Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/24/1995 09:05 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
March 24, 1995
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 98
"An Act making changes related to the aid to families with
dependent children program, the Medicaid program, the general
relief assistance program, and the adult public assistance program;
directing the Department of Health and Social Services to apply to
the federal government for waivers to implement the changes where
necessary; relating to eligibility for permanent fund dividends of
certain individuals who receive state assistance, to notice
requirements applicable to the dividend program; and providing for
an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION
SB 98 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
3/8/95, 3/10/95, 3/13/95, 3/17/95 and 3/22/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Jim Nordlund, Director
Division of Public Assistance (DPA)
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the position of DPA to the new CS.
Glenda Straube, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W 7th Ave., Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed concerns from her division.
Shannon O'Fallon
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the concerns from the Department of
Law.
Curt Lomas
Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, AK 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
assistance programs.
Portia Babcock
Staff to Senator Green
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered additional information regarding the
new CS to SB 98.
Barbara Thompson, Assistant to the Director
Division of Education Support
Department of Education
801 W 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the Division of Education Support's
concerns with the legislation.
Cathy Tibbles
Division of Family and Youth Services
PO Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Anticipated additional work for her division.
Loren Jones, Director
Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
PO Box 110607
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0607
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed concerns regarding the alcohol and
drug testing and treatment provisions.
Val Horner, Program Officer
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding the JOBS
program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-21, SIDE A
SHES - 3/27/95
SB 98 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education, and Social
Services Committee work session to order at 9:05 a.m. She
introduced SB 98 as the only order of business before the
committee. She announced a meeting would be called if a quorum
arrives, otherwise information provided at the work session would
be furnished to other committee members and any interested parties.
JIM NORDLUND, Director of the Division of Public Assistance in the
Department of Health and Social Services, stated that he would be
acting as the "ringleader" for a number of different agencies, most
in DHSS, affected by the bill. He provided a list of names of
people who would like to testify and/or respond to questions to
committee members. He also stated that DPA is in the process of
completing responses to questions raised by committee members.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that SB 98 would be held over until Monday,
but she requested any completed responses be submitted to the Chair
at this time.
Number 085
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division,
(CSED) in the Department of Revenue, gave the following testimony
on the portion of SB 98 that pertains to paternity establishment.
SB 98 does not permit that assistance be paid to a family with
respect to a dependent child whose paternity has not been
established. Paternity establishment can take between six months
and three years, for many reasons. There are exceptions in SB 98,
but it appears children will suffer because the process cannot be
expedited any faster.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that she understood that DHSS was very
interested in establishing paternity as quickly as possible.
GLENDA STRAUBE replied affirmatively. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained
that was the reason Section 19 was included in SB 98, and asked if
the exceptions listed were inadequate to serve that purpose.
GLENDA STRAUBE said that CSED is trying very hard to speed up
paternity establishment, however paternity is not considered
established until the court rules it so.
Number 116
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked how that section might be reworded so that the
third exception still requires the parent to at least name the
other parent. GLENDA STRAUBE suggested including language that
states that if through no fault of the child's family, paternity
cannot be established, the exception would be granted. CHAIRMAN
GREEN stated staff would work with Ms. Straube to draft such
language at a later time.
GLENDA STRAUBE addressed the third exception on line 6, page 9 of
SB 98, from personal experience. She was informed by the
Department of Health and Social Services in California that she had
a nephew she was unaware of. She raised the child but would not
have been able to provide three names of possible fathers, since
she had been estranged from the mother for many years. SB 98 would
prevent a person in such a situation from receiving public
assistance for that child.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the intent was to require the applicant
to provide information. She asked Ms. Straube to assist committee
staff in drafting suitable language to cover the type of situation
discussed. GLENDA STRAUBE agreed, and expressed concern that the
public perception of welfare reform is gender discriminatory
because the absent parent is not part of the picture. Programs
exist in other states that require unemployed, absent parents, who
do not make child support payments, to participate in workfare or
other programs. Such programs would increase the likelihood that
the absent parent can start to pay child support and help the
family get off of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program. CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed with that approach and asked
for assistance in drafting such language.
SENATOR ELLIS cited figures provided to the committee that show
about 800,000 welfare cases nationwide would be unnecessary if
parents would, and could, pay child support. He asked if
proportionally, similar figures would apply to Alaska. He also
asked for other proposals that might be included in welfare reform
that would increase child support enforcement and decrease the
welfare roles.
Number 226
GLENDA STRAUBE stated repeated studies which illustrate that people
are far more likely to go off of AFDC if they receive child support
payments, because that amount of money may raise the income level
past the eligibility level. She noted other bills in the
legislature that are important to ensure that more child support
payments are collected so that families can get off of AFDC. One
bill regarding administrative paternity establishment would
eliminate the court's role, except for judicial review; that would
shorten the process by six months. A second bill is required by
the Federal Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and would
facilitate reaching obligors in other states. A third bill, on
both the House and Senate sides, is the Occupational Licensing
bill, which would help collect child support payments from self-
employed people. She discussed the large number of professional
people who do not make child support payments and hide behind their
self-employed status. That bill provides for a driver's license
suspension if people do not work out payment plans.
Number 263
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the governor's bills on child support
enforcement, SB 115 and SB 116, are scheduled to be heard in the
committee. She commented that those bills may offer a forum to
correct some of the current inadequacies. The intent of Section 19
in SB 98 is to help the department require parentage establishment,
not to find children that could be eliminated from eligibility.
SENATOR ELLIS thanked Ms. Straube for her comments, and for
advertising his legislation regarding professional licensing and
the suspension of driver's licenses. He noted the argument that
pulling licenses from professionals would prevent them from working
and paying child support which has been made toward both Rep.
Davies' bill in the House and his bill in the Senate. He indicated
that 98 percent of able-bodied white collar professionals, making
good salaries are unwilling to pay child support. After such
legislation is enacted they seem to immediately work out a payment
plan to pay their child support. Within the bill, the individual
has 150 days to contact the Child Support Enforcement Agency and
work out a payment plan and a provision to issue temporary licenses
is available if a further grace period is necessary. He pointed
out that the focus has been on people in low wage jobs who are
struggling to pay child support, and not on the people who could
easily pay but merely refuse to pay.
JIM NORDLUND thanked Chairman Green, and commented that the child
support bills are extremely important to DHSS. He offered to work
with the committee and other state agencies in drafting revisions
to those bills.
