Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 09:00 AM 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
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
March 15, 1995
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Mark Hanley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All subcommittee members present.
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
WITNESS REGISTER
CURTIS LOMAS, Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3382
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 78.
JIM NORDLUND, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 78.
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 312
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-6753
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 78.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 78
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SUPPORT & AFDC PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 41 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 41 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 41 (H) HES, FIN
01/19/95 91 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/09/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/09/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/15/95 (H) HES AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-21, SIDE A
Number 000
HB 78 CHILD SUPPORT & AFDC PROGRAMS
The House Health, Education and Social Services subcommittee on HB
78 was called to order by Co-Chair Con Bunde. Subcommittee members
present at the call to order were Davis, Toohey, and Robinson.
CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE said he viewed this meeting as a work session
and the challenge for the subcommittee was to create a composite of
the Governor's and Representative Mark Hanley's version of HB 78.
He announced Glenda Straube, Director, Child Support Enforcement
Division, Department of Revenue, via teleconference from Anchorage,
was available for questions. Representative Hanley's Aide was also
present for questions. However, no public testimony would be
accepted today and thanked those who came anyway.
Number 095
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked if other similar bills would be
looked at today.
Number 138
CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated the work session would only focus on the two
bills before them. He said at some future time the subcommittee
would look at other related bills.
Number 162
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if there was any funding on the
Governor's bill yet.
Number 196
CURTIS LOMAS, Welfare Reform Program, Division of Public
Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, responded by
referring the subcommittee members to a comparison chart in a
packet of information prepared by Representative Hanley and his
staff.
Number 225
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that Representative Hanley should speak on
the comparison chart himself. The challenge for the subcommittee
was to look at the juncture of the two bills before them. He also
announced the work session would be short due to a majority caucus
meeting at 9:45 a.m.
Number 262
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY started by presenting to the
subcommittee a comparison spreadsheet of Senator Lyda Green's, the
Governor's and his bill. The spreadsheet compared the different
sections contained in each bill. He cited the "100-hour" rule, and
the auto allowance were in all three bills but in different
sections. He suggested the subcommittee compare and discuss the
differences. The Governor included four basic work projects in his
bill, whereas Representative Hanley included only one workfare
section. He suggested the subcommittee hear from the department
before proceeding.
Number 438
C0-CHAIR BUNDE agreed with the comparison and contrast process
presented by Representative Hanley. He further suggested the
duplicated sections between the bills should be left alone.
Number 486
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY responded there were two duplicated sections.
He further stated he was interested in asking the Governor why the
"100-hour" rule did not apply to all sections. He also questioned
the work program that allowed participants to keep only $50 of
anything they made after the first three months. He alluded this
was a disincentive to make more money. In his bill, he raised it
to $200 and allowed the participants to keep one-third of
everything made after that. He again suggested testimony from the
department.
Number 587
CO-CHAIR BUNDE invited Curtis Lomas and Jim Nordlund both from the
Department of Health and Social Services to join them at the table.
He also recognized Representative Tom Brices's attendance. He
posed the question to the department guests why the "100-hour" rule
was not waived in some sections.
Number 641
JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department
of Health and Social Services, said he was not sure about the
thinking that went behind the various projects in the Governor's
bill. Mr. Nordlund further said he was interested in
Representative Hanley's approach of mixing and matching the similar
areas in all three bills.
Number 672
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reiterated this was a short meeting and he did not
expect all questions to be answered immediately. He suggested Mr.
Lomas address the above posed question regarding the "100-hour"
rule.
Number 706
CURTIS LOMAS, Welfare Reform Program, Division of Public
Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, responded to
the "100-hour" rule question. He explained the Governor's bill
contained two statewide projects - the unemployed parent and the
self-employed programs; and two local projects - the work
experience and the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
diversion programs. The four projects would work concurrently but
tracked separately. However, in the areas where community work
projects were operating, the "100-hour" rule would apply on a
select basis.
