Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/28/1998 03:15 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
April 28, 1998
3:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 426
"An Act relating to the establishment of Operation About Face as an
alternative type of juvenile detention and treatment."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11(FIN)
Creating the Long-Term Care Task Force.
- PASSED CSSCR 11(FIN) FROM COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 434
"An Act requiring drug testing for applicants for and recipients of
assistance under the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 426
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILE BOOT CAMP PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MULDER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/98 2334 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/16/98 2334 (H) HES
4/28/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SCR 11
SHORT TITLE: LONG-TERM CARE TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Duncan, Ward, Adams, Ellis,
Hoffman, Kelly, Taylor, Wilken, Torgerson, Mackie, Green;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Hudson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/11/97 1102 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/11/97 1102 (S) HES, FIN
3/02/98 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/02/98 (S) MINUTE(HES)
3/04/98 (S) MINUTE(HES)
3/04/98 2732 (S) HES RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
3/04/98 2732 (S) DP: WILKEN, LEMAN, WARD, GREEN
3/04/98 2732 (S) FN TO SCR & CS (LAA)
3/04/98 2732 (S) ZERO FNS TO SCR & CS (DCED, GOV)
3/10/98 2819 (S) COSPONSOR: WARD
3/18/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/19/98 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/19/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/19/98 2895 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
3/19/98 2895 (S) DP: SHARP, PHILLIPS, ADAMS
3/19/98 2895 (S) NR: PARNELL, DONLEY
3/19/98 2895 (S) PREVIOUS FN (LAA)
3/19/98 2895 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (GOV, DCED)
3/20/98 2918 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/20/98
3/20/98 2921 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/20/98 2922 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/20/98 2922 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ADAMS, ELLIS, HOFFMAN
3/20/98 2922 (S) KELLY, TAYLOR, WILKEN, TORGERSON
3/20/98 2922 (S) MACKIE, GREEN
3/20/98 2922 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
3/20/98 2925 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/23/98 2701 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/23/98 2701 (H) HES, FINANCE
3/23/98 2715 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HUDSON
4/09/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/09/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/28/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 434
SHORT TITLE: DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/18/98 2354 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/18/98 2354 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
4/23/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/23/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/28/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 426.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Administrative Juvenile Probation Officer
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3228
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 426.
JOHN CYR, President
NEA-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 426.
MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Bert Sharp
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for CSSCR 11(FIN).
MARIE DARLIN, Legislative Chairman
National Association of Retired Federal Employees
415 Willoughby Avenue, Number 506
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3637
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSCR 11(FIN).
VERA GAZAWAY, Representative
Older Persons Action Group
515 Willoughby Avenue, Number 415
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1777
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSCR 11(FIN).
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 434.
RON KREHER, Special Assistant
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3349
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 434.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-49, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Dyson,
Kemplen and Brice. Representatives Green and Porter arrived while
the meeting was in progress. Representative Vezey was absent.
HB 426 - JUVENILE BOOT CAMP PROGRAM
Number 0063
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the first order of business to come before the
Committee was HB 426, "An Act relating to the establishment of
Operation About Face as an alternative type of juvenile detention
and treatment." He asked Representative Mulder to come forward to
present his bill.
Number 0080
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 426, said for the past several years, the Alaska National Guard
has been running the Challenge Program which is addressed and
focused toward juveniles who are at risk. House Bill 426 takes it
one step further and proposes the "Operation About Face" program
to run side-by-side with the Challenge Program. The "Operation
About Face" Program would focus on juveniles who are actually
confined or placed in juvenile facilities, but would allow them the
opportunity to go into a 22-week program similar to a boot camp
program as a means of confinement and to rehabilitation. He said
Alaska had the luxury of learning from other states and HB 426 is
a model used by many states. He noted a couple states have done
very well with the program while other states have failed because
too many kids were thrown into the program without adequate
oversight and supervision or after-care. This legislation focuses
on adequate supervision throughout the program and supervision in
after care.
