Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/22/1995 08:35 AM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 78 - PUBLIC ASSIST. DEMO PROJECT & DECREASE Number 000 CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE called the Health, Education and Social Services Subcommittee to order at 8:35 a.m. for the purpose of creating a committee substitute (CS) for Representative Mark Hanley's House Bill 78, and the Governor's bill, to come up with a package to address welfare reform. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Gary Davis, Con Bunde, Cynthia Toohey and Tom Brice. Also participating was Representative Hanley, bill sponsor. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Mark Hanley to begin. Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY stated he had attempted to put together ideas to have something to work off of, rather than trying to get all the different areas one by one. He handed out a copy of the summary and changes for the CS. Representative Hanley asked members to look at the summary of changes. He stated the gist of the CS is the assistance to minors with children, which was in the Governor's bill and Senator Green's bill, regarding Sections 2 and 3 of the CS. He stated there were no changes from the original bill, and Section 4 is a rework of waivers application using some language from both bills. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY referred to page 3, lines 12 and 13, and stated they had four separate municipalities identified in his bill He said the Governor had more generic language, which he has adopted, making sure there was at least one project in a municipality with a population over 25,000; one with population between 5,000; and 25,000 and one under 5,000 to make sure there is a demonstration project in four different areas of the state and three different sizes of communities to assure there is regional and population balance within the projects. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY explained Section 6 is similar to the workfare in his bill. Section 5 was earned income disregard and not changed in the waiver of the 100-hour rule, and auto allowance, which is included for all the auto projects under Sections 6, 7, and 8, the workfare, the Unemployed Parent Program and the Self Employment Program. He said it does not apply to the Diversion Program, which is a different concept on how to get money to individuals. He also said he had asked Curt Lomas, Department of Health, Education and Social Services to look at it regarding the fiscal notes, and the fact applied, rather than just Representative Hanley's workfare, which was not original in those three sections. Instead of 1,000 or 3,000 people, just do it as a demonstration project so it is scaled down to keep costs down because it is one of the costly things initially, i.e., the earned income disregard, but in the end may get people off because they actually may work. Representative Hanley stated if that is seen in the demonstration project, hopefully, we can see the results, and then show it is worth the up-front costs. Representative Hanley said he asked Mr. Lomas to let him know how that fiscal note will work out as they are trying to keep it as low as possible, make the demonstration project a little smaller and try to apply those earned income disregards and auto allowances for the other three waivers, and still keep the project costs within about what it has been for the bill. Mr. Lomas will be working on this to see how to work within these limits if the subcommittee decides to adopt this approach. Number 449 CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked, if congress comes in and says you will do this, or you will have the right to do as you choose; are we flexible enough to do this? Number 470 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY answered if they get to it they won't have very many restrictions, only a few or no waivers to those. He said the department will be able to do whatever the department wants with the money. He also stated they can choose to fly it across the board at that point; they wouldn't have to apply for a waiver; and they wouldn't have to do some of the things required by waivers. Representative Hanley believes it is pretty open. Number 508 CURT LOMAS, Program Officer, Welfare Reform Program, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services explained what the waivers do in the bill. He said one allows policies not provided for in federal law to be applied. He also said the other is a rule in the program as it exists today. He pointed out the policy would be the same statewide, and you do not have different policies in different local areas. Mr. Lomas said that is part of what has been waived in the past, and if both of those provisions go away the department can still do site-specific projects without special authority. He stated the federal law changes are currently moving so fast, he was not sure whether both of those provisions apply. Number 560 CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented he understood this is a moving target and what the subcommittee is trying to create is something they hope will match something they don't know. Co-Chair Bunde observed there is another year to make adjustments to it. Number 589 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY felt there will be a lot of decisions to make and some of the ideas presented should be tried as a state because they make sense. He said the only hinderance is the fact of the federal application process. He thought this was the direction the department and the legislature would like to go. Representative Hanley reiterated a couple of demonstration projects could be done before implementation to see how they work. He stated even as a state, if we were left to our own ability to do whatever we wanted, we would want to look into some of these areas. He said that's why the bill was being pushed, and the Governor is interested in doing these things. Number 640 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted, for the record, that Representative Robinson was in attendance. REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE wondered if it would only apply to certain areas in the state. He questioned the possibilities of applying it across the state and