Section 1224d
This provision would codify in statute several performance standards that W-2 agencies would have to meet before earning performance bonuses from the Department of Workforce Development (DWD). The provision would also require the creation of a system to track former W-2 participants and former applicants to ensure agencies are meeting their contractual obligations and to assess whether those agencies qualify for performance bonuses.
I support the performance criteria in this section. However, I feel basing agency performance on the status of former applicants, persons who never participated in the program, seems unnecessary and would significantly increase the number of persons DWD must track. Furthermore, DWD already has a system in place, the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support (CARES) system, which tracks former W-2 participants for 180 days after leaving the W-2 program.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that DWD track former applicants and that DWD create a tracking system. I recognize tracking former W-2 participants provides information that helps Wisconsin evaluate the ability of W-2 agencies to increase self-sufficiency. Therefore, I am directing DWD to assess the effects of increasing the number of days they track former participants from 180 days to 365 days. This study should identify the costs as well as the capacity of the CARES system to handle such an increase.
35. Statewide Advisory Group
Sections 1224c, 1224p and 9357 (7g)
These sections would require the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to create a statewide advisory group that would serve as a source of information about W-2 programs and policies and as a forum for public comment on W-2. The department would have to organize regional forums and special work groups to address concerns raised by the advisory group, and any person would be allowed to participate in these meetings.
I object to these provisions because there is already an extensive process for public comment on the W-2 program. DWD received over 700 comments on the last W-2 Request for Proposal alone. Furthermore, each W-2 agency currently has a community steering committee in place which can help the agency evaluate W-2 policies and organize forums with or without DWD participation. The proposed statewide advisory group would only seem to add another layer to W-2 administration, one for which no resources have been provided. Therefore, I am vetoing the requirement in section 1224p that DWD create a statewide advisory group and organize regional forums and work groups. I am also vetoing section 9357 (7g) and partially vetoing section 1224c which require DWD to consult with this statewide advisory group when establishing performance standards.
36. Full and Appropriate Engagement in W-2 Contracts
Section 9157 (2c) (b)
This section directs the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to amend its Request for Proposal (RFP) for the next W-2 contract. One provision defines engagement for the Food Stamp Employment and Training (FSET) program as activities equal to the household’s monthly food stamp benefit divided by the minimum wage. The current work requirement, as specified by the W-2 RFP, is 27 hours of work-related activities per week. This provision was included based on the argument that the RFP’s FSET engagement criterion was not in compliance with federal regulations. However, the Department of Administration and DWD have confirmed that the requirement in the RFP is in fact acceptable under federal law.
Another provision eliminates the criterion that full and appropriate engagement for W-2 subsidized employment is engagement for at least 30 hours per week. The W-2 program is guided by the principle that participants should be attached to the workforce in order to qualify for public assistance. This provision essentially weakens the W-2 work requirement and thus a basic program goal.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section. This action will reinstate the FSET and W-2 engagement requirements as defined currently in the W-2 RFP.
37. Nonentitlement Modifications
Sections 1216m and 1227m
Section 1227m requires W-2 agencies to place a person who meets the eligibility requirements into a subsidized employment position within 30 days of application, if the person has made a reasonable job search that was unsuccessful. Agencies would also have to place an individual incapable of job search into subsidized employment immediately upon determining that person meets eligibility requirements. Finally, section 1216m exempts these two categories of individuals from W-2 nonentitlement statutes under s. 49.141 (4).
I object to these provisions because W-2 agencies already should be providing services to assist the individuals targeted by this provision. W-2 policy specifies that any individual classified as “job ready” but unable to find work must be reassessed every 7 days. Those reassessments provide W-2 financial employment workers the opportunity to determine what support services the participant needs in order to find work and to reconsider whether the person is in fact ready for unsubsidized employment. Furthermore, under current policy those not considered “job ready” must not be required to search for employment as a condition of their eligibility for W-2. W-2 agencies may place such applicants into trial jobs, community service jobs or W-2 transition placements.