Number 0195
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said the purpose of House Bill 426 is to
allow the Department of Health and Social Services to provide an
alternative means of dealing with juvenile offenders. An
"Operation About Face" Program is designed to take first time
juvenile offenders and provide them with the skills and attitudes
they will need to become productive Alaskans. The program will
consist of a 22-week period of intense military-style physical
training, work, and discipline and a period of after-care
consisting of not less than six months of intensive probation
supervision and services. The program would include education, job
training and placement, community service, substance abuse
counseling and treatment, health and mental health care and
continuous individualized case management. Once a juvenile is
assigned to the custody of the department, the department will
select which juveniles they feel will most benefit from the
program. Juveniles may be assigned to the program if the juvenile:
1) has not been adjudicated delinquent, or committed to the custody
of the department more than once; 2) is over 16 years of age but
not more than 18 years of age at the time of placement; 3) has been
committed to the custody of the department for not less than 160
days; 4) has not been convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a
sexual offense; and 5) has not previously completed the program.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated these last five points focus on the
strengths of the programs that have been successful. He didn't
believe this legislation at this late date would move all the way
through the legislative process, but he expressed his appreciation
to the committee for hearing the bill. He didn't view this bill as
a final solution to the problem of juvenile detention, but rather
as a piece of the puzzle that provides an alternative to simply
throwing kids behind bars.
Number 0360
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if Representative Mulder conceptualized this
as being a parallel program to the Challenge Program or would these
kids be intermingled with the Challenge Program.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said it would be parallel.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said his experience with the Challenge Program has
been very positive, but he wanted to relate an experience: "I went
to one of their first graduations and these kids were really
spiffed up and looking great and after it was all over, there was
lots of hugging and carrying on and I ran into two of these guys in
the men's room and they were hugging each other and they were so
happy and for former, what I would have called for a lack of a
better term, "street toughs", they were pretty emotional and one
said to the other, 'Man, we made it; we got our GEDs and we're not
in jail.' At first I thought boy, what an indictment of the
program, but then I thought, they're right - they wouldn't have
their GED and they probably would be in jail." He said this
program is keeping some kids out of jail, and the program being
proposed by Representative Mulder is a parallel program that would
keep kids from going back to jail.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was absolutely true. He added the
Challenge Program has been far more successful than he imagined and
because of its success, he believed it made good sense to run a
program utilizing the same instructors, the same regiment, at the
same location, but the separation of fence, but utilizing that same
primary focus that "Challenge" is going toward.
Number 0472
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if the funds for this program would come from
the Department of Correction's budget or new money.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said it's new money, and it's one of the
hurdles that need to be overcome. He noted there are proposals to
expand MacLaughlin Youth Center again, as well as other juvenile
facilities around the state and as he started looking at the matrix
at what needs to be done in terms of juvenile corrections, he
believed this is one piece that should be explored.
Number 0523
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked, "Why not specifically --
delinquents who have been adjudicated for a sexual offense -- in my
talking and dealing with all these folks, those are probably the
people that need the most intensive work."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said it was mostly from the predation factor;
that this is reduced down to a somewhat minimum security operation
and nothing would ruin a program faster than to have an unwanted
encounter and because both sexes are involved in the program, most
successful states have stayed away from including individuals
convicted of those types of crimes as participants in the program.
Number 0597
REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN asked the reason why Representative
Mulder chose 16 as the age for participants in the program.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said it was in the model and basically those
are the individuals addressed in the Challenge Program. He added
the Challenge Program currently is applied to youth 16-, 17- and
18-years-old and it is his intent to run this program parallel to
the Challenge Program.
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN remarked one of the issues he has come
across is the need for programs designated for youth at a younger
age. He recently learned that the sixth grade is a transition
period in the development of youth and Anchorage, for example, has
a fairly substantial momentum to create middle schools for sixth,
seventh and eighth grades because they are recognizing that as a
transition period for kids. His constituents have often expressed
the need for this type of program for 11- and 12-year-old kids,
which is the critical phase of development. He noted that most
programs are for 16- and 17-year-old kids, after they're locked
into the juvenile pattern. He asked if there was any opportunity
to make this type of program applicable to a younger age group in
terms of operating as a parallel path to compliment the Challenge
Program.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said Representative Kemplen had brought up a
lot of good points, most of which he agreed with in terms of being
able to attack the problem as early as possible. He was attempting
to stay within the constraints of the focus of Challenge and
provide that parallel so as not to create a lot of new operational
expenses; it certainly could be a lot more expensive than what's
projected now. He said the Department of Health and Social
Services may be the appropriate agency to discuss the potential
opportunities for the younger age groups. He commented his focus
has really been to create the parallel track and in so doing, it
not only helps with this program, but because there's a certain
amount of economy and size being provided to the program, it helps
make the Challenge Program more cost efficient. That is a concern
of his because the federal government is putting more of the
financial burden of the Challenge Program on to the state, so if
that program can be more fully utilized to not only run these at
risk youth, but also the juvenile detainees, it would make that
program more efficient and more justified.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Mr. Buttcane from the Department of Health and
Social Services to come before the committee at this time.
