Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/2000 01:42 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 80-PUB.ASSISTANCE:PROGRAMS/GRANTS/CONTRACTS
MR. JIM NORDLUND, Director of the Division of Public Assistance
in the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), made the
following comments about SB 80 on behalf of the Administration.
One of the main reasons for the success of the Welfare Reform Act
of 1996 is that Congress gave states a great deal more
flexibility with which to operate their welfare programs. In
exchange for that flexibility, the federal government agreed to
give states a fixed-amount block grant to operate their programs.
Since 1996, states have been able to design programs that are
more suited to their local economies and circumstances. The 1996
federal act also allows the 12 Alaska Native regional non-profit
corporations and the Metlakatla reservation to operate their own
welfare programs.
Alaska's version of welfare reform, the Alaska Temporary
Assistance Program (ATAP), was created by Alaska statute. That
law allows DHSS to coordinate the operation of its welfare
program with those same 13 entities.
To receive the federal block grant, Alaska must contribute state
funds, known as a maintenance of effort (MOE), to the program.
The state currently contributes approximately 40 percent of the
cost of the overall program. Current state law does not allow
the state match to go to the Native-operated programs; SB 80 will
allow the State to contribute State funds to the operation of the
Native programs. These state monies are currently being spent on
Native clients, so instead that money would be transferred to the
regional non-profit organizations. SB 80 has a zero fiscal note
because it simply changes the entity that is operating the
program and does not increase funding for the programs.
One other provision in the federal act, included at Senator
Murkowski's request, underscores the need for SB 80 and is unique
to Alaska. It requires that a Native-operated program be
comparable to the state's program; however, if a Native program
is operating with approximately 50 percent fewer dollars than the
State's program, its program could not be comparable. For all
practical purposes, without state funding, the Native
organizations would be denied the opportunity to run their own
welfare programs in Alaska.
The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) is currently operating a
welfare program in the Fairbanks area. The only way the state
can provide state funds for the TCC program is if TCC designed a
program identical to the state's. TCC wanted to reduce client
benefits by five percent and use that money to operate a drug and
alcohol treatment program. TCC cannot do so under current state
law; SB 80 would change that. SB 80 is a local control bill. It
allows a local entity to design and operate its own program.
CHAIRMAN MILLER announced that a quorum was present as Senators
Pearce and Wilken had arrived.
Number 598
SENATOR PEARCE asked if the state will have approval authority
over the program changes that differ from the state's program.
MR. NORDLUND said the bill lays out some of the parameters by
which DHSS will provide state funding. One part of the bill is a
reiteration of the particular criteria DHSS and the federal
government will use to give non-profits state money. In
addition, the money would be granted from DHSS to the Native non-
profit organizations so the grants will be audited using DHSS's
auditing procedures.
SENATOR PEARCE noted that her concern is how much a Native non-
profit program could differ from a state program.
MR. NORDLUND stated it is hard for DHSS to anticipate exactly
what Native organizations might propose in a plan so there is no
bright line in terms of what they can and can't do. That
question revolves around the definition of comparability. DHSS
has laid out some of the things the Native organizations must do
to be comparable. His view is that a five percent benefit cut is
not substantial enough to make TCC's program incomparable. It
will ultimately be up to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human
Services to define whether a program is comparable.
Number 805
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked Mr. Nordlund to list the names of the
Native non-profit organizations along with Metlakatla to clarify
where the money will be going. He also noted that although he
understands the benefit of creating regional programs, he has a
philosophical problem with creating a program for Native people
and a program for others since over the years the legislature has
tried to break racial barriers down. He asked Mr. Nordlund for
his view of that issue.
MR. NORDLUND said that matter has been dealt with in the
legislation itself because the bill allows DHSS to set up
regionally operated public assistance programs. DHSS could set
up a program that is for all of the Doyon region, for example,
including Natives and non-Natives if it chose to do so. That
provision is in the bill because the day may come when DHSS will
want TCC to operate the program for all recipients in the region.
DHSS will most likely contract with TCC fairly soon to operate
programs for all recipients in small villages because there may
be only one non-Native recipient in that village.
SENATOR ELTON asked if a Native resident of a region will have a
choice between the Native regional program and the state program.
MR. NORDLUND said the simple answer is "no." Once DHSS contracts
out the operation of the program to a local entity, then that is
where the person will go to get services.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked which program a member of the Doyon region
who lives in Fairbanks would fall under.
MR. NORDLUND replied a Native person living in Fairbanks would
fall under TCC's program.
Number 1107
SENATOR ELTON asked about the changes in the proposed committee
substitute.
MR. NORDLUND said the main change in the committee substitute is
that it deals with child support. SB 80 was introduced last year
and ran into a roadblock in terms of how child support would be
distributed to the state or the Native organization. DHSS worked
with the Attorney General's office and the Child Support
Enforcement Division (CSED) over the interim on that issue and
determined that the child support collections should be assigned
to the Native organization. In the past, the state collected the
child support payments and gave half to the federal government as
a reimbursement. The federal government does not care what
happens with those distributions anymore and will allow the
Native organizations to keep all child support collections.
