Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 08:45 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to the maximum amount of assistance
that may be granted under the adult public assistance
program and the program of aid to families with
dependent children; proposing a special demonstration
project within the program of aid to families with
dependent children and directing the Department of
Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the
federal government to implement the project."
Co-Chair Hanley provided members with a committee substitute
for HB 78, Work Draft 9-LS0392\G, dated 4/28/95 (copy on
file).
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Work Draft 9-LS0392\G,
dated 4/28/95 (copy on file). Representative Brown OBJECTED
for purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Hanley reviewed changes made by the work draft:
* Sec. 1 Adopts CSSB 109 (L&C);
* Sec. 6 WAIVER APPLICATION. Changes the date
the Department of Health & Social Services shall
seek appropriate waivers from the federal
government from December 31, 1995 to February 15,
1996 to allow for more time to respond to federal
welfare reform measures before Congress;
* Sec. 8 WORKFARE. Adds (c)(3), an exemption
from the requirement to participate for persons
who are enrolled as full-time students in good
standing in a career education program, college or
university, as defined in regulations adopted by
the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education;
and
* Sec. 15 AFDC PAYMENT LEVELS. (3) returns
language to statute for a single-person household
that does not consist of a dependent child;
deleting the language that did not restrict the
Department from paying benefits for this category,
but would have allowed them to pay at the higher
level of $514 hundred dollars instead of the
reduced amount of $505 hundred dollars. This
category covers pregnant women and single parents
2
whose children qualify for SSI payments.
There being NO OBJECTION, Work Draft 9-LS0392\G, dated
4/28/95 was adopted.
GLENDA STRAUBE, DIRECTOR, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES reviewed
section 1. She noted that only 46 percent of persons with
child support orders pay anything. She observed that over
half of these individuals have the ability to pay, but work
in a cash or self employed position. She explained that
section 1 will ensure that a self employed obligator
establish a payment plan or pay their arrears to retain
their occupational licenses. She stated that persons would
lose their drivers licenses if they do not pay their arrears
or set up a plan in 150 days. She anticipated that
collections of AFDC reimbursements would increased by $2.1
million dollars. She explained that an additional $3 - $4
million dollars would be collected and distributed directly
to Alaskan children. She noted that a total of $5 to $6
million dollars in additional collections will be made. She
could not estimate the number of AFDC recipients that would
be able to leave AFDC with the addition of these
collections.
Co-Chair Hanley emphasized that there will be some
individuals who will be able to come off of AFDC with the
passage of the legislation. Ms. Straube noted that
obligators that owe the State $1.6 million dollars for AFDC
reimbursements. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that the
federal government is contemplating similar legislation.
Ms. Straube noted that the cost of the program will be born
by the federal government. She stressed that there will be
no cost to the State since federal incentive payments will
be high enough to absorb any money the State would have to
pay as a match.
Representative Brown noted that fishing licenses were not
being included. Ms. Straube noted that the State already
has the right to cease limited entry permits.
Representative Brown questioned the exclusions contained on
page 7.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that
the exemption refers to the $25 dollar business license
which is needed to enter into any business in the State. He
added that drivers licenses are excluded in this portion of
the bill because they are contained in the next section of
legislation. He explained that driver's licenses would be
revoked to accommodate the way licenses are issued. He
3
noted that individuals are allowed temporary 150 day
occupational licenses to allow them to come into compliance.
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Co-
Chair Hanley explained that the ratable reduction would
remain in the legislation.
Ms. Straube observed that in the State of Maine, where they
raised $21 million dollar, only 40 licenses were revoked.
In response to a question by Representative Therriault, Ms.
Straube emphasized that child support is based on 20 percent
of the individual's income. She stated that a table or
process will be implemented to guide the development of
payment plans.
Representative Brown discussed amendments provided to the
Committee. She stated that Amendment 9-LSO392\F.9 would
eliminated sections 2, 3 and 4 (Attachment 1). She
maintained that these sections would have an adverse effect
on a minor living at home with a single, working parent who
is not un welfare. She noted that if the parent has no
health insurance, the minor would not be eligible for
medical care or insurance.
Representative Brown noted that Amendment 9-LSO392\F.13
would not count the income of the adults when assessing a
person's eligibility (Attachment 2).
Representative Brown noted that Amendment 9-LSO392\F.13
states that if both parents are unmarried minors then child
support should be based on the income of the child's
grandparents, instead of the child's parents (Attachment 3).
She explained that the amendment would require the teen
father's family to provide a portion of support.
Representative Brown stressed that only 141 individuals of
11,089 teens who are on AFDC would be effected by section 2.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that section 2 would require teen
parents to live at home.
