Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/09/2001 01:35 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 116-AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN noted that a proposed committee substitute to SB
116 was before the committee.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt Version F as the working draft of the
committee. There being no objection, the motion carried.
MR. JIM NORDLUND, Director of the Division of Public Assistance,
said SB 116 makes amendments to the Alaska Temporary Assistance
Program (ATAP), which was created when Alaska's welfare reform act
was enacted in 1996 [SB 98 by Senator Green]. SB 98 is a very
robust law that has enabled the division to reform Alaska's welfare
system and to successfully move welfare recipients from welfare
into the workforce. SB 116 is the first attempt to make any
amendments to that law. One section of SB 116 is important; the
others are minor modifications.
MR. NORDLUND said the section that was in SB 116 that was removed
from Version F dealt with the 60 month lifetime limit on benefits.
Both the federal and state laws allow 20 percent of the caseload to
be exempt from the five-year limit. Congress and the Legislature
recognized that, inevitably, some welfare recipients will have to
receive benefits beyond 60 months because certain conditions
prevent them from working and providing for their families. He
pointed out the 20 percent waiver applied to the original caseload,
which amounted to about 12,000 families at the time, before welfare
reform was instituted. The division has projected that when the 60
month limit hits in July of 2002, the caseload will be below 6,000
so the 20 percent waiver will only apply to about 1200 clients. He
explained that if 20 percent originally applied to the 12,000, one
can assume those families have severe problems that will not go
away. The division predicts that in future years (2003 and 2004)
it will have to cut people off of the caseload who all would agree
should continue to receive assistance.
MR. NORDLUND said the bill as introduced by the Governor simply
repeals the 20 percent cap. Instead of using that arbitrary
figure, the division suggested establishing objective, strict
criteria by which families would be allowed to receive assistance
beyond 60 months. The families that fit the criteria would receive
an extension rather than a lifelong exemption. He explained that
section 2 would have repealed that cap [AS 47.27.015(f)].
MR. NORDLUND said he discussed alternative solutions with Senator
Green and Representative Dyson. Senator Green was concerned that
putting the criteria in regulation was too loose of an approach.
On proposal was to put the criteria in statute. Representative
Dyson suggested applying the 20 percent waiver to the original
number of recipients, which would give the division enough room to
cover the number of families that need continual assistance. After
further discussions with Senator Green, she decided to pursue a
solution to that problem next year so Section 2 was removed
altogether. Because that section was the heart of the bill, it
will have to be dealt with at some point.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Nordlund to review the provisions of
Version F.
MR. NORDLUND said that Section 1 of Version F deals with the
conformity issue with federal law. Under federal law, families
that live in Native villages with unemployment rates over 50
percent, as determined by state data, are exempt from the 60 month
limit. Alaska law does not contain a similar provision so Section
1 will bring Alaska's statute into conformity with the federal law.
It was not in the original version of SB 116 because removing the
20 percent cap would have taken care of the problem.
SENATOR WARD asked what qualifies as a Native village.
MR. NORDLUND said that definition comes from the list of federally
recognized villages.
SENATOR WARD asked if this applies to the 226 villages recognized
by the Ada Deere case.
MR. NORDLUND said he believes so.
SENATOR WARD asked if it applies to the federally recognized tribes
or whether it applies to a place like Egegik.
MR. NORDLUND offered to get an answer for the committee.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she did not realize this bill applied to the
federally recognized tribes.
Number 428
MS. KRISTEN BOMENGEN, assistant attorney general, Department of
Law, said she does not believe the federal welfare reform law
referred to the federally recognized tribes. She offered to
provide the definition to the committee at a later date.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that originally applied to a Native
village or a rural village.
MR. NORDLUND said the federal law uses the word "reservations" so
it was trying to replicate that in Alaska. He again offered to get
the specific language for the committee.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN commented that the economy of the village was
supposed to trigger the waiver.
MS. BOMENGEN said she believes Alaska's statutory language simply
refers to that provision in the federal law.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if Section 1, as written, addresses that
concern.
MS. BOMENGEN said it does.
MR. NORDLUND said Section 2 is in response to a lawsuit that DHSS
lost.
MS. BOMENGEN explained the case was a challenge to DHSS regulations
that were generated under the statute as it formerly read. Under
those regulations, the basis for the 50 percent reduction was an
evaluation of the employment of the family's principal wage earner.
That language was borrowed from the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) statute in effect at the time. That program had
three different categories based on deprivation. The third category
was created for two-parent families that had an attachment to the
workforce. If the wage earner was unemployed, the family could
qualify for the AFDC benefit. That terminology was borrowed
because the AFDC statute was in effect when this law was being
written. DHSS then made, in regulation, an attempt to distinguish
two-parent families in which one of the parents was incapacitated.
