Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/25/2002 01:36 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 25, 2002
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 293
"An Act relating to diversion payments, wage subsidies, cash
assistance, and self-sufficiency services provided under the
Alaska temporary assistance program; relating to the food stamp
program; relating to child support cases that include persons who
receive cash assistance or self-sufficiency services under the
Alaska temporary assistance program; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 293 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Angela Salerno
Legislative Liaison
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 293
Ms. Ellie Fitzjarrald
Chief, Policy and Program Development
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 293.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-11, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education &
Social Services Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Senators
Wilken, Ward, Davis and Green were present. Chairwoman Green
announced the committee would hear SB 293, which is a revisit of
the welfare reform issue that the legislature began about seven
years ago. She noted that it is time to update that legislation
and, as in 1995, the legislature is ahead of the federal
government as it reauthorizes the federal program so the
legislature has to be mindful of doing everything in the correct
order. She asked Mr. Burnett to present the legislation.
SB 293-ALASKA TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
MR. JERRY BURNETT, staff to Senator Green, explained that SB 293
is the result of a joint effort between the House and Senate HESS
Committees. Both committees contracted last session with the
American Institute for Full Employment to look at the welfare
reform program in Alaska. SB 293 institutes all of the
legislative recommendations in the Institute's report, which
include:
· Increasing diversion payments from 2 to 3 months to allow
people sufficient funds to avoid being on the program;
· Changing the definition of "assistance" to "cash assistance"
and "self-sufficiency services";
· Allowing the value of food stamps to be used for wage
subsidy programs;
· Instituting a new progressive sanction policy for people who
fail to follow the rules;
· Repealing the 20 percent cap on exemptions to the 60-month
limit for cash benefits.
MR. BURNETT informed members that representatives from the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and Sandy Hoback
from the American Institute for Full Employment were available to
provide details and answer questions.
MS. ANGELA SALERNO, legislative liaison for the Division of
Public Assistance (DPA), DHSS, stated the bulk of the bill
clarifies the distinction between cash assistance and self-
sufficiency services in an effort to provide work support for
clients who are about to go off of the program. That support
will consist of things like transportation or clothing to ensure
that clients can easily make the transition to self-sufficiency.
DPA believes that with extra support clients will be more likely
to retain the progress they have made and no longer need the
program. DPA wants to be able to convert food stamp allotments
to wage subsidies. Right now, DHSS is allowed to turn a family's
cash benefit into a wage subsidy and provide the subsidy to an
employer who is willing to hire the individual. The change in the
bill will provide a bigger incentive to employers to hire or
create new jobs for welfare recipients.
MS. SALERNO explained that DPA wants to increase the amount
available for diversion payments. Right now, DPA can pay a family
a lump sum benefit (two months of payments) rather than have the
family register for welfare payments. DPA has found that many
clients have a very discrete need, but because there has only
been one way to get assistance, they sign up for the welfare
program and get all of the benefits. SB 293 will increase the
lump sum diversion payment to three months of benefit payments.
She noted that field workers have found that two months of
payments are not enough to meet people's needs. DPA hopes that
with a three-month payment, more people will never come on the
program but be diverted up front.
MS. SALERNO informed members that the federal law requires states
to penalize clients who do not comply with program rules. In
Alaska's statute, a family can lose up to 40 percent of its
benefit for a first non-compliance offense but the penalty is
removed immediately with compliance. However, that penalty is not
removed for six months for a second offense or 12 months for a
third offense. That system provides no incentive to comply. She
explained that SB 293 changes the progressive sanction plan so
that a person who is out of compliance a second time will lose 75
percent of his or her cash grant and 100 percent after eight
months of non-compliance. She maintained that safeguards are
built into the progressive sanction plan because the clients who
are penalized are often those with the most difficult barriers.
For example, some clients have literacy problems and cannot read
notices, or some clients have mental health problems. SB 293
requires DPA to do some good casework and check up on the
families before benefits are reduced by 75 or 100 percent.
MS. SALERNO said the final change in SB 293 is the repeal of the
20 percent cap on exemptions to the 60-month limit.
SENATOR DAVIS asked, regarding the progressive sanctions, what
other safeguards are contained in SB 293 for children.
MS. SALERNO said that DPA must attempt to do a home visit and a
full review of the case before benefits are cut 75 or 100
percent. If the caseworker finds no extenuating circumstances for
non-compliance, DPA has the option to manage that individual's
benefits. DHSS can make vendor payments for rent and utilities so
that there will never be a time when a child will have to be put
in foster care because the health and safety of the children is
threatened.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked for an example of non-compliance.
