Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/28/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 221: "An Act relating to arrest of a person for illegal
possession, consumption, or control of alcohol;
and providing for an effective date"
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 431: "An Act relating to the payment of aid to families
with dependent children in the case of pregnant
minors and minors who are parents."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 378: "An Act relating to the Older Alaskans Commission
and staff of the commission; changing the name of
the Older Alaskans Commission to the Alaska
Commission on Aging and extending the termination
date of the commission; relating to the Alaska
Pioneers' Homes Advisory Board; relating to
services and programs for older Alaskans;and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Aide
Sen. Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-3873
Position Statement: Testified in support of SB 221
JEFF BUSH, Attorney
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
175 S. Franklin St., Ste. 318
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-4150
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to SB 221
NANCY USERA, Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Phone: (907) 465-2200
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 378
JAN HANSEN, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Phone: (907) 465-3347
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 431
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 221
SHORT TITLE: ARREST OF MINORS FOR CONSUMING ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Duncan,Miller,Pearce,Kelly,
Leman,Little,Frank,Donley,Sharp,Halford,Zharoff;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Ulmer
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/94 2451 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/94
01/10/94 2451 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2451 (S) HES, JUD
01/19/94 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
01/19/94 (S) MINUTE(HES)
01/24/94 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
01/24/94 (S) MINUTE(HES)
01/26/94 2597 (S) HES RPT 4DP 2NR
01/26/94 2597 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (LAW,
DPS, ADM-2)
01/31/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211
02/07/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211
02/07/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/09/94 2750 (S) JUD RPT 2DP 3NR
02/09/94 2750 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (COURT,
DHSS)
02/09/94 2750 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2,
DPS, LAW)
02/09/94 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
02/09/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/11/94 2786 (S) 3 RLS TO CALENDAR 1 NR
2/11/94
02/11/94 2798 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/11/94 2798 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
02/11/94 2798 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 221
02/11/94 2798 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DUNCAN,MILLER,
02/11/94 2798 (S) PEARCE,KELLY,LEMAN,LITTLE,
FRANK,
02/11/94 2798 (S) DONLEY,SHARP,HALFORD,ZHAROFF
02/11/94 2799 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
02/11/94 2799 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
02/11/94 2807 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/14/94 2367 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2367 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/14/94 2389 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ULMER
03/28/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 431
SHORT TITLE: AFDC FOR CERTAIN TEENAGED PARENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/94 2221 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/02/94 2221 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/28/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 378
SHORT TITLE: REVISE OLDER ALASKANS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/14/94 2072 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/14/94 2072 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE
01/14/94 2072 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/14/94
01/14/94 2073 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/24/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/24/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/04/94 2604 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1NR 2AM
03/04/94 2604 (H) DP: G.DAVIS
03/04/94 2604 (H) NR: VEZEY
03/04/94 2604 (H) AM: KOTT, OLBERG
03/04/94 2604 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(ADM) 1/14/94
03/28/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-62, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m., noted
members present and announced the calendar. He brought SB
221 to the table.
SB 221 - ARREST OF MINORS FOR CONSUMING ALCOHOL
CHAIR BUNDE asked for public testimony.
Number 050
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Aide to Sen. Robin Taylor, Prime
Sponsor of SB 221, stated that SB 221 would amend AS
12.25.030 (b) to provide the ability for peace officers to
arrest minors for consuming under the age of 21 without a
warrant. If the peace officer has a reasonable cause to
believe that a minor unlawfully possessed, consumed, and
controlled alcohol, the bill has the power of overruling a
recent Superior Court decision that requires a person be
caught in the act of consuming before an arrest can be made.
MR. AMBROSE indicated that the proposal does not have a
fiscal impact because it returns the law to its former
interpretation prior to the Superior Court's decision.
Number 062
CHAIR BUNDE said he appreciated the zero fiscal note.
(Chair Bunde indicated that Reps. Brice and B. Davis arrived
at 3:10 p.m.)
REP. OLBERG asked if the committee had previously seen the
legislation in another form.
MR. AMBROSE asserted that there is a companion measure in
the House.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the companion bill did not pass
out of committee and suggested that the committee had an
opportunity to pass SB 221.
