Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1995 10:15 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 27, 1995
10:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
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."
SB 134 (ATWOOD CHAIR OF JOURNALISM AT U OF AA) was scheduled, but
not heard this date.
HB 108 (USE PFD'S TO RECOVER WELFARE OVERPAYMENTS) was scheduled,
but not heard this date.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 98 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
3/8/95, 3/10/95, 3/13/95, 3/17/95, 3/22/95, 3/24/95 and
3/25/95.
SB 134 - No previous action to record.
HB 108 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Portia Babcock,Staff
Senator Green
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered additional information.
Jim Nordlund, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the positive and negative aspects of
SB 98.
Curt Lomas, Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered additional information.
Deborah Craig, Director
Project Career Course
Project Independence
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the findings of Project
Independence.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-26, SIDE A
SB 98 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995
Number 002
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 10:15 a.m. She introduced
SB 98 as the only order of business before the committee; SB 134
and HB 108 will be taken up at a later date.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that the CS, Lauterbach O version 3/24/95, be
adopted for discussion and mark up purposes. Hearing no objection,
the CS was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there were amendments.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 1 be adopted. Hearing no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that most of these amendments were
suggested by the agency and the department on Friday and Saturday.
Number 038
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 2 be adopted. Hearing no
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 3 be adopted. Hearing no
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 4 be adopted. He indicated that
with regard to Amendment 4, he was not convinced that other things
should not be done regarding alcohol and drug use. He expressed
concern with people taking welfare money and investing it into this
activity, but he realized that this issue is beyond the scope of
this. He removed any objection to the amendment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that this may not be the appropriate time to
address this issue. She noted the possibility of a voucher system
in order to tackle this issue. Without objection, Amendment 4 was
adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 5 be adopted. Hearing
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 6 be adopted. He explained that
this amendment deals with the establishment of paternity which is
a lengthy process. Perhaps the drafter could make this more
concise which would be a technical change.
Number 105
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that it was interesting that on the one
hand the department wanted the language in order to secure
information about the father and to require participation in the
support of the child. On the other, the department is also
concerned with the length of time required in the establishment of
paternity. She noted that the governor's bill would be heard.
Hearing no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Chairman Green was referring to the
governor's welfare reform bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that she
was referring to SB 115 regarding child support; the governor's
welfare reform bill is not scheduled at this time.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Chairman Green planned to schedule the
governor's welfare reform bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that she did
not know and stated that she had not made a decision. SENATOR
ELLIS encouraged the Chair to consider scheduling it in the near
future.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that Amendment 7 be adopted. Amendment 7 would
change workfare to a project area. Senator Leman felt that it
would be better statewide, however, he understood the costs and
difficulties the department would face with the implementation of
this. This is a big step in the right direction. He predicted
that the four project areas would be a great success and other
areas would want to participate.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that this was intended to give the department
flexibility.
Number 166
SENATOR SALO felt that Amendment 7 was conceptually good. If the
intention is to move this bill out of committee today, Senator Salo
asked what the actual language for Amendment 7 would be. SENATOR
LEMAN commented that the language should be similar to his welfare
reform bill last year.
PORTIA BABCOCK, staff to Senator Green, pointed out that SB 98 had
this section in an earlier draft. CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that it
was in the first version of SB 98.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that Amendment 7 was adopted. She asked
if there was anyone present who wished to testify.
JIM NORDLUND, Director of the Division of Public Assistance for the
Department of Health and Social Services, thanked the the committee
for their extension of courtesy in allowing he and other members of
the Administration to work on this legislation. In his opinion,
the bill has improved although some problems remain. He noted that
his comments would be directed to the old CS and the adopted
amendments.
Mr. Nordlund felt that this bill applies some risky and untested
ideas on a permanent statewide basis. These are costly programs
that affect the lives of thousands of people; more care should be
taken in applying some of the provisions in this bill. The
governor's approach applies demonstration projects for a limited
time in order to discover if the projects work. He pointed out
that the difference between the old version of SB 98 and the
previous version is that these changes are made to permanent law.