MS. SALERNO said a client who does not show up for a job
interview without good cause would be considered to be out of
compliance.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that might apply to refusal to
participate in treatment, rehabilitation or other health
considerations.
MS. ELLIE FITZJARRALD, Director of Policy, Division of Public
Assistance, said a number of activities fall under the purview of
the family self-sufficiency activities or work-related
activities. Some relate to working at a job for a specified
number of hours per week, or a client might have been screened
for a substance abuse problem and is required to attend
treatment. She said those activities relate to anything that
will contribute to a client's skill building or actual
participation in work activities that are connected to self-
sufficiency. She pointed out that the protections contained in
SB 293 are aimed at ensuring that DHSS has done its job.
MS. SALERNO repeated the final provision in SB 293 repeals the 20
percent cap on exemptions. A number of clients will not be able
to get off of the program for a variety of reasons. The current
law contains a 20 percent cap on the number of people who can be
granted an extension. SB 293 would lift the 20 percent cap and
replace it with strict criteria that a family or individual will
have to meet to be eligible for the exemption. DPA believes it
is dangerous and unfair to deny people the assistance they need
if they fit the criteria. This provision is the most important
part of the bill to DHSS.
SENATOR WILKEN asked why the word "arbitrary" was used to
describe the 20 percent cap.
MS. SALERNO said she believes it was taken from the federal law
when it was being developed. She believes it was a compromise
number that came about during the political process and was
included because it was understood that some people could not
become self-sufficient within the 5-year time limit.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if a bureaucracy will need to be in place to
determine who is eligible if the cap is lifted.
MS. SALERNO said that is correct.
SENATOR WILKEN questioned whether that is reflected in the bill's
fiscal note.
MS. SALERNO said it is not; the bill has a zero fiscal note
because the program is funded with a block grant and state
maintenance of effort (MOE) funds. The cost of administering the
program will remain constant regardless of the number of clients
served. She explained that the criteria DPA will use has already
been developed (page 2 of Ms. Salerno's handout).
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the criteria are referred to in the
statute.
MS. SALERNO said they are.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said, to her recollection, the criteria was
iterated from the exemption provision of the original welfare
reform legislation.
MS. SALERNO agreed it is in current law.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if one out of five of the current caseload
can be excluded from the five year limit under current law.
MS. SALERNO said that is correct.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Ms. Salerno if she is suggesting repealing
the 20 percent cap with no replacement so that every client who
is approaching his or her fifth year of benefits would go through
the review process to determine eligibility. He then asked who
will pay for the review since requiring reviews for so many
clients will require more bureaucracy.
MS. SALERNO clarified that DHSS is already doing a lot of those
reviews now because some families have reached the 60-month limit
or are coming close to it. DPA is using existing staff as review
panels so that work has been integrated into the rest of the
caseload and no additional cost will be incurred.
SENATOR WILKEN expressed confusion and said, "What you're saying
is that this 1100 here is what you're dealing with in current -
currently these are the 1100 and if we lifted the cap, we would
be suddenly dealing with 6,000-5,598." He asked for clarification
and said that by removing the incentive to get off of the welfare
program.
MS. SALERNO said that characterizing the change as "lifting the
cap" is incorrect. Nothing will change regarding caseload as all
families get reviewed, regardless. She noted that the information
on the handout is a projection for FY 03. Right now, DHSS does
not have 20 percent of welfare clients earmarked for extensions.
However, DHSS does know that some clients have disabled children
in the home. She emphasized that no one will automatically get
an extension. If a client applies for an extension, DPA will make
a decision as to whether or not that client meets the criteria
for an extension.
SENATOR WILKEN stated:
Understand. But if - as I understand it, I'm
approaching my - I'm in my fourth year - I'm in my
fifth year and approaching the end. I know at the end
of the year I'm going to be off of welfare. But, if I
have extenuating circumstances, I may be one of five
that could be released by the state through this review
to continue on in some manner and if we lift - if we
repeal the 20 percent cap, then my horizon is extended
to the point where, well, I may be able to get this
because they're going to review my case and I think I'm
okay but I'm going to get them to say one way or the
other. It lifts the finality and so then I say, of the
5500 in '98, most of those are probably going to say I
deserve to be excluded, which increases the workload.
MS. SALERNO said they will only receive an extension if they meet
the criteria but none of it is automatic. Everyone will get a
review.
SENATOR WILKEN said the fact that all 5,598 clients will get a
review is his point because, as of today, DPA has reviewed 1,100.
