to support the 
only bill which does follow the Utah work requirements approach, the 
Deal substitute.
  [The letter referred to follows:]

         State of Utah, Department of Human Services, Office of 
           Executive Director, Salt Lake City, UT.
     To: Laurales Sorensen, Legislative Analyst, Governor's 
         Office, Washington, D.C.
     From: Robin Arnond-Williams D.S.W., Deputy Director.
     Date: March 9, 1995.
     Re: Work Requirements--Temporary Family Assistance Block 
         Grant.
       It has come to our attention that the House Ways and Means 
     Committee has now completed its mark-up of welfare reform 
     including Title I. Temporary Family Assistance Block Grant. 
     On behalf of the Department of Human Services, I want to 
     express our appreciation to you and Joanne for allowing us 
     maximum opportunity to provide input into this process. While 
     we believe the final product embodies the core tenets of 
     welfare reform and will strengthen efforts to move 
     individuals off assistance and out of poverty, we do need to 
     alert you to the impact which one key element--prescriptive 
     work requirements--will have on our own very successful 
     welfare reform demonstration program. Our understanding is 
     that the work requirements were ``modeled'' after Utah's 
     program. The following is meant to clarify that while the 
     concept of requiring participation and work are integral to 
     both Utah's single parent Demonstration Program (SPED) and 
     our Working Towards Employment Program (formerly EWP), the 
     prescriptive requirements of Title I are not congruent with 
     out policy. To summarize our requirements:
       SPED requires universal participation in self-sufficiency 
     related activities by all single parent recipients of cash 
     assistance--no exemptions are provided. 90% of recipients 
     actively participate, those who choose not to participate are 
     sanctioned $100 per month.
       Two-parent families are served under the Working Towards 
     Employment Program. Universal participation of 40 hours per 
     week for one parent and 20 hours per week for the second 
     parent is required. Cash assistance is received only after 
     completion of these participation requirements. Of the hours 
     required, at least 8 hours must be in job search, the 
     remaining hours can be any combination of employment, 
     education, or training.
       While most adults in SPED participate in job search or work 
     prior to education or training, this is not appropriate in 
     all cases. Often, we involve participants simultaneously in 
     employment/job search and education/training activities under 
     the philosophy that employment and education go together.
       Twenty-five percent of SPED recipients are working in 
     unsubsidized employment which strongly show Utah's commitment 
     to employment (this compares with a national rate of 
     approximately 10%). About 27% of recipients are involved in 
     education activities ranging from basic education to GED to 
     short-term skills training to college. Over half of these 
     recipients are also involved in employment, job search, or 
     mental health counseling. For the remaining recipients, two 
     issues are paramount:
       First, for those in GED, short-term training or English as 
     a Second Language educational activities, our experience has 
     shown that the best course is for them to concentrate their 
     full-time efforts on completing these educational paths and 
     then moving into employment that will eventually move them 
     off the system. The act as drafted would prohibit this 
     approach. If we expect a recipient without basic education, 
     specific skills or a work history to immediately go into job 
     search and employment there is a danger of setting them up 
     for failure, producing only short term results, and 
     encouraging the ``revolving door'' approach to receipt of 
     public assistance.
       Second, some individuals cannot work 20-30 hours a week as 
     well as attend school, particularly persons with other 
     barriers such as mental health problems, a disabled child, or 
     transportation problems. This will be particularly 
     detrimental to our rural SPED sites where geographical 
     distances may add as many as 2-3 hours of driving time as a 
     recipient goes from home to child care to place of employment 
     to school to child care to home is a given day. The act as 
     drafted would require dramatic changes in how SPED is 
     operated in our rural areas.
       Under SPED. we often push adults to complete education and 
     training as soon as possible. Often we require 40 hours of 
     participation with no time off for summer etc. This 
     significantly reduces their stay on assistance. We expect 
     that the language restricting participation in education and 
     training, could double the length of time some participants 
     are actually involved in education or training and therefore, 
     remain on assistance.
       Finally, we need to once again express our concern 
     regarding this level of prescriptive statutory language. In 
     order to effectively meet the goals of welfare reform, 
     states 
      [[Page H3702]] must have maximum flexibility. Public welfare 
     programs must be designed to allow states to respond to 
     rapidly changing environments. The reason we are struggling 
     with AFDC today is that the prescriptive statute has not kept 
     pace with changes in public attitudes, economics, social 
     conditions. etc.
       Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input. 
     Thanks for all that you are doing on this important issue.
     

                          ____________________