Number 092
REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Ambrose if a minor who has been cited
for consuming has the right to go through a court
proceeding.
MR. AMBROSE said yes. He indicated that currently it is the
district attorney's directive that officers who encounter
minors under the influence should issue citations rather
than make arrests. He said Sen. Taylor felt that the law
never intended police officers to write a ticket to an
intoxicated minor and then walk away.
Number 125
CHAIR BUNDE asked for questions. Hearing none, he asked for
further testimony.
Number 126
JEFF BUSH, Attorney, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU),
testified in opposition to SB 221. He stated that he had a
letter from the executive director of the AkCLU, RANDALL
BURN, who was informed that the meeting was unable to be
teleconferenced. He distributed the letter to the committee
and asserted that the AkCLU is opposed to the legislation
and any legislation that in any way restricts constitutional
civil liberties. He said the bill obviously would expand
search and seizure laws.
Number 174
REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Bush if it was against the law for a
minor to consume alcohol.
MR. BUSH said yes.
REP. TOOHEY said the bill addresses a minor under the
influence of alcohol or consuming alcohol.
MR. BUSH explained that the AkCLU does not object to a minor
consuming as being a crime or a minor driving under the
influence of alcohol. He said the AkCLU's concern is that
the proposal requires that an officer have reasonable cause,
not probable cause, which is what the constitutional
standard generally has been. He said he is opposed to the
standard the police officer must meet in order to make an
arrest.
REP. TOOHEY asked if Mr. Bush condones alcohol consumption
by a minor.
MR. BUSH said no.
REP. TOOHEY asked, if a minor is seen drinking, or has
alcohol on his breath, or is staggering, would that be
considered probable cause?
Number 246
MR. BUSH said, "Well, I'm not going to sit here and play
judge. If they see them drinking, it's clearly probable
cause. In the past the courts have generally said that if
you have an alcohol smell, but that might be enough for
probable cause. That is where there is a dispute, at least
among the courts. And, I, the AkCLU's position on that
would simply be, it's up to the courts to decide where
probable cause lies and not to simply say, `We're not going
to require probable cause. We're going to require something
less.'"
REP. TOOHEY asked if a Breathalyzer test would be acceptable
to the AkCLU.
MR. BUSH said a Breathalyzer would be acceptable once there
is legitimate probable cause to conduct the test. He said
if a person walks down the street and stumbles, that should
not be reason enough for an officer to take the individual
to the station for a Breathalyzer.
Number 282
REP. TOOHEY said if a person looks drunk and acts drunk,
they're drunk. She said if they're not drunk they're having
a "diabetic problem" and the officer needs to help them
anyway.
MR. BUSH asserted if the officer has probable cause to
believe the minor has been drinking, there is no question
that they could make an arrest.
CHAIR BUNDE asserted that it was the court's interpretation
that probable cause would mean actually seeing the minor
consuming alcohol.
MR. BUSH said it was his understanding that consuming is
actually the simplest type of probable cause and speculated
that if someone was stumbling down the street and smelled of
alcohol, the court would say that was probable cause. He
felt what the court said is that merely smelling alcohol on
the breath or in the vicinity of the individual is not
enough to constitute probable cause. He maintained that
under SB 221 that would constitute probable cause.
Number 324
REP. G. DAVIS maintained that if he saw a minor drinking, it
would not be probable cause; it would be proof positive. He
also indicated that the smell of alcohol on a person's
breath would be reasonable and probable cause. He
questioned as to whether or not the term "reasonable" should
be used in the proposal and suggested that perhaps it should
be probable cause. He said he had no problem either way.
(Chair Bunde indicated that Rep. Nicholia arrived at 3:17
p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further questions.
REP. VEZEY asked Mr. Bush what would be considered probable
cause if a person had consumed alcohol.
MR. BUSH said the question should be answered by a judge or
those with expertise in this area of the law. He said from
what he understood, probable cause was deemed by the Juneau
magistrate to mean more than just being able to smell
alcohol in the vicinity. He said it disturbs the AkCLU when
legislation says that probable cause is no longer necessary.
He asserted that because there was one bad court decision,
200 years of constitutional law should not be thrown away
because it is felt that probable cause is no longer needed.