MS. SALERNO said that is incorrect because DHSS will review every
case whether the cap is repealed or not. That is division policy
because it wants to make sure it knows what is going on with
families before benefits are stopped.
SENATOR WILKEN again asked if 80 percent of the 5,500 will no
longer receive benefits.
MS. SALERNO said DPA will have to make some decisions as some
families may have very similar circumstances when the 20 percent
cap is almost reached.
SENATOR WILKEN said he will pursue this issue further in the
Senate Finance Committee because he does not understand why
repealing the cap will not increase DPA's workload if people
continue to stay on the program and it becomes cumulative.
MS. FITZJARRALD said that, as part of the federal welfare reform
legislation, states were allowed to accept 20 percent of their
caseload once that 20 percent hit the 5-year time limit. When
Alaska's welfare reform law passed, it was set at 10 percent or
whatever amount was in the federal law. In 1994, when welfare
reform began, over 12,000 families received public assistance in
Alaska. At that time, DPA thought it had lots of room with which
to work with families who, after 5 years, may need an exception.
Now that Alaska's caseload has been reduced to 7,000, the 20
percent is based on that amount. DPA knows that a larger
proportion of the families left on assistance now have many
issues in their lives. She noted that the projected number of
families with allowable exemptions in FY 03 will be 1120. DPA
calculated that figure from the number of families on the Alaska
Temporary Assistance Program in July of 1997 (the beginning of
the 5 year limit) who continue to receive benefits. DPA is going
through the process of determining whether they should get
exemptions. Ms. Fitzjarrald said that DPA believes the time
limit has been a strong motivator to families on welfare and that
some families go off a bit early to reserve their remaining time
for the future, if needed.
MS. FITZJARRALD said that once DPA gets through the first year of
clients who have reached the 5-year limit, it will find families
who need to rely on the program over time. DPA is projecting that
it will have a problem in FY 04 because it will not have the
authority to extend benefits to those families who still need
help. DPA will then be faced with trying to decide who, of the
people that meet the criteria, should get the exemption. SB 293
attempts to fix that dilemma while maintaining the 5-year limit
as a motivator. She pointed out that 20 percent was an arbitrary
amount set by Congress and was a huge number when the legislation
went into effect, but it has diminished and DPA is concerned
about that.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Ms. Salerno to speak to the 24-month
provision in the original legislation that was designed to have
clients working within two years. She maintained that the 5-year
limit was intended to be the lifetime limit. She asked about the
number of clients who went off of public assistance at the two-
year mark.
MS. SALERNO stated that clients were supposed to be involved in a
work activity at two years.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said:
The preponderance of the people that are included in
this number right here didn't even approach the 5-year
time limit. That's what I'm trying to say and so the
standard that required them to be off is not being
changed, is it? For someone new coming on they still
have the 2-year restriction on their - the length of
time in which they're supposed to be off. The 5-year
was the worst-case scenario for a person for a
lifetime. The exemptions were those cases that - for
some - an extenuating circumstance for a short period
of time for some probably a chronic case, but after
that person reaches the 5-year time limit and they are
extended - the exemption, for instance, when is the
next review of their case?
MS. SALERNO said that varies. DPA has granted extensions for as
short as 2 months.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if an appeal process exists for clients who
are denied an extension from the 5-year limit.
MS. SALERNO said yes.
SENATOR WARD asked if all other states have a 20 percent cap.
MS. FITZJARRALD said that not all states have a 20 percent cap in
their state laws. All states are held to the 20 percent cap by
federal law, but the states that do not have that provision in
state law have been very creative in setting up separate state
programs. They use all state money (no federal funds) to provide
assistance to families who have hit the 5-year limit. Many
states do not count months worked as time limit months. Some have
a buy-back provision.
SENATOR WARD asked if any of those states put clients on to a
separate program after five years. He expressed concern that
some clients will need assistance for their entire lives so they
will use up part of the 20 percent cap.
MS. FITZJARRALD said that is true and noted that some states do
not wait 5 years before transferring certain clients into state
programs. She said she did not know the number of states.
SENATOR WARD suggested changing the front-end criteria to free up
funds to take care of clients who will truly continue to need
assistance after the 5-year limit.
MS. SALERNO asked if Senator Ward was suggesting changing the
eligibility requirements.
SENATOR WARD said that is correct and is why he is curious about
what other states have done.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Ms. Hoback to comment.