With the exception of the workfare amendment, the projects would be
applied on a permanent and statewide basis. Other provisions
remain too costly, unworkable, untested, illegal and
unconstitutional. More work is necessary to achieve a workable
welfare reform proposal.
Mr. Nordlund identified the following improvements to SB 98: the
phased in sanctions of various provisions, the deletion of any
reference to aliens, the deletion of the 15 percent participation
requirement in the diversion project, the allowance of good cause
for quitting a job, the less rigid paternity establishment
requirements, the deletion of the APA rateable reduction, the
deletion of the permanent fund dividend ineligibility section, and
the inclusion of the self-sufficiency language as a statutory
requirement of the department.
Number 243
Mr. Nordlund identified the problems with the bill. The
requirement of information from the department to be turned in
regarding illegal aliens raises concerns with confidentiality.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if they did not do that now. JIM NORDLUND
explained that the department is not required nor allowed under
state and federal law to give out such information. Mr. Nordlund
believed that the Department of Law had testified to that affect.
JIM NORDLUND continued to cite problems with the bill. There would
be difficulties in checking out the fraud histories of welfare
recipients in other states. He pointed out that a criminal records
check would have to done on every AFDC applicant which would pose
a fiscal impact. The elimination of a benefit for an additional
child born to a welfare recipient is an inaccurate approach; it
punishes children. The governor's approach works towards pregnancy
prevention counseling. Another problem with the bill is the time
limits on benefits which do not provide an adequate transition to
work. He noted the continued opposition to the rateable reduction
provision. There was a rateable reduction to AFDC and APA a couple
of years ago; the poor of Alaska have already given their share in
the need to reduce the budget. He stated that the diversion
project would not work as well if cash grants were not allowed. He
acknowledged that there can potentially be misuse with those cash
grants and the department would like to work with the committee to
eliminate those abuses.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a way to compromise with the cash
grants such as purchase orders, vouchers or direct payments. JIM
NORDLUND said that those possibilities could be reviewed.
JIM NORDLUND continued with his discussion of the problems with
SB 98. The personal responsibility agreement should not be in
statute. Recipients already sign an agreement which could be
extended. He felt that by putting it in law, the provision becomes
too rigid when the department will be facing a new welfare system.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if a new administrator decides that he/she
wanted to change the language of the existing agreement or
eliminate it entirely, could he/she do that? JIM NORDLUND
suggested that the agreement be adopted in regulation because it
would be easier to change in regulation rather than statute. Mr.
Nordlund noted that changes to regulation go through a public
hearing process with adequate time for review.
Number 309
JIM NORDLUND stated that the two-tier payment system is likely to
be found unconstitutional. He pointed out that there would be
difficulties in achieving the attendance verification under the
learnfare provisions. The difficulty arises from the 53 separate
school districts in Alaska that are all on different computer
systems not to mention that a central recording system would be
needed to report attendance to the Department of Education or to
DPA.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that she had developed this idea through
school administrators who were desperate to find a way in which to
work with their families. She suggested writing the attendance on
paper and sending it in.
SENATOR SALO pointed out that the Chairman's suggestion assumes
that the school person knows who receives public assistance which
is not necessarily the case. She explained that if school
districts established a definition of unacceptable attendance in
regulation, the schools may be able to send in the names of
students to DHSS who do not meet that regulation. Another problem
arises with the matching of the names of students and parents. She
clarified that with this list of students with unacceptable
attendance, the names of those on public assistance could be
searched. She hoped that this department would be well funded if
they would be asked to do additional tasks. This is a reasonable
requirement as long as the work of gathering the data is funded.
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated that she had heard frustration from
almost all the schools regarding the lack of participation from
students and families. Perhaps, truancy laws should be enacted.
SENATOR SALO informed the Chair that there are truancy laws,
although they are unfunded.
JIM NORDLUND noted that the Department of Education does have some
problems in principles with this. He expressed concern with the
ease with which this could be implemented. Maybe attendance
verification should be implemented as a pilot project in an area in
order to discover if it would work before applying it statewide.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the rural districts have indicated
support of this provision.