Number 322
SHANNON O'FALLON, Department of Law, felt that Section 2 which
limits assistance to United States citizens, is unconstitutional
under a U.S. Supreme Court case, Graham vs. Richardson. That case
involved several states' laws which made non-citizens ineligible
for public assistance. The Supreme Court found the laws to be in
violation of equal protection rights.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted illegal aliens are prohibited from receiving
assistance. She asked if any prohibition existed against legal
aliens filing for benefits immediately upon entering the country.
SHANNON O'FALLON explained that as long as the individual completed
the steps to become a legal alien, he/she would be eligible.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked how cumbersome that process is. SHANNON
O'FALLON did not have that information.
SHANNON O'FALLON suggested replacing the word "equivalent" with the
word "similar" on line 7, page 2. The language "substantially
equivalent" has proved problematic in litigation. The same change
would need to be made in Section 22 on page 10, line 13.
SENATOR ELLIS asked about conviction for false statements, or
welfare fraud, in another jurisdiction. SHANNON O'FALLON explained
that the crime in another state must be linked to welfare fraud in
order for benefits to be denied in Alaska. It would not apply to
other types of convictions in another state.
Number 380
SENATOR ELLIS asked Ms. O'Fallon to elaborate on the issue of
conviction for welfare fraud. If there were a crime in Mississippi
related to the misrepresentation of information on an application
which was considered to be a type of welfare fraud, but not
considered a crime in Alaska; how would such a situation be
handled? SHANNON O'FALLON said that the crime in Mississippi would
have to be substantially similar to a crime in Alaska.
Regarding the mechanics of that provision, SENATOR ELLIS asked if
it would require reciprocal agreements with welfare agencies in
other states, or if the previous conviction would somehow become
apparent during the application process. SHANNON O'FALLON was
unsure how the process would work, however she did not believe the
department would be responsible for finding out whether or not the
applicant was convicted of a certain crime.
JIM NORDLUND pointed out that most of the fraud detection done by
DHSS is done at an administrative level. The lion's share of the
work is inexpensive and productive and never appears on a criminal
record. He suspected that is the system used by other states,
therefore it would be impossible to find out when those
determinations were made by other states. Tracking down criminal
fraud would be difficult to do. He estimated very few people would
be affected by Sections 3 and 22. The department believes that
permanently denying benefits to a person who lied on an application
is too harsh of a punishment. He suggested considering a phased
sanction for those types of activities.
Number 417
SENATOR SALO questioned whether applicants are required to sign a
sworn statement on the application stating they have never been
denied benefits in another state because of fraudulent statements.
JIM NORDLUND replied applicants are required to sign a statement
that the information they have provided is true. Penalties for
lying are included.
CURT LOMAS, Division of Public Assistance, DHSS, clarified that
applicants are currently required to sign an unsworn statement as
to the truth of the information they provided. They are not asked
about out-of-state convictions because there is no penalty attached
to state benefits for an out-of-state conviction for welfare fraud.
He noted one exception, the Federal Food Stamp program requires
that fraud disqualification be applied across state lines. That
information is provided through a nationwide computer program,
independent of the client.
CHAIRMAN GREEN specified that the applicant would have to be
convicted of fraud. This provision would not apply to an
interviewer's summary opinion of an applicant. Follow-through
would be necessary to obtain a conviction. She commented about the
Food Stamp program and current investigative procedures used by the
department. She indicated that the program may need a penalty to
provide more teeth.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Chairman Green about her previous comment about
fraud information becoming available later. CHAIRMAN GREEN
clarified that the purpose is not to do an intense investigation of
all current recipients. She discussed setting up a program similar
to the Food Stamp program in which the names of fraudulent
recipients are kept on file.
Number 463
SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether such a system would apply to new
applicants only. CHAIRMAN GREEN replied affirmatively, unless
information about an existing recipient came forward. The intent
is not to demand a retroactive search. SENATOR ELLIS inquired as
to how the information might come up later. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated
that her comments were directed toward information found out by the
agency (DHSS).
SENATOR SALO discussed practical ways to get information about
welfare recipients that would not require an increase in the number
of department staff. She suggested adding a sworn statement to the
application, and/or using food stamp information about fraudulent
applicants to deny benefits in Alaska.
PORTIA BABCOCK, staff to Chairman Green, clarified that permanent
ineligibility is acquired when a person is convicted of welfare
fraud. She asked whether penalties exist for a person who
reapplies for food stamps elsewhere after being convicted of
welfare fraud. CURT LOMAS believed that penalties are phased and
that permanent disqualification may come after a third conviction.
PORTIA BABCOCK stated that a criminal record search of all
applicants would be cost prohibitive and may need to be clarified
in the bill. She commented on using the food stamp fraud
information to deny benefits to applicants.
Number 516
SENATOR ELLIS asked if a person could get cash benefits while
serving jail time. CURT LOMAS replied that prisoners are not
eligible.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if permanent eligibility extends to minor
children. CHAIRMAN GREEN did not believe that permanent
ineligibility status that applied to an adult would apply to a
child; that is not the intent.
PORTIA BABCOCK explained that there are many situations where the
parent may not be eligible for benefits but the dependent child is.
She specified that if an adult drops out of the JOBS program, they
can be determined ineligible for benefits for a specific time
period but the child is not ineligible.
SENATOR ELLIS asked how a child would get food stamps and AFDC when
the parent is declared permanently ineligible for benefits. CURT
LOMAS clarified that the ineligible person could still apply for
benefits, but the benefit amount would be adjusted to remove the
amount designated for the disqualified person.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if CSSB 98(HES) would extend the status quo.
PORTIA BABCOCK stated, to her understanding, current provisions for
that situation would apply.
JIM NORDLUND noted that most people who lie on an application lie
about their income. When their real income is disclosed, it is
usually higher, therefore they would become ineligible anyway.
SENATOR ELLIS asked, if the applicant's income decreased in the
future, would that person be able to apply and receive benefits for
the dependents. CURT LOMAS stated that federal programs would
require a waiver, and obtaining a waiver is difficult.
Number 566
SENATOR ELLIS commented that the possibility of sharing welfare
fraud information among states may not occur due to federal budget
cuts. CURT LOMAS noted the proposal in the AFDC program two or
three years ago which required the disqualification of convicted
applicants across state lines. Congress and the Administration
reviewed the costs of establishing such a program, and discovered
it would cost money, rather than save it.