One key philosophy of W-2 is that no individual is entitled to public assistance. Section 1216m reinstates entitlement by exempting individuals from the nonentitlement section of the statutes, thereby eroding this important aspect of the program. Therefore, I am vetoing these sections to remove the proposed nonentitlement exemption and eliminate the placement requirement for certain new W-2 applicants.
38. W-2 Pay Period
Section 1237t
This section specifies that the participation period for a W-2 employment position must be from the 26th day of one month to the 25th day of the next month. As a result, the participant would receive a full benefit check on the 1st day of the subsequent month. This section would also require W-2 agencies to provide the first grant payment to new participants 14 days after beginning participation. The pay period runs currently from the 16th day of one month to the 15th day of the next, with payment on the 1st day of each month. The Department of Workforce Development (DWD) issues new participants partial payments on the 1st day of the month after they begin participating in W-2 even if they have not participated for any hours in the previous pay period.
DWD uses the time between the end of the pay period (the 16th) and the first of the month to adjust assistance checks for sanctions. The proposed provision would reduce the amount of time DWD has to make such adjustments by two-thirds. In addition, issuing checks to new participants 14 days after beginning participation would create a system where DWD would be issuing assistance checks every day of the month. DWD also would have no time to adjust these partial payments if the participant incurred any sanctions. Therefore, I am vetoing this section, thus maintaining the current pay period system.
I recognize that people first applying for W-2 assistance may be experiencing economic crises and need emergency help. Currently, W-2 agencies may offer emergency assistance grants and emergency food stamps to new participants facing such hardship. However, if improvements to the pay period are possible, DWD should explore them. I therefore direct DWD to study whether or not improvements to the existing pay period are necessary and to assess the effectiveness of current emergency assistance in meeting the needs of those facing hardship.
39. Technical College Substitution for W-2 Work
Sections 1233m, 1237f and 1237h
These sections permit W-2 participants to engage in a self-initiated technical college education program as part of a community service job (CSJ) placement or transitional placement (W-2T). Participants could participate in such programs for the duration of the technical college program or two years, whichever is shorter. A W-2 agency could not require such participants to work more than 25 hours per week.
Under current law, W-2 agencies can assign up to 10 hours per week of education and training activities, including technical college education, to W-2 participants as part of their CSJ component. These participants can be required to work up to 30 hours per week. However, participants cannot substitute this education for their work requirement, nor are they allowed to initiate the education program. Rather, the financial employment planner (FEP) determines what type of education is appropriate, how much is needed and how much the participant should work. Similarly, a person in a W-2T placement can be assigned up to 12 hours per week of education and training and up to 28 hours per week of work.
By allowing participants to substitute their technical college education for their work requirement, the emphasis of the W-2 program could shift away from work and back towards education programs. Moreover, maintaining the FEP role in determining the education program for participants is important, therefore I am partially vetoing sections 1233m, 1237f and 1237h to remove the ability of participants to initiate the education program and to ensure that any participant wishing to engage in technical college under this section must work 25 hours per week.
40. Child Care Assistance Employment Requirements
Sections 1250b and 1252
These sections remove any work requirement as a condition of eligibility for W-2 child care assistance while participating in an education program. Under current law, participants are required to have 9 months of previous workforce attachment or be engaged in a W-2 subsidized employment position before becoming eligible to receive child care assistance while going to school. My budget proposal reduced the work requirement to 3 months. Because of anticipated increases in eligibility for child care assistance, an additional $130,000 PR-F was allocated for fiscal year 1999-2000 and an additional $150,000 PR-F was allocated for fiscal year 2000-2001.
W-2 is a work-based program, and attachment to the workforce is a critical aspect of eligibility even for child care assistance. Therefore, I am partially vetoing these sections. This veto will have the effect of requiring W-2 agencies to determine if a basic education program would facilitate the individual’s efforts to maintain employment. Thus, the participant will have to be engaged in unsubsidized work or a subsidized W-2 employment position. Because eligibility for assistance will still increase compared to what I allocated in my budget proposal, I am not removing the additional funding for this provision.