Number 0930
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Administrative Juvenile Probation Officer,
Department of Health and Social Services, said the department's
official position is to oppose HB 426 because of some technical
issues, but conceptually strongly supports the boot camp concept.
He commented that as Representative Mulder had pointed out, the
Challenge Program is a proven, successful program that really is a
viable option for a number of young people. The program proposed
in this bill, "Operation About Face" has shown some promise and
potential in other states. The Office of Juvenile Justice
Delinquency Prevention has studied this type of program and has
found it is an effective intermediate intervention when it is
coupled with a strong after-care component, which HB 426 does
provide. He said one of the technical problems the department has
with HB 426 is that because it's written as an alternative to
juvenile institutional placement, the department doesn't know if it
would be able to generate sufficient numbers of referrals to
justify an operational budget or the expenditure of building
facilities to house this kind of program. He didn't see that as an
insurmountable problem in that when looking at some of the other
kinds of offender populations that could be channeled into this
program, he thought some of those practical needs could be met in
terms of getting sufficient numbers to justify the development and
operation of a program.
MR. BUTTCANE said the department has discussed this with the people
from the Challenge Program, as well as the National Guard and
everyone is supportive of the concept, but further discussions
regarding the details are needed.
Number 1075
MR. BUTTCANE said with regard to Representative Kemplen's concern
about younger adolescents, typically mixing an older adolescent
group with a younger population is not advisable for a number of
reasons: different cognitive developmental stages, different
issues, et cetera. That's not to say that the younger offender
population needs should be ignored, but quite honestly, the
department's resources have been devoted to the middle or later
adolescent offender populations. He added this type of program
nationwide has been more successful with the older adolescent
population and is geared to that type of offender population which
he thought should be continued, but efforts should be made to
enhance the resources for the other age group through some other
venue.
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said inasmuch as the proposal is to run the
Challenge and Operation About Face side-by-side, he wondered if
there would be a problem housing adjudicated juvenile delinquents
with minors who have not been adjudicated a delinquent.
MR. BUTTCANE said it was his understanding there would be two
separate programs so the adjudicated youth would be housed
separately and would actually be going through a more intense type
of program than what the population currently enrolled in the
Challenge Program would be subject to. He noted there are some
differences between the two programs in terms of the national
development of these different programs - the Challenge Program is
seen more as a voluntary intermediate intervention approach,
whereas the Operation About Face Program is one where the court and
the youth corrections entities have compelled the person's
attendance in that program, although there is some level of
willingness on the part of the participant or they wouldn't be
necessarily be selected. The levels of freedoms, the levels of
choices, the willingness to participate in certain activities or
components of the program are different when looking at the
adjudicated population as opposed to those who have voluntarily
agreed to participate. He reiterated they really are two separate
groups and it's his understanding the department would look at a
whole new program, hopefully, running parallel to the Challenge
Program but there wouldn't be the intermingling of the populations.
Number 1222
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if the department's data indicates a
number of adjudicated youth in early adolescence or is it not until
later on in the youthful years.
MR. BUTTCANE didn't recall what the numbers were for Alaska, but
there has been an increase in the numbers of younger adolescents
being adjudicated delinquent, but that doesn't constitute the
majority of youth that are adjudicated in the state; the majority
still fall in the middle adolescent range of ages 15-16. He added
in general, the department is seeing an increase in the number of
younger children being referred into the delinquency system;
there's an increase in the numbers of 10- and 11-year-olds coming
to attention and absent a real serious violation, the department
tries not to adjudicate them delinquent but rather try to work with
them through other means and avenues. He added those resources
need to be improved and enhanced which is being looked at by the
department. He noted there's a lot of family work involved with
the younger adolescents as opposed to the older adolescents - it's
a different approach, a different program perspective. His
personal experience has been that when an 11- or 12-year-old
delinquent is adjudicated, it's almost condemning them to a life
though the delinquency system so a number of options are tried to
keep them out of the formal delinquency system.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN reiterated that early adolescence is the
period of time that really needs to be focused on in terms of
adequate services being available to meet their needs. He asked
Mr. Buttcane to provide him with information on what programs the
department has available for the early adolescence group.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Mr. Buttcane for his comments and asked John
Cyr to come forward to present his remarks at this time.