JIM NORDLUND stated that while fraud is not rampant, it does exist.
The House Finance Committee has included funds in the DPA budget
for an additional six investigators.
TAPE 95-21, SIDE B
SENATOR ELLIS discussed his support of the alleviation of welfare
fraud. He felt it is heinous, offensive to society, and undercuts
support for people who really need it.
SHANNON O'FALLON continued with the sectional analysis. Section 4
establishes a residency requirement of 30 days prior to applying
for assistance. She expressed concern that the bill needs to be
clear regarding the state's purposes, for litigation reasons.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the 30-day residency requirement has been
accepted by the court. SHANNON O'FALLON explained that she had
only reviewed court cases in which a one-year residency requirement
was struck down.
JIM NORDLUND said DHSS does not have a position on the 30-day
residency requirement as it is a policy call by the legislature.
DHSS has not determined whether many people come to Alaska to
collect benefits, the department is trying to collect empirical
evidence.
Number 557
SHANNON O'FALLON pointed out that Section 9 contains sanctions but
does not specify for how long those sanctions would be imposed.
Additionally, some of the provisions under (d) do not contain a "no
good cause" exception, which could lead to problems.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the phrase "to the extent allowed under
federal law" on line 4 of page 5 would apply to the federal law in
place when CSSB 98 (HES) is enacted, or whether this would change
with changes in federal law. SHANNON O'FALLON felt that depended
upon the effective dates in the bill, Section 39. The effective
date of this measure is subject to what federal laws are passed.
Under subsection (b), the attorney general and DHSS would determine
when this law goes into effect, which would not be until federal
law and federal regulations go into effect.
SENATOR ELLIS said that the effective date clause makes the bill
extremely prospective. He questioned the anti-federal sentiment of
many legislators, and asked Chairman Green if that philosophy is
behind the references to federal programs contained in SB 98.
PORTIA BABCOCK explained that SB 98 intends to reflect the volatile
nature of the law at the federal level and the many changes that
are expected to occur. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted further complications
with match programs. SB 98 is designed to allow state programs to
continue if the federal program is changed to a block grant system.
Number 485
CURT LOMAS commented that this provision of current law relates
specifically to the JOBS program and sanctions for noncompliance.
The references in paragrahps (2) and (4) do not relate to jobs, but
to other provisions in the bill. The sanctions for failure to
participate in the JOBS program are already specified in federal
law. In fact, those sanctions are considerably greater than a 20
percent penalty in almost every circumstance.
CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed the need to have an aggressive workfare or
JOBS program within the state; a similar noncompliance factor could
be built in. CURT LOMAS suggested that if a penalty is attached to
another provision, the penalty be included in the section covering
that provision.
SHANNON O'FALLON noted that Sections 1, 3, and 4 contain "no good
cause" requirements; she suggested including the same provision in
other sections. That provision would allow a person in a certain
situation, such as sexual harassment on the job, to continue
receiving benefits if they left a job.
PORTIA BABCOCK indicated that the "no good cause" provision is not
specified in each section, but is included in Section 17. SHANNON
O'FALLON pointed out that the provision is not included in Section
9, paragraphs (1), (3), and (4). Section 2 contains the exception.
Number 452
CURT LOMAS noted that problem does exist in paragraph (4). JIM
NORDLUND suggested addressing those issues when they review the
section pertaining to school.
SHANNON O'FALLON explained that Section 20 is a personal
responsibility statement. She commented that the section may need
clarification, it seems that the governor would sign all the forms.
Section 24, regarding illegal aliens, may contain confidentiality
problems. Federal regulations governing AFDC, food stamps, and
Medicaid do not allow sharing that type of information. CHAIRMAN
GREEN said that issue is being researched. JIM NORDLUND stated
that it would be unlikely that the state could receive a waiver for
that. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that the issue is being considered
in the new federal law.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the availability of the statistics on
the number of recent immigrants to Alaska receiving benefits. CURT
LOMAS replied those figures were requested and should be available
next week.
SENATOR ELLIS informed everyone of the complaints he had heard.
The complaints often come from older white Alaskans, especially in
regard to longevity bonuses. In his research, the recipients are
often Korean Americans or legal aliens, entitled to the benefits.
He believed many of the complaints were based on racism. CHAIRMAN
GREEN felt that the law should specify that illegal aliens should
not be entitled to benefits.
SENATOR SALO recommended obtaining the statistics prior to passage
of the bill. She felt Section 24 should be eliminated if it only
applies to a very small number of people, since the potential for
constitutional challenge exists.
CURT LOMAS clarified that current law, both state and federal,
prohibits benefits to illegal aliens, with the single exception of
Medicaid. Medicaid provides for emergency medical services in life
threatening circumstances. The debate in Congress on this issue
has shifted toward further benefit limitations to legal immigrants,
but not a categorical denial of assistance.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the department receives complaints about
legal aliens receiving benefits. CURT LOMAS said they receive
calls frequently. He explained that applicants have to provide
legal documents verifying legal resident status, and the department
has to confirm the legality of the documents with the INS.
Number 351
SHANNON O'FALLON discussed Section 32, which contains a two-tier
payment system. The two-tier system draws distinctions between
people who have lived in Alaska longer than others. A Ninth
Circuit federal court case, Green vs. Anderson, struck down a
similar two-tier system. She did not believe Section 32 would
withstand a constitutional challenge because it infringes on an
individual's right to travel, and interstate migration. She
explained that Section 32 provides for different payment levels;
recipients who have resided in Alaska for less than six months are
paid at the level of the previous state in which they collected
benefits in.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said Section 32 was modelled after the Wisconsin
waiver, which was approved. SHANNON O'FALLON noted that there had
been no court test of that waiver to her knowledge. PORTIA BABCOCK
specified that most of the states that have applied for waivers
have been denied by the federal government. Wisconsin was granted
this particular waiver; it was approved by the Clinton
Administration and has been in operation since July of 1994.
SENATOR SALO asked what factors contributed to the approval.
PORTIA BABCOCK explained that Wisconsin agreed to pay the same rate
paid by the previous state which was one factor. SENATOR SALO
suggested that Alaska may have a completely different circumstance
because Alaska has the highest cost of living.
SENATOR ELLIS commented that this has been very popular among
legislators nationwide.