JIM NORDLUND, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES stated that the
Governor has included the requirement for teen parents to
live at home. He stressed that it is a better situation for
the teen mother to have the support of her family when
raising a very young child. He added that it is important
that the environment is safe. He spoke in support of
Amendment 9-LSO392\F.13 which would not count the income of
4
the adults when assessing a person's eligibility. He stated
that it is reasonable for the teen father's parents to be
responsible for the child.
KATHY TIBBLES, DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES expressed concern
that the teenager not be required to live at home if the
environment is not safe. She observed that the legislation
allows waivers in circumstances where the home environment
is abusive or where the parent is not allowing the child to
live at home. She discussed the fiscal note provided by the
Division. She noted that the assessment of the home
environment is estimated at 10 hours. Private social
workers would be contracted.
CURTIS LOMAS, DIRECTOR, WELFARE REFORM PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES stated that the amendments
proposed by Representative Brown could be incorporated into
the current waivers.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 1, 9-
LSO392\F.13. Representative Mulder OBJECTED. Mr. Lomas
could not estimate the number of teen parents that would be
affected by Amendment 1. Co-Chair Hanley noted that a
teenager living at home could be eligible for AFDC and
Medicare even if there parents had an income of $50.0
thousand dollars a year and health benefits.
Representative Brown asked if there was a way to craft an
amendment to exclude grandparents who can afford care for
the teen and their child. Mr. Lomas stated that the
amendment could be tied to a percentage of the poverty
level. Co-Chair Hanley noted that a tier system could be
devised. Representative Brown doubted that those that have
the resources to pay would choose to subject themselves to
the requirements of qualifying for AFDC.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault,
Foster, Hanley
Representative Martin was absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (7-3).
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 2, 9-
LS0392/F.2. Representative Parnell summarized that
Amendment 2 places an expressed duty of support on the
child's grandparents until the minor has reached the age of
5
majority.
DAN AUSTIN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BROWN explained that
Amendment 2 provides that the grandparents of the child who
is the minor's father would carry a child support obligation
when they are the noncustodial grandparents. The parents of
the custodial mother would not have an obligation placed on
them if the mother is living at home and her parents are
providing support. The support would be based on 20 percent
of their income. He explained that the mother's parents'
duty would be expanded in a shared custody situation. In
the case where custody is split by 50 percent then each
grandparent would be responsible for the 50 percent of the
time they do not have custody. If a grandparent has custody
more than 75 percent of the time than they would not be
responsible for support beyond their care.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-97, Side 2)
Mr. Austin stressed that under current law the mother's
parents are responsible for her care and support until she
is an emancipated minor.
Mr. Lomas stated that there is an obligation of the parent
to support the teen. There is no obligation on the part of
the grandparents to provide support of the grandchild. The
legislation would place an obligation on the grandparents
until the minor parent reaches the age of majority.
Ms. Straube stressed that the teen father has an obligation
to pay unless he is in the house with the infant and the
mother in an unemployed parent program. She observed that
teen father's income may be minor.
In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Ms.
Straube stated that there has not been a consistent policy
in regards to the obligation of the minor father's parents.
Representative Mulder suggested the amendment should clarify
that the child's parents, even if they are a minor, should
have an obligation.
Representative Brown MOVED to amend Amendment 2 by deleting
"instead of the income of the child's" and insert "and".
She noted that the amendment to the amendment would read
"incomes of the child's grandparents and parents." There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Parnell expressed concern that teen mothers
are going to go after their parents because the percentage
of the parent's income is greater than the amount the teen
mother is receiving in the home.
6
Mr. Lomas stressed that section 1 (1) states that there is
no obligation for child support if the minor is living with
the parent.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 2 as amended.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 3, 9-
LS0392\F.8 (Attachment 4). She explained that the amendment
would delete the ratable reduction of 1.7 percent. She
spoke in support of Amendment 3. Representative Mulder
OBJECTED.
In response to a question by Representative Navarre, Mr.
Nordlund stated that 20 percent of AFDC recipients receive
subsidized housing and 50 percent receive food stamps.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
3.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell,
Therriault, Foster, Hanley
The MOTION FAILED (3-8).
Representative Parnell questioned if a minor child could
have the Child Support Enforcement Division pursue the
grandparents for support. Mr. Lomas stated that the
provision would apply to any minor parent.
Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 4
(Attachment 5). She explained that the amendment would
allow the Department to be in control of the benefits.
Representative Mulder maintained that the Department will
still oversee the contract. Mr. Nordlund stated that the
amendment would not restrict the Department.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 4. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 78 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Parnell expressed
concern with the adoption of Amendment 2.
Mr. Nordlund stated that the Department of Health & Social
Services recognizes the demonstration project as a good
concept. He stressed that the Department objects to the
ratable reduction. He noted that the Department feels that
the child support provisions in section 1 will raise enough
7
money to pay for the demonstration projects.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|