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
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
WORK SESSION ON HOUSE BILL 78
March 22, 1995
8:35 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 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
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 507
Juneau, Alaska 99811
CURT LOMAS, Program Officer
Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
JIM NORDLUND, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
SHERRIE GOLL, Lobbyist
P.O. Box 22156
Juneau, Alaska 99802-2156
Telephone: 907 463-6744
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 78
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ASSIST. DEMO PROJECT & DECREASE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY, Rokeberg, Porter, Bunde,
Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/94 (H) HES AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 106
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
03/22/95 (H) HES AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/22/95 869 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
03/30/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-26
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.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 9:29 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|