Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/28/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 431 - AFDC FOR CERTAIN TEENAGED PARENTS REP. PETE KOTT, Prime Sponsor of HB 431, stated that there is a higher rate of welfare dependency by teenage, single parents who set up their own residence than among those who remain at home. He said HB 431 would amend state AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) policy to exercise a federal option that would allow for an eligibility criteria based on the place of residence of a minor who is a parent. He said the intent is to encourage minor parents to live in a situation involving continued adult supervision. REP. KOTT asserted that the bill has the potential for reducing the cost of welfare in Alaska by moving minors back with parents who can provide financial support for the minor and the minor's child. He said it is inappropriate for the state to be providing financial support if the parents of the minor can support them. REP. KOTT maintained that there would be savings of $32,600 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 and $109,000 in each year thereafter. Number 901 REP. TOOHEY asked if the legislation was assuming that the parents of the minor are not receiving AFDC. CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Hansen to come forward to answer questions. Number 905 JAN HANSEN, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), came forward and identified herself. REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Hansen how many checks a family would receive if the minor daughter of parents on AFDC gives birth. MS. HANSEN said that is a difficult question to answer. She said if the grandchild and mother live in the grandmother's home, it would be a single grant. REP. TOOHEY asked if the AFDC payment would cover one adult and two children. MS. HANSEN said yes. REP. TOOHEY asked if the legislation was requiring the minor parent who is living on her own to return home, thereby reducing the payment by approximately $800. Number 946 MS. HANSEN said in that example there would be no financial impact. She said if the minor parent is the only child and moves out, the mother of the minor parent would no longer receive AFDC. The minor parent and the infant child would then receive a grant and the other case would close. She indicated that the payment would then be somewhat less as it would cover only the minor parent and infant child in her new home as opposed to the grandmother, daughter, and grandchild in their home. Number 960 CHAIR BUNDE indicated that if there is more than one minor in the home of the grandparent and a minor parent moves out with the infant child, then not only would the state subsidize the grandmother and remaining children, but AFDC would then be granted to the minor parent who moved out. MS. HANSEN concurred. She said there would then be two AFDC payments. Number 976 CHAIR BUNDE indicated that the fiscal note for DHSS was $69,800. REP. KOTT explained that the figure reflects the cost of an investigator who would evaluate whether or not the minor should be returned home. He asserted that not every case would be automatically referred back to their home. CHAIR BUNDE further indicated that another DHSS fiscal note was for $12,800. REP. KOTT said the fiscal note pertains to eligibility criteria and speculated that it reflects the administrative processing of the cases. MS. HANSEN concurred. She stated that the bill would add a new eligibility requirement and each month an eligibility technician would need to check to ensure the eligibility of the household. Number 007 CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Kott, "Does your final negative fiscal note reflect those two positive fiscal notes?" REP. KOTT replied no. He said, "...the $147,000, that's why I mentioned in the opening remarks, the first year you take the 147.8 in savings (indiscernible)... you should come up with I think $37,000. And then subsequent years it multiplies up to $109,000." Number 020 CHAIR BUNDE referred to welfare situations where there are "phantom" husbands that come and go. He asked Ms. Hansen if she anticipated phantom children coming and going in regards to AFDC to minors living with their parents. MS. HANSEN said no. She indicated that the phantom husband problem was addressed when the DHSS changed policy to include two parent families. She explained that the division carefully monitors the families to assure that the child exists and is in the home. Number 047 CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the minor parent is required to live in the family home and shows up only on the days the investigator showed up. MS. HANSEN thanked Chair Bunde for the clarification. She said that situation is a real concern. CHAIR BUNDE said, "Of course, if they're off on their own, they don't collect AFDC. So, they're really not under our supervision, anyway." MS. HANSEN said it would be a requirement that the minor parents be at home more than 50% of the time. REP. TOOHEY pointed out that the minor would not benefit because the check goes to the guardian parent. Number 064 CHAIR BUNDE explained that the parent may have a vested interest in forcing the teen mother to come home once a month to please the investigator. Then the minor would return to his/her home. REP. TOOHEY asked how the minor would survive on their own without a check or without money. CHAIR BUNDE said they could work. REP. KOTT maintained that whether the minor parent is in or out of house, AFDC payments will still be made. He asserted that the bill targets single, minor parents who are living on their own and receiving AFDC benefits when their parents are financially capable of supporting them. He said he also wanted to ensure that the money is not being used for alcohol and drugs. Number 098 CHAIR BUNDE related a scenario where a family is not on AFDC and they have an emancipated teenager who moves out of the home and becomes pregnant. He asked if the teen would have to move back into the home to receive AFDC benefits. MS. HANSEN stated that in federal law it is an option to require the minor parent to live with her parents, unless certain conditions are met. If it has been determined by a social investigation that the home is not safe and appropriate, the minor would not be required to live there. She explained that the opinion of the Division of Family and Youth Services is that most of the minor children in these cases would not be required to move back to the parent's home because they left dysfunctional situations to begin with. Ms. Hansen stated that public testimony that was presented to a task force regarding the issue indicated that professionals in this field believe that most minor parents whose families are safe environments for them, actually live in those homes. And, those minors who had issues of violence, incest, or a severe falling-out, lived away from home. TAPE 94-62, SIDE B Number MS. HANSEN further indicated that additional investigation and case work would not result in any change in the young parents' circumstances. Number 016 REP. OLBERG asked if what he was hearing was that the epidemic of teen pregnancies is over and there are only a few having babies. MS. HANSEN said no and asserted that the legislation refers only