Because the state will be helping the Native organizations to
fund the program, the state will be reimbursed from the child
support collections by a reduction in the amount granted to the
Native organization.
CHAIRMAN MILLER said because the proposed committee substitute
was submitted to staff at the last minute he cannot receive it
too well.
MR. ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of
DHSS, said he brought the document to committee staff this
morning, and the document reflects exactly the version of the
bill that passed out of the House HESS Committee earlier this
session. The bill was heard in the House Finance Committee late
last week and it was unclear whether it would be amended by that
committee. He waited until the bill moved from House Finance to
bring it to committee staff. He apologized for the short notice.
CHAIRMAN MILLER noted that committee members would have the
weekend to look at it.
MR. DON SHIRCELL, the Director of TCC's Family Service Division
for the past 16 years, said Alaska's unique size makes regionally
designed and administered temporary assistance programs logical.
SB 80 is consistent with the same rationale from which state and
federal welfare reform emerged. Programs closer to the people
are more responsive, relevant, effective and efficient than
large, centrally-operated one-size-fits-all programs planned and
administered outside of the community. This January, TCC
completed its first year administering a regional Native family
assistance pilot program. While it is still too early to fully
assess the project, some of the preliminary statistics indicate
that TCC is headed in the right direction. In January of 1999,
when the state fully transitioned its program to TCC, there were
440 cases. This January, the monthly caseload consisted of 356
families. Like the state's temporary assistance program, TCC's
caseload is the lowest it has been in three years. Preliminary
statistics also indicate that more Native families receiving
temporary assistance are working for the checks they receive.
Village leaders feel good about that. Alaska's rural communities
and their regional non-profit corporations have been designing
programs that fit the needs of their families, and 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 remote areas. TCC feels it could
get more bang for the buck if it is allowed to incorporate other
regional variations within its temporary assistance program.
SB 80 would allow Native family assistance programs the degree of
flexibility needed to do more with its program dollars. For
example, the state's temporary assistance program plan includes
one-stop centers which offer a wide range of employment training
and counseling services to help people get off of welfare. The
state has financed such centers in a handful of urban
communities. Over the course of the first six months of the TCC
pilot program, it financed a community-based service delivery
infrastructure that includes community based offices and staff
located in one-stop centers in each of the 38 rural communities
of TCC's service area. These were created at no additional cost
to the consolidation of state and federal program funds. The
shared staff and facilities were funded through the combined
resources of other existing TCC programs to minimize
administrative costs 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
service locally acceptable, culturally appropriate single points
of entry for families needing assistance, as well as single
points of contact for employers. The small size of the one-stop
centers allows for personal attention and monitoring to ensure
progress. People work with people and not paper.
Under SB 80, the TCC program could impose the following standards
not permissible under current Alaska statute. All applicants for
assistance could be required to undergo alcohol and substance
abuse evaluations. More importantly, they'd be required to
follow the recommendations of their evaluation or lose a
percentage of their benefits. For those who comply with the
treatment plan recommended within six months, their benefits
would be restored and any percentage withheld would be returned
upon successful completion of their treatment plan. TCC would be
able to assertively approach the problem of alcohol and substance
abuse and create bonus incentives for compliance on the same
dollar.
TCC could require all parents who receive benefits to attend
their children's parent teacher conferences and include their
children in regular health screenings and immunization clinics.
TCC cannot impose many sanctions under current law. SB 80 is
about less government, local control, and more "bang for the
buck."
Number 1661
SENATOR ELTON said SB 80 presents a more holistic approach. He
asked what process TCC goes through to determine which programs
it will mandate and what the sanctions will be.
MR. SHIRCELL replied the TCC engaged in a planning exercise for
about four years which preceded the introduction and submission
of its federal welfare reform plans to the federal government.
During three TCC conventions each condition and sanction was
hashed out. TCC initially did a survey in 1996 to flesh out the
kinds of things that tribes were willing to do. The sanctions
were agreed upon by consensus.
SENATOR ELTON asked who would be in charge of making sure that
public assistance dollars are not being used to supplement other
programs that TCC may be offering - whether it be anger
management or alcohol and drug abuse. He asked whether TCC, the
federal government, or the state government would do that.
MR. SHIRCELL said TCC has contractual arrangements with the
various federal agencies and with the state divisions.
Number 1869
MS. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director of the Child Support Enforcement
Division, said Mr. Nordlund described CSED's role in this process
very well and that she was available to answer questions.
SENATOR ELTON asked MS. MIKLOS if she was satisfied with the
regime DHSS set up to accomplish the child support requirements.
MS. MIKLOS said she was and that it took DHSS and CSED two years
to figure out how to resolve the child support issue.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if the House version was heard by the House
Finance Committee.
MR. NORDLUND said it was.
CHAIRMAN MILLER announced that he would bring up SB 80 again next
week after committee members had time to digest the changes in
the bill. He asked Mr. Darryl Hargraves to address the
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|