Number 361
JIM NORDLUND addressed another problem that remains in the bill.
The denial of interim assistance benefits to people who are
determined ineligible in their initial application. Many of those
original denials are later found to be eligible.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if interim assistance was a federal program.
JIM NORDLUND replied yes. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the federal
government should fund interim assistance. JIM NORDLUND explained
that the federal determination of whether an individual would
receive those benefits is a lengthy process. The division provides
interim assistance to be received between the time a person applies
and the time they receive federal assistance. CHAIRMAN GREEN
interjected that 20 of the original 100 applicants that were
initially determined ineligible appeal and become eligible.
CURT LOMAS, the Division of Public Assistance, explained that the
Chair was essentially correct. He explained that the division is
reimbursed for those individuals who are ultimately approved. The
division can collect interim assistance from that individual's
retroactive Supplemental Security Income (SSI). He noted that the
division has an agreement with the federal government which allows
that. He specified that this reimbursement only occurs with those
applicants who are ultimately found to be eligible for assistance.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that after calculations a total of 20
people qualify after being initially determined ineligible.
SENATOR SALO said, in an attempt to understand this calculation,
that 100 people are being paid interim assistance and only 20 of
them would qualify for assistance in the end.
Number 390
CURT LOMAS noted that everyone who is initially denied does not
appeal. He explained that approximately 40 percent of the initial
applicants are approved, approximately 60 percent of the applicants
are initially denied; of those initially denied 60 percent appeal
the denial. Of that 60 percent that appeal, approximately 50
percent of them are ultimately approved.
SENATOR SALO understood that and emphasized that the most important
factor in making a decision for interim assistance is how many
applicants actually receive interim assistance and how many of
those ultimately qualify. That information would provide an idea
of whether or not interim assistance is appropriate. From 100
people that are receiving interim assistance, how many people are
denied and how many actually qualify?
CURT LOMAS did not believe the state was getting "burned" by anyone
because these are people who have been determined disabled by an
initial physician's examination which means that these people have
some inability to function. The ultimate question is whether or
not these individuals meet Social Security's very narrow definition
of disfunction. He could not speak to how many interim assistance
payments are made to people who ultimately do not qualify versus
those who do qualify because that approach has never been taken.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that it would be in the amount of 36 or 40.
SENATOR MILLER questioned why some people were being denied if Mr.
Lomas did not believe that anyone was getting "burned." CURT LOMAS
clarified that ultimately some of these people do not qualify, but
they are all sick.
SENATOR MILLER asked how much money would not be recovered because
these people received interim assistance and then were ultimately
determined ineligible. CURT LOMAS said that was a question he
could not answer without paper and a calculator.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the average length of time a person
would be in that phase. CURT LOMAS did not know.
Number 435
SENATOR MILLER expressed disbelief that Mr. Lomas did not know the
average length of time between an appeal and the final
determination. CURT LOMAS ensured the committee that he had that
information in the office, but he did not have it with him now.
JIM NORDLUND said that he could get that information by the end of
the day. Mr. Nordlund specified that Governor Hickel's veto letter
did state that 60 percent of those denied were ultimately
determined to be eligible upon appeal.
JIM NORDLUND stated that the final problem with the bill is the
statewide permanent application of some of the bill's projects
which is not prudent. Those projects are untested, may be too
expensive, and they may not achieve the intended results.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if everything needed to be a pilot or
demonstration project. JIM NORDLUND noted that he had handed out
a sheet which listed which projects the division believes should
not be done statewide and which should.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that a good idea, a crime stopper fraud
control, had been suggested at the previous Saturday hearing.
Welfare recipients themselves seemed to be excited about that. He
felt that the crime stopper approach to fraud control should be
considered. In reference to the division's opposition to rateable
reductions, Senator Leman pointed out that the numbers have not
declined. The numbers have increased; this is the highest and
fastest growing area of the state budget. He emphasized that the
legislature ultimately budgets dollars and total amounts, not unit
amounts.