SENATOR SALO requested information on the number of applicants in
that category. CURT LOMAS indicated data is available on length of
residency in the state, which he would provide to the committee.
JIM NORDLUND stated that the department believes that Section 32 is
unconstitutional and may address a situation that does not exist.
Number 297
SENATOR SALO remarked that she had taught children whose families
arrived in Alaska in search of economic opportunity, but ended up
living in extreme poverty. She did not feel people in extreme
cases like that should be denied benefits. CHAIRMAN GREEN
clarified that the bill would not deny benefits to those people,
but the benefits received would not be at the Alaska rate until
they had resided in Alaska for seven months.
PORTIA BABCOCK pointed out that there is a 30-day residency
requirement before an individual is eligible to apply, therefore
the applicant would not receive the lower rate until after that
time period. There is an exception for people who work for 90 days
immediately upon arrival. Those people would be eligible right
away.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to how a person arriving from another
state would apply. JIM NORDLUND replied that this section would
add another level of complexity to the eligibility determination
computer system, which would have to be reprogrammed. Additional
costs would be associated with those changes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN felt the costs should be minimal since the number of
applicants affected would be very small. JIM NORDLUND indicated
that the computer program would still need to be reprogrammed for
the occasional applicant that fits that category.
CURT LOMAS explained when the first waiver packages were
considered, waivers were approved: if a two-tier system was used;
and if the other state's eligibility rules were used, which vary in
every state. The federal government has since allowed for some
simplification. He stated DHSS would negotiate with the federal
government, if faced with applying SB 98, for the least
administratively burdensome method. That could involve surveying
states and obtaining their benefit tables.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the information would not be too difficult to
replicate. CURT LOMAS noted states use different ways of
calculating payments and different items are included in the
payments.
Number 227
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that Alaska does have the highest AFDC
rates, and other states have different types of programs as well.
SHANNON O'FALLON reiterated her concern about serious
constitutional problems with Section 32.
JIM NORDLUND discussed Section 5 which reduces benefit reductions
on an average of seven percent. The department is opposed to
Section 5. DHSS recognizes the need to reduce the amount of money
that goes toward AFDC payments, but through reducing the caseload
rather than benefits. DHSS suggests reducing the caseload by
vigorously pursuing work opportunities for AFDC recipients.
SENATOR SALO asked whether the reduction to $463 per month would be
significantly below the poverty level in Alaska. CURT LOMAS stated
that the 1994 poverty level for a one-person household is $767 per
month. The $463 amount is for a child living with an adult who is
not needy.
SENATOR SALO referred to page 3, and noted a pregnant woman
eligible for assistance would receive $437 per month.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the poverty level data refers to cash only.
CURT LOMAS recollected it includes cash income only. CHAIRMAN
GREEN clarified that other programs, such as food stamps, rent
assistance, and Medicaid would also be collected.
SENATOR ELLIS indicated many of those programs are being reduced
dramatically, or eliminated. CHAIRMAN GREEN felt the figures in
CSSB 98(HES) could be considered generous compared to the cuts made
by the federal government. She noted that the seven percent
reduction may not be germane depending on changes made to the
federal program.
Number 098
SENATOR ELLIS remarked there is extreme uncertainty about what the
federal government is about to do, and that Alaska is not in a
unique position. The same argument for inaction was used last year
in regard to health care reform. He asked Mr. Nordlund if past
cuts in cash payments, Medicaid, and co-pays, had any affect on the
governor's decision to oppose the rate reductions. JIM NORDLUND
replied it most likely did. He added that HB 67, which passed
several years ago, eliminated the COLA from AFDC and APA and
reduced the payment. The effect of that, in this fiscal year, is
a reduction of $15 million in benefit pay-outs.
SENATOR ELLIS indicated SB 98 is not the first proposed reduction
in welfare benefits; at least four major changes have been made to
benefits in the past few years. JIM NORDLUND pointed out that a
person eligible for AFDC is not automatically eligible for other
programs, except Medicaid. Twenty percent of people on AFDC
receive housing assistance and sixty percent of AFDC recipients
receive food stamps.
TAPE 95-22, SIDE A
Number 005
JIM NORDLUND said that there is very little money left after the
essentials are paid, at the present benefit level in the AFDC
program. He explained the information that he had handed out to
the committee members.
SENATOR SALO asked if page 3 of the handout was the most common
example of a public assistance recipient. JIM NORDLUND replied
yes, a single mother with two children would be the typical
example.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for clarification of the source of the funding
for the program according to the chart on page 1.
CURT LOMAS explained that APA supplements the federal SSI program
up to the state needs standard. APA is 100 percent general fund;
SSI is 100 percent federal.
JIM NORDLUND pointed out that both programs attempt to achieve a
needs standard. The AFDC program is 50/50. Food Stamps and Energy
Assistance are 100 percent federal.
Number 081
In response to Senator Ellis, CURT LOMAS said that the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, has been scheduled for
another cut from the current budget. JIM NORDLUND explained that
LIHEAP was a portion of the Congressional recision package which
would affect next year's heating bills for needy families.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked how many people would be impacted by that.
JIM NORDLUND said he would get that information for her.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to where housing assistance showed up.
How many people that are served through these programs also receive
Alaska Housing or assistance through housing assistance programs
and what is that amount? CURT LOMAS answered that roughly 20
percent of their caseload of AFDC and APA receives housing
assistance. He directed Chairman Green to the boxes which indicate
the less subsidy amount which is not included in the numbers for
the department's programs.
PORTIA BABCOCK asked how that subsidy would affect eligibility for
AFDC. CURT LOMAS said that it would not.
In response to Chairman Green, CURT LOMAS explained that rental
subsidy is based on a family's income which would take into account
AFDC assistance that a family might receive. PORTIA BABCOCK
pointed out that there is a substantial inequity between the 20
percent who receive housing subsidies and those that do not. CURT
LOMAS agreed and stated that often AFDC families that receive
housing subsidies are the only families with any money left after
paying for the essentials.
Number 164
JIM NORDLUND noted that Section 6 was a new section to the CS which
would require notification of the JOBS program to all applicants.