41. Child Care and Development Block Grant Funds
Section 9157 (3mm)
This provision requires the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to create a plan to maximize the use of federal child care and development block grant funds by the first day of the first month beginning after budget publication. This plan would have to be submitted to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) the following month. Given the publication date of this bill, I feel DWD will not have sufficient time to meet this requirement.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the submission date requirements. Furthermore, I direct DWD to create a plan by December 1, 1999, and submit that plan to DHHS by January 1, 2000.
42. Effective Dates – Child Care Eligibility Changes
Section 9457 (3) and 9457 (4)
This section introduces effective dates for new child care assistance eligibility requirements and specifies that, among other items, s. 49.145 (3) (b) 2. with regards to the repeal of the child care asset test is effective on January 1, 2000. There are two treatments of this section of the statutes in the bill, and I feel that the amendment to s. 49.145 (3) (b) 1., with regard to excluding a dependent child’s income from a family income calculation, should be effective at the same time.
These and other child care eligibility changes including the expansion of eligibility for disabled children up to age 19, exclusion of child support income, the increase in initial eligibility from 165% of the federal poverty line (FPL) to 185% FPL, and the change from gross to net income are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2000. However, they all require reprogramming of the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support System (CARES), and this system will be unavailable for reprogramming between November 1, 1999, and January 31, 2000, due to a systemwide freeze in preparation for Y2K. Furthermore, with the delayed passage of the budget, I feel the Department of Workforce Development will not have time to make the changes even without a precautionary Y2K freeze.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section to make all changes to s. 49.145 (3) (b) effective simultaneously and to remove the January 1 effective date in section 9457, subsections (3) and (4). I direct the Department of Workforce Development to instead make the necessary changes to the CARES system by March 1, 2000.
43. Credit Establishment and Repair
Sections 1221 and 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (cr)]
These sections provide funding to Milwaukee W-2 agencies for the provision of credit establishment and credit repair assistance to participants. I do not support additional funding for this purpose because W-2 agencies already perform budgeting and financial planning counseling to participants. Furthermore, concern has been expressed by many groups, including the Federal Trade Commission, that certain “credit repair” firms are achieving their ends not by helping participants learn good financial habits but by promising quick fixes.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 1278g to eliminate the allocation of $3,000,000 in each fiscal year for this program. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to put these funds into unallotted reserve.
Finally, I am partially vetoing section 1221. This partial veto will reinstate the requirement that any W-2 agency intending to provide credit assistance or credit repair services must submit a proposed plan to the Department of Workforce Development (DWD). With this particular veto, DWD can ensure that no W-2 agencies contract with disreputable credit repair firms.
44. Campaign for a Sustainable Milwaukee
Section 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (zi)]
This section allocates $300,000 to the Campaign for a Sustainable Milwaukee (CSM) in fiscal year 1999-2000 from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. CSM has indicated their organization is not prepared to use these funds and have recommended the return of this $300,000 to the general workforce attachment fund.
Furthermore, if CSM provides services for TANF-eligible individuals, any W-2 agency may contract with this organization separately. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section, eliminating the allocation for this agency. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place these funds into unallotted reserve.
45. Milwaukee Jobs Initiative
Section 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (zm)]
This section allocates $100,000 PR-F in each fiscal year for the Milwaukee Jobs Initiative, Inc. (MJI). I object to making this allocation ongoing and feel a one-time allocation is more appropriate. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section, instead allocating $100,000 for MJI on a one-time basis. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place the $100,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001 into unallotted reserve.
46. Runaway Services
Sections 397m, 397r and 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (ze) 4.]
This provision transfers funding from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to the Department of Health and Family Services to distribute $150,000 annually in grants to programs that provide services for runaway children.