MS. SANDY HOBACK, American Institute for Full Employment, pointed
out that most states are just now getting to the 5-year limit and
have not had a problem staying within the 20 percent federal
requirement. She said that how states are dealing with the
problem runs the public policy gamut. The states who are more
liberal in their interpretation of who gets extended place
clients in state-only programs earlier. Those state-only programs
are funded with either state MOE funds or with additional state
dollars. Ohio, which is on the other end of the spectrum, does
not foresee any problem staying within the 20 percent federal
requirement because its criteria to grant an extension are much
more conservative. She said that all states use criteria so the
process for an extension is not arbitrary. She indicated the
issue in Alaska is whether it wants to use the cap in addition to
criteria, which is already being used.
MS. HOBACK advised members to view this legislation as a package
deal. By strengthening the sanction process and the work-first
approach, the expectations on clients will be heightened from the
start. She believes DPA will see far fewer people hitting that
timeline because the expectations have been adjusted so that they
must be doing something everyday, not only during the last 12
months. She indicated that she has brought the committee the best
research from around the country to justify the recommendations
in the study. She suggested requiring DPA to report back to the
legislature after a year of processing extension applications to
inform legislators of the circumstances under which people are
granted extensions.
SENATOR LEMAN referred to Sec. 4 of SB 293 and noted that 11 new
sections must have been added to the Food Stamp Act since the
legislature passed Alaska's welfare reform legislation. He then
asked why the word "certificate" is being changed to "allotment."
MS. SALERNO said Senator Leman is correct about the Food Stamp
Act. She stated, regarding allotments, that clients do not
actually receive stamps or certificates anymore; almost all funds
are transferred electronically.
SENATOR LEMAN confirmed that it is a different way of delivering
the same thing.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what the public purpose is of expanding the
cash payment to divert individuals from registering for the
welfare program.
MS. SALERNO said that field workers believe that two months of
benefits are not enough to cover the costs that bring people to
the program and the purpose is to divert them from coming onto
the program. The cash payment will allow families to cover the
expenses that are keeping them from being self-sufficient. Those
families may not need all of the benefits provided by the welfare
program and they are job-ready. She pointed out that individuals
must be job-ready to qualify for a diversion payment. DPA
believes that if the payment is expanded, more people will choose
the diversion option.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the state has explored what can be done,
in terms of diversion, to help make decisions for people. He
commented that often people do not make the right decisions and
he guesses that many people are in this circumstance because they
made a bad choice at some time. He asked how much flexibility DPA
has to make choices for them so that the diversion benefits them
and the program.
MS. SALERNO explained when families come to DPA for assistance,
they have to tell the caseworker what is going on. Caseworkers
could give advice but it is probably after the fact, as poor
decisions may have already been made.
MS. HOBACK said that the provisions in SB 293 are coupled with
her work with DPA to strengthen its upfront approach. From the
first contact, the individual is engaged in what it will take to
get employed. The presumption with this approach is that the
individual is there to start working on employment. Putting that
expectation upfront creates a strong motivation for people to
make better decisions or to acknowledge the poor decisions they
have made in the past. In addition, the diversion program will
allow clients to move forward rapidly and avoid the welfare
system altogether.
2:21 p.m.
SENATOR LEMAN said that although he is reticent to accept
anecdotal evidence as the norm, he has heard from field workers
about people moving to Alaska because Alaska provides more
benefits, especially with the permanent fund dividend. He asked
what can be done to keep families together in their original
support groups.
MS. SALERNO informed Senator Leman that DPA counts the months of
assistance that people have received in other states. She
questioned what the agency could do at that point if the person
is eligible.
MS. HOBACK said that some states have capped the grant amount to
what the client was receiving in the previous state. She
suggested that restricting those payments would require a
statutory change.
SENATOR LEMAN said that both of those proposals have been debated
and have substantial support but neither has gone forward.
MS. FITZJARRALD said it is her understanding that limiting
benefits to the amount granted in a previous state has been
struck down by the courts.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN noted that provision was in the original welfare
reform bill but was removed for that reason.
MS. FITZJARRALD reiterated that the time limit is a driving
factor if the client has moved from another state where they were
collecting benefits.
MS. HOBACK said that as the welfare administrator for the State
of Oregon, she saw a lot of people move in from Oregon, even
though Oregon's grant levels were lower. Once Oregon began to
transform its system by putting the right expectations on
clients, the in-migration slowed down because people understood
they would have to do something. Some of the people who migrate
do so to avoid requirements so strong ones are a deterrent.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked what kind of oversight will determine when
it is time to say "enough is enough" if there is no method of
closure.