This section would also require that each applicant develop a self-
sufficiency program which the department supports in principle. He
informed the committee that DPA already notifies all AFDC
applicants about the JOBS program. He explained that a portion of
the participants in the JOBS program are volunteers and a portion
are compelled to participate.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that 20 percent was limiting. JIM NORDLUND
clarified that their goal is to have 20 percent of the basic
caseload participate and 50 percent of the unemployed parent
caseload participate in the JOBS program. The program becomes more
labor intensive for the division as well as the limitations in
funding.
Mr. Nordlund pointed out that the requirement for eligibility
technicians (ET) to develop a self-sufficiency plan for each
participant would take time and be reflected in the fiscal note.
They want to do this. He noted that a budget increase for
additional eligibility technicians had passed in the House Finance
Subcommittee. The caseload should decrease allowing ETs more time
to develop self-sufficiency plans. He asserted that even with the
requested budget increment, the department would not be able to
adequately do the self-sufficiency plans for everyone. He
explained that if an ET spends more time in developing self-
sufficiency plans then they have less time to ensure accurate
payment levels are being used.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to what language would address Mr.
Nordlund's concerns regarding the self-sufficiency plan. JIM
NORDLUND said that they would give that some thought.
Number 215
JIM NORDLUND commented that if the self-sufficiency plan applied to
the entire caseload then it should be taken outside of the JOBS
statutes. CURT LOMAS specified that the self-sufficiency provision
in SB 98 is addressed under the JOBS statutes rather than the AFDC
statutes which is where the language should be addressed.
SENATOR ELLIS suggested that the assumption of the self-sufficiency
language seemed to imply that everyone could become self-
sufficient. He felt that a case management plan with those of
various ability levels would be advisable; however, how would you
categorize the various levels of mental and physical disabilities
that people have while developing a plan to reach their highest
level of functioning and independence. He pointed out that self-
sufficiency should be a flexible term.
JIM NORDLUND stated that in this time of limited resources, the
division wants to be as efficient as possible while working with
those who have the best chance of succeeding in the work place. He
expressed the need to recognize that there would always be
individual's who would require public assistance even instances
that are not specified in the exceptions of SB 98. He emphasized
that a case management approach would be implied with the self-
sufficiency plan. He noted the Independence Project in Juneau and
the Anchorage program of Homegrown Self-Sufficiency. The message
to be sent to those applying for AFDC benefits is that these
benefits are temporary help and the division will work with the
applicant in becoming employed.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to who does the functional assessment of
those applying for AFDC. He discussed an example of a case in
which a person could look able-bodied enough to be employed
although they were mentally ill. He agreed that the self-
sufficiency goal was important, but caution should be taken. He
explained that ETs are not currently trained to do functional
assessments of an individual's physical or mental health; more than
an ET would be need for this provision. He did not want to create
a new welfare trap that could categorize a person as able to become
self-sufficient while the person could not actually reach 100
percent self-sufficiency.
Number 327
JIM NORDLUND mentioned that with this self-sufficiency assessment,
ETs would have a broader job description. With the limited budget,
ETs would have to make preliminary assessments and then offer
referrals.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that she intended to recess and reconvene
at 1:30 p.m.
SENATOR ELLIS commented that it was unfortunate that the two absent
majority members could not be present for this meeting.
JIM NORDLUND recommended that when the meeting reconvened that
other divisions and departments be allowed to testify in order that
they might be able to return to their jobs.
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested the transcripts for the afternoon portion
of the meeting. She also suggested that if there was any written
back up from any of the departments or divisions. The work session
recessed until 1:30 p.m.
Number 367
The work session was called to order at 1:39 p.m.
SENATOR ELLIS announced that he had passed out a memo from Legal
Services regarding the constitutionality of the two-tier payment
system.
JIM NORDLUND handed out information regarding the myths and facts
about welfare and the number of able-bodied persons included in the
AFDC caseload.
BARBARA THOMPSON, Division of Education Program Support for the
Department of Education, expressed concern with Section 6. The
increase in referrals to the JOBS program which Section 6 would
indicate, would necessitate an increase in funding. Sections 9 and
17 pose the following concerns. First, how would the reporting of
attendance to DHSS take place? There could be costs associated
with the development of a reporting system. She noted that all
schools do keep attendance records, however, all schools may not
define attendance in the same way. Differences in definitions of
an excused absence or adequate attendance would be left to the
school to settle.
The second concern would be in the confidentiality of the
transmittal of the attendance records. The transmittal of
attendance records for a specific purpose from one state agency to
another may be acceptable. Ms. Thompson indicated that this would
need further research in the areas of the Freedom of Information
Act and the Privacy Act.
The last concern relates to the position in which these two
sections place school staff. Sections 17 and 9 seem to be
diametrically opposed to the assumption that these sections would
intend to help students have better attendance, help everyone
appreciate the school system, and appreciate education. School
districts would become holders of the purse strings and would then
become the entity that initiates or provides the information that
gets the family AFDC payment reduced. Ms. Thompson did not want to
have parents and teachers in an adversarial role.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that this was due to some school employees in
her district who expressed frustration that the attendance rate is
so sketchy for those students who need to be in school the most.
These sections were not viewed as a burden to them.
Number 464
SENATOR SALO agreed that school attendance is a problem, but it is
not just limited to poor children. She explained the possibility
of the danger in creating a differentiation in how one would handle
record keeping for poor children versus other children. She
pointed out that when school districts report their attendance to
the Department of Education, they do not include the names of
children. Under SB 98, the names of students would need to be
tracked.
BARBARA THOMPSON did not feel that this provision would promote
good will about the educational system in a local community in the
long-term.
JIM NORDLUND remarked that this is a project that is currently
going on in New Jersey, under a waiver. The preliminary results
are not too promising.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that schools seem to already be fairly
involved in the reporting of things about students and families.
She said that it was a point well taken.
JIM NORDLUND explained that Sections 7 and 8 are almost identical
to the governor's bill. However, he expressed the need to ensure
that this is not gender discriminatory. There are two parents
responsible for a child. Typically the mother takes care of the
children and the father is absent. The father or the father's
family should also be held responsible for the care of the child.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there should be an amendment addressing
that issue.
Number 523
CATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS),
recognized the advisability of having young adolescent parents
living in supportive and structured environments. They anticipate
that there would be an additional load in interviewing,
investigating homes for their safeness, and time involving
mediation. She also anticipated contracting with private clinical
social workers to deal with this increase in various areas. She
noted that DFYS would be developing fiscal notes when they had the
final SB 98 before them.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to the thoughts of Ms. Tibbles or others
about the requirement of parental notification and its affect on
the abortion rate. He indicated that some believe that the
abortion rate would increase with the enactment of such
legislation; when parents realize they must house their daughter
and her child, their granddaughter, the parents would more often
counsel their daughter to have a safe and legal abortion.