having test groups within each area of the state? Number 688 MR. LOMAS answered some states are doing demonstrations in actual experimental sites and Alaska talked about that with the federal government last year. He said he didn't get a real positive response primarily because of the size of the caseload in Alaska being a relatively tiny caseload. He said the federal government seemed disinclined to work off that kind of a model unless Alaska had at least a majority of the caseload in the project broken out into experimental groups. He felt that if the demonstrations were run in Fairbanks and Anchorage, which is 77 percent of the caseload in the state, they probably would allow the provisions to be applied in the rest of the state. Number 560 CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated he understands this is a moving target and the subcommittee is trying to create something they hope will match. Number 640 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY thought if it is thrown wide open there would be a lot of decisions to make. He felt some of these ideas are the things that should be tried by the state as they make sense. He observed at this point the only hinderance is going through the federal application process. Representative Hanley stated this looks like the right direction and the direction the department would like to go in. He suggested a couple of demonstration projects before implementing them to see how they work. Number 775 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that the waivers will apply to the test groups, and asked Representative Hanley if that was correct. Number 787 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY agreed that the waivers will identify areas in which all the people that fit in that area are within the test group. He stated there was a control group and a test group. Representative Hanley demonstrated there was a test group within the control group with all things applied to them, and a control group that goes on as they normally do, under the current system. Number 826 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said his concern is rural Alaska needed something like this. He wondered if an auto allowance was appropriate in areas where there is the 100-hour rule or earned income disregard, and the waivers may not have much effect. Number 887 JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services - Juneau, stated there are four projects, two of them experiments testing statewide population, a control group, the unplanned parenthood an entrepreneur project, and an experimental group. The community work project is in local sites. He agreed the auto allowance section didn't make much sense in rural Alaska. Number 929 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed. Number 977 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated there are cities that do qualify, such as Unalaska or Galena, and fall under that auto allowance. Number 994 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt whether this program keeps people on unemployment or AFDC becomes less of a factor. CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed the differences between urban and rural begin to blur in some of those cities. Number 1016 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY noted there were a number of things and that two would be applied in the workfare section if that section is done in a rural community. If there are no jobs the participants will be required to do uncompensated or educational kinds of things. He felt the department would pick and choose where to apply some of these and that is the reason it fits into all of them. Number 1066 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if all these programs would be applied to all project areas. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY said, no, there are a couple of each of those in different communities, giving the flexibility to pick a couple in each, but there is a minimum of one by community size and by region of the state. He said they cannot all be done in one area, such as Anchorage. Number 1129 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if it was four projects in each region, or one in each region. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY answered it would be possible to do just four demonstration projects, one in each of four regions of the state, one of each in the demographic areas. Number 1156 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for a grid for areas in which projects apply. Number 1177 MR. NORDLUND said that they would be glad to prepare the grid. Number 1209 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked to go through the rest of the changes and then take more questions. Number 1259 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY stated Section 5 applied to the three, Sections 6 through 8. Section 6 is his workfare section with expanded activities allowed, including some language from the Governor's bill as to the types of activities allowed under uncompensated activities. He said the paid employment option, or uncompensated activity, is more clearly defined. Number 1205 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Hanley to explain "culturally relevant to activities." REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY replied the language was from the Governor's bill. He said he had talked about it last year with the people of the North Slope Borough and they were requiring people to teach subsistence activities. He said another part of the community service could be educating folks in language, basket weaving, or hunting skills. He also said they had to do a certain number of hours in more of a structured environment such as community service. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Lomas if he had given some thought as to what might be included. Number 1285 MR. LOMAS answered that he had and thought the language, throughout the discussion, is not in touch with what is being put together in the Governor's bill, which went in there to specifically to alert people the department had taken that under consideration. Mr. Lomas said the department looks at projects taking those kinds of activities under consideration. Number 1332 CO-CHAIR BUNDE did not disagree with Mr. Lomas' concerns, but felt there should be some monitoring regarding the difference between teaching somebody to make skin moccasins or taking a group of children out hunting, and someone getting on the snow machine and disappearing for 12 hours and coming back and saying they were subsistence hunting. Number 1350 MR. LOMAS agreed to the need for monitoring, but stated there would be someone out there doing case management and working with individuals as to what their activities are. Number 1369 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if this would be a geographic section, because only rural people can be subsistence users. She also asked if that means people in the urban areas cannot be using this as part of their workfare. Number 1388 MR. LOMAS replied the language is intended to be permissive rather than descriptive and the broader issue of subsistence was overlooked. Number 1412 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Lomas if he envisioned this being permissive as someone could come to the agency with a project and say I'm going to do X, Y, Z as a culturally relevant activity and someone from the agency would say, "yes, that's appropriate," or "no." She stated this needed to be modified somehow. Number 1432 MR. LOMAS answered in the affirmative, but he would like to see a level of policy definition before is that developed in the waiver application. He said the regulations are put in place to set out how the project operates given the area chosen. CO-CHAIR BUNDE ascertained that regulations and the caseworker would define what is culturally relative, not the client. MR. LOMAS answered the agency would have discretion there. Number 1450 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS brought up Representative Toohey's concern about subsistence and its definition because the federal subsistence board is currently considering subsistence hunting on the Kenai Peninsula, which would be inappropriate. He stated they could be learning net mending and repair of outboard motors, et cetera. Number 1497 CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt the modus operandi would be trust and verify. Number 1507 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY said Section 7 is the AFDC Unemployment Program from the Governor's bill. Section 8 is the Self Employment Project. He advised Section 9 is the diversion project. Sections 10 through 12 are generic sections requiring other state agencies to cooperate with the department. He said it defines AFDC and the department as well as the immunity and liability section. He also said Section 13 is the ratable of reduction in AFDC. The APA reduction was removed. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Hanley to expand on his information as well as the cost. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY agreed he was going to look at the whole program and would try to keep the cost down. He also stated the initial intent of his bill was to cover the up-front costs of the program without any reduction. He said he is waiting to see what Mr. Lomas comes up with for fiscal notes. Representative Hanley said he is trying to work within the parameters of the rate of reduction. When this is completed, he will determine whether to apply that one project across the board as well, or change it. He may put include a high ratable for just AFDC, or put back the APA reduction as well. MR. LOMAS felt more money has to be softened and the need to leave the APA out, and increase rate of reductions elsewhere as they are talking about people without many choices. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY continued to say this was the thought of many people so it is one of the policy calls they may have to include. He did point out the AFDC reduction was also inequitable because not everyone gets to take advantage of it. Representative Hanley said it was a policy call to try to cover the up-front costs of the program. Number 1625 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he understood it was the art of the possible. Number 1631 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY continued with Section 14 through 18, stating these sections are the regulation or transition sections talking about more details of how they go about the process, when it takes effect and that type of thing. He said essentially, the assistance to minors slightly changed the project area given the broad definitions of the project areas and the population levels. He said he adopted the workfare portion from his bill, the unemployed parents, self-employment diversion project from the Governor's bill, and then added the necessary language to fit it together. Number 1659 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for questions from committee members to Representative Hanley regarding changes, and then asked to have Mr. Nordlund speak to changes and add the department's perspective. Number 1680 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out this bill was attacking three major problems identified as barriers to employment. He felt that there were two missing: The medical coverage for the working poor; and some type of transitional child care for after workfare. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Representative Hanley if he had considered a year, or two-year transitory process for people who had gone through workfare, gotten a job, can maintain a level of child care and medical care until they get their feet on the ground. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY answered some of the diversion project is not transitional, but it goes to offering lump sum payments to deal with problems they have. He said the project says to individuals, "What do you need?" It also asks if it's for medical care, or car repair, and if they need a one-time payment to fix it. He stated it is primarily to look at the individual and see what they need. Representative Hanley said there are specific limits on the dollar amounts of those kinds of things and maybe it wouldn't cover it. He stated currently, there are transitional benefits for health benefits beyond AFDC for a year, or two years, even after they are off AFDC, if they are in the project, they get to keep it for a year. The income limits for families with children are higher for the children to be covered, so the children are currently eligible for health care coverage. He said he didn't get into the nonqualifying group for AFDC. Representative Hanley said they are looking for people who are on AFDC. He said raising the limits for the working poor is going to cost a lot. Number 1819 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded this was what he was saying. He said the idea is to move people from AFDC, and the next step is that level. He then asked if there's a years transition and child care, is that long enough? He asked What is seen after that year? REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY answered this is a question that varies depending on individuals. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt the department might be able to give figures. He asked Mr. Nordlund if this was possible. Number 1857 There was general discussion regarding paternity and child care bills that are forthcoming in the Health, Education and Social Services Committee. Number 2015 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for clarification of Section 2 regarding the reference to a minor parent and the fact there is no distinction between custodial and non-custodial. Number 2036 MR. LOMAS replied Representative Brice was correct. The words custodial or non-custodial were not included, but the condition of eligibility is described in the first paragraph. He continued if a young man applied for assistance for himself and his child this requirement would apply. Number 2095 CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt the committee might want to talk to a the drafter about this as it does imply if the father is not living in a place of residence maintained by the minor's parents, legal guardian, adult relative, foster home, maternity home with adult supervision, Co-Chair Bunde understood the mother would not be eligible. Number 2095 CO-CHAIR BUNDE suggested it's the person that applies for benefits, not just the parent. Number 2101 CHAIRMAN TOOHEY asked about the absent parent. Number 2128 MR. LOMAS responded this was straight out of federal law. He said he was trying to get some background on where the federal government gets its interpretation. Number 2166 MR. NORDLUND stated Mr. Lomas worked with the staff extensively preparing the draft, and he would like to go back and take a look at the draft and work on the grid Representative Brice suggested. He could then come back and make comments on the bill at the next hearing. Mr. Nordlund expressed some concerns on the AFDC ratable reduction in terms of paying for these waiver projects. He said it is the position of the Administration that the department looked for increased child support as means of paying for it, not benefit reductions for AFDC. CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out it is his understanding that the bill is a compromise bill and will possibly go to the full committee the next time they hear it, and take testimony. Mr. Nordlund will have ample time to provide the information requested and review the implications and perhaps be able to move forward on the bill. Number 2230 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON felt the department stated the Unemployed Parent Program and the Self Employment Program would be statewide, but she understands the sponsor has stated on page 3, line 12, that it would not be statewide. She asked for clarification. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY replied that his bill says "at a minimum," so anything could apply statewide. MR. LOMAS responded the Governor's bill, the Unemployed Parent Program and the Self Employment Program is statewide. Number 2274 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Lomas if statewide was okay. MR. LOMAS answered those are minimum parameters to ensure some of these projects are done around the state. Number 2284 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON requested that be made clear in the language so if they decide to do it statewide, it would be possible. She asked about the effective date with approval of relevant waivers. She also wants to know if the ratable reductions would take place. Representative Robinson said she realizes it may be six months before approval and she doesn't want to be cutting benefits prior to this program being enacted. She then asked Representative Hanley if he saw the cuts coming down before the program is in place. Number 2312 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY advised he needed to look at the bill, but, in the past, it was taking effect before the actual waiver was granted because of a lot of the work being done, as well as expenses incurred in doing the waiver application and implementing the project. MR. LOMAS interjected it was to be 90 days after the Governor's signature, so it was assumed it would be October 1. Number 2340 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said if these restrictions were taken away, is there a mechanism to reimplement the ratables at their current level. TAPE 95-26, SIDE B Number 000 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his interpretation is that the ratable reduction is to fund this program. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY advised that was not the way it was set up last time, it was a five-year project. CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the question for the next meeting. Number 074 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked to hear Sherrie Goll as she has followed this bill and may have input on other things that perhaps the sponsor or department should be aware of before the bill moves. Number 123 SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist, responded she was not sure she had any appropriate comments for the subcommittee other than in the workfare project, when every person in the family over 18 years of age has to participate 21 hours. She said, currently, that it is combined with the community work service. It seems to cover concerns she mentioned when the bill was before the full committee. She feels the teen parent is becoming ineligible by this bill and the child's father needs to be responsible. Number 262 CO-CHAIR BUNDE felt it was the child's needs that need to be met. MRS. GOLL agreed and stated that was what she meant.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|