Number 1400
JOHN CYR, President, NEA-Alaska, said NEA-Alaska is in favor of
this type of alternative program. He stated the state needs to
take a hard look at this issue and figure out how to build a
program. There are too many young people in this age bracket and
younger who need that kind of special care, so the more that can be
done to build alternative programs for these children, the better
off the state will eventually be.
Number 1440
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if anyone else wished to testify on HB 426.
There being no additional witnesses, he closed public testimony and
said HB 426 would be held in committee.
CSSCR 11(FIN) - LONG-TERM CARE TASK FORCE
Number 1460
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was CSSCR 11
(FIN), Creating the Long-Term Care Task Force. He asked Marilyn
Wilson to come forward to present CSSCR 11(FIN).
Number 1450
MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Bert Sharp, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the
record: "As Alaska's senior community grows, it is necessary that
we plan for the long-term care and needs of these citizens. While
it is the desirable goal of most families to provide home care for
their elderly parents, the reality is that most will live in a
long-term care facility. Either way, the costs of providing long-
term care is becoming insurmountable to the state and to our
private citizens. In an effort to assure our senior citizens are
getting the best care possible, the legislature in 1996,
established a working group to analyze long-term care services
available in the state and their projected costs. Senate
Concurrent Resolution 11 will create a long-term care task force.
Their mission is to review the findings of the working group and to
develop an equitable plan for providing an actuarially sound and
affordable long-term care options for all of Alaska's senior
citizens. I urge your support in passing this very important and
necessary resolution."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there were questions of the sponsor's
representative.
Number 1527
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the legislature passed a moratorium on
long-term care a couple years ago and there was a provision within
that bill that established yet another long-term care task force.
He asked how the working group established in CSSCR 11 related to
the findings of the previous task force.
MS. WILSON asked if Representative Brice was referring to the long-
term care working group?
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE affirmed that.
MS. WILSON said, "This is the findings that the task force has to
look at and take into consideration."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Marie Darlin to come before the committee to
present her testimony at this time.
Number 1575
MARIE DARLIN, Legislative Chairman, National Association of Retired
Federal Employees, testified in support of CSSCR 11(FIN). She said
resolutions had been passed at the last two statewide conventions
in support of this legislation. It is the association's position
that the study done in 1996 was merely the beginning and this needs
to go forward in the establishment of the state's plan for long-
term care for the senior population. She pointed out there are
other individuals besides senior citizens who need long-term care.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Darlin for her comments and asked Vera
Gazaway to present her comments at this time.
Number 1630
VERA GAZAWAY, Representative, Older Persons Action Group, said the
Older Persons Action Group has also studied in-home health care and
endorses almost to the word, the comments of the previous speaker.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Gazaway and asked if there was further
testimony on CSSCR 11(FIN). Hearing none, he closed public
testimony.
Number 1687
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the Governor's Council on Special
Education Disabilities is considered the coordinating council for
the state of Alaska for individuals with disabilities. He asked
what that council's involvement is with the long-term task force?
MS. WILSON said the Commissioner of the Department of Health and
Social Services serves as a nonvoting member of the Long-Term Care
Task Force and while it's not addressed in CSSCR 11(FIN), she
thought it would be up to the commissioner to make that decision.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there were further questions. Hearing
none, he asked the wishes of the committee.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to move CSSCR 11(FIN) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSSCR 11(FIN) moved from the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
HB 434 - DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS
Number 1770
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 434,
"An Act requiring drug testing for applicants for and recipients of
assistance under the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date." He asked Representative Rokeberg
to come before the committee.
Number 1778
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 434, expressed his appreciation for the committee's interest in
HB 434 and introduced his staff intern, Randy Lorenz, who has been
working on this legislation. He pointed out there were proposed
amendments to be considered by the committee. He noted the
committee had heard public testimony at a previous meeting.
Number 1835
CHAIRMAN BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 which reads:
Page 2, lines 2-3, following "to" delete "reduction or elimination
of benefits" and insert "benefit reductions".
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Ron Kreher to come forward to speak to
Amendment 1.