In the budget, I created a Community Youth Grant program in which the Department of Workforce Development will award grants on a competitive basis to organizations providing services to TANF-eligible youth. Any organization that provides services to runaway children would be eligible to compete for a grant under this new program. Furthermore, W-2 agencies may contract separately with any organization that provides these services to TANF-eligible youth. Therefore, I am partially vetoing these sections, eliminating a separate TANF allocation for a runaway services program. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place these funds into unallotted reserve.
47. Joint Committee on Finance TANF Expenditure Review Authority
Section 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (2)]
This section eliminates the current Department of Workforce Development (DWD) authority to transfer 10% from one allocation under s. 49.175 (1) to another allocation for a specified purpose with Department of Administration (DOA) approval. It would institute a process whereby any redistribution of funds between DWD allocations would require approval from DOA and the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF).
The transfer authority, which exists under current law, allows DWD flexibility in making adjustments to its public assistance allocations which are funded primarily by GPR and the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. This flexibility is necessary in maintaining DWD’s ability to manage and respond to changes that are needed in the W-2 program.
Under current law, two sets of statutes govern the use of TANF funds – the federal block grant review language under s. 16.54 (2) (a) 2. and the allocations, established by the Legislature in the 1997-1999 biennial budget, under s. 49.175. Because these statutes overlap and are occasionally contradictory, my budget proposal tried to strike a new, more workable balance between the Legislature’s legitimate desire to oversee the use of TANF and DWD’s need for some flexibility in managing these programs. As such, under my budget TANF was exempt from federal bock grant review. However, the Legislature retained oversight of the use of TANF through the s. 49.175 allocations. In addition, I changed the TANF block grant from a continuing to an annual appropriation so that JCF approval would be needed before any TANF not appropriated by the Legislature could be expended. I believe this proposal struck the correct balance because it retained the flexibility for DWD to transfer up to 10% from one allocation to another without Legislative review.
Unfortunately, the Legislature removed the 10% transfer flexibility and consequently upset this balance. I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate JCF review of all transfers between allocations. DOA review of any transfers will continue. Furthermore, I direct DWD to not request any redistribution which exceeds its authority under current law to transfer 10% of any s. 49.175 allocation for a specified purpose with DOA approval. I would be willing to support separate legislation to restore JCF review to any transfer greater than 10%.
48. Administration of Medical Assistance
Sections 466, 1356m, 1356n, 1373v, 1460m, 9101 (18m), 9157 (2p) and 9423 (10m)
These sections transfer responsibility for Medical Assistance (MA) eligibility administration and the management of the Client Assistance for Reemployment Economic Support System (CARES) from the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) effective March 1, 2000. In addition, the Department of Administration (DOA) is directed to identify the exact number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and dollars that should be transferred and to submit this information to the Joint Committee on Finance for action at its December s.13.10 quarterly meeting.
Under current law, DHFS sets MA policy and DWD has responsibility for income maintenance (IM) administration. IM is another term for eligibility determination of the major public assistance programs. Consequently, DWD manages the CARES system, on which eligibility is determined for W-2, MA, BadgerCare, food stamps and child care. While CARES is the primary administrative tool used by DWD and the W-2 agencies to manage cases of public assistance recipients, to compile data for research and statistics, and to generate required quarterly and annual reports for submittal to the federal government, it also plays an important role in determining eligibility for the MA program. Finally, DWD also manages the local IM contract and provides services like training and manual writing to the counties, tribes and W-2 agencies.
Given the overwhelming success of welfare reform, it is now appropriate to follow-up with some reform of MA administration. However, I am not convinced that it is necessary, at this point in time, to transfer the management of the CARES system from one department to another or split the administration of public assistance programs in the manner proposed under the bill. I am, therefore, partially vetoing these sections to remove these requirements.