JIM NORDLUND noted that there is a difference between the amount of
benefit paid and the number of people on the caseload. The
governor's approach attempts to reduce the caseload in order to
reduce the state's budget. For the people who remain on
assistance, the determination of the adequacy of the benefit level
is necessary. He explained that one of the important factors
affecting case loads is the economy. If the economy falters then
case loads would rise which would impact the state budget. The
division wants to reduce the welfare payments in the state budget
by getting people off the case load and into a permanent private
sector job.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the previous rateable reduction used the
rationale that the cuts would lead to a decrease in the case load.
SENATOR LEMAN said that the goal was to decrease the total cost.
Government should not be doing this in the first place; more should
be done in the way of private compassion rather than government
programs. People should become actively involved in needy people's
lives.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if it should be a law or should it be
voluntary. SENATOR LEMAN asserted that it should be voluntary.
SENATOR ELLIS asked what would happen if not enough people do
become active privately. SENATOR LEMAN stated that was the
difference between their two philosophies. Senator Leman
identified Senator Ellis' philosophy as saying that government
should offer a solution in case enough people do not help out
privately. Senator Leman said that people need to do it and the
legislators need to make it happen.
Number 514
DEBORAH CRAIG, Director of the Project Career Course which
facilitated the Project Independence, stated that she would like to
offer some basic information regarding Project Independence. She
pointed out that she was not present to influence any legislation.
She has been involved with the AFDC population for approximately 10
years. She informed the committee that for the last six years she
has facilitated a job training program, Project Career Course.
Last year a multi-agency effort helped develop Project
Independence.
Ms. Craig explained that serving an exclusively AFDC population
proved to be extremely labor intensive; staff needs were greater
than previous job training programs. She informed the committee of
the findings of the demonstration project with which she was
involved. The program served people with an average age of 29 who
were primarily women. The program served a 40 percent minority
population, 60 percent of the program consisted of high school
dropouts. Although only 20 percent of the program participants
needed GEDs, overall participants needed preparatory work for
training and employment. Almost 90 percent needed basic computer
literacy.
Ms. Craig pointed out that she was surprised to find a high
incidence of mental health issues that were not expected nor for
which they were prepared. She noted that 1 out of 10 Americans is
alcoholic and 1 out of 9 Alaskans is alcoholic which is an issue.
She explained that 29 percent of the students were impacted by
alcohol and not necessarily by their own use. Those students were
often impacted by alcohol use in their families. That information
seems to correlate with the finding that 28 percent of the students
were impacted by domestic violence, physically and emotionally,
during the semester training was provided.
Ms. Craig also seemed surprised at the amount of health issues that
were not anticipated; 33 percent of the participants had health
issues. She specified that this information does not imply that
all AFDC recipients have mental health and health issues, but they
were issues that arose. She noted that students averaged a three
year full-time work experience which would allow them to move back
into the work force. However, the range was from almost nothing to
three years work experience which lead to the development of a
multi-tiered process which addressed the various levels of need.
All this information indicates the need for increased staffing.
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a copy of that information. She stated
that she intended to move this bill out of committee today.
Number 580
SENATOR LEMAN moved that CS SB 98 (HES) be moved out of committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
SENATOR ELLIS objected and asked that Chairman Green clarify the
fiscal note of this committee.
TAPE 95-26, SIDE B
Number 583
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that there would be a fiscal note, but that it
had not arrived yet.
PORTIA BABCOCK clarified that the zero fiscal note was present
because the committee had not received any fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN
GREEN anticipated receiving the fiscal notes in Finance.
SENATOR ELLIS interpreted that as meaning that the cost of the
proposals were not known which did not allow discussion of the
relative merits of particular proposals.
SENATOR SALO spoke to her objection. She had hoped and had
formerly requested that the committee review the governor's bill at
the same time because the meshing of ideas of both bills would have
created the best legislation.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Leman, Miller and Green voted
"Yeah" and Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay." Therefore,
CS SB 98 (HESS) was passed out of committee.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|