Number 1865
RON KREHER, Special Assistant, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services, explained that Amendment
1, in essence, cleans up this piece of legislation in that it
eliminates a possible conflict between the family self-sufficiency
provisions and the existing provisions regarding the imposition of
sanctions which are intended to be directed toward the noncomplying
individual, resulting in a reduction of benefits to the household
as opposed to the elimination of benefits for the household. The
concern is the elimination of benefits to the household could have
a fairly severe impact on the dependents in that household by
taking away all the cash assistance.
Number 1898
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he doesn't look kindly on the
amendment inasmuch as what he was endeavoring to do with this
particular piece of legislation was to give the department a tool
to inform the recipients of public assistance their benefits would
be in jeopardy if the recipient did not join a program through the
self-sufficiency plan and adhere to the requirements of the
department. He noted that Section 1 merely indicates there's a
revision to the statement that a recipient would be signing prior
to receiving benefits; therefore, Representative Rokeberg's
intention is to put the recipient on notice that the use of alcohol
or a controlled substance would subject the recipient to
elimination of benefits.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON observed as long as the language is
permissive, he didn't see a problem with indicating that
elimination of benefits is a possibility.
MR. KREHER said there wasn't a real problem with that, but the
concern is that it may cause some confusion in other statutes
regarding the imposition of sanctions; it's more of a technical
concern. He explained the division's procedure for notifying
clients of the potential for sanctions, the procedure to levy
sanctions, the cumulative impact of sanctions and the process by
which the department notifies clients of the impact of
noncompliance is sufficient at this time. He didn't believe the
threat of elimination of benefits would do any more than is already
being done through the current sanction process.
Number 2044
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said, "The notion of elimination of benefits
grew from the notion of benefit reductions, it seems to me that
inserting the language of elimination really gives more power to
the state and I guess, I've heard from a number of Alaskans that
they are concerned about the power of the state - or that the state
has too much power - and I'm not sure that giving the state
personnel this type of discretionary authority really addresses the
concerns raised by a number of different Alaskans that we've heard
in a number of different bills that have come before this
committee."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was further questions or discussion.
He called an at-ease at 3:55 p.m. inasmuch as other committee
members had been called to another committee for a vote.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE reconvened the committee at 4:03 p.m. He asked if
there was further discussion on Amendment 1. Hearing none, he
asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Kemplen, Green and
Bunde voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representative Dyson voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 3-1.
Number 2115
CHAIRMAN BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 which reads:
Page 2, line 13, following".":
Insert "If a blood test administered during an assessment
conducted under this subsection indicates the presence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, the person tested is
liable for the cost of the blood test."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 2130
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the department does not use blood
tests or urine analysis for this particular screening or
assessment.
Number 2147
CHAIRMAN BUNDE withdrew Amendment 2. He made a motion to adopt
Amendment 3 which reads:
Page 1, line 4, following ",":
Insert "relating to family self-sufficiency plans;"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) The family self-sufficiency plan for
a family that includes a person who is
unmarried and pregnant must include provisions
that require the department to provide, and
the person to accept, parenting classes,
appropriate prenatal care, and family planning
education."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for an explanation regarding the
intent was of Amendment 3.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said, "The family self-sufficiency plan includes
single parents or unmarried people that - the unwed mother, to use
the archaic term, I guess - and as long as they are having kids,
they probably should sit down and give some thought to a family
plan."
Number 2198
MR. KREHER said generally, he thought the intent was sound, but his
biggest concern with the language is that it is almost a mandatory
provision. Because the division has clients in areas where these
services may not be available, he suggested the language might be
more workable for the division if it read something like, "must as
appropriate." He said while many of the rural areas have services
provided through the Native corporations where this could be
provided, it may not be possible in all situations. He wouldn't
care to see this as a condition for a family self-sufficiency plan
and the department not be able to provide the services.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked where Mr. Kreher was suggesting the verbiage
be added.
MR. KREHER responded after the word "must".
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested as an alternative, to insert "as
available" at the end of the sentence.
MR. KREHER indicated that would be workable, also. He pointed out
the division has not as yet generated a fiscal note for this bill
because the division is still in the planning stages for the
service delivery model. He did, however, suspect this amendment
would add some cost.
Number 2257
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "That's where I was coming from too.
This is bound to add some cost - somebody's got to do this and in
the amendment that was withdrawn, there was a requirement that the
person would pay for that and I would suggest that before I could
accept this, I would think that there should also then be some sort
of provision that the person who is going to get this training
should pay for that training."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE observed these are people are on welfare.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN understood that, but if Chairman Bunde felt it
was necessary this be done in order for these people to continue
getting welfare, then it should be at the expense of the
individual.
