Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the FACT Program Repeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate over FACT program repeal after funding removed; members urge study before elimination
Summary
Representative Alexander presented a proposal prepared by Representative Sites to repeal the FACT (Family Assistance, Coordination, and Training) program after funding was removed in the appropriations act. Several House members urged delay and a study of impacts on families and service coordination rather than immediate repeal.
A bill presented in the Utah House on July 9, 2002 sought to repeal the FACT program after the program's funding was removed earlier in the Legislature's appropriations work. Representative Jay Alexander, presenting for Representative Sites, said the repeal was proposed because responsibilities for the program remain in statute but no budget exists to carry them out.
Representative Beck urged the chamber to oppose repeal until members had the results of an impact study. Beck described services FACT provides — budgeting help, workforce services, and parenting classes including the Love and Logic curriculum — and recounted a family testimonial describing how FACT intervention prevented family dissolution. "If FACT hadn't stepped in when they did, I can promise you that I would be divorced with 2 children and most likely on the welfare rolls right now," Beck quoted a family served by the program.
Members asked whether the study referenced earlier by a committee would continue if repeal passed; sponsors said the study would continue and could guide restoring parts of the statute if needed. Representative Hutchings, while sympathetic to FACT's services, said the absence of available dollars created a difficult choice and that the Legislature could bring back statutory protections if the study later showed a continuing need.
Multiple lawmakers on the health and human services committee said they had not heard negative reviews of FACT during committee work and said they were not ready to discontinue the program. The debate focused on process: whether to leave the statutory language on the books while a study assesses impact, or to repeal now because appropriators removed funding.
The transcript does not record a final floor vote on the repeal in this session's excerpt; the discussion and multiple requests to wait for the study are the substantive actions on the record.