MS. SALERNO said DPA is discussing having a time limit but has
not set a policy yet. DPA is trying to achieve wage progression
and advancement so that families can support themselves with what
they earn. Many families go to work for the minimum wage.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that applies to the 24-month model as
well.
MS. SALERNO said it would and that most clients are working long
before 24 months.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if it is safe to assume that cash benefits
would be ratcheted down for clients once they get jobs but self-
sufficiency services will continue.
MS. SALERNO said that is correct and is what DPA wants the
authority to do.
SENATOR WARD asked if DPA is already doing that.
MS. SALERNO said DPA is doing it in certain cases.
SENATOR WARD asked what the state match is for the federal grant.
MS. SALERNO said that under the AFDC program, it was 50/50. Now
the state receives a block grant.
MS. FITZJARRALD explained that the state must spend 80 percent,
as a maintenance of effort, of the amount it spent to provide
assistance in 1994.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the state is providing 80 percent of the
1994 amount, which would meet the minimum requirement.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said Alaska is right at the minimum.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the federal grant amount has remained the
same as the amount it contributed in 1994.
MS. FITZJARRALD said it is about the same with a variable this
year due to a supplemental payment.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked who pays when the value of the food stamps
is applied to a wage subsidy.
MS. SALERNO said that is federal money.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the federal agency will let the state
use the cash instead of food stamps.
MS. SALERNO said it will but the federal agency has very rigorous
requirements that DPA must follow.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN commented that a person who participates in the
diversion program must wait 12 months before applying for
assistance but the bill also contains language that says if the
person does apply for benefits, the cash only has to be prorated
and handled as direct income and is counted against
qualification. She asked what the difference is between the cash
assistance and everything a client would have received under ATAP
benefits.
MS. FITZJARRALD said that currently under the diversion program,
DPA makes a cash payment for two months and does not provide
self-sufficiency services. SB 293 would allow DPA to increase
the cash payment to three months.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN stated, "I just want to be sure that we're not
opening that up and not just doing a two to three month
difference versus maybe a greater value per unit."
MS. HOBACK said this does not change that.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN informed members that she plans to bring the
bill up again on Wednesday and that she will work on an amendment
to require a report from DPA.
SENATOR WARD asked if any projections have been done on whether
the number of people who will have to stay on the program after
five years is increasing at a certain amount each year so that
those people will eventually comprise more than half of the
caseload.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN suggested that if the program is incredibly
successful and everyone except those who have incredible barriers
go to work, it is conceivable.
MS. HOBACK said it is too early to know where that number will
level but the legislature should get a report to keep an eye on
it. She noted this is a national issue and all states are just
hitting the five-year time limit.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Ms. Hoback if she is suggesting the report
requirement be in the legislation or whether it be done with a
letter of intent.
MS. HOBACK said she does not know how the legislature does
business and that it is up to legislators.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN confirmed that a letter of intent would suffice.
She then asked if there have been annual reports since the
inception.
MS. SALERNO said DPA does a status report every year.
SENATOR LEMAN said he is reticent to totally lift the 20 percent
cap because he believes setting goals changes behavior, of
clients as well as DPA employees. He said that he views the
program as successful - to reduce the caseload from 12,000 to
5,600. He would like to see that number go down to 3,000 in the
next several years.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if DPA has forecasted the percentage of
clients who will need an extension over the next few years.
MS. FITZJARRALD said the chart shows that in FY05, 980 of 4900
clients would be allowed the exemption (20 percent) but the
projected number of qualified individuals is 1000.
SENATOR WARD said if the legislature was to develop a state-only
funded program for the families over the 20 percent that would
count toward Alaska's match amount. He asked whether different
criteria could be applied because their needs will be different
from a client who is on the program for three months.
MS. FITZJARRALD explained that any money used for a state-only
program to serve families who are cut off because of the time
limit could be counted toward the state maintenance of effort.
Regarding separate criteria, the legislature could do that. DPA
is working with criteria in existing law for ATAP, which allows
an exemption to be granted to four groups.
SENATOR WARD asked if it would be beneficial to have certain
criteria for people who are not self-sufficient after five years.
MS. FITZJARRALD said DPA believes it has done a fairly good job
of describing who those people are in the handout. DPA's goal is
always to get clients back into the workforce or working to the
extent they are able.