MR. KREHER said, "As the Chair indicated, these are people who are
literally living on the fringe. I think it would certainly create
an additional burden to the household and may in fact hinder
efforts at self-sufficiency if we were to require them to pay for
services that we, in essence, are by statute, required to provide
to individuals in order for them to achieve self-sufficiency. I
believe there's another amendment in this package that addresses
providing specific services as part of the self-sufficiency plan.
While it's already addressed in the statute, anything that we do
that's designed to promote self-sufficiency, encourage employment,
we are in essence, obligated to provide certain supportive services
so that people can pursue those activities." It was his opinion
the department would not support a requirement for people to pay
for these types of services.
Number 2320
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with the intention of the amendment;
however, it's his understanding the committee substitute was
drafted so it would not have a fiscal note. Inasmuch as this
amendment would clearly have a fiscal impact, he would have to
oppose it.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was further discussion.
TAPE 98-49, SIDE B
Number 0004
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson,
Kemplen and Bunde voted to adopt Amendment 3. Representative Green
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3, as amended was adopted
by a vote of 3-1.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 4 which read:
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "adult participants"
Insert "family members who are 16 years of age or older"
Page 2, line 10:
Delete "the participant"
Insert "a family member"
Page 2, line 11"
Delete "participant"
Insert "family member"
Number 0076
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
MR. KREHER stated his belief that the intent of this amendment was
most likely a realization it is quite possible, given that there
are other household members other than the adults who might have a
problem with chemical dependency or alcohol abuse. His biggest
concern is primarily the added fiscal impact. He explained that
currently under the family self-sufficiency plan, the only members
who are required to sign the plan are the adults. The intent of
the plan is to promote the employability of the adults in the
household so the family can achieve self-sufficiency. While it
appears the positive side of this amendment is that it would be
preparing dependent children for that eventuality as well, this
would require the screening of many more individuals. The
department estimates the most simple screening would add an
additional 15 minutes to an interview or the development of the
family self-sufficiency plan, which doesn't seem like much on an
individual basis, but it adds up quite quickly considering the
volume of applications. He noted there would be additional impacts
to the Medicaid program if those children were required to go to
treatment or through an in-depth assessment. There is also some
question regarding the availability of facilities for the children.
Number 0225
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked at what age does the department determine an
individual to be an adult.
MR. KREHER responded 18 and emancipated or married minors.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the lack of a quorum and called an at-ease at
4:15 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:17 p.m.
Number 0285
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the department had indicated this was
not appropriate because family members are not part of the payees
who have reduced benefits; they're indirect recipients. They don't
sign on the plan and therefore, children under the age of majority
are family members, not the actual plan participants.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented that gets to be a policy call. He added,
"The parents are -- I think you said, many of these children may be
in danger of substance abuse and probably could use some screening.
The parents are using and I assume there's an increased likelihood
that the children are using. The policy call becomes if the
children are using, are we going to make the parents pay the
penalty of reduced benefits."
MR. KREHER said that would be the end result if in the family self-
sufficiency plan it was specified that a child had to attend
assessment and treatment and the child is noncompliant, then in
essence, the adults who signed the plan would be out of compliance.
He said there could potentially be a number of ramifications such
as causing some sort of internal rift amongst the family.
Number 0400
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said he could see it coming from two angles: One,
parents will have to be more in tune with what their children are
doing; and two, it gives the child a hammer over the parents.
Number 0439
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a family on welfare has a reasonably
behaved child, but tests positive for chemical dependency, does
that eliminate the family or the child under this amendment?
MR. KREHER explained, "The legislation, as it stands now, would
just require screening and assessment, not testing. If that
individual child was screened and it was found that he had a
substance abuse issue and it was determined that it was to the
benefit of the family, the way this amendment reads, that the child
would have to submit to screening and assessment and if the child
then either refused or didn't comply with the conditions of the
treatment plan, then yes, the penalty would be levied against the
family by reducing the household benefit."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if there was further questions or discussion.
Hearing none, he asked for a roll call vote. Representative Bunde
voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Dyson, Kemplen
and Green voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a
vote of 3-1.