The court determined that the plain language of this statute
indicated a different kind of evaluation than the one used by DHSS
and overruled the regulation.
MR. NORDLUND said when he researched why this provision was
originally chosen, he found that language was chosen before federal
welfare reform was on the horizon. DHSS took two approaches:
Senator Green's waiver approach, which assumed that law would not
pass and the Governor's approach, which assumed that it would. The
language had to be consistent with AFDC if it was to be in effect,
assuming federal welfare reform didn't occur. Borrowing that
language made sense at the time, but the problem now is that the
court interpreted that language literally when the law intended it
to apply to two-parent families despite the unemployment status or
who was the principal wage earner. The danger is, if this part of
the law is not changed, DHSS might have to go back and pay benefits
to two-parent families in the summer, which he does not think was
the Legislature's intent.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the language in Section 2 addresses the
crux of the problem.
MR. NORDLUND said the language does address the court case but the
language in the committee substitute does not contain language from
the original bill that exempts a two-parent family from the benefit
cut if one parent is incapacitated. ATAP has exempted such
families for the last four years so the committee substitute would
make a policy change. He was not sure that was the Legislature's
intent.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the committee substitute would treat the
two-parent family of which one parent is incapacitated the same as
a "whole" two-parent family.
MR. NORDLUND said that is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Nordlund what the court directed DHSS to
do and whether the original bill contains the minimum language.
MS. BOMENGEN said the language proposed in the original bill would
maintain the status quo. It provides for the fourth category of
eligibility that is provided for in ATAP with one exception for the
incapacitated parent. The language in the committee substitute
sets a clear line that establishes that all two-parent families are
subject to the reduction and DHSS could not change that.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if DHSS prefers the language in the original
bill regarding the provision.
MS. BOMENGEN said it does.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if anything in that language is superfluous
and is not required for DHSS's needs.
MS. BOMENGEN said no.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked what has been added to address the lawsuit.
MS. BOMENGEN explained the question is what has been subtracted.
CHAIRWOMEN GREEN asked if she was speaking of the phrase, "the
unemployment of the family's principal wage earner."
MS. BOMENGEN said that term is no longer examined by the department
and is no longer useful because it doesn't really give the public
fair notice of what is being established. She thought the court
felt that the law contained plain language while DHSS was telling
the court it did not have to look at unemployment because it does
not use that as an eligibility factor any longer.
Number 599
SENATOR WARD asked if the committee substitute as is would not
satisfy the court.
MS. BOMENGEN said, "This language is beside the fact. The court
didn't address this. What the court addressed was that we had
language that didn't clearly state what we were doing in the
language that we've extracted. It's good to extract it. The
language here is a policy change. It does not keep the program at
the status quo, it instead changes so that more families will
receive the two-parent - the 50 percent reduction during those
summer months because it ...
TAPE 01-31, SIDE B
[MS BOMENGEN continued.] ... the exception that the division was
able to recognize because it was borrowed from the AFDC concept.
The court doesn't have an opinion about what the policy is that is
adopted here. If that is the policy that this committee chooses,
that's beside the point for the court."
SENATOR WARD asked what, in Ms. Bomengen's opinion, the court has
asked the legislature to do, if anything.
MS. BOMENGEN said the court has asked DHSS, as long as the statute
contains the language "unemployment of the family's principal wage
earner" to make an evaluation of the employment status of the
principal wage earner. The court has not asked the legislature to
change the law, it has only said this is what DHSS must do under
the existing law.
SENATOR WARD commented that DHSS must write new regulations then.
MS. BOMENGEN said it will and it will have to analyze each family's
relative unemployment status.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Nordlund and Ms. Bomengen to provide the
committee with a definition of Native villages and she asked for a
side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the bill. She
commented that the less language that must be added to create
additional exceptions the better, and that it is her intent to
perfect that language.
SENATOR WARD asked, regarding the people who will never be able to
get off of public assistance, at what point in time they should be
transferred to another program. He asked if there has been any
discussion about other possible programs that might be addressed in
this bill.
MR. NORDLUND said a number of states have done that. Some ATAP
clients have disabilities or incapacities that are not severe
enough to qualify for social security income but they are severe
enough to prevent those clients from holding a job. He agrees that
finding a way to transfer those clients to a different program is a
good idea that needs to be explored as DHSS learns more about how
many clients will fall in this category. For now, they can
continue to be served under ATAP as long as there is room under the
cap but as more people hit the 60 month limit, that cap will be
reached.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|