He said, "If you want to say that probable cause could
consist of X, Y, or Z, the AkCLU would have far less
concerns with that."
Number 443
REP. VEZEY said the question is, "What is an acceptable
amount of proof?", not whether there's probable or
reasonable cause.
MR. BUSH said he could not address that question.
CHAIR BUNDE observed that there was no one from the
Department of Law to offer the definition of probable and
reasonable cause.
REP. TOOHEY referred to page 1 of the court decision, that
recounts the case of a minor found passed out with his pants
down on a toilet located in the Senate building. She said
the circumstance did not arise from an "overdose of Hershey
bars," and said the case was thrown out because the minor
was not caught consuming the alcohol.
Number 501
REP. VEZEY asked, as reasonable people, where would the line
be drawn; at staggering or at merely reasonable suspicion?
He asked if merely smelling alcohol on a person's breath
would be reason enough for a warrantless arrest.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if Rep. Vezey's question was rhetorical.
REP. VEZEY said yes. He said it was his understanding that
if a person is incoherent and incapacitated, any police
officer would have probable cause to make an arrest.
REP. TOOHEY asserted that the legislation is aimed at that
very problem.
(Chair Bunde stated for the record that Rep. Kott arrived at
3:23 p.m.)
Number 544
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further questions. There were none.
He summarized the intent of the bill and then asked the
pleasure of the committee.
REP. TOOHEY made a motion to pass SB 221 out of committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if she could make a statement.
CHAIR BUNDE said yes.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if there was a definition in statute for
reasonable cause.
CHAIR BUNDE said he could not answer that question but said,
"there is certainly a definition in the legal cannon, as to
reasonable and probable."
REP. B. DAVIS suggested that perhaps a definition should be
crafted by Legal Services if there is no existing
definition.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Ambrose if the definition of
reasonable exists in statute.
MR. AMBROSE said he was sure the definition of reasonable is
in statute.
Number 601
REP. G. DAVIS referred to Statute 12.25.030 (b) and said the
term reasonable cause is in statute.
CHAIR BUNDE said the term is defined in current statute.
REP. B. DAVIS asked what the statute says.
CHAIR BUNDE asked the committee aide to find the correct
statute.
Number 655
REP. OLBERG stated that while the committee waited for the
information, perhaps they could discuss Mr. Sivertsen's
qualifications to be a magistrate. He said he would like to
speculate.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would have to contact Legal
Services.
REP. B. DAVIS suggested that her concerns could be addressed
in the Judiciary Committee.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections.
REP. KOTT said House Judiciary would address that concern.
CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objections, declared that SB 221
passed out of committee. He then brought HB 378 to the
table.
HB 378 - REVISE OLDER ALASKANS COMMISSION
Number 711
CHAIR BUNDE asked Commissioner Usera to address the bill.
Number 712
NANCY USERA, Commissioner, Department of Administration
(DOA), testified in support of HB 378. She stated that HB
378 is a companion piece to two other proposals that compose
Governor Hickel's "seniors package." She explained that the
legislation addresses many of the "housekeeping" issues for
the development and efficient operation of the Division of
Senior Services, which was created through administrative
order. The new division houses both the Older Alaskans
Commission and the Pioneer Home Advisory Board. She
explained that the proposal would "clean up" several
statutes associated with the merging of the commission and
the board.
COMMISSIONER USERA further stated that the legislation would
change the name of the Older Alaskans Commission to the
Alaska Commission on Aging, which is consistent with the
nomenclature that is common to federal matching funds. She
indicated that the committee substitute (CS) was the result
of a difference of opinion regarding who should appoint the
chairman of the two boards. She indicated that there would
be better advocacy for the groups if the governor appointed
the chairman. She said many of the senior's organizations
supported the chairman being elected from the body. She
further indicated, as amended, the legislation was supported
by all the senior's organizations in the state.
COMMISSIONER USERA said the bill will facilitate the one
stop shopping services that the state is trying to foster
for seniors.
Number 770
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions.
REP. OLBERG asked Commissioner Usera if the legislation had
"anything to do with the Division of Senior Services?"
COMMISSIONER USERA said yes. The Division of Senior
Services houses both commissions, but because of the changes
to their respective statutes, having them in a single
division required housekeeping measures. She also indicated
that the proposal would make the chairman of each board a
member of the other board. She felt this would coordinate
the two boards.