Number 0594
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 5 which
reads:
Page 1, line 13:
After "self-sufficiency"
Insert, "including child care, transportation
to and from job interviews and work related
activities, and transitional health care
coverage."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said Amendment 5 provides child care
transportation assistance and transitional health care coverage for
recipients. He noted this committee, as well as other committees
has heard testimony from individuals that these two issues are
critical to participants in the Temporary Assistance Program
(ATAP).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected to the amendment. He agrees with
Representative Kemplen in terms of the importance of helping people
out, but he didn't think it was appropriate given the goal is self-
sufficiency.
MR. KREHER explained under existing statute and regulation, the
department is obligated to provide these sorts of services to
individuals. He said transitional health care coverage, typically
referred to as transitional Medicaid, is a post-ATAP eligibility
benefit; in other words once an individual has gone off assistance,
they are then eligible for transitional Medicaid coverage. An
individual has full Medicaid coverage while receiving ATAP. He
said if the intent of the amendment is to address the time period
when a person becomes self-sufficient and off the system, the
existing statute already provides for that. If Representative
Kemplen's thought is to ensure that provisions of the self-
sufficiency plan are set in statute, he suggested the verbiage
should read "including but not limited to" because there are other
services that can be provided to individuals. In essence, these
services are already mandated by statute in an effort toward self-
sufficiency and employment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that it would be redundant.
Number 0781
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN inquired if the department currently
provides transportation to and from job interviews and work related
activities to ATAP recipients.
MR. KREHER responded yes. He added the department cannot require
any ATAP recipient to engage in a work activity if transportation
is a barrier and the department can provide a means to overcome
that barrier either by providing vouchers for gasoline, bus tokens
or in some instances provide support to repair a vehicle. He noted
there are limits, depending on the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN withdrew Amendment 5.
Number 0836
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 6 which
reads:
Page 2, line 4,
Before "fails"
Insert "substantially"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out this raises a much higher level
and asked Mr. Kreher to explain the impact.
MR. KREHER said his biggest concern is the definition of
"substantially." He said at first glance, it appears the intent is
to almost provide a safeguard to clients so there has to be some
demonstration of gross failure to comply with the conditions of the
self-sufficiency plan. Currently, under statute, individuals have
the right to demonstrate good cause if a penalty is levied against
them for failure to comply with the family self-sufficiency plan.
He said "substantially" would need to be defined in the Definitions
Section for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked how the department currently
determines (indisc.) fails to comply?
MR. KREHER explain, "It's - I'm on the verge on saying it's kind of
black and white thing. The family self-sufficiency plan defines
the steps an individual is going to take. If for instance the
first step is going to work search, the second step is getting
their GED, if we get notification from the contractor or the
division employee responsible for work search that this person has
not showed up for five days out of ten, that would be noncompliance
- a failure to comply with the plan and we would notify them that
they were out of compliance and we were going to levy a sanction
against them and impose a penalty. In that notice, they are told
that if they can demonstrate and document good cause for that, then
we would not impose the sanction. The onus is on the client to
demonstrate why they weren't there - I was at a doctor's
appointment, my kid was sick, I didn't have transportation, child
care fell through, whatever. Because we are emphasizing personal
responsibility through this whole program, we try to convince the
client that if something goes wrong and you can't comply with the
condition of your family self-sufficiency plan, contact your case
worker immediately." He stated his belief that good cause
provisions provide adequate protection for individuals who for good
reason haven't complied with a factor in their self-sufficiency
plan.
Number 1017
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said, "So it seems to me that the inserting
the verbiage such as "substantially" doesn't materially affect the
ability of the agency to administer the Temporary Assistance
Program and to require adherence to the self-sufficiency plan and
the substantially fails, as was mentioned, it does sort of raise
the bar a little so it's not a black or white type of thing -
either/or - but it moves it to a different level of and I think
that would by how the department interprets it, but at the very
least, at least two criteria would be met rather than the
impression that I have received from your comments that all it
would take would be just the noncompliance with one criteria and it
could be stated they are out of compliance with the plan."
MR. KREHER said Representative Kemplen was correct - an individual
would only have to mess up on one aspect of their family self-
sufficiency plan and suffer a potential penalty as a result. The
amendment would require a bit more finesse on the part of the case
managers and the eligibility staff to use prudent judgment to
determine whether or not there was intent for noncompliance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested this particular amendment does
more than raise the bar just a little; it raises it substantially
and in his opinion, it would seriously hamper the department's
ability to make sanctions come into play for even the benefit
reduction, as the bill now has been amended to read.
Number 1190
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thought the concern he was hearing was that it might
give too much power to the department to abuse their discretion.