CATHY TIBBLES said that they have not discussed that issue since
DFYS has not been so involved with pregnant teens.
SENATOR ELLIS expressed interest in the opinions of DFYS regarding
this issue.
SENATOR SALO was unsure of the worthiness of this provision even if
its in both SB 98 and the governor's bill. The numbers seem to
indicate that this would affect 100 girls. CATHY TIBBLES stated
that perhaps 50 percent of the pregnant teens would not want to
remain in the home for whatever reason.
SENATOR SALO asked if there were circumstances that did not fit the
exceptions under SB 98. Would some teen mothers and their babies
be better off on their own in some cases? She commented that the
major motivation for changing this law could be financial or
related to the quality of the care of the child.
CATHY TIBBLES agreed that some teen mothers would be better alone
and not living in their parents' house. She asked if an
emancipated minor would be exempt from this provision. If so, that
would afford an alternative for those teens that are mature and
capable of caring for a child alone.
SENATOR SALO noted that SB 98 would require that the minor be
emancipated for a year prior. CURT LOMAS said that emancipation
was not an exemption. He clarified that if the minor had lived
away from home for a year or had been married for a year the minor
would be considered emancipated. Under state law, emancipation
does not constitute an exemption.
TAPE 95-22, SIDE B
Number 585
SENATOR ELLIS asked Mr. Nordlund if the governor's bill was
financially motivated. JIM NORDLUND felt that the best interest of
the infant would be the motivation of this provision. He said that
the department judged that a child would be better situated in an
extended family assuming that is a safe and loving environment. In
some ways the opportunity to move out of the home is created
through the granting of benefits. He assumed that the Division of
Family and Youth Services (DFYS), which is already overburdened,
could reasonably determine whether a juvenile is in a relatively
safe environment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that she had thought that the Mat-Su
Alternative School would not like this because the majority of
their female population is teen mothers. The school has a daycare
center and there are living arrangements for the mothers and their
children. She pointed out that the staff and principals of this
school want such a provision because some people are being
encouraged by the program. Unencumbered teens are not encouraged
to move out on their own.
JIM NORDLUND suggested that an emancipated child should be added to
those being exempt.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Chairman Green if she had a guess about the
effect on the abortion rate. CHAIRMAN GREEN did not. She did not
know if it would be accurate to assume that there are a great
number of parents who would foster abortion.
SENATOR ELLIS said that some statistics illustrate that the
majority of parents faced with giving advice to their teenaged
daughter regarding her pregnancy would counsel the teen to have an
abortion. The clause placing the teen mother in the extended
family could become an incentive for the parent to counsel for an
abortion if the parents do not want to deal with another child. He
predicted that placing the teen mother in the home could increase
the abortion rate.
Number 510
LOREN JONES, Director of the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse,
expressed concern with the provision regarding drug testing. He
agreed with the goal of the section which would be to encourage
persons on assistance to seek treatment. The abuse of alcohol and
drugs poses a barrier for persons getting off assistance, receiving
employment, getting through training, keeping their children, and
keeping a safe environment. He emphasized that for many gaining
assistance is the first step towards recovery. Many of these
people have few job skills. Many of the women are not in a
situation that would be considered conducive to recovery and if
they return to that environment the treatment effects are lost. He
explained that for many women, receiving assistance allows them to
get away from an abusive spouse, have some economic stability for
themselves and their children, and have a safe environment.
Mr. Jones was concerned with the penalty for the noncompliance in
treatment. People in treatment have a lot of starts and stops.
Barring someone from receiving assistance for two years would take
away the incentives to those people. Urine testing or other
testing to measure treatment compliance or failure would pose a
barrier. People relapse during treatment and after recovery. He
stated that the bill seems to be unclear as to the purpose of the
testing. He noted that the most common test is the urine test
which is not sensitive to alcohol consumption.
Mr. Jones explained that there are some confidentiality issues that
are of some concern. Information obtained from tests done at a
treatment program are not available to anyone outside the program.
Therefore, the testing or sanctions on welfare would need be to
done outside of the treatment program. Currently, testing is done
in an effort to measure the progress of the client and compliance
to the program. He informed everyone the they do place sanctions
such as discontinuing treatment and changing the form of the
treatment, but the sanctions attempt to keep the client connected
to the treatment program. He pointed out that some of the
sanctions in SB 98 would pose a barrier for individuals wanting to
return to treatment.
Mr. Jones pointed out that women on AFDC that are dependent on
alcohol and drugs are a minority among the AFDC population. If
these women can remain in treatment, then their economic situation
may allow them to leave a situation that may not be conducive to
recovery. He emphasized that for that group, remaining on
assistance even if they relapse is important for the treatment
program to help these people. He noted that there may be ways that
are currently being used to encourage compliance.
Number 421
SENATOR SALO asked Mr. Jones if he was suggesting that paragraph
(2) be eliminated from Section 26 and leave the remainder of the
section. She inquired as to Mr. Jones' thoughts regarding the
sanctions on those who refuse to participate. LOREN JONES did
believe that there should be sanctions for those who have been
shown to have a drug or alcohol problem that interferes with their
participation in the JOBS program or a training program. Mr. Jones
suggested that if the sanction removed the person from assistance
then they should be allowed to reapply for assistance if they
resume compliance with the treatment program and not have a two
year wait. Most people enter substance abuse treatments due to a
crisis.
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out the "if available" language and inquired
as to the status program coverage and access across the state.
LOREN JONES addressed the budget cuts the Division of Alcohol and
Drug Abuse have faced, approximately $3 1/2 million decrease in
funding. Services in six communities were removed. There are
approximately 500 people on the wait list for treatment. He
discussed the new allowance to bill Medicaid for treatment services
and noted that there are many restrictions with Medicaid.
Mr. Jones expressed concern with the sanctions imposed on persons
who do not maintain treatment when the division itself has many
pressures regarding the number of persons seeking treatment. He
explained that the language "if available" could mean if the
treatment is available in ones community. Treatment is usually not
available in communities with a population under 700 or 800. The
language "if available" could also mean if the appropriate
treatment is available.