Number 796
REP. B. DAVIS asked if there was further testimony or
discussion.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion. There was none.
REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to pass the CS for HB 378 out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note.
REP. VEZEY objected and then asked for a brief at-ease.
Number 817
(Chair Bunde took a brief at-ease from 3:34 p.m. to 3:36
p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that there was an objection and called
for the vote. Reps. Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott, Olberg,
B. Davis, Nicholia, and Brice voted Yea. There were no Nay
votes. Chair Bunde stated that CSHB 378 was so moved. He
then brought HB 431 to the table.
HB 431 - AFDC FOR CERTAIN TEENAGED PARENTS
REP. PETE KOTT, Prime Sponsor of HB 431, stated that there
is a higher rate of welfare dependency by teenage, single
parents who set up their own residence than among those who
remain at home. He said HB 431 would amend state AFDC (Aid
to Families with Dependent Children) policy to exercise a
federal option that would allow for an eligibility criteria
based on the place of residence of a minor who is a parent.
He said the intent is to encourage minor parents to live in
a situation involving continued adult supervision.
REP. KOTT asserted that the bill has the potential for
reducing the cost of welfare in Alaska by moving minors back
with parents who can provide financial support for the minor
and the minor's child. He said it is inappropriate for the
state to be providing financial support if the parents of
the minor can support them.
REP. KOTT maintained that there would be savings of $32,600
in Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 and $109,000 in each year
thereafter.
Number 901
REP. TOOHEY asked if the legislation was assuming that the
parents of the minor are not receiving AFDC.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Hansen to come forward to answer
questions.
Number 905
JAN HANSEN, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), came
forward and identified herself.
REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Hansen how many checks a family would
receive if the minor daughter of parents on AFDC gives
birth.
MS. HANSEN said that is a difficult question to answer. She
said if the grandchild and mother live in the grandmother's
home, it would be a single grant.
REP. TOOHEY asked if the AFDC payment would cover one adult
and two children.
MS. HANSEN said yes.
REP. TOOHEY asked if the legislation was requiring the minor
parent who is living on her own to return home, thereby
reducing the payment by approximately $800.
Number 946
MS. HANSEN said in that example there would be no financial
impact. She said if the minor parent is the only child and
moves out, the mother of the minor parent would no longer
receive AFDC. The minor parent and the infant child would
then receive a grant and the other case would close. She
indicated that the payment would then be somewhat less as it
would cover only the minor parent and infant child in her
new home as opposed to the grandmother, daughter, and
grandchild in their home.
Number 960
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that if there is more than one minor
in the home of the grandparent and a minor parent moves out
with the infant child, then not only would the state
subsidize the grandmother and remaining children, but AFDC
would then be granted to the minor parent who moved out.
MS. HANSEN concurred. She said there would then be two AFDC
payments.
Number 976
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that the fiscal note for DHSS was
$69,800.
REP. KOTT explained that the figure reflects the cost of an
investigator who would evaluate whether or not the minor
should be returned home. He asserted that not every case
would be automatically referred back to their home.
CHAIR BUNDE further indicated that another DHSS fiscal note
was for $12,800.
REP. KOTT said the fiscal note pertains to eligibility
criteria and speculated that it reflects the administrative
processing of the cases.
MS. HANSEN concurred. She stated that the bill would add a
new eligibility requirement and each month an eligibility
technician would need to check to ensure the eligibility of
the household.
Number 007
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Kott, "Does your final negative
fiscal note reflect those two positive fiscal notes?"
REP. KOTT replied no. He said, "...the $147,000, that's why
I mentioned in the opening remarks, the first year you take
the 147.8 in savings (indiscernible)... you should come up
with I think $37,000. And then subsequent years it
multiplies up to $109,000."
Number 020
CHAIR BUNDE referred to welfare situations where there are
"phantom" husbands that come and go. He asked Ms. Hansen if
she anticipated phantom children coming and going in regards
to AFDC to minors living with their parents.
MS. HANSEN said no. She indicated that the phantom husband
problem was addressed when the DHSS changed policy to
include two parent families. She explained that the
division carefully monitors the families to assure that the
child exists and is in the home.