MR. KREHER said his biggest concern is when the department reaches
the point of imposing a sanction on an individual, outside of the
arena of good cause, the individual always has the right to request
a fair hearing to contest an adverse action taken by the division.
Admittedly, he's not an attorney or a hearing officer, but language
like "substantially" would cause confusion and cloud the issue to
the point that it may hamper the ability to arrive at a clear
decision in a fair hearing process. He reiterated his concern that
without a clear definition of "substantially", there may be
problems with enforcing compliance on the self-sufficiency plans.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON thought the department was already doing what
Representative Kemplen was aiming his amendment at; he sensed the
department does not disqualify people on details. He agreed the
department's argument is exactly right in that it would invite a
lot of arguments about what is "substantial." He wasn't supporting
the amendment, but believed Representative Kemplen could rest easy
knowing the department is doing what he intended by the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that "substantial" has a
meaning and term of art in the law; it's very high.
MR. KREHER said the department's intent in this process certainly
is not to "willy nilly" impose sanctions on individuals. The
department has a relatively refined conciliation process and it is
the intent of case managers to promote self-sufficiency for these
individuals, recognizing that while sanctions are the only
mechanism by which to get people's attention, the department's
intent is to provide the support needed to become self-sufficient.
He added that sanctions are a heavy thing to be imposed on a family
and the department gives individuals every opportunity possible to
demonstrate good cause for not complying with the family self-
sufficiency plan.
Number 1365
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN withdrew Amendment 6.
Number 1380
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 7 which
reads:
Page 2, line 10,
After "assessment"
Delete "and require the participant to comply
with the recommendations of the assessment as
a condition of the family self-sufficiency
plan."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said the amendment deletes language that
would require the participant to comply with the recommendations of
the assessment as a condition of the family self-sufficiency plan
and would allow the department to screen the adult participants and
refer the participant for assessment. He said, "One of the
concerns I have about this is the infringement on the individual's
right to privacy and it was raised in testimony before the
committee that if the recommendation of an assessment is a urine
analysis or some sort of specific drug testing technique, that
individual would be required to undergo that technique and I don't
know if it is necessary for the -- to touch upon that, I think
infringement on that individual, no matter if they are poor, their
privacy - what I consider as essential privacy rights - and the
language that does remain in this subsection gives the department
the tools they need in order to adequately address the issue that
I believe that Representative Rokeberg is seeking to address with
this legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He said this amendment, on the
face of it is very much self-defeating in (indisc.-mumbling). If
the ability to provide a sanction for noncompliance resulting in
the assessment is taken away, it disserates the entire section.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said the issue is the assessment; first, is
the notion of screening the adult participants and the second is
referring them to assessment. The assessment which is conducted by
a professional facility will provide sufficient information to the
client manager for them to direct the participant to the needed
services. It appears to him there are sufficient powers that exist
within the language in both this legislation and other statutes
regarding ATAP recipients, giving the department and the client
managers plenty of power to implement the recommendations of the
family self-sufficiency plan. If the results of the assessment
provide strong probabilities that the client is at risk for alcohol
or controlled substance abuse, the client manager has the ability
to require that recipient to attend alcohol classes or controlled
substance classes or treatment as part of the family self-
sufficiency plan.
Number 1612
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected to the amendment for the same reason
as the sponsor.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representative Kemplen
voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Dyson, Green and
Bunde voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed to pass by
a vote of 3-1.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted there were no more amendments for
consideration and asked if there was further discussion on CSHB
434.
Number 1647
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "On further consideration, I would like
to repent of my earlier approval vote on an amendment that was well
intended but added more money to the .... It doesn't mean that I
don't think these are a good idea, I think that these are a great
idea, but within the purview of what the department can do now when
it's appropriate and resources are available. Is that correct?"
MR. KREHER replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to rescind the committee's
action on Amendment 3.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE objected and asked for a roll call vote.
Representatives Dyson and Green voted to rescind the committee's
action on Amendment 3. Representatives Kemplen and Bunde voted
against it. Therefore, the vote failed 2-2.
Number 1728
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to pass CSHB 434(HES) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN objected.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson,
Green and Bunde voted in favor of moving CSHB 434(HES) from
committee. Representative Kemplen voted against it. Therefore,
CSHB 434(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and social
Services Standing Committee on a vote of 3-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1748
CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee at 4:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|