Number 335
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a way to rephrase this language
to indicate that it is not the intention of these assistance
programs to aid and abeit alcohol and drug abusers to continue
their lifestyle. She stated that it is not our responsibility to
fund abusers.
LOREN JONES understood her sentiment. He explained that the
division views alcohol and drug abuse as a disease that among some
is a behavioral problem and among others the abuse is not a matter
of choice. In response to Chairman Green, Mr. Jones pointed out
that society pays for abuse problems in emergency rooms and
highways. He was not convinced that sanctions on persons on
welfare would be the manner in which society should illustrate
displeasure with others diseases or behavioral problems.
JIM NORDLUND agreed that the notion that someone would use
assistance to purchase alcohol or drugs is intolerable and DPA
would like to deal with this problem. He explained that a case
management approach would be beneficial in attacking this problem.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was another system besides a cash
system. SENATOR ELLIS offered the voucher system as an
alternative.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that she did not care if the abuse was by
choice or a disease. It is not fair if the behavior continues and
someone else is deprived of funding.
LOREN JONES agreed that case management and voucher systems may be
a way to a deal with this dilemma. He noted that an integral part
of the treatment program is learning how to manage money.
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that voucher systems or other manners
besides mailing checks would require more state employees which has
been a barrier in the past.
SENATOR SALO requested the consideration of deleting paragraph (2)
of Section 26 and inserting "cash" between "for" and "assistance"
in subsection (b). This would eliminate the receipt of cash from
those individuals who choose not to participate in a treatment
program, they may still receive food stamps or rent assistance.
She expressed objection to the mandatory testing provision. She
noted that people who view assistance programs negatively point to
fraud and the use of assistance money to buy drugs and alcohol.
SENATOR ELLIS clarified that the loss of the benefit for two years
only applies to the adult, the child would still receive their
benefit. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the problem remains, cash
in the hands of the adult.
Number 234
JIM NORDLUND felt that this provision provided a good incentive
with losing the benefit, however, there would be no incentive to
return to treatment if the benefit cannot be reinstated until two
years has passed. The incentive would be to allow the receipt of
the benefit while the person attends treatment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that this issue would be reviewed. The message
must remain that it is not the intent that these persons do not
seek treatment if they want to continue to receive public
assistance.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Mr. Nordlund if his division planned to cost
out the drug testing provision in their fiscal note. JIM NORDLUND
stated that nothing would be done until there is a firm idea of the
final bill leaving the committee.
In response to Senator Ellis, CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that there
were amendments which would be incorporated into a new CS.
JIM NORDLUND stated that DPA, Governor Knowles and the
Administration oppose Section 10 with its rateable reduction of 1.7
percent to APA. CHAIRMAN GREEN informed him that would be deleted.
JIM NORDLUND continued with Section 11 regarding interim assistance
payments. He pointed out that when persons are initially denied
benefits, they are determined to be eligible upon appeal. This
section would cut off benefits to persons who are disabled.
Number 171
CURT LOMAS noted that the following information is approximately a
year old. He informed the committee that last year 69 percent of
the applicants for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for
disability benefits were denied. More than half, 54 percent, of
the applicants who were denied appealed and 60 percent of those who
appealed were found to be eligible for benefits.
Mr. Lomas explained that the interim assistance program was created
by the federal government due to the lengthy process in determining
the eligibility of disabled applicants. Interim assistance
provides a minimum means in which to live while the applicants move
through the process. The appeal process is a three tier
administrative appeal process. He noted that before persons
receive interim assistance, they are screened, receive a medical
examination and a physician's opinion as to the possibility of
their meeting the social security criteria.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if this section was crafted with the concern of
cost savings or fraud. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that those persons
who go through the system, appeal denial and remain denied upon
appeal; their benefits or funds cannot be recovered.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the number of persons who would be
eligible for other programs during this same time. CURT LOMAS
explained that this would be the entry for Medicaid. They may be
eligible for some services of the General Relief Medical program
and Food Stamp benefits. He clarified that SSI is a component of
APA.
JIM NORDLUND added that SB 101 was passed out of the last
legislature, but Governor Hickel vetoed it. SB 101 had the same
provision. He handed out copies of the veto memo in which Governor
Hickel expressed that the interim assistance provision would leave
many disabled Alaskans without money to meet their needs while
pursuing claims for federal assistance.
Mr. Nordlund pointed out that Section 12 is conforming to Section
13. Section 13 would require persons found to be ineligible to
repay their SSI benefits. He indicated that the major problem with
that section would be the difficulty in collecting money from those
persons. He was unsure as to the cost of creating a collection
effort in comparison to what could be recovered from these low
income individuals.
Number 066
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to an effective remedy to this problem.
Would the remedy lay in the initial screening or the need to
clarify the criteria? How could the entry process be improved in
order to avoid the 20 percent of persons who are found to be
eligible after appeal?
CURT LOMAS said that the remedy would be for the federal government
to eliminate this cumbersome process. Since that would be unlikely
to change... CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that was being considered for
change at the federal level. Mr. Lomas said no.
CURT LOMAS explained that investing in a more rigorous evaluation
at the entry level could be a manner in which to improve screening.
That would involve additional costs. He did not know how the
process would work or how cost effective that would be. He
discussed the history of SSI and the repayment of funds from
individuals denied benefits. Currently, when a Medicaid
eligibility determination is at an equivalent level of standards
then an individual could be qualified for Medicaid and APA.
TAPE 95-23, SIDE A
Number 002
Mr. Lomas did not know the cost effectiveness of a system which
would eliminate the need for interim assistance. He agreed that it
could be a possibility that would require some analysis.
JIM NORDLUND handed out information regarding which demonstration
projects DPA felt could be done statewide regardless of what is
done at the federal level, the projects that are likely to result
in good outcomes with some testing, and those that seem to be high
risk in some manner.
Mr. Nordlund commented that the governor's bill also has a time
limit as does SB 98 in Section 16. However, the governor's bill
applies the time limit to those AFDC recipients having a reasonably
good likelihood to enter the job market and successfully keep
employment. SB 98 uses too broad of an approach with a harsh
limit; the provision in SB 98 would apply to too many people.
Under SB 98 some people will fall through the cracks. The five
year limit in SB 98 does not allow for adequate transition between
welfare and employment; it will not work.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that the last three years of the five
years could be the transition period. JIM NORDLUND stated that
establishing a limit would seem to indicate the need to supply
people with job training or positions before the time limit ends.