Number 047
CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the minor parent is required to
live in the family home and shows up only on the days the
investigator showed up.
MS. HANSEN thanked Chair Bunde for the clarification. She
said that situation is a real concern.
CHAIR BUNDE said, "Of course, if they're off on their own,
they don't collect AFDC. So, they're really not under our
supervision, anyway."
MS. HANSEN said it would be a requirement that the minor
parents be at home more than 50% of the time.
REP. TOOHEY pointed out that the minor would not benefit
because the check goes to the guardian parent.
Number 064
CHAIR BUNDE explained that the parent may have a vested
interest in forcing the teen mother to come home once a
month to please the investigator. Then the minor would
return to his/her home.
REP. TOOHEY asked how the minor would survive on their own
without a check or without money.
CHAIR BUNDE said they could work.
REP. KOTT maintained that whether the minor parent is in or
out of house, AFDC payments will still be made. He asserted
that the bill targets single, minor parents who are living
on their own and receiving AFDC benefits when their parents
are financially capable of supporting them. He said he also
wanted to ensure that the money is not being used for
alcohol and drugs.
Number 098
CHAIR BUNDE related a scenario where a family is not on AFDC
and they have an emancipated teenager who moves out of the
home and becomes pregnant. He asked if the teen would have
to move back into the home to receive AFDC benefits.
MS. HANSEN stated that in federal law it is an option to
require the minor parent to live with her parents, unless
certain conditions are met. If it has been determined by a
social investigation that the home is not safe and
appropriate, the minor would not be required to live there.
She explained that the opinion of the Division of Family and
Youth Services is that most of the minor children in these
cases would not be required to move back to the parent's
home because they left dysfunctional situations to begin
with. Ms. Hansen stated that public testimony that was
presented to a task force regarding the issue indicated that
professionals in this field believe that most minor parents
whose families are safe environments for them, actually live
in those homes. And, those minors who had issues of
violence, incest, or a severe falling-out, lived away from
home.
TAPE 94-62, SIDE B
Number
MS. HANSEN further indicated that additional investigation
and case work would not result in any change in the young
parents' circumstances.
Number 016
REP. OLBERG asked if what he was hearing was that the
epidemic of teen pregnancies is over and there are only a
few having babies.
MS. HANSEN said no and asserted that the legislation refers
only to a small portion of pregnant teens who are under 17
years of age and who are not currently living in the home of
their parents. She said a considerable amount of teen
parents are currently living in the home of their parents or
with a relative. She pointed out that another area that is
not covered in the bill is the pregnant 18 to 19 year olds.
REP. OLBERG said those teens are not minors, they are
adults.
Number 051
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Hansen to clarify how a pregnant teen
would fall under the purview of the bill.
MS. HANSEN explained that if a pregnant teen applies for
assistance and is not living with her parents, the division
would have a social worker conduct an investigation to
determine whether the minor should live with the family. If
the investigation found that the home is harmful for the
teen, then she could be approved for AFDC and live away from
home. She further indicated that if the home is not harmful
for her, then in processing her application for AFDC, the
division would review her parent's income.
Number 093
REP. KOTT asked if the bill covers teenagers who are
pregnant.
MS. HANSEN said yes.
REP. KOTT said, "So, while the tangible benefits are
tantamount to a few dollars, $100,000, there's some
nontangible benefits in the sense that there are perhaps,
I'm being a little bit speculative here, teenagers out there
who are pregnant, who get hooked on cocaine or alcohol, and
there may be some nontangible benefits down the road. FAS
(Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) let's say, if we can eliminate that
one that saves us a bit."
MS. HANSEN stated that a pregnant teen will only be eligible
if she is single and in her third trimester or after the
baby is born. She said it could be possible that the
pregnant teen was receiving Medicaid prior to that time.
Number 147
CHAIR BUNDE clarified by saying that perhaps the bill
targets rebellious teens who get pregnant and move away from
home so they can receive AFDC. He then explained that the
teen would not take a pregnancy test and then apply for
AFDC.
MS. HANSEN said there are no cash grants at that time from
AFDC.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if money is granted by Medicaid upon proof
of pregnancy.
