Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/24/2000 01:55 PM 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. 98
"An Act relating to contracts for the provision of
state public assistance to certain recipients in the
state; providing for regional public assistance plans
and programs in the state; relating to grants for
Alaska tribal family assistance programs; and providing
for an effective date."
JIM NORDLAND, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSITANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES spoke
in support of HB 98. He observed that one reason for success
around the nation, has been that the Federal welfare reform
law afforded the states the flexibility to design and run
their own programs. With flexibility caseload has been
reduced and savings realized. This has happened all across
the nation. In exchange for flexibility, the federal
government capped the amount of dollars going to the states
in the form of a fixed block grant.
In this same vein, the federal law allows tribes and Alaska
Native organizations to run their own programs. The belief
is that programs are better run if they are locally
controlled and culturally relevant.
The federal law specifically names the 13 regional Native
non-profit organizations as eligible to run their own
programs. Under current state law (47.27.070), the
Department of Health and Social Services has the authority
to coordinate with these organizations in the development of
their programs.
Federal funding for the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program
(ATAP) comes in the form of a block grant. To be eligible,
states are required to participate in funding state programs
through a maintenance of effort. In Alaska, the maintenance
of effort is 80 percent of the amount of funding that the
state provided in 1994 to the proceeding program: Alaska
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). However, federal
law did not require a match for Native run programs. Without
state funding, Native programs would be left to operate with
approximately half the funding that the state program
receives, which would inevitably mean cuts in services.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00-82, SIDE 2)
Mr. Nordland observed that there is a comparability
requirement in the federal law regarding the Native program.
The federal government is not likely to approve a Native
program without state funding because of the failure to meet
the comparability requirement. A Native program cannot be a
comparable program with half of the funding.
House Bill 98 allows the state of Alaska to fund a Native
family assistance program. It is important to note that the
funding is already going to Native clients through the state
program. A portion of the funds that are already going to
Native clients would be transferred to the Native
organization. The Native organization would marry the state
funds with the federal block grant that would be going to
them directly. The bill has a zero fiscal note. Money would
be taken out of the Department of Health and Social
Services' budget and transferred to the Native organization.
The money transferred would be for cash benefits for work
services, childcare, and the kinds of things that are needed
to operate the ATAP program. The Native organization would
be responsible for running the program.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that the same people would be
served. A more direct provider (Native organizations) would
be providing the services as opposed to the department.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to pages 5 and 6. He observed
that the department cannot pay benefits above and beyond
those paid in the state program. He clarified that the
entire population of an area would be served, not just the
Native population.
Mr. Nordland explained that the federal law requires the
state to look at what was spent in 1994 and determine how
much was spent on Native families in a particular service
area. The federal law also requires that once the service
area is set aside that the population within the area can
fluctuate and that it is up to the Native organization to
decide what the service population is.
Co-Chair Therriault asked for assurances that the Native run
operations would be allowed to serve everyone in their
service area. Mr. Nordland observed that section 2 speaks to
regional public assistance programs. This allows the
department to subcontract with the Native organization to
serve the entire region, including non-natives. "In some
cases we will do that, in some cases we won't, depending on
the makeup of the region."
He added that the bill allows funding of a Native run
program. The state currently funds the Tanana Chief's
Conference (TCC) program. To receive state funds, TCC had to
have a program that was substantially the same as the
state's ATAP program. Originally, TCC wanted to do things
somewhat differently from ATAP. The bill would allow Native
run organizations to depart from what is done under ATAP, as
long as the program is still comparable to the state's
program. At present TCC only serves the Native population.
In Fairbanks, the non-natives are still served by the
Department of Health and Social Services. In smaller
villages it would make sense to contract with TCC to serve
non-Native families.