To improve the current arrangement between the two departments, I am retaining language that directs the DOA secretary to submit a report to my office which details the FTE positions and funds that are involved in MA administration. In addition, I am directing that DWD move the management of the CARES system to the Bureau of Information Technology in the Administrative Services Division of DWD and that DOA become more involved in setting the priorities for work on the system especially in areas that support more than one public assistance program.
Second, I am directing DOA to place all of the IM funds in unallotted reserve. DWD and DHFS will determine the funding and FTE positions related to state-level activities, CARES administration and local IM contracts that are billed to MA, W-2, food stamps and child care. Further, DOA, working with the two agencies, should develop a plan for withdrawing the funds from unallotted reserve and allocating the FTE positions between the agencies. Once a spending plan has been agreed to by all three agencies, I am directing DOA to oversee the transfer of the agreed upon FTE positions and funding related to MA administrative activities to DHFS. The plan will also address separation of contracts at the local level.
Through these actions, my intent is to improve the ability of DHFS to ensure that MA functions as effectively as possible at both the state and local level and to balance the priorities of both agencies and my administration.
49. Unified Program Eligibility
Section 9157 (3e)
This provision requires the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to coordinate with the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to develop and implement a plan for a simplified application process for low-income families applying for Medical Assistance, BadgerCare, Food Stamps, reduced and free school lunches, and the supplemental food program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These agencies would have to submit this plan to the Joint Committee on Finance for a 14-day passive review process prior to implementing the new application process.
The application for these programs is currently handled by the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support System (CARES), a computerized system which can determine eligibility for all programs through one application. DWD, DHFS, and representatives of local government have already worked to develop a new application process in CARES for Medical Assistance, BadgerCare, W-2, Food Stamps and child care assistance.
In their proposal, these departments did not include a discussion of school lunches or WIC benefits because they are not part of the CARES system. These programs have much simpler applications than other assistance programs and adding the applications for these programs into a streamlined application for other public assistance programs could significantly burden those individuals who only want WIC or free and reduced school lunch and those organizations which accept applications for school lunches or WIC.
Because a simplified application process has already been developed and because the proposal in this bill could complicate applications for school lunches and WIC, I am vetoing this section. However, I direct the departments to develop a report detailing the findings of their work group and share that report with the Co-Chairs of the Joint Committee on Finance.
50. Public Assistance Eligibility Determination
Section 9123 (7w)
This provision requires the Department of Workforce Development and the Department of Health and Family Services to make improvements to the Client Assistance Reemployment and Economic Support (CARES) system such that individuals applying for more than one assistance program could have their eligibility determined for each program independently of their eligibility determinations for other programs.
CARES collects a general set of personal information when individuals apply for public assistance. This system uses that information to determine eligibility for an array of public assistance programs, but eligibility for each program is currently determined independently of eligibility for other programs. Because CARES already functions in the way specified by this provision, I am vetoing this section and removing the provision requiring these two departments to change the CARES system.
51. Medical Assistance Outstationing
Section 1361v
This section requires counties to provide outstationed Medical Assistance (MA) eligibility workers the necessary security clearance to review and update information on existing records in the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support (CARES) system that have been assigned to other caseworkers. The Department of Health and Family Services has already implemented administrative procedures to address the concern that MA recipients cannot get immediate service when they go to outreach locations. Because a change in law is not required to make these administrative adjustments, I am vetoing this section and removing this additional proposed change to the CARES system.
52. Public Assistance Funerals and Burials
Sections 1355wb and 9423 (14d)
Under the bill, the maximum amount of unpaid funeral and burial expenses of public assistance recipients for which state reimbursement is provided increases from $1,000 to $1,500 on January 1, 2001, and to $2,500 on July 1, 2001. Funds to cover these increases have only been provided for the last six months of the 1999-2001 biennium.
Because these provisions would commit the state to increased general purpose revenue expenditures in the next biennium, I am vetoing section 1355wb and the effective date for this provision in section 9423 (14d). This veto will permit the first reimbursement increase from $1,000 to $1,500, but will strike the second increase to $2,500.
53. Public Assistance Overpayments