to a small portion of pregnant teens who are under 17 years of age and who are not currently living in the home of their parents. She said a considerable amount of teen parents are currently living in the home of their parents or with a relative. She pointed out that another area that is not covered in the bill is the pregnant 18 to 19 year olds. REP. OLBERG said those teens are not minors, they are adults. Number 051 REP. KOTT asked Ms. Hansen to clarify how a pregnant teen would fall under the purview of the bill. MS. HANSEN explained that if a pregnant teen applies for assistance and is not living with her parents, the division would have a social worker conduct an investigation to determine whether the minor should live with the family. If the investigation found that the home is harmful for the teen, then she could be approved for AFDC and live away from home. She further indicated that if the home is not harmful for her, then in processing her application for AFDC, the division would review her parent's income. Number 093 REP. KOTT asked if the bill covers teenagers who are pregnant. MS. HANSEN said yes. REP. KOTT said, "So, while the tangible benefits are tantamount to a few dollars, $100,000, there's some nontangible benefits in the sense that there are perhaps, I'm being a little bit speculative here, teenagers out there who are pregnant, who get hooked on cocaine or alcohol, and there may be some nontangible benefits down the road. FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) let's say, if we can eliminate that one that saves us a bit." MS. HANSEN stated that a pregnant teen will only be eligible if she is single and in her third trimester or after the baby is born. She said it could be possible that the pregnant teen was receiving Medicaid prior to that time. Number 147 CHAIR BUNDE clarified by saying that perhaps the bill targets rebellious teens who get pregnant and move away from home so they can receive AFDC. He then explained that the teen would not take a pregnancy test and then apply for AFDC. MS. HANSEN said there are no cash grants at that time from AFDC. CHAIR BUNDE asked if money is granted by Medicaid upon proof of pregnancy. MS. HANSEN responded that no cash grants are given, but grants for medical coverage are allowed under pregnant women Medicaid at the time the pregnancy is verified. She said then it would be determined whether the teen meets the asset and income test. Number 200 CHAIR BUNDE noted there is no financial incentive to live outside the home under Medicaid and AFDC is not available until the third trimester. MS. HANSEN concurred. Number 204 REP. B. DAVIS asked if a pregnant teen is eligible for AFDC if she is living with her family and they are above the poverty level, or would the parents have to assume the responsibility for caring for the grandchild. MS. HANSEN indicated that the parent's income is a factor in whether or not the teen receives AFDC. She said if the family is a middle lower class income family, the teen will not qualify for Medicaid or AFDC. She explained that the savings is accounted for by a teen parent moving back with her parents who are above the poverty level. The parents are financially responsible for the medical bills for both the daughter and grandchild. REP. B. DAVIS clarified that the bill addresses those teen parents who live away from a stable home and the parents are above the poverty level. MS. HANSEN asserted that most teens live out of the home because it is unstable. REP. B. DAVIS said she understood that, but indicated that she personally knows that there are pregnant teens who have moved out of the family home specifically for the grant money. She said her concern is for those very teens who are aware of how the system works and abuse their grant money and neglect their children. She further indicated that there are states that have group home situations where they receive grant money, are supervised, and learn how to parent the child. She felt that concept is more beneficial than leaving the teens out on their own or forcing them to return to the family home. She said when the teen lives on her own, many times the state ends up placing the child in a foster home, anyway, and much damage has already been done to the child. Rep. B. Davis then asked how much it would cost to establish some type of group home situation. Number 366 MS. HANSEN said she could not speak specifically to the cost, but indicated that a group home setting is always more expensive. REP. B. DAVIS asked if Ms. Hansen felt there were enough cases across the state to warrant a group home. She felt that with the teen pregnancy rate as high as it is, there must be a great need for something of that nature. She also asked if it is known how many unmarried pregnant teens are on AFDC. MS. HANSEN maintained that there are a greater number of unmarried pregnant teens living with their families than there are living on their own. She said there are approximately 150 unmarried teens living on their own and that the numbers stay consistent. Number 439 REP. TOOHEY asked if the bill requires the division to investigate "specific places to put these teenagers" before AFDC payments are granted. MS. HANSEN said no. She explained that the division would investigate the family home. REP. TOOHEY questioned if foster homes, maternity homes, or other adult supervised living arrangements could be investigated and considered. MS. HANSEN said, "Those don't exist." REP. TOOHEY questioned if the Salvation Army has a maternity home. REP. B. DAVIS indicated that there are facilities, but only until the baby is born. REP. TOOHEY asserted that the Salvation Army has residential facilities for pregnant women. REP. B. DAVIS added that they must leave the facility shortly thereafter. Number 465 MS. HANSEN said the division would investigate what exists, but in general there are few alternatives. CHAIR BUNDE suggested that a teen mother may be kicked out of the home because they're too expensive. He then indicated that an amendment had been submitted. REP. KOTT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. He stated that the amendment removes AS 47.25.310 (c) which prohibits the DHSS from requiring residency in the family home. CHAIR BUNDE questioned the term residency. REP. KOTT said, "Living with parents as perhaps a condition of receiving AFDC." CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further discussion or any objections. Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. He then asked the pleasure of the committee. Number 540 REP. KOTT said the legislation is a start and indicated that there is a large problem with recipients abusing AFDC and neglecting their children. He said, "I might add that there are very few provisions granted to us by the federal government, which they have already given us the authority without the waiver to do something in this area." CHAIR BUNDE asked the pleasure of the committee. REP. KOTT made a motion to pass HB 431 out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. REP. B. DAVIS objected. Number 575 CHAIR BUNDE called for the vote. Reps. G. Davis, Vezey, Kott, Olberg, Bunde and Toohey voted Yea and Reps. B. Davis, Nicholia and Brice voted Nay. HB 431 passed out of committee. Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|