The limit in SB 98 is not an effective manner in which to deal with
this population.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that now there is no reason for people to
think about the cessation of receiving benefits.
JIM NORDLUND pointed out that there will always be persons on
welfare. He did agree that there are able-bodied persons who due
to whatever reason are receiving assistance. He noted that there
are also federal barriers which seem to keep individuals from
seeking employment. Mr. Nordlund emphasized that the limits should
target those individuals who would have the most success at
becoming employed. He suggested that the five year limit be
narrowed and applied to those with the best possibility of becoming
employed. Furthermore, providing job training to these individuals
would be even more beneficial in moving them from welfare to work.
Number 130
CHAIRMAN GREEN thought that providing job training was the
responsibility of the JOBS program. JIM NORDLUND specified that
the JOBS program only applies to a portion of the AFDC population.
The provision in SB 98 applies to the entire AFDC population. Mr.
Nordlund recognized the self-sufficiency provision as an
improvement to SB 98. DPA does believe in the concept of time
limits, but applying it too widely is not a suitable approach.
CURT LOMAS indicated that it is hard to determine how many of the
AFDC caseload are able-bodied. Although known anectdotally, the
data does not illustrate that the majority of those needing public
assistance are at best moderately functional. Many people are not
well equipped to support themselves in the long-term. He
emphasized that an absolute time limit would leave these people
with no where to turn. Those folks will always be present and
ultimately their children would suffer. He suggested that an
expansion of the good cause categories may moderate some of the
impacts of such a provision.
Number 194
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to the number of persons on the waiting
list for the JOBS program. VAL HORNER, JOBS Program Officer for
DPA, said that the program serves approximately 2,000 people a
month which is nearing the maximum capacity for the program.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the program could serve all those welfare
recipients who want to participate in this program. VAL HORNER
replied no. Currently, the Alaska JOBS program serves
approximately 35 percent of the AFDC population. That does not
include the native population. Ms. Horner emphasized the
importance in recognizing that the JOBS program does reach a limit
in which taking in more participants limits the time available to
serve the client and help them gain employment. Ms. Horner
indicated that the remainder of the AFDC population could be
considered on the waiting list for the JOBS program.
JIM NORDLUND discussed Section 18 and reiterated Ms. O'Fallon's
suggestion to add a good cause clause to this section. There are
exceptions to consider. He recommended that the provision should
not be a permanent reduction in benefits. He said that they agree
with the concept of Section 20, but placing contractual language in
statute may not be appropriate. Circumstances change and that
language could pose difficulties. He suggested that the section
contain the intent of the personal responsibility agreement. He
offered to present language addressing this agreement in
regulation.
Number 264
SENATOR ELLIS asked if there was a federal bill that would
eliminate the JOBS program. JIM NORDLUND replied yes. PORTIA
BABCOCK specified that the JOBS program would become a block grant.
JIM NORDLUND stated that DPA does not support Section 21 and the
provision that would not allow the receipt of benefits of a child
conceived while under welfare. The additional money that a mother
would currently receive when she has another child would not be an
incentive, if that is the concern of this provision. The
governor's approach provides an additional effort with pregnancy
prevention which seems to be the most effective approach to
reducing unwanted children to welfare recipients.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that New Jersey experienced a 29 percent
reduction in the birth of children to AFDC recipients when such a
provision came into affect. JIM NORDLUND requested that
information. The bill in Congress was almost lost due to such a
provision such as Section 21. The concern was regarding the
possible increase in the number of abortions.
JIM NORDLUND addressed Section 25. This is an untested idea which
is worthy of consideration. He noted that it could reduce the
caseload. He was unsure of how much money this section would
actually save.
Number 332
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the reason the language "may" was
included was to allow the department flexibility.
JIM NORDLUND suggested that transitional benefits after marriage
may need to be tested before applying on a statewide basis in order
to discover if the provision would save benefit payments. He
recommended the consideration of allowing the benefit to only
continue for the child, not the mother.
Mr. Nordlund noted that Section 27 of SB 98 seems to be modeled
after the governor's approach to the diversion program with one
crucial difference. Therefore, the department cannot support this
provision in SB 98. He stated that the diversion program intends
to be an incentive. He explained that under SB 98, 15 percent of
the AFDC caseload would be required to fall under this provision
which would ultimately mandate a disqualification for a portion of
that 15 percent. The eligibility technicians would be placed in a
position of determining who to disqualify and who to qualify in
order to meet their 15 percent threshold.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if changing "shall" on page 12, line 6 to
"may" would resolve that problem. JIM NORDLUND did not seem to
understand why the percentage would remain and how it would follow
with the new language.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the governor's bill had a percentage.
PORTIA BABCOCK noted that the governor's bill had language to the
affect of up to 12 percent. CURT LOMAS did not recall any language
to that affect in the governor's bill.
JIM NORDLUND also objected to the disallowance of cash payments.
He pointed out that there are situations in which the problem is
cash for these people. For example, a person could become employed
as a laborer which is required under OSHA to have steel-toed boots.
These boots could cost $100 and under the provision in SB 98 that
would not be allowed.
Mr. Nordlund noted that the voucher system could be a possibility
in order to address the concerns about using the money for the
intended purpose. There would be some administrative problems with
the voucher system. He reiterated that cash and what it would buy
is the problem not necessarily Medicaid benefits. The department
shares the committee's concerns regarding the improper use of the
money.
Mr. Nordlund said that Section 29 is good. The governor's bill has
the 100-hour rule, waiver, and the increase in the auto allowance
exemption. He pointed out that the earned income disregard would
cost some money in the beginning, but it should provide an
incentive. Although the earned income disregard has not been
tested, it is worthy of some review. Section 30, workfare, is
similar to that in the governor's bill, community work projects.
The governor's bill seems to have more of a community focus.
Number 412
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the workfare provision should be broad
in order to allow flexibility for opportunities. This would
provide a meaningful activity preparing the individual for work.
JIM NORDLUND informed the committee that in relation to Section 31
of SB 98, the governor's bill targets the unemployed parent
population. Section 31 of SB 98 applies to everyone and there are
no training requirements. He suggested providing a link between
job training for long-term permanent employment in the private
sector. He acknowledged that there would always be persons working
in community work projects where there are no jobs.
There being no further business before the committee work session,
the meeting adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|