Co-Chair Therriault acknowledged that the populations are
large enough in Fairbanks to run two separate programs, but
expressed concern that the state not be in the position of
administering to a handful of people when there is a large
Native organization serving the Native population. He
maintained that it makes more sense to serve the entire
regional base. Mr. Nordland estimated that the state would
contract in some areas to serve the entire population.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that 60 percent of rural
Alaskans are non-Natives. Mr. Nordland noted that the region
that TCC serves is 50/50 Native/non-Native. Half of the
families on ATAP in Southeast Alaska are Native. In the
Bethel area there are 800 Native and 10 non-Native families
being served. He observed that the ratio depends on the area
of the state and the definition of rural. Vice Chair Bunde
acknowledged that there can be a difference in the makeup of
the total population and the population being served.
DON SHIRCEL, DIRECTOR, FAMILY SERVICES, TANANA CHIEF'S
CONFERENCE spoke in support of the legislation. He read the
following prepared statement to the committee:
I have been the Director of TCC's Family Services for
the past sixteen-years. I hold a Master of Science
degree in Behavioral Disabilities and administer
approximately $8 million of the total $55 million
dollar TCC annual budget of state and federal health
and social service programs.
As a social service professional and program planner, I
strongly support HB 98. In a state, of our unique size,
it makes a lot of sense to regionally design and
administer temporary assistance programming. HB 98 is
consistent with the same rationale from which state and
federal Welfare Reform emerged. Programs closest to the
people are more responsive, relevant, effective and
efficient than large centrally operated "one size fits
all" programs planned and administered outside the
community.
This January we completed our first year of operating
of a Regional Native Family Assistance pilot program.
While it is still too early to fully access the overall
success of the project, some of the preliminary
statistics indicate that we're headed in the right
direction.
In January of 1999 when the state fully transitioned
the program to TCC there were 440 cases. This January,
a year later, our monthly caseload was 356 families.
Like the state's temporary assistance program our
monthly caseload is the lowest it's been in the past
three years. Villages in the interior feel we're headed
in the right direction. Our preliminary statistics also
indicate that more Native families receiving temporary
assistance - particularly those who live in rural
communities of the interior - are working for the check
they receive. Village leaders feel really good about
that.
Alaska's rural communities through their Regional Non-
profit Corporations have been designing programs to
better fit the needs of their families. Many have also
been developing local and regional infrastructures that
now rival the state's capacity to provide a comparable
level of local service delivery, especially in rural
remote areas.
Villages in the TCC service area feel good about our
partnership with the state on this pilot project - but
they feel that they could do more and get a still
bigger bang out of their buck if they were allowed to
incorporate other regional variations within the
temporary assistance programs administered by the
Regional non-profits. HB 98 would allow Native family
assistance programs the degree a flexibility needed to
do more with the same program dollar.
For example; the state's plan finances One-Stop Centers
with a wide range of services to help people to get off
of welfare. But the state plan finances such centers
only in a handful of Alaska's urban centers.
Over the course of the first six months of the TCC
pilot program we developed a community based service
delivery infrastructure that included 37 existing
community based offices and assigned staff located in
one stop centers in each of the communities of the
service area created through shared funding from state
and federal program funds. These shared staff and
facilities were funded through the combined resources
of other federal programs to minimize administrative
cost and maximize the level of collaboration with other
support services needed by families seeking to enter
the labor market. These small community based service
centers serve as locally accessible, culturally
appropriate single points of entry for families needing
assistance and also as the single points of contact for
a regional service providers and employers seeking to
get information about their services and employment
opportunities to potential clients.
The small size of each of these village one stop
service centers allows for personal attention,
individualized planning, and services tailored to the
needs of each family as well as the accurate, timely
and ongoing monitoring of each client's progress. The
TCC Regional Native Family Assistance program
incorporates a service delivery infrastructure in which
people are working with people.. .not paper! They know
each other and regularly interact as members of the
same community and work together toward a common goal
to move on to work and to be more self-sufficient in
providing for the needs of their family.