Number 783
CO-CHAIR BUNDE questioned if it was because of fiscal restraints or
to simply make a research project.
MR. LOMAS responded it was to make a research project which matched
federal guidelines. The federal government only allowed the policy
waivers the Governor asked for in an experimental design. The
approach of an on-site random selection and assignment was one of
the requirements.
Number 806
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked how the rules and regulations would be
affected if the government went to a block grant approach.
Number 827
MR. NORDLUND responded that Congress allowed extreme flexibility to
the states, however, there were some mandates regarding benefits to
teen parents, for example. He noted it was still being worked out.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to run the subcommittee meeting
informally so if anybody wanted to say something speak up and
identify yourself.
Number 864
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY said the subcommittee should implement the
things that it wanted to whether or not there was a waiver. If the
restrictions were uplifted, we probably would not implement the
"100-hour" rule. He suggested a monitored test project was needed.
He said the maximum percentage under the waiver is 70/30, but if
the restrictions were pulled, the department would implement within
the restraints of the dollar amount.
Number 953
CO-CHAIR BUNDE recognized Representative Hanley's comments and
further stated we were aiming at a "moving target." He asked if
Glenda Straube via teleconference in Anchorage had any comments.
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue, said, no.
Number 974
C0-CHAIR BUNDE suggested the subcommittee address the areas where
the bills were different, such as, the workfare requirement
sections. He asked Mr. Lomas if he was opposed to the workfare.
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY said he wanted to respond to that first. He
stated he looked at the Governor's community work project section
and he did not have a problem with it. He said it was similar to
his workfare section. His bill, however, included those exempted
from mandatory work. Whereas, the Governor's bill required the
establishment of a community work pilot project and did not address
numbers such as the 70/30 waiver.
Number 1095
MR. LOMAS responded the Governor's community work provisions
subsumed workfare and broadened the concept beyond the requirement
to work without compensation for a specific number of hours. He
further stated the Governor built in a range of activities that met
the workfare requirements including paid employment and rural
community activities. Also included was a provision for a private
contractor to implement the program and take on some functions now
performed by the Division of Public Assistance. The common
contractor, he alluded, created a potential to evaluate current
service level on a family-by-family basis. This in turn might
highlight areas where service in kind was more appropriate than
cash benefits.
Number 1173
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if wood or fish was an example
of a service in kind.
MR. LOMAS answered yes and further expressed paying utility bills
was another possibility. Rural leaders in particular were fond of
a service in kind rather than a cash benefit because it represented
a more traditional rural lifestyle. The cash was used
inappropriately, he said, and rural leaders would like more
control. He further stated, the Governor did not specify the
exemptions in the statute to allow for criteria tailored to the
community. Mr. Lomas asserted the idea was an alternative to the
AFDC program.
Number 1292
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the Governor wanted to maintain maximum
flexibility. He further asked what was meant of a private
contractor.
Number 1309
MR. LOMAS answered he would invite anyone to come forth and offer
a competitive bid process giving preference to tribal entities.
Number 1335
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was an envisioned right of appeal
system for disagreements between the families and the system. He
gave the example of a family believing they were entitled to cash
benefits rather than credit at a cooperative store.
Number 1353
MR. LOMAS answered there would be a considerable amount of
regulations under which the programs would operate in specific
areas. The Governor's bill built in a right of appeal. The appeal
would be created to meet the special projects in the community.
Number 1380
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he had always been an advocate of electronic
transfer so that cash was not used inappropriately. He cited this
was a good example of a human transfer rather than an electronic
transfer and thought it was an interesting concept.
Number 1407
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Mr. Lomas knew of any reference to
noncustodial parents and their participation in the workfare
program.
Number 1440
MR. LOMAS said he was aware of a few programs available to
noncustodial parents. There was enthusiasm in his department to
put together something that looked like JOBS participation and make
it available to noncustodial parents. However, noncustodial
parents were not clients of the Division of Public Assistance.