MS. SALERNO added that even though these people may be granted an
exemption, they will not remain on the program forever. DPA will
continue to work with them to become as self-sufficient as
possible. DPA has shied away from putting them into a separate
category. Clients who are severely disabled and will never be
job-ready are referred to SSI. If the cap is repealed, DPA will
be able to use state money to serve the extended clients and work
with them toward self-sufficiency.
SENATOR WILKEN said, regarding an earlier question by Senator
Ward, it appears from the chart that over time the number of
people on extensions could comprise over 50 percent of the
program. He calculated that in 20 years, families with extensions
could comprise 20 percent of the program.
MS. FITZJARRALD acknowledged that is possible. DPA expects that
over time the percentage of families who will need an extension
will grow cumulatively. She cautioned, however, that the numbers
on the chart are estimates and that no historical data exists.
She pointed out that some families may drop off of the program
much faster than DPA has projected.
MS. HOBACK added that there is no national experience with which
to validate the projections. She said the important thing to
remember is that there will always be new clients coming in so
the program would never be to a place where 100 percent of the
caseload is on extension. Also, just because a client is granted
an extension does not mean that client is not held to the same
requirements as other clients. They will need to cooperate
fully.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked for a sense of the committee regarding
whether to put the report requirement in statute and whether to
apply a floating percentage formula rather than repealing the
cap.
SENATOR WARD asked for an explanation of a floating percent.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said a calculation could be made from the
projected figures to determine a floating percentage rate.
SENATOR WARD asked if the cap could be kept at 20 percent but
criteria could be established for those over 20 percent. He
suggested granting an extension on a month-by-month basis. He
felt that the current criteria should be applied to anyone who
fits into the 20 percent category but anyone who is over the 20
percent, should be required to meet harder criteria.
3:05 p.m.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN explained that the figures in 1995 and 1996 were
around 12,000 so the 20 percent was seen as reasonable and based
on the thought that one out of five might need consideration,
knowing that the 20 percent had needs that exceeded other
clients' needs and were not going to change substantially. As
the program moved forward successfully, the total number
decreased. Some argue that the 20 percent number should still be
based in 12,000, not the current number of clients. She asked
for input on this bill from other committee members as she does
not want to recraft it herself.
SENATOR DAVIS said she supports the bill as is. She has no
problem requiring a report statutorily or with a letter of
intent. She suggested that after a report is submitted next year,
the committee will have a better idea of where the program is
headed.
SENATOR LEMAN said he believes that a number of clients who meet
the criteria for an extension could participate in options like
cottage industries at least part time. He said he would like to
see people have to participate in optional activities that will
compensate society in exchange for benefits. He felt that
participation would benefit the client as well.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if some clients who pass the five-year
time limit will receive partial benefits.
MS. SALERNO said Chairwoman Green is referring to people who fit
the criteria.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked, if the five-year limit was in effect
today, some clients would be receiving partial assistance.
MS. SALERNO said there would be because some people are currently
working up to their capacity but they earn minimum wage and fit
the criteria.
SENATOR LEMAN referred to the criterion that exempts a victim of
domestic violence from the time limit and asked if that person
must be physically battered and unable to function or scared to
go out to the workplace because of possible contact with a
perpetrator. He said he imagines that client could do several
different work activities to compensate for services to create a
win-win situation. He repeated his philosophy that things can be
done to change behavior, taking into consideration extenuating
circumstances.
MS. SALERNO pointed out that a discussion is going on at the
federal level about expanding the definition of what can be
considered a work activity so that people who may not be able to
participate in the workforce can participate in skill building
activities or work preparation.
TAPE 02-12, SIDE A
MS. FITZJARRALD said that the criteria is not the only thing
considered when an extension is granted; DPA still requires
clients to be actively involved in developing a family self-
sufficiency plan and to carry through with those activities. If
they do not, they are subject to non-compliance. She noted that,
regarding a domestic violence victim who is living in a shelter,
DPA looks at any type of skill building or positive steps that
will take that client forward to self-sufficiency. If a client
does not follow the plan, he or she will not get an extension.
She added that extensions are also based on compliance with child
support orders.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked committee members if they would be more
comfortable listing the requirements for extensions, such as
compliance, in statute.
MS. FITZJARRALD said that right now, any client who does not
comply gets sanctioned. That policy does not change just because
a client is granted an extension.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that is clearly spelled out in the
bill.
MS. FITZJARRALD said she believes it is clearly spelled out in
the new sanction policy in SB 293.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said the committee will take this measure up
again and that on Wednesday, the counsel to the Secretary of
Education, Susan Sclafani, will give a presentation. She then
adjourned the meeting at 3:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|