MS. HANSEN responded that no cash grants are given, but
grants for medical coverage are allowed under pregnant women
Medicaid at the time the pregnancy is verified. She said
then it would be determined whether the teen meets the asset
and income test.
Number 200
CHAIR BUNDE noted there is no financial incentive to live
outside the home under Medicaid and AFDC is not available
until the third trimester.
MS. HANSEN concurred.
Number 204
REP. B. DAVIS asked if a pregnant teen is eligible for AFDC
if she is living with her family and they are above the
poverty level, or would the parents have to assume the
responsibility for caring for the grandchild.
MS. HANSEN indicated that the parent's income is a factor in
whether or not the teen receives AFDC. She said if the
family is a middle lower class income family, the teen will
not qualify for Medicaid or AFDC. She explained that the
savings is accounted for by a teen parent moving back with
her parents who are above the poverty level. The parents
are financially responsible for the medical bills for both
the daughter and grandchild.
REP. B. DAVIS clarified that the bill addresses those teen
parents who live away from a stable home and the parents are
above the poverty level.
MS. HANSEN asserted that most teens live out of the home
because it is unstable.
REP. B. DAVIS said she understood that, but indicated that
she personally knows that there are pregnant teens who have
moved out of the family home specifically for the grant
money. She said her concern is for those very teens who are
aware of how the system works and abuse their grant money
and neglect their children. She further indicated that
there are states that have group home situations where they
receive grant money, are supervised, and learn how to parent
the child. She felt that concept is more beneficial than
leaving the teens out on their own or forcing them to return
to the family home. She said when the teen lives on her
own, many times the state ends up placing the child in a
foster home, anyway, and much damage has already been done
to the child. Rep. B. Davis then asked how much it would
cost to establish some type of group home situation.
Number 366
MS. HANSEN said she could not speak specifically to the
cost, but indicated that a group home setting is always more
expensive.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if Ms. Hansen felt there were enough
cases across the state to warrant a group home. She felt
that with the teen pregnancy rate as high as it is, there
must be a great need for something of that nature. She also
asked if it is known how many unmarried pregnant teens are
on AFDC.
MS. HANSEN maintained that there are a greater number of
unmarried pregnant teens living with their families than
there are living on their own. She said there are
approximately 150 unmarried teens living on their own and
that the numbers stay consistent.
Number 439
REP. TOOHEY asked if the bill requires the division to
investigate "specific places to put these teenagers" before
AFDC payments are granted.
MS. HANSEN said no. She explained that the division would
investigate the family home.
REP. TOOHEY questioned if foster homes, maternity homes, or
other adult supervised living arrangements could be
investigated and considered.
MS. HANSEN said, "Those don't exist."
REP. TOOHEY questioned if the Salvation Army has a maternity
home.
REP. B. DAVIS indicated that there are facilities, but only
until the baby is born.
REP. TOOHEY asserted that the Salvation Army has residential
facilities for pregnant women.
REP. B. DAVIS added that they must leave the facility
shortly thereafter.
Number 465
MS. HANSEN said the division would investigate what exists,
but in general there are few alternatives.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that a teen mother may be kicked out
of the home because they're too expensive. He then
indicated that an amendment had been submitted.
REP. KOTT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. He stated
that the amendment removes AS 47.25.310 (c) which prohibits
the DHSS from requiring residency in the family home.
CHAIR BUNDE questioned the term residency.
REP. KOTT said, "Living with parents as perhaps a condition
of receiving AFDC."
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further discussion or any
objections. Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 1 was
adopted. He then asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 540
REP. KOTT said the legislation is a start and indicated that
there is a large problem with recipients abusing AFDC and
neglecting their children. He said, "I might add that there
are very few provisions granted to us by the federal
government, which they have already given us the authority
without the waiver to do something in this area."
CHAIR BUNDE asked the pleasure of the committee.
REP. KOTT made a motion to pass HB 431 out of committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
REP. B. DAVIS objected.
Number 575
CHAIR BUNDE called for the vote. Reps. G. Davis, Vezey,
Kott, Olberg, Bunde and Toohey voted Yea and Reps. B. Davis,
Nicholia and Brice voted Nay. HB 431 passed out of
committee.
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE
adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|