Consequently, he said, the division could not attach sanctions. He
further alluded if the Governor's budget were fully funded as,
submitted, there would be enough slots available in the JOBS
Program to be used in that manner.
Number 1488
MS. STRAUBE said she was aware of one program called the Minnesota
Parent Care Share that related to noncustodial parents. She felt
it was a great idea because it would eliminate gender
discrimination issues by promoting both parents to participate.
Number 1537
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE said leverage could be provided to
noncustodial parents to make sure they participated through
increased child support responsibilities, for instance.
Number 1555
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said neither bills addressed the issue of
noncustodial parents or fathers paying child support. She
suggested they incorporate these issues into the bill.
Number 1585
MR. NORDLUND responded that child support was not addressed because
of the constitutional single-subject rule. He suggested the
subcommittee look at the entire package of related bills and move
them concurrently.
Number 1616
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed with Mr. Nordlund and reiterated her
suggestion the subcommittee look at other bills that make the
package work.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded that the subcommittee was bound by
practicalities and time restraints. The subcommittee was aware of
other bills but suggested they focus on composing the two bills
before them.
Number 1662
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE took exception to Mr. Nordlund's previous
testimony. He suggested the subcommittee expand the title of the
bill and design it so that it does not go against the
constitutional single-subject standard.
Number 1693
CO-CHAIR BUNDE reminded Ms. Straube in Anchorage to participate
when she felt like it.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY suggested to the subcommittee to include the
teen father more directly in the bill when discussing teen
pregnancy. The bill so far tends to focus on the teen mother.
Number 1757
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed with Representative Toohey. She
said there was a tendency to focus on the mother since she was the
one carrying the child.
Number 1763
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there was a vehicle that passed last year where
paternity was required to be established shortly after birth. He
also said some mothers were resistant to provide a name.
Number 1780
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Straube if it was taking up to
two years to establish paternity.
MS. STRAUBE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON responded we must keep in mind the process
should be such that we do not punish the children. She cited an
example of a young woman who was raped and ultimately took her own
life because of the process she had to go through after the
incident.
Number 1803
REPRESENTATAIVE HANLEY said he did not have a problem with
Representative Robinson's concerns. He directed the subcommittee
to the spreadsheet explaining the assistance to minors with kids
section included in Senator Green's and the Governor's bill. He
suggested modifications were necessary. He announced he would talk
to the department regarding the workfare section and the community
work project to combine the two including fiscal guidelines. He
further announced he liked the approach of using AFDC benefits in
place of wages, especially in the rural communities, to help
problems such as alcoholism. He alleged money was being used to
buy alcohol rather than necessities such as food. Representative
Hanley lastly asserted he wanted to focus on the workfare section
and the earned income rule. The auto allowance and the "100-hour"
rule applied to all sections in his bill and he would like to see
those included.
Number 1949
MR. LOMAS replied the auto allowance was part of the unemployed
parent project.
Number 1956
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY concluded when writing his bill his approach
was to eliminate disincentives, and to provide incentives and
accountability where possible.
Number 1988
CO-CHAIR BUNDE shared Representative Hanley's concerns. He
concluded the challenge was to provide enough flexibility and
guidelines to allow appropriate funding.
Number 2012
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested the subcommittee keep in mind the
urban role and to try and expand the pilot programs state-wide.
Number 2037
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed with Representative Robinson's comment
regarding a wider application. He concluded by asking all members
to continue to compare and contrast the two bills and called for
another meeting in one week.
Number 2058
MR. LOMAS before adjournment explained there were two amended
fiscal notes as a result of a few oversights to HB 78. He asked
the subcommittee to watch for them.
Number 2080
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded the subcommittee would not make decisions
based on the current fiscal note in light of the new amended notes.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. and stated
everyone would be notified of the next scheduled meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|