Under HB 98 the TCC Native family assistance program
could impose the following standards not permissible
under current state statute. 1) All applicants would be
required to undergo alcohol and substance abuse
evaluations and follow the recommendations of their
evaluation or lose a percentage of their benefit (for
those who comply with the evaluation recommendation
within six months -- their benefits would be restored
and the percentage of their benefit which was withheld
would be returned to them upon successful completion of
their treatment). With the enabling legislation of HB
98 we'd not only be able to provide benefits for an
indigent family, we'd be more able to assertively
approach the problem of alcohol and substance abuse and
even create bonus incentives for parents who comply ...
all on the same dollar.
Under HB 98 TCC's Native Family Assistance Program
could require all parent's receiving benefits to attend
their children's parent teacher conferences and include
their children in regular health screenings and
immunizations made available in their community.
Failure to do so would result in a small but noticeable
reduction in their benefits for that month. With the
enabling legislation of HB 98 we'd be able to promote
better parenting by encouraging increased involvement
in their children's school work and increased vigilance
regarding their children's immunization and general
health ... and once again we'd be doing it all on the
same dollar that we currently receive. Our program
cannot impose such sanctions under current state
statute.
TCC's original Native Family Assistance program plan
included a provision to more assertively approach the
issue of domestic violence. That plan provided that in
two parent households in which domestic violence is a
problem -- the perpetrator would be required to leave
the home and receive counseling -- by court order if
necessary. He/she could receive a portion of the
household benefit only if they continued counseling
outside the home. Such sanctions and incentives (none
of which incur any additional cost to the program) are
not possible without the enabling legislation of HB 98.
In regards to getting people off of welfare and on to
work, there are many different ways to accomplish these
goals. There are many good ideas in Alaska. HB 98
simply allows these two realities to merge and to do so
in each of the diverse regions of the state. "What
works in Alabama doesn't necessarily work in Alaska-and
the way they do it in Anchorage doesn't always make
sense to the people in Angoon. HB 98 is about more
local control and getting a bigger bang for the same
buck.
Villages in the interior continue to support the
recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission
especially those related to local control, decreasing
dependency, encouraging self-sufficiency and developing
jobs and local economies. Our experience to date, we
feel indicates that we're headed in the right
direction. We hope you do too. Thank you for your time
and this opportunity to testify.
Vice Chair Bunde expressed appreciation of TCC's efforts. He
questioned how evaluations of drug and alcohol abuse are
carried out. Mr. Shircel observed that TCC has a general
screening, similar to the state. He stated that they would
like to require that every person that applies for
assistance go through an entire evaluation. The evaluations
would be done locally. The idea is to put real teeth into
what the community desires.
Vice Chair Bunde found it interesting that some rural areas
wish conservative screening.
In response to a question by Vice Chair Bunde, Mr. Shircel
gave a brief overview of his "Behavior Disabilities" degree.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder, Mr. Shircel
clarified that TCC receives direct federal funding. Half of
the funding that TCC has received for their operation has
come directly from the federal government; the other half
comes through the their two-year agreement with the state of
Alaska, which is about to expire. The legislation would not
change the percentage coming from the federal government.
Direct funding from the federal government comes from the
federal amount calculated based on 1994 state expenditures
to Native families. All regional non-profits and Metlakatla
are eligible to receive direct federal funding. He
emphasized that it requires a great deal of planning and is
a very complex program. Other regional non-profits have been
cautious to assure that any services that they elect to
provide directly are done as well as current programs.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that AS 47.27.070 allows the
department to coordinate with Alaska Native organizations as
designated under federal law.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Mr.
Nordland noted that TCC is currently the only Native
organization that is operating. At least two other
organizations are in the planning stage. He acknowledged
that there is some level of duplication, to the extent, that
there are two administrative entities in some regions.
Mr. Nordland emphasized that the program will not
necessarily lead to better levels of efficiency. He stressed
that the program would be better run at a local level. The
program would provide a greater level of local control
Representative G. Davis questioned if federal law would
prohibit TCC from administering to non-natives. Mr. Nordland
responded that federal law would not preclude Native
organizations from administering to non-Natives.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 98 (HES) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 98 (HES) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes: one by the
Department of Health and Social Services, published date
3/3/00; and one by the Department of Revenue.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|